May 31, 1993

PC

Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence; Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 488 and 499.

Topic:   HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
LIB

Mr. Proud

Liberal

With respect to the recent announcement of the re-establishment of a naval reserve base in Charlottetown (a) has Treasury Board given final approval to this project and, if so, what is the breakdown of funds and, if not, when is approval expected (b) how many trainees will there be and what type of training will they receive (c) how many instructors are needed (d) how many full-time jobs will be created (e) has an area of Charlottetown been designated and (i) if so, which areas were chosen, for what reasons was it chosen and what was the cost of the land (ii) if not, which areas are being considered (f) has a firm been awarded a contract and (i) if so, which one and by which process hired (ii) if not, when will bids be taken for the project and what are the provisions for obtaining details on the architecture, design and engineering requirements for the facilities?

Topic:   HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
PC

A. Kim Campbell (Minister of National Defence; Minister of Veterans Affairs)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):

1. (a) On 11 February 1993 Treasury Board provided the following approval for the Naval Reserve Division Charlottetown project at a total capital cost of 18.5 million budget year dollars.

May 31, 1993

Routine Proceedings

Expenditure authority of 4.7 million budget year dollars was granted to purchase training equipment and furniture; to carry out minor renovations to an interim facility; to perform project management activities; and to undertake the design and the development of firm cost estimates for the construction of the long-term facility.

Preliminary approval was given to construct a standard design Naval Reserve Division permanent facility. Final approval to construct the permanent facility is expected to be sought during the spring of 1995, after the preliminary design and environmental studies have been completed.

Approval in principle was provided to lease an interim facility and to purchase the property for the permanent site. Expenditure authority to lease the interim facility and to purchase the permanent site will be sought after the market apprasials and property negotiations have been completed and the offer to lease or sell has been signed by the owner of the site selected.

(b) The new Naval Reserve Division will recruit and train 100 primary naval reservists. New recruits will initially learn basic seamanship skills, ceremonial drill, and military general regulations and procedures.

Those who successfully complete recruit training will be assigned to a specific naval occupation. The occupational training will include seamanship, navigation, maritime engineering, communications, cooking, logistics, medical support and administration.

(c) Sixteen instructors (reservist) will be needed to carry out training within the Naval Reserve Division.

(d) Ten full-time military jobs will be created. No civilian jobs will be created.

(e) The interim facility will be located in the West Royalty Industrial Park. This is the only location in Charlottetown with existing facilities which are available for lease and which, with minor renovations, are suitable for the near-term accommodation requirements of the new unit. The near-term berthing requirements of the Naval Reserve will need to be met by leasing space at an existing marina.

The long-term needs of the Naval Reserve Division will be met by constructing a standard design facility on the downtown Charlottetown harbourfront.

This location will provide the Naval Reserve Division with high visibility, accessibility and a distincly nautical presence within the local community. This image is important to a Naval Reserve Division because it enhances recruitment and determines how well the unit will be accepted into the local community. In addition, a Naval Reserve Division needs ready access to its small boats and to navigable waters to carry out afloat training.

The Department of National Defence has asked the Charlottetown Area Development Corporation to identify a firm site option on the downtown Charlottetown harbourfront for the permanent Naval Reserve facility.

The cost of the property will not be known until negotiations have been completed.

(f) No.

(i) N/A.

(ii) The design of the permanent facility will commence after a firm site option has been identified and purchased.

Design activities are scheduled to begin in May 1994. The design work will primarily include the site adaptation of a standard design Naval Reserve Division facility which was previously developed by the Department of National Defence. To minimize time and cost, the site adaptation will be carried out by Public Works Canada (Atlantic) in accordance with a specific services agreement with the Department of National Defence.

Topic:   HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
NDP

Mr. Althouse

New Democratic Party

1. How much methyl bromide is used in Canada on an annual basis for each of the following uses: (a) commodity and quarantine fumigation (b) soil fumigation (c) residential fumigation;

2. What proposals to reduce the use of methyl bromide are being put forward by Canada in each of the next four years in the areas of: (a) commodity and quarantine fumigation (b) soil fumigation (c) residential fumigation; and

3. Are warning labels on produce grown with the use of methyl bromide being contemplated at consumer point of purchase?

Topic:   HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
PC

Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence; Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):

am informed by the Departments of the Environment and National Health and Welfare as follows:

May 31, 1993

1. A December 1992 study jointly commissioned by Agriculture Canada and Environment Canada estimated that some 200 tonnes of methyl bromide would be consumed in Canada in 1992. The report further indicated the following breakdown;

(a) 50 per cent-Space fumigation (i.e. ship holds, grain silos, et cetera); 5 per cent-Commodity fumigation (including quarantine);

(b) 45 per cent-Soil fumigation;

(c) 0 per cent-Structural fumigation (including residential.

2. (a) Over the next several months, Environment Canada will be consulting with affected users of methyl bromide in order to identify specific means to reduce use and emissions of methyl bromide in commodity and quarantine fumigation applications.

(b) Canada will freeze imports of methyl bromide at 1991 levels of importation beginning January 1, 1995 as required by the amended Montreal protocol under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Canada will also reduce imports by 25 per cent beginning January 1, 1998. Over the next several months, Environment Canada will be consulting with affected users of methyl bromide in order to identify specific means to reduce use and emissions of methyl bromide in soil fumigation applications.

(c) Methyl bromide is not used in residential applications in Canada.

3. No. Labels indicating that specific agricultural chemicals have been used in the production of food commodities are not required in Canada and there are no plans to introduce such a requirement for methyl bromide or for any other agricultural chemical in the immediate future. The safety of agricultural chemicals must be established through detailed testing before they can be used in or upon foods sold in Canada. Therefore, the use of warning labels on such foods would serve no useful purpose and could be misleading to consumers.

Topic:   HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
PC

Andrée Champagne (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Madam Deputy Speaker:

The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.

Topic:   HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
PC

Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence; Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Langlois:

I ask Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Topic:   HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
PC

Andrée Champagne (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Madam Deputy Speaker:

Shall the remaining questions stand?

Supply

Topic:   HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
?

Some hon. members:

Agreed.

Topic:   HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink

GOVERNMENT ORDERS



ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81-YOUTH EMPLOYMENT


The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bevilacqua.


PC

Charles Deblois (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Progressive Conservative

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):

I will appreciate the hon. member for South Shore indicating to the Chair whether he will split his time with another member of his party.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81-YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Permalink
PC

Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman I was splitting with is not available this afternoon so I will be using the full 20 minutes. I know that will bring great joy to my hon. friends opposite. I notice they always listen with such attentiveness when I speak in this place.

I would like to pick up where I left off. In beginning this discussion I had mentioned in my remarks earlier the role played by public servants in the Department of Employment and Immigration and the tremendous job they do in assisting people with employment.

I then went on to mention, and I recall there were a number of members opposite making a great deal of noise concerning themselves with this, the question of how much money was being spent. I recall the hon. member from St. Boniface in particular.

I had made available a number of statistics pointing out the sums of money the government has devoted. Interestingly enough when I made the point it seems this was at the point at which the time ran out. I was making the point that this government's philosophy is very clearly different from that of its predecessor.

It is our view that it is not the direct function and role of the Government of Canada to employ directly as many Canadians as possible regardless of the cost to the taxpayer which that process involves.

We see it rather as the role and function of government to create the environment within which the private

May 31, 1993

Supply

sector can be the engine of the economy and the basis for employment opportunities and growth.

This fundamental principle demarcates for those who may wonder what the difference is between the party in government in this country and the parties on the other side. Clearly the New Democratic Party tends to be more clear about what it stands for.

I have noticed over the last few months, particularly as we approach an election, that the Liberal Party offers many policies and alternatives. Some of them are conflicting one with the other. However, it seems to me it is all designed to attempt to offer to every Canadian whatever his or her heart may desire and not to concern itself whatsoever with the cost to the Canadian taxpayer for implementing whatever that program may happen to be.

For example, there is the one referenced in the motion before the House right now. I noticed that earlier today the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration asked a very specific, unequivocal and direct question of the member for North York. He was asked what exactly were the costs of implementing the program that he proposed. I noticed in his answer that he tended to waffle around, equivocate and never gave a specific answer as to what the cost in real dollars would be to implement this program.

I think it is important in looking at this whole issue to understand the philosophical differences that exist from one side of this House to another. In terms of the long-term goals obviously we all have the same goals. We want the best for all Canadians. We want employment opportunities not only for young people but for all Canadians who seek them. As long as there is one Canadian unemployed, that is one too many.

What is at issue on different sides of this House is the means by which we respond to that difficulty. As I have said before it is our view over here that it is not the function of government to simply employ people and put them on the payroll. Rather it is the function and role of government to create the environment in which economic development can occur and flourish.

For example, we see that it is the role of government to use its resources with respect to infrastructure development for transportation and to set in place a tax regime that allows the competitiveness of business to

improve. Not only can we compete effectively in our domestic market but we can compete in our export market.

It is interesting to note that this government has brought in some very historic changes to the tax structure of this country, all of which have been opposed by my hon. friends opposite who seem not be interested in improving the competitiveness of Canadian business.

The much maligned goods and services tax was presented to Canadians through obfuscation and hysterical talk as a whole new tax. There was neglect in mentioning that it replaced a hidden tax that in the last year it was in place taxed Canadians $1.5 billion more than the GST did in the first year it was in place. These are the differences between that side and this side. It is the same with respect to the approach to trade.

.(1515)

Canada is an exporting nation. Our domestic market is not large enough to sustain the standard of living Canadians want. A quarter of the jobs in Canada result directly from our exports. Therefore we need export opportunities and to be competitive in order to export. This is the best means by which the government in the long term can provide employment opportunities for Canadians regardless of what their ages may be but particularly with respect to our young people. As we look ahead to the 21st century they will live in a society in which job opportunities in the productive sector will be directly dependent upon productivity and competitiveness. One of the things opening up the trade barriers has done is force Canadian companies to become competitive.

Those who would suggest that this is the wrong approach and that we should not do it need only look at the experience we had with cross-border shopping. Canadians will not even shop in Canada to buy goods that are uncompetitive in the pricing structure. They are looking for the best buy. If they have to go to Buffalo, Bangor or Seattle to get the best buy they are prepared to do it.

It is better that we reshape the Canadian economy in such a way that Canadian companies can compete not only abroad through exports but right in our own country. That is the thrust of the policies of this government.

May 31, 1993

What does that do in the short term? I realize what I am talking about here are the long-term, fundamental economic principles by which the Canadian economy can grow and prosper and by which Canadians now and in the future will have excellent solid employment in good high-skilled, high-wage jobs. That is where we are going. What do we do in the short term? Obviously in the short term there is a role for government to participate.

We have the SEED grants which assist our students. We would love to have three times as many. I would have no trouble at all this coming summer using a budget in my own constituency in the South Shore if the Department of Employment and Immigration had a budget three to four times the SEED grants. We would be able to find young people anxious and ready to take advantage of it. My hon. friends opposite would immediately say: Just triple the budget, no problem, quadruple the budget or quintuple the budget.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81-YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Permalink
?

An hon. member:

Tax and spend.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81-YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Permalink
PC

Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McCreath:

Exactly. Tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend.

Where does the money come from? My friends opposite have opposed every cost saving measure this government has come in with. I have not yet heard any recommendations from the Liberal Party as to which taxes should be increased or what new taxes it will bring in if it ever gets the opportunity.

This is the joy and the luxury of being in the opposition. It can be in favour of everything. It can spend money on all manner of programs and it is never called to account. I should tell my hon. friends I do not think they will be called to account on this one either. When the election comes this fall Canadian people are not going to be seduced by nonsense that says we should give everybody what they want. They are not going to be fooled by that.

In the short term we have to help people. We have unemployment insurance to help people who find themselves unexpectedly unemployed. We could have unemployment insurance that pays people to stay home, or we could have unemployment insurance that recognizes that rather than have people sitting at home and drawing unemployment insurance they could use the time trying to improve their own educational standards and developing some skills that they might be able to use in seeking alternate employment. That is the approach the govern-

Supply

ment has taken in that respect. It was that approach in Bill C-21 which was opposed by my hon. friends opposite. They wanted people simply to stay home and draw unemployment insurance. From time to time we need job development programs when there are severe difficulties.

Right now as we speak all members will know we have a very severe crisis in Atlantic Canada with our fishing industry. Last year when the real crunch hit in Newfoundland NCARP was brought in to provide funding to sustain people during this particularly difficult time.

In the rest of Atlantic Canada we have a similar situation right now. Last July quota cuts were announced of 30 per cent in the groundfish stocks in the Scotia-Fundy region and then in November the scientists came in and said that they had the numbers wrong and they told the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans at that time that he would have to make 70 per cent quota cuts.

At the urging of many members of the House, from both sides I might say, the government started working on a response program that would assist people. About a month and a half ago it did announce a program, and it is a very good beginning.

I have to say to my hon. friends on both sides of the House and to the government that this program is only a start. There are many hundreds of people in the maritime provinces who will not be eligible for the program, which as it exists now is designed to identify those people who will not be able to qualify for unemployment insurance because they will not be able to get enough weeks of work in. It is targeted at providing those people with the extra time they need so they can qualify for unemployment insurance. However there are some difficulties with the program in that it will only apply to a certain number of people in Atlantic Canada and that the terms of reference for eligibility are rather narrow. I think improvements need to be made.

At the same time, in the fishing industry, in particular in Atlantic Canada, we are going to have to recognize that as we go through a transitional period while it is important to provide bridging support to individuals and families as they face what for them will perhaps be the most serious crisis of their lives we are also going to have to do some restructuring in the fishery. That restructuring can be done on the basis of telling certain groups they

May 31, 1993

Supply

are no longer welcome to participate in the fishery but that is, frankly, an unacceptable approach.

We cannot simply holus-bolus say there is no longer a place for part-time fishermen. We cannot say to the fishermen who have concentrated on mackerel, herring, pelagic fishing and lobster but have not done groundfishing for the last couple of years that, whoosh with the stroke of the pen, they are out of the fishery. This is not acceptable.

The people who are going to leave the fishery should be the people who choose to leave the fishery and on no other basis. We should not take away people's fishing licences without some form of compensation. That in my judgment constituents expropriation without compensation, a practice that I for one would consider to be unacceptable.

I think we have to dig a little further into the resources of the government. Even though we are faced with a difficult financial situation people must come first in this circumstance. We have to set up an early retirement incentive program for fishermen and we have to provide some sort of licence buy-back scheme, financed in part if necessary by the industry, that will provide an opportunity for those people who wish to leave the industry to do so in order to achieve the downsizing. This must be done in a fair, just and humane way as opposed to simply coming in, identifying groups and saying they no longer have a right to be there.

I would argue there is a role for government in dealing with short-term crisis situations. There is a role for government to participate and provide assistance to people. The government has demonstrated that it recognizes that responsibility, both with respect to these fisheries aid packages and the principle introduced by this government with respect to unemployment insurance.

The object of these programs is not only to provide transitional funding to individuals but to see that they make the most of that time in terms of preparing themselves for alternative employment opportunities or in the case of the fishery simply to upgrade their own skills so that when they do return to the fishing industry they do so with a higher level of qualification than they had before.

The third point I want to make, which I think is very germane to any discussion of unemployment, training, youth and so on, concerns the problem we have today with respect to the constitutional dichotomy between federal and provincial areas of jurisdiction. We seem to have increasing demand for the federal government to intrude into the field of education, only when it is the federal government we do not call it education but call it training or skill development or use various euphemisms so we do not have to use the word education.

The bottom line is that we see increasing demand for the federal government to get involved in education. If this is what the needs of the Canadian economy are, and of Canadian society, then so be it. In principle I do not have a problem with that. However I do ask myself, as one who spent 17 years in the field of education, what are our secondary and tertiary education systems doing?

What is this great infrastructure in schools, universities and colleges that spend 12 hours a day closed and locked? Where are all these resources if at the same time we are finding increasing demand for the federal government be it through the Department of Employment and Immigration or anywhere else in the process of funding alternate systems of education and little private schools?

I know there are some excellent training programs in my own constituency that are being funded through CEIC programs. These programs are very effective. They are helping individuals and so on. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that but why are we setting up through federal funding almost an alternate educational system as opposed to having the federal government and the provinces come together? I know the federal government would be delighted to work with the provinces to make these things happen.

It seems to me we are missing the mark when we have this tremendous outlay of money in the public school system. By public school I mean those that are state sponsored and not elementary. I think in Ontario public schools are called elementary schools. We have this tremendous infrastructure of schools and a tremendous system for education yet there remains outside of that multibillion dollar system demands for more and more

May 31, 1993

education to be provided through the federal government.

Clearly there is some sort of problem there. I guess we have to have more discussion about jurisdictions and who would provide what. Possibly my friend from St. Boniface, who I know is an expert in this field, might speak on this subject before the debate has concluded today.

It seems the function of the provinces is to educate the young people and increasingly we are looking to the federal government to provide educational opportunities for adults. If that is where we are supposed to go in Canada then that is fine. However my recollection as an educator is that there is absolutely no reason why the schools cannot be made available to all citizens. It is a matter of offering programs that meet the demands and needs of the potential students and providing the courses when the students can take them. There is a need for much greater flexibility in how we use those resources.

In concluding, it is an important subject that is before us today. There are different approaches to how it could be done. There is no limit to the amount of money that can be spent beneficially but let us not forget that this government has put well over $3 billion on the line this year in responding to these kinds of problems.

In the final analysis the solution to unemployment, as seems to be implied by some of my friends opposite, does not lie simply in having the Government of Canada put people on the payroll through one program or another. Ultimately the solution to the unemployment problem in Canada is to structure the Canadian economy, as this government has done, so there is economic growth and development and so we foster exports in trade which are the basis for job creation in Canada.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81-YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Permalink
?

Hon. Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for South Shore for coming full circle in his comments. He started by criticizing those who see a role for government in the reduction of unemployment. He gradually admitted there is a role for government in the long term and then that there is even a role for the government in the short term. That is quite a conversion on the road to Damascus.

The member for South Shore was quite clever for bringing in the fisheries and the drama that has fallen on

Supply

the communities where he comes from for which I have an enormous amount of sympathy.

I would like to ask the member how he can possibly say that the Liberal Party and our critic from York North have no specific recommendations to make. Has he perhaps missed the initial speech today by the member for York North? During that speech our critic specified step by step a very comprehensive plan which may not be approved by the hon. member for South Shore. Our critic on behalf of the Official Opposition put forward a specific, very precise plan amounting to a substantial amount. Nevertheless it is well thought out. The member for South Shore cannot accuse the critic and the Liberal Party that it is very easy to speak for the opposition when one is in the opposition and that he "has not heard any recommendations from the Liberal Party of Canada".

How can he make such a statement?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81-YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Permalink
PC

Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McCreath:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's concern for the problems we have in the fishery in Atlantic Canada, which I know is genuine. The lack of specificity that I was looking for in the proposal of the hon. member for York North had to do with the lack of costing.

The member rose in this House and said the government should establish a national youth service program or a national apprenticeship program. It is great that my hon. friend for York North set forth his ideas and so on.

The question I said was not answered was asked in a very specific way by the Minister of State for Finance. What is the cost of such a program and where does the hon. member propose those funds should come from? Should they be added to the deficit? Should there be some sort of tax regime or is he proposing that something else should be cut from the budget and the funds obtained there?

That was the specificity I was looking for. It is clear the hon. member for York North did not know the answers to those questions. Possibly my hon. friend conceptualized the program without regard to the cost implications of it. Possibly my hon. friend from Davenport can tell us exactly what the cost of that program would be and

May 31, 1993

Supply

where the Liberal Party proposes to generate those funds.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81-YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Permalink
LIB

Ron J. Duhamel

Liberal

Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):

Mr. Speaker, the first response as to where one would get the money is that it would be found within the $5.8 billion that is going to be spent on helicopters. A lot could be found by reducing the travel that is not always necessary such as the Prime Minister's last trip. However I will try to deal with the substance here and not be drawn into that kind of debate.

I want to correct an impression that my colleague somewhat mischievously played up suggesting we want everyone on payroll. Of course that is nonsense and my colleague knows that. He should not be making that kind of statement. He is much too fine a parliamentarian to stoop to that kind of thing.

What we are really asking today is whether the government's policies are wrong when one looks at the situation that 1.6 million Canadians are unemployed. Some people say it is closer to 3 million because some people have given up hope and are no longer looking for work. Some people have been forced into retirement because there is nothing else.

Within that 1.6 million who are officially unemployed,

421.000 are young men and women. That is a growing statistic. Even with 1.6 million people unemployed,

300.000 jobs are going unfilled according to recent statistics. Are government policies not wrong when there are almost 5 million people in Canada today either at or below the level of poverty? Most of them are women and over 1 million are young people.

We ask the same basic substantive question about government policies when 2.7 million Canadian people are receiving social assistance and 2.2 million people will be fed by food banks. We are not questioning whether or not the government has tried or whether or not the government has spent money. Of course it has.

The question we are raising is whether it is time for the government to admit that the policies it has put forward are failures when I cite statistics such as the ones I just shared. That is the basic fundamental question of importance to me, my colleagues and Canadians generally.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81-YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Permalink

May 31, 1993