Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Issue 21 - Evidence, November 25, 1998
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 25, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 3:30 p.m. to consider the dimensions of social cohesion in Canada in the context of globalization and other economic and structural forces that influence trust and reciprocity among Canadians.
Senator Lowell Murray (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, our witness this afternoon is Robert Barnard, founder of d-Code, a strategic consulting and idea-generation company focused on helping its clients attract and retain what is called "the Nexus Generation", that is Canadians between 18 and 35 years of age. d-Code takes a holistic approach to understanding the Nexus Generation as consumers, employees and citizens.
Prior to d-Code, Robert Barnard founded "Generation 2000", a national youth organization intended to inspire youth to become more involved in Canada's development through community action. Generation 2000 visited more than 1,200 high schools and connected with more than 750,000 students between 1992 and 1995.
Also included in Mr. Barnard's entrepreneurial past is a clothing company, named Osprey Reef, which he operated between 1987 and 1991. Along the way, according to the biographical note I have here, he has delivered both false teeth and pizza -- although not at the same time, worked as a bank teller, taught tennis and sold equity golf club memberships.
Mr. Barnard currently sits on the board of directors for St. Steven's Community House and is a former trustee with United Way of Greater Toronto. He received an award for his contribution to youth involvement from the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada, Toronto Chapter, and was named one of "100 Canadians to watch for", by Macleans Magazine in 1993. In 1997 he was selected as one of "Canada's Top 40 Under 40".
Mr. Barnard has a B.A. in Geography from the University of Western Ontario. He is co-author of a book called Chips and Pop: Decoding the Nexus Generation, which was published quite recently by Malcolm Lester Books, and he is just back from, or perhaps still in the middle of, a national tour promoting his book.
We are delighted to have him with us today because he is pre-eminently qualified to give us a perspective on what is called "the Nexus Generation".
Mr. Barnard, I would ask you now to make your presentation, following which I will open the meeting to questions.
Mr. Robert Barnard, President and Founder, d-Code Inc.: Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, I want to thank all of you for the opportunity to present my views this afternoon. Walking up to the Parliament Buildings and knowing that I would actually be addressing the committee today was a great moment for me. I only hope you will enjoy my remarks, and I look forward to hearing your questions.
Yesterday, when I was on the Internet preparing for this meeting, I noticed that a new movie was available to look at. I am sure most of you have either seen or at least heard of the Starwars movies. There is a new Starwars film coming up in the spring, and it just so happens that yesterday the number one site on the Internet was Starwars. In fact, there was a line-up around the block to go and see a 30-minute preview of the new Starwars movie, but I actually downloaded it today, so if at the end we have a few minutes I can show it to you so you could be the first, and you could go to your children and grandchildren and tell them that you saw it here first.
Relating that to social cohesion, I thought it was interesting that so many of the people who are on the Internet, many of whom are young, want to see something about space and technology, and I thought it was significant that the Internet was obviously a gathering place for young people yesterday.
The few remarks I have prepared for you today are based on what I have learned over the last 10 years in working with young people across Canada, and also on what I know from co-writing this book that we have just published.
First, I should like to draw your attention to the overhead slide projections, which I will refer to as I make my remarks. People ask, "What is the Nexus Generation?" The simplest definition of the Nexus Generation is: those people born in Canada between the early 1960s and the late 1970s -- in other words, people between the ages of 18 and 35 or 36. You may say that that is a fairly broad range of age, but we see a lot of consistencies in that age range.
Another aspect of our work at d-Code is the fact that we look at this generation in a very holistic way. We do not just look at the generation as consumers, but as employees and citizens, which gives us a much fuller view of what this generation is like.
In the testimony presented to you during your previous eleven meetings, you heard the term "Generation X"; if there is only one message that I leave with you today, I want you to go away knowing that the generation really does not like that term, because it is overused and very confusing.
Michael Adams, who spoke to you early on, refers to Generation X as those between 16 and 39 years old. Another famous Canadian demographer, David Foot, refers to Generation X as those who are now 30 to 36 years old. When Douglas Copland wrote his book on Generation X he was really talking about people who are now between 30 and 40 years old. So Generation X could span anywhere from 16 to 40 years of age; we do not know where it is.
"Generation X" is quite a negative term. Even in some of the testimony I noticed that the perception of this generation was very negative, and I will give you some terms: trapped generation, aimless generation, apathetic generation, cynical generation, slack generation and disloyal generation. This is what is characterised as Generation X: lost and confused. Even the letter "X" means "wrong answer" or "unknown", and when you compare that with the term "boom", for the baby boom, which means "prosperity", "loud and big", it is no wonder that the generation does not like the term.
Another reason we do not use the term at our organization is that we do not think it is a fair description of what is really going on. After 10 years of working with the generation, and starting up both non-profit organizations and for-profit organizations, we found the generation to be a very different group, one that we call "Nexus", which means "bridge" or "link" or "connect" -- and this generation connects some very interesting things.
First of all, it just happens to have been born right in the transition between the industrial age and the information age; it is the only generation born right in that transition zone so that they can remember a time before remote controls, VCRs and video games, but actually grew up as the first generation with computers in their schools.
It is also a bridge between generations, between the baby boomers and their own kids, who are generally under 18 right now; so that is another connection point. Also, of course, all generations are a bit of a window on the future, because they connect all societies to where the future is going. We think this is a more descriptive way to describe a generation of people who are now mainly in their 20s and early 30s.
So who is Nexus? Let me give you a couple of things to think about. We actually find this generation to be a very driven group who feel that they are in control of their lives. We see it as a sceptical generation that is searching for the truth, but not one that is necessarily cynical and rejects everything. Rather, it is an optimistic generation.
In fact, when we asked the question of the generation, they felt that they were going to be better off financially than their parents, not something you have heard much through the media. Remember, this is supposed to be the first generation to be worse off than their parents, but they do not agree with that; they are quite an optimistic bunch.
In some ways it is a very strategic generation. We have found that even people in part-time jobs are not just working for the money; they are actually working to learn, to get to the next stage, to prepare for the next job they are going to get.
It is an adaptable generation. It has moved all over the country and around the world. It has learned to adapt in very fast-changing times, and it is a savvy generation, as far as its consumption of media.
This generation has what we call generational genes and generational conditioning. Let me explain quickly what I mean by that. Every young generation displays certain characteristics that are more or less constant, like naivete, rebellion, recklessness and a search for stability. If you just think of your own late teens, 20s and early 30s, I think you will agree that those adjectives could have been used to describe your generation <#0107> naïve, rebellious, reckless and searching.
Just as for previous generations, with naivete this generations sees everything as new and fresh; naivete helps to create companies like Netscape and Microsoft, but it also means that people think that they are the first ones to do everything and that nothing else ever happened before they got there. It is a generation that is rebellious; rebellious against institutions, their parents, lots of things. You can see this pattern coming up. It is also reckless; whether it is doing extreme sports or playing chicken down the highway; like every young generation it is reckless in many ways, and, of course, like every young generation it is also searching for something to be part of, and that is critical.
It is very important that you understand that this is a generation that may display these same characteristics, but in a different way. Conditioning happens with the elements around you. As you grow up, it is during your formative years that certain critical events really shape your character.
For the Nexus Generation, the advent of computer chips was a very important part of that process. Their use in video games made the games more attractive away back. Perhaps you remember the game "Pong", which had paddles hitting an object back and forth? That was the first video game to really use a chip. Computers used in the school were something you played on, something that was fun. The computer was a tool for learning; it was not something that took your job away.
So for this generation there is a very close link with computer chips and also with pop culture and the media. This is the first generation to grow up with two televisions in the home, with cable television and global television. Globalization and influx of immigration are important. The most diverse generation currently in the workplace is the Nexus Generation; this is because of immigration patterns as well as their appreciation of globalization through the media -- global networks like News World and CNN. They had instant global media coming at them when they were in their formative years.
Paradoxically, though, their formative years have also been unstable, because at least a third of this generation has gone through the turmoil of seeing their parents getting divorced by the time the generation reached about 20; if your parents did not get divorced, your friend's parents probably did. That had a huge impact. Then there was also the incursion of AIDS. Right in the middle, as they were getting in to their teenage years and early 20s AIDS came on the scene. A further bit of instability was caused by the cold war; first it was here and then it was gone again. All sorts of things created instability in their formative years.
With respect to Nexus and the family, we are seeing what we call an extended freedom zone. This generation is getting married later, having kids later and buying homes much later. The average home buyer in Canada now is 38 years old; 15 years ago it was about 25 years of age. So there is quite an extended freedom zone. Aspiring to traditional outcomes, they still want to get married, have a lifetime partner and have kids, but they are just doing it later. They also see, as a result of this extended freedom zone, that friends are becoming much more important in some ways than the traditional family unit; so friends are acting like family in many cases.
In a community sense, mobility is an important factor for Nexus, because the fact that they have left their home to get a job or to go to school creates all kinds of challenges for connecting with people you know and developing friendships and networks. One person in our office, for example, has had eight different living places in the last five years, and he has had three different jobs and three different e-mail addresses. Each time he moved it was to a new place to live, a new place to connect with, and a new place to find friends; that sort of thing causes some challenges.
Interestingly enough, the workplace is becoming a new critical hub of community for this generation, and it really is a substitute for many of the standard communities. Often, the first regular place people go to, when they move to a new city, is their place of work, whether part-time or full-time, because that is where they are finding their social cohesion.
"Gathering" is also happening. By that I mean that the people in this generation are getting together. You have seen the influx of cafes all across the country, such as the Second Cup cafes and Starbucks. Not only is gathering happening in those cafes, but it is also happening on the Internet through virtual cafes. I noticed in one survey recently that about 50 per cent of the generation is getting their information on the Internet, so even if they do not have a computer they are going to find a place that does.
With respect to Nexus and the State, the people of this generation know from their formative years that the State moved away from a "provide and build" stance, which they remember from their early years, to more of a deficit-cutting strategy as they moved into their later formative years. Employment opportunities in government dried up, and there is no longer anyone from their generation working in government and communicating to them what the government is doing. Really, this invisibility of government has created, in some ways, a do-it-yourself attitude. I would challenge that this is not a "me" generation, but a do-it-yourself generation, which is two different things, and we can talk about that in the question period.
There are some challenges we believe you need to take a look at. First of all, there is a portion of the Nexus Generation that has opted out of traditional institutions, including government, voting, family and community, and that is a critical group to take a look at. We also know that this generation believes that governments are irrelevant, and therefore they have disconnected from all government, whether federal, provincial or local. They see no option but to do it themselves.
That applies equally to their own retirement planning. They do it themselves. You might be surprised to learn that two years ago the baby boom generation had put as much as $9 billion into RRSPs. For the Nexus Generation, $4.5 billion went into RRSPs. The number one thing that they think they are going to purchase in the next year is RRSPs -- not a home, not a car, not a stereo, but RRSPs.
There are certain opportunities open to Nexus. For instance, Nexus is building social cohesion, but it is doing it in its own way; it is doing it through some of the café gatherings, through the workplace and through entrepreneurship.
Nexus also takes some pride in the nation state. Perhaps it depends somewhat on where you live in the country. Young people in Quebec, for example, would have more alignment to Quebec than to Canada; but even when you look at the backpacking culture, every person who considers himself Canadian puts a flag on his backpack and goes travelling around the world and is incredibly proud to be Canadian. They are also having an impact at the community level by volunteering in very big numbers, and in intending on volunteering and donating at a community level where they feel they could have an impact.
Here are some implications for the Government of Canada. First of all it needs to prove its relevance, to make people feel like they know why there is a government around and what it is doing. It needs to create a compelling vision that they can feel part of and belong to and can rally around. Finally, based on everything I have said, this is a generation, especially in the context of this particular committee, that could be the greatest partner Canada has. It is a global generation, a technologically savvy generation, and a generation that is living the reality of the new information age. The way they are doing it is often a good mirror on where we are going in society, and using the Nexus Generation as a partner, I think, is really the critical message that I wanted to get across today.
Senator LeBreton: I was fascinated by your comment just a few moments ago about this generation putting $4.5 billion into RRSPs. Does that support the theory, then, that it is a do-it-yourself generation, and that they see themselves as providing for their own retirement as opposed to government pension plans? How does this extend to issues like health care and education? How are they treating those areas, in terms of looking into the future and where they see themselves going?
Mr. Barnard: According to one poll that I saw recently asking people what they would do with the surplus and where they would invest the money -- would they put it into repaying the debt, tax cuts or restoring social programs? -- this generation was the most likely to say, "Restore social programs". This is a generation that is very concerned about education and it is also concerned about health. That may be surprising, given that they are not users of the health care system at the moment, because young generations generally are not, but they are concerned.
There are some splits within the generation. Generally, as you go to the younger part of the generation you get a little more acceptance, I would say, of user fees and two-tiered health care systems. It is a generation looking at huge increases in tuition for university; there has been about a 100 per cent increase in the last three years or so. For that reason there is a lot of frustration, and people are focusing on how they are going to get themselves through, and really are focusing on a complete do-it-yourself future as a result.
Senator LeBreton: It is very interesting that they answered the poll in that way, because it goes back to your point about the negative connotation to the so-called Generation X, and the impression of some people that they are the "me" generation, that they are very much of the "I'm all right Jack" mentality, and do not worry about other people and are more right-wing in their views, in terms of fiscal issues.
I should have thought that if they had been listening to the perception out in the public, as well as the evidence before this committee, they would have answered deficit reduction, but clearly they have not.
Mr. Barnard: That is not to say that the deficit is not an important issue for them. However, the point that I want to get across today is that I think we should not just look at one poll as the answer. We try to look at as many polls as we can, as well as interviews, and we work with a network of young people across the country to give us their insights so that we are not just relying on statistics that are coming out. What we find is that there are certainly pockets of a sort of conservatism in that respect.
There are definitely pockets of young people who are leading the tax revolt. There are pockets of young people who are leading the social revolt, but in that case we do not see it very much skewing towards a "me first and everyone else later" attitude. In fact, even in the spiritual realm, they are the most likely generation to believe in something bigger than themselves, which is interesting. If you were part of a "me" generation, then you would not believe in any kind of bigger power, and yet this generation is most likely to do that.
Senator LeBreton: Is there any recognizable difference between this generation in the Canadian context and this generation in the United States context. Even though we are all on the North American continent is there a different outlook by the two different groups or is it the same?
Mr. Barnard: We also do some work in the United States, and we notice a little bit more materialism in the United States Nexus group, and a stronger, a higher proportion of people who would be influenced by religion in the United States as compared to Canada. What we have seen in Canada over the years, and I am stealing from Michael Adams has just been talking about this, and it is reflected somewhat in our generation al work as well, but what we have seen in Canada over the years is that there has been declining attendance and religion has had a declining influence on this generation and on the baby boomers as well. In the United States it has been just about flat.
The Chairman: I want to take this case of the $4.5 billion invested in RRSPs by the Nexus Generation. We are talking about people now between the ages of 18 and 34; is that right?
Mr. Barnard: Approximately.
The Chairman: Let me give you three possible reasons why this is so. No. 1, they lack confidence that the State is going to look after them when they get old; No. 2, more of them are self-employed and therefore not members of company pension plans; No. 3, they are very savvy and know a really good way to reduce their tax liability when they see it, namely the RRSP.
Have you thought about it sufficiently or gone into it in sufficient detail to be able to accord a relative weight to those three reasons, or have I missed something?
Mr. Barnard: I think those would be the three major reasons; I have no specific weighting, but they are probably proportional. The interesting one is the self-employed group; the more I see and talk to young people, the more I realize that they are going towards an entrepreneurial future. This is a group that, as far as career choice goes, has entrepreneurship as its first choice as a desired career; being a lawyer is the fifth choice, for example, in their aspirations. A lot of the traditional careers are dropping down. Being an entrepreneur is a desirable place to be, because, while I guess in some ways it creates instability in some people's minds, in other ways it gives control over your own future, and this is a generation of people who feel that maybe otherwise they would not have control over their own future.
It is a generation that was told all they had to do was get an education and they would get a job, and then two recessions hit and that did not really happen for them, so they almost feel like they have to take it upon themselves in a business sense, and they also have to take it upon themselves in a retirement sense.
Recently I saw a piece of information about the kinds of topics they want to hear about in the news. Personal finance is high on the list. They are in the highest percentile wanting to hear about personal finance, so maybe this is a group who is becoming more savvy, and for a lot of them I think it is a good idea. If they believe the CPP will not be there for them, then, as a society, the best thing we could do is encourage them to start investing now, because it will come back to help them out when they need it most, in forty years or so.
The Chairman: And it is helping them now in terms of tax liability; right?
Mr. Barnard: Absolutely.
Senator Butts: I just have a few little confusions in my own head and I want to work them out with you. I am referring chiefly to the handout rather than the slides. On page 2 of your handout you say they have a mistrust of both the media and the politicians. I found the combination strange, to distrust both. First of all, they are both down at the bottom in the popularity poll, but the point is that if they distrust politicians it is because they get it from the media; so how do they distrust the media at the same time?
Mr. Barnard: I think what they find is that they are able to use the media to get information, but they do not necessarily trust the media to give them the right information. They have to go and seek out all kinds of different forms of media. What we see in their media usage, for example, is that they use all forms of media to find the truth. They are very sceptical of the media, but not cynical of the media. For this generation it is true that in a list of desirable careers "politician" came second last. Unfortunately, "commissioned sales person" came last, but everything else was above, and one of the interesting notes was that a director of a not-for-profit organization came quite far up the list, talking about bringing things back to a community level.
The people are much more likely to believe that they should be in the not-for-profit world, and leading in that area, rather than in the political realm. It is a generation that is not getting involved in the political parties as much as other young generations have.
Yes, you could be right in saying that the media in some ways breed the mistrust, but this is a very media-savvy generation, so they do not believe everything they see on T.V. What they also have been witnessing is politicians and governments on the one hand making commitments and on the other not following through, and I guess the media are there to capture that on film for them.
In some ways there is a bit of a spiral going on right now, in the sense that although the people of this generation represent, or could represent, about 40 per cent of the voting population, they are not voting in the same proportion and therefore, if they are not voting, the politicians, it seems to me from what I have seen, are not really talking to this generation. Either they are not looking at the kinds of issues that are important to this generation or are they not making the issues relevant enough to this generation to engage them; and if someone is not trying very hard, then you do not try very hard back again, I guess.
That is my response on how they feel about politicians and the media. Does that answer your question?
Senator Butts: This may be going around in another circle, but perhaps the mistrust of the politician means they do not vote at all, or could I take it to mean that they vote against whoever is in in order to get them out?
Mr. Barnard: At the moment there is a large portion that is not voting at all. In the last election, of the younger group for whom this was the first time to vote, only about 60 per cent of them did vote, and of that 60 per cent only about 5 per cent were paying close attention to the election. There may be lots of reasons why the people of this generation are not voting, but the fact is that they are just not connecting with the policies of the government or with the people representing the policies of the government.
Senator Butts: It is kind of connected to another statement that you made, that they are not very concerned about money. I suspect that in the next decade of their lives they will change both these tunes. Can you project that?
Mr. Barnard: I did not say they were not concerned about money; it is just that they were concerned about their careers at this point of time in their life more than they were concerned about the money they were getting, even in a part-time job. We find that when we work with our clients on compensation programs what they look for is a fair wage or salary, and once they are able to get that fair wage or salary, then other things become more important to them, such as learning.
This is a generation who will have multiple careers in their life, and in most cases actually want to have multiple careers in their life. They have had to prepare for that, and sometimes you have to put money aside in order to get that development for the long run, because they want to be employable in the long run.
Senator Butts: I would be interested if you could give me a real definition of what you consider community.
Mr. Barnard: It is a hard word to define these days. I guess for me "community" is a place where human beings interact, and when they need it they can look for support.
The Chairman: But that need not be a geographical place.
Mr. Barnard: No.
The Chairman: It can transcend geography.
Mr. Barnard: Yes.
Senator Butts: Or the people talk about communities of interest; is it more that sort of thing?
Mr. Barnard: It can be. I heard a great story the other day in that regard. It is a bit in the extreme, but in an Internet use-net group, who were all scientists in a community of interest, one of the scientists actually had a heart attack while he was on line, and he typed in that he was having some problems. Someone from San Francisco called the ambulance in Detroit and had them go to his house.
To me "community" is a place of human interaction, where, when you need it, you can get support, and that anecdote is the supreme example of that, of course. In so many ways the Internet is only available to a certain group in society right now, but it will become available, as we move along in the next two or three years, to far more people. It can be a fantastic place to meet people, and the first stage in developing any kind of community is making those human connections and making those human interactions; so I would say more often than not it is a positive influence rather than a negative one.
Senator Butts: You do say they have a vision and a sense of community. If community is a place, as you say, would you agree that it may be the workplace even more than the Internet?
Mr. Barnard: Yes, even more so, I think.
Senator Butts: You talk about how much they want their coffee shops and things like that.
Mr. Barnard: Coffee is a good stimulant for conversation for the generation -- for all generations.
Senator Butts: They go for conversation more than for coffee, though.
Mr. Barnard: Absolutely. The workplace is a fascinating example of building community, and it is different than it was 15 or 20 years ago when people left work and went home to their families. This is a generation who primarily do not have families to go home to when they leave work, so they stay at work or they go out with their friends who are from work.
One of the things that we are doing right now is trying to promote social activity in the workplace. In fact we wrote an article in The Globe and Mail just a couple of days ago about how companies should be trying to foster this social activity and foster social cohesion within the workplace because it is a great community-building opportunity for the generation; also it will help them retain their employees, so it has a double benefit.
Senator Butts: But presumably they will be getting married later, so they will have families.
Mr. Barnard: Yes. As someone who just got married, I can tell you that some of us are getting married.
Senator Butts: I believe you said that they explore spirituality; would you be able to tell me whether that is out of curiosity or genuine interest?
Mr. Barnard: I would say it is genuine interest. While attendance at church is declining, we do not see any decline in spirituality in this generation; so I believe it is genuine.
Senator Poy: I find your presentation most interesting because you have described our three sons. They are all within that age range. Therefore, there are a number of things about which I would like to comment. When you talk about backpacking, when Canadian youth travel, from my experience they always have a Canadian flag on their gear, because they do not want to be identified as Americans. Would that be your experience?
Mr. Barnard: That is a major part of it. However, it is also a matter of pride, knowing that, when you go abroad, anyone who sees the flag will recognize you as a Canadian, not an American just because you are speaking English. At 18, I backpacked for six months, with my Canadian flag on my backpack, and there was nothing like hearing someone say, "Oh, Canada, very good. I have heard it is a nice place; I have heard very good things about Canada." That kind of communication gets around, within the generation, very quickly. It is almost to the point where we should be handing out free Canadian flags at the airports, to be sewn on -- or maybe having people sewing them on the airport; that might even be better.
Senator Poy: Canada is a very popular country; everybody has a good feeling about it. I do agree that this generation is socially and environmentally very responsible, which is definitely a plus. When you were talking about them being cynical towards politicians and politics, I agree that that is the case. I have to tell our sons that people died to get the vote, and ask them why they do not take it more seriously. In your mind, what can politicians do to really get to this generation?
Mr. Barnard: It comes back, I think, to the three points I made, the last of which is the most critical one for me. There is a huge opportunity that rests within this generation to be a window on the future. We get the sense, in seeing the communications and the programs that come from government, that this generation is viewed as a bit of a charity case. "They are all unemployed; they cannot do it on their own; we had better help these poor kids out." There is almost a sense that the entire generation are "squeegee kids".
Senator Poy: But that is not true.
Mr. Barnard: No. I saw squeegee kids referenced, I think, five times in the last 11 sessions, maybe more, and I did not see the word "entrepreneur" once.
Senator Poy: Actually, the most important point is that this generation are entrepreneurs; you are absolutely right that that is their first choice. I see that within our family. The reason for that is that they have more choices than my generation did. Our generation had specific professions from which to choose, and that was it. Today's generation can do absolutely anything they want, and actually create work for themselves. That would be a very important point for the government to pick up, would it not?
Mr. Barnard: Certainly, and I think in some ways that is happening. There are some great new programs, both federal and provincial, that are helping out young entrepreneurs across the country. Programs like CareerEdge are helping to bridge the gap. There is a new federal program that sends young people to South America to help companies and governments get on the Internet. Hence, there are some good things out there. Nevertheless, the overall sense needs to change, from one of a charity case to one of a valuable partner in these times of innovation, as we move into the information age.
We always need to be concerned about young people at risk. We need to be concerned about the squeegee kids. However, if we forget to invest, on the other end of the scale, in the entrepreneurs, and give them support and acknowledge them for their achievements -- entrepreneurs both in the not-for-profit and for-profit sector, as well as the public sector -- then we are missing an opportunity to move things forward quickly.
I can name ten different companies that have just hired 100 young people to take them into the future. Those young people will create the economy of the future. That is where politicians can provide a link, in asking the Nexus Generation for advice, genuine advice, not just using them as a sounding board. Earlier, I said that governments and politicians need to prove their relevance, which means that the advice, et cetera, gleaned from young people has to show up in policies and decisions.
Senator Poy: One more comment, regarding spiritualism. You said that church attendance is down among today's youth. I see a lot of spiritualism. Would you care to comment on the fact that more and more young people, or people of this generation, are leaning away from Christianity towards Buddhism?
Mr. Barnard: I honestly do not know. In general, this a generation grew up with a lot of different religions represented in their classrooms. In my classroom, downtown Toronto, in high school, the Vietnamese boat people came into our neighbourhood, and some of them attended my school. They had a different way of looking at the world than I did. That is an example of what happened all across this country. The immigration pattern during the formative years of the Nexus Generation was truly a global one, which meant interesting changes not only in the grocery store but also in displays of spirituality.
In some ways, we call it "portfolio spirituality", in that it is somewhat a pick-and-choose spirituality. Some people like yoga. There is any number of spiritual practices to choose from. This generation is able choose what fits them and their personality.
Senator Poy: You see a real growth of vegetarianism and meditation as well, to do with spirituality.
Mr. Barnard: Yes. There are many forms of spirituality. Whether they are growing or not, I do not have the actual statistics, but we certainly hear about it more often.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I would simply like to say to my colleague that the trend to Buddhism is indeed the most prevalent in France. We are here to examine the issue of social cohesion. You implied that the baby boomer generation was a myth. I am not certain of that.
It has never been easy for young people to find their way or to carve out a niche for themselves. Yet, there is more money around today than before. I can understand that many feel left out, but the fact remains that there are far more resources available today for education and training. Does Generation X, or the Nexus Generation, as you call it, have access to better tools to prepare for the future? Will members of the Nexus Generation maintain any kind of social cohesion amongst themselves?
[English]
Mr. Barnard: Let me go back to the first part of your comments. I agree with you, every young generation goes through a certain amount of instability during their formative years, and in some ways it just changes its face. I can relate to my father and my grandfather, in terms of their formative years. My father grew up during the war, and my grandfather was in the Second World War. Obviously, there was a huge amount of instability as a result of those experiences. When the baby boom generation grew up, there was the nuclear holocaust threat.
What I was referring to in my presentation was more on the economic front, that the baby boomers had constant prosperity through their formative years. There were only small dips, from what I have seen in economic data. Generally speaking, members of that generation who went to post-secondary school got a job as soon as they were finished school. I cannot speak for generations past, however, in the Great Depression that would not have happened.
Many members of the Nexus Generation did have some challenges, as far as getting a job was concerned, even though there was an implied guarantee that they would get a job as long as they got an education. It is the most educated generation ever; many of them attained post-secondary attainment, which is a good thing for the country.
The second part of your question, the part about social cohesion dealt with -- let me make sure I understood the translations properly -- dealt with technology training and the ability to develop social cohesion as we move into the future. Is that correct?
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Let me explain. Generation X has its own problems. For instance, we know that the suicide rate has increased with that generation although they have had many more opportunities than the generation that preceded them. For example, they have had better training, from a technological point of view, better resources at their disposal, and so on.
Regardless of the choices they make, has this generation developed social cohesion, and will they be able to keep it and even extend it to the generation that has preceded them or will follow them?
Mr. Barnard: I believe they will develop social cohesion, and they are developing social cohesion. Often it looks different than the social cohesion of the past, but all human beings need it in order to survive. Therefore, they will find their way in the new information age. Yes, this generation definitely had a lot of opportunities when they were growing up. In my days at Generation 2000, we crossed the country and visited about 1,200 high schools. We saw about 750,000 young people during a four-year span. One of the comments that we heard over and over again was that young people were very bored. We looked at them, and asked: "How could you possibly be bored? You have arenas, video games, all of these things all around you." In some ways, the Nexus Generation seems passive. My hope is that we can get the generation involved in building something, feeling like they are a part of something, as opposed to giving them toys to play with. That is really where we need to move, and that will help social cohesion. Take for example the old days of a barn raising. That type of activity helped to social cohesion in a community at that particular time. What will be the "barn raising" of the Nexus Generation? Perhaps it is entrepreneurship. The idea of building a company is, in some ways, very similar to building a barn: You need to bring in people with the right skill sets, who will help you to build the foundation and the structure. You will always be indebted to those people; you will always help the people who supported you as you tried to build your own business. I am sure there will be others along the way also. Some people say this generation is an over-stimulated generation because they have had so much television, so much media, so much apparent opportunity. Yet, their opportunity to build things in society has in some ways been limited, either because their ability, in terms of age, to build something did not coincide with the government needing to building something, or for other reasons. Hence, I hope that, as we move forward, there will be more opportunities to build, whether it is companies or countries, and that that will bring people together and build social cohesion within the generation.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: You maintain that Generation X does not believe in government, and that it is prepared to do everything for itself. When a young person becomes a young entrepreneur, does he not take advantage of government programs? As you know, the government has made available to young persons programs to help them start up a small business. They even have access to training programs. In your presentation, you paint a very negative picture of the situation. In terms of a value system, I wonder if there is any difference between the baby boomers and Generation X? Which values are the most important to you?
You stated that you left home when you were 18 and that he were proud to display the Canadian flag on your backpack. People remarked on how Canada was the best country in the world. You accomplished many good things. You helped to build the country in which you now live. You also talked about one school in particular where young students have no aspirations whatsoever. Could it be that young persons today have too many expectations? They are free to go wherever they want. Sometimes that is all they want. Is it possible that for members of Generation X, the family does not play an important role? Could it be that the only thing that matters to young people today is the Internet? Have technological innovations replaced the family? Can people find emotional attachment in a bar or coffee house? That is not how I see Generation X. I do not like the picture that you have painted at all.
Governments are greatly concerned about young people, about your generation. We are concerned about many issues that affect social cohesion. How will Generation X deal with the aging of the population? Have you given the subject any thought? Will we coin the term for another generation, Generation Z? I would be interested in hearing your views. Perhaps I took what you said in a negative light. I have young daughters myself and while they did not becomes businesspeople, they do have good jobs. I worked for over 25 years with senior citizens in cultural communities and I can tell you that family values are alive and well. You have a duty to ensure their survival. Families are a constant. Would you care to comment?
[English]
Mr. Barnard: I have to say that usually, if anything, people say I am too positive, so it is nice to have a little bit of balance in what I am saying. I think my message is both positive and negative. Let me go back to the beginning of your comments. I have taken very quick notes, so I may be missing anything, please let me know.
The government is doing a lot for young people. It was a key sponsor in helping me get my organization started in 1991, Generation 2000. It contributed to our ability to go out and talk to young people, indeed, meet 750,000 of them. Governments are involved in helping out entrepreneurs. However, as an entrepreneur, I have to say that I had started my company before I heard that the government was offering me help. One of my passions is improving communication between government and young people.
Given a choice, young people will take good communication versus bad communication. There are great vehicles of communication out there, whether they are in the form of advertisers or for-profit or not-for-profit organizations. In my estimation, government is one of the poorest communicators to this group, and I have been studying it for about four years now.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: We must move forward, not backward. Are you seeking to create a society within a society, where government and family have no purpose, where the important thing would be communications, the Internet and contact with the outside world, that is with other nations? What role will you play within Canada? Will you create society X within Canadian society? Help me to understand your position. I sense that you are Canadian and I cannot consider you to be someone different. We cannot be different if we are all part of the same nation.
[English]
Mr. Barnard: I do not think we are different in the way you are talking about it. This generation is not flocking to the Internet to find their family. That is not what I intended to say.
This generation is looking for substitutes for the family, either because their family broke up -- remember, 30 per cent of their families did break up. Luckily, my family did not, nor did a lot of my friend's families, but that is a reality for many people in this generation. Also, there are economic reasons, the fact that a lot of them have to get two degrees in order to get the job they want. This generation is not getting married as early as other generations -- and we cannot tell them to marry earlier and to have their families earlier. They do create a family-like setting, often with their friends. Therefore, although their idea of family might not be the traditional family, family is still very much part of the generation. It just may not be a stay-at-home mother, a father who works outside of the home, a dog, and two kids. This generation had to adapt to a very different reality with regard to family.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: I agree with you. While the structure or makeup of families may be different in today's modern society, this does not mean that family values have disappeared. You have admitted that some families are fragmented units. Do you plan to make any efforts to help rebuild these family values and principles? That is very important.
[English]
Mr. Barnard: That has been my personal mission. A person who puts his life on hold at age 23 to start a not-for-profit organization is not exactly typical of the "me" generation. What we have been trying to do in many cases is bring the generation together to help them get involved in Canada's development.
I also am involved in helping the government communicate to this group, so I am very close to the issue of helping governments communicate to young people. To me it is critical for the government to communicate with this group of people. Government is creating innovative programs that make sense for this generation, not past generations of young people. It is also important that they learn new techniques of communicating to this group because it is not the same group of young people that was in the country 20 years ago.
One of our biggest challenges is that most of this generation is not represented in the government. It is not represented in the House of Commons, it is not represented in the Senate, and it is not represented in the public service. Only 6 per cent of the public service is under the age of 30, and that includes contract workers, part-time workers, and so on. Thus, the people who are actually developing, producing and running the programs are not in the generation.
The Chairman: We heard that very point made by a recent witness, Derek Burney, who has been a federal government deputy minister and an ambassador, and who is now President of Bell Canada International. He is a long-time public servant. He made the point that the federal public service, as a factor in national social cohesion and national unity, no longer plays the role it did, for precisely the reason you just cited, that your generation is not represented as much as used to be the case. There have been so many cutbacks and downsizing, and so forth, that the jobs are not there for them, and we are paying for that in various ways, including the ones you have cited.
Mr. Barnard: I want to say that when I was travelling around Europe I was very aware that my grandfather helped to give me that opportunity, that pat on the back. Young people are aware of that fact. I do not sense an attitude amongst young people that they do not care about what their grandparents do or did.
In fact, in another poll that I saw, this generation very much thought that they could learn something from their elders. What was interesting was that elders did not think they could teach anything to their grandchildren. Rather, it was the other way around; that is, grandchildren really wanted to learn from the past. However, the people who were in some ways represented the history of the country did not think they could actually communicate that to young people. I think the door is open for that kind of collaboration.
As far as an aging population, if there is one message that we put forth over and over again it is that, at our company, the only way we are going to succeed is through generational collaboration, not generational conflict. It is for that reason that I will always say "Nexus Generation" and never "Generation X". I think the term "Generation X", and all that embodies it, creates a division between the generations. If you have been told for four or five years that you are a depressed, lost, confused, and aimless generation, you might start to believe it. On the other hand, you just might say: "That is not me and it does not refer to any of my friends. We need to create our own character and build for the future." Thus, I think collaboration will help us move through what will be some interesting times in the next few years.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: I have to admit that I like your description of young people very much. Based on my experience, I think it is a pretty fair description. However, I do not have the impression that young people are interested in learning about other generations or in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of those with whom they come into contact, that is members of the older generations, authority figures, parents and teachers. Are young people today interested in learning more about the people with whom they come into contact daily?
According to chart 11, "Nexus sees no option but to do-it-yourself". This kind of self-reliance could be a problem if we want to learn what the other generation may want or know. People my age and younger are concerned about finding out what young people really want. I think that everyone is working to establish a suitable quality of life and environment for our young people. Everyone believes that we have done everything we can to create this kind of environment, but young people maintain that we have come up short. I have difficulty accepting that because I do not know if young people today are motivated. We need to find a way to better understand this generation.
[English]
Mr. Barnard: When you talk about this being a very independent generation, that is partially true. Their independent nature, or what we would call their "do-it-yourself" nature, is in some ways a result of their formative experiences. Often, they would have to do the shopping, if they were from a broken family. They often had to take on a parental role, look after their younger siblings, and so on.
As they move forward, they would rather be safe than sorry. In terms of public policies, like CPP, they may feel that it is probably not a bad idea for them to look after themselves; that there are not enough resources out there to protect those policies. I do not get the sense that that is something they are really excited about, that they are passionate about have to do everything for themselves -- save for their pensions, handle health care costs, et cetera. It is more a result of what they are seeing around them, but in and of itself it is not a positive, necessarily. I think entrepreneurship is positive, starting your own business is a positive thing.
In the little time I have left, it is hard to tell you exactly what motivates them, but they are interested in probably the same things that every generation is interested in. They are interested in getting a job they like; they are interested in finding a lifetime partner; they are interested in creating a better place for their kids. Further, they believe they will be able to do that.
In your remarks, I got the sense you felt they were hard done by and that they do not appreciate the things we have in Canada. I do not agree. I think this generation does appreciate what they have. There are a few, who you might see on television or hear on the radio, who may say, "We want more; we want more; we want more." However, this generation is not out there protesting in the streets. They are very optimistic; as a group, they think things are going relatively well. Yes, there are young people who are stuck on street corners, and every country should be concerned about problems around youth employment. However, a lot of Canadian youth indicate optimism about their future, although they may not be optimistic about Canada's future.
As we move forward, I would not start with the perception that this generation is angry or frustrated. Rather than "frustration", perhaps a better way of expressing their feelings is by is saying that this generation is "disconnected from government" because there has not been any communication between government and this generation, which has, possibly, created frustration. The statistics about whether this generation thinks governments are doing a good job are not dissimilar to other segments of the population. However, there needs to be a starting point whereby this generation can contribute something to Canada, and they need to be recognized for their contribution. At the moment, because of stereotypes <#0107> that they are an angry, frustrated, unemployed generation -- I do not think they are being recognized for the contribution they can make.
This is an optimistic, driven, and somewhat sceptical generation -- sceptical is a search for the truth, cynical is an out right rejection of everything. This is a sceptical generation. They want to find the truth, they want to find a job, and they want to build a country, but in some ways not too many people are asking them to.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: Young people have not rejected society completely. They may, however, have turned away from certain values, such as a strong work ethic. Everyone wants to work, but not everyone has the same drive or desire to put in the same number of hours. Young people want a decent job where they work five or six hours a day, not ten.
[English]
Mr. Barnard: I actually disagree. When we look at all the information that comes in to us, it tells us that this generation works as hard as anyone does. If this generation is entrepreneurial -- anyone who has ever started a business knows that it is a 24-hour-a-day commitment, and every young person who wants to start a company knows that. They want to contribute and to be a part of something, and if the only opportunity for them to do that is to start their own business, then that is what they are going to gravitate toward. If other people, other organizations open up -- and lots of organizations have opened up to this particular group -- this group will be in there; and once they have a commitment and feel part of something, they will work just as hard or harder than anyone in the office.
The Chairman: In view of the fairly large proportion of your generation who come from broken families, should we look for a marked reduction in divorce rates with your generation?
Mr. Barnard: I hope so. I do not know. It is a little too early to know because they are getting married later. The next five years will give us a bit of an indication. I am not familiar with patterns of divorce, but if people are going to be divorced in the first two years likely they will not have kids; therefore, if you are going to get divorced that is not a bad time to do it. We probably will not know for about 10 years or so whether a turnaround is in the works.
The Chairman: Do you disagree with Michael Adams' characterization of your generation as being Darwinist in its social outlook, survival of the fittest?
Mr. Barnard: I have read Michael's book, and have talked to him quite a bit about this generation. When he looks at the social Darwinism, he is talking about one component of the generation. He actually looked at five segments of this particular generation, and that is one of them, and it is a relatively strong one. Where we agree on independence, we might disagree on where the independence is leading, and whether it is a desired independence or whether it is an inherent independence, as a result of the factors that were around in formative years. I think that, yes, this group is a do-it-yourself generation, but I do not believe it is necessarily a survival-of-the-fittest generation.
The Chairman: You are talking about your generation as consumers, which means they are buying things as employees, which means they have jobs. As citizens, they are more technologically literate and more fortunate. What about those to whom you referred who are unemployed and less fortunate, and perhaps isolated or excluded? Whose job is it to help them? Is it their responsibility, is it the job of the state, or is it the job of those of your generation who are more fortunate to do that in some direct way, rather than through the mediation of the state?
Mr. Barnard: Hopefully, it is all of those people. It is the job of the state to realize that the money it collects should go to helping those who are less fortunate.
The Chairman: You have no objection to being taxed for that purpose.
Mr. Barnard: Not at all. And it is also the responsibility of people in society, whether it is my generation or other generations, to help people out. Some incredibly innovative organizations are run by Nexus Generation people who are doing just that, and we have those people in our group as well. Even a person who is on a street corner is a consumer and, hopefully, a citizen. At the moment, they are not employees, but to me they are just as relevant to the work that we do as any person in society.
The Chairman: You see it as part of your job to communicate with them.
Mr. Barnard: Absolutely. In my talk about youth unemployment, one of my key messages is that if we keep treating people as though they were down and out and are going anywhere, that they are lost and confused, then those people will start to believe that. What I hope our generation will do is look at the opportunity of the future and try to bring those people along to create that future.
The Chairman: What thought have you given to potential intergenerational tensions? You know better than I that within a relatively short time a relatively smaller number of you will be supporting quite a large number of us. How do you feel about that?
Mr. Barnard: I do not know the exact numbers, but it is something I want to look into a little bit. In the Nexus Generation, as we have characterized it, there are about 8 million Canadians. In fact, in Canada, the tail end of the baby boom, which we would actually include as the Nexus Generation because of when they were born and the kind of formative experiences they have had, is its largest segment, which is slightly different than the U.S. Therefore, the warning signals about a huge group of baby boomers retiring suddenly, I do not subscribe to. I also look at the baby boomers' kids who are under 18, which is also a very large generation, who will be coming into the workplace as we go forward. Those three generations, who will be in the workplace in some ways at the same time, will have to come to some agreement on how we are going to move forward.
With immigration patterns continuing, with people in the Nexus Generation also having children, I do not think it is a lost cause. Baby boomers do not outnumber by three times the Nexus Generation or their kids' generation. The baby boomer generation numbers slightly larger, so the warnings may not be as justified. However, I believe that human beings have a habit of rising to the challenge, and I hope that the Nexus Generation, the baby boom generation, and other generations will come together and find those solutions.
The Chairman: You have given us a most interesting 90 minutes.
The committee adjourned.