Maurizio Bevilacqua

[Immigration, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have paid attention to the hon. member's comments and I can assure her that the expenditures that will take place to engage Canadians in consultations will be expenditures that are necessary to engage them in what we as a government feel is an important dialogue.

There is great support throughout the land for the social security review. People understand that the present programs, although they have served us well in the past and have given us the security we need, are no longer valid for the contemporary reality.

We are going to use this review to engage Canadians. It is not just here in Parliament but it will be in town hall meetings throughout the country. It will be with the parliamentary standing committee. It will be the type of consultation that this country really has not seen to date.

The review is necessary. Canadians need change. We need to give our young people the tools required to compete in a very globally competitive society. We need to adjust our programs to take into consideration the changing configurations of the Canadian economy, the change in our families, the change in our incomes. All the changes that have occurred need to be addressed in a very serious manner.

It is for this reason that the government had the courage to engage in a dialogue with Canadians. We are sure that Canadians, like the hon. member, will be a very effective partner in bringing about positive change to the lives of Canadians.

[Immigration, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in order to become a permanent resident of Canada, refugees must be able to prove their identity. This is necessary to protect Canada from persons who may have committed criminal acts or human rights violations in their own country and who should not be given permanent residence and eventually Canadian citizenship.

It is also necessary to establish a refugee's identity in order to clarify a refugee's relationship with family members. In order to prove their identity, refugees are asked to present a passport, even an expired one, a valid travel document or a satisfactory identity document.

Refugees who are unwilling or unable to apply for a passport from their country may therefore obtain permanent residence by presenting a travel document other than a passport or an identity document.

In some cases where none of these documents are available permanent residency may be granted on humanitarian grounds if it is unlikely that the person presents a criminal or security concern.

In all cases, however, every effort is made with the individual concerned, through community and support groups, to help them produce acceptable evidence of identity for the purpose of applying for permanent residence.

[Canada Elections Act, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the question of restricting the use of replacement workers during legal work stoppages raises a number of complex issues, includ-

ing the need to ensure that necessary services are provided to the Canadian public.

Protecting the public interest is of particular relevance in the federal jurisdiction, as the Canada Labour Code governs many industries which are essentially public interest in nature. Although the code does not prohibit the use of replacement workers, it does provide protection for workers engaged in legal work stoppages. The code prohibits an employer from disciplining an employee for engaging in a legal work stoppage. As well, an employer cannot discipline an employee for refusing to perform the duties of another employee who is involved in a legal work stoppage.

Once a work stoppage is terminated, employees are entitled to return to their employment in preference to any persons hired to replace them.

The existing system generally works as intended. Most collective bargaining negotiations are settled by the parties in direct negotiations. Of those that do require conciliation officer assistance, more than 90 per cent are settled without a work stoppage.

This said, the minister is currently reviewing all aspects of the Canada Labour Code, including the issue of replacement workers, with a view of modernizing and improving it so it can better reflect today's realities. There are also ongoing consultations with employee and employer groups to seek their views.

With reference to the dispute between ADM Agri Industry Limited, formerly Ogilvy Flour Mills Limited and the Syndicat national des employés des minoteries Ogilvie Ltée, the minister recently gave his consent for the union to file a complaint with the Canada Labour Relations Board alleging that the company has failed to bargain in good faith.

The minister also met last week with union representatives from the company and will continue to closely monitor the dispute so it can be resolved as quickly as possible.

The union and the company recently agreed to meet with the assistance of the mediator on October 12 and 13, 1994. The minister is encouraging both parties to take advantage of that opportunity to settle their differences.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must know by now that this government has demonstrated that it places a high priority on the training and adjustment needs of Canadians.

As a matter of fact in the Sorel-Tracy region which he cited when companies such as Sorel Tex were having difficulties the Department of Human Resources Development intervened. In that case assistance was provided through the industrial adjustment service. It is recognized as a very effective program for assisting those individuals who are affected by major layoffs to make the adjustment to new employment opportunities.

In addition I am pleased that the Department of Human Resources Development has recently freed up a further $54 million in Quebec. These funds will provide a significant increase in the resources available to provide assistance to those individuals across the province of Quebec who require training and employment assistance in order to make the transition to new employment.

I am pleased also that $622,000 has been provided to the Sorel-Tracy region alone. This will assist individuals in this region to receive the necessary skills and training so that they can be once again reintegrated in the labour force.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that since the October 25 election this government has worked very hard to bring about positive change in the lives of young people here.

I am happy to report to the House that the unemployment rate for young people has decreased from 17.5 per cent in 1993 to 16.4 per cent in August. This is a result of 20,000 new jobs that were created for youth and 29,000 young Canadians were no longer unemployed. This is just part of a package.

The summer employment strategy for young people created approximately 60,000 jobs to give young people the skills required to be competitive in a very different world.

We also moved quickly on the youth service Canada lead-sites. Seventy-five per cent of the 67 lead-sites are fully operational. We expect that the others will be operational shortly.

We have also moved in the area of youth internship and apprenticeship training programs because we recognize as a government that we do live in an era where young people must be given tools to be competitive in a very competitive world marketplace.

We have not forgotten of course the importance of staying in school and through our stay in school initiative with a budget of approximately $31.5 million, we expect to assist over 10,000 young people through direct interventions this year, not to take lightly our contribution made to the Canada Student Loans.

A review took place and there again positive change to the legislation resulted in greater accessibility to funding for young people so that they could access post-secondary education. We as a government understand that higher education is necessary for us to compete.

As members know, above and beyond that young people will be an integral component of social security review. I am sure the hon. member and his party will participate fully in this very historical event.

[Full Employment Act, September 19th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to take part in the debate on this extremely important issue. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for her work over a number of years. I think she has a well earned reputation of striving to better the lives of working Canadians.

I paid attention to her comments. As a government, since the October 25 election, we have worked extremely hard in the past 11 months to bring positive change to the lives of Canadians.

No one in the House has a monopoly on the concerns of the number one priority in this country, which is job creation. That priority of jobs, of achieving employment growth, of ensuring meaningful, well paying jobs for all Canadians, is something that all of us, regardless of which side of the House we sit on, should be concentrating on.

No hon. member, no one party in this House has exclusive interest in improving our economy. The government has truly created an environment where job creation can take place. We are committed to reducing unemployment and opening up the labour force to those individuals who want to participate in it.

The government has taken and is taking steps at this very moment to ensure that Canadian workers from coast to coast to coast have an opportunity to participate in rewarding and lasting employment. From the very beginning of its term in office it has been implementing a well laid out plan to promote economic growth and establish long term, rewarding jobs for Canadians. It has to be done in an orderly step by step fashion.

We started rebuilding at the foundation. We have launched an infrastructure program in co-operation with the provinces that is addressing local needs. This infrastructure program is successful because it focuses on the local needs of the community. It speaks to the issue of effective partnerships, a model for all governments to follow.

The $6 billion national program showed to Canadians that different levels of government, when they are focusing on the big picture which is to provide opportunity, to restore hope and improve the quality of life for Canadians, can work. Government can be a force for positive change and by facilitating the process of change and the process of building communities we can return to Canadians the feeling that something is getting done for their communities and for future generations.

We are, through the infrastructure program, investing in our future. We are building our roads. We are building better communities. We are investing in those things that Canadians have called for and most of all-I underline this point-we are doing it in partnership.

For example, we are working hand in hand with the Government of Saskatchewan to upgrade the province's rural roads over the next two years. This federal-provincial partnership will invest $30 million and will create more than 500 full time jobs. That is not all.

The spinoff from this project will result in hundreds of additional jobs for Saskatchewan. Residents in the construction, technical and professional trades will have opportunities to work instead of sitting in the unemployment lines.

Those of us who represent the province of Ontario will understand the hurt and pain the residents have gone through in the recessionary years when their so-called Canadian dream slipped away. They question the future and what kind of future their children will have. We have established an infrastructure program in co-operation with the province of Ontario known as the Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Works. We estimate it will create approximately 37,000 direct and indirect jobs.

These are facts and figures. They speak to the commitment the government has toward bringing back jobs, creating economic growth and, more important, giving back confidence to the people of Canada, confidence that was shaken during our recession.

I can talk about other projects in the regions of York or Waterloo where investments have been made so that we can once again regain the strength required at the local and community levels to drive the economy and give confidence to the people so that we can push forward.

These are fine examples of how partnerships can work, how we can foster a strong and productive partnership together. The government expects to create approximately 90,000 jobs for Canadians both on site in construction and off site in providing supply and services. Beyond that several thousand of more jobs will be created indirectly from the program's impact.

That is not all. One starts by building the foundation. We addressed infrastructure. We then moved forward to strategic initiatives with the provinces. There again the theme is of partnership and regional concerns, bringing about the type of co-operation that is required if we are going to introduce a new way to govern.

We have allocated $800 million strategic initiative funds for the next four years. This investment will enable us to build a Canada that is consciously job oriented and reflects a prosperous, enterprising society.

The minister has already announced a number of projects under the strategic initiative programs. They include job link with the province of Ontario, a $50 million investment to help thousands of welfare recipients get employed. Is this not what governments should be doing, providing opportunities to people that historically have been trapped by the same system that should be helping them?

We will be operating in 10 to 12 communities and job link is transforming existing programs into one co-ordinated system to help people move away from welfare into work. We want to get people off the welfare rolls and on to the payrolls of this nation. This is what people are asking for.

We were all campaigning for the October 25 election. Every door we knocked on people were saying: "Give us hope. Give us a job so that we can look to the future with confidence". This example of job link with the province of Ontario speaks to that. It speaks to the understanding of a fundamental principle that government's role is to provide opportunities for people and the individual's role is to make the most out of those opportunities.

If I may review, the government is moving into a social security review that will once again give to many Canadians the tools required so that they can compete locally, nationally and globally. We are working very hard to make sure that the dream of a job is realized from coast to coast to coast.

[Department Of Labour Act, June 20th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity address the House about

not only Bill C-30, but also about the broader context of this vital amendment to the Department of Labour Act.

It is important that Canadians understand the long term goals which frame the government's response to the challenges presented by the breakdown of the traditional fishery. They need to understand our efforts to meet these challenges with meaningful, co-ordinated programs that acknowledge the inevitability of change and recognize the urgent need to establish a more diversified, relevant economic base for the Atlantic region.

We also recognize that the human dynamics of this tragic situation calls for a response that is fair and flexible, particularly as it applies to those hardest hit and least able to adjust to the change.

Certainly no group of individuals has been more affected by the decline of the groundfish industry than older fishers and fish plant workers. These are people who have spent their working lives, who have made their living in the fishery and who in many cases now find their chances for re-employment not very encouraging.

That is why the Atlantic groundfish strategy includes a fish plant older worker adjustment program. It is why an amendment to the Department of Labour Act, Bill C-30, is needed to include eligible workers who will reach 55 within their period of eligibility under the strategy.

The Atlantic groundfish strategy was designed in consultation with provinces, unions, businesses, industry and of course the communities and individuals who have been affected by the situation in Atlantic Canada, those individuals whose livelihood has been affected by the dependence that they had on a diminishing resource in that area of Canada.

In developing the comprehensive strategy, all aspects of change were considered, which is why programs that target the circumstances faced by specific groups such as older workers, are included as part of this wide adjustment strategy.

We have introduced a very comprehensive avant garde way of looking at the problem. We are using a modernized, restructured approach toward addressing the issue of change in Atlantic Canada. Fundamental in this discussion is the fact that we as a government, as a people, must understand that the only constant in today's society is change.

It requires new, more innovative ways to deal with the challenges facing the people in Canada. The changing dynamics, the changing configuration of the Canadian economy, particularly in Atlantic Canada, necessitate a new approach, a new way of enhancing our labour market strategy, of finding new ways to deal with structural unemployment, new ways of dealing with the lives, by providing opportunities, by providing the tools, by giving Canadians a tool kit to deal with the type of change that in many ways has devastated a resource, namely the fishery.

How we deal with that as a government, how we respond to the changing dynamics of Atlantic Canada's economy, is fundamental to the success not only of our region but also of our nation. It goes above and beyond that industry. It speaks to the fact that we as Canadians must abandon old ways, must realize and accept that change is here, that the economy simply does not function the way it used to.

Therefore this crisis in Atlantic Canada has in many ways challenged the traditional approach of dealing with changes in our economy. As we looked and analysed and reviewed and in some ways invented new ways of dealing with this issues, foremost in our minds as always when we are dealing with public policy, when we are dealing with the livelihood and lives of young and old in a region like Atlantic Canada was that we as a government have a responsibility to provide opportunities for our people.

In turn, the responsibility of the people of Atlantic Canada affected by this program is to make the most out of those opportunities provided by the Government of Canada in partnership with all the key stakeholders in the Atlantic Canada community. It is not a question of just giving income support for the sake of income support. We are dealing with changing the dynamics in an economy that requires innovative ways of dealing with the problem of diminishing resources, namely the fishery.

We need a variety of ways of dealing with the issue at hand and to give the people affected by the diminishing resources a variety of tools. The government, always in full partnership with the communities, the businesses and the individuals, has created a series of programs to help with the transition that is necessary in the Atlantic region.

Among others, we have initiatives such as the career planning and employment counselling. These services will help us to assess individual employment possibilities, set goals, develop a personal agenda for the individual Canadian who is looking to improve his or her chances in an economy that is forever changing.

We are also offering a self-employment assistance program. It is a program that will basically kickstart new business outside the fishery. In essence it will give hope and opportunity to Canadians in Atlantic Canada to engage in entrepreneurship training.

Through this process of extensive, wide-ranging consultation, everyone involved was brought into the consultation process. As a government we felt fundamentally that any program which we initiated must have the full support and co-operation of the people.

We have to bring it back to the community level. We have to engage people at the community level. It is for this reason that one of the initiatives speaks to a communities opportunity pool, allowing individuals to develop and contribute to community based projects and initiatives where they live.

We are also cognizant of the fact that we live in a changing world where the environment and sustainable economic growth are extremely important to the lives of Canadians regardless of which region they are from. It is for this reason that we introduced, as part of the package, green projects that connect the environment and the community with the view to improve the skills and long term employment opportunities for those people who choose to participate in this initiative.

Fundamental to this program is also mobility assistance, to provide relocation support for those who wish to find work outside their community and of course portable wage subsidies to allow employers outside the fishery to hire people and provide on the job training.

It is extremely important to note that where these initiatives are concerned we have built safeguards that will ensure there is no abuse of the programs and services offered.

We must remember that while TAGS is an active support measure, the fish plant older worker adjustment program is more in line with the traditional way of giving support to people. It will provide income support to older workers who have worked all their lives and, may I add, worked very hard. This program is an investment in their dignity and in their self-worth.

I believe it is essential to reiterate the Atlantic groundfish strategy. One of the key features of this strategy is that it is built on mutual responsibility. That is a very important principle. As such, it represents a significant change from the traditional way of giving income support provided by the previous groundfish programs that ended on May 15, 1994. Of course I am referring to NCARP and AGAP.

No one is obliged to participate in the strategy. Anyone can opt out for an alternative. That is their personal choice.

In addition to active income support, the strategy is a departure from the traditional, ineffective at times, ways of the past. At no time under this strategy program will participants be trained for jobs that do not exist. They will work at jobs that need to be done or trained for employment that will give them a chance at a future job.

In short, what is fundamental to note about this program is that TAGS is the opposite of a cynical, short lived, make work program. Those types of programs are part of the history books.

As a nation in financial, social and economic terms we simply cannot afford to go on in the same manner in which we have for decades. Conditions are simply not the same.

Other measures to encourage and assist workers include continued employment counselling, literacy programs and general education upgrading, all with the objective of connecting people to the emerging reality of a diversified economy, of giving people the skills and opportunities required to meet the challenges of this century, to meet the challenges of a nation in a global economy that is changing at a very fast pace.

When we say that people must continue to upgrade, when we say that most jobs by the year 2010 will require over 16 years of education, when we say that the future really belongs to the learners, the people who are willing to upgrade their skills, the people who are willing to take risks and challenges, the people who are willing to take the time to acquire the new economy skills that are required, those individuals are going to be the winners of the new economic system, those people who are willing to challenge future trends.

That is a message not only for the Atlantic fish workers and plant workers we are talking about today, but that is the challenge for all Canadians regardless of where they come from.

Atlantic Canadians are faced with diminishing resources on one hand and a changing economy on the other. This program we are speaking about today speaks to the challenges they are facing, adding to the effectiveness of the strategy that will be implemented in a context of wider commitments to eliminate duplication, overlap and to support development efforts in a co-ordinated manner. This means we must bring government departments together and toward this end the initiatives of the Atlantic groundfish strategy will complement the functions of regional economic development agencies such as ACOA and FORD-Q.

Even within government we have to accept change and even within government we must adapt to the realities of the new economy.

As members are aware, FORD-Q is focusing on economic diversification for eastern Quebec and the north shore. This initiative has as its clientele fishers and communities affected by the crisis, small and medium sized businesses, entrepreneurs, new business start-ups and non profit organizations such as Alliance des pêcheurs du Québec. FORD-Q serves an umbrella function, facilitating local and regional initiatives in concert with the Quebec government.

ACOA will place a similar emphasis on community economic development in finding innovative ways to enhance the potential of the communities, of the people, of the labour force; their potential within an Atlantic Canada context.

While we acknowledge that hardship will be felt in each of the hundreds of communities affected by the fishery adjustment it is necessary to recognize the potential of communities to develop new economic structures. Therefore ACOA is encouraging communities to group together, to take a regional approach to alternative industry development.

How well we are dealing with the crisis. Our approach as a government, our approach as communities, as a nation, should be not simply to view this as a crisis but it must also be to view this as an opportunity to bring about positive change in this particular area.

When we look at the way government is going to deliver the programs we will make sure that in terms of delivering effective, relevant economic development programs every effort must be made to ensure the harmonization of all existing and anticipated initiatives. That is fundamental to the success of this program. We must remember that government in co-operation with community, unions, business leaders, the people, the various communities, must act in concert, together, toward a common vision as we move forward.

It is critical then that the Atlantic groundfish strategy reinforces the community development thrust of FORD-Q and ACOA. Because we owe that to the people of the area, to the taxpayers of Canada, nothing less than the most efficient, effective and user friendly initiatives that can be designed should be delivered; initiatives that are at once pragmatic, compassionate, developed through consultation, initiatives such as fish plant older worker adjustment program.

This program in a very practical way recognizes the long term contribution of older workers with many years of attachment to the groundfish industry. This change will help these men and women maintain their dignity. It will reduce the impact of communities when it comes to dealing with the damaging consequences of significant job losses.

Bill C-30 as such represents an important component of delivering a truly effective, relevant adjustment package for older workers between the ages of 50 and 64. The programs of the Atlantic groundfish strategy, including the fish plant older worker adjustment program, are each designed to meet the specific needs, to serve as a catalyst for community economic growth and individual adjustment in the face of unprecedented change and disruption.

Bill C-30 is just one response under the strategy to the realities of change but it is an essential response to those Atlantic Canadians who have given so much for so long and who now during this crisis, yet opportunity, during this time when they are challenged by unprecedented conditions in the fishery industry really need our support.

It is for this reason that when we were drafting this legislation we took into consideration the various components. We took into consideration the fishery industry. We took into consideration the attachment that these people have to that industry, the economic conditions, the past economic practices and structures of Atlantic Canada.

We feel that through this legislation we are not only addressing a crisis but we are giving people the necessary tools to upgrade their skills, to put their experience into action in community opportunity pools, to provide them with tools like self-employment assistance and portable wage subsidies. We are doing all this because we understand fundamentally that what is occurring in Atlantic Canada today requires an intelligent, pragmatic, rational response.

It requires an innovative, flexible system that can give the opportunity to people in Atlantic Canada to react to a new situation, a new economic system and new challenges that obviously they did not face before.

As I said earlier, the role of the Government of Canada in partnership with all the rest of the stakeholders in the various communities, individual fishermen and plant workers, unions and business is to provide opportunity to the people of Atlantic Canada. I am 150 per cent sure that in the same responsible manner in which the Government of Canada provided those opportunities the people of Atlantic Canada will respond to those challenges, to those opportunities, by making the most out of it.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat perplexed by the comments of the opposition, particularly as they relate to federal-provincial relations.

My recollection leads me to believe that the provinces are quite happy with the program. They look forward to participating as they have for almost 30 years. If I may quote the minister from Quebec on May 10, he said:

"It says in this bill that the option taken by Quebec in 1964 to create its own student financial assistance network, that is, a loan and bursary system in place since 1966, will be protected".

It is very clear there is a great deal of support from the province of Quebec to continue with the type of effective partnership that has existed with the federal government.

Since I need to bring evidence to the floor of the House of Commons, I should like to quote the minister of education for the province of Nova Scotia, John MacEachern, who wrote to the Minister of Human Resources Development on May 4: "I believe that the development and implementation of the youth employment and learning strategy, which includes the reform to student loans, will assist our young people in their success in today's labour market. Thank you for the opportunity to share my views on the initiatives under this strategy". That is a very strong endorsement from the province of Nova Scotia.

Lastly I refer to the representation made by representatives of the New Brunswick and Alberta governments who kindly answered the invitation to all provinces to appear before the standing committee on HRD. Mr. Smith from New Brunswick responded to a question by the member for Mercier on whether the bill was an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.

"Really, because all New Brunswickers expect the other governments to agree on how to serve this student while keeping additional costs to a minimum".

He added that the federal-provincial agreements provided for in the bill, as well as the enhanced administrative and technical co-operation, would lead to a further guarantee of continued federal-provincial co-operation with respect to designation of authority.

This is what Mr. Hemmingway from Alberta commented. I think one of the problems we have today in relation to the federal loan program is discrepancies between and among provinces with respect to which institutions may be designated. I know that the federal concern has been that given it is a national program, benefits should be reasonably equal across the country. We are presuming and it is our understanding that we will have a great deal of input in developing the designation criteria that will be put in place and that those criteria would be negotiated on an ongoing basis between the two levels of government.

To me what this legislation clearly indicates is that if there is one single group of people against this legislation it is the members of the Bloc Quebecois.

I want now to return to the specific issue, the specific motion. We as a government are committed to providing consistency and fairness under our student assistance program. The amendment presented would repeal subsections 42 and 43 of the bill which provide the minister with the flexibility to establish policy directives.

I think if we are to look at this in a very clear and rational way there is nothing wrong with the federal minister's having something to say about a federal initiative, a federal policy. There is absolutely nothing wrong. It is within his right. It is his duty and obligation to make sure he has something to say about the policy initiatives, the policy direction under this particular act.

I fail to understand, and I have spent a great deal of time trying to figure it out, exactly what the opposition is saying and trying to follow a logic of the opposition. Perhaps the problem is not one of logic. Perhaps the problem here goes above and beyond that. It is a question of vision.

For the moment I am not going to engage myself in a constitutional discussion. The reason I am debating today is that there are hundreds of thousands of students who are awaiting this program, provinces awaiting this program, part time students, students with disabilities, women who want to pursue

doctoral studies, students who have been victimized by a heavy debt load. This is the issue we are debating today.

It is for this reason that I simply cannot support the amendment as proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.

The government must be in a position to ensure that the policies which are developed are applied consistently across the country. It would appear that the opposition is not overly concerned about treating students fairly throughout Canada because of its own political agenda.

On behalf of the thousands of students who are awaiting this program, the thousands of students in need who want to acquire the skills to be competitive, to acquire the life skills necessary to meet the challenges of the new economy, to acquire the education that is part and parcel of life today, as we live through a learning continuum, as we engage in life long learning, it is fundamental that we support these students. It is for that reason that I will not be supporting the motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois.

I heard many of the arguments and points which he raised during his intervention at the committee. I must say that the comments at times steered away from the content of the amendment which he was making. He spent a great deal of time talking about the constitutional impact of the changes to the Canada student loans. It is unfortunate that the members of the Bloc Quebecois cannot appreciate the fantastic results we have received in co-operating with the province of Quebec for over 30 years in providing important financial aid to students.

Regardless of where they come from, whether it is the province of Quebec, Ontario or British Columbia, they have definitely been given access to much needed funding so that they may complete their education and give great strength to our country.

I suggest to the hon. member that the best indication as to how the provincial governments feel about this legislation can be found in statements that have been made by various ministers or their representatives in the last few days, not in hypothetical statements made by the Bloc Quebecois.

First, let me say that Mr. Chagnon, minister of education for Quebec, on June 9 answered the following to a question by the Parti Quebecois on whether Bill C-28 will force national standards in education on the provincial government of Quebec: "La réponse est non".

I think that is fundamental to the debate. I do not wish to engage in a merely political discussion when there are thousands of students waiting for this government and this House to act on this very important piece of legislation.

I want to go specifically to the point raised in the hon. member's amendment. This amendment does not make much sense. It would leave the program without an appropriate authority at the provincial level for purposes of assessing and according aid to students and designating eligible institutions. That is quite clear from the hon. member's amendment.

It is my belief that students need some assurances that they will be able to gain access to the aid that is available under this legislation.

I remind hon. members of the Bloc that provinces have played a critical role in the administration of federal students' assistance program. We expect the provinces to continue to act as the appropriate authority for the purposes of assessing students needs, according aid and designating eligible institutions.

At the same time, both levels of government are actively exploring ways to improve services to students and streamline the administration of student assistance programs. A number of provinces even during committee here signalled their interest in harmonizing both the administration and financing of student aid. Such initiatives are extremely important. They will reduce overlap and ensure greater value for our funding.

In this regard several provinces have indicated an interest in looking at different machinery for delivery of provincial and possibly federal aid. This could entail assigning the administration of the program to a third party other than a provincial student aid office. As well there is interest in streamlining the process of designating foreign institutions for purposes of the federal program. Currently over 4,500 international institutions are designated.

This is very labour intensive and maintaining up to date information is extremely costly. One approach would be to establish a broadly representative entity with the necessary expertise that could undertake this task in respect of student aid programs generally. For example, a mechanism such as the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials which is jointly funded by the CMEC and the federal government could serve the interests of both levels of government in this regard.

The centre brings together representatives of provinces, the AUCC and the ACC and it might be appropriate to expand its role in this regard.

For these reasons we have provided the necessary flexibility to allow for different types of machinery at the provincial and federal levels. Of course, we intend to continue to work in close collaboration with the provinces. The Canada student loans program is an example, a model example, of how the federal government can work together with the provincial governments and deliver a very important service to Canadians.

This view is widely shared by the provinces. I was very pleased to hear senior provincial representatives who appeared before the committee speak positively about the program and speak positively about the partnership that this program has allowed our federal government and the provincial governments to participate in. This type of collaboration is an example to all federal-provincial governments as to how federal and provincial governments can in fact work together.

Everyone we spoke to basically said to go ahead and push this legislation through. It has many positive features. It is necessary for those students who are waiting for our help. This legislation also takes extremely positive measures, whether you are looking at deferred grants, the help it gives to part time students, women pursuing doctoral studies, or high need students. Not only is it good legislation, it is progressive legislation. It brings in middle class families that have in the past been shut out of the Canada student loans. They may have over $2,000 available.

A person benefiting from a deferred grant with a debt load at the end of a four-year BA of $22,500 now will have the debt load reduced by $6,000. That speaks to the type of legislation this is. It speaks to the progressive nature of this legislation.

For all these reasons this motion obviously should be defeated.

[Fédération Des Femmes Du Québec, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important that we review the evaluation but since the hon. member is extremely concerned about the government's commitment to women, a quick reading of the budget will illustrate to the hon. member that women's programs were not cut.