May 31, 1993

PC

Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, the opposition claims that this government has not taken the necessary action to solve the problem of unemployment, especially among young Canadians, and that it has not put forward the education, training and retraining programs required by the present situation.

The opposition also demands that we develop national programs to correct the situation. Let me go back a little to the speech given by my opposition colleague who tabled the motion. I find it a very interesting speech, especially the part where he brings out the difference between apprenticeship programs in Canada and in Germany.

I agree with my hon. colleague that a great many young people in the streets of Toronto who are victims of the present economic situation are asking, as people always ask here in Canada: "What is the government doing for me?" We can find people like that in the streets of Toronto, Montreal or Quebec City or in Valleyfield or Beauharnois in my riding.

Supply

We see a fundamental difference in apprenticeship programs between America and Europe. In Europe, apprenticeship is part of a long tradition, but here we have a lot of trouble establishing such programs and I know something about it. I am from the education sector and before that I was director general of a school board where we wanted to set up such a system. The greatest difficulty was not necessarily with young people but mainly with business. Business seemed quite prepared to tell us: "Train them for us and we will hire them afterwards". But when businesses took the young people they said: "They are not trained to our liking". We were always trying to set up apprenticeship programs, but they do not fit in with the mentality of business, first of all, and of education and government in North America.

I think that this difference of mentality between Europe and America is very obvious when it comes to apprenticeship. I praise the desire of my hon. colleague and of the Liberal Party to set up such a system, but I know that the biggest problem he will meet and that we will also meet on this side of the House, because this idea is progressing on our side too, will be the negative reaction to it from business.

They want trained young people, but when they get them they are not trained well enough to their liking. I think that we have a great deal of work to do. I admire the courage of proposing such a measure and think that it is appropriate. The other point that must be made- because there is always the issue of overlapping federal-provincial jurisdiction and we will always run up against it-is that we will have difficulty co-ordinating it and making young people aware of the program.

Look at what is happening now with high schools. When I left teaching in 1972 almost no one dropped out of school. Why are there more dropouts today? It is not the federal and provincial governments' fault if so many people drop out of school these days. The education system is at fault for not appealing to young people's interests. The school system is not interesting for young people because it is no longer dynamic. One way to make it more dynamic will be to provide apprenticeship training. The federal government could set up the best possible apprenticeship policy but if it is not co-ordinated with the provincial governments and the local authorities, namely the school boards, and developed

further with them then let me say that I am sceptical. I have great confidence in the apprenticeship system but little confidence in that procedure.

There is no doubt that no other government has done more for the recovery of Canadian workers and the labour market. In that regard, people unfortunately still try to make comparisons in terms of figures. How much is being invested in labour force development in such an area or such a riding? I find that unfortunate because even if we have statistics, as we see just for my riding of Beauhamois-Salaberry, showing convincing increases, the results do not match the amounts that we have always invested in it.

In 1988-89, in the riding of Beauhamois-Salaberry, for the various programs, job development, Challenge '88, as it then was, job entry, labour shortage, sections 24, 25 and 26, $7,396,541 was spent for all programs. That is a lot of money. The following year, $7,739,000 was spent, or about $250,000 more. In 1990-91 it was $9,457,000 and in 1991-92 it was $10,891,000. Do not try to tell us that the argument about money stands up. Funding increased from $7,396,000 to $10,891,000.

The problem is that education and labour force training are not only a question of money. We can stubbornly hold to our positions on both sides of the House. We can say we did more and our colleagues opposite will say that we did less. Those figures are from Statistics Canada and are clear. How come I have more problems in Beauhar-nois-Salaberry today than in 1984? I will explain why. We could have doubled and tripled the amounts spent, but there would still be problems. One of the main problems was the shutdown of Dominion Textile in Valleyfield. The employees have a recovery plan to reopen it. Spending money on education will not reopen it. Why did Dominion Textile in Valleyfield close?

At one point, I received workers from Dominion Textile who, like the young people in the streets of Toronto, said that it was up to the government. If Dominion Textile in Valleyfield closes, it is the government's fault. I said: "When you but a shirt in the store, do you look behind the collar? Would you undress for me and look at the collar of your shirt to see where it was made?" He replied: "It was not made in Canada. It would cost too much". Let me say something. When we do not buy Canadian because it costs too much, we are taking a job away from ourselves, our wives, mothers-in-

May 31, 1993

law, fathers-in-law or sons. That is the problem with Dominion Textile.

Mr. Speaker, you should have seen the discussion I had last year with representatives from Goodyear in Valleyfield. I told one of them: "Listen, you come and demonstrate in front of my office as a Goodyear employee, but you do not even have Goodyear tires on your car". He said: "Four Goodyear tires are not going to make a difference in the attitude and economics of the company". To which I replied: "I agree, but the image you project is awfully important. That is my car parked over there; I have four Goodyear tires on it. I traded my car in recently, but it is still equipped with Goodyear tires. Why? Because I have the honour of having a Goodyear plant in my riding. So, as the representative of that riding, I must have that brand of tires on my car. I would think that if you work for Goodyear, you would at least use your own product and insist that your family at least use that product".

Essentially, the financing of employment programs may have gone up from $7,396,000 to $10,891,000 in my riding, but I also have to develop this attitude that I have to take my own responsibilities. It is up to consumers to take their responsibilities instead of blaming the government all the time. Employment programs do not show that government resources are increasingly limited. What happens in the end? Things are getting worse and worse.

A finance ministers' conference has been going on in Ottawa since yesterday. They want to agree on deficit reduction. When the deficit is reduced, let us face it, I too as a member of the House of Commons will be affected in terms of my salary and benefits. Every one in this country will be affected because that deficit has to be paid. We are going to have to face that situation realistically.

Results from manpower training are never in proportion to the money invested, but rather to the attitude we will instill in this country that all Canadians must take their responsibilities and say: "I am responsible for my share of the pride in this country and for the training

Supply

which will allow this country to grow, or else it will just sink."

Here are some statistics on employment. In 1992-93, the department planned to invest $3.55 billion to help train and employ over 900,000 workers. That is a lot of money, $3.55 billion. While they say we are giving less, that is still quite a bit of money. Assistance is provided in areas such as job creation, training, intensive special counselling, work sharing, worker mobility and self-employment.

The total amount spent by Employment and Immigration Canada on training and employment assistance will be $3.8 billion. This money will help over a million Canadians. This year more than 300,000 workers will receive job training by taking courses commissioned by the department or enroling in other courses on their own as fee-payer trainees.

Fifteen million dollars will be made available to workers who have to relocate. We want to have the organizational flexibility and the flexibility of having manpower in the various regions. For the first time, we have set aside $300 million to meet the needs of laid-off workers. The figures speak for themselves and I could go on. I would like to come back to what I was saying earlier. Training is not just a matter of figures but also of mentality. An hon. member said that we invest more in helicopters than in training. This is false. Let me ask a question. Who builds these helicopters? The federal government? No. These helicopters are built by workers.

I remember that during the election campaign of 1988 the nuclear submarine program, which was later dropped, was an issue. Who builds these nuclear submarines? They are built by workers. Members in this House are upset, and rightly so, when they see that GM, Chrysler or Ford in the automobile industry are closing various plants in spite of the fact that some years ago, when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, GM in Oshawa was awarded the contract for building light trucks. Who makes these trucks? The federal government? As a matter of principle, people are scornful about military expenditures. Why? Because it makes a good election platform to be opposed to such expenditures.

May 31, 1993

Supply

Are the frigates built by the federal government? No, they are built by workers in Nova Scotia and at Davie Shipbuilding in Lauzon, and others across the country who fulfill subcontracts dealing with guidage. One only has to look, but of course one does not look at that.

What are the spin-offs, by province, of the purchase or the construction of the helicopters being built right now under the Canadian program? Why do people not look at that? These helicopters are being built by workers. They are being made by cousins, uncles, aunts of all of us here in this House, by people in our ridings.

As a government, we cannot think that we create jobs strictly by taking money and throwing it on the floor. I must buy a product. Build me desks, microphones, lights which work and glasses. Make me suitcases and wallets. Do something for me. I must buy a product with that money.

When I buy a product, the discussion is necessarily on that product. Some say: "Well, this is not necessarily the product which I would have bought". I can see my colleague across the floor. It is true. One may disagree with the type of product which the government can buy but one thing is sure: when one buys something as a government, one becomes an economic agent and one puts Canadians to work. This is what happened with the F-18 program. I have more examples concerning Quebec. This is what happened with Canadair. It is also what happened in various other sectors and this made our purchasing program an indispensable tool and an important lever for the economy, because it put people to work.

Let us leave that vicious circle which consists in comparing strictly with money. I am not trying to defend my position because if I only had to talk about money I would say: "The evidence is there". In fact the evidence is not there, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to adjust to the realities which the economy is constantly imposing upon us now.

I believe we will have to work at changing mentalities in this country. One might tell me this is easy to say. It may be easy to say, but it is not so easy to do. I want to go back to the very interesting comments made earlier by my colleague in his speech concerning apprenticeship, and to what I said at the beginning. Why is there not an apprenticeship system here in Canada? It is not necessarily because we do not invest the required money.

Earlier, the minister of State showed that we invest more money in apprenticeship programs than before. It is because we do not, in this country, easily adhere to that idea. This concept is not part of our culture and traditions, and I think it is very unfortunate. The best training system is not school per se. It is school combined with an apprenticeship system to ensure that young Canadians' training is compatible with the realities of the workplace.

Can we honestly ask ourselves the question? We will have to work harder in the different departments, and especially with the provinces, because I know what is going to happen. As a stakeholder in the field of education and as one who comes from a province which is experiencing problems in integrating its training programs with the federal programs, which is in fact the case for all the provinces, I know that every time we will be confronted with this problem we will say: "This is my jurisdiction, stay away from this issue".

I know that my time is up, but I would like to summarize by saying that the training and job creation equation is not in direct proportion to the money invested, even though we have invested more in 1991 than in 1984-85 when we came to power. We must change programs, like we did in 1984-85, and gear them to careers but, more important, we must change this mentality of blaming the government for all those problems. It is not necessarily the government's fault. It also depends on consumers who must make logical choices to ensure that we will put Canadians to work before giving jobs to others elsewhere.

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

Ronald MacDonald

Liberal

Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that I enjoyed the comments of my hon. friend opposite.

His remarks, by and large, were quite correct in that the challenges we face in a very complex world with very many factors impacting on the ability of governments to do anything are great.

He started his remarks by indicating that he comes from a professional background in education. I think that people who are educators certainly see the shortfalls in the system and must be terribly frustrated when repeated efforts to try to improve the system, to ensure that education is affordable by all, and the programs are

May 31, 1993

in response to the reality of the current labour market when those things simply do not happen.

The member must also recognize that when we deal with training in a Canadian context we have some difficulty with jurisdiction. Education is a provincial responsibility, there is no question about that.

The federal government is the senior government and it, more than any other government or collection of governments, has a responsibility to lead. Competitiveness is the responsibility of the federal government. The development of international markets is the responsibility of the federal government. The development of the labour market is a joint responsibility in which the federal government must play the leading role.

We cannot have a Canada where we have 10 or 12 different ministers deciding what is a national program or priority when it comes to skill development or labour market development. The federal government must lead. I recognize clearly that sometimes that is fraught with difficulty because of jurisdiction.

The member talks about the need for things like apprenticeship training, but in order for governments to lead they must have some credibility. A government without credibility cannot lead anybody anywhere. It cannot even lead its own members.

We are dealing with a government that has had nine years-and he is a member of this government-to change things, to convince provincial governments that we have to change our ways, to come in with a workable, doable, fundable national apprenticeship program.

Unemployment has risen in the last three or four years. We have had record levels of bankruptcy during the recession. Right now we are still stuck in what the government likes to call a jobless recovery. It is jobless because consumers have lost confidence. He touched on that.

If consumers do not spend and do not have confidence that they are going to have a job next month or next year they will not go in and buy a new refrigerator. If they do not buy the refrigerator, whoever would transport that refrigerator from upper Canada to my riding in Dartmouth to the Micmac Mall makes one less shipment. One fewer person drives a truck to Dartmouth. There

Supply

are two fewer packers at the other end and there are five fewer people working on the line.

If we are talking about jobs and development we must have a government that has credibility when it speaks about economic matters. We must have a government that has a plan and a strategy for growth that encourages people to come along with them, and that is when we get job creation.

Could he please tell me if he still believes that the government opposite, which has presided over a period of record bankruptcies, record despair and near record unemployment, has the confidence of the Canadian public to pull us out of the recession we are in?

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

Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hudon:

Mr. Speaker, this is a very hypothetical question that could elicit politically partisan answers from either side of the House. In any case, I am not so naive as to think that this government has not had its share of problems. The point is whether Canadians will maintain this perception to the very last. That is another problem.

I was elected to this House in 1984.1 remember that in 1986-87 we were very low in the polls in terms of popularity and credibility.

Perhaps the hon. member would care to explain how we managed to get five more members elected in Quebec than we had in the 1984 election. This morning credibility, and Canadians who are listening to my reply and who heard his question must be holding their sides is hardly the issue. It will mean something when there is an election, and then people will think differently. I agree that a government needs credibility, but I am sure that as far as the economy is concerned this government certainly has more credibility than the previous Liberal administration when it was in power, when it was piling deficit on top of deficit. The member is going to say that we have a deficit. That is true. But just try and find one penny that was added to the deficit through our programs since 1985. What is increasing the deficit is the damned interest payments we have to make on the deficit. We did not add a penny more.

May 31, 1993

Supply

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

Iain Francis Angus (Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):

Mr. Speaker, the question I have for the member asks about the part of the opposition motion dealing with unemployment and the continued inability of the government to address the tragedy of unemployment, especially among the young and particularly with regard to training and education.

In a confidential internal memo from the assistant deputy minister of aviation within Transport Canada that was partially quoted in The Toronto Star today, there is a section that says it will save $230,000 by cutting all student jobs except selected jobs on co-op programs.

I want to ask the member for the government if he supports the decision of the bureaucrats of Transport Canada to remove $230,000 from wages for students. We know it is very difficult for a student to get a job, to earn enough to go back to university or to college. Does he support the decision by Transport Canada to cut these jobs this summer?

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

Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hudon:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to see those Instructions, but if what the hon. member says is true, it reminds me of what I said earlier. We do not create jobs in this country for the sake of creating jobs but to put people to work. When businesses cut jobs, they do not realize, any more than governments do or even the average citizen, in many cases, that in this country jobs are primarily generated by the private sector not by the federal government. It is terribly easy to say we will cut all summer jobs for students. People tend to forget that these jobs are a guarantee for the future of our country, because these people are still in university.

I want to check the facts, but it is tempting, and it is easy. For instance, if they cut our budgets in the House of Commons, what do we do? First, we cut all part-time jobs and the surplus employees who are hired to help out here and there. That is what the department is doing, if the hon. member's information is correct. That is what the department is doing right now.

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

Howard Douglas McCurdy

New Democratic Party

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to have an opportunity to address this issue as a result of the motion the Liberals have introduced to the House today which reads:

That this House regrets the continued inability of the government

to address the tragedy of unemployment -

-and so on.

Quite frankly regrets is a very mild word to use in the context of so much tragedy in this country resulting from unemployment and poverty, as noted by the UN report over the weekend. This country finds itself in not a regrettable situation but a tragic situation. It is a situation that visits itself upon youth more tragically than others.

Not too long ago, in 1985, the United Nations sponsored International Youth Year. It did so on the premise, as I have said before in this Chamber, that if something was not done about the then mounting rate of unemployment among youth, there was a serious danger of widespread civil disobedience and civil strife occasioned by masses of alienated and increasingly powerless youth. It was the design of the United Nations during that year that the various governments around the world would take appropriate initiatives and examine the problem of youth unemployment and what could be done about it.

As one of the members on the government side indicated, in Canada at about that time the youth unemployment rate was a little over 18 per cent. I find it interesting that the government is criticizing the Liberals over the fact that their unemployment rates were so much higher than the unemployment rates among youth occasioned by this government when in fact the unemployment rate among youth is again mounting toward 18 per cent, being presently at 17.6 per cent.

What we are talking about today as it concerns youth is really the failure of the efforts that year to gain from this government and perhaps other governments appropriate initiatives focused on the particular problems of youth. After all, those youth who do not get jobs now while they are still under 25, indeed under 30, may be those who in the future will never get jobs. That is the critical issue.

May 31, 1993

Mr. Speaker, you have probably read about the discussion about generation x, which may be an overblown concept. However it is perfectly clear that a great many of those young people who in 1984, 1985 and 1986 were seen to be the future and are alienated, powerless and rebellious people because they did not have jobs are the people that even now are a problem in terms of their ability to be profitably employed in decently paying jobs because they were robbed of their opportunity back in those days. Again we face the prospect that the 17.6 per cent of young people who are unemployed today may in the future still remain unemployable, and that would be a tragedy for us all.

We cannot afford the present situation in which 60 per cent of the increase in unemployment over the last couple of years has been based on youth while at the same time we are aware that there will be a diminishing complement of youth in the future to support an aging population. Therefore it is not something that just concerns youth alone. It concerns the way in which we will be able to maintain our standard of living and ensure that those who are retired and aged will be able to enjoy a proper retirement.

I talk about International Youth Year because it was the year in which the New Democratic Party had a youth task force that went across this country looking at the problems that existed among young people in Canada. We came up with a number of recommendations. I notice that a great deal of reference has been made to a task force report from the Liberal Party.

One of the things that has come out in the exchange that took place just a little while ago in the parliamentary committee on employment and immigration was that we heard a great deal from this government about what it has done for young people. The minister spoke about the slay-in-school initiative, which is a good program, that essentially consists of public relations, to encourage young people to stay in school.

We talked about the summer employment program for youth and its related programs. That is good. We are talking about a total of about $205 million. As this government will hasten to say, most of the money that is being provided to young people comes out of programs that are not specifically targeted for youth such as the Canadian Jobs Strategy.

One of the things that must be said in connection with evaluating what the government has done and in criticiz-

Supply

ing, if that is appropriate, what the government has not done is one sentence among a number of sentences prepared, curiously enough, by the Library researchers supporting that committee. They went about trying to find out what this government was doing for young people. This sentence is: "Details regarding the effectiveness of youth-related initiatives delivered in the previous fiscal year are absent".

Back in 1985 the Prime Minister, the then minister of youth, and the Minister of Employment and Immigration all promised that they would develop a coherent and specific program to address the problems of young people. We are left with something in the order of a $200 million budget in the hands of the minister of youth. The minister of youth is supposed to be an advocate for young people. At the very least the minister of youth should have a handle on that number of young people who are served by programs that deliver to the needs of young people.

Year after year we have asked for the data, the specific figures on how many young people are being served under programs of employment and immigration or anywhere else so that we would have some handle on what this government is doing. That way we could judge its adequacy or inadequacy in reasonable terms.

The minister of youth not only has made no effort to find out what those numbers are but he has done nothing to improve the program to any degree at all. How can the minister of youth serve as an advocate if he does not know what is being done?

We have a problem. It is that in the whole vast area in which the government claims it is doing so much for youth we cannot get any specific figures. However we do know that the Canadian Jobs Strategy was cut by $200 million. If we can assume that 40 per cent of that program is directed toward youth then clearly youth have not been well served as their unemployment rate rises to nearly 18 per cent. In the meantime the amount of money being contributed to training and other programs for youth is being cut.

This is a tragic time for young people. We know that the costs of unemployment are high. They are high not only when unemployment exists among youth but when it exists among their parents. When poverty becomes too extensive and too deep for too many then we have automatically shut out many young people from any prospect of success in the future.

May 31, 1993

Supply

The crime rate among young people has risen 404 per cent in the last five years. That is one gauge of the tragedy that we can see in the number of youth on the streets of our cities. We see it not only in crime but in mounting manifestations of youth frustration such as occurred on this very Parliament Hill.

As in Germany, unemployment among youth leads to scapegoating and conflict within the nation. I warned this government four years ago that we would find that kind of conflict within our society.

Are we ever going to be served properly? Are we ever going to come to grips with the fact that there are priorities that must be established? Obviously the most fundamental of all priorities must be to ensure that our young people will not be lost to us forever.

I notice that the Liberal motion calls for the initiation of a national apprenticeship program and a national youth service as major steps toward solving the problem of unemployment among youth. We had some idea to what extent that program has been worked out by the Liberals after the question was posed: How was the national apprenticeship program supposed to be implemented, will it involve co-operation with the provinces and in what fields will it be targeted?

We got a vague answer that said that apprenticeships should range among a whole host of new skills beyond plumbing, carpentry and that sort of thing. That may be true but we would expect that if they were going to make a proposal there should be some detail associated with it.

The Liberal recommendations include not only a national apprenticeship program but the adoption of a tax-based system to encourage work place training. In our task force report back in 1985 we also called for a national apprenticeship program in co-operation with industry, with the provinces and with labour.

It is true that we only have one-sixth the number of apprentices in this country as they do in Germany. It also must be clear that there is a very different educational system in Germany and the notion that we should simply borrow from Germany is something that we rejected in our report five years ago.

There needs to be a Canadian solution. That Canadian solution should certainly be tax-based, and indeed a grant levy system. We were specific, not vague. There should be a grant levy system in support of work place training. We say that a more elaborate development of initiatives already taken by the federal government subvented by a funding source would be extremely useful.

A national youth service is a major step. I looked at the Liberal agenda for youth and at the 10 recommendations and surprise surprise, there is nothing about a national youth service. That is one of more curious things about this.

What I find is the Liberals saying: "The federal government should establish a Canadian environmental youth force in which young people could participate in environmental rehabilitation and education projects around and across Canada". I and my party have no objection to an element of national youth service that would include the environment. However that sounds an awful lot like those old job creation programs the Liberals had before they lost their last government in which youth were seen cutting grass and picking up stuff from ditches rather than getting a decent background and work experience of the kind that would be necessary in the future. I hope that is not what they are talking about.

Let me say this, the mention in this motion of a national youth service is another straight steal from the full employment program of the New Democratic Party in which a national youth service is proposed which would provide a wide spectrum of job experience for young people. It would include not only summer work experience but also something else we recommended back in 1985. That is an expansion in co-operation between the educational institutions and the provinces of work experience in co-operative initiatives at the high school level.

In addition to such proposals as a national youth service, back when we had our youth task force we suggested a number of significant things. I mentioned the federal stay-in-school program earlier. It is not a bad program. It is decent in its public relations, through

May 31, 1993

television and radio and various other vehicles, encouraging young people to stay in school.

More significant than that in our examination is the situation of youth in which we talked to young people without exception. They said they wanted more counselling in the schools. We found that there is about one counsellor per 1,000 students in the schools. Encouraging young people to stay in school is not a series of 20-second bits on television. Sometimes personal problems are involved. Sometimes it involves close one-on-one discussions with those adults who have the experience and knowledge to help them stay in school.

I would suggest there be a more intensive effort in that direction. Perhaps some funding could be provided in co-operation with the provinces to ensure that not only do we have good teaching but we have good counselling in the school system as well. That might be a more significant thing than PR in maintaining attendance at school because it is a problem.

It is true that recent figures indicate there has been a drop in the drop-out rate. We must always doubt new statistics but if that is true, it is salutary. However, we still need to do much more.

We also said in our task force report that illiteracy should be addressed. Whatever the drop-out rate or whatever anything of the sort is, we do have a serious situation: 28 per cent of our high school graduates cannot read adequately; 44 per cent cannot add, divide and subtract adequately; 30 per cent of the general population is illiterate.

It is certainly obvious that we must have something more than a voluntary approach to illiteracy. It must be a targeted program to achieve zero illiteracy within 10 years. That cannot be done on an ad hoc or voluntary basis, however useful that might be. It must be a part of a national training program addressed not just to youth but to the population in general.

We are not just concerned about ensuring that apprenticeship and training programs are there. We are also concerned about who the clientele is for such programs, who will be selected, who will be inclined to take advantage of such programs which involve experience on the job primarily.

Supply

One of the things one realizes immediately is that there is a bias inherent in all that we do. It favours a predominance of higher income people in the post-secondary institutions, particularly universities, and favours low income people in apprenticeship and training. We must find some way to eliminate that bias.

There has been a great deal of talk about accessibility to universities. We must do something about the student loans program. Certainly we must counter the negative steps taken by the government in terms of eliminating interest relief and cutting back on the loan allocations for students. We must find a system of supporting people in training and in school that ensures they are all able to subsist in an equal way so that there is no bias in access or choice.

I will now turn to one of the things the Liberal program did not offer.

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

Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration))

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration)):

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the importance the hon. member has put on education and training in his career as a member of Parliament. He has identified many areas in which it is important for young people to be involved in terms of education in Canada.

As a percentage of the gross domestic product, Canada spends more on education than any other OECD country. It is not a matter of spending money; it is spending money smarter that we have to look at in terms of the future.

With respect to some of the moneys that have been spent, I notice the hon. member talked about the stay-in-school initiative that has established some $67,000. He also indicated that it is a very good program. Overall with Challenge '93, stay-in-school, the youth strategy and other programs concerning literacy and so on, some $210,000 has been spent in terms of specific youth projects.

The hon. member talked about work place training, recognizing the importance of the Canadian Jobs Strategy and the importance of partnerships. I would like to mention the student ventures school which has been established in metropolitan Toronto to help young people start up their own businesses. This is a first for North America. We need to have young people starting their

May 31, 1993

Supply

own businesses because over 80 per cent of all the jobs are in small businesses in Canada.

I would like to ask the hon. member about the importance of jobs in the private sector. We have now established the Canadian Labour Force Development Board which has grown out of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, to have the private sector involved in choosing where the training should be. The private sector knows what jobs training needs to be done. It is very much involved with the provinces in terms of establishing the types of training programs the federal government should purchase.

What would the hon. member see as the role of the private sector in training and the importance of the private sector within the context of training and educating our young people?

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

Howard Douglas McCurdy

New Democratic Party

Mr. McCurdy:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. It gives me the opportunity to refer to Jobs Ontario Youth, which is particularly aimed at young people, and Jobs Ontario Training, both of which are predicated on the notion that the private sector not only has a role but in our view also has an obligation.

That is why we proposed a grant levy system for funding training. Those industries that provided training would have a tax forgiveness while those that did not provide training would have to pay an additional tax. This would be one way of stimulating their involvement in it. If an adequate contribution by private industry could be had without those kinds of measures, then certainly that would be fine with us.

Most certainly, if there is going to be a relevant training program it must be based on industrial need, on economic need within the community or the province, within the sector to ensure that we do not waste money as we did in the past. People were being trained with skills that were archaic by the time they finished their work. It requires that those who are going to hire be involved in the training. That is elementary.

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

Iain Francis Angus (Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. He mentioned that the unemployment rate for young people is creeping back up and is almost at the 18 per cent level. I wonder how he would square that with the reality that over the last two, three or maybe four years the Challenge program, which is a summer make-work program, has had a declining amount of money available to it.

Certainly each year in my riding, whether it is in Thunder Bay or Atikokan, which are two different CEIC districts, there is less money available to assist the private sector in hiring young people. There is less money for the public and the not for profit sectors to hire young people. It is getting very difficult to create that kind of opportunity for young people because in this case, Challenge 93 is less than Challenge 92, which was less than Challenge 91.

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

Howard Douglas McCurdy

New Democratic Party

Mr. McCurdy:

Of course the Challenge program delivers a number of subprograms. SEED is particularly directed toward summer employment for university students. It is a summer experience program. In fact it was funded at $88 million and has been raised by $5 million this year. However this is after a long period of time in which there have been continual cutbacks in the amount of money spent for student summer jobs.

When this government came into office $240 million a year was being spent for all of the Challenge-type programs. It was not called Challenge then; it was youth summer employment. In fact in real dollar terms from 1984-85 until now the amount of constant dollars that have been available for summer student employment has almost halved.

In fact the $5 million increase we had this year certainly cannot be deemed to be in proportion to the vast increase, that is, the 6.7 per cent increase in the number of youth unemployed. That generally corresponds to the figures on an annual basis or during this summer.

This government has shortchanged by a considerable amount its contribution to youth summer employment. That is a tragedy in a time of high unemployment.

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

Ian Gardiner Waddell

New Democratic Party

Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody -Coquitlam):

Mr. Speaker, like the member from the Conservative side of the House, I would also like to pay tribute to the hon. member from Windsor-St. Clair for the passion, the information and precision of his facts. He has advocated the youth portfolio, the view of youth and especially the view of research and development very well in this House. If I might say, he is one of the unique members of the House. On behalf of the NDP, he has really pushed us in those areas, pushed the House and pushed the country.

May 31. 1993

Like many members, I have to attend a graduation. There are two big suburban high schools in Coquitlam and Port Moody, British Columbia. They are excellent schools and great kids, 17 and 18-year olds. I have a chance to give a short message. What short message would the hon. member suggest be given, based on his experience as the youth critic over the last four years, to the students who are graduating right now in Canada? What would he say to them?

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

Howard Douglas McCurdy

New Democratic Party

Mr. McCurdy:

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can give the speech in a few seconds that I would give to a graduating class.

I can say however that what I would tell most students really has very little to do with my role as critic for post-secondary education or any of those other things. It would be to tell them, as I told them as a professor: Do what you are going to love doing best for the rest of your life. Understand that excellence in anything is best achieved if you love what you are doing. Success in anything is best achieved if measured in terms of doing something that you would enjoy doing.

On the other hand, I think it is important for young people to have the information available to them that allows them to make appropriate choices within the breadth of interest they may have. Some things have become increasingly clear. As a result of the absence of decent counselling and the absence of a system for providing advice to young people to make appropriate choices, too many of them are making inappropriate choices. Too many young people are choosing vocations for which there is no real market. It does not mean that they cannot do something in which they are interested. It is that they had better be very careful about choosing that part of what they are interested in doing that is more likely to be a marketable skill.

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

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

Progressive Conservative

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):

Would the hon. member for York West indicate to the Chair whether his party is splitting the time of its speakers.

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

Sergio Marchi

Liberal

Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking for 10 minutes, followed by 5 minutes question and answer, followed by my friend from St. Boniface for the remaining 10 minutes.

Supply

This Liberal opposition day motion deals with the critical challenge facing youth. When we speak of unemployment, apprenticeship programs, training and the youth corps, the motion is not only valuable but very timely. We identify summertime with many things, one of which is the quest for summer employment of Canada's youth, particularly those students who will be returning to school.

I remember as a student not too many years ago seeking employment during the summer to sustain my high school fees which at that time were $500 a year, followed by my university tuition fees. Opportunities seemed unlimited. I remember working for Cilio Carpenters Co., E & M Precast, and two summers at the North York Board of Education on a number of very interesting community projects. I also worked with the Summer Canada programs in effect at that time. I had a feeling as a young person leaving school and looking for work to pay my tuition that there were no bounds or limits to future opportunities. All I needed was the desire and the willingness to pick up a shovel or pen and work for three months. In fact I probably had a better appreciation of the so-called struggles of academic life.

Times have changed. Perceptions have changed. When I meet with young Canadians in my constituency office now I get a very different message from the one I had when I embarked on summer employment, as did many others in this room. They do not have that sense of hope or that sense that opportunities are unlimited. They have the reverse feeling, one of very low expectations.

Talking about expectations, a recent Gallup survey studied the perceptions and feelings of young Canadians. It discovered that within the age group of 18-year olds to 29-year olds in Canada over 45 per cent of these expect their standard of living to decline over the next 20 years. Only 20 per cent of the sample actually expected an improvement. That is a pretty dismal failing mark for one's future when we have those numbers expressed by young Canadians who are pursuing a variety of different career choices.

When we look at some of the statistics we begin to understand why over 45 per cent of young Canadians do not look to the future with any great sense of hope. The youth unemployment rate for April 1993 was 17.8 per cent, which translates into 420,000 young people. In my

May 31, 1993

Supply

province it is the same ratio, 17.5 per cent or 150,000 young Canadians without jobs.

Look at the statistics of the student summer unemployment rate for students aged 15 to 24 returning to school. In 1988 Canada had an unemployment rate for student returns of 10.2 per cent. It went up in 1992 to 17.9 per cent. Last year in my province the figure was over 20.3 per cent.

Looking at the Challenge and SEED programs that I announced in my riding a few days ago, there were a number of very worthy initiatives, unlike my friend from Windsor who suggested that somehow people are picking up garbage in the alleys. These are very worthy and interesting projects that were approved with my urging and with the support of the local Canada employment office. These will provide a number of young Canadians with very productive summer jobs.

However, looking at the big picture, just at the time that college and university student enrolments have increased from some 790,000 in 1985 to over 900,000 last year, the number of jobs being created thanks to the federal summer programs is diminishing because the number of dollars being given to those efforts has almost been halved. In 1985, 94,000 jobs were created. In 1988, 76,000 jobs were created. Last summer only 54,000 jobs were created.

The creation of jobs is going down as the number of students going into post-secondary education is going up. Is it any wonder that of those young Canadians in that survey, over 45 per cent had very diminished expectations and a lack of any hope. That is what government should be about, providing hope and opportunities. When we looked at the most recent federal budget-the ninth in this government's record-there was no opportunity for young people and mature people. There was nothing about youth and inspiring a sense of excitement in young Canadians. In fact the budget presented by this government was described by government members as a budget that was intended to stay the course.

When we read the statistics on unemployment going up and job creation going down, how can we justify a budget that actually promotes itself as a budget of staying the course as if that course was working for Canadians across the country.

The motion presented by my friend, the member for York North, also talks about the need for apprenticeship programs. Compare us to other countries in the world. For example, last year Germany had over 1.8 million Germans on apprenticeship programs, which is over 7 per cent of the German work force.

Last year in Canada apprenticeships totalled 128,000 Canadians, which is 1.1 per cent of the work force. We talk about the new economies, the economies of high tech, the jobs of yesteryear and the jobs held today by a generation of Canadians who are reaching retirement age.

I look at my own constituency in the construction field or the trades where the majority of individuals are the age of my parents: the carpenters, electricians, tool and die makers and bricklayers. These are jobs that computers will not be overtaking and are jobs that still require the knowledge and talent of those professions. Yet where are the apprenticeship programs that are to train and encourage young Canadians not to be ashamed of learning a trade through college or apprenticeship and will actually change the psychology from one of regret because the person did not go on to university to being in a position of having a very positive undertaking?

However, we do not have the infrastructure for apprenticeship programs which permits young Canadians to enter that trade and to learn those skills. We do not have a jobs corps or a youth service in this country. That is why our party will be talking about those initiatives during the campaign.

When we speak of the economy of tomorrow, when we talk about the jobs of tomorrow, when we talk about a world that is changing the way it does business and with whom and how, it must begin to bring in the variables of our youth. Rather than being happy and complacent about youth that have diminished expectations, we as a government and a national Parliament, as an institution, must take hold of that youth constituency and reverse those diminished expectations into exciting prospects. They will find who they can be and in the process what they can do for our country.

That is why today, of all the topics that we could have selected for an opposition day, we in the Liberal Party and caucus decided to talk on the eve of summer of the challenge facing young people. Also, as they face it, our country faces it. If we do not overcome it, they will face a problem and our country will face a crisis.

May 31, 1993

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

John Horton McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization))

Progressive Conservative

Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. friend's speech because back in 1980-81 there was a special committee struck in the House of Commons led by the the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. It was made up of members of all parties. I and my colleague from Calgary West had the privilege of representing our party. We produced a report entitled Job Opportunities for the 1980s. I believe that report is probably as relevant today as it was a decade ago when we did it.

We split our committee up. Some went to Holland, Germany and France and we all went to Britain to examine the apprenticeship programs, how they operated and so on. One of the major differences between the European system and the Canadian system is that in Europe when an individual takes an apprenticeship, that individual is assured of finishing the apprenticeship. In other words it is like going to school. One passes the various years and tests and one progresses. At the end of the apprenticeship program, whether it is three or four years, one is not assured of a job but one is assured of receiving one's journeyman's papers.

Unfortunately, the system we have in Canada is last on, first off. When a company has a slow period and downsizes, the apprentices go first. Therefore our young people are not assured they will maintain their apprenticeship during the period because of the union requirements that are not there in the old countries where their systems of apprenticeship have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years.

I would like to ask the hon. member how he proposes to establish apprenticeship programs in this country and convince the unions that when these apprentices come on, they remain on until they finish their apprenticeship programs. They should not be laid off in lieu of journeyman workers who are working at the plants. How is he going to solve the problem of making these apprenticeship programs work?

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

Sergio Marchi

Liberal

Mr. Marchi:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's intervention and question. I do not think it is only a case of dealing with the problems that unions might have in terms of the last on. first off scenario.

Supply

I think it probably affects those businesses and operations that also may not be unionized. Perhaps there is also in those factories and plants a system of respecting seniority which one wants to have because the other problem in our economic spectrum seems to be-at least from my riding's perspective-older workers. A lot of those firms and companies do not want to invest in a so-called 55-year old plus worker who may be closing their work life. I do not want to begrudge the seniority aspect in the firms.

I remember a few years ago a plan to address this problem by a former Liberal government, which was very successful by the way, that offered an incentive to those firms to hire young Canadians particularly as a first job opportunity.

The government not only encouraged these firms, but picked up part of the salary. It was of direct benefit to a firm to take a chance on a young person and offer that first job opportunity. The problem was in building one's resume and file in terms of presenting those credentials to that employer.

The program, initiated by the member for Winnipeg South Centre when he was minister of employment, produced very good results, allowing young Canadians to acquire first-time work experience. The businesses were being helped in part by the national government picking up the salary so it encouraged those businesses. It made financial sense to hold on to those individuals. Obviously if those individuals were given the benefit of that experience then it became a win-win situation.

I believe, as this motion tries to address it, that we need to be creative as opposed to simply saying that there is nothing we can do or that things are always too costly. I think there is a way around those problems confronting many of our young Canadians today.

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 motion today is first and foremost one about the tragedy of unemployment.

The question we have to ask is why it is a tragedy. It is because there is a loss of hope among those who are unemployed. There is a loss of confidence. Once one is unemployed and cannot find employment then one starts to believe that one no longer is able to make it. Then despair sets in. Once that happens it becomes very difficult to turn it around.

May 31, 1993

Supply

I am delighted that my colleagues have brought forward this motion. It is one of the most significant challenges facing all levels of government today. Let us look at the current situation.

In this country today, more than 1.6 million men and women are out of work. Many people say this figure is closer to three million, if we include those who have stopped looking because they think there are no jobs out there and those who had to retire because at their age they had no other option.

Today 421,000 young men and women are looking for jobs. They are ready and willing to work, to make a commitment to society, but they have no jobs.

It is a serious tragedy when we see over 1.6 million Canadians, more than 400,000 of whom are young people, without work. They are people who have lost hope in many instances. They are people who are beginning to lose confidence. They are people who are starting to despair.

Let me share with my colleagues and people who are listening just a few cases that I have in my riding. There is a well-skilled carpenter who started his trade at a very young age and has never been unemployed for any significant amount of time. He has been unemployed for more than a year with no hope of finding employment and he had been working for over 30 years. He came to see me with two others who had the same kind of experience and they despair because they do not believe there is any work on the horizon.

Let me talk about a young man who recently married. He and his wife are putting off having children because his wife is still employed but he has been unable to find employment. He is young, husky and strong with the right attitude but he cannot find work.

The accountant came to this country a number of years ago, worked very hard and was extremely successful. His company downsized and some people were let go. He has been unable to find work for the last sue months and he

has written literally hundreds of letters. He comes with the very finest qualifications and recommendations.

What about the women who are new Canadians? In their own countries they were teachers, librarians or civil servants. They are highly educated by all normal formal standards and yet there is nothing, absolutely nothing. They are willing to take on any jobs available.

In one case a woman has two young daughters who will be going to university in September. She is wondering whether she and her husband will have the money to support their children while they go to university.

Let me talk about some recent university graduates. A young woman graduated with a degree and did outstandingly well. She had high marks and tremendous recommendations. She has been looking for work for months and has found nothing.

A young man with a masters degree in economics has been a graduate for a couple of years. The best job he has had so far paid $6.50 an hour for six months. That was a contract and it is over.

I know a graduate with an MPA, a masters in public administration. He has a tremendous attitude, is willing to work but has had only short-term jobs. He just lost his last job that lasted a few months.

A man roughly my age and not yet ready to retire has lost his job. He cannot find a job in spite of the fact he has held some of the most senior positions in his line of work. He is despairing and losing hope.

There is nothing for the unemployed youth out there. They come in and talk to me frequently. Denise is willing to do anything: cut grass or paint. There is nothing out there.

Boris likewise is willing to go and plant trees anywhere or break rocks if necessary just to get a job. Peter is anxious to help his single parent family, his brothers and sisters but there is absolutely nothing out there.

When we look at youth unemployment we have to look at two categories. We have to look at those who are already in university and want to earn some money because student aid has not kept up and tuition fees, incidental fees and book prices have gone up. They now pay the goods and services tax and they are no longer able to keep up. In many instances where their families were able to help this is no longer the case.

May 31, 1993

We are also looking at young people who want to go to college and university for the first time and for whom there is nothing out there. For the very few there will be short-term, poorly remunerated jobs that will not allow them to save enough money to go on to further study and hopefully get a better job.

Youth unemployment today is roughly 18 per cent, over 400,000 people. In some provinces, it is in excess of 35 per cent and close to 40 per cent. This is absolutely shocking.

What does the media say about this? One would assume that a member from the opposition would be less inclined to support government but let me share with the House what students looking for jobs find difficult and frustrating. They are saying: "It is wrong to saddle youth with diminished prospects". That was written in the month of May. "Governments get failing grades in the summer job funding department" was another article that has been written.

One says: "There is nothing out there for students". Another article says: "Few opportunities for young people". Another article mentioned about this deplorable situation.

If we look at the government's major initiatives in summer employment we will find something very interesting since 1991. The Challenge program funding in 1991 was $143 million but it is now down to less than $116 million. Where the SEED funding was at $80 million, it is now at $88 million. It is a very slight increase but compared to the decrease in the Challenge funding of course it is not at all the same.

The number of jobs that are now created is roughly the same as what was created before in spite of the fact that there is more unemployment, less money and these young people are in the situation where their tuition and incidental fees have gone up at astronomical rates.

Let us also remember these are tremendously difficult times for our young people. There are virtually no jobs and if there are jobs they are short term, poorly remu-

Supply

nerated and will last only a few days or perhaps a couple of weeks. There have been massive cuts to the education sector. Transfers from the federal government to the provinces from 1985 to 1994 will be reduced by roughly $10 billion.

Basically the same amount of money has been spent for training and re-training, yet there are so many more unemployed. Student aid has not kept up. I could go on but I know I am coming down to the last couple of minutes.

I want to call the government to action. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister on May 11 what he was going to do about the more than 400,000 unemployed youth. Did he come forward with specific programs? Did he say: "Look, I will restore hope; I will remove the despair"? No, he talked about some philosophical arguments of getting it all right. While the government is getting it all right, there are a lot of people going hungry.

The Liberal Party is committed to establishing a national apprenticeship program and creating a Canadian youth service dedicated to environmental protection and responding to the social needs of our communities. We want our young people to get back to work. We want them to learn from work. We want them to be able to go to college and university and make even larger contributions to society. We want all Canadians who want to work to be able to work because with a job people find hope again and lose their despair.

They are ready to make a contribution to the development of this great country of ours. That is what we want as a party and as the next government of this country.

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

Ian Gardiner Waddell

New Democratic Party

Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a question.

Given these national programs, does he now see a role for the national government in education? I do. I come from the greater Vancouver area and I see a role for the federal government in English as a second language. It should be funding some of those programs. Maybe the Vancouver school board would not have been on strike if there had been a little extra money from the federal government. There are so many classes in English as a

May 31, 1993

Supply

second language. Kids need that extra schooling or they will be behind from day one.

The second area is national standards for retraining. I wonder if the hon. member could comment on whether he feels the national government now has a role in education.

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

Ron J. Duhamel

Liberal

Mr. Duhamel:

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

There are a number of roles that a national government could play. My colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre and I as well as others, have asked that this be explored. I have a paper I published on that very issue.

I think it is important to set up a mechanism whereby these national standards can be available. There are some, by the way, in the professions. A group of professions has a red seal, where they can transport their credentials and qualifications from one province to another. There are certain professions in which it is easier to move from one area to another. It seems ludicrous to me that I can be a doctor in one province and yet not be able to go directly to another province and be a doctor. Teachers, mechanics or what have you should also be able to move from province to province provided certain qualifications are fulfilled.

With respect to the jurisdictional problem, because that is always an issue, let us set up a mechanism and invite people to participate. If it works as well as we think it will, those who do not get on the program initially will be able to follow later.

With respect to English or French as a second language, there has been a national role and I think that must be strengthened. I think we must do that in co-operation with the business sector and the provinces.

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

Robert (Bob) Speller

Liberal

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand -Norfolk):

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned some statistics on the number of jobs created by SEED and the SEED funding since 1991.1 want to remind him that in 1985 at the start of all of this, SEED funding was $149.3 million while this year it is only $88 million. It has almost been cut in half since that time. The full-time post-secondary enrolment in 1985 was 789,000 while today it is up to 921,300.

As my colleague knows, being our critic for education, the need for these jobs is greater than it has ever been and the funding has been cut back.

I wonder if the hon. member could give us some examples from his portfolio of how this sort of cutback has really hurt university students in their search for summer jobs.

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

May 31, 1993