1991-06-10

[Stage Direction]
40 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons ty the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Communication Group - Publishing. Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 10, 1991
[Stage Direction]
Prayers

Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to a point of order raised on Friday, I have checked the record of Hansard and I see that inadvertently in an answer I gave to my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on Friday I used the word "negative" when I intended to use the word "positive". It was in fact a part of my response which was not particularly relevant to the question posed. The question asked me to take notice of a matter which I have done, but I wanted the record to be clear.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold) moved:: That this House call upon the government to implement immediate measures to alleviate the devastatingly high rate of unemployment amongst Canadian youth.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I know it is not the custom in this House to state who is here and who is not, but I am particularly pleased that the Minister of State responsible for Youth is in his seat today to hear the comments not only from this side of the House but from all sides. We hope it will help him in
his deliberations to alleviate the problem of unemployment among youth.
There is no need to dwell on the importance of jobs for Canadians, and I mean all Canadians, including our youth, including students. After reaching a low of 11.1 per cent in March 1990, the seasonably adjusted youth unemployment rate has increased steadily in response to the 1990-91 recession. The seasonally adjusted youth unemployment rate reached 14.9 per cent in January of this year. This is the highest monthly rate recorded since July 1986, except of course for the last figures received which show that our youth unemployment is now well over 16 per cent. This is unacceptable in a country as rich and as supposedly prosperous as Canada could be.
The developments underlying this trend are twofold. First, seasonally adjusted youth employment declined by
138,000	or six per cent, between March 1990 and January 1991. This is some 56.1 per cent of the total decline in the seasonally adjusted employment since the beginning of this period. Second, seasonally adjusted youth unemployment increased by 32 per cent or 92,000 students throughout this period. Labour market conditions would have been worse had it not been for a 1.8 per cent decline in the size of the youth labour force during this period.
We have to question seriously the government's commitment to student employment. Last year the government decided to cut the Summer Employment/Experience Development Program, also called the Challenge program, by 35 per cent. This is a program which in 1985 provided 37,345 jobs for students. Had the program continued, it could have provided, in my opinion, in excess of 50,000 jobs this year alone.
After such a cruel blow to their expectations, the government went a step beyond and decided to close employment centres on campuses. The numbers proved that the employment centres were heavily used. For instance, the employment centre at the University of Calgary, which has a student population of about 20,000, received over 15,000 application forms. It booked 656 rooms on campus for employers and it conducted 4,415

June 10, 1991
Supply
job interviews. A program as successful as this surely should have been considered to be continued.
Here in Ontario at Laurentian University, which has an undergraduate population of about 3,000, last year
1,000	students were placed in casual, part-time, fulltime or summer jobs through these employment centres on campus. The administrators as well as managers and workers at the employment centres can easily vouch for the fact that they are, indeed, very busy.
However, senior officials from Canada Employment Centres have maintained that there is no national strategy for the closures and that each centre is looked at individually. In other words, I guess if you are lucky your centre stays open, and if you are unlucky or at the whim of someone-we do not seem to have any criteria-then the centres are closed.
It becomes very clear what is happening across the country, and it is nothing short of a silent war of attrition waged against one of the most essential services that students still have on their campuses. As far as I know-subject to correction by whoever in the House, perhaps the minister-there has been no public process of discussion or consultation with the student bodies.
We are now at the time of year when students have finished their classes for a few months, and their employment prospects for the summer of 1991 will most likely be worse than they were in 1990. The government intends to spend an additional $3 million on the Challenge program this year, but this is only an increase of 2.1 per cent above last year's allocation. That does not even keep up with the rate of inflation, the cost of living that we have from year to year. What we have is a decline in the amount of real dollars that are being put into this particular program.
How many students are we to expect will benefit from these additional funds? Given the severity of the recession, one would think that the minister would have taken additional measures to increase employment opportunities for students this summer. It would have been, in my opinion, a very logical step.
Over the years since this government has come to power, it has prided itself on its so-called "sacred trust". Among the sacred trusts of this government and of this country, I would surely include our youth. The record shows a disturbing lack of commitment to our youth and
the other sacred trust that the Prime Minister has referred to many times in the past.
I quote Jane Arnold, chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students who said: "Students represent Canada's single most important investment in the future, our ability to compete and to prosper." It was thus extremely shortsighted of the government to take away, in a manner of speaking, our youths' ability to compete and to contribute in the future.
We are short-changing the youth of today for the sake of saving a few measly dollars. They are truly our investment in the future, and we are turning our backs on them if we cut these programs and refuse to recognize that there is a great problem in student unemployment.
The Minister of Finance in his last budget announced an extension of the two-year freeze to five years to federal transfer of payments to universities and colleges. This represents a $775 million loss for post-secondary education in 1992-93.
Over that five-year period, that is 1991 to 1995, the government will have cut a total of $3.8 billion. That is not a small sum as it is the equivalent of the combined operating budgets of universities in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. It is close to $4 billion. That is a shame.
In the words of Professor Bob Kerr, president of the Association of University Teachers: "Canada's system of post-secondary education is hovering on the brink of bankruptcy."
What the government does not seem to link with its commitment to Canadians of jobs, jobs, jobs is the fact that these cuts are the equivalent of the loss of many, many jobs on campuses across Canada: jobs for professors, support staff, maintenance workers and administrators in the cities and towns where there are universities or colleges. This includes my riding of Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold where we have Brock University and Niagara College. The opportunities lost for employment are truly significant, and we in our particular area but right across Canada are really feeling the pinch.
I agree with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada which states: "Canada's foremost assets in the future will be its human rather than its natural resources". Lack of support for universities, combined with lack of support for knowledge intensive industries, may prove in fact to be the most damaging effect of the Mulroney government's preoccupation with
June 10, 1991

allowing market forces and market forces alone to dictate Canadian economic policy.
Incredibly the Tories claim to have strengthened research and development expenditures in Canada. With all due respect, this claim is simply false. In its 1990 world competitiveness report-and incidentally competitiveness is a new buzz-word for this government-Canada has been competitive over the years. We have turned out some of the best minds in the world. We have turned out many of the best products in the world. When we talk about competitiveness, this is not something new to us. We have been there. We are competitive and we will continue to be competitive in the years ahead.
To return to the world's competitiveness report, the World Economic Forum makes the following observations and conclusions, to which I concur.
Of the 23 OECD countries, Canada ranks today 17th in over-all research and development efforts, dropping from a 10th place ranking in 1984 when this government took over the reigns of power.
Second, in future orientation which heavily reflects research and development performance, Canada fell to an abysmal 16th place ranking in 1990, down from 9th spot in 1986.
This is an indictment of the policies of this government. These figures provide clear evidence that Canada's research and development effort has deteriorated significantly since the Conservatives took office. Even when compared to smaller, less wealthy countries, Canada is chronically weak in research and development performance. That is a sad fact.
Conservative support for innovation has been shamefully low. I am sad to say that it is not getting any better. At the scientific level we will surely expect a brain drain, a continuing brain drain, while at the manufacturing level we will continue to see heavy losses in employment and opportunities for jobs, Canadian jobs for our use, for our students, for the future of Canada.
The government said that we were "open for business". There are some of us who would also say that some of them on the other side think that Canada is for sale. But this country is not for sale. This country belongs to us, the Canadian people, but this style which has run
Supply
throughout their economic policy has created, is creating and will continue to create economic chaos.
Not surprisingly, foreign investors have been quick to respond. Acquisition of Canadian assets by foreigners has virtually leapt in recent years. At one time they accounted for less than 10 per cent of foreign direct investment. They now account for over 55 per cent. "Open for business", I say that is a fallacy. We are giving away the economic control of our country and that is not acceptable to Canadians in this day and age.
Another example of the damaging consequences of this government's economic philosophy is found in the area of manufacturing policy. Here again our youth is deprived of opportunities, be it in the fields of research, administration or manual labour.
Over the past 18 months alone, Canada has lost over
172,000	jobs in the manufacturing sector. When the government introduced its legislation for Bill C-21, the UIC bill, one of the promises made to Canadians was that a substantial amount of the these funds would be redirected and used for training or retraining the unemployed.
I felt a sense of relief at this announcement as I hoped that many young people, particularly those who had dropped out of school, would have a chance to join this program, upgrade their skills or learn a trade and give them at least a fighting chance in our society.
However, as we watch the ramifications of this bill, particularly from a financial point of view, we have reason to doubt that once more the government has made a serious commitment in this area as well. Bill C-21 called for an increase in the premiums for employees and employers alike. As part of Bill C-21, the government committed itself to maintaining premium levels for 1990, 1991 and 1992.
However, this year's budget paper states: "Rates would be adjusted in such a manner to ensure the financial integrity of the account". This may mean one of two things: either employer contributions will sky-rocket to meet any deficits in the unemployment insurance fund-and we see there will be a deficit for this year-or rates will increase for employees as well, breaking the

June 10, 1991
Supply
commitment to keep the rates at the rate of $2.80 for insurable earnings for employees.
It is either the government is not telling Canadians the truth, which is very sad, or in the absence of these increases we could be looking at an accumulative deficit of the UIC fund of $6 billion by the end of 1992 as a result of higher than expected benefit payments. I venture to say that in such instances money for retraining will be scarce and we will see another broken promise.
Today, my plea to the minister is to look at the facts, look at what is happening to our youth across Canada, look at what the policies of this government have done to the job opportunities for our young people, look at the consequences of cutting back on these programs that are so necessary to our young people. I hope, in his deliberations, the minister will take our opinions into consideration but, more that that, will take into consideration the needs of our young people across this country because without them all of our futures look bleak. It is not just a cliche to say that our future lies in our youth and that our youth will be competitive and will perform well if they are given a decent chance to get the tools that will help them to get the jobs to be productive citizens in our country.


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I listened very carefully to what the hon. member said this morning about a very important subject: Canadian youth and its ability to function in our society. I would like to say to the hon. member that there are at least two perspectives one can have on Canadian youth. Of course we can focus on the problems of young people who are unable to function, but I would like to say to the hon. member that there are also young people in this country who function very well.
I myself, as a member of Parliament-and I am sure other members have done so recently-have attended a number of academic events in my riding such as graduations and scholarship awards, and I am sure that once they finish their education, those students will find jobs, because in today's world, a young person's chances of finding a job increase with the number of years of
academic training. I think the hon. member should realize that in Canada, we have young people who function quite well, and we should remember that and not focus exclusively on those who do not function well.
I may remind the hon. member, and I am sure he will agree, that youth unemployment has a number of deeply rooted and serious causes, which are connected with the phenomenon of dropping out of school. I think the hon. member will agree that when a young person drops out of high school, that does not help him find a job.
When looking for reasons why students drop out of school, we should not blame the federal government but society as a whole. When we have a society with social problems like poverty-I think everybody here will agree we are going through a recession-when we are in a situation like that, we see problems that are linked to poverty. There is a kind of vicious circle that makes life more difficult for our young people, but there is also the whole problem of the family unit that is under pressure. The hon. member knows as well as I do what those pressures have been like during the past decades, and the family environment is extremely important for young people, to help them persevere with their education.
So we have a problem that is linked to our education system and our training system, and we cannot put the blame exclusively on the federal government. The success of our young people depends on the success of a social partnership. Their success is linked to what the government does and what is done by all the provinces, by business, the unions and social groups. It is too easy to put all the blame on the federal government for the fact that some of our young people fail in their endeavours.
I would like to ask the hon. member-after all, it is easy for him to attack the government and say that 13 or 14 per cent of our young people are out of work-I would like to ask him whether he checked what the youth unemployment rate was in 1984, when his party, when the Liberals were in power? In case he doesn't know the answer, in 1984 youth unemployment was around 18.2 per cent.
Before accusing the government, perhaps the hon. member should look at the record of previous Liberal governments and stop to think before launching his accusations.
June 10, 1991


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, not only is the question the hon. member poses valid, but there are two or three other points he touched on I would like to address.
First of all, we keep hearing members of the government coming back to the way things were some seven or eight years ago. How far back do we want to go? Do they want to go back to the depression years and say how terrible the Tories were? Or, do we want to go back to the time of Sir John A. Macdonald? There comes a time in the history of a party when it has to take responsibility for what is going on in the country.
They have been in power now almost seven years. I say that if their economic policies have not begun to work after seven years, then who do we look to? Do we look back 15 or 20 years ago to point the finger? My suggestions are not so much in the form of blaming someone. My suggestions are made so that hopefully they will have a look at what has gone wrong and they will be able to make some corrections.
The member asked also about the native youth. One of my colleagues is to address that during the course of the day. He will be discussing native youth employment issues.
The member also said that there were two ways of looking at it: whether the glass is half full or half empty. He prefers of course to put forth the very rosy vision that everything is going well in this country.
On Saturday I was at a graduation in my riding at Niagara College. I was speaking to the president. There were 1,600 graduates. This graduation took place over a three-day period. Of these 1,600 graduates there are 450 who have jobs. Are they telling me that their economic policies are working when only one in four of these graduates are getting jobs? These are people with hands-on experience. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that whatever your responsibility is surely you should live up to that. Some of the responsibility is with the government; I have no quarrel with that. However, for those things which you can alleviate, which you can in some way correct, then that is what you should be doing.
That is what we are trying to help them with today with our suggestions as to how these things should be done.
Supply
The hon. minister, in answering a question of mine about two weeks ago, said there is a great program underfoot for youth dropouts.
I wish him and I wish this program well. I am an educator by profession. I taught in the high schools. I know that the dropout problem in Ontario where I worked is very severe, but I suggest with all respect that these problems are not going to be solved by taking us back to 1983 or 1974 or wherever it is. The problems are going to be solved by facing them here and now and by putting programs in place which are going to help our young people rather than simply by us going back and forth and saying that it was done many years ago.


Mr. Garth  Dimer@Halton-Peel: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I think everyone on all sides of the House applauds the concern that the hon. member has shown for youth and youth unemployment. Certainly when you are young and trying to find a job and there are none available it is a crushing experience. Our society measures people by the work they do, so a first and positive experience is extremely necessary.
I would like to ask the member about his view on where we are going. There are two ways of looking at economics, short term and long term, and it strikes me that the member is focusing his concern on a short-term view of our economic problems. His concern is for right now, this summer, the next 90 days or 120 days, and for finding appropriate jobs for students essentially by throwing government money at the problem.
I am wondering if the member could give me some comments on how he feels about the longer term structural solutions. Many of the problems we face today because of high taxation or government restraint have been put into place to address that structural long-term concern of debt reduction.
Does the hon. member feel we should abandon the strides we have made in terms of reducing government expenditure and overhead on a short-term basis in order to solve this problem with more cash? Or, does he feel that the goals, the needs of students in the long term, would be better solved by listening to those other political voices that are saying no, the government still spends too much? The government right now is not

June 10,1991
Supply
showing enough restraint, and we are still going $30 billion a year into debt or $60,000 a minute. Would the member comment, please?


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The hon. member himself is quite an outspoken advocate of tax cuts for the people of Canada. He did mention, if I understood him correctly, that I was interested only in the short term, the next 60 days, the next 90 days.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As a matter of fact, throughout my speech I said repeatedly that what we are looking for are solutions now which will help in the long run. When I talk about our students being able to compete, I suggest to the hon. member that they will not be able to compete if they are forever being thrust to one side. If we listen only to the market forces, if we are going to be dictated to as a nation only by the bottom line and by the almighty dollar sign, then I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all members in this House that we are short-changing our youth. We are not giving them a chance to get an education and we are not giving them a chance to get the tools so that they can compete in today's world.


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, before I start I would like to underline the fact that I am pleased with the tone adopted by my hon. colleague in his speech on this very important subject. I do hope this tone will prevail for the rest of the day because we are dealing with a very important subject. I am particularly pleased with two of the suggestions he made in his speech, the first one being that he and I understand his party want to be helpful. Obviously I will be listening throughout today. I hope there are some suggestions that are helpful. I will certainly listen to them very carefully and analyse them even more carefully.
On the other hand, the hon. member also said you have to look at the facts. I think this is also a very important thing that has to be done because some of the facts are there and, if you want to be helpful, you have to start with the facts before you make suggestions.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold for tabling a motion that gives me the opportunity to recount once again the
government's efforts to improve the employment situation for young Canadians. I do wonder, however, where the honourable member of the Opposition has been for the past few months, because the wording of his motion suggests to me that he has little knowledge of the scope of our efforts and the tangible results that have been achieved despite the recession we have witnessed this year. In any event, my predecessors and myself like the Minister of Employment and Immigration, those between the ages of 15 and 24 and have gone to considerable lengths to explain the various measures the government has taken to alleviate the problem.
It is important to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the main reason so many young people are currently without jobs or have few prospects for the future is that far too many young people do not complete high school. It is our belief that there are job openings, but not enough qualified people to fill them.
In light of that circumstance, we have chosen to focus our efforts on addressing the drop-out rate and eliminating the problem at the source.
In the 1991-92 fiscal year, we will spend $218 million on programs aimed at young people. Bear in mind, this total is over and above the funding under the Canadian Job Strategy, half of whose clients are young people. While this is a considerable amount, knowing how these funds are to be used is far more important than dwelling on mere numbers.
I would therefore like to describe in detail, Mr. Speaker, those of our initiatives that help young Canadians improve their chances of establishing a place for themselves in the labour market.

Earlier this year we allocated $143 million to Challenge '91, the summer employment program for students. Despite cutbacks in other areas, the youth program funding was not affected and the Challenge funding saw a modest increase over last year. The Challenge program has been in place for seven years. Its main objective is to encourage employers in all sectors to create rewarding jobs that provide young people with real learning opportunities. The program allows thousands of young Canadians to gain valuable work experience and contribute to the cost of their education. In addition, Challenge offers a wide range of benefits for employers including labour market information, com-
June 10,1991

pensation, government subsidy programs and the opportunity to post their job openings.
For young people, students and non-students alike, Challenge offers several different types of assistance. Under the Challenge '91 budget, $80 million will be spent on the summer employment experience development component, or the SEED component as it is known, in the form of wage subsidies to employers who hire students. This option is made up of two elements, one aimed at high school students and the other intended for young people attending college or university. This year, as last, SEED will focus on the creation of jobs that reflect the social priorities of the federal government, namely literacy, the fight against alcoholism and drug abuse, AIDS education, environmental protection and urban crime prevention.
Again this year participating employers have been encouraged to hire members of visible minorities and aboriginal and disabled young people.
1 will mention that we expect 55,000 jobs for young people will be created under the Summer Employment Experience Development option of Challenge '91.

Another component of the Challenge program, Mr. Speaker, namely the Work Orientation Workshops, is an undeniable success. The formula combines work orientation workshops with on-the-job experience. Young people learn how to take charge of their own lives and receive practical advice on academic options and other matters.
Last year, 16,000 young people took part in Work Orientation Workshops and, at the current rate, all indications are that we will reach or exceed that number during the summer.
Two months ago, part of the workshops were integrated under the START option of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, which I will describe briefly for you in a few minutes. While they play a vital role, our summer employment programs are only one aspect of what we are doing for young Canadians.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that there is more to making the transition from school to the labour market than finding a rewarding summer job; we have to find more complete solutions designed with the future in mind. This is the specific objective of our second major youth program, the Stay-in-School Initiative.
Supply
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, all the evidence suggests that preventing students from dropping out is one of the most effective ways of helping young people realize their full potential. We created this initiative to fight an alarming dropout rate of 30 per cent, one of the highest in industrialized countries. However, we believe we can do something to rectify the situation.
Japan, for example, although very different from Canada, experienced similar problems in the 1960s. At one time, approximately 30 per cent of Japanese students were dropping out, but the government took strong action, and now only 4 per cent of young people in Japan fail to complete their high school education.
In Canada, we believe the Stay-in-School initiative will go a long way toward stemming the loss of talent that occurs when students drop out. This project has a budget of $296 million over five years and is made up of three main components: first, employment programs and services aimed at potential dropouts, then mobilization of the players involved in order to find lasting solutions, and finally awareness activities designed to inform Canadians about the consequences of dropping out.

One of the key phrases when we talk about the stay in school project is mobilization of the players involved because without the commitment of our partners, business people, educators, parents, unions, and young Canadians themselves, we would never attain the important goals we have set.
During the five major round tables held last year for the players involved, we encouraged all who were interested to take an active role in their communities because they, more than anyone else, know the needs of the people in those communities. Our call was certainly heeded as dozens of grassroots projects came into being. This gives us cause to hope for even greater things in the months ahead. By making a solid commitment, our partners in effect broaden the scope of our programs and take concrete actions that translate the principles we have set forward.
I would point out that one of our most outstanding achievements has been the addition of the start option as part of the stay in school initiative to our national program, the Canadian Jobs Strategy. Under the start option, eligible groups can obtain funding to carry out projects aimed at lowering the dropout rate. Ideally, start projects will enable young people to continue their education or set high career goals and at the same time

June 10,1991
Supply
develop in the work place the skills they need to find a job.
The start option opens the door to innovation by such key players as school boards, youth services agencies and Indian bands. All are working toward the same goal: preventing students from dropping out. We cannot ignore the public awareness aspect. When I say public I am referring specifically to employers, teachers, parents, community groups and students-in short, everyone who is involved directly or indirectly with the dropout problem.
The members of this House are probably familiar with the advertising campaign that was carried out earlier this spring in connection with the stay in school initiative. Why did we launch the campaign? Because our studies opened our eyes to the very real fact that Canadians for the most part were unaware of the dropout problem and its consequences.
We know public awareness did grow as a result of the television and newspaper advertisements. We have made a number of other information efforts to complement the public awareness campaign. A newsletter on the stay in school initiative is to be distributed six times a year and, in co-operation with Health and Welfare Canada, a rock group has begun a national tour of 170 schools in 35 cities. At each stop, the band will try to use music to convince students not to use drugs and to stay in school.
[Translation\
Mr. Speaker, our efforts to assist young people were not forgotten when we developed the Labour Force Development Strategy. Funds under the Labour Force Development Strategy have been used to revitalize the Co-operative Education option.
The experts we consulted all agree that this option is an ideal way to introduce young people to the job market. Accordingly, we have made a commitment to increase federal funding for Co-operative Education. The increased funding will enable us to focus more on high school students, as they are the ones most likely to drop out. As with other components of the START option and the Stay-in-School Initiative, Co-operative Education is essentially a joint venture, supported as it is by local school boards. Co-op education reflects perfectly one of our main objectives: helping young people make informed career choices.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about two other initiatives we have undertaken, namely, federal-provincial youth strategies adapted to the needs of New Brunswick and Newfoundland. More than $27 million have been allocated to these strategies. The strategies will be in effect until 1993 and are designed to eliminate the regional disparities that put young people in these two provinces at a disadvantage. We want young people in New Brunswick and Newfoundland to have as much of a chance as other young Canadians to obtain entry level jobs.
Federal and provincial departments, social service agencies and other partners have agreed to work together to better serve young people and give renewed hope to otherwise promising youth in New Brunswick and Newfoundland.
You will note that our youth initiatives are constantly evolving. The programs we have already set up are doing what they were intended to do, but needless to say, we hope to go much further.

Perhaps the member for Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold has forgotten the parts of the Throne Speech that dealt with youth issues. I will gladly refresh his memory.
In its Speech from the Throne, the government stated that economic prosperity is first and foremost a question of human resources and that it is therefore important to reach a national consensus on education and training. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has said so time and again, Mr. Speaker. No attempt will be made to encroach on the provinces' jurisdiction over education. However, it has been our experience that our system of education has not produced the desired results and that the provinces and federal government would do well to work together to achieve Canada-wide goals, Mr. Speaker.
Ensuring that, by year 2000, 90 per cent of Canadians obtain a high school diploma or the equivalent before the age of 25 would probably be a realistic goal. We further propose that measures be taken to double the number of post-secondary graduates in mathematics, science and engineering. Our ultimate goal is to have everyone consider the need to make a learning culture part of our way of thinking, Mr. Speaker. Of course, we believe that it is truly possible to raise the calibre and relevance of education in Canada, but once again,
June 10, 1991

government has no intention of forcing its partners' hands.
To determine the course we should take, we are relying heavily on the Labour Force Development Board, which just met for the first time. As you will remember, Mr. Speaker, the Board is an independent body administered entirely by the private sector, an organization rooted in the industrial, social and economic life of the country.
The board is guided by a firm desire to establish a training culture. It represents unprecedented co-operation between Employment and Immigration and labour market players, that is employers, workers, educators and social agencies. Because it is now more in tune than ever with social and economic realities, the government is confident of its ability to ensure, through its future action, that more Canadians will have the opportunity to contribute to and reap the full benefit of national prosperity.
As you can see, the options of the Challenge program and the stay in school initiative follow the same basic principles: give young people the skills they need to become productive members of the Canadian labour force. In so doing, we will restore Canada's productivity and competitiveness, two factors that are inextricably linked in this area of constant technological change, where competition means that only the strongest will survive.
We are listening to young people and those who are dedicated to helping them. Yes, we have taken strong and timely action. The government is working to give young Canadians the opportunity to flourish both personally and professionally.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the minister and the comments made by the member moving this particular motion.
I have a question I would like to put to the minister and it relates basically to the comments that he made
Supply
concerning the relationship between employment, education and training, something that I think is very important. The minister reminded us that it was mentioned in the throne speech and I gather it has been mentioned in a number of throne speeches under this government and the previous government. He also touched on the work that the federal government must do to work with the provinces to ensure that there are opportunities across the country for education and training.
It is an issue I have been pursuing in the House. I hope to have an opportunity to introduce a private member's bill tomorrow in regard to the transfer of funds through cash payments and tax points to the provinces in health areas and in post-secondary education.
The previous Secretary of State could not assure me or the House, in this very important field for training and education of young people, that in fact those funds were spent in that particular area.
Under the current legislation passed by the previous Liberal government, we evolved into this block funding formula. Many people allege in my province of B.C. that the Social Credit government paves highways with health and education money.
I would like to ask the minister if it is the government's view that this block funding approach should continue and, if so, can he assure the House that the funds allocated to the provinces, in particular on post-secondary education, a very important matter, are in fact spent on post-secondary education?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I want to address the comments and, obviously, the question of my hon. colleague of the NDP. He indicated that he would be tabling a private member's bill sometime tomorrow or during the week. I am looking forward to the input of the hon. member and I will be reading it attentively and eventually react to it, I suppose, like all other members of this House, at the appropriate time. I appreciate the hon. member's question and the angle he is taking with respect to the question, i.e., money transferred from the federal government to the provinces and what the provinces may or may not do with it. I understand the nuance.

June 10, 1991
Supply
I want to bring the hon. member to another way of looking at the situation and that is the education situation in general. We have a basic and fundamental problem with respect to education in this country, when at the high school level there is a 30 per cent drop-out rate. That represents about 100,000 high school students per year who drop out of school.
My hon. friend is sort of aiming at the post-secondary level, which is very important, there is no question about that, but before these students can get to the post-secondary level, they also have to go through high school. When there is a 30 per cent dropout situation in Canada right now, there is a fundamental problem, which is not just the federal government's problem, but it is a Canadian problem and deals with as much the provincial and/or other governments in Canada, that have their own responsibilities with respect to education.
As we have indicated many times before, we do not intend to infringe on provincial jurisdictions with respect to education. That being said, we have a problem with education. All governments and all interested parties have to get together and find a way to resolve this very crucial and important situation with respect to high school student dropouts. That is exactly what we are trying to do on the one hand with our stay in school initiative and also by opening the door to some very important discussions with the other responsible jurisdictions with respect to education in Canada so that we can find a solution and get to the root of the problem. It seems to be at the high school level where there is a 30 per cent dropout rate. Consequently, when those students do not drop out of school they will be in post-secondary education.


Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister who seems genuinely concerned with this issue that concerns us as well.
The minister said, in his remarks as well as in the Speech from the Throne, that economic prosperity is first and foremost an issue of people. I would like to ask the minister how his program, which includes a rather innovative strategy and which certainly provides important funds, since he referred to an amount of $296 million, how this policy will be implemented or adapted to the education policies in Quebec? I would also like to ask the minister if he could elaborate on the criteria that will be used for the allocation of those funds?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the
question asked by my honourable colleague. The problem to which she alludes is one which undoubtedly affects all the members of this House, and not only myself or the members that have spoken until now.
We are faced with a fundamental problem. In the Speech from the Throne, we referred, of course, to human resources and I think that my honourable colleague from the opposition has also emphasized, earlier, the fact that the lack of competitiveness, among other factors, is of course directly linked to the human resources available here in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that the 26 million Canadians that make up our relatively small population, compared to that of our neighbor, are, by and large, very resourceful. Given the proper tools, Canadians will continue to be competitive and to be able to compete with any country in the world. Indeed, we have the resources, as well as the resourcefulness that I just mentioned.
However, we must make sure that this resourcefulness of our human resources, notably our young people in school, is being promoted and supported. Mr. Speaker, when we are faced with a 30 per cent drop out rate, which amounts to 100 000 students dropping out in Canada, there is a fundamental problem which is not only a federal problem: It is a Canadian problem that all jurisdictions and interested parties must look at in order to find a solution at the first level, that is at the high school level.
So, Mr. Speaker, while all recognize education to be a fundamentally provincial responsibility, and while it is out of the question, for the federal government, to get involved in this field, we simply cannot ignore the problem.
So, our program is aimed at helping those young people stay in school, at analysing their situation, supporting them, and providing the tools that they need to stay in school, because dropping out is not the solution. It may be a popular solution in the short term and in the eyes of other dropouts, Mr. Speaker, but once again experience has thought us that dropping out is not a long term solution. People who drop out not only find it increasingly difficult, as the years go by, to find work: It also becomes harder for them to keep a job because technology improves and the world evolves, which makes it all the more difficult for the dropout to catch up.
June 10, 1991

So, Mr. Speaker, the solution is in dealing with the problem at its roots and avoiding having students drop out of school.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not wish to take away from the time of my colleague to the extreme left who will be speaking on debate. I just want to draw to the attention of the Chair that, under the provisions of Standing Order 43(2), for the remaining speakers from our party and for the remainder of the day we wish to divide our time equally.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, once more we are hearing the rhetoric about the importance of education, about the technological society and about creating a knowledge based economy in Canada. We are hearing all of the good words. What this debate is all about in the final analysis on the government side is words, words, words without substance.
It was back in February that the previous Minister of State for Youth had to suffer through the embarrassment of convening a press conference to announce the increase in funding in the Challenge program, particularly the SEED program, that this minister referred to in Question Period last week when he asserted: "No, there has been no decrease in student funding. There has indeed been an increase in student funding".
I suppose it is a question of interpretation. Let us first of all look back upon the last round of announcements with respect to the Challenge program. What we will find is that the SEED program was cut from $118 million to $77 million. This huge increase, bragged about by the hon. minister back in February in his former guise and now in the minister's present guise, amounted to $3 million.
The amount for the SEED program was increased from $77 million to $80 million, roughly a 4 per cent increase, a considerable degree smaller than the increase in the cost of living. It is a typical kind of performance by the government to claim that there have been funding increases when in fact in terms of real dollars there have been no funding increases.
If we look back just a little further, we will find that when this government came into office it decreased from
Supply
the very outset the amount of money available to students.
However, what is so shameful about the February announcement is that even back in February it was possible to predict exactly what has occurred now, and that is that the unemployment rate among those defined as youth has hit the level of almost 16 per cent. We have had steadily increasing rates of unemployment in the over-all population exceeding 10 per cent since before February, and anybody who has made any attempt to relate the pattern of unemployment among youth with over-all unemployment will have discovered that by the time this is over the rate of unemployment among youth will double that of the adult rate.
This government had plenty of warning, lots of warning, that there was going to be the kind of situation that has been produced now, a situation in which the reality is that a lot of students are simply not going to get jobs. If all the students were former ministers of state for finance and trade, perhaps they could get jobs in the summer. Patronage might apply to them or something of the sort might provide them jobs. In other words, what we have is a situation on the other side where there has been a consistent disregard for the real situation among young people.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that in previous debates on the Challenge program we expressed some considerable concern about the change in proportions of Challenge to the SEED program that was being used to fund jobs in industry and in the business area, the profit area, as compared to the non-profit area. I am saying that now it is to cite the fact that federal funding can create a lot more jobs, even in a recession, if it addresses the needs that have been created by this government in its recession among non-profit organizations which are trying to serve the communities affected by the recession, the unemployment and the hopelessness that have been created by this government.
We heard the hon. Minister of State for Youth talking about how terrible it was that 30 per cent of kids drop out of school in Canada. And it is a terrible thing. However, I do not know how he can stand there and say it is a terrible thing and yet create a situation where the dropout rate is going to increase because of kids not being able to fund their way back into school next fall. He did not say anything about the dropout rate that is

June 10,1991
Supply
going to be caused among the colleges and universities, among students who will not be able to get jobs this summer. He did not say anything about the cutbacks in transfer payments to the post-secondary domain which have increased the pressure on tuition rates right across the country. Nor did he say anything about the GST that makes books more expensive. Nor did he say anything about the surcharge on student loans.
He did not say anything that was helpful to students. He did not say anything that was consistent with this rhetoric that this government has adopted about education. He did not say anything that would help students, as I think by now students can be confident will never be forthcoming. This government will not take on its responsibility.
The motion before us is a good one that my party will most certainly support. It says:
That this House call upon the government to implement
immediate measures to alleviate the devastatingly high rate of
unemployment among Canadian youth.
Something should have been done a long time ago.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I just heard this gentleman here who purports to be the Minister of State for Finance. I am sure he is going to drag every bug and fly into his empty skull if he opens his mouth too much, particularly when he insists in this House in broadcasting flat out lies. I think his problem is that he hates to hear the truth. This, after all, was the arrogant minister who stood in this House and said that any students can get jobs when they want to.
I want to tell this minister on behalf of the students for whom he claims to speak that he speaks not a word for them any more than the rest of his government speaks for them. The issue is the sanctimonious behaviour of
this government, which insists on going along its way in complete disregard to the needs of real people.
This country is being tom apart by the insensitivity of this government. Its future is being threatened by the insensitivity of this government. Its youth is being sacrificed as a result of the insensitivity of this government, and from the Minister of State for Finance the youth is being insulted by the insensitivity of this government.
The claim that is laid here before this House with respect to this motion is a relatively simple one: "Go back and re-examine", it says to the government, "what it is doing faced with a crisis of youth unemployment". It says that this government should attempt to do what it can to make it possible for young people to get jobs this summer.
The situation can be dramatized in terms of statistics. Among the larger employers of students we have IBM which hired 875 students last summer. It will only hire 760 this year. Bell Canada, which hired 1,195 students last year, will hire only 500 this year.
The fact is that now we have a situation in which not only has government cut its funding for the creation of youth employment. We have an ever increasing pressure on the jobs that have been in the past available to students by the great mass of adults trying to seek jobs.
For example, in the city of Windsor where quite a number of student jobs are created by the municipal government, they have had to concede that some jobs formerly designated for students must now go in a certain proportion to the adult unemployed.
In Windsor-I guess I would have to choose to cite Windsor as a typical example of a city that has benefited from this government's policies-no retail store jobs are going to be available this summer because one-third of them have already closed. We have none of those usual jobs being produced in the tourism area in Windsor that would normally be produced to allow students to get jobs in the summer.
Our position is veiy simple. At the very least, this government should return to a level of funding for the
June 10, 1991

Challenge program equivalent to what it was the year before last, before it savaged it in 1989. It should provide $140 million for the SEED program and commensurately increase the over-all funding for the Challenge program so that those kids who are just leaving high school will also have an opportunity to get jobs.
There has been, within the context of this debate about youth unemployment, some debate about the question of education. The Minister of State for Youth chose in this debate about jobs for youth, for students, to talk about this government's promises in the throne speech to achieve certain goals: the elimination of illiteracy, an increase in the number of graduates in science and engineering, to double the number of workers who have access to training and so on. Then arose, as always has arisen, the debate about jurisdictional problems. This is not a debate about education, as such. It is a debate about how kids have to have money in their pocket to continue their education.
I think it is important to say a few words in the context of this over-all debate, which seen from a certain perspective is: How do you encourage kids to continue in school? Apart from the question of how much financing is available, we have the question of the character of what is going to be accessible to them in terms of training and education. I will simply say what I have said before, there is no jurisdictional problem for the proper exercise of leadership within the context of a full recognition that those jurisdictional problems do exist.
Jurisdiction has been used before as an excuse for doing nothing. My fear is that it will continue to be used as an excuse for doing nothing, to the further detriment of that economic future that all claim Canada must pursue.
I just want to say some final words about the question of student aid. As I indicated earlier, rather than finding creative ways to increase the funding assistance available to students, the government instead imposed a 3 per cent surcharge on student loans, when what is really needed are general improvements in the program.
On the weekend I was talking to representatives of part-time students who have been petitioning this government and the government before it repeatedly, so that part-time students will have the benefit of the same kind of financial aid that is available to full-time students. This is an important consideration because one of the circumstances is what this government has done to
Supply
student employment opportunities. There are going to be increasing numbers of part-time students. Those students should have access to same quality of education with the same kind of support available to them as do the full-time students.
I ask this government to do one other thing in addition to increasing funding in the Challenge program and that is to get busy on the issue of student aid.
We have had committees and we have had promises and we have had nothing done. It is about time something was done in the area of the student loan program to ensure that there will be access for part-time students on the same basis as other students.
As long as we have the situation we have at hand where students cannot get summer jobs, we are going to have a real problem in encouraging people in the part-time sphere and they too, of course, will need jobs that in the present circumstances of a recession may not be available to them.
Therefore, in closing, I must confess some fatigue in repeating a debate that has been repeated so often in this House within the context of complete disregard of a problem that has so characterized this government. There is a need, a real need among students to be able to find jobs, not handouts, in order to continue their education.
The unemployment rate has become worse. It is practically as bad now as it was during the peak of the last recession, 16 per cent versus 17 per cent. This government needs to take initiatives to make more funding available so those students can work. It needs to re-examine its actions that have increased the costs for education. It has to look at what it has done to the university system and the college system and so on, that has made post-secondary education less accessible and less valuable than it was in the past.
Let us then put some substance into their expression of concern that we need to do so much to create a knowledge based society. Let us give real access to that knowledge to the students. Let us give them jobs. Let us give them institutions where they can learn. Let us take the necessary initiatives in education where this government and other governments have refused to undertake. Let us really commit ourselves to creating the knowledge based society that will provide a standard of living in Canada that Canada must have and which will support the social programs that some must have.

June 10, 1991
Supply


Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, youth has been the main topic this morning. We are all aware that young people are experiencing some very serious problems in our society. I say society, because this is a responsibility that must be shouldered by society as a whole, by all three levels of government, the private sector and the unions, and because we have a society in which values have changed. Families are becoming increasingly divided. As a result, our young people are demotivated, but nevertheless, the government has launched some very attractive programs for these young people. We also understand why members opposite want us to focus on better programs for high school graduates.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair whether he could explain why the NDP government in Ontario decided to drop the Ontario Scholars Program, since these scholarships for Grade 13 students who maintain an average of 80 per cent cost only $2 million.
I would appreciate the hon. member's comments, considering the provincial governments' responsibility in this area.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I do not like it. That is the simple answer. I would try to understand it and would hope that if the money were to be diverted to some educational program, it would benefit perhaps low income students who achieved a reasonable academic level, I would like it. But on the basis of what I know about it I do not like it.
My concern about education is not because I am a New Democrat and it is not because I am not a Progressive Conservative. It is because I feel strongly that education and knowledge is fundamental to our future economy, it is fundamental to opportunity and it is fundamental to a reasonable level of education.
I would ask the hon. member, who stood up in her preamble to her question to me citing these wonderful programs that the government has initiated to tell me one. Perhaps she means the work experience program
which the government adopted from a New Democratic document. That is one that I can think of.
I do not know of any initiatives in education that can be expressed as particularly-oh, perhaps she is talking about the scholarships for science students, except that they do not just go to science students, but that was a good initiative. I say so and I say so clearly. It is not enough. There should be no higher priority in this country than the education and training of our people and the elimination of illiteracy. Therein lies the basis for the economic survival of our country.
So I will be consistent about that. I see no partisan issue involved in that. I wish that we could depart from our party labels and look at this in the context of common sense. In fact, in terms of the debate that we are engaged in now, the only issue of common sense is the question of how we are going to put those kids who are not working this summer back to work and what the government should do within that context.
I say the government should put the money back into the Challenge program that it took out of the Challenge program.


Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair was saying, but what does it all boil down to? Is he saying all this just for the sake of making a long speech, to fight a battle that does not make sense, since he knows perfectly well this government provides GST tax credits to help all these families? Nearly 9 million people receive GST credits. This money can be used to pay for books and haircuts and for just about everything, and they receive quite a bit.
Would the hon. member, without necessarily giving a thirty-minute speech, comment on this?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to describe a single thing this government has done to help Canadians and especially needy Canadians. This government has divided our country, created a recession, and put the city of Windsor in a very critical position.
It is irresponsible of the hon. member to rise in the House and say that the government is acting to help the Canadian people. It is unacceptable because it is not true.
June 10, 1991


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair is more concerned about his performance in the House than about substance.
Earlier, he said that the minister's speech was all words and no substance. I beg to disagree. The minister's speech was most interesting, because he identified all the programs the government has introduced, with the various types of funding to help our young people achieve their potential.
So before talking off the top of his head, perhaps the hon. member should listen to what the government says and consider the commitments it has made. We are aware of our responsibility to Canadian youth and act accordingly.
My question to the hon. member is this: He knows perfectly well that the Speech from the Throne emphasized-he said so himself that illiteracy was a major problem in this country-so does he admit that in the Speech from the Throne, the government made fighting illiteracy a priority? Our objective is to make sure that at least 90 per cent of our young people are able to get a high school diploma. We want 90 per cent of our young students to graduate from high school. Does he agree with those objectives?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the member says I am concerned about my performance in the House while giving speeches which, I must assume, is a message that the performance has been good. A good performance convinces nobody. Let me respond to the question.
The answer is that his government has not stated any goals at all. The government has not stated any goals at all. If the government had a goal of eliminating illiteracy, if the government had a goal of doubling the number of science graduates, if the government had a goal of increasing the number of workers who achieve a level of training by twice, I would be solidly in favour of those goals. But this government does not have goals. Remember the goal of the Prime Minister that this government should achieve a rate of expenditure on science and technology of 2.5 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product. That was not stated as a goal and therefore it was not achieved.
Supply
When this government states goals rather than promises, and therefore understands that a goal must have a mechanism, a strategy for its achievement, then I will be very enthusiastic. But this is strictly sheer trickery just as was the Prime Minister's promise with respect to R and D. This is trickery with respect to education.
If those were goals I would accept them, but those are not goals, those are empty promises like jobs, jobs, jobs.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a very important issue to this nation, youth unemployment. It is important, may I add, for many reasons, however, because this summer our young people are faced with an increasing unemployment rate among youth that stands at a devastating 16.6 per cent.
This is a very important debate because we have young people in this nation today who are demoralized and frustrated with their present situation.
What is equally important is that we begin to analyse the response presented to these young people by this government. The government response was basically that in its SEED program in 1985 it contributed $149 million, while in 1991, $80 million.
This comes at a time when this government has decided to take on a challenge, to speak to the issue of global competitiveness and speak to the creation of a so-called learning society. However, I wonder at times whether this government really understands the meaning of global competition because it seems to me that its answer to creating a globally competitive society is to tell young people to stay at home. Obviously the reality is otherwise.
I think the word competitiveness has entered the vocabulary of this government. Perhaps some media guru is telling the government it is a vogue word, a word used in Europe many years ago and a word acted on many years ago.
I think there is a fundamental problem with this government in understanding how a globally competitive society is achieved. It is not achieved by cutting resources like training and education in the field of human resources, nor by cutting research and development, science and technology. Obviously it has not been able to develop a global competitive society in this area and in many other areas including that of taxation.

June 10, 1991
Supply
The government has responded with cuts and by alienating a very important group of individuals in this society, namely our youth, who are already faced with higher tuition fees, an increasing debt load, spiralling education costs, and now no jobs this summer. What is important is to have not just a job, but a job that at least can cover the costs of tuition fees. It is not enough to have just a job that the government side can use as a statistic. A young Canadian must have a job that covers food, rent, and transportation to make it possible to have an opportunity for post-secondary education.
The question many young people have been asking themselves is: Does this government really care about young people? I think what really describes the type of interest shown by this government toward young people is in the statement made by the junior finance minister last Tuesday in response to the question from my leader on a call for action on youth unemployment. He stated that if young people would look hard enough they would find jobs. The minister is telling the close to 20 per cent of young people in Newfoundland that they cannot find work because they are not looking hard enough.
He is telling the 16.3 per cent in Prince Edward Island that they cannot find work because they are not looking hard enough. I am telling you that those young people are looking for work and they simply cannot find it because it is not there.
It is not there for two reasons. It is not there because this government's economic mismanagement has not created jobs in the private sector, nor has this government aided students during this summer of discontent. As a matter of fact, it continues to cut and block the major artery to Canada's future, our young people.
This is unbelievable, but I can tell you it is not surprising because this government has a track record on alienating Canada's youth. It has continued a direct attack on students. Look at the statistics on transfer payments to the provinces. In 1986 the government passed Bill C-96 which reduced the growth rate of transfer payments to the provinces by 2 per cent. The portion of financing for post-secondary education that was to be cut amounted to $1.6 billion. This is the type of help that this government has been giving students in
Canada. There was a further cut of 1 per cent in
1990-1991.
This comes at a time when there exists a new global reality. The relative economic strength of a nation is often measured by the way the young people are trained and educated. We live in a fast moving world where there are many challenges. There are technological advancements. There is more information every day, every minute, from fax machines. It becomes important to train these people if we want to be able to compete. It is about time that this government realizes that it is not going to happen by chance. You must plan and you must plan correctly. You do not plan the future of a nation by continuous cuts to the very fabric that represents its future.
I am sure the minister will hide behind the WALL program and the stay in school program, but let it be known for the record that these might be new programs but certainly no new funding was allocated to these programs. It has taken away from post-secondary students, given to high school students, and pitted two needy groups of our society against each other. This is the type of politics we see day in and day out from the government opposite.
Canadians, our young people, are tired of being misled and tired of the type of approach this government has taken. I join the Liberal Party of Canada in bringing forth the points I have mentioned and those points so eloquently stated by the hon. member for Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold. We want to make sure that this government will find within itself the intelligence, the caring and compassion necessary to bring about the type of employment situation for young Canadians so that once again they can be proud citizens of this nation and take on and get ready for the challenges of the 21st century.


Nicole Roy-Arcelin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is demanding that the federal government deal with the high rate of unemployment amongst Canadian youth. I would like to mention to him five programs within the Canadian Jobs Strategy which are designed to
June 10, 1991

help young people find a first job or keep the one they have.
There is the Job Development Program, where $107.2 million go to young people. The Job Entry Program which gives $139.3 million to young people only. The Skill Shortages Program, $97.6 million. The Skills Investment Program, $8.4 million. The Community Futures Program, $6.7 million also for young people.
I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. member is willing to recognize these figures or whether he will tell us that these programs are not meant for young people, when the fact is that 46.4 per cent of the
400,000	participants to the Canadian Jobs Strategy are young people. Consequently, $487 million out of a budget of $1.7 billion are used for training young people and helping them find a job. I ask the hon. member to comment on our programs.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question posed by the hon. member. However, today we are speaking to a reality that perhaps can be best described in and by the title of Lila Sarick's article, I believe it was in The Globe and Mail of June 4, Thirsting for Employment in the Summer Job Drought:
The search is on for career related work, but students are finding
their prospects bleak as many companies have cut the numbers they
hire.
Obviously, we are also aware of the cuts made by this government.
There is myth and then there is reality. Obviously, the programs that the government has introduced are not working, simply because we have a high unemployment rate among youth. It is a fact that you and I cannot dispute. I do not think that 16.6 per cent at a time when this government wants to compete globally is fair. Nor do I think it is something that this particular government would wish on young people.
Unfortunately, as a direct result of this government's policies, we are faced with a youth unemployment crisis. It is for this reason that this party has allocated today to address the issue. I hope the words and proposals made
Supply
on this side of the House are answered by the government and acted upon simply because this is no humourous situation. It is very serious when a government in a Speech from the Throne speaks to global competitiveness, speaks to a learning society, but does exactly the opposite when it comes to financial commitment.
The reality is that if the government does not commit funds and does not give what is required to carry out the proposals that we have heard in the Speech from the Throne, it is not going to happen.
I am speaking to this government to kindly urge its leadership to act on the words that are cited in the Speech from the Throne and not use them as mere references. There is a generation of Canadians waiting for this government's actions, a generation that is going to spell out whether or not Canada will succeed globally.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate in this debate.
In doing so, I wish to congratulate my colleague from Welland-St. Catharines and, of course, the hon. member for York North for initiating this particular debate on subject matter which is of great importance to young Canadians and also to many families across this country.
I enter this debate and wish to espouse the views of my constituents who are students at the University College of Cape Breton, and who may be students at Riverview High School, Glace Bay High School, Breton Education Centre in the town of New Waterford, MacDonald High School in the town of Dominion, Reserve District High in Reserve Mines, Duncan High School in Duncan and St. Peter's in Richmond County.
I have listened quite attentively to the remarks made by my colleagues on this side of the House, and equally so to the comments which have been made by members opposite. It should be noted that student unemployment in my province is roughly 16 per cent and growing. I suggest to the Chair that in my area of the province it has perhaps doubled 16 per cent.
We have had a proliferation of closings, shutdowns, and the erosion of national institutions. As a result, numerous jobs have gone by the wayside leaving families, some young, some middle-aged, some not so young, in a

June 10, 1991
Supply
very difficult economic situation. That has exacerbated the situation for young Canadians in my constituency.
Just on the weekend, Friday afternoon when the House was closed, I was in my riding and met with numerous young persons regarding the lack of summer employment opportunities.
On Saturday, I went to local shopping malls in a couple of communities and, of course, I was bombarded by individuals. They were asking, on behalf of their sons and daughters, if there were any particular programs with additional funding from the Government of Canada to assist young people obtain summer employment. In many instances, this summer employment is needed to help pursue post-secondary studies and/or some form of training in the fall.
The reality is that the opportunities are non-existent. There are some communities across this country where opportunities do exist, but I suggest that in the slower economic growth areas, those opportunities for young people just do not exist.
Many of them, much perhaps to the chagrin of the Minister of State for Finance, are working very hard and diligently to try to obtain some form of employment. Whether it be six weeks on a grant or ten weeks filling in for someone, they are all attempting to obtain some form of employment in order to generate sufficient funds to pursue their education.
It does not stop there. I want to cite an example of what has happened in parts of my riding. A young lady who graduated from high school with superb marks went on to university and was successful in obtaining several scholarships. Her father and mother were not members of the bar or in the medical profession, but were average middle-class Canadians.
The policy of this administration, however, is that it taxes the scholarship.
For those who may be viewing this morning and this afternoon's debate, taxing the scholarship may not mean much in the whole scheme of things. However, when one has a relatively fixed income and, over and above that, has worked hard to attain a certain academic standard, it is difficult to proceed onward when you find out at the end of the day that you are going to be taxed because you
worked hard. Yes, you are a student, you have done academically well, but the government is still going to tax you. This seems not to be very progressive thinking on the part of the nation's legislators.
Again, this is another example of the administration's activity with regard to youth and youth opportunities.
It has been mentioned many times in this House that there are many barriers in this country from province to province. In many provinces if one were to pursue a post-secondary education outside one's province, one could not qualify for a bursary.
Members may say: "Well, why does that student not stay in his or her own province and obtain the same type of degree that can be offered in other parts of the country?" The fact of the matter is that in many instances part of the educational process would be to go to McGill or Laval to acquire knowledge not only for academic purposes but also for the cultural and socioeconomic status of that particular region. The hon. member makes a very disparaging remark on what I believe to be a very important subject matter. The hon. member will have her opportunity to express her view and I hope she will have the courtesy to give me my opportunity to express my view.
The fact of the matter is is that there are thousands and thousands of young Canadians who wish to go outside their province to pursue post-secondary education only to find that they are limited by the amount of money their province will provide in bursaries.
Those two factors, coupled with the fact that young people have no job opportunities, make their situation even more bleak. I called upon, and I call upon again, the minister responsible to provide the necessary funding to assist, in difficult times, those students seeking meaningful employment who wish to pursue post-secondary education as well as training and other forms of improving upon their job-related skills.
It is particularly difficult when talking to students graduating from Riverview High School, Glace Bay High School or Breton Education Centre to say: "Yes, continue on" when they cannot even get a summer job for 10 or 12 weeks. Surely to God there is an obligation on the part of the government of this country, in the kind of political situation we are in at the present time, to put its shoulder to the wheel and come up with creative and
June 10, 1991

innovative programs to assist young people, not next summer or the summer after but this summer.
There are young people who live in small communities of 300 or 400 people, such as South Bar or on a reserve which is a little bit bigger. Surely there is an obligation upon legislators of the national Parliament to set an example and to provide some semblance of hope to these young people.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that I have one or two moments left. Let me say, through you, to the members opposite, it is not tough medicine to say to young people: "Do it on your own", when in point of fact, there are no opportunities out there in the public sector or the private sector.
Surely the tough medicine for a government to bear at this difficult economic and political time in our country is to say: "Hey, let us bite the bullet here. Let us provide some hope. Let us provide the necessary funding. Let us assist young people across this country. Let us mobilize that talent, that spirit." I suggest to hon. members opposite that this will add greatly to the esprit de corps that we need in this country. More important, it will provide young people with a sense of hope, dignity and fairness to know that the Government of Canada, their national legislators do, in fact, care about them.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I just have a brief question to my colleague.
As he knows, the funding was increased, albeit a small amount. I do not think any of us are happy. We would all like to have more funding in our ridings to assure young people of more jobs. Under the economic circumstances, an increase of some $3 million was all that was able to be funded.
He is suggesting additional funding. Could he tell us what he is suggesting as an amount of increase in the budget this year? Where might he suggest it be taken from?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has asked a specific question in terms of the amount. He has asked a specific question in terms of where the money might come from.
I suggest that the minister might wish to be creative in terms of the levers he has at his disposal and to initiate
Supply
the assistance of provincial governments. Perhaps, one avenue is to provide the incentive for provincial governments also to share. I do not believe it is the sole responsibility of the national government. But if provincial governments had some incentive to ignite additional funding, such as in the example set by the federal government, much of what I am referring to, particularly at this time, could be forthcoming. It may be a 50 per cent increase and 50 per cent by the provinces.
The hon. member has heard comments from our critic responsible for youth in terms of restoring the levels of the past. The hon. minister must keep in mind that the conditions are quite different from what they were in 1986, 1987 and 1988, when the economy was much stronger. I am sure the minister would understand it would only be prudent and wise that when the economy is down, additional funding be made available for students for that particular year.
In terms of where the money can come from, the minister is probably much better aware than most members on this side of the floor as to where measures can be restrained in terms of their expenditure. I think, of course, of financing which goes out to the tune of billions of dollars on an annual basis to the private sector for grants and various subsidies. I am not suggesting that we cut them off completely.


John Horton McDermid: Whose riding gets the bulk of it?


David Charles Dingwall: The minister has made a point. Let me finish. I would like to debate that with the minister. The fact of the matter is that there are funds within the system, the present system, that the minister could re-allocate to this particular program in order to assist students.
The minister made a disparaging remark when he alluded to which riding gets all of those subsidies now under the present programs. There is no question that some of those subsidies for private sectors have accrued in my particular constituency. I do not doubt that and I do not dispute that.


An hon. member:: Why should you?


David Charles Dingwall: But the hon. minister cannot sit there like a Cheshire cat and say to members on this side of the House: "No, no subsidies have come to my riding." That would be a denial of history. It would be a denial of Sir John A. Macdonald's policy as it relates to the protection

June 10, 1991
Supply
given to the province of Ontario at the expense of other regions of this country. Do not get, shall we say, perplexed when members on this side of the floor say: Hey, we have exceptionally high unemployment in our regions. We are asking the Government of Canada to show leadership.
We are asking it to invite the participation of the provincial governments and the municipalities, as well as the private sector, and to initiate new programs which will assist young people this year. It is fundamental to providing some sense of hope, decency and dignity for the young people of this country, and I would hope the minister would support that.
{Translation}


Marie Gibeau: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege today to respond to the motion moved by the hon. member concerning the action taken by our government in order to reduce the unemployment rate among young Canadians. I totally agree with my hon. colleague that we need to do everything in our power to help young Canadians find a job. And I would like to specifically address the situation of our youth in the Montreal area.
Since its first election in 1984, our government has worked hard to encourage young Canadians to pursue their studies, to realize their full academic potential and, once they graduated, to find a motivating job that would represent their contribution to Canadian productivity.
Of course, the hon. member knows, as we all know, that the present economic situation is difficult, not only in Canada, but in all industrialized countries. Despite that, our youth show initiative and, far from getting discouraged, they show entrepreneurship, which will certainly have the effect of raising the standard of living of Canadians during the present decade and even during the twenty-first centuiy.
Our government does all it can to support their efforts. Indeed, it is the seventh summer that we put in place the Challenge Program, which is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of State for Youth and whose aim is to encourage employers to create interesting summer jobs for young people. The future of young Canadians is at the forefront of government priorities. I believe we have proved it when we announced this year that $143
million would go into the Challenge Program 91. That is $3 million more than in last year's budget.
Also, of these $143 million, $28.3 million will go to Challenge 91 for Quebec. Let me explain to the hon. member the components of that program. One of the components of the Challenge Program is called Summer Employment Experience Development (SEED). It assists employers by giving them salary subsidies that will allow them to create jobs for secondary school, college and university students, but especially for secondary school students who have more difficulty than others to find a job.
The hon. member will be happy to learn that in the Montreal area, last summer, our government spent more than $4 million under this component and, more precisely, that 2,655 students participated in 1,146 projects over-all, which allowed them to receive a valuable training while earning money to continue their education.
I am pleased to tell the hon. member that this year again, the SEED component will encourage the creation of job opportunities conforming to government social priorities in the areas of literacy, drug and alcohol abuse, information on AIDS, environment, and urban crime.
Moreover, the funding of SEED this year is aimed at encouraging employers to hire visible minorities, natives and young handicapped.
In Quebec, the funds allocated to this program will be increased this summer from $17.8 million to $18.1 million. My hon. friend will certainly understand that summer has just started and that we do not quite know yet how many students from Montreal schools will participate in this program. There is ground to believe that this component of Challenge 91 will have as much success as in previous summers.
The Challenge program includes also a component called Work Orientation Workshops that gives high school dropouts an opportunity to reconsider their decision to not complete their education. These workshops are accompanied by an on-the-job experience aimed at encouraging dropout students to go back to school or, if they do not want to, to receive a practical training. More precisely, these workshops teach life dynamics, personal financial management, the operation of companies, and so on. These workshops help young people to understand what training and studies they will need to get in the labour market, where jobs require more and more skills and are more specialized.
June 10, 1991

I am pleased to be able to tell my honourable colleague, that as of the summer of 1990, the government had given the Montreal area more than $2 million through the Work Orientation Workshops, and 1,000 area students took part in them. For instance, on the South Shore only, $920,000 were spent on 467 participants.
This summer, the Quebec component of the Work Orientation Workshops will receive a total of $8.1 million, over and above a supplementary $2.1 million for year-round projects.
On May 9th, the Minister of State for Youth officially opened for the summer the 94 Canada Employment Centres for Students that are to be found in Quebec. Four of these centres are in the Montreal area. I can assure my honourable colleague that employees in these centres know full well how hard it is for young people in Montreal to find a job and that they use all their skills to help them.
As I was saying a while ago, everyone here knows that the whole world is going through very difficult economic times. Nevertheless, I am sure that the members of this House will recognize that the situation would be far worse for young Canadians were it not for the efficient assistance programs brought forth by this government. I am not only talking about the conponents of Challenge '91 I have just mentioned, but also about a few others such as the Student Business Loans Program which is administered by the Federal Business Development Bank and assits student entrepreneurs who wish to create their own summer jobs.
Last year in Quebec, 276 loans were approved for a total of $688,700 which led to the creation of 918 summer jobs. This is a sizeable increase of 72 per cent compared with the number of jobs created the previous year. And this year, this component has an over-all operating budget of $900,000. Moreover, we will grant $805,000 more for the Business Drive for Jobs component under which business associations are encouraged to create summer jobs for students within the business community without the help of salary subsidies.
We have also established the Native probationers Program which is offered during the summer and give
Supply
native students the oppurtunity to work in Employment and Immigration offices.
Mr. Speaker, by taking advantage of Challenge '91 Program, employers in Montreal and across Canada will have a unique opportunity to raise the potential of our future Canadian labour force. For students, as for other young people, the Challenge' 91 components meet a periode range of employment needs including help for students who want to start a business and counselling to younger students who hesitate between staying in school and joining the work force.
Our action is an attempt at helping young people from Montreal and from all over the country, choose between their staying in school or going into the labour market. Our programs are intented to prepare our youths for employment. However, we should never go so far as to tell our young people to get a job instead of finishing school. That is why our government implemented its stay-in-school initiative in February 1990. Over five years, this project should receive $296 million. There is an alarming 30 per cent drop-out rate in Canada at the high school level. That rate could well be the highest in all of the industrialized world. My hon. colleague will recognize, I am sure, that this figure has to be checked.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that, by the year 2000, for two thirds of all new jobs, candidates will be required to have at least a high school diploma and, in many cases, five years of post-secondary schooling.
Students who drop out of school will earn much less than those with a high school degree and will have a much harder time finding and keeping a job. School drop-outs will be unemployed for longer periods of time than other workers. Either they will have to accept low-paid, low-skill jobs or make do with unemployment or some other type of income support. We must not let such a thing happen, and this government is committed to do everything possible to help youths in Montreal and across the country develop their intellectual potential.
Of course, we know that lack of education is an obstacle, and not only on a personal level. It can also translate into a much heavier burden on public assistance programs during a severe recession as the one we are experiencing now.

June 10, 1991
Supply
We must also ask ourselves what will happen if the dropout rate remains at 30 per cent. Who will fill the new jobs requiring sound training if we do not have a sufficient number of skilled workers to fill these jobs? How will Canada compete in the rapidly growing global economy?
The Stay-in-School project not only enhances access to well-paying jobs for a lifetime, it helps youths to accede to a better quality life. It gets us wondering: who should help defining these problems and finding solutions?
The answer lies in the three components of the project, that is programs and services related to labour market and geared to students at risk of dropping out of school, mobilization of stakeholders in order to find solutions, and public awareness activities to inform Canadians on the consequences of the current dropout rate.
Of course, education comes under the responsibility of the provinces, and we fully respect their prerogative in that area. However, my honourable colleague will surely agree with me that the long term consequences of dropout could affect the whole economy of this country, and that, to curb the problem, we have to combine our efforts on a national level.
That is why we call upon all those affected by this problem: parents, union leaders, social groups, young Canadians, business people and teachers. We need the opinion of all those involved because they know better than we do the problems affecting their communities.
During the last fiscal year, we added to the Stay-inSchool project a new component called Start Option. It is a $16 million program that gives financial assistance , for projects aimed at young people from 12 to 18 years of age.
Start Option is financed through the Job Entry Program of the Canadian Job Strategy and offers considerable flexibility. It allows organizations which qualify for the program, such as school boards, Indian bands and youth-oriented organizations, to receive funds in order to encourage young people to stay in school.
In the same vein, I have the pleasure to be able to point to my hon. colleague that, during the last fiscal year, Quebec joined the Stay-in-School project. A total
of $1.5 million, including $153,000 for the mobilization of stake-holders will be spent in Quebec under Start Option.
For example, last summer, in Montreal, ten drop-outs were sponsored by the YMCA du Parc under Start Option, and they all went back to school this year.
Furthermore, last year in Quebec the Canadian Jobs Strategy's job entry program received funding totalling nearly $3.3 million, which benefited 176 participants.
I would like to give you and the hon. member for Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold the assurance that this government is doing everything it can, in Montreal as well as in the rest of Quebec and Canada, to help young Canadians become productive citizens.
When we adopted our Labour Force Development Strategy two years ago, our aim was to consolidate programs that promote the social integration of young people. Thanks to this strategy, our Co-operative Education Program has become even more accessible in high schools and universities across Canada. The program, which is very popular, gives students an opportunity to combine education and job experience, and we are committed to increasing funding for this very important program.
The Labour Force Development Strategy has led to an increase in entry-level skills development and has helped direct young unemployed workers towards the programs and services they need to find work. By further developing co-operative education, by improving apprenticeship programs and by emphasizing a comprehensive and concrete approach to entry-level skills development, we are giving young Canadians the kind of training they need to find a niche in a very competitive labour market. The government is using all these programs and initiatives to try and improve training and job opportunities for young Canadians.
Last year, the Science Council of Canada published a report in which it said that to sustain international competition, it was necessary to co-operate at the national level. That is what the government does. It creates partnerships with business, unions, the provinces and social agencies. A recent example is the $7.4 million the government has committed, over a period of three years, to research and development in the field of counselling methods and training programs for counsellors.
June 10, 1991

Our emphasis on partnerships is also apparent every fall during Canada Career Week. Special events organized across the country, with the co-operation of Canada Employment Centres, schools and business, give young people a chance to find out more about various occupations and think about their career choices. This fall, Canada Career Week will focus on younger students and urge them to start thinking about their careers.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold knows as well as we do that Canada can no longer count on human resources alone to make its economy prosper. In the last Speech from the Throne, the government clearly indicated that in a global economy, prosperity depends increasingly on knowledge, skills and innovation. That is why we emphasize up-dating skills so that young Canadians can develop and diversify our economy and give us a head start on world markets. Business, unions and governments are invited to work together to create at least 2.5 million new jobs by the year 2000 and to increase the real income of Canadians by at least 25 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, these objectives are realistic, but our young people will have the difficult task of achieving them. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that through the programs and initiatives I just described, this government, in co-operation with its partners in Montreal, Quebec and Canada as a whole, is trying to transform a national co-operative effort into effective local action. We are doing everything we can to provide a brilliant future for young Canadians, and we mean all young Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Moving on to the 10-minute question and comment period, the hon. member for Quebec-Est.


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on this excellent speech and let him know that, no later than tomorrow, I will make sure, and it is my duty, that everyone involved
Supply
in school issues in my riding gets a copy of this historic speech.
Mr. Speaker, in the discharge of my duties over the past seven years, I have often met people, men and women, who were looking for a job, either because they had lost their job or wanted a change. In every case, I did the same thing. I tried to make them realize that nobody is in a better position than they are to help them find a job. As the saying goes: "God helps those who help themselves." I noticed that they do not always give themselves every chance of succeeding. That is when I believe my advice can be the useful and, to sum it up, Mr. Speaker, my advice is this: first, identify the position that suits you before applying; concentrate on employers in the chosen field; apply in person; preferably, have a clear and up to date resume; finally, take great care over your presentation at the time of the interview.
These constitute, Mr. Speaker, the ABC of success in job hunting. In my experience, a highly motivated person almost always finds work within a reasonable time, provided of course that person puts in the time and energy required and does not rely exclusively on others to do it for him or her.
From what my hon. colleague from Bourassa just said,
I am convinced she pays as much attention to the young people in search of a job in her riding as I do in mine and gives them more or less the same advice.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Bourassa a specific question on the excellent, as I said earlier, speech she just gave. We know that the Co-operative ' Education program is a success wherever it is implemented across Canada. Can the federal government provide increased funding for this program?


Marie Gibeau: Mr. Speaker, this particular program, which is also part of the Labour Force Development Strategy, has been quite successful. Since it was introduced, $9 million per year has been spent on co-operative education. Furthermore, the government has approved new commitments totalling $16 million for the next four years to promote the co-opera-

June 10,1991
Supply
tive education concept. High school students remain and always will be a major concern of this government. As you know, they are the labour force of the twenty-first centuiy. Since this particular group happens to be the worst off at this time, the government is going to do everything it can to help bridge the transition between education and work.
In its comments, the opposition asked us to show some original thinking, to show initiative and creativity. I hope our colleagues on the other side of the House realize the tremendous range of programs that our government introduced since it came to power. The Challenge Program, for instance, which did not exist before and was introduced in 1985, almost seven years ago, a program that has a number of components such as Summer Employment Experience Development, Work Orientation Workshops, Student Business Loans, Business Drive for Jobs, CECs for Students, and Native Internship Programs. There are plenty of programs to help young people deal with the kind of situations they can expect.
I realize the situation is not a particularly easy one. In fact, we have a very critical situation, but our government has decided to face the facts and do what has to be done to ensure that the present critical situation with respect to youth employment will not be merely postponed, to be faced by future generations. In fact, what we see today was predictable a number of years ago. Without trying to blame anyone, however, we have decided to implement the necessary strategies to ensure that the problems we are able to identify now and to which we intend to respond will not be carried on to the next generation.


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Bourassa for her excellent speech describing all the initiatives and programs the government has put in place to help young Canadians get a good education in with a view to securing a job later on.
I know the hon. member for Bourassa is very concerned by the situation in Montreal and today's debate must really be of interest to her. I would therefore like to ask her the following question. Given the serious problem of young people who drop out of school because they do not think they will find a job, if she were a student today in Montreal, what message would she convey to
students who are thinking of dropping out? What advice could she give them?


Marie Gibeau: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. Actually, even though we have a full load of answers for them, the only advice we can give them are alternatives, through all our programs. So, as my hon. colleague said not too long ago, the only thing we can tell them is this: every generation, be it our very own, the previous one or the following one, every generation complains about being society's sacrificial lamb every one of them. The same goes for today's youth. They think of themselves somewhat as victims.
Last week, a young man in my constituency told me he could not see any reason to stay in school. He blamed his parents and the previous generation for having been too tolerant. I thought that was funny, because when we were young, we blamed our parents, our teachers or previous generations for some other wrongdoings.
It is never easy to be young. Kids have to take matters into their own hands, although they have been overly-protected and pampered, as is the case with the present generation. The reason they are going through all this might be that their parents and grand-parents, like my own, having lived through the war, became very strict. And then the people from my generation decided to try something else and we became much more tolerant.
The advice I would give them is first of all to be proud of their country. When one looks at the Japanese, one can admire the pride they show in everything they do. That could be considered chauvinistic, but perhaps the time has come to talk about that. The other advice I would give them is that there is certainly no future in dropping out, nor in giving up, nor in refusing to take up a challenge. The future is theirs. Indeed, it is an exciting challenge and it is all the more so because it is difficult. So I would advise them to complete their education because there is no other alternative. There will be absolutely no work for them without basic qualifications. Whether it be at the secondary or postsecondary level, there is no job for underqualified people.
Increasingly, with technological advances and market globalization, the fierce and sound competition which will prevail because of the opening up and rationalization of the Canadian people, our young people, will have to become more productive, more efficient and more qualified at any level and in any field. They have no alternative but to stay in school.
June 10, 1991


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to address this particular motion because it is one that is of particular importance to Canadians generally, and certainly to young Canadians.
Members will recall that last Tuesday the Minister of State for Finance said in this House if they, that is students, look hard enough for jobs they will find them. Because the minister had said it, I thought perhaps I should check it out. Last Saturday in my constituency I took a young man and we went around to see what was available.

He is a good-looking young man, has good marks in school and is just finishing high school. He is motivated, has a number of skills and it seems to me he could be very useful in many areas. He is good-mannered and proud, he loves to work and has excellent credentials.
We visited eleven places like family restaurants, groceries, hardware stores, and so on. He did not get the slightest chance to have a job offer. He was told everywhere that there was no opening for the time being. There was no opening for the time being, and probably no opening during the week, the next week or the summer months.
Now, that is only one example of what is happening throughout this country. I intend to try the same kind of experience next Saturday. I will go around a number of other sectors with a young woman to see whether she has any chance to get a job.
Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that that young man I was just talking about had made a few written applications. We went to perhaps half the places where he had made an application.
Now, my colleague just said, and I appreciate her comments, that the government is doing all it can. But that is simply not good enough!

There is, not on the part of all members, but on the part of certain members in government, an insensitive
Supply
attitude. "If they look hard enough for them, they will find them". I think that is too facile. That is too superficial. It is not that easy. What annoys me and young Canadians throughout the country is that there is no acknowledgement of the problem. If you cannot acknowledge that there is a problem, then how can you possibly deal with it?
This government has talked incessantly of competitiveness. We have to be competitive. That means what? That means, obviously, education, training and retraining. Clearly, we would all acknowledge that one is also educated through work. If I look at my particular life in the workplace and in schools, colleges and universities, I think I have learned as much in the workplace as I have in those formal institutions.
Why talk of competitiveness in such glowing terms with such rhetoric, when we see that the follow-up is not there, that there is tremendous disappointment on the part of young people?

That is what the situation is today among our young people. When we look at transfer payments for post-secondary education, the provinces will receive billions of dollars less. For training and retraining, we all know that less funds are allocated while more people need to be trained or retrained.
When we look at assistance to students, we see that the criteria have not changed since 1984. When it comes to programs for part-time students, everybody knows, including the government, that it is a disaster. We know that the number of part-time students has increased considerably. Then we have the 3 per cent administrative charge imposed on student loans; a 3 per cent charge for students who are the poorest, and we have not yet spoken of the GST on books and other learning material. You know very well that students are getting more and more heavily indebted. It is appalling and scary! It frightens those young people.
If we look at tuition fees, for instance, in my own province, since 1985, there has been an increase of almost 80 per cent. Those are the facts. Let us now talk of this job program for students.

June 10, 1991
Supply

Summer employment funding from 1985 to 1990, we recognize that the program has been reduced, cut, call it what you like, there is less money, from $149 million to $77 million, a cut of $69 million.
It is true that in February of this year the former Minister of State for Youth said: "Because of difficult economic times", referring to the recession, "we will put in another $3 million". It is not particularly difficult to put in $3 million when you have already cut a program by almost $70 million.
I could reduce all of my employees' wages by one-half, which is approximately the cut, and then give them a 3 or 4 per cent increase, and I am sure that they would not be particularly impressed.
What has been the result of all of this? There were 40,115 fewer jobs than in 1985, if one compares the 1990 total with that of 1985. In fact, there were fewer jobs in 1990 than there were in the year 1985. The average length of those jobs was 9.5 weeks in 1990 and the average wage was $6.10 per hour. That gives you the grand total, possibly, of roughly $2,300 per summer job per student. If you look at the increase in tuition fees that I have been mentioning, add no changes in student aid since 1984, increases in rent and all of their amenities of life, the 3 per cent administrative fee, the GST on various goods and what have you, clearly these students are working in an extremely difficult environment.
There has also been another problem that we have not yet talked about and we must address it. Initially, the intent was to have career-oriented jobs to really help with the learning, to help develop certain skills, to refine them if you wish, to make them more marketable, more competitive. Well, unfortunately, a lot of that has slipped by the wayside, and we do not have the same focus, we do not have the same commitment, or, at least, the intended results are not being produced. That is really unfortunate.
Let me just give another figure. If you look at the wages today and compare them with those of 1985 you see an increase of 12 per cent. So, if one looks at inflation during that period of time, roughly 20 per cent, there has been a net decrease in wages for students.
Now let us look at the unemployment statistics. They are in the range of 20 per cent. If one compares May of this year with May of last year, there is 4.4 per cent more student unemployment this year in the 15 to 24 year-old range, which is really unfortunate. Of course, the 20 per cent range camouflages a whole lot of things because in areas such as Montreal and, I suspect, Newfoundland and the Territories, it is probably a whole lot higher.
What is needed? A complete review of this program and all student-related programs is needed in order to ensure that they respond to student needs in terms of economic and social development priorities. We need wide input and we need to involve the students.

Mr. Speaker, I don't deny that the government made a number of efforts. Yet we have to ask the basic question: Do we meet student needs? If our young men and women loose hope, if they begin to think that they can no longer find jobs and that they can no longer hope for a promising future, I think that Canada and all Canadians are loosing something.

Let us make sure that our young men and women of this nation are, in fact, the priority, that there are jobs, meaningful and significant jobs, to help them develop their skills, their abilities, their potential. Let us make sure that they do not despair, that they get the learning experiences that they need in order to make a contribution to this country.


Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the previous speaker, the member for St. Boniface, a question as it relates to the situation back in the early eighties when unemployment was extremely high in this country, along with an inflation rate that was rapidly increasing, and bank interest rates were very, very high.
This motion before us really does not give any alternative or make any particular suggestions other than to condemn the good work that is being done. In light of this, I would like to ask the member for St. Boniface if he has some suggestions, maybe reflecting on his experiences in the early eighties, as to how to improve the present unemployment situation. What particular things would this member like to see happening for Canadian youth in the employment sector?
June 10, 1991


Ron J. Duhamel: I thank the hon. member for the question. I want to make sure I have understood the question because I think that my colleague was referring to the world recession in 1981-82, as opposed to the made-in-Canada recession of today, where indeed there were serious difficulties: interest rates and high unemployment. Absolutely. He failed to mention, of course, the differences in interest rates between Canada and the U.S. which recently have been at a record high. But we will set that aside for the time being.
I am amazed because I really did not simply point out the difficulties and pitfalls and some of the weaknesses of the programs. I did that because I expect that the government would want to listen to what it is that we have to say because it might be able to benefit from that. One of the main points I made is that there should be a total review of those programs to see if they are indeed in line with the government's economic and social development policies.
That was the first point. The second point was that there should be wide consultations in order to ensure that the review is as comprehensive, sensible and sensitive as possible. I did mention as well that it would be important to have the students involved in that kind of review.
With respect to money, because that is obviously an important consideration, we have a deficit of $30 billion and it has been hovering around that number for a long, long time. It will soon be $400 billion. It has more than doubled over the last seven years. I know we have a serious economic problem.
When I look at these cuts of $69 million and I look at some of the other activities the government undertakes, I cannot help but wonder whether we would not have been able to maintain such a program. Perhaps we would have been able to enhance it.
When there was a war in the gulf, money was found to go to war. We ought to be launching war against poverty; we ought to be launching war against unemployment; we ought to be making certain that our young people have the skills and the experience so they can contribute fully to Canada. I know that is what he wants, and certainly that is what I want. That is what my party wants.
Supply


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Boniface and I just returned from the opening of the Assembly of First Nations conference in Winnipeg. My hon. friend comes from a province with a very large portion of aboriginal people. He will recall that just a year or so ago the government cut the funding for post-secondary education to Indians.
I would like to ask him about this. He comes from a province with a very high number of aboriginal people. I would like to ask him about the devastating impact on young aboriginal people, young Indians, young Metis, and how that is going to affect their whole outlook on life.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question. I tried to address that in part. Certainly his question is much more specific.
As I pointed out, unemployment figures for people 15 to 24 years of age are, as of this May, 4.4 per cent higher compared to a year ago. There are pockets within Canada where it is alarmingly high.
I was told as recently as last night, when my hon. friend and I attended the same function in Winnipeg with respect to the outgoing Chief Erasmus, that there are unemployment figures of over 90 per cent on our reserves. How can our young aboriginal people have any hope for the future when they face such a debilitating kind of situation? C'est ecrasant, c'est extraordinaire.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in this motion which we have put before the House, we are calling on the government to implement immediately measures to alleviate the devastatingly high rate of unemployment among Canadian youth.
If we look at the unemployment figures which came out last Friday, the rate of unemployment for youth in this country in May was 16.6 per cent. That figure covers youth who are going to return to university, to CEGEP or to college in the fall and it also includes non-student youth. The figure of 16.6 per cent is considerably higher than the 10.3 per cent which is the general unemployment rate in this country, and that is bad enough; nearly
1.5	million Canadians unemployed. However, if you break down the figure of 16.6 per cent unemployment for youth, it is 15.8 per cent for students who will return to school and to university and it is 17.4 per cent for non-student youth.

June 10,1991
Supply
Look at some of the things that are being said about this. I have here a clipping from The Globe and Mail dated June 4, 1991. The headline reads: "Thirsting for employment in the summer job drought. Summer jobs for university students are drying up while tuition fees are rising and students are becoming more serious about finding work related to their fields of study. The situation has made some students bitter, while others are close to panic." The article goes on to say that many of the jobs are part time or casual and the wages are near to the minimum wage.
Students rely on summer employment to pay their tuition, lodgings, food and books, and to live during the year while they are in university.
I have another article, this one from The Montreal Gazette of May 21. It is on the youth unemployment situation in Montreal, particularly with respect to students and their attempts to find summer jobs. It talks of one student who is among the 1,700 university graduates in Montreal who this year will find themselves jumping into a job market already made sluggish by a recession and a local unemployment rate which has left as many as
200,000	people seeking work in Montreal.
In the French newspapers, we see in La Presse [Translation]
-May 27 1991: Tough summer for the students. The unemployment rate for those aged between 15 and 24 dramatically increased since September, that is less than a year, from 13.9 per cent last year to 20.9 per cent this year in Montreal. This summer, many students will have to accept small jobs paying the minimum wage.
Mr. Speaker, we could also read the following in an Ottawa newspaper, Le Droit, on April 25: Youth unemployment Statistics Canada just announced that youth unemployment in Quebec has reached alarming levels. Last month, the unemployment rate for those aged between 15 and 24 reached almost 21 per cent, that is 7 per cent more than March of last year.

This situation is alarming and what is the government's response? Two years ago the government cut the summer employment program, the Challenge program, by 35 per cent and this year it was increased by a mere $3 million, an increase of 2.5 per cent, I believe. With unemployment becoming a larger and larger problem,
that was total nonsense. Total nonsense in face of the problem.
The hon. member just asked a question of my colleague: what would you do? What we would do is put the funding back where it was in 1984, 1985 and 1986 so that community groups and small businesses could employ people to do the jobs that have to be done.
In my own constituency, for example, the Challenge program has been cut for four consecutive years. Last year the funding was $107,865; this year it is $89,677, a cut of 20 per cent. Last year we were able to fund 68 jobs, this year only 50.1 have already described the unemployment figures for students in Montreal.
What would we do? The groups that have lost those jobs are day care centres for young people. These are programs to help the elderly in hospitals and in senior citizens' homes. These are jobs in hospitals and in rehabilitation centres. If the government had a little more political will and put the money up front, there are all sorts of things that have to be done in this country, especially by social agencies for the poor, the sick, the elderly and for impoverished youth. Those jobs are there waiting to be funded. The government is simply backing off with this ridiculous argument that because we have a deficit we must cut back on all things. It is cutting back on the wrong things. The last thing you cut back on in time of recession is education and helping young people prepare for education.
What has the government done? It has not only cut back on the programs for summer employment. In the last budget it cut back on the training and retraining programs. It cut back on assistance to the provinces for post-secondary education. It cut back and closed the student employment centres and it cut back on research and development. These are the last things that you will ever cut because these are the things that help you increase your national income and productivity. These are the things that create a thriving economy.
If you do not have trained, skilled workers, if you do not have the professional people, the scientists, to do the job in this country, we will become a banana republic. I do not know if the government realizes that. By cutting education and cutting money to students for education, what the government is doing is bringing about a situa-
June 10, 1991

tion in which we are going to have a lot of people under-trained, under-educated and under-skilled and we will become a country with a much smaller capacity to produce and to cut that deficit.
If you really want to cut the deficit, you invest in things which will make you more productive. To quote the president of the Canadian Federation of Students: "Students represent Canada's single most important investment in the future. Human resources are the source of our greatest productivity in this century and at this time. It is absolute nonsense to cut programs that will help people contribute to the economy of this country and that is what you are doing when you squelch on your youth, your education and your employment programs."
There is a lot that could be said in this debate. For example, apprentices, because they lack hope, are dropping out of apprenticeship programs. I have here a special article from Statistics Canada pointing out that over 40 per cent of the 50,000 participants in apprenticeship programs drop out because they feel they have no hope of getting a job when their apprenticeship program is over. That is just another example.
The government's policy in this matter is cock-eyed. It says it is committed to the training of youth, to the education of youth and to the employment of youth, but that is rhetoric. The facts speak for themselves. The government says one thing but it does another. I say to the government: "Wake up. You are ruining the country and the country's future. Change your policies now before it is too late. If you want to ask us what should be done, we will tell you to do more of what was done in the last four or five years and you would be doing something."
Mr. Garth T\irner (Halton-Peel): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment or two to the hon. member because he stood in his place and threw around a bunch of numbers about unemployment and also gave this House the distinct impression that the government has abandoned young Canada and is doing nothing.
I just want to remind the member that problems of youth unemployment are not new. As the member should well know, when he was part of the previous government and we can hearken back to the last reces-
Supply
sion, there was a youth unemployment rate of almost 18 per cent in 1982 in the month of May. In 1983 there was over 20 per cent unemployment among youth.
Now that compares with May of last year at around 12 per cent and May of this year at 16 per cent, which is still too high. I think we will all admit that, but the hon. member has an obligation to put this into a context that means something, instead of just giving us a lot of rhetoric.
On the issue of this government having abandoned youth, I think the member and the House need to be reminded, and the statement should be corrected by saying that in February of last year the government announced a program worth almost $300 million just aimed specifically at this problem. That is not all. Summer Employment Experience Development Program is in place now for $80 million; work orientation workshops, $35 million; student business loans almost $1 million; Canada Employment Centre for students almost $10 million. This is serious money that is being spent.
I have one question for the member and it centres around one comment he made. He said there was a ridiculous argument that the government is cutting back on expenditures because we have a debt. I want to ask the member if he realizes that nothing hurts our youth more than debt. If we have cuts today it is because we had debts yesterday and the chickens are coming home to roost. We are poisoning the future and, what is most important, our youth knows it.
I would like to ask the member to rise in his place and tell us if he is going to accept and acknowledge his responsibility as a parliamentarian to stop squandering the future of this country.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving me that question. Of course we have to cut the debt, but you do not cut the debt by cutting back on education; you do not cut back the debt by cutting back on training; you do not cut back the debt by cutting research and development. If you are really interested in cutting the debt, you increase the productivity of the country. You increase the climate in which people will invest and they will find trained and skilled people in this country. The last thing you cut is education and pro-

June 10,1991
grams relating to education, including summer employment programs for students. Yes, you cut, but you do not cut in those areas which will hinder your ability to produce more. The way you cut back on the deficit is by becoming a country with fewer unemployed and greater productivity.
That is my answer to that question.
With respect to the other question, he referred to 1981-82. We had a serious recession in 1981-82 and there was a high rate of unemployment, but the Liberal government of the day increased its spending for summer employment, increased its training programs and increased its programs for students; it kept people in university. Look at the record.
We increased the programs. I was part of the government. 1 was in Parliament. We increased the spending because we thought it was important to prime the pump and put people back to work.
What does this government do? It cuts. It cut by 35 per cent in 1990. It increased by a measly 2.5 per cent this year.
In answer to the hon. member, this is not the Liberals speaking. This is not the New Democrats speaking. I will refer to the president of the Canadian Federation of Students who says, and I quote from a press release of February 4, 1991, after the Challenge program was announced: "This government's record on student employment programs is appalling". I will spell it: a-p-p-a-1-1-i-n-g, appalling. That is the Canadian Federation of Students, not the Liberal Party.


Some hon. members:: Hear. hear.


John Cole: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak today on this particular motion and to assure my hon. colleague that this government is committed to the youth of Canada and to youth employment. We all want young Canadians to have every opportunity possible to take their part in the nation's economy. We do not want them sitting back watching it go by. We want Canadians and Canadian youth to be involved in this economy. That is why this government has invested millions of dollars every year on services and programs for the youth of Canada. Even in this time of budget restraint we recognize that these kinds of programs must take place.
I want to point out to my colleague that the motion he has placed before the House completely ignores the reality of the situation. This motion only confirms that my hon. colleague shows a disturbing insensitivity to the real issues of youth employment. Youth employment is not simply providing a make-work project here or a make-work project there, a simple task of creating a few more jobs. The real key is the same one that affects employment for Canadians as a whole. That key is to develop our education and our training systems so that we can meet the challenges that face us in a global economy.
We must recognize that because our economic health as a country, which is our ability to compete, depends on how well we prepare young Canadians to take their places in the work force of tomorrow. We cannot afford to ignore the needs of our young Canadians, and we are not.
Since this government came to office there has been considerable progress made on behalf of the young people in this country. Millions of dollars have been committed to youth initiatives particularly in my area, certainly in southern Ontario and in the greater Toronto area where there are many competing demands for very limited resources.
We are meeting this challenge and we will continue to do so. Thousands of young Canadians use our programs to access skills, training and jobs. That includes all members of society. Right now hundreds of students are heading into the summer job market in my area and I can assure the hon. member that we are well aware that this is one of the toughest summers in which to land a job.


Mr. Speaker:: It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, several hundred people in the seasonal clam fishery in my riding have found themselves unable to earn a living because there is no market for their product.
June 10, 1991

The people involved reside along the Five Islands- Economy Shore and have no other means of support. Their situation has come as a surprise and caught them off guard. Their problems are compounded because their unemployment insurance benefits have now run out.
Through no fault of their own, hundreds of people have no source of income to feed their families. I ask that the Department of Employment and Immigration extend their UIC benefits for the few weeks required until the fishery market is re-established.
Although there are several programs to help Atlantic Canadian fishermen, these people seem to have fallen through the cracks. Part of the problem is an overabundance of American product which should be depleted shortly and allow the Canadian product to find a market.
I appreciate that departmental officials and the minister have all been very supportive. I urge them to find a solution to this problem as quickly as they can.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, whatever the other results, I believe that all ministers and all members of the House will agree that the inquiry into the Al-Mashat affair has seriously damaged the anonymity and impartiality of the Public Service.
The delicate relationship of accountability and mutual trust must exist between the elected and the appointed servants of the Canadian public.
The Public Service of Canada is the most important instrument we have as parliamentarians to ensure that the programs and policies determined by this House are determined impartially, efficiently and effectively, and to ensure that the government and Parliament are well informed and advised in determining the future of the nation.
In order to begin to repair the damage, I urge the Prime Minister personally to take responsibility for establishing a special committee of this House to examine and report to Parliament on restoring the proper balance of accountability, responsibility, anonymity and impartiality in the relationship between the elected and appointed servants of Canadians.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I want to show you the youth situation, according to the labour market analysis made by the Canada Employment Center for Val-d'Or and Senneterre.
As you know, young people must face numerous difficulties on the labour market, the unemployment level being very high.
Moreover, jobs available are very often at entrance level in the hospitality or restaurant business or in retail sales. The working conditions are less competitive in these sectors and there is a high turnover.
It is no surprise then that young recipients give as their main occupation handling, administration, sales or services. The education level of young people in the labour market is high enough for the kind of work available.
However, the moment there is job specialization, young people have integration problems. I must mention that the drop-out phenomenon is reaching young people in our area too.
Mr. Speaker, life is not easy for today's youth, but it is encouraging to note that, since 1984, it is getting better. Only through our continued combined efforts will we get the best results.


NATIONAL UNITY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, next year is Canada's 125th birthday. Canadians from coast to coast to coast will be celebrating a country that recently has had a difficult time.
Especially for aboriginal people, 1992 takes on a different meaning. At the New Democrats convention in Halifax this weekend we recognized this fact and have urged all Canadians and their governments to ensure that a serious message about aboriginal people is considered in any plans for 1992.
The recent shift of Canada 125 from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs is a sign that hopefully the government will consider all regions of the country when planning its events.
[Stage Direction]
June 10, 1991
We want to ensure that when we celebrate 1992 all parts of the country can participate, and not just Ottawa. Only through a grassroots celebration across Canada will we achieve the true national unity we are all striving for.

Mr. Garth Tbrner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, this House of Commons is devoting many hours today to a debate on the plight of our young people.
Opposition members are suggesting that the government solve the problem of youth unemployment by spending more money, money it does not possess and would have to be borrowed.
This is not what young people want. Instead, they want us to stop mortgaging their future with more debt.
As Jonathan Will writes from British Columbia: "No one in this country has more at stake in our current struggle with the escalating national debt than young Canadians".
As a young Canadian himself Mr. Will is asking us, the parliamentarians of this country, to stem the tide of red ink. Young Canada wants us to cut spending and free the future, not to borrow further and squander that birthright.
We have a responsibility in this House to do exactly that. The future does not belong to this generation and it is time we gave it back.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, you may be interested to know that Quebec's Minister of the Environment, Pierre Paradis, has urged the federal government to play a stronger role in the environmental assessment of the impact of the James Bay II project. We can only hope that the federal Minister of the Environment heard this unprecedented call for help.
Rafferty-Alameda, Oldman Dam and Kemano II are dam construction projects where the federal government had to be taken to court before it would respect its own environmental impact assessment laws.
The James Bay II project runs the risk of being added to this list of court defeats if the government does not live up to its environmental responsibilities.
Will the new Minister of the Environment listen to his Quebec colleague and do the right thing? We hope so.


STUDENTS
Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, school holidays will start soon and I would like to offer my best wishes to all students for an excellent summer and a well-deserved rest. In my riding, I attended some events at the secondary, college and university levels designed to recognize the exceptional talents of our students. I have no doubt that those young Canadians will assert themselves and take their rightful place in our society.
I also want to take this opportunity to tell those students who are thinking of dropping out to immediately discuss their plans with their parents, teachers ou principals. If they make known their intentions, they will get to discover the different solutions that we, as a government, offer them and they will find that people are willing to help them evaluate the effects of such a decision.
He *	*


MANITOBA
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, a short time ago my provincial counterpart, Mr. Neil Gaudry, and I visited the St. Boniface Hospital Research Centre to examine the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanner. This machine which performs critical diagnostic and research functions puts St. Boniface Hospital in the forefront of medical research in my native province, indeed in all of Canada.
There is an important message here. If Manitobans were not continually ravaged by, for example, the loss of the CF-18 contract, massive cuts to health and education, the closing of the Portage la Prairie military base, what about Shilo, the decimation of Manitoba's trucking
June 10, 1991

industry, the reduction of CN workers' complement by over 20 per cent, the possible rerouting of CP Rail's trains through the U.S., the almost total annihilation of VIA Rail, the privatization of Air Canada resulting in loss of jobs and the virtual gutting of CBC, what would happen? Where will it stop?
The message is very simple. We would thrive. Give us the support we need and deserve and we will hold our own. In fact we will excel at it.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, the membership of the Royal Canadian Legion believes in a united Canada and has since the organization's inception in 1925. It recognizes the need for change in our political structure, in the bureaucracy and in the Constitution. It believes through compromise and understanding Canadians working together can and will overcome these obstacles.
The Royal Canadian Legion supports: (1) a strong and united Canada, (2) a guarantee of individual rights and freedoms, (3) a policy of two official languages at the national level, (4) a need for a political framework supporting our continued existence as a nation, and (5) a simplified process to amend the Constitution.
Canadian unity is being threatened by separatists not only in Quebec but in western Canada. They want to divide our country. I urge Canadians to tell the likes of Parizeau, Bouchard and Manning that we believe in a United Canada. We are proud to be Canadians.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, last week we learned that a firm named Multinational Resources, listed on the Vancouver Stock Exchange and with strong links with U.S. companies, announced its intention to dam the North Thompson River, which is a tributary of the Fraser River at Vavenby, British Columbia, in order to divert water into the Columbia River basin which
would eventually be delivered to the San Diego, California market.
This is occurring which the federal government begins negotiations to conclude a free trade agreement with Mexico and the United States.
We are aware that the governor of California, last month, indicated that he was anxious in purchasing fresh water from Canada for his state. We are reminded that the North America Water and Power Alliance proposal calls for British Columbia and Yukon Rivers to be damned and diverted into the United States and northern Mexico. We also know that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement did not say that Canada's rivers would not be diverted to flow into the United States.
I call upon the government to speak up and say that Canada's rivers will not be sold to the United States; that our fresh water is just that, our fresh water; that Canadians will not allow our rivers to be diverted wholly or partially to be sold in the United States or northern Mexico.


CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, Quebec Premier Bourassa says that a constituent assembly is an uncalculated risk that is not worth taking.
Last year the premier took a calculated risk on 11 middle aged white men in blue suits meeting behind closed doors. He says he will not do that again. He is prepared to risk negotiating but only with the federal government. That is a risk, however, that English speaking Canadians find totally unacceptable because both the Prime Minister and the premier come from Quebec.
A constituent assembly may be an uncalculated risk, but it is a risk that 68 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec and 57 per cent of Canadians in Quebec say they want to take. That makes it the only risk that is acceptable to a majority of Canadians.
Surely, if we learned nothing else from Meech Lake, we learned that it is not worth taking the risk if it is not acceptable to the majority of Canadians.

June 10,1991


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, when the hated goods and services tax went into effect on January 1, books started to be taxed in Canada for the first time since Confederation.
Back in November the Prime Minister said that he would reconsider the tax on books if there was proof the industry was being adversely affected, that is the book business.
Now there is proof, proof not only that book businesses are being adversely affected but also that education is suffering.
Canadian book publishers' sales dropped by 12 per cent since the tax was introduced. However, the more worrisome figures are these: sales of books to Canadian colleges and universities were down 23 per cent for the first quarter of this year and net sales to schools were down 34 per cent in March.
Can this be passed off as just another effect of the recession? No, Mr. Speaker, because during the 1980-83 recession Canadian book sales actually increased by nearly 54 per cent.
There are other troubling wrinkles that have resulted from the tax on books, a tax that sets Canada apart. Many foreign publishers, particularly smaller ones and those whose books are not taxed in their home countries, are so aghast at having to file monthly tax returns to the Canadian government that they decided not to bother shipping to Canada.
In March, the government lifted the GST from human sperm donated for artificial insemination. Surely books and the education of Canada's younger generation are important enough to be added to that list.


LA CORNE D'ABONDANCE
Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, on May 31, I was invited to visit a food business in my riding called La come d'abondance, formerly Le verger naturel.
This business, which is owned by two young people who succeeded their father after he had spent many years running it, many years is a striking example of a
takeover by young dynamic people who are sensitive to the present needs of their customers.
Mr. Speaker, I was enthusiastic and impressed by the cleanliness, the concern for the environment, and the emphasis on product packaging and quality.
I am convinced that those young people will succeed in making this business what we could call an example for other youths who have the desire to carve out a niche in our active society.


CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in Halifax at the NDP Convention, the delegates passed a resolution to move us closer to a constituent assembly in this country.
Also over the weekend the Conservative premier of Nova Scotia, Premier Cameron, endorsed the idea of a constituent assembly on the Constitution. That now brings it to five premiers in the country who endorse the idea: Premier Cameron in Nova Scotia; Premier McKenna of New Brunswick; Premier Wells, the Liberal premier in Newfoundland; Premier Rae in Ontario; and Premier Devine in Saskatchewan.
In light of the growing momentum, as Premier Wells says on this particular issue, I would urge the Canadian government across the way to consider the possibility of a constituent assembly as a means of opening up the process and making it really accessible and democratic for all Canadians.


Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, one of Canada's best kept secrets last month was the outstanding success of the Prime Minister's visit to Japan in promoting new dimensions of trade and diplomatic relations with that country.
As one who was privileged to be invited as a member of the Canadian delegation, I can speak first hand and proudly of the impressive performance by the Prime Minister in addressing the profound potential for trade in goods and services and for two-way investment which exists between Canada and Japan.
June 10, 1991

The Prime Minister's message was clear and simple: Canada is keen to increase its business with Japan in both directions. There is much to offer for each country: large markets, good products, innovative services, and a political and economic climate which is stable and compatible.
The Japanese response was equally straightforward. Their citizens admire and respect Canada. That respect was best expressed by the full participation of Japan's leaders at the opening of the new Canadian Embassy on May 27, an event to make any Canadian extremely proud.
It is too bad more news has not been made in Canada of this successful trip.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Four years ago next week the former Minister of Finance unveiled a tax package in which he claimed that future tax changes like the GST were going to be "revenue neutral" and that in fact "most Canadians will pay lower taxes". That is what the minister said on June 18, 1987.
Yesterday, his successor finally admitted what Canadians had known for months, and that is that Canadians under this government's policies are taxed to the limit and they will not take it any more.
Oral Questions
In fact the Tory tax machine is so voracious that the GST has raised 18 per cent more than predicted: $400 million, to be precise.
I ask the Acting Prime Minister: When will his government announce an 18 per cent cut in the GST rate to give Canadian taxpayers a break at the very least, or when will he end this vicious GST?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, royal commissions commissioned by the Liberal government over the years have said to get rid of the manufacturers' sales tax and to bring in a consumption tax. That was done after great consultation with the Canadian public.
The first quarter returns are more than were expected by the Government of Canada, but one-quarter does not a year make. We have to wait until the year report is in to assess exactly how the largest tax change in Canadian history has performed.
I might remind the hon. member that we have made a commitment to the people of Canada that any funds from the GST that are excess will in fact go to the deficit reduction and debt reduction fund, which legislation will be introduced in this House later this week.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, we have two ministers in two weeks who have admitted that Canadians are taxed too much.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. [Translation]
We know that the taxation machine of the Conservatives has reaped out 18 per cent more than forecasted for the GST. That is, Mr. Speaker, $400 million more than anticipated! Is the Acting Prime Minister willing to reduce the GST by 18 per cent, since these revenues were not expected when it was first introduced?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, to be fair in assessing the goods and services tax, I think we should wait a year before we make that type of judgment.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian taxpayers are paying that tax now, and the Minister of Finance yesterday made it quite clear that the policies of his predecessor have failed and failed miserably. In fact the Canadian taxpayer is among the highest taxpayer in the world.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Sheila Maureen Copps: My question to the Acting Prime Minister: given-

June 10, 1991
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will put her question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the tax increases in the last four years have been higher than in any of the G-7 countries.
My question is for the former Minister of Finance. Does he agree with his colleagues, the Minister of Revenue and the Minister of Finance, that Canadians are paying too much tax? Does he agree?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon. member quoted the two ministers out of context totally. Second, Canada is not the highest taxed in the OECD. As a matter of fact we are the third lowest under the OECD in total taxes paid in this country. So, before she makes these statements in the House, she should in fact state the facts. I think that is most important.
Third, unlike the Liberals who do knee-jerk reactions to everything, we are going to wait to assess this over a year period when it has been in operation for that period of time.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. During the registration period of the GST, the Minister of National Revenue said at the time that there were more taxpayers than anticipated. After three months, $400 million more than forecasted have been collected, the official explanation for that being that there were more returns than expected. Does the government know what the revenues of the GST actually are? Are we going to know how much taxpayers are actually paying for this GST which is creating problems for the Canadian economy?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to the hon. member's colleague, the money is going to the debt servicing and reduction fund. That is exactly the commitment that was made in the February budget by the previous Minister of Finance. That piece of legislation will be introduced in the House, I believe later this week, and I trust the hon. member and his party will support it.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, for seven years this government has never come close to one of its budget predictions.
When you introduce this proposed legislation, do you know how much money you are going to put against the debt with the GST? Stop saying you are going to put it against the debt. How much? Do you know what you are doing?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, all moneys collected under the goods and services tax, with the exception of those that go to senior citizens and rebates to low income people, will go into the debt servicing and reduction fund.
My hon. friend says: "How much?" He will know how much because the Auditor General will audit that account and produce the facts for the Canadian people.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, clearly the figures reveal that the Canadian public is being gouged and screwed by the GST even worse than the government itself predicted the Canadian public would be.
I want to ask the minister: Given these returns, if you like, in the first three months of this year, will the government reconsider the GST? Will it scrap the tax and will it look for the money that it claims it needs in things like the trust funds that are supposed to be taxed in 1993 but which the government is moving to protect further?
There are billions of dollars there that the government could tax which have gone untaxed for 21 years. Why does the government not do that and give the middle class a break and stop taxing them to death as these figures show you are doing?


John Horton McDermid: No, Mr. Speaker, we will not.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, let the record show I asked them to stop taxing the middle class to death and he said: "No, Mr. Speaker, we will not". That is the policy of this government, to keep taxing the middle class to death.
If the minister is not willing to do that, is he at least willing to consider some of the exemptions that people have been asking for time and time again? The government has said it is committed to a learning culture. Will it finally exempt books from the GST?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the question in the first place was would we abolish the GST. That was the question that was asked and I said: "no". That was no. If the hon. member was fair, he would admit that.
June 10, 1991

Second, we are not at this time considering reducing the GST on books.
Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, the minister said that they wanted to reassess things after a year. Can I ask the minister if, not necessarily at the end of the year, this trend continues and if the government continues to make this amount of money from the GST, will they consider not only lifting the tax on books but also on women's health products, on co-operatives and a number of other areas on which there has been consensus that it is quite inappropriate to have the GST?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is hypothetical.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
In public statements made last week the minister said that a secret and highly sensitive document informing him of the Al-Mashat affair and read by his chief of staff cannot be found.
Considering that the loss of this secret document is a serious breach of security and its loss undermines the credibility of the minister's handling of this case, I want to ask the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs: What specific steps the government has taken to thoroughly investigate the whereabouts of this secret memorandum?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me take this occasion before I answer the question, because I am sure the hon. member would want to do this himself if he had read the clipping, to offer the House's congratulations to our diplomat, William Bowden, for the award that he won, the only foreign diplomat to win an award from the United States for his courageous and compassionate assistance in the weeks after Saddam Hussein's August 2 invasion of Kuwait.
I would not want to let go unrecorded in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, the gratitude of this House to an outstanding public' servant.
Oral Questions
Let me say that we have, as the hon. member knows from our original statement, put in place new procedures which will ensure that information comes directly to ministers as it is required. We are in the process of looking for the document within the department that the hon. gentleman mentioned.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it would have been more appropriate for the minister to offer congratulations to Mr. Bowden in a ministerial statement so that the entire House could have joined in that particular applause.
However, I would like to ask a supplementary question. In the past the government has never failed or hesitated to call in the RCMP when there were clear breaches of security. Considering how crucial this lost memorandum is to the work of the inquiry, to the credibility of the minister and to the whole understanding of the Al-Mashat affair, will the minister now ask the RCMP to begin an investigation of its whereabouts?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I certainly think that would be premature. I think it is important that we look for the document. That is what we are doing.
I also believe that as parliamentarians or as public servants or as ministers, however we are involved in this, there are pressing matters at stake which need to be looked at these days and I think that the House should turn to them.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
I would draw the attention of the House to the May 30 edition of Hansard wherein the Deputy Prime Minister in response to my party's Al-Mashat committee question says:
All witnesses they require andor demand will be available to respond.
My question is: Does this statement still represent government policy?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there has not been a request from the whole committee for other witnesses who have not appeared.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister.

June 10, 1991
Oral Questions
It appears the government has invoked a new doctrine of ministerial accountability which states that the less a minister knows the less a minister can be blamed.
Can he confirm that this policy of calling witnesses just affirmed by the minister extends to the calling of the former Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Gordon Robertson, who will testify about ministerial accountability and responsibility?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, two things: As my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, outlined in her submission to the committee, there is a well accepted principle with regard to ministerial responsibility, not only accepted by this government but at the McGrath report hearings accepted unanimously by all members of this House.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Charles Joseph Clark: We are following that practice. Now Ms. Copps seeks to change the topic, so let me deal with the second matter.
The second matter is, as I indicated, if there is a request from the whole committee that will be considered.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister for industry and international trade. There were 15,000 more people unemployed in the month of May. Full-time jobs have fallen by 330,000 since this time last year, and the most recent economic report from the Bank of Montreal says that the recovery is going to be weak and sluggish. People, in short, are hurting. I want to ask the minister if the government will act against one of the key reasons for this economic damage. Will this government take Canada out of the free trade deal and give us back our economic independence?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member is telling anybody on this side of the House that people are hurting. We understand that and it is something about
which other ministers and myself have expressed a good deal of concern.
For the hon. member to say that we should get out of the free trade agreement tells me that the hon. member is not understanding the impact of the free trade agreement on the economy. There is no question we have been in recession, but if we had not had the free trade agreement we would have been in a deeper recession because the trade surplus with the United States has gone from $14 billion in 1988 to $17 billion in
1990.	Our exports to the United States have increased by 12 per cent during that period, and we have seen a net change in the net flow of foreign direct investment into Canada, a change in the net positive basis for Canada, of $6 billion. All of those have created jobs in this country and have ensured that the recession is not more serious in its impact.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the minister likes to talk about the trade surplus. Let us talk about the whole current account balance because the fact is Canada had a current account surplus with the United States in 1988 and since the trade deal we have had a deficit of over $3 billion. That means lost jobs.
Is this minister prepared to start to do something about the whole host of problems with this trade deal, the fact that our energy policy moves are blocked, the fact that we are not able to make the moves to give Canadian content in our various industries, all those things that are stopping new jobs from being established in this country? Will this minister in fact give us back our independence as a nation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my friend asked a question originally about the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement affects exports and imports and that is what I was referring to in the current account balance which includes interest and dividends. To suggest that this is integrally woven into the free trade agreement, my friend could go back and understand that that is not the case.
He is looking for a degree of independence. We are gaining a degree of independence by the fact that we are following policies that are designed and will strengthen the economy of the country. It is with the strengthened economy that we will strengthen our independence as a nation.
June 10, 1991

For my hon. friend to suggest that total independence is achievable in this world of global interdependence is totally unrealistic and he knows that.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council who stated last week, in reply to a question I asked him, that Mr. Raymond Chretien had made an error of judgment in not apprising him of the Al-Mashat affair before he set off to meet with James Baker and tour the Middle East.
Does the same symmetry principle apply to Mr. Paul Tellier, who knew about the Al-Mashat affair on March 11, but did not inform the Prime Minister before he met with the US President on March 13?
Will the minister have the decency to recognize and tell this House that, in fact, the Prime Minister knew about the Al-Mashat affair when he met with the U.S. President?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Mr. Speaker.


André Ouellet: In
that case, I would have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Now that we know that a four-minister committee tried desperately to lay on someone else the blame for something they were responsible for, can the minister explain why this committee did not instruct Mr. Short-cliffe to demand an apology from Mr. Tellier as well, for not having apprised the Prime Minister of the Al-Mashat affair before his meeting with the President of the United States? Why have they demanded an apopoly from two civil servants, but not from Mr. Tellier or those who approved Al-Mashat's application in Vienna?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there was no ministerial committee with such a mandate.
Oral Questions CANADA POST


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. On May 7, Canada Post announced yet another attack on rural Canada, by eliminating manual sorting in small communities. This means half the staff of the Campbellton post office, in my riding, will be let go. Considering the high unemployment rate and the fact that the loss of sorting jobs will seriously hurt the economy and postal service in the area, what will the minister do to save these jobs in Campbellton?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the post office, along with all modem, progressive corporations seeks to use the latest technology to improve its efficiency. So the use of optical character readers and machine sorters and so on, have done away with the hand sorting.
The hon. member is not suggesting that any time technology allows us to do jobs automatically that formerly needed to be done by hand, we should get rid of the modem machinery and continue to do the operations by hand strictly for the purposes of maintaining those positions.
The post office is now the most efficient post office in the world and we should all be proud of that fact.


Mr, Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary for the same minister.
Canada Post intends to relocate sorting operations from Campbellton, New Brunswick to the province of Quebec, even though this is not part of the consolidation process.
Since I have a letter addressed to me from the office of the President of Canada Post, which says: "I can assure you that we have no plans to remove sorting operations from Campbellton", will the minister instruct Canada Post to rescind its decision in light of this breach of commitment and if not, why not?


Harvie Andre: The reason I will not do that is because in 1981, when the hon. member for Papineau was responsible for Canada Post,

June 10, 1991
Oral Questions
he brought in a bill creating a Crown corporation for the purpose of eliminating political interference. That was the position of the Liberal Party. We think it was a wise decision. In fact, it was a decision adopted unanimously by the Elouse.
The hon. member is asking me to be in contempt of the House and I will not do that.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Previous news reports indicated that once the minister had a consensus among all of the provinces he would be approaching the U.S. administration to start renegotiating the softwood lumber tariff memorandum of understanding.
Can the minister tell this House if he has the required consensus, especially from the Atlantic provinces, to tell the U.S. that Canada wants out of the MOU?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, a simple answer to the question is no, we do not have that consensus.
I have indicated to the U.S. trade representative, Ambassador Hills, that we have some major concerns with the MOU and that when we meet later on this month at the first meeting I have of the trade commission between the United States and Canada, I propose to raise this matter, but at this point we do not have a consensus as suggested by the hon. member.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister's answer indicates the deep trouble that this government has got this country into when it signed away our sovereignty in forestry with the MOU.
My question to the minister is this. Will the minister tell Carla Hills and the gang that could not trade straight
that this government rejects the MOU and will give the 30 days' notice and get Canada out of the MOU?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's suggestion as a representation, but as he knows this is a very complex issue. He asked a question concerning the Atlantic provinces. Atlantic Canada is not subject to the export charge and I think that for him to be honest with Canadian people he should understand that their position on the MOU is quite different from other provinces.


EMPLOYMENT
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Unemployment in the greater Toronto area is now almost 10 per cent. That is over twice what it was last year at this time. A great many of those jobs could have been saved if we had had a U.S. style Chapter 11 bankruptcy law in place.
I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister this. How many more jobs are we going to have to lose and how many more businesses are going to go down the tube before we get modern bankruptcy legislation in this country, bearing in mind that it was promised some two years ago in the 1989 Speech from the Throne?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. The Bankruptcy Act of Canada is in desperate need of being overhauled. Bills have been brought before Parliament I think some six times in the last 25 years in an attempt to do that and we are going to have one more try.
My colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, will be bringing forward that legislation in the next few days. I think the hon. member will find that it goes a long way toward addressing the kinds of situations that are addressed in the United States Chapter 11.
June 10, 1991


HIGHWAYS
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. All members in this House are aware that the government is pushing ahead with the fixed link. Numerous studies have shown that the Trans-Canada highway in both New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island must be upgraded to four lanes to handle the increased traffic. There is no use in building a link for the year 2000 with roads that are 1950 and older.
When will this minister commit the necessary funds to ensure that New Brunswick has a four-lane Trans-Canada highway?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister ofTVansport):: Mr. Speaker, in this period of high constraints on the budget, the federal government has to manage its money carefully, and at the same time ensure that it meets its commitments with the various regions of this country.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, my supplemental is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Premier McKenna has stated that people are literally dying to get an up-graded Trans-Canada highway in New Brunswick. They are dying by the dozens and there are thousands of accidents each year. Newspaper headlines are revealing and I quote: "Highways Claim Five on the Weekend, Two More Die on New Brunswick Highways, Fatality Closes Trans-Canada Highway, Woman Dies in Accident Involving School Bus, One Killed in Car-Truck Crash" and just this weekend another death. When is this government going to assume its national responsibility and provide a four-lane highway for New Brunswick?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, in the enumerating the problems that my hon. colleague has just mentioned, I think if he looks carefully he will find that a vast number of these concerns should be addressed to the provincial government.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
Last week we learned the government's GST raised $400 million more in just 90 days than it was supposed to, a substantial hike for a tax that was supposed to be revenue neutral.
Last night the Minister of Finance said: "Canadians generally have made it fairly clear they do not want any new tax increases."
My question is this. Does this mean there is now some hope for my constituents that there will ever be any relief for middle class taxpayers? Is the GST a cash cow and, if it is, who is getting the milk?
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, as most middle income taxpayers in this country have informed me, they want the federal government to start paying the bills so that the kids of the future will have a wonderful country in which to grow and have their own families and employment.
We have to pay the bills that have been rung up over the years by the government. We have been living beyond our means. Any excess moneys will go into a reduction fund. In reducing the deficit we will be reducing interest rates and we will be making it unnecessary for us to raise taxes when we do have that income. I think all that is very important and that is what our whole tax system is designed to do.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Last week Environment Canada sent a 16-page pamphlet to every home in Canada. It was distributed only in French in Quebec and only in English outside Quebec.

With the result that 800,000 francophones outside Quebec had their linguistic rights denied and an equal number of anglophones in Quebec were similarly discriminated against.


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, my Mr. Speaker, why did Environment Canada disregard question is for the Acting Minister of Finance.	the Official Languages Act?

June 10, 1991
Oral Questions

Why is the government retreating on its commitment to official languages?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, this pamphlet was distributed in connection with a television show that was on TV last night both in English and French concerning the environment. I think it met with some success. Environment Canada co-operated with this effort. We did not have the direction of it. We offered some support and were happy to do so.
I also want to point out that this does not mean that because there was private sector participation that this was an endorsement of any product of any kind, but rather a co-operative effort. I understand that the pamphlet was distributed in French in the province of Quebec. After we found out that was the case, we were told that it would be made available in English on request. We hoped that was the case.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have here the cover of the pamphlet and it is clearly marked Environment Canada. Whether it was prepared directly by the department or not, I believe the department should not have permitted such information to be distributed under its name in violation of the Official Languages Act.
I would like to know what the minister will do to correct this affront to Canada's language minorities and to assure it does not happen again?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern the member is bringing up and we take that concern seriously.
We are witnessing here some of the difficulties we run into from time to time when we want to do these initiatives in partnership with the private sector and many partners. These are part of the difficulties we run into.
I do not think there is any bad faith on anybody's part here from those who distributed the pamphlet. There was a sincere willingness to do this effort in a co-operative manner.
I will take the member's representations constructively and I assure him that we will learn from this lesson and, if anything, look at these initiatives a lot more closely in respect to how we deal with them and distribute information to the public.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Prior to the Canada-U.S.-Mexico talks, a number of American spokespersons have announced that they intend to reopen the Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade talks relative to cultural property of Canadians.
In his meeting this week, is the minister prepared to tell all Canadians that if the Americans intend to open the U.S-Canada Free Trade Agreement to get new access to Canadian property rights, he would get up and walk away from the table rather than meet that condition?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is saying that if the Americans suggest they want something from the free trade agreement and if we are not prepared to give it, we should walk away.
I think that is a veiy short-sighted view. We see some benefits in the North American free trade agreement, but not nearly to the same extent as the free trade agreement with the United States. Trade with the United States totals about $200 billion. It is only $2 billion with Mexico, but there are longer term benefits.
I have made it very clear in discussions I have had with Mrs. Hills, Mr. Katz and with other people in the U.S. administration what our policy is on reopening the trade agreement in relation to cultural products. It is simply not on.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, is the minister, as he spoke in answer to this question, saying to all Canadians that under no circumstances will he allow Canada to participate in a reopening of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement if cultural property from Canada is on the table, that it is an absolute "no", and he will not negotiate that issue?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have said time and time again that we are not going to negotiate that issue. It is not in the interests of Canada to see the free trade agreement opened. In particular, we have said that the cultural industries are not the subject of negotiation. Mrs. Hills, Mr. Katz and the other negotiators are quite capable of putting things on the table. Just because they put them on the table does not mean we have to accept them. We are going to
June 10, 1991

bargain in the best interests of Canada, and we have made it very clear what our position is.


CITIZENSHIP
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Multicul-turalism and Citizenship.
If ever the spirit of Canadian citizenship was important to our country, it is important now and will become even more critical of value as we work to preserve Canadian unity in the months that lie ahead. Many people say that we lost the meaning of citizenship in Canada, and that the spirit of Canadianism has been missed by many citizens.
My question is this. What steps are we taking to reinforce and strengthen the meaning and the spirit of Canadian citizenship as the over-arching mantle under which the rich potential of our bilingual and multicultural heritage can be pursued? How are we installing the values of citizenship among Canadians, not only new citizens, but all those who have been bom here as well?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.
It gives me an opportunity to demonstrate the very firm commitment that in the proclamation of the new department and in my responsibilities as the first minister of this new department, that I intend making citizenship, its promotion, its affirmation and its full expression one of the most important and in fact essential activities of this department.
This member has consistently come up with excellent suggestions on how we can better promote understanding among all Canadians. I visited with him in Fredericton on one occasion and saw an initiative that has been ongoing for 20 years.


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for
Oral Questions
Constitutional Affairs and concerns the government's relationship with aboriginal people.
As he knows, the Assembly of First Nations is meeting this week in Winnipeg and it was to be followed by an event called the People's International Pow Wow. The Department of the Secretary of State has turned down this proposal and I was wondering, given that this sends out a very negative signal to aboriginal people at a time when they are hoping to attract 15,000 people to a pow wow, if the minister would not reconsider this decision on behalf of the government.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will take a look at it.
I have to say that I had a very constructive meeting the other day with Mr. George Erasmus, who is the outgoing president of the AFN, and I look forward to having similarly constructive meetings with whoever is chosen to take his place, the membership and leadership of that and other aboriginal organizations. I understand very much the importance of participation by non-aboriginals in some of the ceremonial activities of the aboriginal people. I think that is something we all in this House must consider doing more than we have in the past.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister and it also regards the relationship of this government to aboriginal peoples.
As he probably knows, during the weekend at the initial meetings, the Assembly of First Nations discussed a need for review of Canada's judiciary system. This review has already been started in Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta but up to this point the federal government has refused to initiate a review of our judicial system as it relates to aboriginal people.
Would the minister indicate whether or not the government will change its decision on this matter?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I look forward, as do my colleagues, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Justice, to continuing a series of meetings with aboriginal leaders, including

June 10, 1991
Oral Questions
the newly elected leadership, the leadership to be elected tomorrow of the AFN.
Naturally if they bring to us matters that were raised seriously in their assembly we will consider them very seriously.


SELF-EMPLOYMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration and refers to the Self-Employment Incentive Program which has proven extremely successful in my area in helping people off unemployment insurance, so successful in fact that the funding has already run out for 1991.
Will the minister redirect funding or make funding available to this program which has proven so successful in helping people off of unemployment insurance and into their own businesses.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Self-Employment Incentive Program is a successful one. As for the matter of budget, I can look into the regional allocation in the hon. member's province to determine whether or not we can reallocate within the fund to meet the requirements of his riding.


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister for youth.
Various government departments have responded to a job-hunting Nepean student and I would like to quote from three of the many letters that he received: "-budgetary restrictions have had a serious impact-including the summer employment program-" Quote number two: "-I regret to inform you that our office is not participating in the COSEP program this year". Quote number three: "-sorry to advise you that our office will not be hiring students in the summer of 1991".
Why is the minister stating one thing in this House while officials in various government departments are stating another?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would do me the courtesy of sending copies of those letters to me so that I might look at them. I will certainly respond to her.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to send those letters to the minister.
Students cannot support themselves on platitudes. Because of the government's cuts in transfer payments, tuition is up, GST is on books, rent is up. It stands to reason that if the budget allocation remains the same there will be fewer jobs.
Will the minister assist Canada's unemployed youth and introduce today a comprehensive assistance program?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, or should know, there is a debate on this question today. I invite her to participate in the debate and ask the appropriate questions at that time. I have already indicated in my speech this morning that the funds have not been cut with respect to the Challenge program. They have been increased, and some of her own colleagues admitted that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade who later this week will begin the talks with Mexico and the United States on a free trade agreement. He will also be well aware of the North America Water and Power Alliance proposal to divert Canadian rivers into the American southwest and northern Mexico.
Will the Minister for International Trade say today categorically that this government will never allow the
June 10, 1991

transfer of Canadian fresh water by interbasin transfer to the United States or northern Mexico, ever?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member uses the word "ever". I am not going to be around here forever. I am not aware of this particular agreement to which the hon. member is referring. If he would give me an opportunity to brief myself on it I will give him the answer.


POINT OF ORDER
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to report a breach of the Standing Orders. Referring to section 37(1) and also the same rules in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules, section 409 says that a preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn sentence. Section 410 states that supplementary questions require no preamble.
Mr. Speaker, of 35 questions asked today, it is hard to tell exactly but it looks like almost 30 questions were in breach of those Standing Orders. I would just like to comment that if all members kept their questions according to the rules as outlined in the Standing Orders and in Beauchesne, we would all have more questions.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. John Richard Johnson, President of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, Australia.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POINT OF ORDER
Sheila Maureen Copps: During the course of Question Period I inadvertently stated that we have the highest taxes in the world. Mr. Speaker, I misspoke myself and what I should have said was that we have the
Routine Proceedings
fastest rising taxes in the western world. I wanted to correct the record.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. This report was drafted by the official delegation representing Canada at the 85th Inter-Parliamentary Conference held in Pyongyang, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, from April 29 to May 4,
1991.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It would be useful to the Speaker if people who are not seeking the floor would sit down. It is very difficult to know who is seeking the floor or not. Thank you.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to update the provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to mentally disturbed accused persons. The bill is, in fact, not of my own authorship. It was one that was proposed in a white paper prepared by the Minister of Justice about three years ago. The hon. member for St. John's East was the Minister of Justice at that time, which gives some indication of the age of the document. But nothing has been done on the issue since that date.
The bill is introduced for the purpose of moving this issue along with some speed. I would hope that the government might consider referring the bill to a committee so that it could be studied there and enacted at an early date. This might assist the government in its dealings with these persons as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision on this issue.

June 10, 1991
Routine Proceedings


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

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-229, an act to commemorate the birthplace of Confederation.
He said: Madam Speaker, at the 1864 conference in Charlottetown, a feeling of anticipation and hope was born. This bill will fulfil the mandate by promoting symbols of a united Canada with plaques and other signs to mark sites and buildings of the Charlottetown Conference. This is a wonderful opportunity to showcase a very special event in our history while pointing toward our common goal of unity.


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

Lloyd Axworthy: for leave to introduce Bill C-230, an act to amend the Criminal Code (ministerial review).
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill is designed to deal with some of the more serious breaches of judicial review that we have seen in recent years. I speak specifically of the David Milgaard case and the Don Marshall case, where applications were made to review cases that were held up many years and there was serious questioning about the application of objectivity and independence.
This bill would propose the amending of the Criminal Code to have a special council appointed by the minister to review all these kinds of applications for reconsideration of criminal matters or cases of this kind and would provide an objective, independent review of the case.


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

Lloyd Axworthy: for leave to introduce Bill C-231, an act to amend the Family Allowances Act.
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill is a proposal to amend the Family Allowances Act to deal with perhaps one of the most shameful aspects of Canadian society; the extreme poverty faced by many women with children.
The Senate report that was just released a few months ago points out that close to 900,000 Canadian children live below the poverty line. What is quite clear from that report is that much of it begins in the period where pregnancy begins.
This act is designed to amend the Family Allowances Act to provide payment of the family allowance during the last six months of pregnancy to many women subject to certain conditions, and I recommend it to the House.


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

Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I move:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), the House continue to sit
beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, until 10.00 p.m. on
June 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, 1991.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, there has been some discussion among representatives of the parties, but of course the government has the right under the Standing Orders to proceed today with extending the hours.
I would hope that perhaps later today the parliamentary secretary or the government House leader could indicate to the House, in view of the extension of the hours which will take place on June 11, 13 and 17, 18, right through to the 21st, the bills that will be called, the motions that will be debated on the floor, in order to inform the respective critics of our party so that they can be here to participate.
June 10, 1991

Members on this side are willing to co-operate with the government, as we have demonstrated time and time and time again, Madam Speaker, but we would like to have some firm indication as to what the order of business will be for the remaining days to June 21, 1991.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, in that same spirit, we are certainly anxious to support this suggestion. I wonder if we could, simply as a matter of courtesy, ask the government Elouse leader if he would not mind indicating, at least, as we understand today, and for the next foreseeable few days an outline of the business. This would facilitate dealing with the business of the House in a most expeditious manner and allow predictability and planning for all members as well, in terms of votes and participating in the important debates.


Harvie Andre: Yes, Madam Speaker, subject to of course, negotiation with the opposition House leaders and others, it would be my intention to call Bill C-20 tomorrow morning and Bill C-ll tomorrow afternoon. Wednesday and Thursday would be allotted days. In terms of the other bills, for the remaining period until the summer recess, I hope that at our regular Tuesday House leaders' meeting we will be able to agree to a calendar and agree to bills that could be dealt with over that period of time.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Fred .1. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):
Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present, and it is important for a number of reasons. I have 255 communities in my riding and the signatures on this petition represent about 15 per cent of those ridings. It contains about 125 signatures, so it gives you some indication of the total support that this particular petition has.
Routine Proceedings
It really talks about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its historic key link to the culture of Canada and particularly to the Atlantic provinces.
They are veiy disappointed and very concerned with the recent cutting of the program Land and Sea. It was a great reflection of Newfoundland, the Atlantic and indeed Canadian culture from the maritime viewpoint and from the viewpoint of the land.
They are calling on Parliament to ensure that CBC programming remains intact and in particular that the local program Land and Sea and local programming in Atlantic Canada be maintained.
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox- Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by several hundred people from coast to coast which calls on the Government of Canada and Parliament to act to bring the Canadian Human Rights Act in line with those of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and the Yukon, by prohibiting sexual orientation as a grounds for discrimination.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions this afternoon. The first relates to Bill C-21 and would require the government to review Bill C-21 with regard to adoptive parental leave-considering the literature that deals with the adoptive process, the bonding process, needs and rights of adoptive families, proper terminology in adoption, and discussion with adoptive families-and cause the government to change Bill C-21 so that all parents, whether biological or adoptive, receive the same paid leave of 25 weeks to spend time with their new children.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: The second petition I also have the honour to present asks Canada Post to strike a stamp commemorating the life and work of Marie Curie. I was always under the impression that Marie Curie was a French woman. She was by choice, but she was born in Poland and her name was Marie Sklodowska. The signatories on this petition call upon Canada Post to strike a stamp commemorating the great contribution that this woman made to the world of science and to the practice of healing.

June 10, 1991
Point of Order CANADIAN FLAG


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to introduce a petition signed by numerous residents of Kingston and The Islands who call upon Parliament to pass a bill to make it an offence to desecrate or destroy the flag of Canada.
I note that the hon. member for Scarborough East introduced such a bill last Thursday, the same bill as he had introduced in the previous Parliament, and I commend him for his efforts.
I hope that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, who is being vociferous at this point, will support the hon. member for Scarborough East and move forward his bill the way he does so enthusiastically with government bills.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure today to introduce a petition from residents of the Prince George, Vanderhoof, Port Fraser, Fraser Lake and Bums Lake area, about taxation, specifically the goods and services tax.
These petitioners call on the government to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a number of petitions.
The first petition is from a number of my constituents from Kamloops and some neighbouring communities who are concerned about the government's seeming intentions to cut back on Royal Canadian Mounted Police services. While we acknowledge the fact that the government has reinstated funding for at least one more year, the petition encourages the government to continue with its present level of support and not pass the cost along to the local taxpayers, in other words municipal taxpayers, or worse yet cut back with the resulting lack of services.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The next petition is again on behalf of a number of people from British Columbia. It points out their ongoing concerns with the goods and services tax and the fact that there is still a tax on literature. They are perplexed as to why the government would want to tax reading material. They are calling upon the government to drop this part of the tax and introduce a real tax reform with a balanced approach that would do away with the GST.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The last petition is on behalf of a number of federal public employees from the following departments: Justice, Public Works Canada, Parks Canada, External Affairs, Statistics Canada, Canada Post, Indian and Northern Affairs, CMHC, Agriculture, Labour Canada, National Health and Welfare, Department of Defence, CEIC, Transport Canada, Environment Canada, Revenue Canada, Customs, Fisheries and Oceans and actually others.
I think you get the picture. They are concerned that the government has imposed a zero per cent wage hike ceiling on federal public employees for 1991 and point out that a substantial increase was given to members of Parliament. If we are going to give an increase in pay to one group of people involved in the federal government, it should be to all employees.



POINT OF ORDER


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, very briefly while the government House leader is here. He will be aware that the Secretary of State of External Affairs said on May 28, 1991, and I quote:
We have said from the beginning that we would produce all of the people and all of the relevant materials to the extent that it is possible. I have given this House my commitment on that from the very beginning, and the hon. member knows it.
On May 30, 1991 the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance said, and I quote from Hansard on page 822:
I have no objection to that, but surely it is a matter that should be properly questioned at the committee where all the witnesses they require and/or demand will be available to respond.
I have not had an opportunity to review the "blues", but I understand the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs has now put a caveat and somewhat of a restriction and it now will be up to the entire committee to decide what witnesses will appear or not appear.
June 10, 1991

I am wondering if the government House leader can shed some light on a very important undertaking which was given to this House by two senior members of cabinet?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I wonder why the House leader could not get himself on the Question Period list today which he submitted to the Speaker. Some member of his party was on it and asked those questions. They were answered as a matter of fact. I think the evidence will show, and anybody who has been watching will see, that in fact the government has been totally forthcoming in terms of allowing officials to come forward with all documents and so on.
I can understand why, perhaps, the opposition wants to go on with a bit of a continuous witch hunt. If you keep bringing people before the committee, even if they have nothing to do with the issue, you never know what is going to happen. I think we should leave all that up to the committee. I believe that is what the former Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister said, that the committee is looking into this thing, doing a fine job and why do we not let it continue with it.


David Charles Dingwall: Through you, Madam Speaker, to the hon. House leader. I want to thank him for his obvious, unequivocal and clear undertaking to subscribe to the statements which have been made by the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Prime Minister and, of course, the Secretary of State for External Affairs on May 28 and 30.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, as was indicated, that question was asked in Question Period. It was asked last week. It does not become more legitimate when it is asked by way of a bogus Point of Order after Question Period.
He knows the answer. It has been given several times. Repetition of that order is in fact a little insulting.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member does know as well as I do that this is the type of Point of Order that is normally raised immediately after Question Period. We are now into Routine Proceedings. We have had a motion passed. We are almost finished with Petitions.
Routine Proceedings
I have a difficult time to see how this is a Point of Order, honestly. I will recognize the hon. member, but I would like him to tell me which of our rules is not being followed at this time, and explain the Point of Order.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, it is certainly not my intent to be disputatious, but it must be clear that the subject matter which I have raised on a Point of Order is of great importance for the continued deliberations of hon. members in this particular House, as well as those hon. members who serve in another committee. Madam Speaker, I appreciate your bringing to our attention the fact that this was not raised at a more timely occasion than when I did raise it. I wish the record to show that I believe the government House leader was involved with some discussions with the Solicitor General. I thought it a courtesy that I would wait until those deliberations had been completed.
In point of fact, I believe the hon. government House leader was vacating the Chamber when I summoned him to remain in his chair so that I could raise the point of order. The matter has now been resolved. I clearly accept, through you, the undertaking of the government House leader that he will abide by the statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs on May 28 and May 30.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will resume Petitions.


PETITIONS
Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I would like to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition signed by many people of Quebec, Ottawa, Nepean and Kanata, with regard to the high interest rate, the high dollar policies and 33 new tax increases since September 1984. They are saying that the government is taking the purchasing power away from consumers and this will only deepen and prolong the recession.
They also deplore the fact that the Conservative federal government intends to impose a freeze on the federal Public Service wage increases for fiscal years 1991 and 1992. They feel that the government is taking away their collective bargaining rights.

June 10,1991
Supply
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the imposition of wage controls and reaffirm support for free collective bargaining for Canadian workers.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Parent (p. 1319).
John Cole: Madam Speaker, as I was saying before-we were interrupted an hour and a half ago-right now this is a very difficult time for students heading into the summer job market. Most of us are cognizant of that fact.
I for one am very pleased with the government's response in trying to assist these students and help them into the job market.
We are making the best use of the resources we have at hand. Right now in Canada we have about 400 Canada Employment Centres that last year provided opportunities for about 270,000 workers. In my particular area we have about 17 employment centres and last year they provided approximately 11,000 high school, college and university students the opportunity to get jobs in their particular areas. One thing that is very important is the Canada Employment Centres are working very, very hard.
One of the things they are doing is helping kids to beat the odds when it comes to employment by teaching them how to look for work. Today, it is not a question of
banging on doors, asking for jobs, and the doors opening. It takes a more sophisticated approach. We are teaching our students and young people how to prepare themselves for a job interview and how to prepare a good resume.
I think that is very important to them not only for this summer but for the future when they are applying for more permanent jobs at different other times in their lives.
Canada Employment Centres are only part of the bigger picture. I think that is one of the things we should be talking about today because thousands of post-secondary students across Canada have found summer jobs through COSEP. In fact this year already in my particular area there have been over 900 students who have already found jobs under this program. In Ontario alone this year, under Challenge '91 over $18 million is going to be spent on employment programs for students including SEED, the kind of program that is going to help students not only this year but in the future. These programs- and last year just in Ontario alone there were over 9,500 of them-help students get experience in a job market they are often related to or interested in.
I think that is very important because we have increased our resources in Ontario for this co-op education under the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program. That is a very popular program and without it many Canadians would not be able to finish their university education. When you look at those kinds of numbers and those types of programs, that is very important to the youth of our nation.
The question of summer jobs, as I mentioned, is only one concern of this government's youth initiatives. Our interest in youth employment goes well beyond how many jobs are available this summer. That is the simplistic answer, and that is the simplistic part of it.
We are focusing on meeting the long-term needs of many young Canadians, those who need help the most. In the 1990s job market, those youths are facing a lifetime of employment problems, not just this summer.
When we look at the programs offered by Employment and Immigration Canada, we see that it is going to play a major role in ensuring that these young people get the employment skills, the education and the training that they need. Programs like Job Entry are working very
June 10, 1991

successfully to give this group the employment skills that they need.
In metropolitan Toronto, there is more than $6 million being employed in the Canadian Jobs Strategy to help unemployed youth. This program targets those who have left school and who are trying to enter a very tight labour market, frankly, with very few if any training skills, marketable skills and the things that are necessary to land and keep a job.
Under the job entry program, these young people will gain employment skills and classroom training aimed at long-term employment.
I was at one of these centres not too long ago. These centres are providing youth with assistance, providing them with the ability to choose the type of career that they might be interested in, and providing an opportunity for them to get into a career. Those kinds of programs are working very well.
That is a co-operative type of program between the private sector, government, institutions and municipalities. Those are very substantive programs, and I think they help an awful lot.
Some of the things that we are doing for our youth are also directed to those young people, those Canadians who have simply run out of options.
One of the difficulties when you look at Canadian youth today-you often see them, Madam Speaker, when you visit our larger metropolitan centres from coast to coast to coast-is that there are children who are just lost in the system. They are not able to find their position in society.
When we look at the different backgrounds, whether they come from a broken home or from a ghetto-type of society which is poverty based, I think that we have to really consider and address the future that these children have.
When you combine that poverty factor and the low educational factor of these children who have dropped out of school, we are really looking at a very serious difficulty, and not just for the immediate short term but in the long run.
These Canadians are on the margin of society with no way to get back into society. They want to be contributing members, but frankly there are not a lot of people who want to take a chance on these young children.
Supply
I firmly believe that the actions and the activities that this government is taking are really going to help this generation and this group of people. I know that the Minister of State for Youth is very dedicated and very committed to this particular mission.
There are a number of programs right now in the metropolitan area which I represent that are going on for these youths who are severely employment disadvantaged. Many of these projects will provide the kind of assistance that will help these young people get better employment and better training.
If we can do that, it does an awful lot of other things for these children, because it gives them an outlook on life. It gives them a future. It gives them something to look forward to.
I know that the Metro-Youth Job Corps is one of their programs. It seems to work very well and it has been very efficient. It is not focused on short-term benefits. These children who are involved in it are getting a chance to learn generic job skills, valuable life skills that will help them to help themselves.
If we can do that, we are doing the kind of work that is really necessary for a government. If we can instil that sense of accomplishment, that sense of success in these young people, then they will go on and have a sense of purpose and a goal in their life. If we can do that, I think we will have been very successful.
Up until now, of the young people who take part in these programs, about 70 per cent go on to find permanent employment. These are young people who have had very difficult times in their backgrounds. It is really great to see that kind of result coming out of those kinds of programs.
There is another program. That is work done by the Kensington Youth Theatre ensemble, which one would think would not have too much to do with youth employment. However, if you look at the program, they learn how to be carpenters, how to be plumbers, learn other kinds of skills, writing skills, and team building. Those are the kinds of opportunities that our young Canadians are looking for.
The other thing this government is doing very substantively is encouraging Toronto kids and Ontario kids and Canadian kids to stay in school. One of the things that is very disturbing, I think, to all Canadians, particularly those in government, is the fact that 30 per cent of our

June 10, 1991
Supply
youth are dropping out of high school before they finish their high school education.
That is roughly about the same number that goes on to finish university education. I do not think that is a very good ratio. That is something that is really heartbreaking and it is a loss of human potential for Canadian society. We just cannot afford to let those numbers continue. We have to get these children back into school to get the education required to be better citizens of Canada.
That is why I support the stay-in-school initiative. It is something this government is doing to tackle this problem and to not accept this totally unacceptably high dropout rate. This stay-in-school initiative is intended to encourage young people to stay in school and complete their education so that they will be better equipped to enter a highly competitive labour market.
Looking at these kinds of programs, such as the work orientation workshops under Challenge 91-another program to help those children who have recently dropped out of school and are now at risk because of the fact that they do not have that graduation certificate- this powerful combination is an effective technique for providing recent and potential dropouts with new options. By providing them with practical work experience related to their career choices, young people are learning the skills to become productive members of Canada's labour force.
This program also gives our youth a realistic picture of the world at work. I can assure this House that a glimpse of life at the minimum wage of $5 is not going to be too exciting to a high school dropout when they realize that by staying in school, they can get a much better, much more productive and much more rewarding job.
We estimate that we are looking at about 30 projects under the work orientation workshop in Ontario. I think that speaks for itself. Over 400 students will be able to take part in this program.
Our youth programs reflect our national commitment to ensure that Canadians continue to enjoy the benefits of a globally competitive economy. However, our prosperity depends on improving our ability to compete and improving the levels of skills held by all Canadians.
Canadians are now becoming more aware of the extent of the employment challenges facing all of us. One of
the factors is that fewer young people are entering the labour force, compared to the baby boom years, and they just do not have the training and skills needed for some of the jobs that are available today.
That means that our young Canadians will not be able to provide all of the new skills that the economy demands. New skills requirements will also have to be met by retraining people who are already in the work force.
Canada's youth will continue to be an important part of the learning culture we are building, but it is a lengthy and a complex process in a country as diverse as ours. By working with young Canadians, we are already pursuing one of the most important first steps in this process.
I am confident that the youth programs this government has followed will provide a foundation for a strong and very competitive Canada.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to say that the member for York-Simcoe, who has just finished giving a very passionate address, knows of the respect in which I hold him.
However, I want to make a couple of comments and ask a specific question. First of all, I certainly agree that the Government of Canada is trying to teach our youth how to take a much more sophisticated approach to looking for a job. He talked about a career oriented approach. He talked about the preparation of good resumes. He talked about all of the things that would hopefully make looking for the desired work a more satisfying experience.
Does the hon. member not realize that even with the best skills and the most sophisticated resume-and he knows from his own riding and certainly the greater Toronto area-that the $6 million for the metropolitan area really only works out to about $15 per student who is looking for a job right now.
Second, does he not realize that the problem is not with our youth who have the sophistication, the work ethic and who want to go out and do something constructive rather than sit at home for the summer? Does he not realize, and I am sure he does, that the real problem right now is that our housing industry has basically been frozen in the province of Ontario, especially in his own
June 10,1991

region? Does he not realize that, because of problems we are having-not just the GST but other costs in general-that our tourism, food services and hospitality industry has basically shut down? When many of these youths apply for jobs this year, there is just nothing there. There are no jobs right now for carpenters. There are no jobs for plumbers. There are no jobs for youths who drive trucks, dump trucks or whatever.
My question is, what do we say to those youths who go door to door, business after business? It does not matter whether it is a restaurant or a construction site or a lodge in northern Ontario or whatever. What do we say to those sophisticated youths who are right now getting shut out everywhere they go?
He must realize that the problem is not with our youth. The problem is that we have to figure out a way, in short order, to get confidence back in our small and medium-sized business community, which represents 80 per cent of the jobs, especially in our province. We have to get that industry fired up so that it in turn will have the confidence to meet that payroll, which in turn will give those youths a job. What does he say to those youths who are getting shut out everywhere they go right now in spite of many good government programs?


John Cole: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Broadview-Greenwood for his comments and his questions.
One of the things about the member for Broadview- Greenwood that I have always been impressed with is that he is often willing to provide suggestions and alternatives. I think that is a constructive type of opposition and a constructive type of government, which we should be looking at more and more often. I really respect the member for that.
He mentioned a couple of things I want to comment on. One was the limited number of dollars the federal government is spending. The member opposite knows the problem of budget restraints and knows the problem of the deficit and the debt we are facing. I do not think the youth of our country want us to say: "Here is a handout for a job here. Here is a handout for a job there. It is going to look after you for the next couple of
Supply
months, but you are going to pay for it for the rest of your life". I think the hon. member could agree with me on that.
I do not think those kinds of programs are what is necessary. I think it is important, and I agree with him that it is not a problem with our youth. Our youth of today want to get jobs. They want to work and they want to contribute. I think he is quite correct that there is a malaise in the small business community, particularly in Ontario. In fact there is a frustration in the small business community right now. One of the things they are finding difficult is a provincial government that is really harnessing in on them. It is not giving them any opportunities to be productive. It is not giving them any opportunities for new employment, for new construction, for some of the things that we have talked about. Because of some of the things it is doing, there is no incentive for that land owner to build an apartment building and hire a bunch of students for the summer who could do some of the plumbing and some of the roughing in work and this kind of thing.
Fortunately, in our area, the construction industry does seem to be starting to come around now, but it is a very slow process and these small business owners who are involved in this kind of thing are very, very frustrated. They cannot even decide whether they are going to work Monday to Friday or Tuesday to Saturday or just what it is going to be. They are passing that buck back.
The small business owner today in Ontario is facing a lot of burdens with increased taxes and a deficit that they do not know where it is going. It is very difficult for that small business owner. But I hope that the small business owner is going to be able to see his way through and provide some of these jobs. I know that one of the things youth will do is take a chance. They are willing to say: "Hey, I will work a little extra hard this week or today and work for a little less because I want to make a success of it." I know our Canadian youth will make a success of it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend who suggests that the small business community is having a difficult time in the province of Ontario.

June 10, 1991
Supply
I want to tell him that the small business community is having a difficult time beyond Ontario and in British Columbia things are not very encouraging. They are not very encouraging in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. So I do not think we want to focus in fact by suggesting that in one province things are significantly different.
But I do want to ask my friend a question. For this year's Challenge '91 program, I must have had 300 or 400 or even more small businesses who wanted to participate in the program. Some staff people had to phone about 240 of those small businesses and say: "I am sorry, there is nothing we can do for you." They wanted to hire a student or sometimes two or three students, but literally, for all intents and purposes, almost all of those small businesses had to be phoned and just told: "Listen, there is no funding. We cannot include you in this student employment program for the summer."
My question is to my hon. friend. I know he is a sincere individual and it is not a critical comment that I am levelling at him, but would he not think it would be a good investment, in terms of investing in Canada's most important natural resource, to say to small businesses that if you are interested it will make a difference for you to hire a student this summer, we would like to participate with you? Would he not think that would be a good way to invest taxpayers' money?


John Cole: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
The reason I was referring to Ontario in my previous answer was the fact that that was how the question was directed to me and I thought it was best to respond to the question. It is one of the things I try to do. I know a lot of members have difficulty with that at times, but I was trying to relate to the question as it was asked. I was not referring or suggesting that it was going to be easier in any other part of the country.
But I do want to recognize the member's question. He said that the government is not taking part. I think the member also knows that the federal government put $80 million into the SEED program this year in co-operation with small business to help create summer jobs. I think $35 million was put into the WILD program.
So you have to look at that kind of thing and you can separate and pick out one part of it or another part of the program or the different programs and say: "Well this
program was reduced". I am not going to suggest to the member that it was not reduced, but there are other programs that have been increased at the same time.
I think it is only fair that you look at the over-all budget and at the over-all programming. I think the efforts by the government to provide this kind of encouragement to our youth is very, very positive.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2) I would like to share my speaking slot with my hon. friend from Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
First of all, let me begin by indicating what we are actually doing here today. We are responding to an opposition motion that this House call upon the government to implement immediate measures to alleviate the devastatingly high rate of unemployment amongst Canadian youth.
In other words, we are appealing to the government to do something about a situation that I suspect many people would consider to be immoral, to be completely unacceptable, to be wrong. We are saying to the federal government that as we look out across the Canadian landscape there are thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of young people who do not have a job in one of the wealthiest countries of the world. For that to occur we should be considering that to be not only unacceptable but immoral. What we are saying is that we are abandoning those young people. We are saying to those tens of thousands of young people "watch television or whatever, sit around and chit-chat with your pals; we are not interested in you participating in Canadian society in a meaningful way and participating in the building of the country". That is what we are saying, Madam Speaker.
But let me be more specific; that is what the government is saying, because as we have heard there are all sorts of proposals, all sorts of ideas from a number of speakers in the opposition. I think it is time that we acknowledged the fact that the most important natural resource in this country is not codfish, oil, gas, coal, wheat or trees; it is the people of Canada and particularly the young people of Canada. We should be investing in that natural resource, developing that natural resource, encouraging and nurturing that natural resource, like we have never done before.
June 10, 1991

What are we doing? Virtually nothing. I know the government will say "we have this ZIP program and SEED program and ZET program, and so on". But that is not even touching the surface of the problem, it is not beginning to resolve youth unemployment this summer. I have two sons, one going to university and one finishing high school. They are out trying to find summer jobs. There are all kinds of jobs that they can line up for, but they apply and there are 200 other young people applying for that same single job. It pays $5.50 an hour. They have to raise funds to continue their studies at universities, colleges and technical schools, and so on. Their friends are the same.
It is very frustrating for these young people to ask: do people not care? Does this country not care about us? Does the government not care about us?
That is why I put the question to one of my colleagues on the government bench. I know in my own constituency of Kamloops, when it came to the Challenge '91 program, we had applications from businesses, large and small, applications from non-profit societies, applications from municipalities and regional districts and hospitals and colleges that wanted to participate in what they thought was a government program to hire young people. They were prepared to put up good money and have the federal government match it, or in some cases ask the federal government to provide the meaningful job for a young person in an art gallery or in a municipality in an activity of one kind or another.
We had to reject almost all of the applications because we did not have enough money. We probably could only meet probably 20 per cent of the applications, and that is a business that would ask for three positions. "We can employ three young people", and they get one. Or a non-profit organization is prepared to hire seven young people to run a nursery program for single parents and we could maybe find two people for that particular group.
So there are all kinds of jobs out there. I think it is about time that the federal government says it wants to participate, in most cases with the provincial jurisdiction, and provide those meaningful summer jobs so that young people can go out and work in the summer and permit
Supply
them then to return to school and their studies in the fall, having participated in a few weeks of work, to say nothing of part-time work, or to say nothing of all of those tens of thousands of young people who are simply unemployed, who have less schooling for a variety of reasons. Perhaps they have even graduated from secondary school or graduated from college and simply cannot find a job.
As we saw earlier, Madam Speaker, that is resulting in 16 per cent of young people between the ages of 15 and 25 who want to work and cannot work. There are no jobs. It is 16 per cent. I will tell you that there are many countries in the world that would not tolerate that. They would consider that to be the basis of a crisis that had to be addressed.
I remember something that occurred in Sweden not too many years ago. As you know, Madam Speaker, Sweden has practised many of the traditions of social democracy no matter what government has been in place, essentially that mentality continues on.
They looked out and saw what was happening in their country. They saw to their astonishment that 11 per cent of Swedish young people were unemployed. The Conservative government of the day in that country said: "This is wrong. This ought not to be. There ought not to be any young people out of work."
It said: "Within three years, we want to implement programs to ensure that every single one of those young Swedish men and women are meaningfully employed or involved in training or education programs of one kind or another." It set out to do that.
It created programs to encourage small businesses to hire young people on training programs. It encouraged young people through increased bursaries and scholarships to attend technical, vocational schools, colleges and universities. It set out a whole series of private initiated programs to help young mothers, single parents and seniors to go into the forests and practise silviculture methods. They went in and stabilized the banks of all sorts of mountain streams and so on to halt erosion. There were all sorts of programs that actually work to make Sweden a better place.

June 10, 1991
Supply
Do you know what happened, Madam Speaker? Yes, it required the government paying a bit more but it was already paying those young people some form of welfare or unemployment insurance. It topped those funds up and within three years every single one of those people were meaningfully employed and/or involved in society with their studies, or training or work programs. This includes every single one of them.
Then, those young people, as a result of the fact that they were being paid reasonably well for the job they were doing, they would purchase things. They bought Volvos. They bought clothes. They went out and entertained. They participated as regular citizens, and consequently, sales taxes flowed in, income taxes were paid along with excise taxes of various kinds.
In the end, the government virtually made money on that initiative. Not only was it cost effective in the long term after a three-year period, but every single young person in that country was meaningfully employed.
I realize that Sweden with eight million people cannot automatically transfer its experience to Canada, but we can certainly take the best portions of it and apply it where we can, whereas this government chooses to do virtually nothing which is an abandonment of the youth of this country.
I say that there are no shortages of examples in terms of what can be done. There are all kinds of proposals that we are hearing today.
We are begging the minister responsible for youth and, indeed, the government per se to begin to acknowledge the fact that the most important natural resource in this country are the people of Canada, particularly the young people of Canada. Right now, to ask them to go out and compete with the thousands and thousands of people who have lost their jobs and who have years of experience is not realistic.
We have only to find the comments made the other day by the Minister of State responsible for Finance and Privatization when he had the audacity to stand in this House and say: "There are lots of jobs for students. If they look hard for them, they will find them."
It is that attitude that obviously telegraphs that this minister and this government does not understand the
depth and seriousness of the problem. When he says: "If you really work hard, you will find a job," that is nonsense. It is wrong, and it is callous.
I do hope that the present Minister of Youth sees the world quite differently than the Minister of State responsible for Finance and Privatization and actually introduces quickly in the days and weeks ahead meaningful programs to ensure that businesses can hire young people for training programs and meaningful employment and that all sorts of other organizations can take advantage of the programs as well.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, in the course of this debate, one of my colleagues across the way said that the competitive position of Canadians was declining, and he quoted the report on world competitiveness.
I would like to point out, Madam Speaker, that Canada ranks fifth in the world on development of human resources. In 1990, it ranked third for the skills, motivation, flexibility and health of its population. In 1986, Canada ranked fourth, and in 1989, we ranked second.
I think the hon. member would agree that the ranking of third in the world is a vote of confidence by the international community in the quality of education, training and health of Canada's people, including youth. The recent Speech from the Throne makes it clear that the government is not resting on its laurels and will strive to improve Canada's performance in learning and to make the concept of lifelong learning a reality for all Canadians.
I have a question for the hon. member. The hon. member will agree that the private sector bears some responsibility for the creation of jobs, including summer jobs for students. Does the hon. member think that the federal government should subsidize summer jobs in Canada?
June 10, 1991


Nelson Andrew Riis: First of all, to answer the question specifically, obviously there is sharing between the private sector and government to ensure that young people find employment opportunities.
Let us recognize that the private sector is being beaten down these days. We know what is happening in terms of economic and financial statistics. We know what is happening to the business world, large and small. They are being pilloried. To expect them to be hiring the usual number of summer students is, I think, unrealistic. We have a list of many of the larger firms that are hiring for the summer, but for the small business persons these days it is almost impossible.
I say to my hon. friend that obviously there is a balance there, but the glowing statistics that my hon. colleague reads out about ranking fifth in the world for this or twenty-third in the world for that is not helping Mary Brown who is right now pounding the streets of this city looking for a summer job or little Jack Brown out there some place in Red Deer trying to find a job for the summer. It does not help these young people. It infuriates them to think that when there are programs that could be launched and when there are all sorts of initiatives that could be taken, the government is saying that we are ranking 13th in the world of this and we are doing well in terms of statistics. It demonstrates that it does not understand what is going on in the real world.
I encourage my hon. friend to get back to his constituency and talk to young people in the high schools and colleges and ask them how they are doing this summer. If his communities are like any other that I know in Canada, the young people are saying they are having a tough time. It is has been the toughest ever. The youth employment offices will be telling that in a formal way, if he does not want to go home and find that out. It is tough for students out there. It is very difficult for young people, and the government does not seem to be doing much about it.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I would just like to bring to the hon. member's attention to the fact that it is not just the private sector that needs to be motivated and encouraged. I realize that there are problems coast to coast in terms of youth unemployment, but I would like to be very specific.
In the province of Ontario we have a government that, granted it has been in power for only a year, has not approved one plan of subdivision, though there are close to 100,000 affordable housing unit projects on the books. Affordable shelter is something that we need, and this an area where literally 40,000 or 50,000 people could be employed overnight simply by the minister of housing
Supply
and the minister of municipal affairs putting a signature to plans of subdivision, as long as they concentrate on affordable shelter.
I would hope that the member uses his influence with his colleagues from the province to get the affordable shelter program moving.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of the adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, Fisheries; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, Bankruptcies; the hon. member for Don Valley East, the Environment; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Health; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, Immigration.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I too want to thank the member for Kamloops for agreeing to share some of his time this afternoon in the short time we have to comment on the particular motion before the House today, an opposition motion and a very important one I think.
It is calling upon the government to implement immediate measures to alleviate the devastatingly high rate of unemployment among Canadian youth. I think I would certainly second the comments of the member for Kamloops when he talked about how important Canada's young people are. I stand in this House and talk a lot about our forests and our fish and our farms, but he is quite right: if anything is our most important resource in this country, it has to be Canada's people and, undoubtedly, Canada's young people as well.
I took the time today to listen to the member who led off the debate and to the minister to hear some of the comments that were said on this and the programs, of course, that are trotted out by the government.
It is fair to say that any of the members in their own ridings who work with the Canada Employment Centres on this area need an up-date about every other day to keep track of all the acronyms and the different programs that are there. Of course, one of the members acknowledged the fact that in a number of areas those programs have been cut back. In fact, we have also learned that a number of Student Employment Centres on campuses are going to be closed. They are closing 100 of them, including some at some fairly significant universities across the country: the University of Calgary, the University of New Brunswick and the Memorial University of Newfoundland.

June 10, 1991
Supply
As well, just before commenting a bit on the question of unemployment among young people, I do not think we could really talk about unemployment among young people unless we mentioned as well the impact that the GST is having on young people and the government's seemingly endless round of consultations on trying to change the Canada Student Loans Program.
It has shown up once again in the regulatory reform package, the book that comes out once a year. I am sure you go through that, Madam Speaker. It shows that once again the government is trying to study reforms to the Student Loans Program. It was a leftover from the previous year. We hope that for the first time in some time the Government of Canada will actually move on bringing the Canada Student Loans Program into the future so that we have a current program that works.
I took the opportunity during the break to actually have my staff call the two student centres in my riding in Prince George and Vanderhoof. I asked them to call to basically give me some information and advice that they might have about what is the current situation that students and young people are facing right now.
The comments from the Prince George Student Employment Centre are that the jobs are down this year and that they are primarily casual and odd jobs: lawn mowing, car washing and what have you.
Very importantly, and this is a comment I think I would like to add as well, in many of our rural communities it is very difficult often for young people to get employment. Often they rely on jobs to work in their mother or father's business or their mother or father's friend who has a business. One of example of that, a particular example, is in Vanderhoof where the Student Employment Centre there reports today that there is a dramatic drop in job listings, fewer jobs, but also a large increase in registrants. The comment made by the student employment officer there is that businesses are not hiring because they do not have the additional funds. Largely they are attributing that to the problems businesses are having in terms of reduced business from the GST. They
are deciding to go through the summer without doing that additional hiring.
As well, I had the opportunity a month or two ago where I thought it was important to go out and actually hear from young people to see exactly what the situation was. It was very interesting to hear from the presidents of student councils in the high schools in Prince George who actually commented that they felt, from talking to their constituents, that the number of jobs was done this summer.
We followed up after that meeting and the calls today again confirm exactly what they knew. They are likely better representatives than the government side, because they know what pressures are on their constituents and their fellow students. I would recommend to any member here who has not done that, to do it. If you cannot do it before the summer, meet this fall, as I am going to, with student council presidents so that you get a view and a sense from those young people as to exactly the situation they are facing.
It is clear, especially in a large number of rural communities, that young people are facing additional problems in finding employment in the larger centres, particularly in this case with the demands on young people these days in terms of seeing the messages on television about people travelling to Vancouver. There is real pressure on the smaller communities.
As members we participate in a number of projects. I tour a large number of the projects which are eventually funded, during the summer, to see how they are going and to find out how they are operating.
We face the same situation as the member for Kamloops. There is a vast number of employers, local governments, and non-profit organizations willing to participate and work with the federal government to employ young people, but this government obviously is not interested in that. There has slowly been the cutting back of these programs and making it ever more difficult for young people to get employment.
June 10, 1991

The throne speech, as I mentioned earlier today in comments to the minister, talks a great deal about education and training and how important they are. Coming from an area of B.C. where the participation rate in post-secondary education is very low, I welcome the initiative. I suppose it is the fifth or sixth time we have heard this initiative from the federal government about trying to get something going in this country on education and training. Let us hope it is successful this time. To date it has not been. I would certainly encourage any efforts in that particular area.
We are very pleased and honoured that in Prince George we will be getting the University of Northern B.C. shortly. The project is under way now. We hope it is not threatened by the ongoing cutbacks in funding from this government because of course that will play a major role in the whole question of employment in that area.
I want to close with one suggestion. The minister said he would be taking notes. He is not here now, but I know he is probably watching on television. In our ridings we have had the creation of our local advisory committees that provide advice to Canada Employment on various programs. Some of these work half decently and others struggle along. I would recommend to the minister that he consider a directive, if you like, or advice to those local advisory committees to ensure that there is representation from young people on those committees. They are often missed whenever a government or an institution starts talking about all the wonderful things it is going to do for young people. Of course the last group of people it ever consults or includes in the decision making is young people.
I just want to close with an appeal to the government to heed this motion. I hope it will support the motion. The fact is that something can be done.


An hon. member:: Must be done.


Brian L. Gardiner: "Must be done", says an hon. member. I agree with that. If this government can mobilize its intellectual, physical, mental and fiscal power such as it did when Canada participated in the gulf war, certainly there is no better cause in this country to mobilize the resources of the Canadian government than to help our young people.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I very much appreciated the member's intervention as it
Supply
relates to the pursuit of education and, in particular, the pursuit of excellence by way of post-secondary education.
I wonder if the member could comment on the recent ridiculous decision of the Ontario government to do away with recognition of the Ontario Student Awards Program, the single award that actually gave recognition to students at the secondary level for the pursuit of excellence.
If the hon. member does not agree with this decision, will he make his views known to the Government of Ontario?


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to present any views to any government in Canada to improve education policy in this country, and in particular the Government of Ontario which is cleaning up after the mess left behind by the previous Liberal administration.
The tremendous challenge that faces Bob Rae and the New Democratic government of Ontario is to ensure that Ontario is on a competitive footing, to ensure that our education institutions in Ontario are funded to the highest level possible, and to deliver a message to this government, and we will do the same thing: "Stop cutting transfer payments to the provinces, do your job, improve funding to health and education in this country. It is desperately needed".


Garth Turner: Madam Speaker, the government has recently established the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, which is an agency comprised of 22 members, representing a wide range of groups, such as business, labour, social groups and the educational community. It is a real partnership. I think it shows the commitment of the Government of Canada to get directly involved with the private sector and bring the private sector right into the job creation process. It is something I really want to applaud the government for doing.
I would like to ask the hon. member whether he thinks the establishment of this kind of board does not represent a fundamental and major step in improving the quality of Canada's education system? I wonder if he might comment on that because it strikes me that a partnership approach to finding solutions is the best way for us to go.

June 10, 1991
Supply


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member representing Halton-Peel. I know there has been some debate about this board. I think I could endorse some of the general principles behind it, but I would add a couple of additional comments.
All too often, I suppose, we have tended to emphasize a great deal the efforts here in Ottawa. I would certainly appeal to the government and the members of that board to reach out beyond the usual offices and bureaucracies of the Government of Canada in Ottawa.
As well, I think I would say this. Often, we hear the rhetoric from the government side about how we are a great, free enterprise government and we are going to free up the marketplace, then the next day we find out how it bailed out yet another business friend.
What we need is some consistency in policy. I am not being critical of the member. I think there is obviously a partnership that has to be developed. However, it has to be a consistent policy as well, and a blanket bailing out of its friends is no way to fund business opportunities and investments in Canada, nor is it any way to ensure that young people will be guaranteed those necessary jobs in the future.


Garth Turner: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of participating in this debate. I am very pleased to have the opportunity of responding to the hon. member's motion.
First, of course, I would be remiss if I did not congratulate the member on having brought this to the attention of the House. I think the member clearly recognizes that the young people are the foundation of Canada, our future prosperity and our competitiveness. Certainly the member also underscores that government has a role to play in helping our young people who will assume the responsibility for running this country in the years to come.
Let us talk for a minute about student unemployment, why we have unemployment and why there are these problems right now.
The simple answer would be that we entered a recession, the economic cycle turned downwards and a lot of Canadians, as a result, have lost their jobs or have
reduced employment opportunities. I think all of us will recognize and accept that as a fact.
However, it is time to move beyond that, and certainly beyond attributing blame, and ask some basic and fundamental questions, such as: "Why do we have a recession? What factors caused the recession to take place? Why could we not have avoided this economic trap?" We would have to answer that when the economic cycle started its downturn Canada did not have the resources necessary to combat it. We did not have budgetary surpluses. We did not have the tools at our disposal in order to prevent a recession from taking place in Canada.
When the economic downturn came and the inevitable hard times came we had no alternative but to suffer some body blows, some economic body blows.
We found ourselves, when the recession hit, as a country with a great deal of debt. As a result of that our interest rates were driven higher because we needed to keep refinancing this debt. It is an albatross around our necks. As a result, interest rates went up, which helped contribute to the economic downturn.
At the same time, the high debt also drove taxes higher. We have had a lot of tax increases in the last few years. Yes, middle class taxpayers are paying a very heavy load right now, but that direct increase in taxation is attributable almost directly and solely to the existence of a federal debt which keeps growing. The high debt, of course, is really nothing more than deferred taxes. This is basically my point.
We have a deficit today solely because we have a national debt. We are going to be paying $43 billion in interest this year on the debt alone. That wipes out the government's surplus and we do have a budgetary surplus now of almost $13 billion a year. We take in $13 billion a year more in taxes than we spend on programs, but that whole surplus is wiped out and an extra $30 billion of borrowing caused just because of the interest on the federal debt. This is the root behind our debate today. It is why we had a recession. It is why we could not avoid taking some measures to cushion ourselves from it. It is why we have student unemployment this particular summer.
We continue to go into debt in this country at the rate of $58,000 a minute and that is unacceptable.
June 10, 1991

As I mentioned a moment ago, a debt is actually deferred taxation. During the Debt Freedom Conference, which went on here in Ottawa, I noticed a statement by Laurent Thibeault, president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. He said something pretty interesting: "A deficit is really a package of future taxes". He got it exactly right, it is. At that same conference, Michael Wilson, who was then the Minister of Finance, said: "Only if enough Canadians are prepared to speak out and express their views both forcefully and persistently can we build the genuine, political will to stop living beyond our means". That is the whole point of this, political will.
Right now we are, perhaps as a result of having enough political will, continuing an abominable process. We are continuing to steal the future through debts and deficits from our youth and that is not fair. It is generational theft. It is a transferring of wealth from a future generation to one that wants it now, to a generation that wants everything now. That is why the cuts the government has made are responsible, that is why they are needed, that is why a lot of people have said that the government has not even gone far enough and that there needs to be more political will for even deeper cuts.
I think our role, as members of Parliament, is to preserve and save the future. It is very simple. We are here as guardians of a great country, guardians of a great future. It is up to us not to be squandering it. Frankly, we are doing that right now at the rate of $58,000 a minute. I firmly believe this is what the youth of Canada want. I firmly believe that the youth of Canada do not want this squandering to continue. I firmly believe that the youth want to have some hope that their lives will be better than ours, not more indebted and not more taxed.
The member who brought this motion before us today is asking that the government implement immediate measures to alleviate the high rate of unemployment among Canadian youth. In bringing that measure forward, he gives us the impression that the government is not doing anything now, that the government is abdicating its responsibility.
I just spoke for a moment about the need for the government to be more responsible than it is today, to cut even deeper and to protect the future even more. I do not want the impression to persist in any way that the government is sitting on its hands and doing nothing. It is not the case.
Supply
There are training programs in place already which are very expensive. A lot of money is being devoted to this. Let me just quickly run through a couple.
The Job Development Program will involve more than
75,000	young people this year. It is designed to enhance the employability of the long-term unemployed, many of them women, young workers and social assistance recipients.
The total participants in the Job Entry Program this year total more than 167,000 people. That program provides integrated training and work experience to help young people, women and social assistance recipients make a transition into the labour market.
There is a Skill Shortages Program, another 113,000 people this year alone who will be participating in that, helping to train young Canadians in skills that are in short supply and providing mobility assistance.
Then there is the Skill Investment Program. There are another 38,000 people this year who will be participating in that. It allows employers to train young workers in new technologies.
There is the Community Futures Program, as well, which offers support to help create business and training opportunities in communities suffering from chronic unemployment and economic dislocation. There are another 10,000 people involved in that.
Over all, under the Canadian Jobs Strategy, we have almost $490 million devoted to training programs and employment assistance for youth. Yet, we have the impression in this Chamber today that the government is abdicating its responsibility. I submit, those are not insignificant amounts of money. It is a lot of money.
The spending, as I mentioned, some would say is too much. Some would say that the government just needs to cut back 10 or 15 per cent across the board in every program. Some would say that we are spending money now that we do not have. Some would say that we are borrowing money now to pay the interest on money we already borrowed.
Some of those voices are right. We are doing that. That just makes the situation worse. Standing here debating a motion which says the government needs to do more, to throw more money at the problem, to raise the $490 million to $690 million or $1 billion a year, is just going to make the situation worse, not better, for young people. They are the taxpayers of tomorrow. The tax burden today, some would submit, and I would agree,

June 10, 1991
Supply
is too high. But that is just a taste of things to come, a small taste.
Our debt this year will surpass $400 billion. It is probably going to happen some time in late August or early September. For the first time in Canadian history we will owe $400 billion. That is an amount that just staggers the imagination of most Canadians. They cannot relate to it.
Surveys show that only 2 per cent of Canadians know what $1 billion is. Only 2 per cent know that $1 billion is
1,000	million dollars. We are about to come to a point where we have 400,000 million dollars in accumulated debt.
I said that most people do not know what $1 billion is. Let me put it in this context.
If one had $1,000 a day to spend and one spent that money starting on the day that Christ was bom, by today, a billion dollars would not have been spent yet. That is how staggering that amount of money is. Yet, we are going into debt at the rate of $30 billion this year.
I do not think the youth want that. I do not think the youth want a whole bunch more money thrown at them. I think they are more concerned about the money that has already been thrown at them, at us, at everybody else in this country. I think they are more concerned about the $400 billion that they are going to have to pay, and they know full well who is going to pick up the tab. It is not you and me, it is the generation to come next because we cannot even get our deficit down to zero, let alone start repaying our debt.
I think the youth are saying to us that they want their future back. Maybe right now in this House we ought to be debating ways that we can do that instead of debating ways so we can throw more money at the problem.
I mentioned a couple of minutes ago a debt freedom conference that happened here in Ottawa. A number of people came together to try and talk about some creative solutions for solving this problem instead of just burying it under the rug, or worse, burying it under a pile of money.
Here are some of the ideas that came out of that conference. We should stimulate public awareness of the scope of the debt problem in the hope that we can build
more political will to take direct action. Let's try and educate the 98 per cent of Canadians who do not even know what a billion dollars is yet as to exactly where the economic future of our country is going.
Let's encourage the disentanglement of governments. There is too much duplication and overlap right now in the system. There are too few co-ordinated policies among various levels of government.
We can get a situation where the federal government, for example, will go and tax taxpayers and collect billions of dollars and then transfer it to the provinces and have no responsibility, no say, no accountability, no direction over how that money is spent.
We have a situation now where one level of government can mandate a program that another level of government has to carry out, and yet there is no accountability for funds being provided. There can be a board of education which is directed by a province to bring in a certain program, and who pays the bill? Not the government which mandated the program, but the property taxpayers in a community who have to then suffer higher property taxes in order to afford it and there is no accountability when you have a system like that. We ought to encourage the disentanglement of government.
We also need to start spending restraint from the bottom up. Governments closest to the taxpayers, municipalities, school boards and police commissions are the most directly accountable forms of government and that is where tax reform ought to take place. There ought to be more mechanisms in which individual property taxpayers can have direct input into some of these boards and commissions where there is not any accountability now whatsoever.
I think we should probably freeze federal spending as a whole. I think there is a political will for doing that out there. I think there is a political will not for throwing more money at the problem, but I think the will does exist that we could have an across the board spending freeze for a short period of time, maybe a couple of years. Maybe we could do a deal between the Government of Canada and the people of Canada whereby we could have a situation where we would accept to have an absolute spending freeze.
June 10, 1991

I think we ought to find ways of preventing other levels of government from increasing spending to offset restraint at the federal level. We have had a lot of years of tax increases and spending cuts from the federal government and it has been tough and it has hurt. A lot of people sometimes wonder where we are going.
I can tell you when we see a situation, for example, where a provincial budget will come down and provincial spending has been increased by 14 per cent at a single blow, it seems to wipe out a lot of the ground that we have tried to gain at the federal level. I think that is wrong and I think that Canadians are just about fed up with that style of confrontational government.
I think we ought to dedicate taxes more to specific spending programs. I think devoting all the GST revenues to a new national bank account for reducing the deficit was a start. I think a lot of Canadians felt better about that. Paying the GST is not easy. As we found out a few days ago, it is bringing in a lot more money now than was expected.
I think Canadians really want some measure of assurance, some guarantee that that money is not going to disappear into a black hole called Ottawa and end up financing some programs that people never asked for.
Maybe we ought to dedicate more taxes. Maybe we ought to take the tax load, divide it up, and parcel it out for a health care tax, an education tax and an environment tax. Maybe we ought to give people more direct accountability into how they are taxed and a say in where it goes.
One of the easiest ways for us to get a better economic future is if we encourage people to vote for those who promise them less and not more. I think that is probably the more responsible thing to do in the 1990s: vote for people who promise you less.
It would be good if we legislated a timetable to achieve a balanced budget. Maybe we even ought to have a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Maybe we ought to remove from politicians the ability to run deficits in all but extreme emergency situations.
That is what the youth of Canada would like to see. They would like to see some legislated responsibility and
Supply
accountability in the system so that they have some guarantee about the security of the future.
We ought to encourage more competition in regulated sectors of the economy. That is important. We ought to try to have a partnership, a committee or some kind of working group where there are taxpayers, business leaders, consumers labour representatives and others to work with the Minister of Finance on a comprehensive debt reduction plan which is not patchwork or hit and miss, but a comprehensive debt reduction plan that takes into account all levels of government.
That is what we are missing now. We have levels of government fighting each other. The response is that we get more debt, less co-operation, waste overlap, duplication and inefficiencies in the system. The time for that has got to end.
We have to review the powers of various levels of government. I think the level of government that stands should be the level-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I hate to interrupt the defrocked priest of the GST, but I think the subject under discussion right now is what we are going to do for youth unemployment this summer.
I question the test of relevancy.


Garth Turner: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member had perhaps listened during the opening of my remarks, she would have realized the extremely close relationship between the levels of economic activity in an economy, and jobs that are available for our youth.
Right now, we have a situation where we have a recessionary economy which we could not avoid because we did not have the financial, fiscal flexibility in order to avoid getting into that recession.
Now, we are in a recession and there is a direct consequence which is student job loss. You can deal with this in two ways. You can take a short-term, end-of-your-nose look at the economic situation and deal with it over the next 90 days or 120 days and throw a little bit more money at a band-aid project, or you can start thinking about how structural change in an economic sense, in a tax sense or a fiscal sense, will prevent these kinds of meaningless debates from going on in the first place.

June 10, 1991
Supply
We will not need debate in the House of Commons about summer unemployment for students when we can have an economy that is structured, sound and stable. That is the point. I hope the member realizes that there is a cause and effect relationship between a country that goes into debt and a country that loses its financial flexibility. That is exactly where we are today.
I will conclude now, so any members who wish to put a question or comment can. Let me just conclude by saying I do not think the youth of Canada want handouts. I do not think the youth of Canada want minor problems papered over with band-aid solutions when we have major problems threatening our whole economic and financial viability in this country.
There is a cry from the youth of this country for us, as parliamentarians, to realize what has to be done in a structural sense, stop bickering and arguing for political points and the cameras outside, and address these fundamental economic problems.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I raised the question of relevancy because if the member was honest with the people of Canada he would know that already by virtue of his government's cuts, specifically relating to the SEED program, there has been a 35 per cent cut on the backs of students.
In 1985, the program was funded to $149 million and this year, it is going to be funded to $80 million.
The member can blether on all he wants about what his government is going to do with the extra money it gets in its deficit reduction program, but clearly the students of this summer are paying the price for cutbacks of 35 per cent which this member has neither had the guts to defend nor even understand.
I have a very specific question relating to a letter that I have in my possession. I would like the government to explain why, with $80 million still set aside in the SEED program in communities like my own community representing six ridings, the total dollar value spent for student employment in Hamilton-Wentworth and Burlington, right on the border of this member's riding, was $189,000. That is shameful. If you take the average spent per riding, the Hamilton-Wentworth and Burlington area, which has been in a severe recession, which is
suffering as a result of the steel industry cutbacks, would at the very least be entitled to $1.6 million.
I want this member to answer the test of fairness: What happened to $1.4 million that should have been going into our community? Why is it that his own government, in Access Awareness Week, had the nerve to send a letter to Hamilton city council denying them a grant for $3,800 to paint sidewalks to permit the Hamilton business area to be accessible to the visually impaired? How dare he, in Access Awareness Week, send pamphlets across the country to litter most of our waste boxes when they deny this very legitimate program funding? Because they are ripping off the Hamilton area to the tune of $1.4 million.
I would like the facts on that particular issue.


Garth Turner: I thank the member for her gracious and thoughtful question. I am glad she shares my concerns about the future of youth and the problems we face.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You didn't talk about the young people who need jobs this summer.


Garth Turner: Madam Speaker, the member said students are paying the price for government cuts now. I am not going to argue with her because I don't want to argue with her; it is counter-productive. I do not think anything gets served. Have there been cuts? Yes, there have been cuts. Some people may then be hurt by government cuts. Yes. I am not going to deny that. I do not want to get into a partisan fight.
I just want to say, and my point is, that students are paying the price in an economic sense not just for cuts but for debts, for decisions made in this Chamber by politicians over the last 20 years who decided that instead of taxing today they would tax tomorrow. Well, tomorrow came. Now we face a situation where we cannot avoid recessions when they come. We do not have the flexibility to set our own interest rates. We lose our financial ability to control our own economy. That is because of decisions made here 15, 12, 10, 8 years ago, and they are affecting our youth today.
I do not want to fight with you because I think probably we can make some sort of agreement on those facts. But the point is can we get our noses off the page of today and on to the page of tomorrow? What things are we going to do to prevent the decisions being made again in
June 10, 1991

this Chamber that 10 or 15 years from now will end up having the same impact on people?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, 35 per cent.


Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Madam Speaker, running a country isn't easy, and it is even less so when we are faced with a catastrophic financial and budgetary situation, with a debt that will soon total $400 billion. Of course, everyone is prepared to offer solutions to this kind of problem, and to ours in particular. Of course we could print more money, according to the principle: Fly now and pay later. However, it was this disastrous policy which created problems for the past 25 years and which is now the reason we cannot deal with them once and for all, as we would like to do.
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Halton-Peel eloquently described the dramatic situation facing us today, which is how to deal with the kind of debt we have. We can no longer afford to fly now and pay later. We are faced with a crushing debt, and that is why we must take a more rational look at the situation. Hysterical statements are useless, Madam Speaker. We have to run this country calmly and rationally, and do what has to be done.
I agree we must deal with the employment problems encountered by our young people. That being said, I have the following question for the hon. member: What kind of role could the government play to deal with a situation that is particularly dramatic among our Native people, something I fully acknowledge and everybody in this government realizes?
Perhaps the hon. member would care to comment.


Garth Turner: Madam Speaker, the government has established a Pathways consultation process to directly involve Canadian native representatives in the administration of employment and training programs. Two hundred million dollars is going to be made available through the programs of Employment and Immigration Canada for the training and re-employment of natives, including native youth. A large share of that $200 million will be directly managed by aboriginal management boards. The Pathways process is complementary, I think, to the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, which will involve-as we mentioned
Supply
earlier in this debate-the private sector partnership directly in the management of skills training for unemployed people.
I thank the member for his question. There is some real hope that there is going to be hands-on aboriginal management of these funds and I think they will be spent in a very sensitive way because of that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, the Student Employment Centre in Kamloops is watching the debate this afternoon and just phoned in to ask me to tell some of the speakers that they do not consider providing money for Challenge '91 programs to be throwing money at students. They do not feel that providing support through government programs to assist students to attend colleges and universities is throwing money at the problem. I just want to pass that along to my hon. friend. While he might find comfort using that term, the students who are watching the program today are not pleased.
I would also point out on their behalf that in Kamloops alone, 1,200 students have applied for summer employment and as a result of the various programs, 371 jobs have been identified. We still have a shortfall of about 850 students. Hopefully things will change.
My question to my hon. friend is the following. I do not suppose anybody is suggesting we throw money around. I am not sure what that term even means, but I have not heard anybody suggest that on this side at all. However, surely it is a matter of priorities. In other words, we do have a lot of money in the federal coffers, tens of billions of dollars. We spend about $14 million a day on our armed forces; the government found $5.5 million for a comedy club in Montreal; the member who is knowledgeable on taxation issues will know that the government had just approved a continuation of a tax program to benefit the richest families in Canada through a special trust account program that enables families-extremely wealthy families-to avoid paying taxes. That is probably now worth about $50 billion, $50 billion.
The question I have for my hon. friend is this. As opposed to assisting young people in a meaningful way, young people in a school now or out of school, would he not think that would be more appropriate perhaps than the $50 billion we are losing in this ongoing tax haven for the wealthiest families of Canada, or for things like the $5.5 million that his government thought was appropriate to support a comedy club in Montreal.

June 10,1991
Supply


Garth Turner: Madam Speaker, first to define what "throwing money around" means. I would use a definition of spending money you do not have. I think that would be a good place to start. That is where the Government of Canada is starting.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Like a house mortgage is throwing money around?


Marlene Catterall: Somebody forgot to pay off the debt.


Garth Turner: An interesting analogy is brought up by some members about mortgage and about the fact of borrowing to acquire assets. It is an interesting analogy because right now we have a mortgage on Canada which is $400 billion this year, and our mortgage payments are about $43 billion this year. That is $30 billion more than we have in our own bank account.
Can you imagine running a household that way, where you have to borrow to make most of your mortgage payments, and then add that on to the principal of the mortgage? That is what we are doing. The reason we have a $400 billion debt this year is because of the magic of compound interest. There was a debt in place in 1984 of almost $200 billion. As anyone who has an RRSP knows, if you put interest on a debt which you cannot pay because you have an operating deficit, your debt is going to increase. That is the reason.
The member talks about the possibility of tax reform in terms of dealing with residual, accumulated wealth. I do not have a problem with some of the philosophy behind what he is saying. I do not have a problem, for example, with the concept of examining succession duties. I think maybe that is a reasonable way to tap into some of the wealth which exists in a private pool. I think we ought to look at all these things. In a country with the economic situation we have, we have to look at all types of things.
If the member is suggesting finding $50 billion in tax revenue fairly quickly out of the economy, I think that is a recipe for economic disaster.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, our youth are an extremely important part of
our society and I feel this government is letting them down.
It is no secret that the experience of unemployment is an unpleasant one. You lose your place in society. You suffer financially and you suffer a loss of your sense of self-worth. Who are we subjecting this experience to more than any other group in society? It is our young.
So far, from early on, we are sending a message to our young people that we do not need them.
I would like to read something David Brazil said to the Newfoundland and Labrador Advisory Council: "The unique nature of our youth employment showed that in terms of a cause and effect relationship, unemployment may lead to certain problems or stem from others. People who had experienced unemployment, or that of a close relative, generally experience lower self-esteem, lower satisfaction with life and feelings of social alienation and they were incapable of controlling their own lives. Through these psychological factors and their link with unemployment, it is very easy to see how early experiences with joblessness can lead to social problems such as alcohol, drug abuse and crime."
At the point in their lives when we need to encourage our young people to join our society as full fledged and responsible participants, what do we do?
We subject them to one of the most demoralizing experiences; unemployment. We strip them of their confidence and we strip them of the opportunity to get a start on their career. If they are students, we make it all the more difficult for them to pay their tuition, buy their books and feed and clothe themselves.
What are we telling them? What is this House telling them? What we are telling them is that we do not care. What we are telling them is that they are not as important to us as other expenditures might be.
Nothing could be farther from the truth and the government has to realize this fact.
The members opposite must open their eyes to this problem. They cannot afford to greet our unemployed young with the same disdain and distraction as they do with other social programs.
June 10, 1991

Unfortunately, this government seems capable of little more than successive attempts to try to put the blame somewhere else; on the provinces, and if that fails, on our youth. It is the old blame the victim mentality.
When the Leader of the Opposition called upon the government to take action on student unemployment, what did the Minister of State for Privatization say? He said: "If they look hard enough for jobs they will find them." Well I do not know where the minister has been, because if you go into a riding like Haldimand-Norfolk and you walk on the streets, that is where you will see the kids. They are still pounding the pavement looking for work and it is not there.
Federal funding for student jobs has decreased from $149 million in 1985 to just $80 million in 1991.
At the same time, repeated cuts in federal transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education have resulted in spiralling tuition costs for students. Students are trapped in a situation in which they have to pay even more to stay in school. They have to get even higher grades just to get into school, while at the same time they cannot find the jobs to pay the tuition. If they do find a job, they have to work longer hours to pay their skyrocketing bills and they still have to keep up their grades.
Over the past two and a half years that I have been a member, I have been speaking to many young people throughout my riding and elsewhere. Over that time the mood has worsened dramatically. They are growing more and more disillusioned with our system and frustrated by their uncertain future. There are hundreds of thousands of students leaving secondary schools this month, most with no prospects for a job, and there are thousands moving on to post-secondary education with no prospects for summer employment which they will need to pay for that education.
Last summer, close to 120,000 students were returning to school and these students were unemployed. The unemployment rate for these students age 15 to 24 ranged from 17.6 per cent in Newfoundland to 9.4 per cent in B.C. Even at the lowest rate, the student unemployment rate was well over 8 per cent more than the annual average unemployment rate for the general population, and by many accounts, this year is even more desperate for our students.
In rural areas rates are much, much higher. In my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, there are the areas controlled by the Six Nations and the Mississauga band councils. The unemployment rate among our native
Supply
youth is tragically high, as high as some 90 per cent in some areas of our country. That is disgusting.
For our riding of Haldimand-Norfolk there are options. Why not put a trade school in there? Why not set government priorities to directly work out solutions to this native unemployment situation? The solutions are there. This government must take action. This government seems unwilling to help in any real way. The former Minister of State for Youth did acknowledge in the 1991 Challenge booklet that it is expected that job prospects may be more difficult given the current economic situation. He announced in February that funding for the SEED Program was being increased by $3 million. Three million comes nowhere near to the $41.8 million it cut from SEED last year. It gave back a pittance, $3 million out of a $41 million cut. From 1985 to 1991, funding for the SEED Program has been cut in half from $143 million in 1985 to just $77 million in 1990. These cuts mean that 40,000 fewer jobs were created in 1990 than in 1985.
During the same time, the average length of a SEED funded job fell from 10.8 weeks to 9.5. In those five years the average gross wage earned by students in SEED funded jobs increased by only $234. This goes nowhere to cover the increased costs which these students are facing. During those same five years, because the government has cut transfer payments to education, tuition fees across Canada increased anywhere from 20 per cent to 150 per cent.
The Canadian Federation of Students has done a very informative paper on the critical issue of the government's summer employment program, aptly entitled It is Time for a Change. The CFS notes in its paper that the Ministry of Employment and Immigration has been reallocating funds from the SEED Program to other programs, like the Work Orientation Workshops and the Stay In School initiative. While it is critical that the government develop funds and programs to combat the unacceptable rate of high school dropouts, I find it objectionable that the government decided to take these sorely needed funds from the student's summer job programs. The government seems to be telling our youth: please do not drop out of school, but once you are in school and you need a summer job, we cannot afford to give it to you. Equally disturbing is the funding explained in the CFS paper: in 1986 and 1987, the most current years available, women made $263 and $302 less than men in the SEED funded jobs. This government must rethink its policies before it slips completely over the edge.

June 10, 1991
Supply
In 1990, the average gross wage of a SEED funded job was $2,334. Tbition fees are as high as $2,100 for full-time arts students. We are not at a point after six years of Conservative rule where a student after spending the summer at an average SEED job will have more than several hundred dollars left.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are motioning me for time. I believe I should have another two minutes left, but you can check with the desk.
I see you are motioning me. In closing, I just want to say that after checking Hansard for the last five years, this government has not brought forward a motion or programs in this House to debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Johnson):: I am going to have to interrupt. The member's agreed upon time has elapsed.


Yvon Côté: No doubt about it, Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing members tell untruths. They most certainly did, and I would like to quote some interesting statistics.
It was mentioned earlier, among others things, that the funding was increased by $3 million only. But did you know that, in some areas, increases may not come as anticipated or hoped? Of course it is possible! There may be a new distribution, a reallocation of funds depending on the region and the needs. That is what administration is about: a more equitable distribution among regions to allow those that do not have the financial capability to develop to find some answers.
Another untruth was stated, Mr. Speaker. There was a net increase between 1984 and 1991, from 53.8 per cent in 1984 to 56.4 per cent. We have to keep the record straight. This means three per cent more jobs. So, let us call it as it is.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, here is my question: since we are here to manage deficits and debts that we do not want to pass on to our young people 20 years down the road, what would my hon. colleague suggest we
do to manage equitably youth employment in the difficult circumstances we are in, especially given the debt we have been draging for 25 years? What would he do to turn this dramatic situation around overnight without increasing the debt? I want him to tell me, Mr. Speaker.


Robert (Bob) Speller: I think it is known throughout the world, but unfortunately this government does not know that investment in our youth is investment in Canada. The fact of the matter is, and I would point out to the hon. member, that from 1985 to 1991, funding for the SEED Program has been cut in half. The numbers speak for themselves; from $149.3 million in 1985 to $77 million in
1990.	That is not an investment in our youth. These students need these jobs. There is an increase in tuition fees and the increase in all costs of going to school, providing an education for themselves have increased. Unfortunately, the jobs have not increased and the funding for SEED has not increased.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a very specific question, because I know that the member for Haldimand-Norfolk has a number of Stelco employees in his riding, as there is a factory there. He will also be aware that the desperate situation we face in Hamilton was further compounded by an article in today's Financial Times, which claims that Hilton Works in Hamilton may close completely and forever in the month of August.
That particular operation employs 7,000 workers, and according to the Financial Times, police in Hamilton have been asked to reschedule their vacations to stem the flow of violence that may flow from an empty Hilton Works.
I would like to ask the member if, given the desperate economic situation that we are facing in particular in the steel industry which is in desperate trouble-and obviously with rumours of this nature circulating in a respected national newspaper which have set the telephones ringing off the wall in my constituency office- this is the time that the government should be cutting funding, particularly for summer jobs which are already in such short supply.
June 10, 1991

Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Johnson):: I regret to inform or she is told by the Government of Canada that they you that the agreed upon time for questions and cannot pursue that job. comments will expire following a brief answer from the hon. member.	[DOT] (mo)


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question. I too was shocked when I heard the amount of SEED money that was pulled out of the Hamilton and Wentworth area because a number of people from my constituency go there for jobs. I am shocked to hear that it may be true about Hilton Works because a number of students from my area have the opportunity of working in the steel industry not only there but throughout my riding. I know that the hon. member will continue to watch this and make the House aware of what is happening in that situation.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my remarks concerning this question of high unemployment among Canadian youth.
I want to put on the record the fact that many young people today who are coming out of school are looking for work in our big population centres in Canada. They are moving from the rural areas in search of work in Alberta and Toronto and British Columbia, even more so today thhn yesterday, even more so this year than last year, or the year before.
I want to bring to the attention of the House and put on the record the fact that the Government of Canada has said to every young person in Canada who wanted to pursue the occupation of fishing, which contributes to our economy perhaps more so than that of a person who sits in an office, it has said to a fisherman, any fisherman, to a prospective fisherman, that they are not allowed any more in eastern Canada to be a fisherman.
The government froze all commercial fishing licences right around the eastern coast of Newfoundland. That is quite an amazing thing for the Government of Canada to do. It is quite a drastic thing to say that nobody, but nobody, is allowed any more to get either a fishing licence or a boat licence.
Just imagine a young man or young woman growing up in a family that fished all of their lives. All of a sudden he
They cannot make that their profession for the rest of their life, or even today, tomorrow, the summer, the fall or all year because the government has frozen all groundfish licences. It has frozen all boat licences because the Government of Canada claims there are too many people in the fishery.
Imagine a young person who grew up in a fishing community, went to school there, went out and helped his father, his uncle and his family for years and years since he was 13 or 14 years old. Then he or she is told by the Government of Canada: "You have to go to Alberta to look for work because we are not allowed to give out any more licences, the reason being because there is not enough fish."
There are not enough fish. I have a letter here, written to the Government of the Soviet Union on March 22 of this year, to the U.S.S.R. Ministry of Fisheries, saying the following: "Initial quotas are allocated to the U.S.S.R. within the Canadian 200-mile zone in
1991-cod, redfish, turbot, squid, capelin, mackerel".
There are all of the tonnages listed off. Then, if I go to the other quota tables I will see Cuba and the Faeroe Islands, the group of islands off Denmark. They have quotas.
This year there is the G.D.R. I presume that is the German Democratic Republic which is now really the EEC, because it joined the EEC last year. There is Japan, Norway and Poland.
The question arises as to what is wrong with the Government of Canada that it would freeze every single young person in eastern Canada out of the fishing industry and say to him or her: "You are not allowed to fish anymore."
I have come to the conclusion that the Government of Canada has made the incredible mistake of concluding that fish do not swim. I say that because the government has given quotas to all these foreign nations on the basis that if it gives it to them off the Labrador coast: "They can do it up there because a lot of people are looking for licences off the Newfoundland coast."

June 10, 1991
Supply
The government assumes that by drawing lines in the middle of the Atlantic, every fish is going to stop when it gets to the line and it will never cross over the line.
It probably has the RCMP on the line saying: "You are not allowed to go any further". There is a stop sign somewhere. Maybe it has an electric fence that goes down through the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. The government believes that fish do not swim.
The other mistake it makes is by giving, for example, the Soviet Union a quota of capelin. It says: "Oh well, we are giving this to the Soviet Union because that capelin can only be caught in the fall when it is not roe bearing. It is not spawning". It says: "We leave the spawning capelin in the spring to Canadians. We reserve it for Canadians".
How can a Canadian catch a spawning capelin in the spring when the Soviet Union caught the non-spawning capelin in the fall?
The Government of Canada should reassess its policy of putting a total freeze on all licences for fishing in eastern Canada. It should reassess it on the basis that there is no logic or rationale that can be used.
The government is saying to a young person today in a fishing community that: "You, a young person in Canada, are not allowed ever to get a licence to pursue the occupation that your family has pursued for years", while at the same time, the young man can sit in the evening, look out on the ocean and see the lights of those foreign vessels offshore catching the very fish that he made an application to catch through the Government of Canada.
With those few remarks, I will take my seat. We are all expecting the minister of fisheries, of course, to change all of these decisions that were made two months ago by the Government of Canada and we are waiting for him to turn around, come into this House and say: "Look, we are going to allow Canadian youth to enter the fishing industry."
After all, we do not outlaw them from entering the legal profession or the medical profession, or from becoming a carpenter or a logger or a miner. But we outlaw them, we say: "You are not allowed to become a fisherman in this country". That is absolutely outrageous and outright discrimination against the youth of Canada.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage -Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the very distinguished member for Gander-Grand Falls here this afternoon raise this whole concern, and one he understands very well with respect to the fishing industry from that great province of Newfoundland, but he erred. He erred this afternoon, in my view, by suggesting that it is the fishery and the lack of fish or the policies of the Government of Canada with respect to fishing that has caused some demise to the youth who were neglected by this government.
Why did he not, one would wonder, bring forward so that everyone could hear the fact that this government is providing $40 million to Newfoundland alone for its youth on a five-year program. This is one of a kind in Canada other than, I believe, New Brunswick. It is providing $40 million with an agreement with their provincial government to, in fact, assist many young people with the problems that they face.
He is not the only one who understands the fisheries of this country, because the riding I represent has a large commercial fishing industry. It is one that the hon. member never even thought of with 1,200 commercial fishermen, and now experiencing some low catches as well as low prices.
The hon. member in front of me on this side of the House says: "You have fishermen?" Yes, 1200 commercial fishermen in one riding of mine alone.
It is not just the fishing industry. This government, which the hon. member failed to recognize, has with an agreement with that province come to the rescue of youth. Now he may say that is not enough, but if you were to compare that $40 million going by this government into the province of Newfoundland with other provinces, you would find it most lucrative.
I do not know if he is suggesting it should be doubled or the provincial government should also double. I do not know what he is suggesting. But to stand in his place here today and suggest that due to the policies with respect to some contracts going out to the Russians on some pregnant fish that they wanted to catch, and making a lot of fun about it, is not going to help the youth of Newfoundland, I don't suspect. How many may go out to fish and not stay in school, maybe become drop-outs because they have to assist in bringing home
June 10, 1991

some sustenance for their families? That may be a case in point.
This government clearly has done a great deal in an area he never even wanted to bring up in his comments this afternoon. He wanted to put it on the record. But $40 million is not something you can just flinch at and say is nothing.
I would like him to make a comment on that.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I did not mention the money for summer student employment because I wanted to make one point about young people who are coming out of school. However, the hon. member has just mentioned it. I know his riding fairly well in Manitoba, and what he did not mention-of course, he said now they have a lucrative commercial fishery in fresh fish; that is absolutely correct-but I understand from talking to the Department of Fisheries personnel, is that they are claiming that this hon. member is actually making arrangements to have a company set up in his riding to process fish from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. So he could go on and he could also mention that.
I will tell him now why I did not mention this $40 million. The change was made when this Conservative government took over. Before, under the Liberal administrations we had a great deal of money for non-profit organizations, for recreation groups and this sort of thing. A lot of this money that the hon. gentleman is talking about goes to private enterprise which now qualifies for the funds.
So we do see it. If the hon. member went over the list of jobs that he is talking about that are actually funded through private enterprise, he would see fast food take-out places funded for summer student employment. A lot of them, I maintain, would still hire the students regardless of whether the Government of Canada did it or not. Bartenders are funded for the summer under the Youth Employment Program. The bartender would have been hired anyway. It just shows the Conservative slant of this government in taking the youth employment money and redirecting it to where the jobs would have been anyway.


Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to join my
Supply
colleagues in responding to the hon. member's motion concerning youth employment.
In particular, I would like to focus my response on the Challenge program, the government's highly successful and innovative summer employment initiative for Canadian students which is now in its seventh year.
As I do so, I would like to not only relate the Challenge program on a national basis but also to draw comparisons with the Challenge program at work in my own riding of Fredericton-York- Sunbuiy during the current year.
What makes the Challenge program so successful is not just the thousands of summer jobs it provides young people; what makes it successful is the fact the various Challenge components offer meaningful work experience and positive reinforcement that will help participants meet the future demands of a highly competitive work force.
It is this far-sighted approach that has, in fact, defined this government's approach to all of our youth programs, be it Stay in School, Job Entry, elements of the labour force development strategy, the START program or many of the other initiatives designed with our young people's long-term employability in mind.
It is relatively easy for a government to haphazardly throw together so-called make work programs for young people every summer. But it is quite another thing to create a consistent co-ordinated program like Challenge, a program that generates employment opportunities that enhance the critical school-to-work transition, a program that attempts to address the long-term labour force market challenges faced not only by our youth but by employers as well.
Let there be no underestimating the scope of this challenge. Jobs are becoming more high tech and the educational requirements are getting stiffer almost as we speak. And yet while at least seven out of ten new jobs required in the 1990s and beyond will require at least 12 years of education, our entry labour pool population of 16- to 24-year-olds is actually diminishing. Clearly, if a third of a steadily shrinking labour force of youth lacks the necessary education or training for tomorrow's jobs, we have to ask: "Who is going to fill those jobs". If we cannot supply workers for the jobs of the future, we have to ask: "How will Canada ever compete in a global economy?"

June 10, 1991
Supply
It is in this context of squarely facing such urgent questions that the government has chosen to frame its youth initiatives. To simply throw money, as I have said, at short-term make-work programs that deal only with results instead of with causes would be irresponsible and finally disastrous. Because, simply put, if the school drop-out status quo is maintained and if the present low rate of on-the-job training continues, we as a country can look forward to decreased productivity, to decreased competitiveness and, finally, to a decreased standard of living.
That is why our youth initiatives focus on work experience, on career information and education, and on skill development. That is why we have targeted young people most at risk of leaving high school and those attempting to enter the labour market without having completed their education as the chief priorities.
That is also why we are emphasizing the development of human skill potential, the key ingredient to diversifying our economy, to competing globally and to creating jobs. That is why the Challenge program is so important.
The federal government is justifiably proud of the Challenge program. It combines work with education, creates thousands of summer jobs for students, fosters the leaming-by-doing concept, and forges partnerships in all sectors of the economy. It is a preventive program in every sense of the word, pro-active rather than re-active, a program designed to build for the future today. The various challenge options respond to a wide range of employment needs from assistance for students seeking entrepreneurial opportunities to counselling support for younger students looking to come to terms with their education and employment choices.
The Challenge program encourages employers to create jobs for students and help provide valuable work experience for Canada's future labour force. Employers take advantage of the program to assess the potential of their future employees.
Another positive element of the Challenge program is its adaptability, both regionally and in terms of its over all national emphasis. Therefore, over the past two years, the changing student employment situation has led us to shift our focus to provide more assistance to
those who have the most problems in the labour market. More emphasis has been placed on high school students, who traditionally have the most difficulty finding summer employment, as well as on potential and recent high school dropouts.
With this in mind, the government has increased funding for the SEED component of Challenge '91, while maintaining funding levels for all other challenge components.
In 1991, the Challenge Summer Student Employment Program will receive $143 million nationally with another $27.2 million allocated in ongoing funding to special youth strategy programs on a federal-provincial basis in both New Brunswick and Newfoundland.
In my riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury this will amount to $1.1 million for the summer of 1991, plus an additional $1.8 million through the federal-provincial youth strategy during other portions of the 1991-92 year.
A moment ago I mentioned the Summer Employment Experience Development program, or SEED as it is called. I would like to take this opportunity to touch briefly on it and the various other challenge components.
In terms of resource allocation, SEED is the largest component of the Challenge program, receiving $80 million this year. SEED asks employers to create quality jobs for students and then subsidizes the students' wages for the summer. In my riding of Fredericton-York- Sunbury there is a total of $823,000 spent out of $1.1 million on the SEED program, which will enable 360 individual employers to engage for the summer 450 students. SEED is a very active, dynamic and important program in the Fredericton-York-Sunbury riding.
SEED has been a proven catalyst across the country for the creation of summer jobs that enable young people to contribute to society and that support the government's social priorities. Jobs in the areas of literacy, substance abuse, AIDS education, the environment and urban crime are therefore high on our eligibility list.
As well, this year's program will again encourage the hiring of visible minorities, aboriginal youth, disabled young people and the creation of activities designed to meet the needs of these groups.
June 10, 1991

The SEED program is divided into two streams, one for high school students starting jobs in late June or early July, and the other for college and university students for jobs normally starting in the month of May.
In 1990, high school students accounted for about 40 per cent of the SEED participants and female participation in the program reached 54 per cent.
Altogether, last summer SEED subsidized approximately 29,000 employers which created roughly 54,000 brand new jobs, many in the parts of the country hardest hit by student unemployment. I would like to repeat that the SEED program in 1991, this summer, will permit 350 employers in my riding to provide 450 students with summer work.
The second major component of the Challenge program is the Work Orientation Workshop or WOW program. In 1991, WOW will retain last year's funding level of $35.2 million across Canada. In my riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury that figure for 1991 will be $275,000.
WOW is geared to the needs of our main target group, young people who are at risk of quitting school before they graduate. It encourages students to continue their education by providing work experience and life skills training.
WOW combines workshop counselling with practical on the job experience and academic support. This powerful combination is one of the most effective techniques for providing recent and potential drop-outs with new options for their future both in school and in the labour force.
In fact, so effective has the Work Orientation Workshop concept become that some WOW initiatives now run year-round. Last year in Canada nearly 16,000 young people participated in WOW projects. In 1991, in my riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury between 120 and 150 students, depending upon the final calculations, will participate in these Workshop Orientation programs which have been so effective, both nationally and in every local riding.
A pivotal co-ordinating element of the Challenge program is the network of Canada Employment Centres for students, which will receive $9.7 million this year. There are approximately 420 of these student placement
Supply
offices right across the country. During the summer months they help students find jobs and help employers locate workers. The Canada Employment Centre for students offers a free placement service for employers. There is no charge for listing a job vacancy.
I am pleased to say that the Canada Employment Centre for students is fully utilized and fully at work in my riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury.
In 1990 the Canada Employment Centres recorded more than 270,000 student placements across Canada. That is very fine work. Excellent results for a specialized student employment centre.
The fourth component of Challenge is the business drive for jobs. Our partners are the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Retail Council of Canada and business members across the country. The core of this program is business talking to business about the benefits of hiring students. This year the funding contribution to that program will be $805,000 to provide financial and advertising support. That is also a very effective and very important program.
Finally, there is the Native Internship Program to which the Challenge program will contribute $2.3 million in 1991. In my riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury that figure will be $64,300 and will employ 15 students in 10 government departments.
The Native Internship Program provides aboriginal students with valuable work experience at Employment and Immigration Canada offices and in other departments across the country.
Last summer in Canada almost 500 native students benefited from participation in this program.
In reviewing these Challenge components, it is clear that the common link is relevance to both student and labour market needs. It is clear too, from the feedback the government receives every year from students and employers alike that this approach to summer work is the right one, particularly in light of Canada's competitive priorities for the 1990s.
Through the Challenge program, not only do we encourage students to stay in school, but we also give them a chance to acquire the experience and the skills they will need to find jobs in Canada's future workforce. Employers for their part benefit from the nurturing of an efficient and dynamic labour force.

June 10, 1991
Supply
The hon. member's concern with employment in this motion and with the prospects for the summer of Canadian young people is a concern all members of this House and certainly this government share. It is a concern that this government is clearly committed to addressing through focused and effective programs such as the Challenge program and the components of it which I have described, all of which have long-term implications for our youth and for our labour market as a whole.


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a Ways and Means motion respecting the Income Tax Act and other legislation, and I ask that an Order of the Day be designated to debate the motion.


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Parent (p. 1319).
Marcel R. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I have often heard members in this House blaming our government for inadequate policies.
Today, I would like to correct that impression. Our government is constantly rethinking its youth assistance policies. More than ever, the government wants to show our kids how to grow their own food instead of increasing their dependency by feeding them.
Government funding for youth programs has not diminished. We are simply trying to do better with the same amount of money. We try to encourage our private sector partners, business people and community agencies to take charge of the labour market with our support.
The government has a new approach. We do not want to create local jobs that would lead to youth assistance dependency; instead we want to help our young people by making their transition to the labour market easier. Why should we key on paying for jobs which would exist anyway?
There is no need to create jobs for just about anyone. Several workers are able to find jobs without government assistance. So, our government chooses to keep its funding for the most needy. Our initiatives are future-oriented. We opt for more preventive measures. The stay-in-school project is a good example.
Other programs will follow to help prepare our kids to meet tomorrow's challenge. I have a question for my hon. colleague about the stay-in-school project.
The opposition has talked a lot about summer jobs for students. This is the objective of one of several youth programs, but programming for summer student jobs does not help the 30 per cent of Canadian youth who drop out.
My question: Can the member tell the House what concrete steps the government is taking to assist youth to stay in school.


Mr. Bird:: Madam Speaker, the government recognizes that unemployment can lead to very severe social problems and that the greatest at-risk component of our student population is, as the hon. member says, the close to 30 per cent who will not finish high school.
One very significant program which has been introduced on a pilot basis, an experimental basis in Newfoundland and in New Brunswick to which I have referred, is the youth strategy through which year-round access offices have been established. Counselling services have been established to encourage young people who are out of school or contemplating leaving school to review their future, to come to terms with education requirements and to come to terms with their future in the job market.
In my riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury, that youth strategy will have a total application of almost $2.3 million in the 1991 year, of which about $275,000, or 10 per cent, will be attributed to the workshop orientation program in the summer.

June 10, 1991

That is a federal-provincial shared program, 70 per cent supported by the federal government and 30 per cent by the provincial government. I think the program in Newfoundland is similar, although I do not have the exact details.
All I can say is that is one very dramatic initiative which this government has taken in company with the province of New Brunswick and the province of Newfoundland to address that very specific area to which my hon. friend refers.
The WOW programs which I have described in my address, while they are summer work programs, also address the prospective high school dropout with the combination of on-the-job experience, counselling and training with a view to returning to high school to complete education and then on to the job opportunities which have been identified through the WOW experience, frequently on a permanent basis.


Gilbert Parent: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I see by the clock that we have about 20 minutes and by prior agreement we would have the 20 minutes on our side to speak. We have two members who are going to speak, and I just wanted to advise the Chair that they would each be taking the 10 minutes. I do not know how that would work with regard to the questions after they speak but I would ask your indulgence and the indulgence of the House, seeing as both these members have done a great deal of preparation, to get them both on.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the first member. He is being recognized for a period of 10 minutes, which is to be followed by a 5-minute period of question or comments, and whether it is used or not is not the Speaker's choice. The Speaker will recognize people who are standing and then I will recognize the other member for whatever time there is remaining.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Madam Speaker, I would also like to say a few words on this very important resolution put down by my friend and my colleague from Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold. I suppose of the many issues that we have the opportunity of debating in the House, none is more important than the substance of the resolution which my colleague and friend has put before us today. It calls upon this government to implement measures immediately to
Supply
alleviate the devastatingly high rate of unemployment amongst Canadian youth.
I know the House has heard it several times today, but I thought having listened to my friend from Fredericton-York-Sunbury that it was time again to remind the House of what the resolution says. I say to him that I listened with great care to what he had to say and for the most part nobody on this side will argue with what he said. There are some things he did not say that I would have liked to hear him say, but I will not put words in his mouth. In his talking about the Challenge program and how good it is, and the Work Orientation Workshop and how good it is, we do not argue with that. We argue, we take exception, to the way the government has tried to gut these programs, to use a good Newfie expression. We take exception to the manner in which, in real terms, the government has taken what has the potential to be a good program and rendered it impotent by not giving it the amount of money that it needs to function effectively and to reach those thousands of people out there, young people, who are on the unemployment rolls.
He read his speech well. It is a marvellous idea he pushes, and we support the same idea. He stopped short by not telling us what he is doing on behalf of the people of Fredericton-York-Sunbury, and by extension the people of Canada, to beat some sense into the thinking of this government that this is not a time to renege. His own words condemn his argument when he says the WOW program has the same amount of money that it had last year. Implicit is the admission that in effect there is a cutback. Everybody out there knows that with inflation, if you have only the same amount of money as you had last year, you have to cut back somewhere. His own statement gives a lie to the argument he tries to make. His own statement tells us that there is, in real terms, not as much money in this program or in other programs as there was last year.
The reason we bring forward this motion today is because youth unemployment, the whole area we focused on today, for all the rhetoric, for all the brave speech-making on the other side, has become a wasteland. It is an economic nightmare when you realize what is happening to the talent, to the potential and to the skills out there vested in those young people. It is the pillaging of a resource. Our most valuable and precious resource is being wilfully pillaged by this government.

June 10, 1991
Supply
There can be no other explanation for it. The government is pillaging, devastating, brow-beating and pummelling our most valuable and precious resource. What is happening here is a human tragedy. It is a double tragedy that men and women on the other side will stand up and try to condone what is going on here, try to put a good face on it and try to pretend that disaster somehow is a success. It is a human tragedy of considerable magnitude.
The youth jobs are drying up. The tuition rates are going up in the universities. The students' ability to even get an education is being further limited by this government with the cutbacks and the freeze, first for two years and now up to five years in transfer payments.
Consider that in the province that I come from, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the unemployment rate according to the Statistics Canada figures for April, 1991, was 33.5 per cent. One-third or one out of every three young Newfoundlanders 18 to 24 is walking around, not because he or she is lazy, not because he or she will not go to work, but because there is no work to go to.
Those programs that my friend from Fredericton- York-Sunbury made reference to a few minutes ago could help bridge the gap for some of those people if the government had not been so niggardly, stingy, or deliberate in its plan. I say deliberate because I see in the government's approach to youth unemployment the latest indication of its brutal and single-minded consistency. This government always hits the most vulnerable. Look around you. Look at what it has done for the aged and for the sick in terms of the cutbacks in transfer payments for health. Look at what it has done to children in terms of family allowance payments. Look at rural people in terms of rural post office closures and railway abandonments and so on. Look at small business, the most vulnerable in any sector. In business it is the small business. In society generally it is rural as opposed to urban. Among humans it is children as opposed to adults. It is the aged as opposed to others. It is the sick as opposed to the healthy.
This government, you would think with deliberate intent, sat down with a pencil and said: "Okay, who is the worst off out there, who can we hit, who is most
vulnerable?" In its exercise it came across students, students who were already having difficulty staying in college to complete their education so they would be better off. This is the crowd that preaches training and preaches qualification and it has cut those students off at the knees, those very students who want to get qualified. It has cut them off with higher tuition fees and other expenses which make university almost impossible for many of them.
This government has a brutal consistency. It goes out there and it hits those who are most vulnerable. In this present example, it hits the students, the young people, whose rate of unemployment, particularly in Newfoundland as I have said, is one-third in the age group 18 to 24.
This government is brutally, brutally consistent. It kicks you while you are down. The students are down right now, the young people are down, the 18 to 24 age group is down because of the economy and down because of increased expenses of going on to college and continuing their education. These people are down and out.
So what does this government do? It is consistent all right. It kicks you while you are down and now it kicks the student.
In the same vein it turns a blind eye, it turns a deaf ear because it cannot be argued that those students' plight has not been put on the floor of this House of Commons. It cannot be argued that the government does not know what the problem is. The government has symbolically shown that it understands very well what the problem is because it has crafted programs to deal with the problem, but then it will not fund those programs. It will not fund them adequate to the need.
I say again to my friend from New Brunswick that the WOW program and the Challenge program are marvellous programs.
You will not find anybody on this side of the House knocking the programs as concepts, as workable functional utilitarian ideas. Our plea is for the government to literally put its money where its mouth is. If it cares as much about youth unemployment as its spokespeople have said today it does, let it put more money into those particular programs.
June 10,1991

In conclusion, I reinforce what my friend from Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold has so well said in his speech today. The time has come for the government to implement immediately some measures to cure this problem before it becomes an overwhelming and consuming tragedy. The loss will be ours if we lose the skills the potential and the future of those tens and thousands of young people who are out there walking around because they would just like to have some work to go to.


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: have a couple of comments on the hon. member's speech. He talks about the funding for post-secondary education. I suspect that he does not really have the latest figures in terms of the percentage of government funding for post-secondary education that is now held by the Government of Canada.
In fact it is very high. It varies by province, but in his own province it is well over 50 per cent and he knows that.
Second, he talks about tuition fees and how they are going up. I wonder why he wants to favour the rich. Every economic analysis done on tuition fees indicates that low tuition fees favour the rich, that if you increase the tuition fees along with reasonable student support systems then they begin to have more and more effect on the economic class that needs that kind of help.
Once again we get the rhetoric which somehow sounds good but it bears no relationship in terms of reality.
I just could not help but clarify a couple of those points for my hon. friend.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, the minister for science has some suspicions he has admitted. I have one or two myself. I suspect he did not read the Minister of Finance's last budget speech, so I will quote a sentence from it for him because it announced an extension of the present two-year freeze to five years on federal transfer payments for universities and colleges.
Now, that is my suspicion, but the minister in jumping up and accusing me of rhetoric wants to talk percentages. Did he ever try to buy groceries with percentages? Did he ever try and pay for tuition with percentages? Just walk into the Registrar and say: "I am here to pay my tuition. Here are the percentages."
Supply
The people I talk to, I say to the minister for science, are not the rich. They are the people in the small communities, the fishing communities along the south coast of Newfoundland who say: "I had intended for my Johnny, my Mary to go to university, but we cannot afford the tuition". Now, if they are the millionaires he is talking about, yes, they are millionaires in many terms, but they are not in money terms and they would like to have this government not cut them off at the knees instead of getting up with that blarney I just heard from a minister of the Crown.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not want it to get into debate. There are two minutes left.
[Translation)
Would the hon. member yield for another question?
The hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe.


Yvon Côté: Madam Speaker, I wanted to comment what the hon. member for Newfoundland said earlier, but since he spoke in English, I would rather ask him a question.

His colleague from Newfoundland already mentioned that the reduction in fish quotas hurt the employment opportunities of Newfoundland youth, but he no doubt knows that many Newfoundland youth quit school to enter the fishery activities, leaving them with few skills to seek alternative employment.
What does the hon. member think should be done to help encourage Newfoundland youth to remain in school? Let me tell you something, Madam Speaker. Just keep in mind that in September 1988 the cabinet approved the expenditure of $40 million of Canadian Jobs Strategy funds for youth strategy pilot projects in New Brunswick and Newfoundland where youth unemployment is the highest. In February 1989 a five-year agreement was signed between the province of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada to implement a co-ordinated federal-provincial pilot project, the objective of which was to ensure that all youth are in school, in training, or in jobs.
I would ask the hon. member what the government can do to keep those youths in school longer. That is the question.

June 10,1991
Adjournment Debate


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, to the second part of the question, the member well knows that none of us in the speeches today has said that the programs that are implemented are all bad. We recognize, as I said in my speech, that the WOW program, the Challenge program, the youth strategy, the kinds of things to which he makes reference are all good programs. They are not adequately funded but they are good concepts.
What do you do to keep them in school? I am sony I do not have more time to answer more extensively, but in a word of response to the gentleman who raised the question "What do you do to keep them in school?"-I also answered that in my speech-you make tuition fees affordable so they can go in the first place.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I would simply like to address one of the effects of cuts made in the summer job creation programs in my riding.

It goes exactly to the question just asked by the previous member in that these cuts in summer employment are going to guarantee that many poor children do not go back to school this fall. Many poor children whose only means of getting through the summer, having a little bit of job experience, and feeling the value of going back to school in September has been lost to them.
I have thousands of families in my riding who live below the poverty level and these are the families who are not able to benefit this year from the Challenge '91 program because the funding for this program was cut from over $100,000 just two years ago to $22,000 for the last two years.
With so little time, I would like to read into the record what happens to children who live in poverty when they do not get a chance for a summer job that gives them a little bit of income which allows their family to send them back to school in the fall. What happens is that poverty is perpetuated.
I want to read from an article in today's Ottawa Citizen about the results of that poverty: "Chronic illness is substantially higher among children who live below the poverty line than those who live above. It has double the number of psychiatric disorders for those who live in
poverty compared to those who do not. At school poor performance is twice as high for children on welfare as for children not on welfare". The dropout rate is approximately four and a half to five times as high for poor children as it is for non-poor children and, most devastating of all, accidental deaths are nine to one for poor children. Homicide-suicide is four to one for poor children. Pedestrian car accidents that kill children are two and a half times as high if you are poor.
These are the results of poverty. These are the results of not having summer employment. These are the results of not going to school and perpetuating the whole cycle of poverty.
I say to the last speaker who asked the question that the way to keep young people in school, the way to end the cycle of poverty is to have enough family income so that people feel they have some hope of a better future.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that the proceedings on the motion are over pursuant to Standing Order 81(17).



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Hon. Warren AUmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, on May 17,1 asked the government what it was going to do to help the 1,600 employees who lost their jobs as a result of the Pascal Hardware bankruptcy. I pointed out that Pascal's hardware had been in business in Montreal and region for 87 years and as a result of its bankruptcy on May 16, 21 stores were closed and 1,600 employees lost their jobs.
In particular, I asked if this lay-off and these workers would qualify under the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, known as POWA. I also asked what other initiatives the government would take to retrain and re-employ the 1,600 individuals.

June 10, 1991

POWA, the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, is good in principle, but very defective in its criteria and its administration. And it is under-funded.
I have here an article from The Winnipeg Free Press of May 23, by Leonard Shifrin who calls the POWA program "a cruel lottery for the laid off" and he points out that "while this program promised much, after three years it has only spent $73 million of the promised $150 million used in the first two years and it only provided benefits to 2,244 ex-workers". Right across the country only 2,234 workers, when at Pascal's alone, 1,600 have lost their jobs. Obviously, no matter if this program is good in concept, it is grossly, grossly under-funded. I hope that Pascal's employees will qualify under that program. The program needs to be extended.
This bankruptcy of Pascal's also raises several other issues. One is that the Bankruptcy Act needs amendment. Under the present Bankruptcy Act, employees only have the right to receive $500 in back wages and after that they become unsecured creditors, so all sorts of other creditors get their money before employees, some of whom have worked for 20 and 30 years. I know some of them who worked at Pascal's. They are going to get a raw deal after many, many years of working for that company.
I think this bankruptcy also gives rise to questions to the government as to when is it going to come forward with amendments to the Bankruptcy Act.
Finally, I hope, as I said, that the government will announce that Pascal's employees will qualify for POWA. I hope, as well, that the government will realize that POWA is not enough. In addition to more funding for POWA and some amendments to its program, it must also bring amendments to the Bankruptcy Act to give laid-off employees, as a result of a bankruptcy, much more compensation for their wages so they should not be left out in the dark, as they will be under this program.
I anxiously await the response of the minister or the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. Warren Allmand for his question concerning the lay-off at J. Pascal Inc. and its potential for consideration under the Program for Older Workers Adjustment, or
Adjournment Debate
POWA, and what the government initiatives are with respect to retraining and re-employing these workers.
As the hon. member is aware, POWA is a federal-provincial and territorial program designed to help long-service older workers who have been permanently laid off and have no prospect of finding other employment. Lay-offs that occur in all private sector industries and commercial Crown corporations, including the lay-off at J. Pascal Inc., are eligible for consideration under POWA and subject to the criteria consistently with other lay-offs across the country. I would stress, however, that POWA remains a program of last resort, to be applied after all other adjustment measures have been considered.
With respect to the hon. member's concern regarding the consideration under POWA of the lay-off that occurred at J. Pascal Inc., I would like to reassure him that it will be assessed by the Canada-Quebec and Canada-Ontario POWA committees.
While this analysis takes place, most laid-off employees will be provided with financial assistance through the unemployment insurance program. Once the analysis is complete, Mr. Andre Bourbeau, Quebec Minister of Manpower, Income Security and Skills Development and the hon. Bob MacKenzie, Ontario Minister of Labour and the Minister of Labour, the hon. Marcel Danis, will evaluate the findings to determine whether the lay-off is eligible under the program for older worker adjustment.
For your information, I would like to take this opportunity to outline the main lay-off eligibility criteria. Veiy significant economic disruption in the region; significant loss of employment in the industry; importance of the lay-off relative to the size of the community and a large proportion of older workers affected are some of the criteria.
I would like to refer the member to the information I have passed on to him, and we want to thank him very much for his concern.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, when I was a kid, every day after school, I and my friends would go down to the cliffs on the edge of the Don River Valley in Toronto to play.

June 10, 1991
Adjournment Debate
We would not only play on the cliffs but we would play in the dumps that were all along the edge of those cliffs. Today, Madam Speaker, you and I would not call them dumps, we would call them land-fill sites.
All those dumps or land-fill sites are now completely filled up. There is no place else to put garbage in those locations. They are all grassed over, and that is a real problem.
Ten years ago when I served on metropolitan Toronto council, and on the executive committee there, we bought a huge land-fill site, the Keele Valley site, just north of Toronto in Maple, Ontario.
We were told at the time that this would last for my lifetime and probably for the lifetime of my children as well. Today, we are told that at the end of this year, at the end of 1991, that land-fill site is going to be completely filled up. There is not going to be any space in it at all any more.
We are told as well that by 1993 the last remaining land-fill site in metropolitan Toronto will be completely filled. There is no place else to put garbage.
Metropolitan Toronto is not the only place with this problem. Every large municipality has this problem whether in Ontario, Quebec or the prairies. We are told that by the middle of the 1990s all of these existing land-fill sites are going to be completely filled up because we in Canada have the dubious distinction of being considered the most wasteful people on the face of the earth.
Canadians produce 1.7 kilograms of garbage per person per day. That compares with the Americans at 1.5, the Germans at 1.3 and the Chinese at less than .5. In fact, every Canadian produces about one tonne of garbage each year. Two-thirds of all of that comes from industry, business and institutions. The other third comes from our own homes. About 30 to 50 per cent of all that garbage and waste that comes from our own homes comes from packaging.
What are we going to do about this? Some people say: "Let's incinerate it. Let's burn it all". Other people say: "Let's ship it out of town". In Toronto we say: "Let's ship it to Kirkland Lake". In Montreal they say: "Let's ship it to Sept ties". Other people say: "Let's just let it pile up. There is no problem at all. Let's go on and
continue the garbage binge". Other people say: "We should be recycling it". And some people say: "We should be reducing it". In fact, that is really what we should be doing.
Since packaging is such a large part of that waste, the federal government, with tougher regulations, can play an important part in reducing that packaging that is filling up our land-fill sites and causing us this great problem.
The green plan says that we are going to do this voluntarily. We are going to cut down on packaging voluntarily until some time in 1992. Then, after that, we will start to think about putting some regulations in place in 1993 if that does not work. By that time, all of these sites are going to be filled and it will be too late.
I say to the minister tonight: "For heaven's sakes, Mr. Minister, do not wait until we have to pile up the garbage in our parks, school yards and apartment balconies. Let's get some tough regulations in there right now."


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address my remarks to the hon. member for Don Valley East concerning packaging of waste.
He is so right in saying that the largest single component of municipal solid waste in Canada, accounting for some 30 per cent of the total, is in packaging. The importance of this issue is underscored in Canada's Green Plan, which he has already acknowledged.
The National Packaging Protocol is the first initiative cited in the green plan in the list of Canada's efforts to reduce waste. Under the National Packaging Protocol an over-all target was established of a 50 per cent reduction in packaging waste by the year 2000. The in-term targets of 20 per cent by the year 1992 and 35 per cent by 1996 were also set.
The federal and provincial environment departments, as expressed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, fully support these goals and consider voluntary compliance as the preferred means of achievement. Regulations to achieve those targets will be implemented if voluntary action, especially by industry, fails to achieve the 1992 goal of a 20 per cent reduction in packaging.

June 10, 1991

Under this front, through the National Packaging Thsk Force, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment is engaged in developing recommendations for a comprehensive federal-provincial legislative package to support the objectives of the National Packaging Protocol. The recommended legislative elements will contain standards and codes for packaging and specified content and composition for packaging materials. In fact, dialogue has already begun with the task force multistakeholder group to develop its regulatory framework, including the development of examples of model regulations at the federal and provincial levels. Discussion and consultation will also be required to ensure a consistent application of the legislative elements throughout Canada.
Establishing regulations is only one of the possible means to achieve the goals of the National Packaging Protocol. Environment Canada will participate in the investigation of possible economic instruments and other means to support the protocol's objectives of reducing waste and protecting Canada's environment.


David Walker: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for giving me the opportunity to continue this debate on the importance of fiscal transfers to the provinces.
The question raised last week in the House of Commons during Question Period was prompted by a report by the very well respected National Council on Welfare. In its Spring 1991 report entitled Funding Health and Higher Education-Danger Looming it raises the alarm that perhaps Canadians were not aware of just how dramatic the changes were that were about to take place within the funding. Although they did not use any particularly derogatory or nasty adjectives that perhaps the opposition would be more inclined to use to accurately describe the government, they did, however, note just how cash poor the provinces are going to be. Provinces such as Nova Scotia with hard-done-by areas such as Cape Breton deserve more support than they appear to be getting and will get in the future.
Adjournment Debate
They start out with the proposition that health care and post- secondary education are undertakings vital to the well-being of Canadians. I think even the government could agree with that. They continue to stress the fact that people in poorer provinces would have to make do with health care services that are inferior to the services enjoyed by Canadians who happen to live in richer provinces. In other words, people living in Cape Breton, rural Quebec, northern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, interior parts of B.C. would be hard pressed to keep up the medical services and post-secondary education if the present strategy of the federal government were allowed to take place.
That, by the way, is the reason why this party opposes so strenuously Bill C-20, which is its budgetary strategy for reducing even further the payments. So as bad as this story is from the National Council of Welfare, I can assure you that it will even be worse if Bill C-20 is allowed to pass through this House.
This report is not a negative report. They in fact have several recommendations which I would like to bring to the attention of the House. These recommendations should be taken more seriously by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, in a very offhand response said: "Oh, the report is inadequate", and sat back down. However, the report like all reports can be discussed intelligently, and that is why I am happy to have the government here tonight. To say it is inadequate when this organization has a 20-year history of presenting Canadians with well thought out positions on poverty, issues that most Canadians would not like to hear about, or at least most governments would not like to hear about. These people have continued to work hard on behalf of Canadians and deserve not to be dismissed in that easy way.
It recommended that the federal government should continue to play a significant financial role in both health care and post-secondary education. Can you imagine, in this country, that recommendation having to be made? Can you imagine not taking it for granted that the federal government has a role in medicare and a role in post-secondary education?
The very fact that the organization thought that it had to remind the government is a testimony to how much things have changed in the last while.

June 10, 1991
Adjournment Debate
Second, any changes in the financing of health and higher education should result from federal-provincial negotiations rather than being imposed by Ottawa. How did this government ever win an election? It won an election by saying: "Look at what the Liberals are doing. They are imposing on this country".
This most respected organization says: "The imposition of terrible measures by this very government". It has quickly forgotten just how important this is.
There are many other issues raised in this report.
I stand here before the House asking the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to reconsider their responses, to not describe the report as being inadequate but stand up and understand that Canadians are expecting more from them in terms of fiscal transfers.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre. We had the privilege of working together for the last two and a half years on industry, science and technology, so I look forward to our work together on health and welfare.
Canadians do love their health care. Each and every one of us do. There have been a number of public opinion polls that indicate a very high approval rating. Actually about 90 per cent believe that our medicare system makes Canada one of the best countries in the world in which to live.
However, it is also recognized that health expenditures are increasing. They are increasing faster than the rate of inflation and the growth rate of the Canadian population.
In such an environment where provinces today spend up to one-third of their budgets on health, provincial finance ministers are naturally very concerned about over all costs. It is now generally accepted that spending more on health care does not always result in proportionate improvements in the state of health care.
Major transfers to the provinces, including both the cash and the tax transfers, will grow on average by 3.7 per cent for the period 1991-92 to 1995-96. All other federal programs will grow by 3.4 per cent.
This government stands by the national standards of our medicare system. The Minister of National Health
and Welfare has made this clear in the House. This is not a promise that the government takes lightly, as a recent National Council on Welfare report would have one to believe. We are very serious about our national medicare system. Poverty does affect Canadians and it is also a major concern for this government.
This is definitely an issue which requires more time, more effort and more attention from all Canadians.
Since 1984, the government has embarked on a series of initiatives to improve the situation of Canadian families. Our approach has been to support self-sufficiency among Canadians through economic and social policies which have helped to create a climate in which job creation can prosper. Even in a time of necessary fiscal restraint, however, the government has acted to better support lower income families with children and this government has increased by more than 50 per cent the maximum value of the child tax credit since 1984. We introduced a new child tax credit system. We have helped parents who are separated or divorced with their maintenance fees and we introduced a goods and services tax credit under the GST.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, I will have to interrupt. Those two minutes do go very quickly I must admit.


IMMIGRATION
David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I rise this evening with regard to a question I put forward on May 30, 1991, to the Minister of Employment and Immigration concerning the contradictions in public documents that have been released regarding the Al-Mashat case. I wish to put on record the words of the former President of the United States, John F. Kennedy. He submitted to Congress a special message on ethical conduct in government which reads as follows:
No responsibility of government is more fundamental than the responsibility of maintaining the highest standards of ethical behaviour by those who conduct the public business. There can be no dissent from the principle that all officials must act with unwavering integrity, absolute impartiality, and complete devotion to the public interest. This principle must be followed not only in reality but in appearance. For the basis of effective Government is public confidence, and that confidence is endangered when ethical standards falter or appear to falter.
June 10, 1991

It would be very helpful if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration could share with members of the House this evening an explanation with regard to the contradictions between version A and version B of public documents that have been made available concerning the Al-Mashat case.
Canadians are concerned about how an individual of such stature as Al-Mashat could get into the country when there are thousands upon thousands of people who are waiting, and have been waiting for quite some time, to obtain admission to Canada.
Canadians expect more, much more from their elected officials. Contradictions and half-truths are simply unacceptable to the people of this country. They want the issues of our time addressed with clarity, common sense, single-mindedness, and sincerity of purpose. They want high standards of ethical behaviour maintained by those who conduct the public business. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that they want performance from this government, not public relations, and they want leadership, not salesmanship. I hope that the parliamentary secretary to the minister can provide a suitable answer.


Mr. Andre Plourde (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade):: Madam Speaker, standing in for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who is unavoidably absent, I will gladly answer the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond's question.
Madam Speaker, the minister stands by his previous statement: he was informed of the Al-Mashat case on May 7,1991. The question the hon. member asked in this House on May 30, 1991, could also relate to statements made by ministers Valcourt or McDougall. So, as the Minister of Employment and Immigration indicated on May 30 and has repeated over and over since, the Minister was made aware of this matter on May 7, 1991.
Madam Speaker, as the member knows, this government did not hesitate to offer and extend full cooperation to the House committee asked to consider the Al-Mashat case. The ministers put themselves at the disposal of the committee, officials testified and documents were submitted. Perhaps the hon. member would rather we made a secret about it. If that is the case, we
Adjournment Debate
are sorry to say that the hon. member will be disappointed.
Madam Speaker, in this whole affair, this government has been very open and very quick to co-operate. It wants all Canadians to be informed of what took place, and that is precisely what we did.


FISHERIES
Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the parliamentary secretary for his patience.
On Monday, June 3, I had occasion to rise in this House during Question Period and ask the minister of fisheries about the alleged illegality of the dockside monitoring program.
The government is currently compelling fishermen and fish processors to pay user fees to private companies set up by the government to monitor the catches of fishermen as a condition of entering into a licensing agreement with the ministry of fisheries.
The problem is that the government did not bother to obtain either legislative or regulatory authority for the user fee portion of the program. That was the finding of the senior legal counsel of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations and Statutory Instruments.
In his report, which I released on May 22, the senior legal counsel states: "The minister, in using his discretion to obtain the payment of monitoring fees to monitoring companies by fishermen and to secure the fishermen's signature of agreements, is exercising his power unlawfully".
I sent a copy of this report to the minister of fisheries on the day it was released. On that day we also heard from the parliamentary secretary that the user fee portion of the program was under review by his ministry. I would have thought that the result of that review, given the thorough and authoritative way in which the document presented the case for the illegality of the fees, would have convinced the minister of fisheries to do the honourable thing and to rescind the user fees and reimburse the fishermen. Perhaps if he were insistent on imposing these user fees, he would have sought the necessary legislative authority to do so at a later date. However, when I asked the question of the minister of

June 10, 1991
Adjournment Debate
fisheries a week ago today, his reaction was to slough off the report as just one lawyer's opinion.
For the minister to assume this stance shows not only a callous disregard for the law, but something which we would not have expected from a minister of his experience and his calibre. The minister of fisheries appears to hope that no one will take this matter any further. He seems to hope the government will get away with this blatant disregard for the law, even though the program has clearly been brought into question with regard to its illegality.
This is no way to deal with the enormous problems facing the fisheries. For the government to resort to illegality or to coverting the legal requirements to bring about its objective is all the more galling to fishermen who are forced to take food off their families' tables in order to pay for these ludicrous user fees. Fishermen are tired of the government ignoring this fact and claiming that the program is in the best interests of fishermen and everyone involved in the fisheries. They are not fooled, they are appalled. They are demanding that the government confront the issue of these illegal fees head on and not sit back smugly but re-evaluate its program, rescind those fees and reimburse the fishermen who had been asked to pay them without the proper legislative authority.


Ross Belsher: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The Dockside Monitoring Program was introduced as a pilot project in 1989 with the support of the industry to reduce the widespread misreporting and under-reporting of catches in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This program, which was expanded in 1990 and 1991 to cover all mobile groundfish vessels, as well as mid-shore crab vessels, shrimp vessels and large herring seiners, will continue. The legal opinions regarding the legality of collecting dockside monitoring fees referred to by the
member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso have been reviewed by the legal counsel to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans continues to hold the position, based on past legal advice, that he has the authority to implement the current system and to require fishermen to pay the costs of the monitoring program. The fishermen as well as producers on the Atlantic coast who benefit from the fish resources have indicated that they want a system which will maintain an orderly and an economically viable fishery. The Dockside Monitoring Program is a tool which is critical to the realization of this goal. It ensures that management's plans are implemented fairly and the high quality of data gathered under the program also aids in stock assessment, ensuring that the total allowable catches, the TACs, are set based on actual stock strength. Over time, this will help the stocks to recover.
Furthermore, with the introduction of individual quotas on groundfish, crab and shrimp fisheries in the gulf, it becomes critical to have a precise and timely monitoring system in place. The fishermen and processors who benefit from the resource must contribute to its management and rebuilding. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not have sufficient resources to pay for the program. This is not to say that the program cannot be improved. Consultations will be held this year with industry groups to discuss ways in which the efficiency of the program can be improved and cost minimized.
I wish to thank the hon. member for bringing this again to our attention.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock a.m. tomorrow pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tliesday, June 11,1991