1986-03-12

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) tabled a series of documents which make up the report of the Task Force on Program Review.
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister tried to make us believe that the Canadian people would have an opportunity to study the recommendations contained in this report before their implementation, but in fact a closer look at these documents reveals that half of those recommendations are already in force.
Mr. Speaker, the shameful aspect of all this is that the Government has chosen to attack people while completely ignoring the industrial sector.
A glance at page 55 indicates that last year the committee urged the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to levy a 10 per cent tax on sick people and to increase it this year so as to obtain additional revenues.
Mr. Speaker, that same committee recommended the abolition of Katimavik and various job creation programs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The 60 seconds allotted to the Hon. Member have now expired. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).
* *
*


EDUCATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw the attention of the House to the continuing decline of post-secondary education in Canada as a result of under-funding. The international reputation of the University of Toronto has been shown to be in severe decline following independent reviews of the University's 52 graduate programs. These reviews show seven programs in serious academic difficulty,
and another 17 that will be in trouble unless the quality of research and faculty strength are improved over the next few years.
This decline has been the product of 15 years of under-funding by the former Ontario Conservative Government, and the Fiscal noose has now been tightened by the federal Conservative Government's cut-backs to post-secondary education. This is just one example of what is happening to all universities.
The short-sightedness of these cuts has been pointed out by none other than David Vice, the president of Northern Telecom, who stated that federal and provincial funding increases for higher education increased by only 2.5 per cent in the seven years prior to 1984-85, while student enrolment increased-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


TRIBUTE TO THE LATE JOSEPH DESLIERES
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise my colleagues of the death of Mr. Joseph Deslieres who was Liberal Member for the federal riding of Brome-Missis-squoi from 1952 to 1958.
Since I knew Mr. Deslieres at that time, I should like to pay homage to him by saying that he was a devoted and dedicated Member who stayed in close contact with his constituents. It is with emotion that I recall his warm welcome at his home during the September 1984 election campaign, even though we did not belong to the same political Party.
Mr. Speaker, in the name of my Party and on my own behalf I wish to extend our most sincere condolences to the Deslieres family.
*
[DOT] *


FORUM 86 PROGRAM-TRAINEES VISIT TO PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I
know that all the Members of this House will wish to join me

March 12, 1986
in welcoming the 130 young trainees, students from all over Canada, who are taking part in the Forum 86 Program.
These young people have come to Parliament Hill this week to become more familiar with how the Government and the Parliament work.
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet them at a workshop on the role of the Member of Parliament and I know that you met them this morning yourself. We can both attest that these young people are very attentive and interested and that, like their Members of Parliament, they are worthy representatives of their regions.
Mr. Speaker, some of them are certainly future leaders of tomorrow's society, and perhaps future members of this House, and I therefore invite my colleagues to make themselves available to meet them.
Let me conclude by wishing them a very pleasant stay among us and success in their studies. Canada needs their contribution.

[English)


CANCELLATION OF KATIMAVIK PROGRAM-SENATOR'S HUNGER STRIKE
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, a Senator is risking his health and life for the cause of Katimavik, which really means the cause of youth in search of a meaningful role in life, as young people undertake when growing into adulthood.
Jacques Hebert is the Senator now in his third day of a hunger strike. Senator Hebert's message is catching the attention of the media and, through the media, of the public.
The Government is saying no to Senator Hebert's request that Katimavik be reinstated. The Government hopes that the public will not respond to Senator Hebert's call for action. The Government, of course, will be proven wrong as Canadians rally to the defence of Katimavik and put pressure on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to do the honourable and decent thing-reinstate Katimavik now.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the study team report on Indian and native programs shows at best a limp grasp and, at worst, a profound misunderstanding of the aspirations, needs, and living situations of Canada's First Nations citizens.
The good ideas in it are, almost without exception, repetitions of issues raised by First Nations' organizations, the
Auditor General, and even the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The misconceptions are profound, even appalling. For example, they state at page 13 that 70 per cent of status Indians will be incarcerated by age 25, and, at page 23, that existing Government programs are "recreating modern suburbs in the northern bush". My riding includes one in every eleven Indian bands in Canada and there is perhaps one community that even faintly resembles that ludicrous description.
On page 69 we find the statement: "There would probably be better results if more of the investments were for the purpose of taking over established successful operations". I wish the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) had considered that before he sabotaged the Native Economic Development Program application of the Yukon Indian Development Corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


TASK FORCE ON PROGRAM REVIEW
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, for the first time all Canadians can get a comprehensive review of how the federal Government spends billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on myriad programs, many of which were designed only to buy votes for 22 years of Liberal reign. The identification of waste, government mismanagement, and ineffectiveness, has all been documented by the task force review.
Had the NDP ever come to govern, or had the Liberals continued, it would have taken the same task force twice as long to complete the twice as many programs they would have had with, of course, the federal debt being twice as big as it is now.
The reason being that the opposition Liberals' and NDPs' hidden agenda is to spend more money.
While the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) had no comment on such a major review, the NDP condemned the entire report without reading one paragraph of the 21-volume report. I am sure a leadership review by the Liberal and New Democratic Parties is imminent.


TRIBUTE TO YOUNG PEOPLE VOLUNTARILY PERFORMING COMMUNITY WORK
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the tens of thousands of young people who, every day, every week, every month, volunteer to do good work in their communities. They work in hospitals. They work in youth camps, clubs, and senior citi-
March 12, 1986

zens' homes. They volunteer to do work wherever it needs to be done. The difference is that they do it in their own communities. Because they do it there they are seldom noticed, and seldom is there ever any tribute paid to them.
I rise today because they deserve this tribute. There is no one starving himself to give tribute to these people. There is no one recognizing their work. They did not travel across Canada to do their work. They did not engage in a government operation. They worked in their own communities, and I rise to pay tribute to them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TASK FORCE ON PROGRAM REVIEW
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today, and as I do so to make my point regarding the task force report I am assisted by the Hon. Member to my right who just stood up and held up the document as it were the bible of the Conservative Party, and its agenda.
The attempt to try to separate the Cabinet from this task force report will not succeed. The fact of the matter is, and Canadians should know, that this task force report was released after a committee of Cabinet, consisting of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), who is a former Minister of Finance, and one other Minister, scrutinized it and allowed it to be released. That is the fact of the matter.
On the transportation side, this task force report makes a series of recommendations, approximately 40 per cent of which have already been implemented since the report was given to Cabinet in September of 1985. The Government of Canada has committed itself over the week in Atlantic Canada to use transportation as a tool of regional development. It has made that commitment to the Premiers of the Atlantic provinces. At the same time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, Liberals and New Democrats are an amazing species. Why they have not become extinct remains a political mystery. On one hand they argue that Canadians ought to receive more social programs. On the other hand they defend a ballooning debt that requires one out of every three tax dollars to pay interest charges, which diminishes our capacity to provide social programs.
Oral Questions
While these social-conscious symbols advocate more social-support systems, they are willing to let the debt grow until 1990 when it will take two out of every three tax dollars to pay interest charges, therefore destroying our opportunity to be a caring country. Yet they pretend to be caring.
When the report of the Neilsen task force was tabled, and the contents revealed that social programs were not being abused or inefficiently operated, but that many tax exemptions and business breaks were to be reconsidered, the Liberals and the New Democrats claimed that it was an attack on social programs. Their motto is: "Down with up". They remain consistent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


TASK FORCE ON PROGRAM REVIEW
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Task force on Program Review has opened the door to an opportunity for Canadians. This report and its options should be carefully examined.
In national policy-making, an unswerving adherence to the status quo is often a self-defeating exercise which prevents growth, development, and progress. I encourage all Canadians to participate in a constructive national questioning of the status quo.
Thoughtful people should agree that it is healthy for a nation to assess, challenge, and test its long-held approaches and policies. It would be regrettable if some political Parties would prefer grandstanding instead of a positive national dialogue. Here exists an opportunity for all of us, opposing as our viewpoints might be, to discuss options in a conciliatory and rational debate and then decide which proposals we should accept and which we should reject.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, is in respect to the report which bears his name. I think we on this side of the House can say that a search for more efficient and less costly Government is a search worth making, and, of course, we will study the report very carefully.
I want to say to the Deputy Prime Minister, before putting the question, that efficiency in Government cannot be achieved

March 12, 1986
Oral Questions
on the backs of the poor, the aged, the weaker regions of the country, the unemployed, or at the expense of our young people. Will the Deputy Prime Minister give an undertaking to this House, and to the country, that the 25 per cent further cuts in skills training recommended by the task force, which will affect our young people, will not form the policy of the Government and will be rejected?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, essentially that is the same question as those which were put yesterday. The answer is still the same. The personnel on those study teams-over 200 of them laboured long and hard, and in the case of 102 of them from the private sector, without any remuneration-have come forward with options which have been referred to the standing committees so that the full light of day can be focused on the totality of the problem which we inherited in September of 1984.


John Napier Turner: May I suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, that he cannot have it both ways. This report bears his name, and he and the Government have to take responsibility for the report and its conclusions.


TRAINING AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that there are 700,000 young Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 years out of work, will the Deputy Prime Minister give a firm commitment that the Government will shelve those recommendations which further restrict training and job opportunities for young people, and that they will not be part of Government policy?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the House has already referred to all of the options, hundreds of them, which were identified by the study teams on program review, to the standing committees of the House where parliamentarians are invited to examine those options and, indeed, to come forward with others, if there are others, and in due course to follow the parliamentary practice, presumably, of giving the House the benefit of their advice.


REQUEST FOR NEW YOUTH PROGRAMS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred to put this question to the Prime Minister, but I will direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister.
In his reply to Senator Hebert, the Prime Minister implied that the Government had new programs to help the youth of this country. Could the Deputy Prime Minister advise the Prime Minister forthwith to announce these new programs as
soon as possible in order to deal with the situation and meet the needs of young people across this country?


Erik Nielsen: I do not know how many times it has to be said before it sinks in, but the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has heard the Minister of Employment and Immigration say that $700 million has been devoted specifically to the youth programs. That is a major percentage of the budget of her single Department.
The Right Hon. Leader knows that in the period 1980 to 1984 youth unemployment rose from 12.9 per cent to over 19 per cent, and that there has been a net drop in youth unemployment of two percentage points since September of 1984.
That is progress-not enough, and more needs to be made- and this Government will ensure that that progress continues and grows.


CONSULTATION WITH CITIZENS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Since yesterday he has been saying, and he has just said it again to the Leader of the Official Opposition, that the recommendations in his report will be examined in committee and that the people of Canada will be consulted. Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain why half the recommendations in this report have already been adopted by this Government, without consulting the people of Canada?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is a serious misstatement of fact. I am sure it was unintended by the hon. gentleman, but when he says that half of the options that appear in the reports of the study teams have been adopted, that is not correct. But there have been some very positive options identified in the reports which have been accomplished by the Government, including the setting up of a real property unit to bring under control some $60-billion worth of real property-we do not yet know how much there is-and that move is a first. We have centralized regulatory management in the Ministry of the Hon. Government House Leader, and we have folded in the two sub-groups that were doing that job-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


IMPOSITION OF CERTAIN TAXES-SOCIAL JUSTICE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister could read the report in
French: Services and subsidies to enterprises, pages 53 and 54,
March 12, 1986	_____________COMMONS
and that is my question: Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain why the Minister of Finance slapped a 10 per cent tax on illness in this country before consulting the people? And even if it is one of the report's recommendations, it would be immoral to do so.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. gentleman is talking about. Having regard to the accuracy of his first preamble, 1 very much doubt the implications of his
second.


FUTURE OF NEWFOUNDLAND RAILWAY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It is one thing to refer a set of general propositions to committees for consideration. It is quite another, I would suggest, to refer to committees resolutions or propositions that completely contradict what the Government promised when it was campaigning for election about a year and a half ago. Considering that in his Halifax statement of August 2, 1984, the Prime Minister said the following:
A Progressive Conservative government will... support and continue to operate the Newfoundland railway-
Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that since his task force recommends the abolition of this railway, the Government will live up to its election promise to the people of Newfoundland and keep that railway?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the New Democratic Party is exposing is his ignorance of the Terms of Union between the Government of Canada and Newfoundland. Clearly all that the Prime Minister was saying in the speech that was quoted by the hon. gentleman was a reaffirmation that this Government intends to honour the Terms of Union between Canada and Newfoundland, and that is one of them.


FARM FUEL TAX
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, given the slippery history of the Government and its promises, I will take the words of the Deputy Prime Minister to mean that the Government's commitment to the people of Newfoundland for the maintenance of this specific railway will be kept.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister about another part of Canada. Since the Prime Minister and all Conservative candidates in rural communities promised in the summer of 1984 that a Conservative Government would make sure that no farmer paid federal tax on farm fuel, and considering that the Nielsen task force recommends just the opposite, will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the farmers of Canada that that election promise will be kept?
DEBATES	___________ 11453
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman continues to ignore the fact that a more accurate description of what was tabled yesterday was study team reports rather than government policy. He also overlooked a glaring fact, which is his wont when putting loaded questions like that, since that measure has just recently been extended.


COMMITTEE REFERRALS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we are glad that the Deputy Prime Minister knows that. What we are looking for is the assurance that the promise will be maintained in the future and that the Government does not backtrack on this as it backtracked on so many things, as the people of Canada well understand.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Remember your image, Ed; smile.


John Edward Broadbent: I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a general question. Considering that the Conservatives promised many things during the election campaign of 1984 which are contradicted flatly by the recommendations of the task force-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member was very long on the first one. Could this just be a question, please?


John Edward Broadbent: Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that any recommendation from the task force which contradicts what was promised by the Conservatives in the election campaign of 1984 will not be referred to the committee for study?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the reference is a matter of history; it was done yesterday. What really astonishes me about the Leader of the New Democratic Party and those in the House of Commons in his Party-


John Edward Broadbent: What is it, Erik? Tell me that.


Erik Nielsen: -who ask questions is that, here they are, the representatives of a once dynamic Party, the Party of change, the Party of new direction-


Some Hon. Members:: Right on!


Erik Nielsen: -and all of a sudden it is the Party of the status quo.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-DESCRIPTION OF RESERVES AS MODERN SUBURBS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. The Task Force Report on Indians and Natives

March 12, 1986
Oral Questions
indicates that the Government of Canada has created modern suburbs on Indian reserves in the northern bush. In all of the Minister's travels across the country, where has he seen modern suburbs in the northern bush? Where do they exist?


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: In northern Rosedale.


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I think anyone who has had the opportunity, as I have, to go across the country visiting scores and scores, indeed hundreds of reserves, would not be able to write those words.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on!


INDIAN INFANT MORTALITY
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Is he aware that in the same report it is indicated that infant mortality among Indians is 60 per cent higher than the national average, due to bad housing and a lack of sewage disposal and of safe, clean drinking water? How does that square with modern suburbs in the northern bush? Does that not invalidate this Buffalo Jump report?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I responded to the first question truthfully, and I want to respond to the second question the same way. First, the report has many ideas. Some are good, some are bad, and the Standing Committee of which the Hon. Member is a member may want to consider some; it may want to reject some. I say to the Hon. Member, and to anyone who is actually interested in the issue, that the ideas in the report which are not suitable to Indian people ought to be rejected; the ideas which are suitable ought to be supported. I hope the Hon. Member does not simply reject all those ideas but indeed will go to the Standing Committee, since he is a member, and pay attention to it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE-CASH ADVANCE PAYMENTS
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He will recognize that the report which he tabled the other day recommends the elimination of structures which have been built up to assist in the survival of the family farm, maybe even the survival of agriculture under present economic conditions. Will the Deputy Prime Minister honour the memory of John Diefenbaker who brought in the Western Grain Advance Payments Plan, and assure us that the Advance Payments Plan will not be savaged by the Government?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as that hon. gentleman knows, coming from where he does, no other Government in the history of our country going back to John Diefenbaker has
ever done as much for agriculture and farmers as this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Now answer the question.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I hope we can believe him.


FARM FUEL TAX REBATES
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Prime Minister now also reject the recommendation of the Nielsen Task Force that farm fuel rebates be terminated, and move to fulfil the Government's promise that farmers would have to pay no taxes on farm fuel?


Erik Nielsen: I have already answered that in response to the Member's Leader. Here we have another example. Here is a Government that is throwing open the windows to let the light shine in, and the Members over there are even afraid to look through a crack in the door.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Try that on the Prairies.
[ Translation]


SOCIAL HOUSING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister should realize that the light does not shine bright on the poor in Canada.
I would like to ask him whether he is aware that according to the subsidized housing policy announced in his report, 1.5 million Canadian men and women now living in poverty will no longer be entitled to subsidized housing in Canada.
Is that Conservative justice?


Jean-Claude Malépart: And the Minister made his cuts before the report was tabled-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is not a policy. It is not a recommendation. It is an option that was identified by the study team. The Hon. Member will no doubt participate with interest in the standing committee to examine those options. When she is doing that in her work on the committee, she might consider that 1,840,000 low-cost housing units are being planned for Metro now.
The Government continues to progress, regardless of the
examination of committees. Does the Hon. Member expect us
to stand still?
March 12, 1986


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Deputy Prime Minister would get his facts right. He has obviously cut Katimavik, and the recommendations of the report have already been implemented. He likes to have it both ways, and he cannot have it both ways.


POVERTY LEVEL
Sheila Maureen Copps: I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If he really feels, and if his Party feels, that those 1.5 million Canadians living below the poverty line, living on $11,000 to $22,000 a year-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry this is a long preamble. Is there a question?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am asking a question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not heard a question begin yet. Just a question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Show some respect to the House.


Sheila Maureen Copps: My question is whether the Deputy Prime Minister believes, and whether his Party believes, that the new level of poverty in Canada is $11,000 or less, leaving 1.5 million Canadians in poverty, ignored by this report, by this Government, and by the new standard of poverty in Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I made a mistake, I believe, when I said 1,840,000. The figure is 1,840.


Sheila Maureen Copps: A million boob.


Erik Nielsen: The quick answer to the Hon. Member is of course not. She does not have a corner on compassion for those who exist in poverty in Canada. The Party of which she is a member, when it was in Government, did precious little to alleviate the plight of those in poverty.
We are making solid progress in that connection, and we are going to continue to do so.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Insulting the poor on that one.


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. This morning I had calls from some farmers in my riding who are concerned that the federal Government might be abolishing the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, the PFRA, and also privatizing the Farm Credit Corporation.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister give a farmer in my riding, Ron Harper from Danbury, the assurance this afternoon that the Government will not abolish the PFRA which, in part, manages the Diefenbaker Lake and the Gardiner Dam.
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure that if the hon. gentleman does nudge open that door a bit more, does step in and examine the options put forward by the study teams when they come before the standing committees of the House of Commons, he will be able to make that kind of suggestion and perhaps, just perhaps, other constructive suggestions.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, what Ron Harper in my riding wants to know-


Charles Joseph Clark: Let's elect Ron Harper.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -is whether or not the Deputy Prime Minister will make the same argument when the PFRA goes before the committee. Will he make that argument on behalf of Canada's farmers?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 would urge the hon. gentleman himself to go before the committee-


John Edward Broadbent: Will you? He will go.


Erik Nielsen: -and make that representation for his constituent-


An Hon. Member:: Where will you be at that time?


Erik Nielsen: -and perhaps other constructive suggestions, as has been the objective of this whole process of program review. But why do the Member and members of his Party not open that door a bit, stop being dinosaurs, and stop being defenders of the status quo.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DATE OF REPORT ON JOB CREATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In examining the Task Force Report on Job Creation, we note that the report was completed in March, 1985, one year ago, and most of the programs referred to have already been changed.
In the circumstances, what is the purpose of referring the report to the standing committee? Does this mean the Government is ready to reverse those changes if the committee recommends that that be done?
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the inability of that hon. gentleman to understand the open process, the consultative process, that is going on here.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, bugsy.

March 12, 1986
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: I am glad, however, that the Member has observed that there have been some changes.


An Hon. Member:: Oh?


Erik Nielsen: Certainly there have, and all for the better. Those changes and the better results are reflected in the job creation numbers, 577,000 I think, since September, 1984.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It was 580,000 last week.


TIME SPENT REVIEWING PROGRAMS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that this task force with a majority of businessmen tried to evaluate 65 employment programs in 10 Departments in two months, with very little outside consultation? Is this what the Minister means by a serious review of Government departments?
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is wrong. He obviously has not read the report.


Mr. Allmand:: I have read it.


Erik Nielsen: And the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has not even read the front of the introductory volume which sets forth the authors of the report. They have signed their names to it, and mine is not among them.


John Napier Turner: You take responsibility for it.


Erik Nielsen: Nonetheless, we are committed to opening the books.


John Napier Turner: He has read it cover to cover.


Erik Nielsen: Those chaps over there, Mr. Speaker, would like to have the door closed shut and to hunker down in the storm cellar, but that is not the way this Government operates.


PUBLIC SERVICE LAY-OFFS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. He told Parliament yesterday that recommendations in his task force report were only options that would be examined by parliamentary committees prior to action being taken.
I have a memorandum from the Chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board which states:
Following recommendations made by the Nielsen Task Force on Program Review, the Cabinet has made the following decisions which impact on the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
One of those decisions is to lay off 18-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the third statement. Just a question, please.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain how it is that yesterday's options are decisions which were made last week without reference to parliamentary committees?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the task force was set up in September, 1984. That is a year and a half ago.


John Edward Broadbent: Very good.


Erik Nielsen: The implication of what the hon. gentleman is suggesting here is that we should have stood still from that time until now. The business of the country has to go on, and certainly decisions have been made in the interim.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary.


KATIMAVIK PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Michael Morris Cassidy: My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is this: Why was Katimavik wound up without a referral to a parliamentary committee? Why were eighteen employees of this research office laid off without prior referral? How many other decisions have you made without referral, behind Parliament's back?


Erik Nielsen: Because, Sir, we were elected to make decisions and not to hunker down in the cellar of the dinosaurs like the New Democrats in their new-found attitude to change.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Coming from Erik, that is delightful.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Canadian public is becoming increasingly impatient with the slow reaction of the oil companies in lowering the retail price of gasoline.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Belsher: Will the Minister consider sending another telex, this time not being so polite?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 12, 1986


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to tell the Hon. Member that politeness pays off. Today Esso and Petro-Canada have announced that they have dropped the price of gasoline by 2 cents a litre.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Only 8 cents to go.


Pat Carney: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that 1 asked the industry to ensure that the price decreases were passed along to consumers so that everyone could take advantage of our deregulated oil and gas industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister has succumbed to the scorched earth policy threats of the American entertainment interests by announcing the acceptance of the American Gulf and Western giant takeover of the book publishers Prentice-Hall and Ginn Canada.
Will the Minister now assure the Canadian book publishing industry that this is in its best interest, and advise the House what written undertakings he has from Gulf and Western that it will respect the principle of Canadian ownership and control through practice, if not through the policy of majority Canadian ownership? Will he table those agreements, please?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, of course that assurance can be given to the Canadian book publishing industry. The Member will find that the information which she has requested has already been delivered to her office.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it was not delivered to my office and I suggest that the Minister's office check that out.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADIAN-CONTROLLED BOOK DISTRIBUTORS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Minister announced that Simon and Schuster will rely on Canadian controlled distributors to distribute-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry. Order, please! Just a question, please.


Sheila Finestone: Is this an assurance of the elimination of
the problems created by the present buy-around practices
Oral Questions
which have caused so many problems for book publishers and distributors?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is familiar with the relationship between Simon and Schuster and General Publishing. That is the Canadian company which has been distributing the works put out by Simon and Schuster in Canada. Their contract runs for another year and one half. Our agreement with Gulf and Western is that such distribution will remain in Canadian hands, which I am sure all Members of the House are pleased to hear.


EFFECT OF TAKEOVER ON BOOK PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister and is on the same subject. Why did the Government not use the powers it had under the provisions of FIRA to protect the industry which was of significant benefit and importance to Canadian culture, as he was urged to do by all the groups associated with the publishing industry?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has obviously not had time to comprehend fully the nature of the deal we made with Gulf and Western. When he has an opportunity to study it, he will find that for the first time in Canadian history with respect to a book publishing company, we have secured an assurance that 51 per cent of the equity of Ginn Canada will be turned over the Canadians. That has never been done before in Canadian history.


ROLE OF PRENTICE-HALL
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, precisely on that point, unless the Minister has assurances that 51 per cent of Ginn will be owned by one Canadian institution or individual, is it not true that with Prentice-Hall controlling 49 per cent it will in fact run the company rather than the Canadian owners?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has obviously not read the agreement. The fact is it is anticipated that there will be one Canadian buyer for the 51 per cent.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. In dealing with the issue of Japanese-Canadian redress, he has completely and irresponsibly disregarded his Government's commitment to a fair compensation package to be negotiated with the National Association of Japanese Canadians.

March 12, 1986
Oral Questions
Why does the Minister still refuse to honour his Government's two central promises of compensation and negotiation? Does the Prime Minister concur with the reversal of his own promise during the last election campaign?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how often I must say that this is the first Government in 43 years which has made a commitment to a fair package of redress for Japanese Canadians. That commitment will be kept.
I would like to advise Hon. Members that after full and extensive discussions with Japanese Canadians, organizations, and associations, as well as with other interested Canadian groups and individuals, the matter is now before Cabinet. It would be inappropriate for me to make any further comments until Cabinet makes a final decision on the matter. However, the commitment which the Prime Minister made when he was Leader of the Opposition is going to be kept.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister, who continues to act more like Rambo than an advocate for human rights and justice. Will the Minister stop railroading his Leader and his Government's own promises? Will he assure the House that his Government will not move unilaterally on such a sensitive national issue?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, as I told Mr. Art Miki, the president of the National Association of Japanese Canadians, in Winnipeg, last Friday, we discussed this matter as openly and in as much detail as possible with him, his association, and all other interested parties in Canada. The matter is now before Cabinet and we will have to wait for a cabinet decision.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. A number of Canadian colleges and universities offer programs on textiles, which include courses in industrial engineering, textile chemistry, dyeing and dressing processes. Could the Minister advise the House whether he intends to promote research and development in this area in an effort towards greater innovation and increased productivity in this industry?

Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and
Technology): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the Government is developing a number of new measures, the thrust of which is designed for technology diffusion and application to permit our traditional industries, such as the textile industry, to make the necessary adjustments and rationalizations to move into the computer and technology age without too much disruption.


TASK FORCE ON PROGRAM REVIEW
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence. When the Conservative Party was seeking office it made the following promise in Halifax on August 2, 1984: "A Progressive Conservative Government will increase marine search and rescue capabilities with a particular emphasis on a ready response force".
I would like to give the Deputy Prime Minister an opportunity to deal with that. Is he now prepared to repudiate the Nielsen task force recommendation of a 10 per cent cut over a two-year period, and a move toward a voluntary rescue agency? Does a promise not mean anything to the Government?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I thought I might move members of that Party into some area of reason, but that is very difficult to achieve. The simple answer to the Member's question is that the Government is well advanced in the implementation of a plan to meet the recommendations of the commission which the Member for St. John's East has so often raised in the House. That planning is very quickly coming to a point which should meet all the pressing problems of search and rescue in country.


SALMON ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will he give a commitment to keep his Government's promise to establish a salmon enhancement program and repudiate the Nielsen task force report recommendation not to expand the salmon enhancement program on the East Coast?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, where has the Hon. Member been? I have referred to them as dinosours. NDP does not stand for New Democratic Party, it stands for New Dinosaur Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 12, 1986


Erik Nielsen: The decision on salmon enhancement occurred when I was still Acting Minister of Fisheries, It was announced shortly after the new Minister was appointed. Where has the hon. gentleman been?


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns blatant political patronage once again in the awarding of jobs for the 1986 census. Why does the Government allow this situation to go on? Last Monday night the Tory census commissioner for the riding of Ottawa-Vanier attended a meeting of the University of Ottawa Progressive Conservative Youth Club to offer jobs as census takers. Why is he using the census to give jobs to young Tories? Why is he trying to destroy StatsCan in doing so?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was here last Monday when the Minister addressed a similar question asked by him. The Minister assured the House that StatsCan is following the same procedure it has followed in previous census-taking activities.


Mr. Gauthier:: That is not true.


T.A. Bud Bradley: As reported at page 11354 of Hansard the Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, I have been given assurances by Statistics Canada that it is absolutely confident that the results will be bona fide and that the competency of the people who have been hired is appropriate to the job that has been imposed upon them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


IMPACT OF LETTER FROM MINISTER OF STATE (YOUTH)
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. As you know, this reply had nothing to do with the question. My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Is he satisfied with the impact which the letter from the Minister of State (Youth) has had on the Minister of Supply and Services? Could he say whether the latter is providing enough patronage assistance to young Conservatives to satisfy his colleague the Minister of State (Youth)?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that question reminds me of my youth, when I used to spend my summers on a farm, and of farmers ploughing swamp land, because that is all it is.
Oral Questions YOUTH


ROLE OF MINISTRY OF STATE
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, a number of events in recent weeks have dramatized the need for an effective voice for youth, one which will be heard.


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Government claims a variety of Departments have been more directly involved in providing jobs and training opportunities for youth. Is it the intention of the Government nevertheless to enhance the role of the Ministry of State for Youth and provide an advocate for and a symbol of the needs and concerns of youth?


Erik Nielsen: That is an exact description of the Ministry. The hon. gentleman should go back and examine the procedures in place prior to 1972 when the Government Organization Act was passed. He should look at the position of Ministers without portfolio as it was then. All of that changed in name with the 1972 Government Organization Act and we now have Ministers of State. Those Ministers are there to assist. They are not line Ministers and departmental Ministers in the sense that the hon. gentleman might mistakenly believe.


MINISTER'S CONDUCT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that a Minister who abused her office, who was less than forthcoming with this House, and who provided a prevaricating apology-


Charles Joseph Clark: A what?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: -is an appropriate model for the youth of the country to emulate?


Erik Nielsen: We have been all over that ground ad nauseam.


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Erik Nielsen: The Minister answered, I have answered, the Prime Minister has answered. It is totally unproductive to repeat answers which have already been given, let alone the questions, Mr. Speaker.

March 12, 1986
11460___________________________
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


ANNOUNCEMENT OF GASOLINE PRICE REDUCTION IN QUEBEC-FUTURE PROSPECTS
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Today, the Esso and Petro-Canada corporations have announced that they were reducing the price of gas in Quebec by 2 cents a litre. Could the Minister tell us whether we can expect more of the same good news in the future?


Pat Carney: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the dramatic turn of events in the Senate, where a senator has decided to put his health on the line, a 62-year old man, I am asking the Deputy Prime Minister, in the name of human and Christian charity-because as we know he will do it any way-if they could not proceed immediately instead of waiting till the cows come home.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is the same question again. We have heard myself, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Employment and Immigration try several times to get through to Hon. Members opposite that $700 millions-


Miss MacDonald:: Far more than when they were the Government.


Erik Nielsen: -is specifically targeted to youth employment.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Three days ago the Deputy Prime Minister, in his answer to me, said the Government was quite satisfied with what it was doing for the young.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister wrote in a letter to Senator Jacques Hebert that he agreed with him that much more should be done for the young, and today the Prime Minister made another move and is now saying he is ready to announce a new program for the young before the end of the month.
In the name of human and Christian charity, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: will he now be able to take speedy action, since they admit the mistake they made a few weeks ago?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, indeed I can give the Hon. Member that assurance. If he had been observant he would have seen how quickly this Government has acted to turn a very undesirable situation into one which is far more favourable to youth today than it was in September, 1984. There is still a considerable way to go, but a good deal more progress is being made now than ever was made before under the Liberal Government.


REQUEST THAT MEASURES BE UNDERTAKEN IMMEDIATELY
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I think the
Deputy Prime Minister did not grasp the meaning of my
question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is not true.


Erik Nielsen: It is true.


Brian Vincent Tobin: No, it is not.


Erik Nielsen: It is a fact. The statistics are there. Youth unemployment has dropped two full percentage points, whereas it went up almost five percentage points under the previous Liberal Government.


TASK FORCE ON PROGRAM REVIEW
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. The report of the Task Force on Program Review recommends that the Government consider abolishing the Human Rights Commission in favour of court action brought by individuals, as is now necessary in British Columbia where the Social Credit Government abolished the provincial Human Rights Commission. Can the Minister tell us whether he is in agreement with this recommendation?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much in support of human rights.


David Orlikow: Get the violin out.


John Carnell Crosbie: The best way of enforcing human rights, of course, can be a matter of debate. The report has been referred to committee. Some recommendations may be accepted by the committee and recommended to the House; others may not. They will be dealt with in due course. In the meantime the matter is open for discussion in the committee.
March 12, 1986


REDUCTION OF STAFF
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister tell us whether the Government anticipated this privatizing of human rights when it accepted a decision to reduce the Human Rights staff in the Department of the Secretary of State from 15 persons in 1984-85 to 11 persons this and next year?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is mixed up as usual. This is not my Department but I am attempting to elucidate the matter for the hon. gentleman. The only change would have been in connection with the Court Challenges Program which has now been taken over by the Canadian Council on Social Development.
Never fear, this Government has spent more money than has ever been spent by its predecessor on the enforcement of human rights.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty pursuant to Section 19, as amended, of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter 82, Revised Statutes of Canada 1970, to lay upon the Table a certified copy of the 1983 Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Northwest Territories.
Pursuant to Section 12 of the Representation Act 1985, Chapter 8, Statutes of Canada 1986, this report stands referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


PRIVILEGE
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, during the Question Period the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) misinformed the House and therefore, I believe, violated both my privileges and those of the House. He stated that he had sent me a copy of his press release including all the details about which I asked him during Question Period. I had not received it prior to Question Period and I still have not received it. I just checked with my office.
Standing Orders
I believe the House should know what agreements the Minister made in the interest of the country and book publishers.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made a representation. She will know that it is neither a point of order nor a question of privilege. It is, nevertheless, her opinion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is simply that, as is the usual practice, the kit was sent to the office of the Leader of the Opposition for referral to the critic and this was done at eleven o'clock today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is clearly a dispute as to facts. It is neither a question of privilege nor a point of order.


DISTRIBUTION OF STANDING ORDERS
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the printed Standing Orders are being distributed to all Members today. It is my understanding that the Page staff have inserted them in the folders which Hon. Members usually keep in their desks. Members will recall that advance copies were made available to all of us on Thursday, February 20, only a week after their adoption.

Work continues on the many changes required by these new Standing Orders. The Index Branches are engaged in producing new indexes which will be available in a few weeks.
I wish also to acknowledge the same diligence shown by the distribution staff in ensuring that all Hon. Members received without delay the many documents which were tabled following the budget statement and the presentation of the estimates.

I am sure that all my colleagues will wish to join me in expressing appreciation to all the staff involved for their exceptional efforts. I thank, in particular, the staff of the Journals Branch and those associated with them, including the Translation Bureau and the House Computer Operations Branch, for the long hours of hard work they put in to meet the stringent deadlines we set for them.
We know that our staff accepts these pressures regularly as part of their normal duties, but it seems to me that when special dedication has occurred we should make note of it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 12, 1986
Petitions




Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages copies of two recent Orders in Council which, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 103(1), are deemed referred to the appropriate Standing Committee.


PETITIONS
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege to present a petition from over
250,000	citizens of all regions in Quebec. This petition is supported by Canadian unions and by the Comite de survie du textile et du vetement. The petitioners humbly pray that the Government of Canada take action to save their jobs and reduce the insecurity about the future felt by the men and women working in the Canadian textile industry.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the Hon. Member whether this petition has been certified? I must have the assurance from the Hon. Member from Drummond that this petition has already been certified. Can the Hon. Member assure me that it has in fact been certified? Has the Hon. Member presented his petition to the Clerk? Has it been certified?


Jean-Guy Guilbault: I have presented it and it has been certified, Mr. Speaker. It contains 250,000 signatures and they are certified, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Are they certified?


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, as a Member who is dedicated to protecting the lives of unborn Canadians, it is both my duty and honour today to present a petition signed by citizens from across Canada calling upon Parliament to acknowledge representations made by citizens concerned about permissive abortion laws and to act on these concerns. The attached petition is in conformance with Standing Order 106.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from many residents of my constituency of Burnaby. They point out that the telephone is
essential for communication and that rental costs must always be affordable. They state that the telephone pricing scheme known as local measured service, charging for each local call, means having a telephone will cost much more per month for most people.
My constituents call upon the Government to direct the CRTC to deny telephone companies such as B.C. Tel the right to charge for each call and order the retention of monthly rental for telephones.


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to present to the House several petitions which have been certified by the Clerk of Petitions and contain over 700 signatures. These petitioners want to protest the continued operation of the Morgentaler clinic in Metropolitan Toronto and ask that Section 251 of the Criminal Code be enforced so that the Province of Ontario will remove restrictions placed on the Metropolitan Police Force and appropriate charges be laid.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) rising a second time to present a petition?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the right to present another petition.


Mr. Speaker:: Normally, when a Member has more than one petition, we attempt to have him present those petitions once he is on his feet.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Winnipeg, Manitoba, who call upon Parliament to implement recommendation nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Report of the Parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights with respect to sexual orientation, amending the Human Rights Act and requiring that the Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP bring their employment practices into conformity, and amending the Criminal Code and federal Government security clearance guidelines.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of more than 90 farmers in the County of Vulcan. The entire county, comprising some 493,000 acres, was wrongly designated as a unit and the pay-out was consequently reduced considerably for those who had no crop during the last three years. By drawing the lines which had no relation to weather, crop production, grasshoppers or cutworms, and choosing large areas, much of the money went to the wrong producers.
My petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rearrange the boundaries either on a township basis or by
March 12, 1986

reprogramming the Alberta Hail and Crop Records of each farm in order to provide a fairer and more equitable distribution of the money provided by the federal Government. A certificate is attached, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members might be reminded of the obligation to be as brief as possible when presenting petitions.



RAILWAY ACT


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Railway Act (Fences).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to empower the Canadian Transport Commission to order the construction of six-foot high chain-link fences along railway rights-of-way to prevent children from entering on to rail lines.


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


Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-283, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The purpose of this Bill is to extend the present law relating to Firearms Acquisition Certificates to the ownership, possession and use of firearms, and to change the name "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" to "Firearms Possession Certificate".
The Bill would apply all the criteria presently stipulated for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate to firearms ownership, possession and use. This was contained in the original gun control legislation which was presented to Parliament before it was watered down.


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


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-100, an Act to amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act, the Children of War Dead Education Assistance Act, the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, the Pension Act, the Veterans' Land Act and the War Veterans Allowance 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.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 524 will be answered today.

1RAP-GRAND CANAL COMPANY


Mr. Caccia: 1.	Was funding given to the Grand Canal Company of Newfoundland under the Industrial Research Assistance Program and, if so, what were the specific terms and conditions?
2.	For what did the company apply to use the funds?
3.	Did any other Government department or agency approve funding for the company and, if so, in each case (a) which ones (ft) in what amounts (c) on what dates were applications submitted and approved?


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned the answer is as follows:
1.	Funding was provided to the Grand Canal Company of Newfoundland for work under the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP). The terms and conditions were the usual ones for the program which include:
(a)	The project initiated by the company must be technically challenging for the company and relate to an opportunity for it to achieve economically beneficial results for itself as well as benefits for Canada.
(b)	The work must be carried out competently, but not necessarily by members of the company. (In the actual case, much of the work has been done by students from Memorial University in St. John's, Newfoundland working under direction of the company, during the non-academic segment of what is generally referred to as a "co-op" program).

March 12, 1986
Motions for Papers
(c)	The intellectual property resulting from the work is the property of the company, but NRC has full rights of access to the ongoing work and the final results. The company is not free to transfer ownership of the intellectual property without NRC's approval.
(d)	The work is to be carried out on a cost shared basis.
(e)	The cost sharing arrangement is structured as a contribution, not as a grant.
2.	The company applied to use the funds for very preliminary work associated with defining more accurately than had previously been possible a number of the major technical and related cost (economic) problems that might confront the Grand Canal concept. Typical of such problems are: (a) stabilizing of Great Lakes water levels, (b) complexities of water courses from Lake Superior basin to drought areas of southern Prairies.
In addition, the work allowed for making contact with agencies of the federal Government which might have technical contributions to make to the work.
3.	Not applicable.


Philip Derek Lewis: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question indicated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers may be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions be allowed to
stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Jean-C. Lapierre: That this House condemns the Government for its lack of consideration for Canada's youth, for its inaction in the face of the crisis an entire generation of Canadian men and women are faced with, and for neglecting to take immediate action in order to allow them to participate fully in Canadian society.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the House today, at a time when the youth question has captured the attention of many Canadians but, unfortunately, has not sufficiently captured that of the Government. That is why we, the Official Opposition, want to dedicate this Opposition Day to making the Government and all Members of this House aware of the very serious situation we have in Canada today.
Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, there are 700,000 young Canadian men and women who, although they want to participate fully in society, unfortunately have no opportunity to do so. We have 700,000 young people who are asking society for a small place in the sun, who really want to work, and they are being told outright: Sorry, no room.
We have these 700,000 individuals who are losing all their illusions and who, in many cases, have already lost hope, because after the sacrifices they made to get an education, their hopes and dreams have now been dashed by the current situation and by the state of the economy. Today, I thought it was essential for the Government, and in this respect, I do deplore the absence of the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne). She seldom has an opportunity to take part in the proceedings, and she is probably waiting for someone to write her speech so she can rehearse it, like a script. Meanwhile, I am sorry she is not here in the House to discuss with us the problems of Canada's youth.
Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadian men and women will realize that we, as parliamentarians and with our responsibility for the well-being of Canadians, should ask ourselves a number of questions and do some soul-searching.
We should ask ourselves whether as elected representatives, we have done enough to make equal opportunity a reality for young Canadians. And if during the recession, we merely did what we could to save what we already had, we must remember that those who had nothing were unable to enter the system.
We should also ask ourselves whether we are parliamentarians and especially you as the Government have fulfilled the mandate you were given by Canadians. After looking at the statistics and reading various papers published by the Government, we realized that since September 4, 1984, when this
March 12, 1986

Government received a majority of support from young Canadians, they were the first group this Government decided to drop. And it did so for a very simple reason. This group does not have a powerful lobby. It is not one of Frank Moore's customers. It is not... in fact, it is isolated in so many ways, Mr. Speaker. And of course this Government is ignoring the isolated members of this group, each of whom is going through some particularly dramatic situation.
The Minister of State (Youth) has buried her head in the sand ever since her appointment. She would not face reality. She thought that she had been appointed to speak on behalf of all those who had succeeded, to strut about, to try and convince everybody that everything was fine and dandy in the best possible world, and to avoid at all cost to address the needy. As you know, Mr. Speaker, she has defended so weakly her constituency that she has been divested entirely of her own department and budget.
The Minister of State (Youth) is here today before us with the only support of her chauffeur and limousine. Under these circumstances, I do not think that she can do much for her constituency who need help so very much.
When we look at the situation straight in the face, Mr. Speaker, we realize that it is a tragedy. The unemployment level is very high and, as usual, the Prime Minister will provide us with a whole series of figures which the Minister of State (Youth) will repeat. But the whole situation is much more serious than these figures would indicate.
They say the unemployment level is lower than it was in September 1984, but youth unemployment increased last month, something nobody mentioned in the House. And the tendency is not downwards. I dare hope that the Minister of State (Youth) will realize for instance that in Nova Scotia, the unemployment level among young Canadians is .9 per cent higher than it was when she assumed her portfolio. It has also increased in New Brunswick since then.
It is all very nice to generalize, but there are particular situations. When we read the Nielsen report and realize that businessmen are now controlling this Government, we can imagine what is happening to the poor devils who are 16, 17 or 18 years of age. They cannot influence the Government. They are represented by a Minister who was supposed to defend them and, now that she is on her way out, can hardly defend herself. They have a Minister who wanted to manipulate them. Her own correspondance bears witness to that, Mr. Speaker. She is more interested in the future of the Federation of Young Conservatives than in the lot of young Canadians generally.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is scandalous for her to want to
spend $7.5 million of taxpayers' money to get young people to
join the Progressive Conservative Party-the Minister con-
Supply
fessed that much herself-while fully ignoring the dramatic situation of young Canadians generally.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Youth) confessed her helplessness in her letter dated January 6, 1986. She recognized having wasted $100 million in the Youth programs since her election. If this is being concerned about the situation of young Canadians and being part of a Government eager to meet their needs, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand how the Minister of State (Youth) can claim today having done a good job over the past year and a half.
Mr. Speaker, looking back at what has been going on these last few days, there was, of course, that famous letter from the Minister, but there was also the spectacular, sad and dramatic gesture by our colleague from the Upper House, Senator Jacques Hebert. And that gesture, Mr. Speaker, is a symbol of how serious the situation is. This does not happen every day, and indeed I think it is the first time in history that a Member of this Parliament has decided to offer himself, his health in fact to try and wake up the bunch of sleepyheads in the Government.
Mr. Speaker, I see some of the Members shaking their heads. But I do not expect one single Member in that party to have the courage to defend a constituency with that much faith and devotion. And to that extent, Mr. Speaker, I feel the situation will force the Government to start thinking, because they have been laughing these last three days.
I venture to predict that their laugh will turn sour as days go by because they will have the whole situation on their conscience. And then, I think that over the coming days, the media will keep focusing the general public's attention on the situation of our young. All of us in our constituencies are aware of instances of neighbours, of people we know who have not found jobs, whatever the statistics may say. We know that the Manpower Centres are filled with young people waiting in line for opportunities.
It is therefore not good enough to be satisfied with the situation and refer to statistics. I do not understand why the Government does not admit its error now. They slashed through programs, in an arbitrary, hasty and somewhat vengeful way. But actually, it is not senator Hebert who is being hurt, but the thousands of young people who had pinned their hopes on that program. And the thousands of young people who are also waiting for the Government to respond to the Senate report.
In the Senate report, Mr. Speaker, there are 26 recommendations. It is not a Liberal report, it is a unanimous Senate report, about which Conservatives senators have agreed with Libera] senators to say this: The situation is far past the stage of partisan considerations. And although that report was made public, we did not even hear a whistle from the Minister of State (Youth), as usual. However, the other Members of the Governement should take the time to read it, and act on it

March 12, 1986
Supply
because what is in that report is a call from the heart, and it is my hope that this Government will have the courage to act within the shortest possible time. I suspect there is a move, I think that in the last few days they have been thinking. It started three days ago when the Deputy Prime Minister said: "We will do nothing, all we have been doing is very well done, hurrah for the statistics, and those who do not appear in the statistics, let them manage by themselves".
Yesterday, the Prime Minister sent this reply to Senator Hebert, and in his letter the Prime Minister admitted: I would be the first to recognize that much more should be done for the young. That having been said, I think there is a move. Today the Prime Minister, probably on the way out of his caucus, said that probably, by the end of the month, the Government would be announcing new programs for the young. It would therefore seem that he is beginning to see the light. The Minister of State said she was not aware of anything. This is no news to us, she has never been aware of anything since she has been there, Mr. Speaker. I think she should inquire from the Prime Minister because it could help her in her speech today and she would look better if she did not contradict the Prime Minister before the end of the debate. I think it is important to know that at 12:23 p.m., according to a Canadian Press report, the Prime Minister has said he will announce new programs before the end of the month. However, she may no longer be there and this is why he did not ask her advice. However, Mr. Speaker, I think we should go beyond the personal case of the Minister of State, because the Government will deal with it, but we should look after the young people. As a result of the situation in the Senate which no doubt will become embarrassing for the Government, I know of no Government who would face such a situation without doing a self-examination and taking action.
In that case, why should we wait? Indeed, we know that a mistake was made when programs were swiftly cut. They admit that they have not done enough, that new measures will be taken before the end of the month but why are they not acting now? I think it would be in the interests of young Canadians. When the Government killed Katimavik, they promised that the $20 million would be transferred to another program and, of course, the Minister of State did not know what kind of program it would be.
It would perhaps be proper now for the Minister of State to rise, to show some leadership and announce a new program which would end the human drama of certain young people throughout the country and would hopefully satisfy our colleague, senator Hebert. Since certain Members are making light of the situation in the Senate, I would like to ask them to reflect on an editorial in today's Le Droit:
The most sinister sniggering in the history of the House of Commons in Ottawa may have been heard on Monday. The whole venerable assembly of the representatives of the Canadian people once burst out laughing about the problem of battered women. When advised Monday about the fast of Senator
Jacques Hebert, who is asking for the Katimavik Program to be reestablished, the Conservative Members of Parliament did something even more ugly.
The editorial goes on to say that, by laughing at Jacques Hebert and his hunger strike to save Katimavik, which represents the only ray of hope for many young people, the sniggering Conservatives showed their simplemindedness, their absence of morality, or even their pleasure at a situation which is in fact quite disastrous. There is no other reason to react as they did. I dare hope that the Minister of State (Youth) and all her colleagues will reflect upon these words written by editorialist Johannes Martin Godbout. Today the House is wondering what we as parliamentarians might do for that important segment of our population. It is a starting point.
We will be told there is no money, think of the funds required and the deficit. How far can we go on hiding behind deficits and sacrificing an important part of a generation? How wrong can our priorities be when we can find $1 billion to bail out wealthy bank depositors and pretend there is nothing left to help the most dynamic forces in our society? As suggested in the editorial, I think it is a lack of ethics.
I know that this Conservative Government is not overly sensitive to the plight of young Canadians, except perhaps to offer them minor census jobs. My colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) gave us a good example today when he told us that, at the request of the Minister of State (Youth), the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes) followed her advice and offered census jobs to young people, particularly those who belong to the Ottawa University Conservative club. I think measures of this nature are not worthy of a proud Government or of parliamentarians like our colleague from Valleyfield who, I know, has a lot more class than that and is aware that the future of youth is a matter of honour and that we should not belittle the problems experienced by the new generation.
I think that the Government is not offering them opportunities because it feels that those who are lucky enough will make out all right, but too bad about the others. The fact is that solutions are there, they have been proposed by various organizations.
We have had studies galore. The one example I would give is the First Chance program which could have met urgent needs. The Minister of State (Youth) may laugh her head off! What to expect? I think she has no sense of responsibility, because young people urgently need ready access to the labour market, they need practical experience. I would suggest that the First Chance program could have been one of many avenues open to them. Call it whatever you like, but do something!
I think that it is important for young Canadians to feel that
not only big business lobbies can influence this Government,
that not only large companies, such as the oil multinationals.
March 12, 1986



which have so much attention already, can catch the attention of the Government, but that ordinary people can do the same, that is those who cannot afford to attend weekend conventions or come to Ottawa to protest. I have been told: There are not that many youth organizations because there are no demonstrations on the Hill. Even coming here from Montreal or Toronto is too much to ask people who might have to live on $145 a month in welfare benefits. Would we want them to live on even less? I think that you only have to look at the facts to realize that there is a major problem.
I therefore hope that the events of the last few days and the daily problems facing many young people will convince our friends opposite to stop being concerned only by those who make large contributions to the Party and to take care of real people. I hope that they will show-and we already know that this is a big business Government-that this Government also has a heart, that it has courage and that it can admit that, because the Members opposite tried to go too fast in reducing the deficit, they forgot to take into account the human factor and to examine the type of situation in which 700,000 young people find themselves, they forgot to consider that these young people need at least the same opportunities as the other elements in our society.
There is now a difference of 6 per cent in the unemployment rate for young people and the rate for older Canadians. Some positive action must therefore be taken to help these people.
I do not see why this Government refuses to accept its responsibilities and I am convinced that the discussions that many Members opposite will have next weekend in their own constituency will give them pause and convince them to ask their caucus, their Leader and their Ministers to take more positive action in the coming weeks.
I trust that this will happen sooner than later and that the signs shown by the Prime Minister these last few days will lead to the implementation of a major program, not only knick-knacks, but something substantial, not just a political gesture to try not to lose face and show that something has been done, but a real program, a bold program, geared to the needs of young Canadians.
I am convinced that, should you take a poll-and you do that often enough-you would find that Canadians would be willing to make some sacrifices for the upcoming generation. I can say, right now, that all Canadians want to give young people a chance.
Ask your own conscience, look at your own children. Don't you want them to have the same opportunities you had? I am not asking for more than that. Give our young people the same opportunities you had when you were their age. Then, you will have a clear conscience, you will know you have done your best by giving them the programs they need to have the same opportunities you had.
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon).


Mr. Hudon:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), because of his experience, has his speeches oozing with both honey and gall.
Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to take the young as hostages. It is very easy, for instance, and especially when the galleries are packed full, to say to those young people: "You know, boys and girls, they would rather help the banks than you". This is very simple, especially when reference is made to banks, and the Hon. Member opposite knows very well that the bank situation is not a situation we had been looking for, but we had an obligation to act.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member also said earlier that the young were "a multitude of solitudes". 1 am repeating his exact words. 1 do not believe that at all. They are not a multitude of solitudes, but rather, in view of the rates we are currently noting-and this is why I would like to ask my question in that direction-since unemployment rates are now declining, I do not think we should speak of a multitude of solitudes. Quite the opposite, studies show they now have the highest possible rate of dynamism.
I would simply like to ask my question which is threefold. In the Prime Minister's letter to which he was referring earlier, it is stated: "On September 4, 1984, the unemployment rate among the young aged 15 to 24 was 18.4 per cent, and it is now 16.4 per cent."
This is quoting from Statistics Canada, unless you think that Statistics Canada is wrong once again. However, Statistics Canada says so: there are 2 per cent less unemployment according to the seasonally adjusted statistics.
Second, over the 18 months since September 1984, 50,000 new jobs have been created for young people. This again is quoted from Statistics Canada. Third, between February,
1980,	and September, 1984, young Canadians have suffered the loss of 285,000 jobs. This again is taken from Statistics Canada.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague opposite was also Minister for Youth. What did he do at the time?
I will repeat the figures. Mr. Speaker, from 1980 to 1985, I will give January figures, seasonally adjusted figures:
In 1980, the young unemployed rate was 13.1 per cent; in
1981,	it declined to 12.9 per cent; in 1982, it rose to 15.3 per cent; in 1983, it rose to 20.4 per cent; and in 1984, it decreased to 18.4 per cent. The rate came down to 17.5 per cent and now to 15.9 per cent. But what do you make of those figures? They are not the same.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I now recognize the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).

March 12, 1986
Supply


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, this is precisely then reason. I think that with reference to a crooked mind, my friend should realize that the February figures show the extent of unemployment amoung young people and if he wishes to fiddle with figures, the rate started at 15.9 per cent and last month reached 16.4 per cent under a Conservative Government. Consequently, this game of statistics can well be played.
Mr. Speaker, this is not enough, even if the rate is 16.4, 16.2 or 16.1, it is too high. Seven hundred thousand unemployed, that is too many, and that is unacceptable. And we congratulate you if the rate has decreased from September until now but this is not good enough. You must do something else. Do not be satisfied with a 15.9 rate which has now reached 16.4. We ask you to do more.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Oh yes, something else!


Jean-C. Lapierre: This is what I have been asking you in my speech. I urge you to act because you are now glossing over your darn statistics while 700,000 people are in distress. You better stop bragging about your figures when facts are altogether different. You know quite well that your statistics do not include those who are depressed and discouraged and are no longer looking for jobs. All those who are registered with the Manpower Centres are not included in your statistics. And we know quite well that in some serious cases, after looking for a job for two or three years, one has to accept any kind of job. For instance, a fellow who has a Ph.D. is driving a taxi. Do you think this is satisfactory? In your statistics cases such is these are not included.
How many young people are presently underemployed because there are no openings for their particular talents, so that they never have the opportunity to practice the trades for which they prepared themselves, at great costs to themselves and their families? That is something your damned statistics do not show. But stop burying your heads in the sand, as the Minister of State (Youth) is doing, and face reality. And reality commands you, for human dignity's sake, to act. That is what we are beseeching you to do. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I, for one, cannot accept, when faced with this human tragedy, that the Government should try to hide reality behind a series of figures. When we hear about holding young Canadians as hostages, I suggest the Government once again demonstrates a paternalistic attitude, because young people can judge by themselves. For my part, I present my own view of the matter in trying to I urge you to act, and they can very well assess the performance of their so-called representative. Let them decide for themselves.
But young Quebecers have already decided, and if you want figures as evidence of that, I can refer you strictly to the results of the Gallup polls.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Charlevoix
(Mr. Hamelin) has the floor for a question or a comment.


Mr. Hamelin:: Just a comment, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that my hon. colleague's remarks ... of course, everybody agrees with the higher principles, just as everybody is in favour of motherhood. But it is also the expression of obvious bad faith on his part.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that in this country Canadians can normally renounce their rights to an estate. When the liabilities exceed the assets, they usually do. Unfortunately, we could not renounce the situation we had inherited from you as former nominal Minister of Youth. We simply could not. We owe you the 700,000 unemployed young Canadians you have mentioned and we are stuck with them. How dare you come forward as you do and, in bad faith, blame us for this situation. As the Government, your party had 20 years to address this problem. Under your administration, unemployment figures constantly went up instead of going down.
If intelligence is a sword, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague unfortunately is entirely helpless. It is a disgrace that he should rise in the House today and attack the Government in such evident bad faith. We are as aware as he is, as former nominal Minister, of the problems young Canadians are faced with. If there is a region where the situation is particularly acute, it's mine. I sympathize with their predicament and, as Members of the House, we try every day to-


Jean-Claude Malépart: Quit sympathizing and do something!


Charles-André Hamelin: I do not think I have any advice to receive from the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (M. Malepart), because in our constituencies, in our have-not regions, unemployment does not affect only the young, but also the less young people, as well as those between 40 and 60 who are laid off by companies, as in Forestville recently where 213 people were laid off. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie knows that what we are not talking of 450 jobs in Montreal, which may amount to .0231 per cent of the total Montreal workforce, but that in my area, when 213 jobs are lost in a small town like Forestville, it means that 70 per cent of the families are affected. All your shouting and negative biased comments are therefore quite inappropriate in this House as you are presenting a distorted image of the facts. I am making efforts, and so are my colleagues. I have made efforts with my colleague who helped me with a number of files, and did not do so in a partisan way as you are suggesting today. We just tried to come up with new projects, to involve young Canadians and ask them as we ask all Canadians to make the necessary efforts to address the situation. But because of the bad stuff you have been putting out for 20 years, we need a little time to further cut down the deficit and deliver what we promised.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that comment, we know of course that our Hon. friend can only shout as he
March 12, 1986

knows that his arguments have no substance at all. Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker. One can of course say that people are biased and put the blame on previous Government. But can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member blaming me for the past 20 years of management of our country! Mr. speaker, I am 29; do you think that I sat here in the House of Commons when 1 was 9? The Hon. Member cannot be speaking in good faith, and I just want to tell him, Mr. Speaker, that they on the government side have a responsibility. I have been a member of the Government, and if the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne) has a ministry-or had one, now that only her title is left-if there was a Ministry of State (Youth), it was because I fought to make sure that the voice of young Canadians would be heard within the Government. I fought hard to get the Ministry and that position created, and my colleagues should remember that I was among those who criticized the situation and called for action, and we did indeed take actions. All we are asking this Government to do, as they claimed that they could do better with respect to everyone and everything, all we are asking them, instead of cutting down the budget, as the Minister of State (Youth) wrote in her letter of January 6, is this: You promised to do better, well, do it then, but by God do it!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and comments is terminated. We shall resume debate with the Hon. Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne).


An Hon. Member:: She is still there!


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, this Government is being accused of ignoring Canadian youth. This Government is being accused of failing to deal with what they insist on calling "the crisis of a generation", and finally, it is being accused of failing to take immediate steps to deal with problems that this Government inherited from an administration that spent money as if it were going out of style but failed to deal with any of the problems the country was facing.


Charles-André Hamelin: That's right.


Andrée  Champagne: It is therefore not surprising, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian people rebelled as energetically as they did on September 4, 1984. And that is why, Mr. Speaker, this Government wanted first of all to get rid of this cancer that is eating at each and everyone of us, but especially at our youth, the children of Canada.

What we hear from Opposition Members is single word "spend". They do not care about a baby born this very minute who has a mortgage of $8,000 on its tiny shoulders.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Supply


Andrée  Champagne: They do not care about the deficit, the national debt, which was eradicating every chance that child had to a decent life, a life to which every Canadian is entitled.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we are being told to spend, even if there are no worthwhile results in the long run. Spend just the same! Create jobs for a few weeks, just long enough to let people draw unemployment insurance benefits and then go on welfare, until they are back in the same old cycle.
Mr. Speaker, when the Opposition says this is what Canada's youth wants, it shows how far removed it is from reality. 1 really wonder when these people last had a worthwhile discussion with young people.
The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) referred earlier to those who made it, but who does he think he is? He is fine, he has done very well for himself. Mr. Speaker, he never had those problems, and he is too young to have children who did. In fact, I wonder when he last had a serious conversation with young people.
Mr. Speaker, when Opposition Members insist on lamenting the lot of what they refer to as the lost generation, they are not only showing their ignorance of reality but, and this is much worse, they are insulting a whole generation of young Canadians who are making every effort to survive, despite the disastrous consequences of those long years of Liberal Government.
Our youth is not-I repeat, not a lost generation. They are young men and women struggling through a Liberal created mess, out of which this Government is now leading them surely and effectively.
We are not taking immediate measures to help young people, Mr. Speaker? I have heard of the pot calling the kettle black, but this form of hypocrisy should not be allowed, neither in this House nor in the worst God forsaken street of this world.
What did the Liberals do between February, 1980 and September, 1984 when young people lost 285,000 jobs and when the rate of unemployment soared to 18.4 per cent? What did they do, Mr. Speaker? They kept on with their make-work projects which never helped anyone acquire a permanent, rewarding job, and they continued to increase our national debt.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about Katimavik?


Andrée  Champagne: I will come to it if the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) will just keep quiet for a moment. Her sweet voice is not helping.
What did we do, Mr. Speaker? Fifty thousand jobs were created in a mere few months. I have heard the Opposition scream that they were not all permanent jobs. Again, Opposition Members have shown their lack of knowledge of what is

March 12, 1986
Supply
going on. Many of our young people are looking for part-time work while they are pursuing studies in their chosen fields. They said so themselves. Yes, many in what the Opposition called that lost generation want to study and work. Our young Canadians are not all a bunch of drug addicts, alcoholics and suicidal people.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Who said that?


Andrée  Champagne: You just said it before. Some of them do have more difficulty than others, but calling them hopeless is certainly not helpful.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I believe we have a point of order.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, do I misunderstand? I thought it was a rule of the House that a Member did not read a speech but rather was impelled by the sincerity of feelings about the subject being discussed-


Sheila Maureen Copps: She doesn't understand the subject.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister may proceed.


Andrée  Champagne: We know that during these difficult times for our young people, especially between 1980 and 1984, many of them had to leave school. We have made some important decisions. Young people must be given a chance to get back into the labour force, to make something of their lives and plan for their future. That is why we are allocating some very substantial funding for youth. Within the Canadian Jobs Strategy alone, we have allocated $700 million or 37 per cent of the Department's budget. Speaking of labour market integration, we will be spending $210 million to help those seeking their first job.
Institutional training: $280 million. Challenge '86: a total of $210 million.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, all young people are eligible for the other components of our Canadian Jobs Strategy, programs that will total almost two billion dollars this year.
Challenge '86 is a program that young students appreciate because it gives them an opportunity to acquire the experience they need to obtain a permanent job.
In 1984, the Young Canada Works Program had a budget of $200,000 and created 65,000 jobs. Challenge '85, with a budget-


An Hon. Member:: $200 million.


Andrée  Champagne: Excuse me, $200 million, and 65,000 jobs.
Challenge '85, with a budget of $205 million, has created more
than 100,000 jobs, of which 67 per cent were directly related to the individual's career or course of study.
In 1986, Mr. Speaker, with the private sector participating we will create even more jobs. We expect 120,000 summer jobs will be created.
Those who are less fortunate, including drop-outs, will be able to attend training courses and at the same time acquire practical job experience. This should encourage them to either continue their education or at least get some professional training. And we are being accused, Mr. Speaker, of inertia vis-a-vis our young people!

As well, we have loans and loan guarantees that will be available for students, for those who would rather start their own business. This is how to encourage leadership and entrepreneurship. This is how to avoid condemning an entire generation to a lifetime of welfare.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Come on.


Andrée  Champagne: As the Quebec poet Felix Leclerc said so eloquently, Mr. Speaker: The best way to kill a man is to pay him to do nothing.


An Hon. Member:: You have been doing that for twenty
years.


Andrée  Champagne: Because we are aware that too many people have to rely on welfare to live while looking for employment, an extra $100 million was directed to them in the Budget. This will also benefit a lot of young people.

In 1986, more than 200,000 young Canadians will benefit from federal employment programs, and this in addition to programs offered by Agriculture, CIDA, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Fisheries & Oceans, Justice, Environment, and there are others, and of course the Department of the Secretary of State. And this Government does nothing for youth?
Mr. Speaker, because of the sad legacy of the previous Government, we have had to make some difficult decisions that will help put our finances in order. Katimavik is part of what the Prime Minister referred to as "painful measures".


Jean-Claude Malépart: Just to do the rich a favour.


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, it was impossible for a responsible Government to go on being so unfair to so many young Canadians. It was unthinkable to continue spending $20 million for the benefit of only 2,000 out of 4.5 million young Canadians who are entitled to take their place in society.


Jean-Claude Malépart: And 56 million to change the colours of the
uniforms.
March 12, 1986


Andrée  Champagne: Katimavik was never meant to be a job-creation program, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Stewart:: Right.


Andrée  Champagne: Its participants lived a great experience for nine months at a cost of $20 million a year. Was that fair, Mr. Speaker? Some of the participants even left school or a permanent job to get into the program. In the latter case they would get unemployment insurance benefits after. Was that fair? Considering the state of the country's finances, it became clear that the same money could be put to better use and, more important, directed toward a greater number of people.
I am quite aware that voluntary work can be most rewarding for whoever gets involved and for whoever is the beneficiary. During a recent of poll of young people between 15 and 24, some 24 per cent said they were currently doing volunteer or community work, and 73 per cent said that they would participate to acquire work experience. I am not surprised, because our young people are generous, kind, and wise. They want to help, and to help one another. The youth of Canada deserve better than to see 20 million of our scarce dollars shared by fewer than one-twentieth of one per cent of their peers.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should refresh the memory of our Liberal colleagues and remind them that about ten years ago, in one fell swoop, the Trudeau Government buried the Company of Young Canadians, ended all operations under the Opportunities for Youth program while slashing the Local Initiatives program budget by 30 per cent. All those programs were geared to young people. Those $77.5 million were ear-maked for something else, the equivalent of $200 million in current dollars. There was a resulting loss of 37,000 jobs. And now the Members of that same Party are sanctimoniously lecturing us about youth! Young people had to wait for nearly two years before Katimavik was launched. The Opposition applies a double standard, shamelessly.

Shamelessly they accuse us of throwing Canada's youth in Mr. Trudeau's "dire straights".

Mr. Speaker, at the Department of Youth we seriously consider reports from the Senate and the New Democratic Party. We carry out in-depth studies, as a responsible Government and a responsible Minister ought to do.
It is with sadness that I reflect upon the matter. If the Senators believed that the only really important thing in their report is that Katimavik is touted as having been the answer to all youth problems, then a lot of money has been wasted in drafting the report.
Supply

When one looks at the NDP report, the same word appears again, "spend". It is the flagship recommendation. They want us to spend $5,500 a year for two years for young people to do as they please; study, acquire skills, or simply think over what they might want to do when that money runs out. Mr. Speaker, $5,500 a year is not even enough for an ordinary Canadian, like the Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), to take a decent holiday, as he stated recently. Like the song says, I wonder what the poor people do? This is not Camelot, this is Canada, and Canada is recuperating from 20 years of wasteful Liberal policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Andrée  Champagne: Young people do not want a new form of welfare. They do not want to be part of a ghetto where, no matter what one does, he or she is considered a desperate, lazy, hopeless member of a lost generation.

Mr. Speaker, young Canadians spoke and our Government listened to them.
Young Canadians seek an opportunity to better themselves, they want to acquire the training and experience needed to secure lasting employment, work that will enable them to increase their knowledge and improve their standard of living. That is exactly what the Government has done. It showed concern, it has already acted and it will continue to act for the benefit of all groups and all regions. And, as the Prime Minister said, we will go even further when the time comes.
Mr. Speaker, rebuilding a country is somewhat like renovating a house. One must be sure that the foundation is on solid ground before spending money on decorations.
We are rebuilding this country with young people who day by day begin to feel hopeful again. First and foremost we must ensure that young people do have a future.

Politics becomes a very sad word when it is used to drown the hopes of a generation, when it is used to insult a generation which is but paying for the mistakes of the past, and when one is blackmailed into believing that life without any real personal responsibilities will cure all that may seem imperfect. Nobody said life was easy, but living it is worthwhile, but only if you keep on trying.
"Spend" they say. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we do, and we will, but wisely, and where it is most needed. That is what the Government will continue to do for Canada, for those who are very much part of our present, and for whom and with whom we are building tomorrow.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) on a question or comment.

March 12, 1986
Supply


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the Minister for dealing at last with the unemployment situation with which young Canadians are faced, but I should like her to tell me . .. When she said that she had consulted young Canadians, maybe she was inferring that we had not consulted them enough. I know that over the past year, the Minister has spent $400,000 to organize regional meetings which were to culminate in a national conference supposedly to develop a national consensus on priorities for young Canadians. Now that she has renounced for the time being her project to hold her national conference, presumably for lack of funds, could she tell us what will happen of all her consultations? Will she publish a report? Did she hold consultations with young people just for the sake of making them talk? What I should like the Minister to tell us is whether the national conference will take place in two years, after the International Year of Youth, or does she intend to hold it very soon as promised?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, we have always indicated that the national conference would take place later, that the International Year was only a step towards better things and continued involvement with young Canadians. The International Year has been for all parties concerned a period of deep reflexion; it provided young people who had never been consulted an opportunity to express themselves. Previous Governments would set up and abandon programs without ever consulting young Canadians. Throughout this International Year, our Government has dialogued with young Canadians from all parts of Canada, from Newfoundland to the Yukon Territory. When the time comes to get young Canadians together again, we will do so, but at the time I, together with the Prime Minister, will choose, without the young people needing to wait for a decision from the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


An Hon. Member:: They have certainly waited long enough.


Andrée  Champagne: Although they expected a great many things from the Hon. Member, they never got much from his party.
When the time comes, Mr. Speaker, we will call again young Canadians to a meeting and we will work together with them towards a better Canada for them all.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly clear that the Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) is not going to get an answer to his question. The answer, of course, is no, there is no national forum scheduled, unless the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) decides to change his mind about allowing one to occur.
I have a couple of questions which I had not anticipated addressing in my speech. We have had great difficulty getting information about some of the things which the Minister had stated as fact in the House. Perhaps she can tell us what the
$11.73 billion is which she mentioned in the House the other day.
She condemned Katimavik because, as I recall, it affected only one-twentieth of one per cent of the youth in the country. Did she oppose the capital gains tax exemption on the basis of the low percentage of the population of the country which would benefit from that? Did she oppose the bail-out of banks on the basis of the small percentage of Canadians which would have benefited from that? By the way, when she was considering the cost of the youth prospects program did she make any reference in her mind at all to the $2.8 billion which was flushed down the drain for the benefit of Tory buddies?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, the statistics on amounts of money to which I referred earlier this week are very simple to get.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Send me a note.


Andrée  Champagne: The Member and his Party have a research team. They can very well look into Part III of the Estimates which were presented in the House by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). They can do the work themselves and they will get exactly the same answers. I am not going to do their work for them.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ... it is indeed a sad day when 700,000 young Canadians thought that the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne) would see this as an important debate and announce new things. The Minister has confessed her failure. A little while ago, my colleague asked her ... The Minister has allowed $56 million to be spent on uniforms of a different colour for our military personnel instead of keeping $20 million for young Canadians. The Minister was all in favour of granting the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) $100 million more per year to send
1,000	more military personnel to Europe, instead of helping young Canadians find jobs.
During her speech, the Minister has insulted young Canadian men and women who needed just a little push and not a slap in the face. Could the Minister stand up and say honestly why she has allowed expenditures of $56 million . .. and $100 million per year to send 1,000 soldiers to Lahr instead of keeping between $20 or $25 million to help young people in Quebec and the rest of Canada?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, we are keeping and shall continue to keep our promises to young people, and by the same token, we are keeping and shall continue to keep our promises and commitments to NATO. I do not see why one would prevent the other. The amounts are there and the results also. Jobs are being created. There are programs in just about every major Department, programs which we are coordinating for all young Canadians. We are keeping our promises as far
March 12, 1986

as they are concerned and we shall continue to do so. Like the Prime Minister said this week, in due time, new programs will be announced, but these programs will meet the needs and aspirations of young people while taking into account the amounts available to the Government at this time following the disastrous situation of the last 20 years.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, someone accused me earlier of arranging the figures to suit my purposes, but I would like to say that I made a mistake. I took the first line while I should have taken the second. If I had wanted to arrange the figures, I would have quoted the second line for February when unemployment figures are always the highest. I would have done so if I had wanted to arrange the figures. I quoted the figures for January.
I said earlier that, in 1982, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 15.3 per cent. I have the honour to inform you that, if I had wanted to arrange the figures, I would have announced a rate of 15.4 for February, 16.2 for March, 16.8 for April, 17.6, and normally, in July, when many young people have jobs, the rate is lower, but while the rate for January was 15.3, in July of the same year, it was 21.3. And they try to criticize! This is what I would have said if I had arranged the figures to suit my purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to ask my hon. colleague whether, if Katimavik was so popular with the public, the private sector would not have jumped on the opportunity to take over from the Government after cancellation of this program was announced. We have heard no such thing.


Jean-Claude Malépart: The private sector took the money.


Andrée  Champagne: In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to prevent Opcan from collecting funds from the private sector to keep the program in operation. The Government decided that these $20 million would be allocated elsewhere to help a greater number of young people. I am thinking, for instance, about what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced in his Budget. We know that, unfortunately, many young people are on welfare. Another amount of $100 million has just been granted to help create jobs for people on welfare. And the Members opposite say that we are doing nothing for young people and for those who need help.
They told me that they were expecting me to make announcements today. They tell this Government: Spend even more money, never mind that the young people have no future because there will be this terrible debt which they will never be able to repay. That is not why this Government was elected and that is not how I intend to work with and for young people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for
Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) for a question or a comment.
Supply


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to ask the Minister whether, in the said $11.7 billion she was referring to, family allowances are included, because I think those figures are misleading our people.
I would also like to ask her sincerely whether she is now saying, as mentioned by the Prime Minister, that the Government is ready to announce programs for the young. She knows very well that Senator Hebert is now on a hunger strike that could have truly serious consequences for his health.
I heard the Minister speak in good faith outside the House when she stated Senator Hebert was a man who represented a certain hope for the people. She spoke well of him outside the House.
If her Government is ready to announce something, why is she not doing it today, a program that would give some hope not only to Senator Hebert but to the young people? Because we know that in the Nielsen Report, where reference is made to Katimavik, it is said that if that program were cancelled without being replaced by another one, this could cause despair among young Canadians.
I think the Government's decision to kill a program which the Prime Minister himself (Mr. Mulroney) said was good, was made because this was a former Liberal program. It was not killed because it was a bad program, since it was a program recognized by the Canadian people and internationally as a program that provided the joy of living, training, life experience, quality of life to those who never had much luck in life.
Therefore, why? If she really represents the young in the Cabinet, why does she not react today and give a little hope to those young Canadians who are following the debate today and who ask for a single gesture today from the Government and the Minister that would give some hope to our young people?
As far as we are concerned, we do not call the young "junkies" or alcohol-prone. But it must be recognized that the suicide rate among young people has doubled over the last ten years. And we are now beginning to see that this may be a lost generation, a generation without hope.
As a woman, it seems to me that she can understand the plight of a generation without hope.
Why does she not give some hope to these people today through an announcement, whether it be only $20 million, or whether it is a step in the right direction for the Katimavik program? But at least let her send a signal to the young of our country.


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, the end of Katimavik was announced by the Minister responsible for it a few weeks ago and the Government had then to make that decision, "a painful decision" as the Prime Minister said yesterday, considering the needs of young people, the lack of available funds

March 12, 1986
Supply
and especially the very small number of young people who could take advantage of the program.
Nobody ever said that the program was not satisfactory, that it had nothing good. We cannot at present give special privileges to a mere 2,000 young people when there are 4.5 million of them and we have so little money.
The Prime Minister said today:

He said that unfortunately the resources are stretched across the Government. That does not make my task any easier than was the task of the previous Minister. However, we are working and, as I indicated some weeks ago, the financial year ends on March 31, and at or about that time we will be making some announcements regarding funding and initiatives and programs we think will be helpful to the youth of Canada. We will once more keep our word. When this is ready to be done, it will be done.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in support of the Liberal motion.
I listened to the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) who berated us because we expected her to announce some new programs. I would have to assert that I had no such expectation. I do not expect the Minister of State to do very much more than she has already done, which is nothing. She also berated us for alleging that she was not concerned about youth. We know that she is concerned about youth because she devoted a full-length letter to her colleagues about this subject.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why is she leaving?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: We would not expect the Minister of State for Youth to stay and listen to the debate about those people about whom she cares so much. She said that we did not acknowledge her concern for youth, but we were recently table to identify quite specifically her concern for youth. Her concern for youth is that they are a target of recruitment for the Progressive Conservative Party's youth federation. She alleged that we did not believe her concern about the problems of youth but we know that she is very much concerned about the problems of youth. Why else would she attempt to exploit the problems of youth to meet the ends of her own recruitment policy for which her office is being used?
We have just completed International Youth Year. Perhaps I should remind the House why International Youth Year was declared by the United Nations. As in the case of women, members of the United Nations believed that there should be a year for youth in order to focus attention on the imminent crisis that was affecting young people, particularly in the western world. Riots had already taken place and there was a great deal of concern that if something was not done about the unemployment among young people a crisis of significant proportions would lead to social disruption. International Youth Year was not intended to be a year of celebration for
the accomplishments of youth, as it was celebrated in Canada in many respects, but was intended specifically to focus attention upon the concerns, the problems and the need for participation by young people in determining policies that would affect their lives.
The Minister of State for Youth says that she has been consulting with young people. During International Youth Year her Ministry sponsored a number of forums. She attended these forums, leaving in her wake deep disappointment among many that she did not have the time to spare to sit down with young people to listen to their problems at length, as many of us have done.
They do not want to be told what problems to discuss or what their concerns should be, they simply want us to listen. These forums were rather consistent with the content of the Minister's letter and, in many instances, were seen by young people as attempts to steer the discussion of youth toward directions chosen by her Party in order to support her philosophies and those of her Party. Therefore, perhaps it is not a great disappointment that the fifth national forum has been cancelled after four which served little purpose for young people. Perhaps we must admit that a fifth forum would have served little purpose.
Until recently the International Youth Year failed in its goal to provide a focus on the concerns of youth. I was involved as critic for youth and post-secondary education in the New Democratic task force which coursed across the country and talked to hundreds of young people. There are so many easily identifiable problems affecting so many youth that I believed that the media and the three Parties in this House would have been able to respond. I have been puzzled, grieved and saddened by the great difficulty in drawing attention to the plight of young people in this country.
When I say that some 25 per cent of the population of young people represent a lost generation, I am not denying the contribution, the honesty and creativity of young people. However, when we consider how the problems of many young people are being disregarded and reflect upon why there is the rejection of effective participation by youth, I recall the many graduation speeches I have heard in which adults have told young people: "Tomorrow this will be your world because you are the leaders of tomorrow".
Let us examine the background of such statements. It means that this is our world today but will soon belong to young people. We are saying that eventually someone will take over our territory and we will have to concede to youth. Perhaps when we tell youth that this will be their world tomorrow and they will be tomorrow's leaders we are really confessing that we are suspicious of our youth and do not want them to be involved because they are the enemy. I believe we must stop projecting that attitude in our relationship with young people and begin to consider youth as our partners in this democracy, from whom we have much to gain in developing the destiny of this country.
We have also heard the assertion that today's youth are
going through the same experience we had when we were
March 12, 1986

young. This is not true. Our experience as youth in this country and throughout the world was quite different from today's youth. Many of us earned our political spurs in the 1960s. While many of us participated in social actions that could have caused us trouble, we knew we would ultimately be able to get a job. Indeed, some may ultimately end up in the Parliament of Canada after engaging in near revolutionary movements. In those days there was full employment but today there are many young people who are unemployed and may never have a job.
Today's young people are awash in information. They have received far more information in half an hour of television than they can learn from a week in the classroom. At no time in history has a population grown up in circumstances where change is so rapid with respect to technology, the transfer and the flow of information that there is little time to prepare or make judgments.
We did not grow up in communities where families were subject to such dramatic and drastic change. Many young people are the children of single parents and come from families that suffered marriage breakdown. Today, family relatives live far apart. The atmosphere among families today is one in which they spend six minutes a day to discuss family concerns.
There is a vast difference between now and then. That is why the young people of today are pleading for more help, more advice and more guidance. There were recommendations that there be significant changes in the educational system because the youth of today are different. They are different because of the environment in which they grow up. Their needs are substantially different. Their experience and problems are different. So we had better stop looking at young people through a distorted mirror. We must see them through a window which reveals their lives. We should try to understand their particular experience of growing up in this world.
I must confess to a certain degree of gratitude. Over the last few weeks, the release of the New Democratic Party task force report, the Senate committee task force report, the ineptitude, unfortunate as it may be, of a Minister who was caught in serious error and, now, more recently, the grievance expressed in the form of a hunger strike by an eminent Senator, have all brought some focus on the problems of our youth. I hope that this emphasis on young people will not be aborted. I have been very much concerned about the lack of attention given to the youth of Canada in this House. Although I believe it is unfortunate that a hunger strike by one of its own has brought the Liberal Party more consciously into the effort, I appreciate that it is with us. I hope that the Conservatives will begin to realize that what we are talking about is not a share of already existing programs but rather the initiatives which will be taken in response to what has been identified by two task forces, and many others, as a unique problem.
Let us consider the Senate report and our own report. Let us look at the recommendations in contrast to what we have been
Supply
hearing from the other side. There are two things on which both reports agree, first, that the problem of youth is significant and we should address their needs as unique and not relating to the rest of the population; and second, and this is by far the most important, that there must be some means by which young people can be involved in advising all levels of Government of their needs and concerns. We should provide youth with the means of participation in a variety of ways. One of these would be to ensure the existence of youth advisory councils at both the federal and the provincial levels. Youth chosen by democratic means could be given the opportunity, through the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne), who is supposed to be a true advocate for youth, to advise Government and Government Departments of their needs and concerns. We should enhance the opportunities for young people to be heard from on all of the issues affecting them.
Our task force report made a number of recommendations.
[ Translation]
The goal of the task force was to provide a forum for young people and alow them to speak about the various Government policies which affect them, to state their views on various social, economic and political issues and to promote the development of new strategies to meet economic needs as far as social development was concerned and this involved over 4 million young Canadians aged 15 to 24.

One of our important recommendations was with respect to youth prospects. We do not mean a hand-out like the $2.8 billion for the research and development credit. It is not like the capital gains exemption. It is not a hand-out like the money which went to the banks and which benefited the banks outside our borders to the extent of 30 per cent. None of these things were subject to the criticism that those people would waste the money on vacations, cars, and so. In fact, one got the impression that if they did go on vacations and purchased cars, it was probably a good thing to do with the money.
Our recommendation was intended to provide opportunity. We were impressed by the fact that, to a large extent-as a result of the inaction of the Government in respect of the financing of universities-accessibility to universities was being seriously impeded. The gains which had been made in the last decade in providing opportunities for minorities, the disabled and women were being restricted as a result of financial exigency by the Government. It failed to respond to the needs of the universities in a number of respects. We have encountered many young people from poor families who, were they to go to university, would incur debts totalling as much as $40,000. They would be faced with nine years or ten years of making payments at the rate of $350 a month. We also found that the youth from poor families could get an allowance if they went into a training program. So we have an arrangement that creates an essential bias. The poor go into the training programs and the rich go to university.

March 12, 1986
Supply
There were a number of other problems which existed among young people which had to be addressed in an effective way. We suggested a program which would affect young people between the ages of 18 and 22 years. If they chose to participate in the Youth Prospects Program, then they would be provided not with a gift of $5,500, but with an allowance just like the allowances which are provided for training programs now and which are denied those young people going to college and university. This will make it possible for young people of all classes and all backgrounds to make a reasonable choice of whether to go to university or college or to go into entrepreneurship programs or work skill developments which are similar to Katimavik, or to go into industrial training programs which exist now. Such a program, if integrated with already existing programs at the federal and provincial levels will cost relatively little. It would certainly cost a good deal less than the $30 billion in deferred taxes afforded to large corporations. It would cost less than the $11 billion in tax expenditures which benefit the larger corporations. Indeed, it would cost exactly the same amount of money as the capital gais exemption and at its peak would cost no more than $1.4 billion.
It disturbs me, as I am sure it disturbs many of the young people from whom I have heard-who regard this as an excellent program in response to their needs-that the Government would criticize such a program on the basis of cost at the same time that it shows such quick generosity to the banks and large corporations. Moments ago we heard that $1 billion was given to the banks because of the urgency. The problem of youth is far more urgent than the problem of those who had the stupidity to take a chance and who expected the Government to bail them out.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: If this Government does not hear this and if the Minister does not hear this, then the Minister should go home and represent her constituents in her riding. She is certainly not representing the youth of the country.
The report of the New Democratic Party and the report of the Senate addressed the fact that the young people of the country have said that the educational system is not meeting their needs. It does not meet their needs with respect to career guidance. It does not meet their needs with respect to counselling. It does not meet their needs with respect to the world of work. It does not meet their needs with respect to relevance.
It is about time we recognized what has been said in report after report-there needs to be a co-ordination of post-secondary education in the country and a co-ordination of what we are doing with elementary and secondary education. If we do not do something, then we will let down the youth of the country. We will fail in taking an opportunity to do something creative about the future of our nation. This can only be done by addressing the needs of youth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Lanthier).


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, although 1 do not agree with the Hon. Member's rethoric, even if I try to tone down his criticisms which somewhat seem to outweigh if not his thoughts, at least his ability, when he describes as-and I quote-stupid, people who have invested in a bank which failed and I hope that Westerners who voted for the New Democratic Party will remember his insulting remarks.
Yet, the constructive value of his speech must be noted. The ethnic origin of our friend come directly into play. In my riding of LaSalle, there are three magnificent black communities: the Black Community Centre, The Caribbean Club, and the Negro Community Centre. These people are certainly very concerned with youth unemployment in view of the fact that the problem is more acute in communities which suffer from visible racial discrimination compared to the vast majority of Canadians.
Contrary to other criticism heard before, I think that in some parts of his speech he made suggestions which will certainly be welcomed by our Minister of State for Youth whose department is still in full swing having recently gone through a whole year of consultations, during International Youth Year. Obviously Liberals have trouble understanding this process, since they have never used it themselves. Some of his constructive comments will surely be greatly appreciated by our Minister of State for Youth.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I hope that my own race would not be an indication that we should be preoccupied only with the plight of black youth in Halifax, for example, where the unemployment rate is 70 per cent. We should not be preoccupied with the restrictive opportunities in the Hon. Member's own riding with respect to his black constituents, or the fact that blacks in Toronto have one chance in three as compared to white citizens with respect to obtaining jobs.
When we talk about the problems of youth we must address the particular problems of the visible minorities. This point is contained in our report. I believe there is no one in the Chamber who does not understand that the problems of the visible minorities have not gained as much attention as perhaps they should. This is also true with respect to the disabled who have not had their problems sufficiently addressed. They will only be addressed with the acceptance of the recommendations contained in the report entitled Obstacles. There are also problems of native youth which can only be solved when we have dealt with the problem of self-government by native people. We must ensure that there will be a smooth transition. Every effort must be made to ensure that the native youth will have an opportunity to determine their own fate, with the
March 12, 1986

adequate resources, both in terms of experience and the other facilities necessary to do so.
There are a whole host of problems which affect youth and which, in turn, affect us all. There have been certain steps taken by the Government such as the implementation of the 3 per cent surtax on income tax and the increase in the federal sales tax which are not specifically directed at youth but which will hurt them, just as they will hurt others.
In considering youth we may argue that they should have increasing opportunities for participation. We should place greater focus on their problems. To say that does not mean that they are not affected by other measures which we may take.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it has become all too rare for the House of Commons to focus its attention, at least for a while, on the problems of Canada's youth. Therefore, I wish to commend most heartily my hon. friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), who has brought forward today this very important motion which gives us the opportunity to reflect on the difficulties being faced by a very major segment of our society. I do not believe the motion which is before us today really calls for very much in the way of partisan exchange. What it does call for is the need for some concerted action. It is to that issue I would like to address my remarks.
I wonder how many Members of Parliament there are who are faced every week with the necessity of signing scores of letters which state something like this:
This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your resume.
While your qualifications are certainly of interest and your curriculum vitae is impressive, there are at present no openings in my office. Your name, however, will be kept on file.
1 regret that my response must be negative. Please accept my best wishes for success as you seek suitable employment.
I wonder how many companies, firms, businesses and industries-employers generally-there are who have to sign letters similar to that every week. I am sure the people who sign those letters do not feel good about it. It is simply a fact of Canadian life since youth unemployment today in Canada is really of tragic proportions. I do not think it is being too dramatic when I say it is a crisis-it is a crisis. The unemployment rate was nearly 17 per cent throughout 1985. That is distressing beyond words. But it does not do any good, as I have heard earlier today, to throw back and forth statistics. We know that if the situation is improving at all it is only marginally, and then the statistics themselves may be false. I will come back to that point in a moment.
What are these cold statistics? Let us translate them into human reality and determine for a moment what they mean. In part, they mean lower self-esteem. I have been to youth conferences, some conducted in my own constituency. I have spoken with young people on the streets of the towns and villages which I represent. A lower sense of self-esteem is evident among the youth to whom I have spoken. I have been witness to social alienation because of youth unemployment, family conflicts, a dissatisfaction with one's own existence, a
Supply
feeling of having no control over one's life, and, of course, one cannot fail to mention individual hardship. If one does not have the wherewithal for decent shelter and adequate nutrition, then there is personal physical hardship. There are some in our society who are much more affected than others. I wish to take just a moment to refer to native youth.
In the report of the Senate committee which was chaired by Senator Jacques Hebert, reference is made to the fact that native young people often try to escape their seemingly hopeless prospects. That was brought home to me today when I received a news report from the Province of Alberta indicating that three people from Peerless Lake in northern Alberta died yesterday. These people drank a mixture of Lysol and fluid from a photocopying machine. Six other people also drank the mixture. All were in the age group of 16 to 34. Doctors in an Edmonton hospital are now fighting for the lives of the survivors.
Peerless Lake is a poor and very isolated community of about 300 people, mainly Cree Indians. It is not a modern, urban area. The community leader-and this is the point of my bringing this to your attention, Mr. Speaker-said that it was just a matter of time before such a tragedy struck because, according to him, only one in seven persons in that community has a job. He says that there is no future for the young people there. He said that they are lost and are desperately looking for an escape. That is why I have said that the figure of 17 per cent for youth unemployment is a false one.
There are many thousands of young people in society who have simply given up on the futile effort of job hunting. Native people are not even included in the statistics provided by Statistics Canada. We all know that young people are usually the very last to be hired and that when there is some reason to slow down the operation of a plant or a business, they are the first to be fired. What many of them know best today is part-time jobs, minimum wages, unemployment insurance benefits if they can qualify or very often just simply nothing at all.
Canada and most of its western trading partners have been through quite a terrible recession. We are just now beginning to emerge out of the dark tunnel of economic downturn. For that we are grateful. For many in Canada, the situation is somewhat better than it was before and the future does look a little brighter, or at least it did before the recent Budget, and I am concerned that that Budget may have a very dampening effect on our fragile economic recovery. However, for hundreds of thousands of Canadian young people, there is as yet no sign at all of hope.
The Senate committee on youth stated that although young people are called the lost generation, they could still be saved through swift, vigorous initiative. Today's motion is calling for some swift, vigorous initiatives. We want government action to be focused on this problem. However, so far the Government has not done that much to assist the economic recovery. Whatever it has done has certainly not assisted youth. I do not
11478

March 12, 1986
Supply
hear very many young people saying: "Let the good times roll".
If we had to describe the age in which we live, and it is very difficult to do because we live right in the midst of it, perhaps we could describe this as being the age of human rights. We now have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of the Constitution of Canada. A report entitled Equality for All has just been tabled in the House of Commons. There is a great deal of emphasis on human rights and equality. Nevertheless, despite these endeavours, there is serious discrimination against a major segment of society, and that is youth. Young people are being discriminated against.
A witness who appeared before the Senate youth committee had this to say:
Youth are . . . discriminated against when it comes to giving them the opportunity to make it on their own. When applying for venture capital, youth are discriminated against because of their age and inexperience. What is needed is a change of attitude toward young people who want to take the initiative in changing their lives.
That is very telling testimony. In my view, that is what is needed, but here is what we have. We have instead a professor from the University of Regina who said before that same committee the following:
-many of the young people out of work today will be unable to find a job during their lifetime-
It should, therefore, come as no surprise to any of us in the House that there are many persons in society today who are feeling a sense of panic and despair regarding young people. These persons include parents, teachers, community workers, church ministers and priests, social workers, medical doctors and many others. Many young people in society are looking around them and seeing no doors opened. They are seeing no way to escape from their present situation. Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that one of the definitions of hell is no exit?
What we need at the federal level today is a strong and very effective Minister of Youth. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) could be made aware by Members of Parliament of how serious and urgent the situation is and that it is a crisis, he would choose from his frontbench the best and make him or her responsible for youth programs, both existing ones and new ones. Maybe he would reach into the backbenches for the most talented of the newcomers to Parliament and say: "We are giving you that responsibility and we are going to back you up because the Government has got to do something for the young people of Canada".
We need programs like Katimavik, First Chance, the Youth Jobs Strategy and many, many others. I do not want to harp incessantly on Katimavik, but I think it was a good program. The residents of a home for the aged called North Centennial Manor wrote me a letter to say the following:
We are taking this opportunity to express our support for Katimavik, the federally-funded youth program which has enhanced the life of our residents.
We ask that the Government reconsider its decision to end the Katimavik program which has proven to be a worth-while educational learning experience to the youth of our nation.
The letter goes on:
Katimavik is a positive, enriching experience which demands the best out of young people. We need Katimavik to give our youth the chance to learn, to live and to work.
We need programs like that and we need many others besides.
We in this Party recognize that there has to be fiscal responsibility. We recognize that when the deficit was incurred in Canada, we were in a recession and we had to soften the terrible impacts of that recession. We recognize that, but now we are beginning to recover and we need economics of recovery. We have to enlarge opportunities for young people so that they may work in and serve the society in which they live.
The Senate report on youth directed its recommendations toward Governments. It did not say that Governments can be excused and that we must look to the private sector or we have to look outside the country or anywhere else. The recommendations are directed to Governments, both federal and provincial, and they say that Governments should recognize their respective areas of jurisdiction and accept their responsibilities by joining efforts to fulfil a common objective.
Dealing with the situation of youth in the 1980s must be done without any more delay, and it must be done by every means possible. It should be known by the House of Commons that 81 per cent of the young people in our society who have jobs today have expressed satisfaction with the work they are doing. When those without work are questioned, they have given having a job as their highest priority. There is a message for us. If we simply regard youth as being the casualties of an economic system, then there can be no spur to action.
The Senate committee indicated that instead of waiting for improvement in the economy to reduce unemployment, we should reduce unemployment to improve the economy. That is my kind of economics. It is the new economics which says that job-creation is not a cost to Government. It is not only an outlay or an expenditure; it is a stimulus for renewal and for economic recovery.
I conclude by saying that what this Opposition Day is all about can simply be stated by referring once more to the excellent Senate report entitled Youth: A Plan of Action, as follows:
Despite the economic recession from which we have barely recovered, Canada is one of the richest countries in the world. We have at our disposal the means by which to help our young people. The public and political will to remedy the situation must be displayed without further delay. Each Canadian community must assume control of its own affairs and put its imagination to work so that we may improve the present and future lives of our young people. Just as in the event of a major national disaster, we as Canadians must concentrate all our energy to solve this serious problem.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the comments of the Hon. Member. I have a great deal of respect for the Hon. Member, and it is because of that that I was most interested in what he had to say. In addition, as a father myself with two daughters, one of whom is about to graduate this year from university, a daughter who has no job
March 12, 1986

at the moment, a daughter who has tried until now to find a job for herself for after graduation, I understand the concerns about which the Hon. Member spoke from personal experience. However, 1 want to tell him that four years ago, when I served as the mayor of one of the six municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto and served on Metropolitan Toronto Council, I was appointed to head a task force on youth unemployment. The task force was set up specifically at a time when youth unemployment was astronomically high. It was set up at a time when there were problems generally with unemployment for youth, particularly with that portion of the youth population who were school drop-outs, who had difficulty understanding how to make application for a job, who had difficulty knowing how to dress properly when they went to a job interview, and who had difficulty getting up in the morning to go to the job once they had one. The task force was set up to try to get around or deal with those types of problems. We set up a program and we approached all levels of Government for some financial assistance. At that time we found great difficulties in obtaining help from the federal Government of which the Hon. Member was a supporter and sat in the House supporting.
In August, 1982, I led a delegation from Metropolitan Toronto to Ottawa to see the then Minister of Employment and Immigration who continues to sit in the House, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). We came to him and we put our case on the table. The Hon. Minister at that time was very sympathetic. He indicated to us that he understood our concerns and that he wanted to get immediate action. That was at the beginning of a week. He turned to his assistant and he told his assistant to go down to Toronto on the Friday, solve the problem on which we wanted an answer and get the thing on the rails.
I left office as a mayor in November, 1982, to run for Parliament because at that time there had not been any action as a result of my pleas to the Minister and to the former Government on the whole question of youth unemployment. I ran for Parliament and was elected in September, 1984, as the Hon. Member knows. Two years had passed since I had been up to Ottawa before the then Government, and there was still no action.
I understand what the Hon. Member is saying and I know that he understands. Notwithstanding his comment, his concerns go back a long way. They do not start in September, 1984. His concerns go back to the days when he was a member of the governing Party and the problem was shaping up, being created and going on to be a dramatic and desperate problem in the country.
I know the Hon. Member is a sincere Member, so I should like to ask him a question. What would he and his Party do differently today? The Liberals had a chance for 20 years to make sure that the problem did not happen. Once the problem had occurred, they had a chance to solve it. They had a chance for three or four years when the problem was very severe. Only 18 months has passed, but the Hon. Member has been stating this afternoon that things should be different and that differ-
Supply
ent things should be done. I assume that if his Party were in power again, different things would be done. 1 would sincerely like to know what is the specific policy of the Liberal Party in respect of youth unemployment today. What specifically would it do aside from reinstating Katimavik?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member gave me a great deal of help in answering the question. He is quite correct in saying that over a very long period of time I have seen Governments, different administrations following different elections, respond to a wide range of problems including the problem of youth unemployment. During a number of Liberal administrations over the time I have been here, 1 saw a very creative approach to programs for young people. They were very creative; sometimes they were too creative. I can remember when the Secretary of State announced some of those programs, and I recall the days when youth unemployment was nothing compared to what it is now. For example, a program was brought in known as Opportunities for Youth which went wild in many places. I remember members of the Opposition screaming about how government money was being ill spent on some of those projects. I investigated a few of them myself, called a halt to them and found myself in trouble with the then Secretary of State. However, those programs were modified.
The thing which impressed me about the Liberal administration is that they had a creative approach to the youth situation, and I think young people recognize that. What happened in the latter days of the last Liberal administration is that we were hit with a serious recession. It was not caused by that Government. That Government tried to counteract it.


Mr. King:: Oh, come on!


B. Keith Penner: It was a world-wide recession, and if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) does not know that, he has not even-


Mr. Mazankowski:: I didn't say a thing.


B. Keith Penner: Oh, I am sorry. I thought my friend, the Minister of Transport, was challenging me; I nearly jumped down his throat.


Frederick John King: It was me.


B. Keith Penner: It was you, back there.


Frederick John King: Yes.


B. Keith Penner: Even apple growers had problems in that terrible recession. All around the world apple growers had trouble.


Frederick John King: What did you do about it?


B. Keith Penner: In that recession the youth were affected more severely than other segments of our society. Additional money was provided by the last Liberal administration to the maximum extent possible.

March 12, 1986
Supply
The point I am making is that we are now in a recovery. The young people are not participating in that recovery to a sufficient degree. That is why I do not remember in my remarks in any way casting condemnation upon the Government. What the Government needs to do now is to spur itself into action, recognize that there is a crisis, and put the best people, best minds and best programs into helping the young people of Canada. That is what the motion is all about. Youth are not able to take advantage of whatever recovery we have. That is what we want today, now.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to the world-wide recession. Of course, that is quite correct. There was a world-wide recession a few years ago but, as the Hon. Member is aware, it was much more severe in Canada than it was in virtually every other industrialized country in the western world. In my view and in the view of most, that was because of the specific types of policies followed by the Government of which he was a member, including the high interest policy, the National Energy Program and things of that sort. That is why youth unemployment in those years reached pretty close to 20 per cent.
Since the present Government has taken office, while no one is suggesting the problem is solved, there has been a drop in youth unemployment. The situation is not perfect as yet by any manner or means, but I think the Hon. Member will admit that the economic climate created by the Government since it took office has been of assistance in helping to get our youth back to work and to get the unemployment rates down.
Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I heard the Hon. Member talk about what he thought in general terms the Government should do. I had asked him specifically what the policy was of the Liberal Party with respect to youth unemployment. Are there some specific programs which the Liberal Party would institute if it were the Government today? I would like to hear what they are.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, one of the things I would not do, facing the situation we have at present, is to have cut-backs in youth programs, and that is what we have had. This is not the time for cutting back, but for recognizing that we have a serious problem.
Even with a deficit reduction program in effect across the board, I think the Hon. Member who raised the question will have to recognize that there have to be some exceptions. We have a segment of our society that is suffering to a greater extent than other sectors. Our young people are not participating in the recovery and they need special attention. There should not be cut-backs.
We need Government job-creation programs of a variety. A lot of thinking has been going on with respect to the kinds of programs that can be initiated. Attention should be given to them until our young people are able to participate in the recovery and until the situation is no longer fragile. They can
then get into the real world of work and we will no longer need Government job-creation programs.
The Member is on very slippery ground when he begins to analyse statistics and says things are getting better. I doubt whether the throwing of statistics by Members at each other will convince a single young person that the situation is getting better. There is a crisis. To argue about a point and a half or two points, knowing the statistics are probably false anyway, is not very helpful.
I cannot sit down without reminding the Hon. Member, who had to throw in the National Energy Program, that perhaps the Tories would like to have some aspects of that program alive and well today in western Canada-


Mr. Dick:: Not on your life.


B. Keith Penner: -especially that part of it which provided for a floor price.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Clifford).


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on the motion today. I believe the Government's record is an enviable one, enviable because everybody on the benches opposite would like to be in that position. They may have a little trouble admitting it, but I really believe that is true.
I think it is important to mention a little bit about my background as my colleague, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) has done. I have spent a lifetime working on a daily basis with the youth, as a high school principal concerned with their future and their education. There is no question that over this 25 year period I have seen a tremendous increase in the fears and worries of young people as to what part and what role they will play in our future.
In the mid-1970s youth unemployment was probably first recognized. By 1984 there had been 100 per cent increase in youth unemployment from the mid-1970s, and it was then recognized as a major problem in Canadian society. I think also it is important to see what people in educational and youth roles were thinking in the mid-1970s and the early 1980s.
I can recall representing a rather large group of my former colleagues before the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) who was a Minister in the previous Liberal Government. I can remember, as my colleague from York East did, trying to implore the Minister at that time to make some changes on behalf of our youth. Today the words used were "swift, vigorous action". We tried to get that in the mid-1980s as youth unemployment soared, but the words fell on deaf ears. Nothing happened except that it motivated a few of us to get into politics.
Since 1984, the Government has chosen the right course. There are, however, many things I would like to say today to set the record straight. Dramatic steps have been taken since September, 1984 on behalf of the youth, and they should hear about them here first.
March 12, 1986

We are now coming to the time of opportunities for young people to be in the workplace during their summer recess. It is a very important time for them, so let me begin by talking about it.
We have the Challenge Program in place. Challenge '85 last year was the first, and we are well ready for Challenge '86 this year. I think Members opposite are having difficulty understanding the fundamental difference that our Government sees in the philosophical development of young people and in preparing them for their future in the world of work.
In the late 1970s and the early 1980s our young people in school were wondering about the value of their education, how realistic it was and how it was tailored to the world of work which was surely to follow. They were having serious doubts about that education.
What role was the federal Government playing in all of this? When those doubts became apparent and submission after submission were made to the various Ministers in the previous Government, what were the young people being told? What solutions was the Government of the day coming up with? As unemployment soared to 18.4 per cent and seemed to be going out of sight, the country, and particularly the youth, demanded a new Government and a new focus.
Let us examine some of the things the young wanted and see whether the Government has them in place today.
First, we talk about the need in the late 1970s and early 1980s for work experience, the fact that young people have to have some opportunities in the real world to find out what work is all about in order to make better career choices and to develop their educational plans for their future. That was a very important statement in the late 1970s and early 1980s right across the country. What has our Government done about that? I think it is very clear. First and foremost and built right into the philosophy of the Challenge programs is the opportunity to provide of real life experiences for students while they are still in school, Mr. Speaker. They must be tied into their educational package. Therefore, the Government has tailored the Challenge program to work with the businesses and workplaces in Canada which have been encouraged to work with students and the Government to develop those opportunities.
The figures from 1985, which is the first year for which we can report anything, indicate that, in spite of a late start, we improved the rate of summer jobs for young people by 100,000. That is quite an increase. Not only did the number of jobs increase, but so did the quality of the experience. For the first time in the many years in which it has been traced, we found a dramatic growth in the involvement of the private sector in giving students jobs. That involvement jumped to 25 per cent in 1985, which is very significant because that is where the real jobs will be found upon graduation. That is where the real future of the country is. Almost 600,000 jobs have been created, the majority of them in small business in the private sector, which is exactly where we target these work experiences. It is very important to see the philosophy working.
Supply
I want young Canadians to know that the Government cares and has tied that in.
I have taken a personal survey of over 400 businesses in my riding. I asked about their involvement and how they feel about Challenge 85 and the potential for Challenge 86. Eighty-five per cent of those polled said they want to be involved in Challenge 86, which is again a very significant increase. In London, 1,200 businesses have come forward which want to be involved in providing young people with these opportunities. There has been a tremendous increase in the interest expressed in aiding young Canadians while they are still in the educational process. That is a very significant change from how the previous Government looked upon youth and youth development.
As a former educator I listened to stories of woe from many young people during the 1970s and early 1980s about the lack of opportunity and teachers who, in the views of the students, were out of tune with the educational requirements of the day. It became apparent that the Government had to show some leadership in the on-going education of young Canadians in the schools. Co-operative education provided that key. While still at school, young people were afforded the opportunity, for extended periods of time, to pursue an avenue of work experience, a slice of the reality of life. With that opportunity they can grow even further and make even wiser choices about their futures.
Since we took office we have seen tremendous financial growth in this area. In one year the figure has gone from $1.89 million to $2.86 million. Those are dollars well spent. We have been able to increase the number of participating school boards, universities, and colleges over tenfold. Even further increases are possible in the future which will help young Canadians make those critical decisions. I think we have underestimated the importance of this.
Another statistic which is vital to every educator in Canada is the drop-out rate. About 250,000 young people every year, for one reason or another, become disenchanted with our educational system and leave prior to graduation. These young people are at a tremendous disadvantage in the working world. We must find ways of keeping them in the educational system so that they will become better qualified to handle the demands of Canada's productive workforce.
I think we have started to find some of the answers. We realize that the problem exists and will not go away. Within the Canadian Jobs Strategy we have developed the Job Entry Program. This provides the opportunity for hundreds and hundreds of young people to get their first experience in the workforce, which is so important to a young Canadian. The experience they gain from an employer and the opportunities they have to speak with workers in the real world will influence them. It will provide the counselling and guidance which so many of our young people need. The Job Entry Program is now providing that opportunity.
It is only because we have tied our philosophical development into businesses and encouraged their participation that

March 12, 1986
Supply
any of this will work and affect our young people. It is important that people understand that. The Job Entry Program is geared specifically for young people who have never had a job and find themselves very much disadvantaged in the workplace and in society. Our workplace is very demanding today. Our cost of productivity must be lowered so that Canada can be competitive nationally and internationally. Our youth will best learn that lesson in the workplace and must have the opportunity to work in the private sector to get that opportunity.
Members opposite should try to assimilate that working philosophy. They should try not to be antagonistic to free enterprise and the private sector. I ask them to go home to their ridings and take a realistic look at the Canadian Jobs Strategy to see whether it will give tremendous opportunities to young people. I dare say that it will.
I do not think it need end there. One could go on and on listing real life examples of how the Job Entry Program has helped various young people, disabled groups, and young female workers trying to enter the workforce. Throughout the ridings of Canada one can see good and positive examples of that. In London there are 13 job entry projects on stream with over 320 young people getting their first opportunity to work. I have visited those projects and talked to the young people. From listening to them and watching them work I know they are getting experience which was not available in the past and which will help them to be of service in the future to another employer. I ask my colleagues to visit projects under the Canadian Jobs Strategy and see how it can enrich the lives of young people in their ridings.
[DOT] (W30)
There are other avenues for reaching not just the youth but the other unemployed and disadvantaged. Quite often we might find ourselves working with an entire family of unemployed. We work with the mother, father and the children, trying to get them to take an active role. We know how hard it is. This program, with its philosophical roots in the dynamics of our work structure, really cannot go wrong. There have been no cut-backs here. It has been very efficient.
At the start of my remarks I talked about the Challenge '85 and Challenge '86 programs. In my area alone we saw an expenditure of approximately $2.9 million. It was down this year to $2.6 million. At first one might tend to get angry about that. However, I am not at all angry because of the increase in the private sector's involvement. That meant a decrease in cost and we will get more summer jobs in that riding for less money than last year. That is what this Government is all about: Efficiency and a whole new way of doing things. That is what Progressive Conservatives stand for. As I said, that is what propelled me into this life.
One of the most exciting things for Members opposite to stop and consider is the innovation theme of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. This represents nothing but pure opportunity to create solutions to problems. The Liberals were asked today how they would solve this problem for young people. How
would they more quickly lower the unemployment rate? They were hard-pressed to give us any new solutions. I say that the road is through innovation. Go to your ridings and put this program to work. The Minister would like to hear about that. I have found the Department and the Minister most helpful.
The people in London-Middlesex, and I am sure this is true in many ridings across Canada, are as concerned about youth unemployment as anyone else. They have banded together and come up with some solutions to the problem. They have come up with an action plan, a new way to help young people. It has been said today that the plight in which young people find themselves could cause severe disruptions and alienation among youth. There has been criticism of our Government on this issue. Yet the people in London-Middlesex took on the challenge of innovation. They have worked hard and seriously with me on this issue. I hope and expect that I will stand in my place in a month or so and announce some very forwardlooking innovations which will help Canadian youth get the kind of career advice they need to stay in the mainstream of Canadian life. They will learn about themselves, their country, the world of work, and how they can participate. I say to my colleagues that if they look in their own ridings I am sure they will find great solutions to the problem of helping young people. We all know that they are our future and with their help Canada will become the country of the 21st century.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me today to speak to the motion presented by the Official Opposition. First of all, I would like to make it clear to the House that I regret this motion is necessary. Although I welcome this opportunity to speak, I am sorry it should be necessary for the Opposition parties to speak to the situation in which Canada's youth finds itself today.
Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the subject of this motion, I would like to say first of all that I am glad this motion is couched in general terms, so that it gives us an opportunity to analyze the youth situation, not just from the employment point of view, although this is one of youth's priorities, but also because it gives us a chance to look at other questions that are equally relevant.
Mr. Speaker, for Canadians or for any nation in the world for that matter, youth is one of the most important times of our lives. When we are young, we form habits that will serve us during the rest of our lives, we develop our attitudes, our opinions and in a democratic society, even our political affiliations. It is in this season of our lives that the individual's potential is most obvious, but it is also a time when the gap between the individual's potential and what the individual can accomplish is greatest. Mr. Speaker, we must realize that even if our potential is at a very high level when we are young, our chances of achieving something with that potential are surrounded by all kinds of obstacles, owing to the fact that when we are young, we are still in our formative years and must still
March 12, 1986

go through a process of education and training. This means it is when we are young that we are most susceptible to the influence of others, including the influence of the State, the Government, the political environment in which we grow up and start to explore the world to which we belong.
Mr. Speaker, in discussing the general situation in which Canadian young people find themselves today, I would like to emphasize the role of employment in the lives of our young people. Getting a job is probably one of the highest priorities of most young people in this country.
However, Mr. Speaker, there are other priorities to be considered and analyzed in this debate. I am thinking of education: the education of the individual and the education that individual acquires by being a part of the Canadian community. There is also the future: What kind of future are we building for our children, for the children of our fellow citizens, for the children who tomorrow will be the youth of Canada, and for the youth which tomorrow will be the adults, the citizens, the voters of this country?
There is also the matter of welfare, and I am thinking not only of the very specific connotation of social assistance programs for the unemployed but also of the other sense of the word, the welfare of the individual.
Mr. Speaker, there is also the question of leisure and culture peculiar to an individual, either an ethnic culture, or a native culture, or let us say a strictly Canadian culture, an integrated culture or, as one might say without negative connotation, an assimilated culture.
Now then, Mr. Speaker, priorities can be found in the major actions, the major measures, the major policies of a Government. The attitude of a Government towards the young people of this country, today's specific issue, can really be found in Budget measures, in white or green papers, in major studies published and endorsed by a Government, in its policies.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I would like to review some of the measures taken by this Government since it came into office 18 months ago, namely cut-backs and, unfortunately, financial restraints which force us to reduce rather than improve the type and quality of opportunities we can now offer to young Canadians.
Among others, Mr. Speaker, the reduction of transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the Budget restraints implemented by this Government mean that, between now and 1990, there will be a cut-back of $1.5 billion in the amount originally proposed.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the elimination of the Katimavik program.
As a former mayor who was once in a position to launch a Katimavik program in his community, as a former Indian Affairs and Northern Development district manager who could have encouraged native communities to implement programs like Katimavik, Mr. Speaker, I consider this a tragic
Supply
loss because so many good things were done for small Canadian communities under the Katimavik program. I will have more to say about it in a few minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the budget of the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne) was eliminated, so she is left with a ghost department, the squeleton of a department without a budget and without programs. Naturally we are wondering what kind of role this department will play.
Then, Mr. Speaker, less money available for the Canadian Jobs Strategy program, something like $100 million, and this turned out to be one of the points raised in the secret letter sent by the Minister of State (Youth) to one of her Cabinet colleagues.
If I may quote the English version:
The Minister has not actually given us the French translation as yet. It states: "Public expections created by International Youth Year require careful management". Note the words: "careful management". It goes on: "-especially in light of the significant diminution in youth related spending, close to $100 million since the election".

Mr. Speaker, this means the Department, which is itself responsible for youth admits of course that funds for our youth have been reduced. There is also, Mr. Speaker the $6.2 million cut in the program Challenge 86, and that kind of transfer, that kind of musical chair game that was done with the $30 million which have been transferred from that Challenge 86 program to the Canada census program for this year, under the guise of new funds for the young.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the budgetary measures show what this Government's priorities are, and another important indication of those priorities are the major studies published by the Government. Looking at the notorious Nielsen Report, we see indeed that the situation of the young in Canada is not a part of their analysis structure. It seems, Mr. Speaker, that all the headlines, the goals, the objectives of the studies do not fit within the context of improving services to the young, but within the national context perhaps, let us say in the context of programs and departments so designated and structured. But clearly, what we see is a lack of emphasis on the youth situation, and we find that most of those studies tend to promote budgetary cuts rather than the priorities of the young people.
I would like to come back, Mr. Speaker, to the importance of employment among the young people. I would like to share a few personal experiences I had when I was 19. I was unemployed for four months. I can very well recall the emotional difficulties, the problems faced by young people when they have no jobs, when they see they have deserving assets

March 12, 1986
Supply
and abilities to contribute to Canadian society. I would like to say that with a Government that is promoting private enterprise, when one has a job, private enterprise is a paradise. This is the best possible example of private enterprise because with jobs young people can look after their own future, their own budget, their own career. But clearly this is impossible when they have no jobs, because they are then dependent upon other people.
If we compare the situation now with what it was 20 years ago, it is clear that for people of my generation, there were a great many more job opportunities which no longer exist. And I feel I was privileged to have access to these job opportunities which do not exist now in such large numbers as they did in the past.
Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate which was at some 18 per cent among young Canadians rose again last month, which 1 feel is an indication that the Government relies on the private sector to create jobs for young people. As to the programs which will continue to exist, we will see that the situation of young Canadians has a lower priority than before. We have seen that the affirmative action in the Challenge 85 and Challenge 86 programs has been reduced; within the framework of the programs, there are no guarantees for young women; there is no assurance of a fair sharing of jobs before young men and young women; that the wages paid to young women is fair compared to those paid to their male counterparts; that is where this program fails miserably.
Let us go back to Katimavik, Mr. Speaker. As I have already said, this Program has provided many opportunities and had good results in our small communities. Indeed, in my own city of Sioux Lookout, we saw people from Quebec, for instance, who did not speak English before, come to a mostly anglophone community and learn to speak English after four months. I even saw, in native communities, unilingual French or English-speaking people learn a bit of the Native language, Cree, in addition to the other official language. The result has been to create a group of young people who have a better knowledge of Canada, of our transcontinental community than their contemporaries who have had the same opportunity. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that Katimavik was successful if only because those who took part in this program studied for four years and 60 per cent of what we could call the Katimavik graduates found jobs, 27 per cent in a school or university, and less than 7 per cent of them were unemployed at a time when the unemployment rate among young people generally reached 18 and even 23 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the situation in education. There is now an educational anemia in our universities because some people who go to university cannot find a job and take courses without any purpose and without knowing why they attend university.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will examine the situation of young
native people in this country, young native people who, as my
colleague from Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) said, find themselves in a sad and disastrous situation with respect to employment, with respect to educational opportunities, and with respect to their future as native people in a modern society that hardly appreciate their plight and, in too many cases unfortunately, is not quite prepared to accept them. Mr. Speaker, these young native people are the ones who stand indicted in the Nielsen report where, on page 13 of the English version, one can read the very misleading statement that 70 per cent of those young native people will land in jail before the age of 25. I cannot explain it, it is not up to me to explain it, Mr. Speaker, but I think this refers only to those who are put in institutions, who are re-incarcerated. Such figures are really demoralizing. This being a Government report, I can hardly believe that they are accurate.
So, Mr. Speaker, the whole series of Government measures include precious few programs which promote cultural cooperation between young people and the elderly, programs which in either the native or the majority culture would draw inspiration from the knowledge, the experience and the strong points of elderly Canadians so as to meet the needs of young people in our society who might indeed benefit from the experience of their parents and grandparents.
Mr. Speaker, I see that I have very little time left. I wanted to make a few remarks concerning our Party's task force on youth. I would urge all Hon. Members of the House to read and study the report. The ideas contained in the report are not necessarily our own, for most of them came from various people from coast to coast who are interested in youth programs. Should Hon. Members have any questions, I would be delighted to give further explanations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments on the speech of the Hon. Member? If not, we will continue debate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, there is not much time left to speak to this important issue, and it is rather unfortunate that under the new Standing Orders, Opposition Days start at three o'clock in the afternoon, or even after three o'clock, which means there is very little time to spend on an issue that is to important to the people of Canada.
It is even more unfortunate that the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne) could not Find an excuse to stay in the House. After making her speech a while ago, she said she had to leave because she had work to do.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada are aware that the Minister has a budget of one million dollars up to April 1. This is a million-dollar budget for a non-existent program, for running a department that has no mandate from the Govern-
March 12, 1986

ment and really only a spokesperson for the Conservative Party. Mr. Speaker, do you know how the young people of Canada refer to the Minister now?

Do you know what the new nickname of the Minister is, Mr. Speaker, the Minister who did not even see fit to stay in this House for this extremely important debate? They call her "bubbles". The reason they call her bubbles is because she sparkles-


Mr. Comeau:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is customary that Hon. Members do not mention either the presence or the non-presence of Hon. Members of this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Member is correct in his point of order. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has the floor.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, they call her bubbles because she shimmers, she sparkles, she cuts balloons. She spent $24 million during the International Youth Year running around the country. Yet, she is hollow. She has no interior. She has no guts, no heart.
We heard speakers from the Conservative Party today speak time and time again about the private sector. That is the new credo of the Government. What those Hon. Members do not understand-

When the Minister was appointed, she said she was here to speak up for the more fortunate among the young people of Canada. What she fails to understand is .. . for instance in my riding, there are a lot of young unemployed workers who do not have the resources to get into the private sector and start their own business, who don't even know how to read or write, who don't know how to live and behave in the community. Mr. Speaker, the Conservative creed says: the private sector saves, the private sector will take care of everything, but this means ignoring the problems of the young people in our communities who feel lost in our society. It is true they were lost under the
Supply
Liberal Government when we were in a world recession, but now they are looking for a glimmer of hope.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a letter about Katimavik, because that was one of the useful programs. There were
20,000	people who became involved in Katimavik, some of whom didn't know for instance what they were going to do after they finished school. We should realize that not everybody in Canada goes to university. And we are here to fight for those people who don't have the financial or mental resources to go to post-secondary institutions and university. We are here to fight for all the young people of Katimavik.
On behalf of the Senator who was laughed at by the Conservatives because they fail to understand the problems of the poor of Canada, I would like to conclude by reading a letter I received from a Katimavik participant.

I think the letter is clear and I would urge Hon. Conservative Members of Parliament who believe in help for the young people of Canada to listen to this very brief letter, and I quote:
1 was very disappointed to hear that Katimavik was being cancelled.
My daughter who is living in England with her sailor husband was in Katimavik some five years ago. She graduated from Grade 13 but wasn't sure what she wanted to do. She heard about Katimavik and decided to go. I can only say that she learned more in nine months about her fellowman, country and many crafts. She was in British Columbia, Rainy River and Quebec.
I'm sure that living with 12 other young people and getting $1 a day and meeting a cross-section of Canadians has certainly made her a better person.
That is the message of Katimavik. That is the message of this motion. I would urge Government Members to listen to Senator Hebert and to reinstate that program and bring some hope to the young people of this country instead of the kind of private sector nonsense we have heard from the Minister, "bubbles" Champagne.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Section 12 and Standing Order 82, proceedings on the motion have expired.
This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, March 13, 1986