1985-01-23

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, during the holidays I met with several groups to discuss issues of current interest. Two subjects came up again and again, namely, the universality of social programs and unemployment, especially unemployment among young people. Many of the latter spoke to me about their concerns, and I would like to bring this to the attention of the House and especially the Members of Cabinet.
I am sorry to see that the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) is doing nothing to persuade her Cabinet colleagues to take concrete action, especially now in 1985, during the International Year of Youth.
We are told by young workers that they have knocked on the doors of private enterprise but new employees are not hired unless they have experience. Students told us they were shocked by the decision of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to cut the Summer Canada program.
Young farmers' sons are expressing their concern about the many farm bankruptcies being talked about in the press and on television.
I want to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to reinstate immediately the direct employment program for young students, referred to as Summer Canada, and not to rely solely on the private sector.
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to introduce special measures to enable young people who want to get a start in farming to do so with confidence.
Finally, I would ask the Minister of State for Youth to take steps to ensure that the First Chance programs are reinstated in order to meet the needs, not only of young-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


CANAGREX
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, last spring the Canadian Agriculture Export Corporation, Canagrex, started to serve Canadian farmers by assisting them to sell their products in the international markets of the world, and during several months of operation it has succeeded very well, closing some $16 million worth of sales, with an additional $100 million of transactions expected by March 31 of this year. It is very impressive, especially when we note the start-up costs were only $2.66 million.
In the years ahead we will see very competitive selling of farm commodities in the international markets of the world. The United States will be much more aggressive in marketing its farm products abroad, especially with the pressures expected from the new United States farm Bill.
The Government's decision to wind up Canagrex is very shortsighted. It is firmly opposed by many farm organizations, including the 300,000 member Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union. Killing Canagrex is like shutting down the sales department of a company wanting to expand its sales.
Canagrex has all the power it needs to help sell our farm commodities abroad by providing farm financing packages, insurance, marketing, analysis, promotion and, most of all, a one-stop selling agency far foreign buyers.
I call on the Government to reinstate Canagrex, in the name of thousands of farmers who want this corporation retained so it can get on with the job it was designed to do.


THE UKRAINE
Mr. Bill Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the occasion of the 67th anniversary on January 22, 1985, of the proclamation of the independence of Ukraine.
As a Canadian of Ukrainian descent I want to join with hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian Canadians to acknowledge that the struggle for freedom and democracy may always continue.
Following the fall of the Tsarist empire on January 22, 1918, the Ukrainian Parliament proclaimed and established the independent National Democratic Republic of Ukraine.

January 23, 1985
The Ukraine recognized the highest principles of democracy, of freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, association, and basic human rights.
However, in 1922 the Russian communist regime subverted and conquered this new independent state by force. The Communist regime was more despotic and oppressive than the Tsarist empire.
Today, the spirit of the Ukrainian nation survives. The Ukrainians have paid the price for the pursuit of freedom. History has often forgotten the Black Famine of 1933. More than six million innocent people, victims of Communism, died unmercifully through forced starvation.
We pray that freedom and human rights will always be the hallmark of our nation, Canada. We pray for freedom in other lands, for oppressed people, including the oppressed people in the Ukraine.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: From January 8 to 10, Mr. Speaker, along with a group of Canadian parliamentarians, I went to Washington as guest of the parliamentary exchange centre to study their agricultural bond program and draw inspiration from their experience. This program was launched about four years ago.
We were welcomed by Minnesota representative Jim Obe-star and his wife who is on staff at the interparliamentary exchange centre. Our visit had been arranged here by Mrs. Barbara Reynolds.
I would like to say publicly just how much I came to appreciate the work and generosity of our hosts who spared nothing whatsoever to make it easier for us to learn all about this program.
We also had an opportunity to meet and discuss with the American Agriculture Secretary of State and to find out for ourselves that the problems experienced by the American agricultural community are practically the same as ours. I
I want to thank all those people for everything they did for us and I can assure them that is was a worthy experience for their Canadian guests.


CURRENCY
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, it is time that Canada introduced the dollar coin. Recent public opinion surveys have indicated that Canadians desire such a coin. Various vending machine companies have urged the Government to move quickly in this area, as a dollar coin would greatly simplify their operations. In this day and age very little can be purchased for less than a dollar. Bus fares in many Canadian cities exceed a dollar, while parking meters and newspapers are fast approaching that figure.
A dollar coin would be more durable than the paper dollar with its short lifespan. It has been estimated that the federal Government can save up to $300 million over a ten-year period by moving to a dollar coin. In addition, a dollar coin is lighter than four quarters.
The introduction of a dollar coin would have a significant spin-off benefit to single industry mining communities. In the riding of Nickel Belt, Inco has the capability of producing the dollar coin, and in fact such a move would create hundreds of new jobs in this community which is experiencing an unemployment rate of over 15 per cent. If the demand for dollar coins were to improve, nickel producing communities would benefit from this innovation.
I urge the Government and the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre), in particular, to move as quickly as possible to establish the dollar coin in Canada.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, there are many Canadians from coast to coast who carry with them the haunting images of the Great Depression. They remember well the long line-ups of dispirited men and women silently waiting their turn for a bowl of soup that might stave off hunger for another day.
It is a sad commentary on the priorities of our Governments that the soup kitchen has made a dramatic come-back. In British Columbia the community food bank is now a major growth industry. In Vancouver the food bank has doubled in size in one year and it now serves over 3,000 bags of groceries per week. Yet this week it will have to turn away at least 500 people.
In Kamloops the food bank serves over 2,400 families per month. A typical food hamper for one family for one month consists of 6 cans of soup, 2 cans of vegetables, a can of fruit, a package of oatmeal, a package of powdered milk, a bag of potatoes, some Kraft dinners, 2 cans of pork and beans, a
January 23, 1985

package of lunch meat, a package of sugar, a half pound of margarine, 2 loaves of bread, and a pound of hamburger.
This is emergency assistance for one family for one entire month. It is disgraceful. This is the product of Mr. Bennett's restraint program. This is not the new reality. It is simply the old Depression. Let no one be fooled. Mindless restraint is a recipe for economic and social disaster. That is the reality the people of British Columbia know only too well, and I hope it does not now happen on a national scale.
*


FORESTRY
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, each Member in this place is no doubt aware of the dismal forecast regarding the forest industry. Our valuable timber is being used at a rate much greater than it is being replaced.
The forest industry, which is the largest employer of any in Canada, faces virtual extinction in this generation if steps are not soon taken.
The Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) is doing an admirable job of consulting with forces within the industry. However, he cannot do it alone.
We, as parliamentarians, must rise to the occasion if our most valuable resource is to be preserved. Some politicians in Canada have gained a reputation for short-sightedness and self-service. Perhaps we in this Parliament can be remembered
in history for our responsible planning for the future.
Roughly one million people are directly and indirectly employed in forestry related jobs, and their future depends on the wisdom of the present.
The replanting, weeding, thinning, and fertilization of logged land is sadly lacking proportionately to the harvest. It is bad enough to use non-renewable resources with wild abandon, but to ignore the disappearance of this renewable resource is truly criminal.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on an issue of concern to many farmers. Approximately 1,300 farmers from the Province of Saskatchewan had been locked into high interest rate loans through the Farm Credit Corporation. It came as good news last week when the Minister of Agriculture announced that these borrowers can now have their loans refinanced at 12.75 per cent.
This measure will mean a benefit of over $3 million a year for five years to the Saskatchewan economy. It will lessen the
Oral Questions
high cost of credit. Further, it will give some farm borrowers who are facing foreclosure the opportunity to remain viable.
I would like to commend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), and further urge him and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to help improve the plight of farmers by introducing the removal of capital gains tax on farm land and the use of agribonds to provide low interest farm loans.


EDUCATION
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government's record on behalf of the students in this country is nothing-nothing short of appalling. It has done nothing for our unemployed youth at the very time when our young people are counting on a post-secondary education to improve their chances for employment. Many are even staying in school because they can't get jobs.
And what do the Tories do about this? The Finance Minister announces that they are cutting $5 million out of their budget and putting a freeze on the level of student loans. This will not only make it more difficult for our young people, it will even deny some of them the necessary funds to stay in school.
And as if this wasn't bad enough, the Tory Treasurer of Ontario calls for university tuition fees to be hiked by 13 per cent a year, and the Tory Ontario Minister of Education set up the Bovey Commission with both hands tied behind its back when, she said to the Commission, "Don't spend the province's money but go ahead and sock it to the kids"-so the report recommends hiking student fees by 50 per cent.
What a bind for our young people caught in this Tory squeeze play, with the federal Tory Government freezing student loans, and the provincial Tory Governments raising student fees. In this, the International Youth Year, it would have been fitting to give more to our youth, not less. The Tories truly should be ashamed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I could scarcely believe my ears this morning when 1 heard on a CBC broadcast that the Government had concluded a secret deal on a budgetary taxation matter with the petroleum industry. I have the transcript, just to verify what I heard. Indeed it would appear that spokesmen for the industry

January 23, 1985
Oral Questions
claim that businessmen had been negotiating a deal with the Government more than a year before the election; that they feel, a fair deal has been struck; and that indeed the Budget in the spring will be the vehicle for putting that deal into action. Will the Minister of Finance stand in the House now and confirm or deny that such a deal has been made?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate this opportunity to state for the record that the oil industry official quoted has since issued a statement denying that any such wording was used, saying that the report was totally wrong, and that he was referring to the helpful consultations which have been launched by our Government, and before by our Party, after a decade of unilateral action. His statement also says that the approach we have taken is the one which will create new economic activity and jobs for Canadians.


BUDGET INQUIRY
Donald James Johnston: Well, Mr. Speaker, of course I accept the statement of the Minister, and I am quite surprised that she had to convince the spokesman to issue another release today, which I have yet to read. But if we are to establish the integrity of our budget process, Mr. Speaker, I stress the fact that the Minister ought to table in the House any correspondence with that association, along with the minutes of all meetings, and then the public will be convinced that the integrity of our system is fully protected. [English]
At the same time I would suggest that it is important that no one be able to profit from advance knowledge of any changes. I should like the Minister to confirm that the changes suggested in that statement this morning will in fact not be made in the Budget next April.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me make it quite clear that there has been no budget leak because the decisions haven't been taken. The Hon. Minister is still in discussions with her counterparts in the provinces. As she said quite clearly, the discussions which have been held with the industry as well as with other interested parties related to the energy discussions, have been very helpful in trying to focus on the needs of the industry and those particular things which have to be addressed to make the energy industry the engine of growth to produce jobs right across the country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, with great respect.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very interested in the telephone conversations which went on this morning between the office of the Minister of Energy and the Independent Petroleum Association. Obviously the Canadian companies in the oil patch were given the direct impression that there was a deal, that there was a commitment by either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Energy. I ask either Minister to give us an undertaking that he or she will table all negotiations and all correspondence with that Association to assure the House that there is no such deal.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Member clearly does not understand Albertans if he thinks that I can convince an Albertan to issue a statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: As we have explained, there is no deal yet. The statement issued by the Chairman of IPAC makes it very clear that any negotiations carried out will be Government to Government. That is the nature of the consultations taking place. We on this side of the House do not make deals with industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NEGOTIATION AND CONSULTATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the word which the representative of the Independent Petroleum Association used this morning was "negotiate". It is all right for the Minister of Energy to say that negotiations are only with the provinces, although during the election she said there was a silent accord and that the people of Canada did not have the right to know. If there was negotiation with the industry, this House is entitled to know, because what has happened is that the Independent Petroleum Association and its members have been made insiders into the next Budget to be produced by the Minister of Finance. We take this as a very very serious issue in this House.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from the Right Hon. Member's question that he does not understand the whole process of consultation. It is so alien to his Party that he cannot recognize it when he sees it. As the IPAC Chairman made clear, and I quote:
The new Conservative Government is consulting with the fishing industry on fishing policy, farmers on agricultural policy and oilmen on oil policy. This is just plain common sense and will work to the betterment of all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO INDUSTRY SPOKESMAN
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have supplementary questions on the same matter. The Minister of Energy has suggested that there was no such deal, no such commitment, and has told the House that, miracle of miracles, a spokesperson for the industry has retracted today what he

January 23, 1985

said yesterday. I heard the same gentleman on the CBC report this morning. He said that what was going on between the Government and representatives of the oil industry was a matter that was one of simply working on the mechanics. What he clearly conveyed yesterday was that the deal had been worked out, that a commitment had been entered into by the then Official Opposition with the oil industry.
Notwithstanding what this individual is saying today, when the Minister met last year with representatives of the oil industry, did she undertake in any way or make a commitment in any sense with reference to tax policy that could have led him to reach the conclusion that a deal had been made?
Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): No, Mr. Speaker.


CONSULTATION INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question on the same subject since it is rather strange that the man who was clearly saying one thing yesterday is saying something quite different today as a representative of the oil industry. It would perhaps not be entirely bizarre if he saw the seriousness overnight of what was involved in all of this. Is the Prime Minister aware of any other representatives of his Cabinet who were then involved in negotiations? Did they talk with representatives of the oil industry and reach any kind of deal that would lead representatives of that industry to believe that they had a commitment from the Conservatives to make a change in taxation as it affects the oil industry?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The other member of the Cabinet who knew that was me. The arrangement that we reached was with the Canadian people, that we would cease the kind of unilateral intervention and hostility as represented by the NEP which crippled economic growth in western Canada for a decade. We were going to stop that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We also indicated that we were going to try, as we did, to make an arrangement with Newfoundland and Labrador where that rich resource could be developed for the betterment of Newfoundlanders and for all Canadians, and that we would do it in a spirit of fairness. Those were the undertakings that we made. Those are the undertakings that we shall continue to honour. This is a free-enterprise country and we plan to respect that.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Prime Minister that this is the House of Commons and occasionally we expect answers to the questions we ask.
Oral Questions


CONTENTS OF FORTHCOMING BUDGET
John Edward Broadbent: I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware of the seriousness of this issue. If there were insider information, people in the oil industry, whether in Alberta or elsewhere, were potentially in a position to make hundreds of thousands of dollars if that is actually-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, it is time for the supplementary question.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will come immediately to the question. Will the Prime Minister guarantee to the House that the forthcoming Budget will not contain changes affecting the oil industry of the kinds to which a spokesperson from the oil industry alluded yesterday? Will he tell us that there will not be those changes in the Budget?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Hon. Leader of the NDP always presumes bad faith. He always presumes bad faith. The individual who made the comment-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think there is a spirit of fairness that should prevail, even with the NDP. The individual involved issued a statement in which he indicated that the news reports-or the one that was given to me in any case, as I did not hear the original statements-erroneously stated the nature of his comments. If that is his statement, then of course that would be entirely consistent with what the Government has been trying to do. What we have been trying to do is convey to western Canada and Newfoundland that, with regard to oil and gas, we will help them lift the burden of regulation and front-end-loaded taxation that has crippled the oil, gas, and energy sectors of the country. We want to make them engines of growth and national unity, as opposed to driving down entire sectors of the country.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I put my question in the interests of ensuring a continued Canadian response from both Government and non-governmental organizations to the famine in Africa, particularly in Ethiopia.
The Minister is no doubt aware of the very serious allegations made on the CBC's program The Journal last night, to the effect that the Government of Ethiopia is deliberately starving and, in some instances, murdering innocent people in the Provinces of Tigre and Eritrea. Will the Minister undertake to give us a commitment in this House to acquire a full and independent third-party assessment of those very serious allegations made last night, and to make a full report to

January 23, 1985
Oral Questions
Members of Parliament on the results of his investigation? I stress that the investigation should be a third-party and independent one.
I repeat that the report of our coordinator, Mr. MacDonald, will be tabled shortly and that we shall be happy to share it with you.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. Let me first of all point out that we were well aware that, by providing assistance to Ethiopia, we were helping a country ravaged by civil war. Two options were opened to us: we could either ask the Ethiopians to come to an agreement first, or- and as you will have guessed we opted for the second one-we could provide assistance to starving men, women and children.
I wish to confirm that we shall stay with this second option, and I can say that our aid is reaching Ethiopia and that a report will be distributed as soon as our coordinator, who has just come back from his mission, can give it to us, which should be within a few days.


REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT
Brian Vincent Tobin: ' Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Minister that I commend the fact that they have had a chance to be in Ethiopia. I commend the efforts that have been undertaken so far. I commend the Government for the assistance that is being brought to the people who are being assisted. However, I am concerned about reports that large numbers of people are not being assisted and are deliberately being denied. I ask this question as one who supports what the Government has been doing to assist those people who have received help up to now.
1 ask again, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or his colleague, undertake to report back to the House on a full and, as much as possible-and I recognize the constraints-independent assessment of the charges made on the CBC program The Journal last night? That is important if the dollars are going to continue to flow from both Government and private sources in Canada to people in Ethiopia who still need our help.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind this honourable assembly that, as far as the aid sent to Africa is concerned it is distributed in co-operation with both Government and non-governmental organizations.
Perhaps I should add that two-thirds are distributed by non-governmental organizations and one-third by government authorities.
* *
*


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO IPAC SPOKESMAN
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On the tape of the radio interview with Mr. Morgan-and I have the tape here-he was asked whether he was given any promises for a reduction in taxes in the spring Budget. He replied that the whole effort was accomplished before the election, that he worked with Pat Carney, and that he got the needed commitments for a profit-based system of taxation. What exactly did the Minister tell IPAC before the election?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I told IPAC that, unlike the previous administration, we were willing to listen to some of the problems of the oil industry and work together, in concert with the consuming provinces and the producing provinces, to ensure that we have energy security for Canadians and jobs for Canadians. That is what I told IPAC.


PRIME MINISTER'S CONSULTATIONS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, that was an incredible nothing answer. I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. He just admitted, in answering a question from my Leader, that he too was involved with IPAC. I would like to ask him whether he told IPAC when he talked to them that he was going to make changes in the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax, that he would give them that commitment, and indeed if they got that commitment from the Government to make those changes effective in the spring Budget?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend seems to have implied that there is something nefarious in consulting or meeting with IPAC. I am meeting this afternoon with the Canadian Association of University Teachers in an ongoing process of consultation and mutual understanding. I have met with many other groups, and hope to continue to do so. We listen and from time to time we learn. We listened to various groups in western Canada, in agriculture, forest products, and the oil and gas sectors. We campaigned on a fairly clear-cut program that we think is beneficial to western Canada, and which is beneficial to a rebirth of the energy sector that is so important to all Canadians. We laid it out during the course of the election campaign. There is nothing untoward or secret. It was a straightforward
January 23, 1985

proposal. It was on that basis that western Canadians, and I believe other Canadians, made the verdict on September 4.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIS EXCELLENCY JACOB DE RUITER, NETHERLANDS DEFENCE MINISTER, AND GENERAL G. L. J. HUIJSER, CHIEF OF THE NETHERLANDS DEFENCE STAFF
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to take this opportunity to advise the House of the presence in our Gallery of His Excellency Jacob de Ruiter, Netherlands Defence Minister, with his Chief of the Netherlands Defence Staff, and a delegation which is here visiting us today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister, but it is on a different subject. An American document which was released today shows that Josef Mengele, the notorious "Angel of Death" of Auschwitz, applied to immigrate to Canada in 1962 and that Canadian Government officials were informed at the time about who he was. I know that the Prime Minister received a letter on this subject suggesting the same possibility about a month ago, and that this morning he apologized for misplacing the letter and ordered an investigation on the subject. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether that investigation will include reference to the Americans for documents which they may have about this Canadian immigration matter? I also want to ask him whether the investigation will include the public release of Diefenbaker cabinet documents, or any of them which may relate to war criminal questions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his question. I responded to the letter which I received from the foundation this morning, as soon as it was brought to my attention. I communicated with the officials of the foundation and immediately instructed the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General to initiate, on an urgent basis, a full inquiry to ascertain if the facts as raised in the letter might be accurate. Clearly we will investigate all avenues to ascertain if the facts suggesting that Mengele sought refuge in Canada were accurate, or any facts which flow therefrom.
I can think of nothing more offensive for any Canadian than to think that the Government of Canada might inadvertently have been a party to his seeking to find refuge here. That
Oral Questions
would be repugnant and repulsive in the extreme to our citizenship.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Prime Minister that, according to the information in the story, it would not have been inadvertent, since officials were informed who Josef Mengele was.
[ Translation]


WAR CRIMINAL MENGELE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Solicitor General. The same article suggested that it was possible that Mengele had been or could still be in our country. My question to the Solicitor General is as follows. Did he ask or is he willing to ask the RCMP to initiate a manhunt for this war criminal in accordance with the RCMP policy for war crimes which I implemented when I was Solicitor General?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the former Minister that the RCMP have been investigating the particular circumstances involved, as outlined by the Prime Minister, since this was brought to their attention. Following the instructions of the Prime Minister, and my own inclinations, I have told the RCMP to use every possible resource they have to follow this matter to a conclusion.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO IPAC PRESIDENT
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Prime Minister on the question of today's unveiling of what might well be in the Budget, and to say to him frankly that the consultations which he is having are absolutely excellent. Nobody complains about the consultations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: However, the President of IPAC said quite clearly in response to a question about commitments made, "The whole effort was accomplished before the election. We worked with Pat Carney, talked to Mulroney and got the needed commitments to profit-based taxation". Is that a true statement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman himself, Mr. Morgan-and I quote from a document which was released by him earlier today-said that the news report which was carried on national radio erroneously stated the nature of his comments. I can only assume that

January 23, 1985
Oral Questions
the gentleman is indicating the facts. To the extent that it involves us, to the extent that it involves me or any Minister of this Government is, of course, false.


COMMITMENT INQUIRY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, in the rather quiet final point which was made by the Prime Minister, I gathered that he said, to the extent that it involves the Prime Minister and the Government, the statement is false. In other words, what was attributed to Mr. Morgan is wrong. I would ask the Prime Minister this, so we can clear it up once * and for all. During the meetings that were held between the now Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Mr. Morgan, or the meetings held between the Prime Minister and Mr. Morgan, was there any commitment made that there would be a change in the taxation policy of Canada in the forthcoming Budget, or subsequently, which would result in a movement to a profit-based tax system?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the only commitments which were made were those which were made publicly by the Progressive Conservative Party when it sought election from the people of Canada. We laid out our program, as did your Party, and there was nothing different. There were no commitments which were different at all from those which we made publicly. I hope the Hon. Member accepts that.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of National Revenue. Canada Pensions recently provided $1,500 death benefits to help cover the funeral costs of a young man who had little or no estate. Later the parents received a notice taxing the $1,500. Will the Minister bring in changes to this Liberal legislation which taxes the dead, and make funeral expenses a deduction! At the very least, will he make death benefits under the Canada Pension Plan non-taxable?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, of course, as the Hon. Member knows, the responsibility for the Income Tax Act is that of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, who, I am sure, had open ears when the question was asked. I can assure my colleague that I will look into the particular case as well. When a colleague such as the Hon. Member makes representations like this, we certainly listen.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Last Monday, in answer to a question by my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace about summer employment programs for students, the Minister said that with regard to the new program that is to be announced, and I hope it will be very shortly because our students are getting impatient and the university representatives will certainly make this known to the Prime Minister, the Minister said that she had the support of the private sector.
In saying this, did the Minister mean that only the private sector will be involved in these programs and that there will be no input in the form of projects by community, cultural and sports organizations?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, last week I said that the summer programs for students would be announced in a few days, and when they are, the Hon. Member and other Members of this House will realize that these programs will not only involve the private sector but also the provinces and community groups. This is going to be a program for everyone this summer.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister give the House the assurance that, when she announces the program which, as she just said, will be offering jobs for everyone, including students in the social disciplines, arts or other areas, that each riding will have its own budget?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this is a program for students, for young people in this International Year of Youth. As I said before, the program is open to everyone.


MINISTER'S DISCUSSIONS WITH IPAC PRESIDENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance who met with Mr. Morgan recently. Would the Minister tell us what was said in her discussions with Mr. Morgan yesterday which would make him issue the statement which he did early this morning?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, in the process of our consultations I met for several hours with Mr. Morgan. It was a listening session on the part of the Department of Finance and there was absolutely no commitment made of any kind in that meeting. We had a cordial relationship in a discussion of issues of mutual concern.
January 23, 1985


CONTENT OF DISCUSSIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. As part of these very cordial discussions which took place, did Mr. Morgan indicate to her that previous commitments had been made of the type that he had mentioned publicly that day?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has answered that question-


John Edward Broadbent: No, she did not.


Barbara Jean McDougall: -and there was no indication whatsoever that any commitments were made.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question today is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Hon. Member for Provencher. I would like to know if the Minister has any plans to change the rules governing a widow's right to survivor's benefits under the Canada Pension Plan? This was an issue which was discussed but not acted upon by the previous administration. In defence of the family, and to prevent people from having to live common law, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will act to give wives or husbands the right to their deceased spouses' pension benefits in the event of remarriage?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, that question is important in terms of any pension reform which is contemplated by the Government. I think it is generally accepted by those who have looked at pension reform. The earlier task force on pension reform had looked at the question. I frankly feel that this is an issue whose time has come. I would like to see a change made. As the Hon. Member possibly knows, in order to get changes to the Canada Pension Plan we need two-thirds of the provinces to agree to those changes. I hope that we can do it. The proposal which the Hon. Member makes has been made by others, and I think it is valid.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister will no doubt be aware of a report from Toronto entitled "Who Gets The Work?", which builds upon the
Oral Questions
evidence of both the Abella and the "Equality Now" reports, which essentially say that the minorities of this country, particularly the visible minorities, are not being granted the same opportunities in the work place.
Given that this particular problem is paramount among the youth, and that in some regions unemployment among visible minority youth has reached over 87 per cent, can the Minister indicate to the House and to the country what special programs she has in mind to address this very real and unacceptable level of racism in the work place?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all Hon. Members of the House would join me in deploring racism and discrimination wherever they exist. We in Canada have always prided ourselves on being a tolerant and compassionate society. I would think that we would all wish to see that continue.
I have only had the opportunity to look at the report and I deplore the apparent findings with respect to discrimination which is reported in it. Nevertheless, I would tell the Hon. Member that, in my consultations on training and employment opportunities, one of the things which provinces raised with me, and something that the private sector and youth groups raised with me, is the way in which we could advance the hiring of minority groups. I would tell the Hon. Member that this will be addressed in the response of the Government to the Abella report.



GOVERNMENT PLANS

Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have had a long address to that question. I appreciate the good intentions of the Minister and I agree that this House rebukes those acts of racism in the work force, but I would return to my question. We have had report after report. There have been staggering unemployment figures of 87 per cent for visible minority youth. Can the Minister tell those people, in specifics, what will be coming from the Government? Rather than studying report after report, or giving more study groups and perhaps more Members of Parliament that job, would the Minister tell us what concrete measures the people of this country will be getting from this Government?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is because we were not satisfied with the way in which the previous Government was handling those reports that we are taking an entirely different approach to it. The Hon. Member knows, as I have announced before, that information about employment programs and the distribution of the $1 billion employment and human resources development fund will be made available within the next few weeks.

January 23, 1985
Oral Questions



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. He will recall that yesterday in the House the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that if the United States requested, in an emergency situation, the deployment of nuclear depth charges or any other nuclear weapons on our soil, Cabinet would then consider it. The Minister knows that tactical nuclear weapons, for example, take about seven to eight minutes to reach target. I refer also to the Norway incident of just a few weeks ago.
In view of the fact that there would be virtually no time to convene a Cabinet to discuss the issue, will the Minister finally come clean with the House and the people of Canada and state whether he has already entered into an agreement, or is contemplating entering into an agreement, to have nuclear weapons deployed in Canada, or will he state categorically that under no circumstances will we have nuclear weapons deployed in Canada?


Hon. Robert C. Coates (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat for the Hon. Member that there are no such plans.



MINISTERS' STATEMENTS

Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, why did the Secretary of State for External Affairs say that the Cabinet would consider the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons on our soil when the Minister of National Defence is now saying there are no plans? Who is telling the truth here?


Robert Carman Coates: We
have said a number of times, Mr. Speaker, there are no such plans.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has cut back on mobility grants. It has cut back on on-the-job training. It is not going to have a job creation program for youth like Environment 2000. It is the stingiest Government in Canadian history. Will the Minister of Employment and Immigration change the hiring guidelines on the present job creation programs in Canada which very seriously discriminate against young people and women, new entrants and re-entrants into the work force?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, there are certain regulations that were put into effect by the previous Government with regard to these programs that do address the programs to those people who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits and have no income other than the welfare which may be given to them by the provinces. In the discussion that I have been having with the provinces about new approaches to this issue, we have been dealing with that problem. I can assure the Hon. Member that the new approaches that we will be taking to the whole question of unemployment and human resource development will be much more humane and compassionate than those which existed previously.


George Baker: Yes, put it on the previous Government. I would like to remind the Minister that she is now a Minister in the present Government. The hiring requirements were signed by the present Minister rather than by Sir John A. Macdonald.



REQUEST THAT GUIDELINES BE CHANGED

George Baker: Since the hiring for 200,000, 300,000, or 400,000 jobs is being done now, will the Minister not act today to change these hiring guidelines which she has approved, which discriminate against the youth and women of the country?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the programs under Section 38 of Canada Works for this winter apply to people of all ages who are either on unemployment insurance or who have exhausted their unemployment insurance. Those are the two groups to which these programs are primarily directed. There are other programs administered by my Department which apply particularly to young people. I would mention Youth Training Option, Job Corps, and Career Access, all of which apply directly to youth.



STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO IPAC PRESIDENT

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Earlier in the House the Prime Minister said that Mr. Morgan had denied saying what it was alleged he said earlier today on the CBC. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that he had retracted the words.
I had my staff contact CBC Calgary and I am told they have Mr. Morgan's voice on tape with reference to promises that were made about corporate tax changes in the oil industry. He said on tape, "We had a commitment from the Conservatives on the matter of tax reform", with reference specifically to these changes. In light of this comment made by Mr. Morgan on tape, will the Prime Minister promise the House that he will undertake to have a thorough investigation of this matter overnight and report back to the House of Commons tomorrow?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunately typical of the conduct of the NDP that, to try to get into this matter, the Hon. Member would call the CBC in Calgary rather than the gentleman who was alleged to have made the statement. If he is concerned with the truth, perhaps the next time the Leader of the New Democratic Party rushes out to make a phone call he will call the gentleman who was alleged to have made the statement. I can only presume good faith on his part. He issued a statement which is in front of me. I assume my hon. friend has it. He says, "Today the news reports carried on national radio erroneously stated the nature of consultations between the oil industry". This is the gentleman involved. He is a citizen saying that his statements were erroneously interpreted. I would hope that my hon. friend would take the time to speak with him, rather than dropping implications on the floor of the House of Commons.



REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I did my checking in light of what the Prime Minister himself had to say. He told the House, as did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that Mr. Morgan did not say what the CBC, in a nation-wide radio broadcast, said that he said. I thought it entirely appropriate, since the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect-


John Edward Broadbent: All right, I will come to the question. I checked the source that claimed to have reported Mr. Morgan. They said that they have it on tape.
The Prime Minister did not answer the question. The CBC now claims that Mr. Morgan did say that he had a commitment from the Conservative Party to make these corporate changes and that he anticipates they are going to be in the Budget. Will the Prime Minister undertake to investigate this important matter and report back to the House tomorrow?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asked me the question. I said that I had made no such statement, nor had any Minister of the Crown made any such statement. The gentlemen who was alleged to have made the statement says that his statement was erroneously misconstrued. If my hon. friend feels that that is inadequate I can only suggest that he interrogate the CBC. I can say on behalf of the Government of Canada that the commitments we made were to the people of Canada and we were judged in consequence. We conducted ourselves accordingly, and built policy designed to help western Canada and all Canadians get back to work.



OFFICE COMMUNICATIONS INQUIRY

John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister instruct his office and the
Petitions
offices of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to ascertain whether anyone in those three offices, or in the office of the Minister of State for Finance, got in touch with Mr. Morgan as a result of that report earlier this morning to ask him to clarify, change, or retract? I would like the House to know what pressure was put on Mr. Morgan by the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I may have to apologize to the CBC. I think the Leader of the NDP did not call the CBC in Calgary. He called the Leader of the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: You can't joke your way out of this one.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The last time the NDP raised an issue such as this, to the regret of my hon. friend one of his Members quite properly had to apologize. You are dealing with the reputation of an individual who, quite properly, set out the statement that he had been misquoted. All that I can tell you is that our conduct was honourable and above board at all times. A Canadian citizen says that he has been misquoted. Perhaps you can speak with him.
*



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. There have been comments that Colin Thatcher, an inmate at an Edmonton maximum security institution, has been accorded special privileges, Could the Minister give the assurance to the House and the public that no inmate, no matter what his previous status was, will receive special privileges in our institutions?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I caused inquiries to be made. I can assure my colleague that such is not the case, that Mr. Thatcher is receiving appropriate treatment, and there are no special privileges being extended to him.



CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, January 22, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

Introduction of Bills



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present this petition from the undersigned constituents of the riding of Peterborough who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to work for immediate change in the present law so that abortion clinics are made available to everyone in need of their services.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by 2,480 citizens of the town of Meaford, Ontario, in my riding of Grey-Simcoe. The petitioners would like to press upon the Government the serious and deteriorating employment situation in Meaford and request that the Department of National Defence take steps to reactivate the A.F.V. Range Meaford with the potential for local employment. Assistance is also requested through the Department of Industry to help relocate industry in Meaford to replace the closing of Westmills Carpets and the loss of over 100 jobs.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition to the House of Commons asking Parliament to urge the Canadian Government to state publicly and clearly, on an instance by instance basis, Canada's unequivocal opposition to United States military intervention in Central America.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege to present a petition of 54 residents of Scarborough West who humbly pray that Parliament reinstate capital punishment for anyone who pleads guilty and/or is convicted of premeditated murder.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-220, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (verbal threats).
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to make oral threats to kill a criminal offence. Last October, Donna Kertzer, a Montreal woman, was shot to death by her estranged husband. Although the murderer had threatened to kill Mrs. Kertzer on several occasions, the police could not act because oral threats were not an offence. The purpose of this Bill is to correct that gap in the law.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally and indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 8, 34, 47, 48, 51, 82 and 195.
January 23, 1985


Mr. McGrath: 1.	Does the government have plans to better serve the Hibernia areas by establishing a separate SAR region for Newfoundland?
2.	Between 1983-84 to date, by province, what was the breakdown of spending on Search and Rescue by the (a) Department of National Defence (b) Canadian Coast Guard?
3.	Between January and October, 1984 (a) how many incidents off the Newfoundland coast was the Atlantic SAR co-ordinating centre in Halifax required to answer (b) how many involved (i) pleasure craft (ii) fishing vessels (iii) oil industry vessels?
4.	To the knowledge of the Government will there be increased drilling on the Grand Banks this winter and, if so (a) is the Government taking any steps to review its policy on winter drilling (b) will the Search and Rescue presence in Newfoundland be increased?
5.	Are there any plans to have fixed-wing aircraft stationed in eastern Newfoundland before the start of this year's winter drilling season and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Robert Wenman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. At the present time there are no plans to establish a separate SAR region for Newfoundland.
2.	Neither the Department of National Defence nor the Canadian Coast Guard are able to break down the cost of providing SAR on a provincial basis.
3.	(a) There were 35 marine distress incidents during the period January-October 1984. (b) (i) 12 pleasure crafts, (ii) 18 fishing vessels, (iii) none.
4.	The same number of rigs (6) as in the previous year will operate in the area.
(a)	Federal government and industry representatives continually review drilling policies;
(b)	DND will deploy one additional Tracker aircraft to St. John's for the winter drilling season, and when the situation dictates, additional resources will be deployed in accordance with current emergency contingency plans.
5.	One Tracker aircraft is deployed to St. John's full time and a second Tracker will be deployed for the winter drilling season.


Mr. Howie: 1.	For the fiscal year ending March 31 (a) 1983 (b) 1984, did persons in federal penitentiaries avail themselves of university programs and, if so, how many?
2.	In what penitentiaries did such programs operate?
3.	What was the total cost of this program?
4.	In what manner and to what extent were appropriate program objectives achieved as a result of the program?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: In
so far as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: 1. Yes.
(a) & (b)
Order Paper Questions
Fiscal Year Ending	Fiscal Year Ending
March 31, 1983	March 31, 1984
Average full-time students
Average part-time students	76
The decrease in full-time enrolment is attributed to the cancellation of the university programs (except for those in British Columbia) by the former Solicitor General effective April 1, 1983. After financial restructuring, all programs were reinstated for fiscal year 1984/85. It should be noted that since that time a steady increase has been reported in the enrolment.
On September 28, 1984 there were 184 full-time and 207 part-time students enrolled in university programs.
2.	In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, campus-type university programs were offered at Laval Institution in Quebec; Prison for Women, Collins Bay and Millhaven Institutions in Ontario; Stony Mountain Institution in Manitoba; and Matsqui, William Head, Mountain and Kent Institutions in British Columbia.
In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, campus-type university programs were offered at Matsqui, William Head, Mountain and Kent Institutions in British Columbia.
Inmates could also avail themselves of correspondence courses at various other institutions across the country during both fiscal years.
3.	Total cost for university programs in 1982/83; $818,000. Total cost for university programs in 1983/84; $470,000.
4.	Correctional and university officials have found that the programs provide valuable and effective opportunities for personal development and academic advancement of inmates in the above institutions.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Are any persons employed by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women and, if so, how many and what is the estimated salary expenditure in the current fiscal year?
2.	In each of the two preceding fiscal years, what was the salary expenditure?


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: 1. There are 37 people employed by the Council and presently 25 members. The estimated salary expenditure 1984-1985 is $1,020,000 (including employee benefits and honoraria to members).
2. The salary expenditure for fiscal year 1983-1984 was $1,014,207. In 1982-1983, it was $897,190, (both include employee benefits and honoraria).


Mr. Howie: What are the names of the persons on the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women and, in each case, what amount was he or she paid in respect of that position in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1984?


Walter Franklin McLean: January 23, 1985
Order Paper Questions
Members of the Council are (and were)	
Name	Earnings (F.Y. 1983-84)
Shirley Alcoe (N.B.)	$ 2,850
Nicole Arbour (Quebec)	1,800
Jean Augustine (Ontario)	1,350
Constance Backhouse (Ontario)	900
Monique Bernard (Quebec)	new appointment
Patrice Merrin Best (Quebec)	1,800
Francine Boivin (Quebec)	450
Shirley Bradshaw (N.S.)	2,400
Clarisse Codere (Quebec)	new appointment
Patricia Cooper (Alberta)	3,450
Anne Enge (N.W.T.)	600
Mary Lou Fox Radulovich (Ontario)	900
Jacqueline Demers (Quebec)	3,150
Kilby Gibson (B.C.)	900
Marthe Gill (Quebec)	new appointment
Gerald Griffin (Ontario)	new appointment
June Marie Hampton (Yukon)	600
Dianne Harkin (Ontario)	2,400
Alison Hinchey (N.S.)	new appointment
Frederica Hodder (NFLD.)	new appointment
Lucille Huot (Manitoba)	$ 2,100
Joyce Krause (B.C.)	2,400
Lynne MacFarlane (B.C.)	2,400
Monica Matte (Quebec)	new appointment
Edith Linda Nee (B.C.)	1,050
Jeannette Pelletier (N.B.)	2,250
Anne Marie Perry (P.E.I.)	2,250
Lynne Pieper (Saskatchewan)	2,400
Joanne Purvis (Manitoba)	new appointment
Berenice Sisler (Manitoba)	2,400
Irene Stayshyn (Ontario)	1,800
Donna Tink (Alberta)	2,250
Brigitte Turcotte (Quebec)	2,100
Total	$46,950
Included in salary expenditures		
E. Hendry (V.P -West)	GIC4 $52,860 -	$62,210M.H. Boyle (V.P.-East)	GIC4 52,860 -	62,210L. Pepin (Ex-President)	GIC5 56,640 -	66.660


Mr. Howie: Since January I, 1983, did the Department of National Defence announce any grants, contributions or assistance for the Chatham-Newcastle area in New Brunswick and, if so, what grants, contributions or assistance was announced?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: No.


Mr. Angus: Is research being conducted in Canada to verify the safety of nuclear waste storage in rock and, if so (a) at what sites (b) by site, what was the Financial cost for each year that such research was conducted?


Pat Carney: Yes, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has been pursuing a research program since 1978 to assess the concept of disposal of irradiated fuel wastes deep in the crystalline rock of the Canadian Shield.
(a)	Geological research has been undertaken at research areas near the following:
White Lake, near Renfrew, Ontario Chalk River Nuclear Research Centre East Bull Lake, near Elliot Lake, Ontario Atikokan, Ontario
Overflow Bay/Denmark Lake, near Kenora, Ontario Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment,
Pinawa, Manitoba
Underground Research Laboratory, near Whiteshell (Manitoba)
(b)	Because of AECL's cost accounting system, costs of the studies to verify the safety of nuclear waste disposal in rock cannot be isolated from the total expenditures relating to the waste management program. Therefore, only total costs of the program are being shown.
1977-78	$ 2,085,000
1978-79	5,966,000
1979-80	6,909,000
1980-81	11.000,000
1981-82	15.520.000
1982-83	22.710,000
1983-84	26,940,000
April 1, 1984 - October 31, 1984	20.050.000


Mr. Stackhouse: How many Canadians over the age of 21 are single and, of these, how many are (a) 55 to 64 years old (b) 65 years old and older?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Statistics Canada reports:
As of June 1, 1984 there were an estimated 3,061,200 single Canadians over the age of 21 and of these, (a) 154,500 were 55 to 64 years old; (b) 216,800 were 65 years old and older.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, with respect to answers to written questions, it is a normal practice in the House that the Opposition Parties' House Leaders receive a listing of the questions to be answered each day in advance of the Parliamentary Secretary rising. Has that practice been terminated for some reason?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the question right now. Normally the list is distributed to certain people on this side but they have not received it either. I can look into it right away and make sure that the House Leaders get a copy of it.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the House that I have received notice under Standing Order 30 which I should have dealt with before the notices of motions for the production of papers.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to move the following motion: That the House of Commons do adjourn to consider the serious implications of private commitments that may have been made by the Government to representatives of the oil industry, to the effect that specific changes to taxation policy will be introduced in the spring Budget.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent) gave me notice of his application for an emergency debate.
Standing Order 30 provides a procedure for "discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration". What is envisaged by that rule is a sudden emergency of such importance that the national interest calls for its immediate consideration by the House. The Hon. Member in his submission has suggested, and he suggests again in the words he has presented to me, that there may have been a breach of budgetary secrecy and that private commitments may have been made by the Government to representatives of the oil industry. The matter is very speculative and hardly specific, the latter word being a very significant element in the criteria governing a request for an emergency debate. More importantly, perhaps, until we have seen the Budget we can hardly determine whether or not its secrecy has been breached. I
I must therefore rule that the Hon. Member's application does not conform to the requirements of the Standing Order.
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Speaker:: Consideration of an Opposition Motion. I had thought there would be someone rising on this matter.


John Napier Turner: I thought the motion would be read, Sir.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say I noted, as you did no doubt, that there are two motions on the Notice Paper. After proper consultation, and since this is the first Opposition day in this Supply period, we recognize that the Opposition day should belong to the Liberal Party.


EMPLOYMENT FOR YOUNG CANADIANS
John Napier Turner: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government has failed to provide for significant Canadian participation in the International Year of Youth by neglecting to prepare and to put into place comprehensive job training and employment opportunity programs designed to enable young Canadians to find useful and meaningful employment and to contribute to the future of our country.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the International Year of Youth and I have in my hand the document published by the Minister representing Canada's participation in that year. I think it gives us an excellent opportunity to focus in this House on the problems facing the young people of Canada.
The three themes set forth for the International Year are those of participation, development and peace. Those themes, to which young people in this country can subscribe, are thoroughly endorsed by those of us on this side of the House, in this corner of the House. This motion gives us an opportunity this afternoon not only to highlight the problems facing our young people in Canada, but also to invite the Government to find some real solutions.
I agree with the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) when she said in this House on Monday that there is no such thing as monolithic youth. Our youth are diversified. She did not spell that out, but obviously when we speak of our young people we are talking about 15-year-olds on the one hand and couples in their 20's with a child or children on the other. We are talking of those in school and those out of school. We are talking about high school drop-outs and those who have had or are having the opportunity and advantage of a university education. We are talking about our unemployed and those young people who have an opportunity for a job either full-time or part-time. Again, we are talking about those who work on our farms and those who live in the cities, towns and villages of Canada. The one concern which overrides all others, Mr. Speaker, is the question of employment. That is the focus of this particular debate.

January 23, 1985
Supply
The total of our unemployed in Canada now rests at 1.4 million people, or 10.8 per cent of the workforce. In the age group 15 to 24 that percentage rises to 16.7 per cent, or over a half a million young people. We can pinpoint the statistic even more accurately. Thirty-six per cent of all unemployed persons in our country are between the ages of 15 and 24.

This is an incredible tragedy for our young people. It also roses a challenge to our country and to all Canadians, not only a challenge but an obligation to act. All Members of this House, Mr. Speaker, whatever their party affiliation, are daily receiving requests for assistance from young constituents. We must make it possible for our young people to have a normal life in our society, otherwise they may well be doomed to spend the rest of their lives either unemployed or on welfare, with no hope for the future.

We risk having in this country a climate of despair where our young people will lose hope, ambition and their confidence and dignity. The Government has given us fine phrases since it assumed office. It has given us great rhetoric, but its actions speak volumes for its inability to accept unemployment for youth as a major issue. It has done nothing less than savage the youth employment programs since it assumed office. One of its first acts as a government was to eliminate the First Chance program. This was a program to meet a conundrum or a catch-22 situation whereby our young people go to a prospective employer and ask for a job. The employer says: "Fine, young lady, fine, young fellow; your marks are good. You have worked hard. I like your community involvement, but you have no experience". The young person says to the prospective employer: "How, sir, can I have any experience? I have not had a job. It is my first opportunity".
We have this tragedy in our country of half a million young people with no experience and, therefore, with no job. Until they get a job, they cannot have any experience. That was the reason for this First Chance program, to give our young people a first chance by on-the-job training.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The program was announced and implemented. We were seeking the co-operation of the provinces, of labour and of business. The program was endorsed by the Canadian Labour Congress, by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, by the Chambers of Commerce across the country, by the Business Council on National Issues, and by the Canadian Federation of Labour. It addressed the crying need of young people to get their first chance and some experience to qualify them for a job.
What did the Government do, Mr. Speaker? It cancelled the program and substituted a pilot program-I see the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is here- for three or four thousand young people. It was a pilot project only. This program would have filled a gap for those who do
not go on to university to give them some training and experience to get the jobs of the future.
I have looked at the Government's paper which it produced in December, 1984. That paper argues forcefully for the necessity for a school-to-work transition program like First Chance. One turns to page 24 of that document entitled "Training" and reads:
The second strategy would follow from the view that, in a time of spending restraint, federal expenditures should be increasingly shifted to those areas where the need for federal support is clearest-
It goes on:
The result of this view would be to place greater federal emphasis on training related to the school-work transition, training for the unemployed and special groups, and training related to major career shifts.
We agree totally with the Minister's paper. We agree also with what the Minister for Youth said two days ago in this Chamber. Here are her words:
We must attempt to break down the prejudices against young people and encourage our partners in the business and labour communities to make their fields more accessible to them.
We could not agree more. What happened? The Tories axed the very program that would have done that. If the Minister for Employment and the Minister for Youth are worried about the political credit for this program, they should change the name. We could help them find a new one.


An Hon. Member:: That is what they will do.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: We will even relinquish the pride of authorship because it is more important for the young people to have this kind of a program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: There is no more startling proof of the need for training programs like First Chance to ease the school-to-work transition than to look at the unemployment rates of young people who have a grade eight education or less. I should like to refer to the December, 1984 figures from Statistics Canada showing those young people with only grade eight education or less as a percentage of the unemployed in the country, 30.4 per cent; with only a high school education as a percentage of the unemployed, 18.4 per cent; with some post-secondary education, 11.6 per cent of those unemployed; with a university degree, 9.3 per cent of those unemployed. Those rates are unacceptably high in all areas, but they show clearly the need for a long-term commitment by the federal Government to training programs for young people. Those statistics are absolutely convincing. That is a great challenge for the country. There is a great need to have just as strong a commitment to early school-leavers as to traditional support for those who go on to post-secondary education.
January 23, 1985

I should like to give some other examples of the attack by the Government on programs for youth. Last summer, Summer Canada provided 89,000 jobs for youths and students. What did the Government do? It eliminated that program. What about Katimavik? It reduced expenditures for that wonderful initiative by $20 million. Earlier this afternoon my colleague asked a question in the House about there being $5 million less this year for student loans. Where is the commitment of this new Government to the young people of Canada? Where is the promise for them of more jobs and a better future? I submit that, like so many other commitments and like most of the promises made by those on the Government side before they came through the curtains, entered the Chamber and sat on Your Honour's right, it has vanished and no longer exists.
What we see here is a fundamental difference in philosophy. The Progressive Conservative Party wants to rely totally on the private sector. We agree that the private sector, particularly small business, is from where most new jobs will come. However, what about those regions with no strong private sector? How does the 18 year old boy or girl in rural Newfoundland with no high school education find a job? The unemployment rate in that category in Newfoundland is 57.9 per cent. The Government is abandoning its role in direct job creation. [Translation]
In my first speech in the House, Mr. Speaker, I explained the principle of Liberalism. We believe in the private sector. We do. But the Government also has a role to play in the labour market when the private sector cannot or will not absorb the demand for jobs.
That is why we have direct job creation programs. According to another principle of Liberalism, equal access to training is essential to enable people to apply for the jobs available. However, equal access is useless if there are no programs available. That is what the situation will be as a result of the direction being taken by this Government today.

This is why we have chosen to draw this subject to the attention of the House and the country. This is why we in the Liberal Party in this quarter of the House will fight the destructive policies of the Government on training programs. I see the Minister smiles.


Some Hon. Members:: She laughs.


John Napier Turner: There are a half million young people in the country who should see that smile; she is laughing now.
Again the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) talked today about consultation, consensus and review. It is now clear that when the Government talks about review, it is little more than a code word for search and destroy. Young people need some help in starting their own businesses. This is why we created the Young Entrepreneurship Program. What happened to that
Supply
program? It was scrapped. The Government is abdicating its role. How can we expect the private sector to do the job on its own, particularly in the field of training and retraining? The Government is eliminating employment and training programs willy-nilly, and we have not seen any alternatives.
I ask both the Ministers who are sitting here this afternoon: Where is that plan of action? Quite frankly I do not care if they change the names of the programs or find some other epithet for them. We will sit back and let them take some credit, but they should just restore some programs for the younger people in the country who are crying for jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister is now taking credit-don't we all notice it-for the creation of
100.000	jobs since September when he formed the Government. He knows as well as I do-perhaps he does not-that there are time lags in economic policies. Economic policies introduced by any Government take 6, 9, 12 and 18 months sometimes to bear fruit. When he recites those figures, he is just reciting the effects of Liberal policy. Even on the basis of the figures themselves-and one of my colleagues has handed me some numbers from Statistics Canada-in the last three months of the administration of Prime Minister Trudeau the increase in employment was 32,000 people per month. During the three months I had the honour to lead the Government, the figure rose to 33,000 new employed per month. Since the Conservative Government took office, the number has been
26.000	per month. Let us not play games with numbers. It does not help people who do not have jobs. It gives the Prime Minister and the Ministry a little glow of undeserved satisfaction.
With the exception of placing over 100 party faithful in patronage positions after the House rose for Christmas, adding 700 policemen to the Unemployment Insurance Commission and hiring political commissars at 80 grand for each one of the Ministers, all 40 of them-and it is the largest Cabinet in Canadian history-there has not been a single program created by the Government for direct jobs since it took office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blenkarn:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have heard that deep voice before; you know what his former Leader, Mr. Diefenbaker, used to say about voices like that.
Because I think it is relevant, I want to turn briefly to federal Government funding for post-secondary education. At the moment the arrangement is a block funding agreement whereby cash and tax points are transferred to the provinces. I can speak in my capacity as Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra in which the University of British Columbia with its
35.000	students is located. The people of British Columbia- and I am sure the people of other provinces-are concerned, as we discovered during the election campaign, that the moneys transferred by the taxpayers of Canada through their federal
1602

January 23, 1985
Supply
Government to the provinces under post-secondary financing are not being used by most provinces for the purposes for which the funds are transferred. In British Columbia the figure is about 12 per cent. In Nova Scotia and Ontario the figure is somewhat less but still acute. The Government has not told us how it plans to renegotiate the agreement with the provinces to ensure that money destined for post-secondary education is used for post-secondary education, for research, student loans, grants and bursaries, and for a national standard so that our students can move freely and receive the same quality of education from one end of the country to the other.
I ask the Ministry-and perhaps it is the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) one should ask-what the standards will be. How will the Government in renegotiating those agreements ensure the national criteria that moneys destined by the taxpayers of the country are really spent by the provinces for the purpose of post-secondary education? Is the Government planning reductions in these transfers? I would be interested in sitting like a fly on the wall to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson); perhaps we just have to wait for the tape. Who knows? I would be interested in knowing what those conversations are. That will indicate quite clearly this Government's commitment to youth and youth programs because that formula is up for renegotiation this year. Does it agree, for example, with the Bovey report mentioned by one of my colleagues, commissioned by the Province of Ontario, which recommends a doubling of tuition fees for students so that the students themselves pay up to 25 per cent of university administration costs? What is the view of the Government?
We need a full debate in this House, and I hope the Government gives us the opportunity-otherwise we may exercise our rights in an Opposition day in the future-to debate the renegotiation of this transfer formula.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I spoke about it since my return to public life because I am very concerned that the dollars put by the people of this country into post-secondary education are not diverted by the provinces of Canada.
Members on all sides of the House, particularly those in the Liberal caucus who brought this motion before Your Honour and wish to speak this afternoon, and we as a nation, must be prepared to invest in young Canadians. We must be prepared to offer our younger citizens the chance to build better and lead more productive lives. We must replace the despair of a generation with hope. We must not lose a generation in this country for failing to respond to their needs. The meat cleaver approach taken by this Government to existing programs for youth is counter-productive to that renewal approach. Our young people do not want to hear the words "cut, cut, cut".
The Minister of State for Youth said on Monday that youth is one of Canada's untapped resources. We agree. However, I submit that the attitude and actions of this Government to date are an unqualified guarantee that Canada's youth will
remain an untapped resource this year, next year and for many years to come.
I have outlined on behalf of this Party, and I will be followed by my colleagues, areas where urgent action is required now, today. Not next month or next spring, now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Under Standing Order 62(13), there is a 10-minute question or comment period. Are there any questions or comments?


John Napier Turner: Not on this one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Under Standing Order 62(13), each speech is 20 minutes with a 10-minute question and answer period. That is our Standing Order here in the House of Commons.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner). In 1981, a parliamentary committee of this House reported to the House a document entitled "Employment Opportunities for the Eighties". The committee was chaired by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). I was Vice-Chairman. One thing that has disturbed me for the last three years is that so little of the advice which that committee gave to the Government was accepted.
In the context of the debate on the motion today, I would like to read recommendation 135 and ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he supports that recommendation. I think he is aware that if he does, he is essentially supporting the comments of the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) about what this Government intends to do, which is to accept advice which comes from the consultative process. Recommendation 135 reads:
The federal Government should continue summer employment programs for students, but they should be simplified, better designed and better coordinated with educational and training programs. To the greatest extent possible, the summer job program should provide additional on the job training for those who are in high school, community college or university.
That was our recommendation in 1981. The Liberals did not accept it then. Do the Liberals accept it today?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is just reinforcing what I had to" say, and I thank him.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. In the last number of months he has travelled across this country, particularly in western Canada, and has had discussions with individual interest groups from Atlantic Canada, particularly the less fortunate areas of the country. Does he agree that it is incumbent upon the present Government, particularly the national Government, to provide some economic stimulus over and above what it may give to other areas in order to create jobs, not only for our young people but for older workers as well? Will he agree
January 23, 1985

with this sentiment that I am expressing and which has been expressed by other individual Canadians?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, with his usual perception, the Hon. Member has put it with even more eloquence than I could summon. When we talk about training, although the scope of the motion limited it to our young people because of our concentration this afternoon on International Youth Year, training and retraining is just as serious for the men and women of this country who, through no fault of their own, have been displaced by new technology, new machines, computers, the information processes or a robot. I echo the Hon. Member's sentiments very strongly.
There is another part to the Hon. Member's question. It is clear that this new Government has abandoned what was fundamental to previous Liberal administrations, that there should be equality of opportunity in this country, regional equality. There should be the opportunity for every young man and woman in every part of this country to have an equal chance at a job, whether they live in Cape Breton, from which the Hon. Member hails, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Northern Ontario, the Gaspe or Western Canada. That is a principle which we will reaffirm on another day before Your Honour when we are given the opportunity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the Leader of the Opposition had a chance to look at the Fiscal Arrangements Act which was amended last year whereby his predecessor forced six and five on education transfers, despite the serious opposition by this Party and the New Democratic Party. Did he look at the amendment produced in that debate by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) which specifically demanded that the Government annually file an accounting as to how the education transfer for post-secondary education was spent by the provinces to ensure that the transfer by the Government was not being used for other purposes? That amendment was put by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands. Eventually the last Government was forced or embarrassed into accepting it. Has the Leader of the Opposition had a chance to look at those debates?


John Napier Turner: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have. Because of the exigencies of the election campaign, I even had the misfortune and burden of having to read some of the Conservative documents on the subject. I hope the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) will remind the Member for Kingston and the Islands, now the Minister of Employment and Immigration, of the words in that amendment when she and her colleagues come forth to renegotiate those agreements.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) could inform the House whether he was not surprised when, in answer to a question I
Supply
put to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) about summer employment programs, the Minister replied that the new program she is to announce very shortly would certainly be better than the old one for manpower training.
Is it not surprising that a Minister would say her program will be better for manpower training, while at the same time, that same Minister is cutting millions of dollars from on-the-job training programs? I imagine the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is aware that in view of technological change, if our young people are to have jobs, they must be able to get training. I would like to hear the Hon. Member's opinion on the subject.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member. The statements by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) are not only surprising, they are also grotesque, illogical and cruel.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I must admit to you, Sir, that in this House one always takes great satisfaction from hearing the boos coming from Members of the Liberal Party. One realizes then that one is doing something right.
I would like to begin my remarks today by saying that I express my appreciation to the House Leader of the New Democratic Party who because of my schedule made it possible for me to take part in the debate at this time by forgoing his Party's position in the debating order. I wish to thank him for that.
I also want to express my appreciation to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) for having placed the resolution before us today. I would like to tell him that I am grateful for this for two reasons. The first of these is that it reminds the House once again that, as far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, expediency takes preference over addressing the real needs of the nation. Second, it gives me the opportunity once again to outline the steps that we are taking to begin to redress the legacy of despair that was left to the people of this country, including young people and older workers from coast to coast, by the former Government.
The Leader of the Opposition has placed this resolution before us and he did so just a couple of days after I had told him and others in the House that there would be programs announced for summer youth within a very short period of time. Of course, what I noticed about his remarks today was his selective memory. I realize that he has been out of the

January 23, 1985
Supply
House for some period of years and I can understand why he has forgotten that, as Minister of Finance, he did not see fit to come to this House for any discussion of the Fiscal Arrangements Act with the provinces prior to the time they were negotiated. That goes back a long time. I can see why he was unaware of the debate that took place on post-secondary education in this Chamber and the amendment that I moved to look at the accountability question with the provinces. He was out of the Chamber at that time so obviously he was not aware of what happened. However, I fail to understand how his selective memory is applied to events which have taken place since he returned to the Chamber.
The Leader of the Opposition made some reference to the fact that nothing has been said about job creation or training. I am sure he would have listened with interest to the remarks made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his economic statement of last November. At that time the Minister said:
We are committed to providing lasting jobs for all Canadians who want to work. The Government will therefore be committing an additional $1 billion in 1985-86 primarily to help Canadians to acquire new skills and to find jobs in the private and public sectors.
That kind of selective amnesia which causes the Leader of the Opposition to leap over the assignment of $1 billion this year to training, human resource development and the development of jobs in all parts of the country is what I consider to be the utmost in expediency and is just an attempt to mislead the country.
It is on the question of unemployment and training where the Leader of the Opposition goes badly off the track. That is not what the people of Canada want to hear. The people of Canada know that the new Government is tackling a whole host of problems, a legacy of problems that was left to it by the former Government. I would like to say that, as far as human resource development is concerned, this Government will make an impact on the economy with which the former Government would not come to grips or begin to address, particularly in a sector that is our greatest resource, our young people.
The Leader of the Opposition commented on the training paper I tabled in the House of Commons. I am glad that he was able to comment on it today and comment on it so favourably. The last time the subject of my training paper was raised, he had not read it, he had not seen it and I do not think he even knew that it was tabled. He is coming along. He is beginning to come to grips with the subject. I am pleased to see the interest that he is taking in this.
However, in his remarks he said that the way to approach this subject is simply to change the names of the programs. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is not what we intend to do. We are going to take a new approach to this question. I have said that in the Chamber and I will continue to demonstrate it throughout the year and the Government will demonstrate it as it has demonstrated it already over the past months.
The Leader of the Opposition might scoff and belittle the addition of 100,000 new jobs to the economy since last fall. However, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that means that there are 100,000 people who are working at this time who
were not working when the Liberal Government was in office. Every individual Canadian who has the opportunity to work means an improvement is made to the economy. That is what our efforts, consultations and developments of new programs are all about.

The International Year of Youth will give us all an opportunity to rethink the role of young people in our society. Fortunately, Canada's youth is talented, enthusiastic and energetic. Our young people can make a tremendous contribution in all areas of our society.

The ability of our young people to make this contribution depends upon the ability of all Canadians to help them realize their potential and to express themselves in a way that is constructive and beneficial to all of us. Ways must certainly be developed to allow young people to take their rightful place in our society so that they can build productive lives and contribute to the improvement of Canadian life.
During the consultations I have had in the last couple of months I have talked to many young people, and they have told me that they are fed up and disillusioned with the way things have happened in the past. They are looking to us now to develop skills for real, permanent and lasting jobs.
A few months ago, the people of Canada spoke through the electoral process and what they said was that it was time for a change, that it was time for a new and fresh approach to the ills that plague our society. I must say that regardless of how much the Leader of the Opposition wants to encourage us to use the old methods, they simply will not do. When the previous Government was faced with half a million young people out of work, all it could do was to suggest stop-gap measures that did little to relieve the suffering and distress that existed among our young people.
[ Translation]
Since I took up my duties, Mr. Speaker, we have adopted a set of measures to turn the Canadian economy around and enable all Canadians to make a contribution to society through well structured programs.

The motion put before the House today by the Leader of the Opposition is really the kind of approach to the problem that the Canadian people have rejected. It is the idea that if we just go out and throw money at a problem it will go away. How does he expect to solve the problems facing the country when he does not know what they are, and when he has not come to grips with them? How can there be lasting jobs and lasting solutions when that Party's idea of solving issues is to practise confrontational politics?
The Leader of the Opposition talked about First Chance. What he did not talk about was that there was not a single dollar directed to that program.
January 23, 1985


Ms. Copps:: That's a lie.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I have said before that it was an unfunded fantasy. Where were the billion dollars he was talking about? The money was not there.
During the election campaign we told the people of this country that we would again get Canadians working. We have started on that with different programs, some of which are at work at the present time. But we did not use stop-gap measures and we did not make promises of unfunded fantasies. Yes, we have dedicated a billion dollars to job creation and training this year, but we went through the exercise of looking at every program in the expenditures of this Government. We looked at all of them. We reallocated funds. We looked at the priorities which had to be continued. It was a tough exercise to go through, but we ended up with $1 billion dedicated to training, job creation and human resource development in Canada which will provide the jobs, the skills and the security for which Canadians are looking. It will only be a start, because the whole approach which has been taken in the past will have to be turned around. We will not have the short-term, make-work projects that the Liberals liked. We will have the kind of projects that will be ongoing and permanent.
It is because of this, in looking for new approaches and coming up with ways which make skills and training fundamental to our economic development, that I have held consultations across the country with provincial Governments, business, labour, young people, women's groups and native organizations, in order to get their input to the programs which the Government is now considering. I have heard their ideas and I share their concerns. I know what they mean when they say that they do not have opportunities. I hear that all the time. They have not had opportunities in the past. That is what we will address by bringing in a coherent and cohesive policy which will work in all parts of the country and address training and retraining. That means streamlining government programs and eliminating duplications so that public money will be used in the most effective way possible.
The private sector has said: "Yes, we are willing to help in this renewal". We want them to help. The provinces will help. I met with the provinces last week and they indicated that they wanted to co-operate. It is through these consultations that we have discovered there are common themes, concerns and problems which must be addressed by all of us, not only by programs which take in one level of government and ignore the needs and the way in which we can co-operate with people, governments and the private sector in all parts of Canada. We will not use that old unilateralism. That is what the people of Canada rejected on September 4. It is a new spirit of co-operation, confidence and willingness to work together which will make it possible for people to find security.
I noted with interest that the Leader of the Opposition spoke of the need for comprehensive job training and employment opportunity programs. I have to remind him that that is exactly what the previous Government did not give the people
Supply
of Canada. There was nothing comprehensive about the ad hoc approach which was taken.

Mr. Speaker, it has been the concern of this Government to turn the situation in this country around, to put Canadians back to work and to give our young people an opportunity to become successfully integrated in our society.

I know that my colleague, the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne), has been addressing this program and consulting in all parts of the country. She spoke eloquently about it the other day. I commend her for the work she has been doing.

We shall be dealing with these problems during the International Year of Youth, but any real and lasting solutions will be the result of concerted and sustained efforts on the part of all groups in our society.

We have announced the formation of new programs and new approaches to deal with this very critical matter, particularly with regard to young people. The steps which we have taken over the past couple of months will lead, through these consultations, to the First Ministers' conference in February and to the economic conference in March. These meetings will provide an opportunity for leading representatives of all parts of the country to chart the future course for Canada.
We face a difficult challenge. It is one which will test the ingenuity and indeed the determination of Canadians everywhere. We must once again get our economy going. We have started to build confidence. We want to ensure that young people have their opportunity in that confident Canada of the future and not the despair that has been left to them. To that end, we have said that within a very short period of time we will be announcing, with the co-operation of the provinces and the private sector, training and job-creation programs for young people this summer. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition once again, although he is somewhat forgetful, that that has been indicated and it will be carried out. I reassure young people everywhere in Canada that that will take place.
I would also remind him that the way in which this Government is approaching job creation, training and skills development is not on an ad hoc basis. We are not saying that the problem can be solved by six-week jobs or ten-week jobs and then throw people back on to unemployment insurance. What we need is a cohesive and coherent approach to this very difficult problem. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition, who has endorsed my training paper today, that we will see that the goals and objectives stated in that paper are put into effect for young people, displaced workers, and the men and women of the country who want nothing more than to be able to find full and satisfying work. That is our commitment to them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 23, 1985
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments?
The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I must say I was very disappointed with the statement I just heard, made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). I would never have thought that a $40,000 raise could change a person as quickly as it has the Minister. I thought she was one of those Ministers who were compassionate and human and who were there to defend Canadians on middle and low incomes.
I remember when the Minister was in the Opposition: she would ask questions about people in trouble and insist on getting help right away. I remember when the Minister visited my riding with me during the referendum. She was human then, and I would never have thought that an increase in salary would turn the Minister into a defender of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
I do not think Parliament is the appropriate place for putting on an act. It may be for some Members, perhaps, because it is the only thing they can do, but as far as the Minister is concerned, with her personality and her reputation, I cannot understand how she can tell us that the Government has set aside one billion dollars for job creation when she knows perfectly well that the Government has cut four million dollars from programs and projects whose purpose it was to to create jobs. This is money which would otherwise have benefitted Canadian workers.
When the Minister-I am sure her heart is not in it-when the Minister is trying to say that we have the Progressive Conservative Government to thank for the fact that additional jobs have been created, does the Minister also mean it is the Progressive Conservative Government's fault that 1200 jobs are going to be lost at Wabasso and elsewhere? If they want to take credit for the jobs that were created, they will also have to take the blame for the bankruptcies that will occur in this country.
My last question for the Minister .. . This afternoon, I asked specifically if there would be separate Summer Canada budgets for each riding, and the Minister did not answer my question. Does that mean there will be a general budget that will be coordinated, and that disadvantaged ridings like mine and several others will again have to suffer?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be making an announcement in due course on that issue. However, I would say to the Hon. Member that I hardly expect-and I am sure he does not-that I will be making that announcement in the House today in response to his question. We as a government
are on a program which will lead us to much more involvement of young people and the development of the objectives of young people in this country. That is set on a schedule which will lead to the best possible development there can be. I can assure the Hon. Member that those programs will be announced very shortly.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to put this debate into its proper perspective, just briefly. I do not question the statistics quoted by the Hon. Minister, nor do I question the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) in his address to the House. We all see and hear about these tragic numbers of unemployed youth in our ridings every day. The Leader of the Opposition stated that the 100,000 new jobs created since September 4 are a result of lags in economic policy of six months, 12 months and 18 months and, therefore, should be credited to his Party. I would like to ask the Minister if she feels that the unacceptable numbers of unemployed youth of this country should also be credited to the Liberals as a result of the cumulative effect of poor economic policies by successive Liberal Governments during the last many years?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, while there are young people or, for that matter, while there are Canadians unemployed, no one takes any satisfaction. I listened to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say and I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that we can at least hope-and that is what this country is really all about, hope-that the trends of the last few months and the decrease in unemployment among young people continue.
I was looking at the figures and I can say that the unemployment level for young people is down by 56,000 from what it was a year ago. It is down by 29,000 from what it was a month ago. That is a beginning but it is only a beginning. When we look at a total of 500,000, half a million unemployed, we know it is only a beginning. The steps which we are taking, Mr. Speaker, are designed to reduce that number further and continually.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I have just witnessed the most obvious demonstration of incompetence on the part of a Minister of the Crown, the likes of which I have never seen since I first came to the House.
The Minister gave us a flow of words, or rather a deluge of words which unfortunately fell on a desert of ideas. No specific proposal, Mr. Speaker, nothing at all from a Minister and a government that have already been in office since September. Not a thing! Only accusations against the previous government, a Liberal government which at least had gone to the trouble of creating programs such as Summer Canada. The only obvious thing done by the Minister since taking over her portfolio has been to sack this program which was intended to create tens of thousands of jobs for students this coming summer. That is the only thing she has done, Mr. Speaker.
January 23, 1985

As a result, young people are growing ever more desperate, uncertain as they are already to find jobs next summer.
And now the Minister has just wasted 20 minutes of the time of the House to say absolutely nothing. All Canadians are waiting for the announcements she has been promising all along. As a rule, new programs are announced in December.
I have only one question for the Minister: Whom does she think she is deluding by making such a meaningless speech this afternoon?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, once again, I note that a Member of the Liberal Party, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), is rising to make certain statements and I understand what he is doing this afternoon. However, I can tell him that his concern is more than matched by people on this side of the House. I would also like to remind the Hon. Member just in passing that those comments come from an Hon. Member whose constituency allocation under Canada Works was increased by 66 per cent this year.


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, I notice that there are some Hon. Members from British Columbia sitting behind the Minister. I hope they had the good grace to be embarrassed when the Minister talked about creating an extra 100,000 jobs in Canada over the last four months, because since the Minister has taken office there has been a net loss of 25,000 jobs in British Columbia. In September there were 1,226,000 people employed in British Columbia. The December statistics which just came out indicate there are 1,201,000 now employed. There are 25,000 jobs less now than there were then.
Perhaps the Minister might want to attribute that to the attitude of the provincial Government under Bill Bennett, as her Leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), had said that he was taking a step in the right direction. Or perhaps she might wish to take credit for that herself.
1 notice that when the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) was in British Columbia last week meeting with a group of young people, she said that young people cannot expect any special preference. She is quoted in an article in the Vancouver Sun on January 19 as saying:
The situation of young people, while deserving special attention, must be examined in the context of the state of society as a whole... A balanced approach must be taken. We can neither neglect nor show favouritism to any particular group.
Would the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) tell us when she is going to do something for the people of British Columbia? When are we going to see some jobs created in B.C. instead of the loss of jobs?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the programs which will be announced very shortly will indeed apply from coast to coast. However, they will take into consideration the regional needs of the country. In the past there have been programs that have come out of Ottawa which were applied in the same way in all parts of the country. That does not work. The example which he has given of British Columbia is a very relevant one.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the time for questions and comments has expired.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I am not especially pleased to find it necessary to rise in support of the motion before the House. With that peculiar kind of naivety which affects new Members I sincerely believed that, despite the philosophical differences between us, the Government would treat the matter of the International Year for Youth with the urgency which the situation of Canada's youth requires. I expected that youth would have an effective spokesperson and that the Government would present bold initiatives consistent with the year's theme of participation, development and peace. Instead we have seen an ideological pursuit of the means of deficit cutting and confidence building based upon the promise of profits for the largely foreign-owned multinationals. At the same time, with unseemly haste, cuts were applied to programs benefiting youth while painful procrastination has yielded only promises of programs to fill the gaps and which will likely benefit profit enterprise more than youth.
The Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) promised to be a spokesperson for youth. I therefore find it rather peculiar that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) responded on behalf of the Government in this debate rather than the Minister of State for Youth. The Minister of State for Youth did promise to be a spokesperson for youth and to express their concerns. Youth are concerned about peace. Where was she when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) became starry-eyed about star wars? Youth are concerned about the environment. Did the Minister extend a helping hand when the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) lay prone before the assault by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on her Ministry? Youth are concerned about controlling their nation's destiny. Where is she as that destiny is being conceded to the economic priorities of foreign profit enterprises?
Canada's youth want to exercise their creative talents. Where was she when thousands of jobs were taken from the cultural community by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse)? Canada's youth are concerned about the Canadiani-zation of our media. Where was she when the CBC was being savaged and as the NFB was rejected in favour of Walt Disney? Canada's youth are concerned about education. What did she say when Summer Canada was cut and 80,000 tuitionearning jobs were destroyed, student loans were frozen and provinces across the land were shutting the doors of our colleges and universities to those who need help most?
Most important, Canada's youth want jobs that will give them a sense of worth and accomplishment that will enhance our society and make it a symbol for all the world of how prosperity can be achieved by a commitment to social justice and peace. Where is she as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates) looks to the engines of war as a vehicle for economic growth?

January 23, 1985
Supply
The Minister has intimated that we should place emphasis on what is good about Canadian youth. If she means to praise them for their character and accomplishment, I would join her. However, there is so much happening to them that is wrong. It is wrong that 701,000 young people in this country do not have jobs and that some have never worked and perhaps never will. It is wrong that in some regions such as Newfoundland as much as 70 per cent of the youth are unemployed.
I was in the Atlantic provinces the other day. There is so much there which is wrong. It is wrong that city sidewalks should be crowded with prostituted youths. It is wrong that young people steel food and rob garbage cans in order to eat. It is wrong that soup kitchens and flop houses are the meeting places of jobless and alienated youth. It is wrong that 80 per cent of black youth in Halifax have never been employed. Listen to Father McKenna of Halifax and the voices of St. John's and Sydney. Mr. Speaker, It is tragically wrong when joblessness means hopelessness, a sense of worthlessness, anger and alienation from peers, family and society. Mr. Speaker, it is wrong when old men play with weapons that may not let young people grow old.
It is perhaps unfair to focus upon the Minister of State for Youth for the failure of the Government, for the Government must in its entirety share the blame. However, she is the spokesperson and must impress upon the Government the real meaning of participation, development and peace. It is clear that if one examines the priorities set out by the United Nations to fulfil the requirements of the theme of this year, the Liberal motion must be sustained.
I will delineate in part what those program priorities are. One priority is to increase employment opportunities through formulation of effective programs, policies and plans to reduce unemployment and to eliminate discriminatory employment conditions amont youth. Another priority is to ensure access to every level of education and to make available technical and vocational training, particilarly in rural areas. A third priority is to focus on concerns and the role of young women in development. Yet another is to develop and promote intersectoral community-based activities for health education, sanitation, nutrition, family life education, family planning and other welfare services for youth with the aim of encouraging and facilitating self-care. Another priority is to create an appropriate cultural environment which facilitates the participation of youth in development.
We of the New Democratic Party have made positive proposals in respect to youth. In urging the Minister and the Government to fulfil their promise to the young people of Canada we have several recommendations for their consideration and implementation. We recommend the allocation of $1 billion to a youth initiative fund to allow young people to create their own jobs. We recommend an industrial grant levy system to provide training opportunities for young people. We recommend the restoration of the 6 and 5 per cent cuts imposed by the former Government to post-secondary education and additional funding to ensure quality, relevance and access and assured levels of funding in colleges and universities. We recommend a House standing committee on youth in order that all Parties may be involved in determining what the priorities should be with respect to this year. A national advisory council on post-secondary education should also be considered in connection with steps to ensure accessibility to the university system.
More than this and those five regional fora that have been described by the Minister, let her ensure that the youth are listened to and heeded on all the important issues of the day rather than just those affecting youth. They should be listened to on the issues of peace, the environment, our Canadian culture, economic development, equality between the sexes for all people, employment, disarmament, peace and so on.
Finally, let the Government change from bashing the deficit, and therefore the poor, to the creation of jobs as a first priority. The New Democratic Party has been clear on what initiatives should be taken and I commend those initiatives to the Government.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy). As members will know, the Government has eliminated Summer Canada which is a program specifically designed to provide employment primarily to students during the summer months to give them the opportunity to earn so that they may continue their studies in the fall. That may not be such a problem in cities like Toronto or Montreal where the unemployment rate may be very low. However, in single industry communities, of which there are 811 across the country, it is extremely important for that kind of program to be put into effect because they do not have the corporate base on which to employ people.
What is his view with respect to ensuring that there be early notice and announcement of such a program specifically designed for summer employment for young people?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have been quite willing to attribute the most sincere and constructive intention on the part of the Minister of Employment and Immigration with respect to the introduction of summer employment programs for youth. However, in my view, it is the height of irresponsibility to accede to cuts in Summer Canada without having something to replace that program. It has caused a great deal of uncertainty and insecurity among young people and for many it is already too late to make decisions with respect to the coming year.
There is another aspect of Summer Canada which has been discovered in our consultations on the East Coast and elsewhere through communications received in many of our offices. It is that Summer Canada presented an opportunity to provide services to the disabled, for example, as well as others in our society who needed social services of some kind which were provided by young people. Not only have young people been deprived of the opportunity to earn money for tuition and other expenses, but a number of valuable services which are being extended to people in difficulty in our society have been
January 23, 1985

placed in jeopardy and are uncertain. That is also a serious matter.


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) indicated in her remarks that she entered into consultations with a number of groups in the country on employment programs. Of course, we welcome and applaud that action. However, she neglected to mention one group which tends to be forgotten by policy formulators, the disabled who constitute some 10 per cent of the total Canadian population. Within that group there is an unemployment rate of up to 80 per cent, such as the blind population where the unemployment rate is probably in excess of 80 per cent.
Prior to the election the Conservatives indicated to at least one of the major organizations, COPOH, that they would be willing to consider introducing a program of contract compliance within the recommendations that have been made by the House of Commons Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. In his considerations for this debate, has my colleague given any thought at all to programs that would go a long way to helping the disabled become fully participating members in the mainstream of Canadian life?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, we had occasion to talk to representatives of the organizations providing care for and composed of the disabled. I believe the Government should implement compulsory contract compliance which is a measure that group has been seeking. In that respect I would note that on August 14, 1984 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said with respect to whether compulsory contract compliance should be provided: "Yes, along the lines proposed in recommendations 26 and 27 of the 1981 Obstacles Report".


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, could the Hon. Member clarify the extent to which he believes contract compliance should go? Should it go to the smallest of businesses in Canadian society or should it apply only to big business?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I believe that most of those who have an understanding of contract compliance as it has been implemented in other jurisdictions and been considered appropriate for implementation generally accord some limit of numbers of employees below which it would not be compulsory. I think that is something that would have to be taken into account with respect to deliberations and consultations on such legislation when it is brought forward.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr.Speaker, could we have an idea of the NDP policy with respect to those limits?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest 100 employees.


Mr. Speaker:: Further questions or comments? Debate.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to participate in this debate and I believe it is most significant that the Liberal Party has chosen to address the Government's responsibility for youth on this our first Opposition day of the New Year. As this House reopens, we mark the beginning of International Youth Year, a year
Supply
during which attention will be focused on recognizing and meeting the needs of our young people.
The Tories won the confidence of the population and were elected to effect change. They promised our youth a rose garden but to date, all they have delivered is a thorny bush. I have already said on a number of occasions in the House that the situation in which the youth of this country find themselves is tragic.
Many councils, much research and numerous studies have produced reports identifying the specific concerns and have provided the Government with the starting points for legislative action. A two-year in-depth study by Professor Reginald Bibby, Professor of Sociology at the University of Lethbridge, based on a survey of 3,530 teenagers was published in the Ottawa Citizen on January 21. It states that adolescents have pointed out that adults are against them. I find that very sad. They feel that their opinions do not matter and that they are powerless.
Indeed, both the action and the inaction of the present Government seems to substantiate the thought, feelings and claims of our youth. The teenagers are saying that they must manifest their own values and work hard as young people to emerge as whole individuals.
High on the young people's list of interests and concerns are unemployment, friendship circles, cultural events, sexuality, child abuse and crime, nuclear war, drugs and suicide. These reports lead one to believe that the Government should be directing activity toward supporting any projects or proposals aimed at these particularly crucial issues.
Let us look at the economic perspective of what the Government has done to see the situation today. The major area of youth concern has been that of jobs and the opportunity to feel that they can be active participants with a worth-while role and place in society. With no government programs or policies in place, their sense of deception is profound and it can affect them and society fundamentally in the future.
The elimination of the First Chance program by the Conservatives is perhaps the most blatant indication of lack of care and concern toward our young people's needs. This program was the most important public policy set forward by government in the interests of youth since Prime Minister St. Laurent established the responsibility and role of the federal government for support to secondary education. Prior to establishing this First Chance program concept-and as the Conservatives have this incredible penchant for only consultation and no action, perhaps this will be of interest to their Members- major consultations were held with the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Council on National Issues, and the provinces. The reasoning which was discussed was very sound and very important. While the Government was spending billions of dollars, in fact $4 to $5 billion on postsecondary education, these programs were targeted to a small percentage of our youth who continue on to college and university. Very little was being done for the three-quarters of

January 23, 1985
Supply
our youth population who did not continue on to post-secondary education. Very few dollars are being directed toward their preparation and training. This was key. First Chance was a fair initiative by the federal Government to meet their needs. The cut from $100 million to $27 million in the youth training option, the First Chance type of program to serve only three to four thousand youth instead of the anticipated 10,000, and the cut of the $1 billion proposed and committed to serve 100,000 for this next fiscal exercise is inexcusable. It is poor planning and it shows a tremendous lack of caring. This is where the major area of unemployment problems are found. This is where unemployment is highest and this is where we need to put our effort.
Scaling down First Chance to an experimental program, cutting back funding to $27 million when the value and the need for this program is so evident and there is a necessity to go full steam ahead is unacceptable. In addition to the fact that no replacement project of acceptable proportion has been put in place, it surprises me that it was cut. It meets all the criteria for the True Blue. First Chance served the interests of the private sector as well as our youth. The programs were designed and tailored to the training needs of local and regional industry. The employer had his extra costs met as well as having a first crack at trained employees and could then keep permanently those who demonstrated high motivation. The employer serves as a good corporate citizen, the new entrant employee's First Chance salary was paid by the federal government.
The new entrant, during this transition from school to the work force acquires self-confidence, skills, good work habits and a sense of personal worth, in other words, a chance to earn and learn. That is what you cut out, a chance to earn and learn.
This First Chance program was a training program not a job creation one. It received support from the private sector and focused on those in difficulty. It was a co-operative program between government, the private sector, and community groups.

Young people have casual or temporary jobs for short periods which provide no security and force them to make only short-term plans. For our young people, unemployment is more than just statistical economic data; it is a factual reality, and for many of them, it jeopardizes their chances at independence. It means constant insecurity, the absence of autonomy, the impossibility of making long-term personal plans, and even more serious for both, society and young people themselves, it means a loss of value of their theoretical training if it cannot be put in practice soon enough. When there is no great demand for a particular field of training, employers prefer experience and they have a lot of choice. Many workers then enter a vicious circle: no experience means no job, and no job
means no experience. Part-time employment is also a form of hidden unemployment with which many must be satisfied. [English]
The youth unemployment level is almost twice that of the national level. By not taking action now, the Government risks establishing life-long negative attitudes of our young toward society because it is creating, through economic inaction, a generation of frustrated, discouraged, and therefore unproductive citizens. Unemployment of our visible minority youth is over 85 per cent. Handicapped and native youth need special consideration in employment. Employment equity as outlined in the Abella report is worthy of very careful consideration, and then mandatory affirmative action is needed. It is not only needed, but it is a moral imperative.
This is not just short-term disillusionment that we are looking at, it is a tragedy. Our youth need work and appropriate training. These are the key issues.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is a well established fact that the higher education one has, the easier it is to find a job. The situation is this: Of the great many young people who enter our education system, very few graduate with a terminal degree. And even among those graduating with a terminal degree, many cannot find a job. That is why we need special training programs which would ease the transition from the school to the labour market. This challenge could improve the training and maximize job opportunities.
The government, on the one hand, encourages young people to continue their education, while, on the other hand, the Bovey Commission suggests that tuition fees should be increased and student loans have been frozen. Some encouragement!

From the cultural perspective, what do we see? Cuts to the CBC children's unit, cuts to the Canada Council, cuts to the National Film Board, governmental agencies that are supposed to protect and reflect who we are, proud Canadians. "Oh, Canada, we stand on guard for thee" does not seem to be the Tory anthem. I put you on guard. It is our anthem, and we expect you to respect that.
How does the Government feel about the high proportion of non-Canadian programming currently available to our young people? Does it not realize that we as Canadians have ideas and creativity to offer in the area of culture? Should we not be promoting our Canadian identity, instilling a sense of pride in our youth in their distinctiveness? Would the Minister not have a feeling of accomplishment in the various Ministries that have supported policies to encourage Canadian initiatives?
The reduction of more than $75 million from the CBC budget, $3.5 million from the National Film Board, to mention but a few cases, reflects a major prejudice against both the cultural development and the economy of Canada. It is also a negation of the importance of a distinctive Canadian culture and our future generations will suffer the consequences.
January 23, 1985

According to Statistics Canada, 414,000 people are employed in work related to the arts, either within cultural organizations or as individual artistic creators. This level of employment is nearly equivalent to that involved in agricultural production in Canada or to the number employed in the federal civil service.
One of the immediate consequences of these budgetary cut-backs in the cultural industries is the reduction of employment, with concomitant negative effects on the economy, and certainly on our identity. Contrary to this spirit of Canadian direction, which we even see in the Investment Canada Act but do not know how it is defined, the Government remained passive while the CRTC refused consideration of an application by the National Film Board for its Young Canada Television/Telejeunesse Canada. Here was an innovative proposal for French and English service, directly aimed at filling gaps in existing broadcasting. This youth-oriented cable channel offered high Canadian content and comprehensively included programming for children and youths aged 2 to 17. [Translation]
The National Film Board's proposal was not the only one. There were others, but none offered such a comprehensive range of options capable of directly addressing young people and reflecting our cultural and national identity. As a matter of fact, the Canadian content of the other proposals was only 25 per cent. As to the rest, they were programs originating from England or the United States, depicting the American way of life, and not concentrating on issues young Canadians are confronted with. These things which make us different.
With respect to according this private youth-oriented cable channel, the NFB proposition would have included young people. In addition it would have given them the capacity to "help themselves", to use the Minister's phrase, and funding would have come from private industry, lotteries and subscriber fees. Government funding would have been in the form of a loan. The Board was not asking for hand-outs or free money.
The NFB proposal seemed to meet every criterion laid out by the Tory Government when talking of job creation and youth-oriented programming. It relied on private sector input. It directly involved young people. It responded to an identifiable lack in existing programs and addressed social and health issues which have not yet been effectively examined.
However, the National Film Board was caught in a classic catch-22 orchestrated by the CRTC in which the Government neglected to intervene-no approval, no licence; no licence, no authorization to approach the private sector for necessary funds. Yesterday I expressed my displeasure at attacks on the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne). I meant that quite sincerely. She is not the person; it is the role and the mandate which she fills that I attack. I hope she understands that. Today I must ask her once again to define her commitment in her role to our young people.
Supply
In replying to pointed questions from my confreres, the Minister conveniently shifted responsibility to her fellow Ministers. This passing of the buck is unacceptable. The Minister of State for Youth should realize that her colleagues have not been acting in the interests of youth, nor have they intervened on behalf of young people. Youth need her support. They need her advocacy. They want to hear her speaking out loud; they cannot hear her in caucus. Where has her voice been? For example, in terms of the National Film Board proposal, did she contact the CRTC? Did she speak with the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse)? Those are the kinds of things which we are hoping the Minister will be able to accomplish.
An opportunity to focus effectively and innovatively on youth concerns has slipped through the Government's hands. I am sure that is not what she wanted, or I hope it was not what she wanted. Its inaction has bitterly disappointed members of youth councils Canada-wide, as well as young Canadians and their parents.
I could elaborate further on the crucial implication of the Government's inaction with respect to the issue of youth broadcasting policies and programming. What is so astounding and distressing is that this is but one area in a list of many where youth concerns are being neglected, blatantly neglected. The Government has been eager to cut not one but a dozen programs and budgets aimed at helping our youth in the areas of employment, education, training and development. It seems to me that the Government has put dollars before humans. The Government continues to make a mockery of the themes of participation, development and peace.
From the social perspective, what has the Tory Government done? Program after program has been stripped by the Tory Government. Katimavik, for example, is a national youth service aimed at helping in the personal development of its participants and providing opportunities for a greater understanding of the country.

Young Quebeckers were very fond of the Katimavik program. I hope that the Minister is aware of that.

In the past two years, over 8,500 young people have taken part in this exciting venture. They have learned and lived what is Canada. Recently, however, more than $20 million was cut from the Katimavik budget. I ask why. Why cut a program which was specifically geared toward the themes of participation, development and peace?
Sadly, the list goes on. The Young Worker's Exchange Program was also eliminated. This program offered the means by which young Canadians could gain a better understanding of themselves, of society and of other countries. Their discoveries helped them in their development as individuals and in their ability to make further contributions to Canada. We should be looking ahead to the future of our country. We should be training our youth to be proud and to appreciate being Canadian and knowing what is going on in the rest of the world. Youth represent our most precious human asset and

January 23, 1985
Supply
resource. We cannot afford to let them drift aimlessly. We are taking away from them opportunities to develop independence and responsibility. We cannot do that.
Social housing and co-op cuts are of concern. For the growing number of single parent families with low incomes, shelter and a decent place to live with their families is absolutely vital. I wonder if the Minister is aware of the growing suicide rate among young people. I find it very difficult to absorb the statistics and their implications.
[ Translation]
The suicide rate has increased by 400 per cent since the seventies. Even if I quote statistics for Quebec, the situation is similar elsewhere in Canada. Every week, eight young Quebeckers commit suicide and for each one who succeeds, 100 fail. This is serious.
Road accidents are the main cause of those deaths but some experts believe that many drownings, hunting and road accidents are really suicide attempts. Some young Canadians have told us about their fears, their despair and their doubts. Moreover, we are told that if we do not listen to them, the suicide rate will increase.

The questions of sexual exploitation of the young through the use of juveniles in pornography and prostitution and the high incidence of child abuse reported by the Badgley Commission are looming. Where does the Minister of State for Youth stand on these crucial issues? Will she begin to make herself heard, to act as the interlocutor for young people? Will she begin to oppose actions which greatly reduce and threaten opportunity for our young people? Will she appear at any hearings which involve the concerns of our young people?
The Minister of State for Youth stated yesterday that she would soon be putting into place an information and communication committee to listen to the concerns of young people. I wonder why, almost one month after the beginning of International Year of Youth and five months after the beginning of this Government, this committee was not in place at the outset of 1985. Moreover, I wonder why programs were cut before this committee was consulted. Existing programs should have at least been left in place until new Tory initiatives are ready to go. No wonder the youth of this country are discouraged and disoriented. The Government seems to be working in reverse-cut then consult, act and pick up the pieces later.
Can the Minister give the House and, more important, the youth of the country, some reassurance and a commitment on her part to become a true advocate? This winter has been particularly bitter for young Canadians. It saddens me to realize that it will only get colder if the Tory Government does not start to act in their interests, in the interests of all Canadian families.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt debate on a allotted day, but I thought I would take this occasion to announce House business after the consultations just held with Opposition House Leaders.
Very quickly I want to inform the House that the business for tomorrow will be a continuation of the debate of on Investment Canada, followed by Bill C-20 and the Small Business Loans Act in that order, in the event the Investment Canada Bill is given second reading and goes on to committee.
The other item is that I want to designate Friday as the second allotted day of this trimester. Also, there have been consultations with respect to a draft order. If, Mr. Speaker, you seek unanimous consent of the House, I think you will find it receptive to receiving and passing the following draft order:
For the purposes of Standing Order 2, the first sitting day in 1985 shall be deemed to have been January 14, 1985.
That is for the purpose of regularizing the calendar which has been published with respect to the days of sitting for this trimester to Easter.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Government House Leader. Is there unanimous consent for its introduction?


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Government House Leader referred to a small business Bill. I have not seen it on the Order Paper. I was just wondering if he could tell us just where it is.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it was introduced and given first reading today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of the draft order?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the draft order as read carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner, Vancouver Quadra:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government has failed to provide for significant Canadian participation in the International Year of Youth by neglecting to prepare and to put into place comprehensive job training and employment opportunity programs designed to enable young Canadians to find useful and meaningful employment and to contribute to the future of our country.
January 23, 1985
Mr. Speaker:: The House will now revert to the 10 minute question and answer period.


Mr. Binns:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) spoke, he stated that 36 per cent of all unemployed are between the ages 18 and 24. He went on to say that a time lag of six, twelve and even eighteen months exists before government policy decisions begin to show up. Does the Hon. Member agree with her Leader that the current high levels of youth unemployment are the disastrous results of Liberal Government policies?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder if the Member recognizes that he lives in a very privileged country which had policies in place that supported an incredible international recession. This international recession was not suffered to the same degree in Canada as it was in the rest of the world because we had a wonderful security net in place. The fact that that safety net may have cost some money and increased the deficit is not what requires extra concern at this particular moment. What is important is that our youth and their families were supported.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member on her speech. I am glad she mentioned the hiring criteria of the federal Government. I want to observe for the benefit of the House that the problem is more serious this year than ever before because this Government has done away with the direct employment programs for youth like Environment 2000. There is no such program. It has taken the hiring criteria left over from the federal-provincial agreement on need.
I want to mention briefly to the House the case of a widow living at home on a pension from CN of $350 a month. She has two sons aged 18 and 19 who are at home. They have finished school and cannot find work. She has a daughter who came out of trade school with a bookkeeping course. There is a federal job creation program in that community, but not one of them qualified for. a referral under a job creation program. Welfare does not pay for children after they reach the age of 18. Even though the daughter was trained in the trade school and the two sons are capable of working, not one of them qualified for a referral under a job creation program in that community.
The community wants to hire somebody from that family, but it is not allowed to do so. Why? Because the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) signed the hiring regulations which state that first they have to take someone who is on social assistance. The social assistance may be higher than what could be made on the program because Canada Works pays only $200 a week. They then have to take people on UIC even though somebody may be getting the maximum $255 a week on UIC. Forcing that person to go to work for $200 a week will take food out of the mouths of his children.
I have a question to ask. Does the Hon. Member not feel that this is absolute, plain discrimination against the youth of
Supply
this country and against unemployed mothers who are seeking work? Is it not disgraceful that the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) has not been successful in convincing the Minister of Employment and Immigration to change the hiring criteria after cutting off the direct job creation programs for youth?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member should be clear that the 10 minute period is for both questions and comments. It does not have to be a question, but it does have to be brief.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could have stated it as clearly and been as precise as my colleague. I do think it is a disgrace. I sincerely hope that the blarney that we have been listening to from the Minister will be the last time we hear such a litany. Perhaps in her next approach in this House she will present good, solid evidence that she has a big heart and is going to present decent programs.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I will begin with a brief comment. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) mentioned the suicide statics, which are of concern to all of us.
I brought those statistics to the attention of her predecessor in 1980 in the form of a prediction of a logical consequence of the policy initiatives being put in place at that time, including the National Energy Program and other policy initiatives. I brought that to the attention of the former Prime Minister. I said that if those policies were followed, suicide rates would go up. It gives me no pleasure to have her confirm that that advice was not taken and that the consequences did follow.
The Hon. Member raised the matter of employment in the cultural industries and brought to the attention of the House that over 400,000 people are currently employed in those industries. Having come to the House with that kind of figure, I would assume that she has done her homework. Can she enlighten the House as to what portion of those jobs are totally government supported and what portion are private sector supported?
Can she also indicate how many of those jobs disappeared in the last four years because of economic policy which made it impossible for people to buy tickets, books or records? Is it not clear to her that the 1983-84 report of Employment and Immigration showed that 37,200 jobs had been created by all of these marvellous programs for the youth of this country, person years of employment, and that this new Government in four months has created over 50,000 jobs for young people? Will she admit that maybe we are on the right track and that it is better for the cultural industries and better for youth to follow the course that this Government was elected to follow?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I have two observations to make. First, if the Hon. Members wants all of those statistics, they are available from Statistics Canada. If he does not have the address, I will forward it to him. Second, I would be thrilled to announce and to accept the Hon. Member's observations if I had heard any kind of program being announced across the floor.

January 23, 1985
Supply


Mr. de Jong:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief comment. I have listened to the present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and previous Ministers of Employment and Immigration. To tell you the truth, there is not much difference. I hear the same sort of promises, studies, how things will get better and how we are following the right economic course. Of course, nothing got any better for young people in the last number of years.
To hear the Liberals now blame it all on the Tories who have been in power for four months is somewhat hypocritical. They have to accept a fair amount of the blame for the state in which young people find themselves today.
Liberals quote figures about suicides among young people. A year and a half ago I rose in this House to make a statement about a young artist in my constituency who had been on unemployment insurance. Attempting to do something about his state, he started a small company which made posters so that young people learning to play the guitar could look at a poster rather than a book. The unemployment insurance scheme decreed that he was self-employed and cut off all benefits. The man was without any resources and ended up killing himself. That was laid on the doorstep of the Liberal regime and all of their little niggly type of regulations they had introduced into the UIC scheme.
The Conservatives came to power on promises of reform and new hope for young people. Young people in this country are thoroughly disappointed because there is no new hope from this bunch. In fact, it is just a continuation. It is blaming the victim, blaming the young, and blaming the unemployed. They are the ones who are shouldering all of the hardships in this country.


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday and again today, a number of Members of the Official Opposition, showed, more or less appropriately, their affinity for culture and drama. I know one role that would fit them like a glove, and that is the role of Tartuffe, the impostor.
How can a Party that has dashed the hopes and aspirations of an entire generation of young Canadians tell us what to do? We have been in power for only four months, while they held the reins for almost 22 years without interruption. They would have us believe that they would have been able to achieve in four months what they were unable to accomplish in 22 years. Who knows-hindsight is a wonderful thing.
The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) said that between 16 and 37 per cent of our young people are unemployed, and I say that is an immediate consequence of her Party's policies when it was in power. These policies have led to an alarming increase in the unemployment rate among
the young. Now the Liberals have the unmitigated gall to hold us responsible for this situation today.
In June 1984, the number of young Canadians who had jobs dropped by 278,000 compared to March 1980, which is when the Liberals came back to power. Between 1980 and 1983, the youth unemployment rate rose from 13.2 to 19.9 per cent in the country as a whole. The number of young people without full-time employment rose by 406,000 between 1980 and 1983. In 1983, the number of young people with jobs dropped by 97,000 in Quebec and 80,000 in Ontario compared to 1980. And now we are being accused of failing to correct the situation in four months!
The Liberal Government's training programs were inadequate and were not set up in terms of labour market requirements.
Programs designed specifically to alleviate youth unemployment were short-term projects only and were not sufficiently geared to the training or job experience already acquired by participants. Although the situation was serious, the Liberals made very few attempts to coordinate their activities with those of the provinces, municipalities and the private sector or to make their programs compatible with long-term economic development programs in various regions.
I said the other day in the House that as we embark full of hope on this International Year of Youth, we must bear in mind that our aim is not to find some magic formula. Neither should it be to encourage hypocrisy. With nearly one-half million unemployed young people on its conscience, the Official Opposition wants to set itself up as an arbiter ... Let us not be obscene!
What kind of credibility can we assign to the Liberal Party's recriminations and tales of woe? What kind of credibility does a political party deserve which sees Canadian youth as shiftless, suicidal, alcoholic, addicted to drugs and delinquent? This deliberately pessimistic view is an insult to our young people and to anyone's intelligence. Fortunately, most young Canadians are sound in mind and in body. They are diligent and active, with a thirst, yes, but a thirst for life and for ideals.
According to the results of a poll published this week to which the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) was referring earlier, young Canadians care most about friendship. Is it friendship to say that they are just a bunch of failures? Friendship means helping people to stand on their two feet.
I certainly do not mean that this Government intends to leave disadvantaged youth to its own devices, but I think it is rather far-fetched to see this group as representative of Canadian youth, as a whole.
So if you please, stop shedding those crocodile tears, as I asked you earlier this week. Stop using youth for political gains. I ask you once more, please! The interests of the young are at stake.
As Jean-Paul Sartre once said: "The essential thing is not what has been done with Man, but what Man does with what
January 23, 1985

has been done with him." In a political environment, reflecting on that thought can be most comforting. It is indeed when, for instance, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) gives me but two alternatives: either, as she says, I do not understand the nature of my mandate, or my colleagues do not listen to me. I put it to the Hon. Member that I have a very clear notion of what my mandate is, and I am in a better position than she is to assess the impact I have on my colleagues.
For the past four months, the Government to which I am privileged to belong, has been working actively. And soon, very soon my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) will show how unfair such criticism by the Opposition is with respect to youth training and employment. What is to be announced will have nothing in common with the previous Government's huge but unrealistic, if not unworkable, training program. It would take a serious dose of bad faith to shed tears over programs that have been altered or simply cancelled because they were failures, without waiting for the new programs to be announced very soon.
Also, I am working in close co-operation with my colleagues whose responsibilities partly concern our youth. However, it would be premature to report on our exchanges here. All the areas, all the issues referred to by my counterparts from the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party are part of our concerns. Rome was not built in one day.
Contrary to what the Opposition is suggesting, the International Youth Year in Canada was launched under the best of auspices.
When travelling across our great country, I have been able to see that the International Youth Year everywhere is being met with the same enthusiasm. It is being supported equally by the young, the various levels of Government, the business community, labour and non-governmental organizations.
Last Monday, the Minister of Employment and Immigration pointed out to you, Mr. Speaker, and she has repeated it today, that Liberal Members stubbornly refuse to see anything positive in this Government's doings. Given such blindness, I think it is appropriate to say that, like my Cabinet colleagues and contrary to the practices of the previous government, I had very fruitful discussions with my provincial counterparts in November and December. Indeed, we have agreed to keep in touch and the same thing goes for our other social partners.
Having stressed that International Youth Year is more than a program and a series of projects, having emphasized that it will be a year to reflect and take action, I should like to explain the program envisaged by the Canadian government to mark the occasion.
Before mentioning specific projects already approved and to show our openmindedness, let me define the context within which we in the government make such grants.
First of all, we want to encourage young people to carry out various projects which will open their mind to their personal and collective situation, and to give us their advice on the best way to find long-term solutions to their problems.
Supply
We do not think that young people can do everything themselves. That is why I decided that eligibility criteria for grants should include a salary or a fee which, among other things, will make it possible for young applicants to use the services of advisers who will help them draft their bids and administer their projects. That will give them an opportunity to benefit from the experience of their elders.
We do not intend to reject any worthwhile project sponsored by young people simply because it would require financing to see it through. I hasten to point out that I do not claim exclusive rights over that initiative since it was recommended to me by groups of young people whose projects had been cavalierly turned down by the previous administration.
Unlike our predecessors, we in this government will go out of our way to ensure that young people have ready access to any program offered to them. Instead of saying simply the program is there, just use it, we tell them how they should proceed to take full advantage of it.
The way we operate is to personalize programs for young people so that they will know where they stand without worrying about red tape.
To promote the implementation of special projects undertaken by or for young people through voluntary groups and organizations, we have allocated over $1 million in grants in recent months.
Let me give a few examples of the subsidies we have granted.
To the National YMCA Council, we have allocated $94,500 to organize, for young people between the ages of 18 and 25, a leadership development program which will include local, national and international studies.
To the organizing committee of the 32th World Congress of the International Federation of Youth and Music, we have granted $50,000 to finance a series of seven regional concerts to be held throughout the country in which will take part 500 young musicians of the 37 member countries of the Federation.
To the Societe de recherche en orientation humaine Inc., we have granted $20,000 to organize an international seminar in Montreal.
To the Last Touch Regional Youth Council Inc., we have allocated $75,000 for a national conference organized by young people from Saskatchewan to be held in Fort San next August.
The Conference on Young People and the Law has also received a grant to bring together at an international conference young lawyers and para-legal workers as well as law students. The conference will be held in Montreal in 1985.
A subsidy will help a youth committee to organize the winter games for native youths to be held in Winnipeg during the week beginning February 17. The games are open to all native youths in Manitoba and will include various sports.

January 23, 1985
Supply
An amount of $5,000 has been allocated to the Canadian Ecumennical Youth Coalition to organize a national consultation of young people within the framework of the triennial assembly of the Canadian Council of Churches to be held in Halifax. Its purpose will be to promote increased participation by young people in the decision-making process of Churches.
These are but a few examples. We are not giving our grants in an haphazard fashion, but on the contrary for a precise objective: obtaining from our young people their views on issues which are important to them, their current development and future orientation.
I have stated many times that our action is based on consultation and concertation. The previous government might claim that so was its own action. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something. During my initial round of consultations which I held with my provincial counterparts responsible for the International Year of Youth, three of them emphasized that they had had more contacts over the past three months with federal ministers about programs of common interest than during the last five years of the Liberal administration. Imagine that!
This is not much, really, compared with the problems and difficulties of all kinds that members of the Official Opposition left at our door on September 4. So, whatever our efforts, they will certainly be more positive that those of the previous government. Which does not mean that we will be satisfied with doing the minimum, or that we will do just about anything.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments?


Douglas Jung: Mr. Speaker, young people are very concerned about the quality of university education. I agree with the Minister wholeheartedly that many of the problems which young people face certainly did not originate in the last four months. Those problems have originated because of past policies of former Liberal Governments.
One of their sins was the radical change in the cost-sharing arrangements between the provinces and the federal Government respecting higher education. I felt-and certainly my colleagues in the NDP felt-that transferring money in an unrestricted way contributed to the decrease in funding by the provinces toward higher education. Today we are finding that many students across the country are being turned away because facilities, teaching staff and classroom space are inadequate. More and more universities are restricting the numbers of students who are able to enter the system, either by increasing the academic standards or by increasing tuition. The latter is the most repugnant, because it means that only the sons and daughters from well-to-do families will be able to afford education, and the universality of the higher education system will soon erode.
I wonder if the Minister would care to comment on the very important area of the financing of higher education, and
indicate whether she has made suggestions to her Cabinet colleagues, particularly the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) who is responsible for funding and federal contributions to the provinces. In addition, could she indicate if she has met with the National Union of Students to hear their concerns about funding for higher education?


Andrée  Champagne: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned about that problem. We have held discussions with the Secretary of State, and the problem is on the agenda for our next meeting with the Secretary of State. He has just returned from a meeting with the provinces in which this was the main subject of conversation. We have not yet had the time for a report, but I expect it very soon. I am sure the Minister will be glad to answer that question more precisely in a few days.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have had some consultations with officials of the Minister's Department and have concluded that one of the priorities for spending in the coming year relates to the funding of cultural activities for young people, in particular those who might become performing artists in groups like Jeunesse Musicale. An I correct in drawing the conclusion that one of the priorities for spending in the International Year for Youth is for cultural organizations?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member would be mistaken in saying that it is a priority, even though it might be within my heart to want to make it a priority. I think that to help the Jeunesse Musicale in the middle of an international conference is very important, but I have enumerated quite a number of the grants, some of which are related to the cultural field. There is not really one sector which is placed over another. It depends on the projects which are presented. The recommendations which come from the Department depend on the project itself, and not necessarily on the field to which it relates.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne). She spoke about young people who are excellent and exemplary citizens who will undoubtedly be more effective than we are, but the Minister should admit just the same that there is also a large number of young people in trouble.
I think that all members of all parties in this House would rather have no unemployment at all. We all agree on that.
However, should we not be a little more realistic and humane? Being from Quebec as myself, do you not think that there are thousands of young Quebecers who are experiencing discrimination as far as social welfare is concerned? Young people receive only $150 a month. Until the private sector is reorganized and a full employment policy is implemented, would it not be advisable, rather than let them starve, to provide short-term projects to enable them to work or get some
January 23, 1985

new training? I feel that there is an element of compassion in those projects.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne). When she met her provincial counterparts, did she ask the minister responsible in Quebec to alter his discriminatory policy with respect to young Quebeckers, whose social welfare benefits are reduced by 50 per cent solely because they are under 30 years of age?


Andrée  Champagne: Of course, Mr. Speaker, like my hon. colleague I would be most happy if we could completely stamp out unemployment, discard this word once and for all in Canada. But this will not happen overnight, and as was said earlier, we have met with problems. He has referred to the short-term, to retraining. We have seen how the Liberal Government's short-term policies worked out. As a result, the situation has but worsened. This is why this Government, as the Minister so aptly suggested earlier, would like to substitute to the short term something that has a better chance of enduring. As regards retraining, please be a little patient. The Minister told you earlier that she would be announcing whatever plans she has, and 1 am not here to speak for her.
You were wondering whether I was aware that many people have trouble finding jobs and do not qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. I could tell you about the situation of people you may not even be aware of yourself. I could tell you about the artists, since you are constantly bringing that up, who can never qualify for those benefits. I could tell you about film technicians who never have an opportunity to work 20 weeks in a row. What have you ever done about that?
I remember very well representations that were made to the previous Government on that matter. They were laughed away. I would therefore think that before blaming me after four months, one should look further back and not assume that I am unaware of the issues.
Concerning the problems you referred to with respect to the Quebec Minister, I would point out to you that the Minister whom I have met the most frequently is the one who is responsible for the International Youth Year and President of the Treasury Board. He is not responsible for the problems you referred to.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I find some of the comments made by the Minister to be a bit grandiose and hypocritical in the sense that she seems to be operating in a vacuum. May I forewarn her and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) that there are other Ministries of the Government which have a direct effect on the creation of jobs in Canada. Far be it for me, Mr. Speaker, to remind the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration of one such agency, namely the CBC, and the cut-backs which have occurred there, with the accompanying loss of jobs not only for
Supply
employees, technicians and artists, but for other individuals who have had contract work with the CBC. Therefore, I cannot understand the Minister's thinking. Can the Minister confirm to the House that, in terms of developing an over-all employment strategy, she is setting out a special employment strategy for youth in this country? Can she confirm to the House whether, in fact she is the lead Minister of this Government in setting forth a strategy for youth employment in Canada?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, in this Government, Sir, there is a Minister of Employment. This Minister is not myself. I am the spokesperson for youth. The Minister and I have a very good relationship and, as she said earlier today, the youth of this country will be looked after very well in very comprehensive new programs which she will announce very shortly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated. The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with this opportunity to take part in the debate today, first of all as the former Minister of State for Youth and second, because my Leader has proposed a motion today to draw the attention of the House to that very important subject, our young people. This issue was raised in the House thanks to the Official Opposition. Since Parliament reconvened and in fact since we started a new session, this Government has failed to take any time in the House to propose measures that will benefit our youth. It was therefore up to the Opposition to raise this issue and to discuss the concerns and problems of young Canadians. Canada's future and prosperity is in the hands of our young people, and the federal Government therefore has a duty to ensure that young Canadians are equipped to undertake the task of sustaining Canada's growth.
The creation of a special portfolio for youth almost a year ago was the Liberal Government's way of showing that it was aware of the problems besetting Canada's youth and that it would give young people its special attention.
1 was listening to the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) criticize the former Government. I would say she has us to thank for the youth portfolio and her seat in Cabinet, since the portfolio was created by the Liberal Government.
But I should like to examine now what has become of the portfolio of the Minister of State for Youth under this Progressive Conservative government. When the debate was opened earlier this afternoon, we saw the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. MacDonald) "shove aside" the Minister of State for Youth, make her remarks and give the news she could. The Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) took a back-seat to her, and the government has demonstrated

January 23, 1985
Supply
through its actions that she is just a junior minister not only in the House, but in all government decisions.
Under the Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Youth never played second fiddle to his colleagues. He had his own responsibilities. This Minister has allowed the Ministry of State for Youth to become the puppet of Employment and Immigration. Now, she has no choice but to kowtow to the Minister of Employment and Immigration to exert some influence with regard to youth employment policies. She has given up on the Student Exchange Program. Under Liberal governments, the Minister of State for Youth was responsible for Student Exchange Programs. Again, this Minister must bow and scrape to her colleagues.
As far as employment programs are concerned, she calmly accepted the cancellation of Summer Canada. She let this program be completely destroyed, Mr. Speaker. Now, the Minister of State for Youth must make empty speeches such as the one we heard today. I am not blaming the Minister, but I do blame her Government, which is leaving her with the simple job of taking care of public relations for the International Youth Year. She has no other responsibility or power in the Government.
This shows how low a priority the new Progressive Conservative Government is giving to the situation of young people.
I want to remind the Minister that her role is to speak on behalf of young people in Cabinet, not the opposite, Mr. Speaker. What she is doing today is to sing the praises of her Government without worrying about the problems of young people. In my opinion, this is not consistent with the mandate she received as Minister of State for Youth. She has now become a spokesperson for big business and the banking friends of the Progressive Conservative Party, and the only issue which does not concern her is the situation of young people. Yet, her mandate is quite clear. It is not to be the Government public relations officer for young people, but rather to be the soul and conscience of the Government where young people are concerned.
Mr. Speaker, what has the Minister done in the last five months? What has she announced? She has spoken only of consultations, and conference after circumference as one of your political heroes would have said. I think that the only speech I heard the Minister of State for Youth make which was reported in the newspapers is the one where she said: "As Minister of State for Youth, I shall take care of those who are doing well." However, I wish to remind the Minister that those who are doing well do not need her. Those who need the support of a politician like herself are those who are having problems in our society.
I wish the Minister of State for Youth would stop turning a blind eye to those of our young people who are not as successful and that she would realize that as the Minister, she is
politically and socially responsible for providing equal opportunities for all elements of our society.
Since proportionally, more young Canadians are unemployed than any other group of Canadians, action is necessary to correct this situation.
We have been treated to a flood of words from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), but she has yet to make an announcement today. She says she will be making one soon, and it is high time, Mr. Speaker, because we are nearing the end of January. Usually, students could count on programs being announced before the holidays so they could prepare projects and proposals. Companies accustomed to hiring students would know about the programs and be able to plan their activities for the summer, while now, it seems- yes, she said very shortly she would be announcing programs, but her announcement will come at a time when students are starting to prepare for their exams. And, of course, there is the approval process and the usual red tape. When will students be sure they will have a summer job, Mr. Speaker? That is what worries us.
I realize they want to review and rename and repaint and do everything they can to remove any trace of Liberal initiatives, Mr. Speaker. However, they should realize that the welfare of our young people is more important than political gain. They should understand that the interests of Canadian youth, of students who will be leaving school in May and June, are more important that the interests of Progressive Conservative flagwavers.
During our term as a government, and my own brief term as Minister of State for Youth, we took some important measures and it did not take five months. We took important measures to respond to the valid concerns of young Canadians.
The First Chance program, designed to provide young people with specialized training, was to have been a highly original and effective way of dealing with the Catch 22: 'No experience, no job-No job, no experience1, facing those entering the labour market for the first time.
Mr. Speaker, this was a $100 million program. The Government took this from under the nose of the Minister of State for Youth, and she saw nothing!
There was a commitment of $1 billion for the next fiscal year, but once again, the Minister of State for Youth said nothing and let this amount pass her by. She has let the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) look after the money in her envelope. I could bet anything, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Employment and Immigration will not use this billion dollars only for young people. Once more, young people will be taken for granted; their concerns will be forgotten, and once again, their unemployment rate will be higher and their hardships worse than those of other Canadians. However, the Minister of State for Youth says that she is taking care of those who are doing well.
January 23, 1985

The proposed young businessmen program, Mr. Speaker, was aimed at meeting the funding needs of small businesses to promote job creation. No one can say that it goes against Conservative principles to help businesses get a start so that jobs will be created. Yet, even this program was axed. But what do they intend to do? Is everything which was faintly Liberal to be eliminated? Are political games going to be played on the backs of young people who want to set up a small business? Will they be left to fend for themselves as they have during the last four months?
Mr. Speaker, you must, like me, have the impression that this Government is trying to save money on the backs of those who need help the most. We know that the Environment 2000 Program-and we know to what extent the Minister of Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) has also been victimized by the cutbacks-was going to create jobs this winter. This program has also been axed.
Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves what clout the Minister of State for Youth really has. Is she being used only to make speeches here and there and to offer a few small subsidies? One would have thought we were at a bingo game when she was announcing grants of $5,000 here and $2,000 there!
Mr. Speaker, this is not what will solve the problems of young Canadians now that we have a new government and the same is true of election promises.
I recall that, during the election campaign, they made nothing but promises, promises, and more promises. And I can still remember that, at the Granby Cegep, the Conservative Party made strong commitments about jobs for young people, among other things. Well, now that they have taken over, their only commitment is to slash into every youth-oriented program, Mr. Speaker. I think that the people, particularly young people, are beginning to see the light and will start applying strong pressure on Members opposite to force them to rise and tell the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) to get the job done.
Mr. Speaker, International Youth Year will give us many opportunities to raise the issue of youth over the next few months. Let us just see how that year was inaugurated and what kind of priority this government gives to International Youth Year. For starters, the Minister of State said during the holiday season that she would be making a major statement after the House had resumed. She gets here with a nice little prepared speech, but the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) butts in and says: If you do not mind, I have a more important statement to make. And the Secretary of State goes on to express his views on the star war, something which young people are dead set against. Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Youth was brushed aside, without getting any press coverage, and that is what she calls a great launching to make the people aware of International Youth Year. But worse, when the Minister of State for Youth took the floor, all the members on that side got up and left. Mr. Speaker, if that is how they show that the problem of
Supply
youth is a priority for them and that International Youth Year will be a meaningful event, in my opinion, it is a very poor performance.
Therefore, it is all very well indeed to have a slogan, to have a grant program, but what we should know is what the Minister announced. She promised some changes, but on reading her speech, all I found was rehashed. She promised grants; the program existed already. The measures to be taken jointly with departments and other federal agencies have already been taken, Mr. Speaker. The program Peace and Development is nothing new. The same goes for the Information and Communication Program. As for the advisory committee, there was one already. The Conservatives preach participation and say that young people should be consulted and involved in the decisions affecting them. The Minister has announced a grant program and various activities that will take place during International Youth Year and yet, her advisory committee has yet to be appointed, Mr. Speaker. Therefore the young must share in the development of whatever concerns them, of the program affecting them, but they are not appointed, Mr. Speaker.
Of course, I am sure that in her travels she has not as yet met all the young Conservatives and that she must wait for the striking committee to give its blessing, Mr. Speaker. But the problem is that all the decisions have been made before an advisory committee has been established. Advising on what, Mr. Speaker? Once more, this is using young Canadians as rubber stamps. The decision have been taken. Hopefully, the young people who are going to sit on that rubber stamp committee will be able to tell the Minister: 'No, we will not rubber-stamp decisions you have already taken.'
Mr. Speaker, if the International Youth Year is going to be more than a slogan, its three themes will have to be considered in a Canadian context. Those themes are: participation, development and peace. The concepts of youth participation and development are of course closely linked. Unfortunately, despite all the attention which the International Youth Year will focus on the concerns of the young, the current situation does not lend itself to youth participation. While more than 500,000 of our young are unemployed, as pointed out by our leader, the prospects for more active involvement of the young in our society are slight indeed. Therefore, if the theme of participation is taken into consideration, we should make sure that we have the means to foster youth participation in our society. And what they want more than anything else, as far as participation is concerned, is to take part in the labour market. Therefore, given the dullness of the speech we just heard, nothing in the remarks of the Minister will enable our youth to have greater access to the labour market. The growth and development of young Canadians depend largely on the training process, self-sufficiency and the dignity of a well-paid job.

January 23, 1985
Supply
Having said that, rather than implementing badly needed training and job creating programs at a time when unemployment could hardly be worse among the young, the new Conservative Government has decided to put an end to the First Opportunity Program which had been very well received, without proposing anything else instead.
As regards participation and development, there are also problems in many other areas. We can, among other things, consider the post-secondary education system. Again, the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) will evade the issue, saying that it falls under the Secretary of State's responsability. But she must admit that even if education comes under provincial jurisdiction, the Federal Government has a very important role to play towards the Established Programs Act. Canadian universities and colleges are underfinanced, which has a negative impact on the quality of our education system and is characterized by drop-outs.
In addition, if she has consulted young people and listened to them, she has certainly heard some evidence about the financial problems of our universities, access to education problems, and I am convinced that the representations she heard should encourage the government to make a renewed effort to help our colleges and universities.
Even worse, she may be aware of those problems but government action does nothing to solve them. In the few months that they have been in power, the Conservatives have already worsened this situation by reducing by $5 million its contribution to the Student Loans Program and by doing away with the important Summer Employment Program, thus denying many other students the possibility of paying for ever-increasing registration costs.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with a theme like "participation", opportunities for participation and youth development are getting scarcer everyday.
Certainly, I could also speak about the issue of peace. Given the nuclear arms race in which both superpowers are engaged, the issue of peace and global stability is very important in the minds of all Canadians, but it particularly haunts young people. Unfortunately, the government of Canada does not seem to recognize nor respect the gallant and legal efforts made by Canadians to bring back peace in the world.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates) was quoted in The Toronto Star of December 25 as saying that "The initiatives taken by pacifists do not deserve so much attention". Mr. Speaker, we know that a great number of young people are members of peace movements. The Minister of National Defence insults them publicly. And what happens? The Minister of State for Youth should have taken him to task for it but she did not say a word.
Mr. Speaker, we could mention a host of other initiatives that the Minister of State for Youth should take. She should assume her role. She should certainly make sure that the crisis among young people is not hidden by the good fortune of some
of them; she must address the problems facing the others. Unfortunately, she did not get a mandate from the Government.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the cause of youth has suffered successive setbacks within the Government, particularly because of the insignificance of the role played in Cabinet by the Minister, a person who, in her professional career, was in the limelight, but has now been relegated in the Cabinet to a minor part.
I would like her, Mr. Speaker, to go see the Prime Minister and ask him for a real mandate and some powers to do the job she should normally be doing, and if the Prime Minister refuses to give priority to young people, she should have the courage to do the honourable thing and resign.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski);: Questions and comments.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it has been quite a day. One can sense the pleading for a return to a system that produced first and second class unemployed Canadians through encouraging politicians to hand out money, much greater amounts of money to ridings which were held by Liberals.
I would encourage the Government to continue the path it has chosen, which is fair and just and does not create first and second class citizens. One gets the feeling in speech after speech by the Liberals that they want to return to the good old days when they were the dispensers of pots of money to their friends and the heck with the rest of Canadians. This Government will not return to those days.
The thrust of the Hon. Member's speech was to make laudatory comments about the Liberal Party and its wisdom in creating the Ministry. If the Hon. Member looks at youth unemployment statistics, he will know that from the time of the defeat of the Conservative Government to 1982, the unemployment rate for youth went up to better than 22 per cent in a little more than a year. Why did it take his Government until 1984 to set up such a Ministry if youth are so important and the Government was so concerned about youth? Why did his Government wait until 1984 when those unemployment rates began to fall? Why did the Liberals not move when the problem was at its height in 1982?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Hon. Member say that the Government intends to continue in the same direction. If they continue to do what they have been doing since September, they will do nothing at all. And I am sure that an Hon. Member of such high standing as he is would never accept to be part of a government that is doing nothing. For the time being, they are simply going with the tide. We know that the Minister of Employment and Immigration
January 23, 1985

(Miss MacDonald) has announced nothing and done nothing, except hold consultations. We know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is holding consultations too. That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) is holding consultations and making petty arrangements. However, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that this Hon. Member with a social conscience would not let 500,000 young Canadians, or whatever the figure is, be without jobs. That is far too many! And it is in this direction that I should like the government to step in. If they really think that their private enterprise can solve the problem overnight or within six months, let it say so!
But, in the meantime, there are young people suffering. The ones on welfare are getting $140 per month.
And when I see the Hon. Member fiddling with the figures,
I must tell him that he is doing it on the backs of the poor. Think in terms of human suffering and not in terms of statistics. There are things to be done, and it is not by doing nothing that you will provide assistance to young people who need it so much.


Mr. Hamelin:: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment to make of course on the comments voiced by the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) and by the Liberals in general. As we would say back home, in Charlevoix, the speech made by the Hon. Member for Shefford does not sound like much and upon closer examination there is not much to it either, for in fact, Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to be doing nothing. Their Government, and that Minister in particular, had every opportunity to do something for our youth, yet young Canadians voted Progressive Conservative on September 4th, and decided to support us. I feel that instead of making lengthy speeches on our youth's needs, we on this side are examining the situation and most of all acting.
Next week in my riding I will have the opportunity to announce two projects in which the Government of Canada is involved and which will create something like a hundred direct jobs. Of course we could spend our time in the House of Commons making lengthy speeches on the needs of our youth which are real. But I feel that instead of attacking the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) who is involved in a consultation process with the Provinces and all the groups concerned, we are getting at much more significant solutions than all your rhetorics ever did over the years.
And how many times during the election campaign did I hear young people complain that they were fed up with these small-time projects from which they could only eke out a meagre living. We are all looking for something else and, together, we will find it, in my own riding we will find a solution.
Your speech, this afternoon, was meaningless from beginning to end. It had no substance at all. In our case, we will take time for reflection. This is what we are doing and the Minister
Supply
as well. And we will come forward with concrete proposals provided the cupboard is not entirely bare, which is the situation you left us in. We are now using the financial ress-ources available in the best interests of all Canadians, especially our youth. This is my concern and that of my Government. Therefore nobody is impressed when you are calling for someone's resignation. Besides, you are it seems in no position, according to the polls, to ask for anyone's resignation. If the elections were held today, you would get licked even worse than you were last September 4.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Talk about insignificance, Mr. Speaker, we have just been given an example. He is talking about a meaningless speech, but the Hon. Member has just shown us that his only claim to glory is to have won the September 4 election. Mr. Speaker, the Member ought to know that winning an election is one thing, but now he must act instead of limiting himself to studying. This is as good a time as any to tell him that if he keeps up that kind of performance he will prove that he does not even know what the Standing Orders are all about. He should beef up on the Standing Orders before making accusations against others. I might add that he will simply confirm that he was elected under false pretenses.
While he is considering and searching, young people in his riding are experiencing problems; they thought he would come up with practical solutions. Well, he does not have much to say to them right now. He keeps his fingers crossed, marking time in the hope that our economic woes will vanish in thin air. Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member would be well advised to stop playing petty politics at the expense of young people and the Liberals, and he ought to be thankful that we raised the issue of youth in the House, something he has yet to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Any supplementary question? Does the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) have a question?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe he could not put a supplementary. He has made his first effort. And I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin). But it is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, if we succeeded to wake up a few backbenchers. I would like to ask my colleague whether conservative backbenchers are not supposed in their caucus to make sure that young people can have some work programs? Instead of hanging around the Minister and playing kids cameras, they should speak up in their caucus and help the Minister of State for Youth. As I know her, that Minister wants to have funds, but when times are hard, it falls upon you to help her get those funds. I would ask my colleague for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) whether he finds it curious when we have such an important debate concerning employment and youth, that the Minister for Youth and the Minister of Employment and Immigration are not in this House?

January 23, 1985
Supply
Is that not the proof that those ministers do not care about needy people but are only interested in multinational oil companies?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is perfectly right. We are discussing a matter which affects 35 per cent of Canadians and there are only a few Tory members. We did not hear a single backbencher speak of the condition of young people because the ministers muzzled them. And this is what is since the beginning of this Parliament, Mr. Speaker: the members have been denied the privilege to say to the House and to Canadians what their solutions would be.
I would like to hear the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) suggest solutions to the problems of youth. Instead of being under the thumb of his leader, he should rise to say how Wabasso or Melchers could be saved. Jobs of Quebeckers are involved, Mr. Speaker, and the Hon. Member remains silent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are over. I will recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Hudon).


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am one of those few on this side who will challenge the handfuls on the other side because even though we are only a handful in this place, we still outnumber them six to one. It is because we were pretty good that we got 211 members elected. Our fellow citizens knew what they were doing. They made their choice, Mr. Speaker.
It came to me as a surprise that the Leader of the Opposition could boldly accuse the government of not having helped the young to secure meaningful and stimulating jobs. He apparently forgot-or may be he dared not to remember-that as recently as a few months ago, his own government had the responsibility to find those meaningful and stimulating jobs. Did that government do anything? Not much.
That government left us a sad legacy of programs not designed to meet the challenges in the workforce, an inconsistent policy that could not resolve past and present problems which have to be tackled in systematic way if we are to give our youth some kind of future. Work creation programs were to be short-term solutions to current problems which are still with us. The former Government knew very well that young Canadians were faced with an extremely high unemployment rate which was not going to disappear overnight. Instead of reaching an agreement with the provinces on the way to deal
with the problems of training young people and creating employment, they prepared for us a very sad legacy: partial agreements, broken promises and no consideration whatsoever for any particular needs, to the point that no co-operation, at any level, seemed possible or even desirable.
The former Government did next to nothing in preparation for the International Youth Year and, to add insult to injury, the small tired group opposite claims that we are following in their footsteps. In their opinion, we are putting too much energy in worthless endeavours instead of dealing with real problems, looking for help from our economic partners and preparing solutions. The present Government has chosen to approach training and development for our youth in a coordinated way. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has just returned from a round of consultations with the provinces and the economic sectors. And she has stated clearly, Mr. Speaker, that the private sector whose views were not recognized by the previous administration expects the federal government and the provinces to prepare in co-operation a coherent national policy on training, retraining and job development. Instead of working in consultation with the provinces to find practical solutions, the previous government took pleasure in acting alone. Therefore federal and provincial programs conflicted with each other and they did not allow for the hope that young people could have one day their place in our country.
Young Canadians, in fact all Canadians, expected more from the federal government. In September, they expressed their total disillusion with that policy of confrontation, and they suggested that they wanted a government determined to co-operate with the provinces. This is what we are doing. Last week, the federal government and the provinces acknowledged the necessity to emphasize co-operation rather than confrontation. This promising start is a tremendous breakthrough as far as federal-provincial co-operation is concerned. The Canadian people hope to see more joint programs implemented and better harmonization of the programs, which could only be to their advantage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It being six o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on motion are expired in accordance with Standing Order 62(11).
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned.

Thursday, January 24, 1985