Debates of March 20th, 1995

Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Madam Speaker, what compassion for those poor banks which made profits of only $4 billion last year. I would have liked my hon. colleague to show the same kind of compassion for the unemployed in Canada, who do not count their benefits in billions, and made no profit last year, but have registered losses, year after year.

I would have believed that my colleague was better informed when he talked about the tax points used by the federal government and the fact that it gives money back to the provinces. Listening to the advocates of federalism, one has the feeling that it is a fantastic gift the provinces receive. The federal government generously redistributes among its poor little provinces its

God-given tax money. What are they complaining about? These are minor cuts.

Madam Speaker, I will simply say this: The federal government, which then was not allowed to collect taxes, asked for tax points to support its war effort and, later on, refused to give them back to the provinces, saying that the money they provided was going to be redistributed among the provinces to help them accomplish certain things.

One has to admit that there is a problem somewhere when one knows what the situation is, and that the Prime Minister has decided to keep on collecting taxes, which originally belonged to the provinces-check your history books-and to give them only half of what it collects. This is what is wrong with federalism. I do agree that the system does not make any sense. No wonder the provinces and the federal government are bickering. Besides, we have a very clear, very precise solution to that. We are the only ones to have one. No one else has one in this country.

In conclusion, when one talks about the necessity for the provinces to put their house in order, I will tell my hon. friend that I was a member of the Government of Quebec when we asked the public service to make enormous sacrifices and when we streamlined the administration. On a Canadian scale, the Quebec deficit would have been the equivalent of $10 billion a year. If the administration of the Government of Quebec had been as poor as the administration of the federal government, Quebec would be running a deficit of $10 billion a year.

Since 1985-86, the federal government's deficit has been close to $40 billion, whereas the annual deficit of Quebec has been roughly $3 billion, $5 billion last year. The generally good management of Canadian provinces is in no way comparable to the administrative mess at the federal level, as well as to the disproportionate debt of the federal government which, proportionally, beats all records of any developed country, with the exception of Italy.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, a quick question for the hon. member. It really gets tiring hearing this blah, blah, blah about a wonderful budget that is not going to do what those members claim. I get frightened when the opposition wants to do something even worse. It does not want to address the serious problem.

Regarding the corporations, if we get more taxation out of the corporations, who ultimately pays the bill and what does the member think caused a lot of the corporations to go south of the border previously if not taxation? Is he trying to chase everybody out of Canada?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Madam Speaker, we know the opinions of the Reform Party. They presented them in this House and they condemned the budget. Here is the result of this condemnation by the Reform Party: in the West, their stronghold, 54 per cent of their constituents, 60 per cent in British Columbia, think it is a good budget.

I would simply say to my friends in the Reform Party that their speeches do no fool anyone anymore. We know that they want to abolish social programs, everything having to do with individuals, all transfers to the neediest. We know that according to them corporations, banks, large companies should not pay tax. We can see what their choice of society is. However, they cannot even convince their own constituents with whom they are supposed to communicate so much.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to share my time tonight with the member for Hamilton West.

I am pleased to speak on Bill C-73. I want to take this opportunity to offer my support to the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance last month. It truly is a budget that reflects the principles and priorities of Canadians.

Our challenge was to balance the needs of our nation with the fiscal realities of today. Canadians asked us clearly to focus on cutting spending, not raising taxes, spending dollars more carefully on the priorities of people and ensuring fairness among individuals and regions. I believe the budget respects and reflects those principles.

Following the budget I wanted to see how the residents of Edmonton East felt about the budget, to hear their ideas, suggestions, their comments and concerns. On the evening of the budget we held an informal budget forum with representatives of the Edmonton East community. There were small business owners, students, teachers, seniors, new Canadians and representatives from community groups and agencies in attendance.

Our group came to the Edmonton East riding office to watch a tape of the budget speech and participate in short group discussions on the budget. Following that round table, I called from the office in Ottawa and we held a conference call on the budget and its impact on our riding. To determine the collective wisdom of Edmonton East on the budget, I asked our diverse group a series of questions to gauge their opinions and reactions.

I asked what their gut feeling was. The one phrase that was consistently repeated as each participant voiced his or her opinion was it was tough and fair. They felt the budget protected our core Canadian values and programs. Specifically they were

relieved that seniors benefits were not drastically cut and they were delighted, actually ecstatic, that the Minister of Finance declared the government's support for the principles of the Canada Health Act and that we maintained funding levels for justice programs.

Several of the participants appreciated the manner in which the program cuts were made. They liked that spending reductions were done carefully by department and not in an across the board manner. It is important the group expressed this particular reaction to budgetary spending because it showed support for the program review approach we undertook in our process.

Albertans, like all Canadians, deserve and expect good government. Good government is simply delivering efficient, cost effective programs Canadians need and want and are willing to pay for in defence, in industry, in human resource development, in transportation, in justice and in heritage. Residents of my riding and across the province are firm believers in the concept of value for money. They want government programs and services that bring them good value for their tax dollars.

Therefore, when we initiate expenditure reduction it is important that we evaluate government departments on a program by program basis. That requires a careful and thoughtful review of all government programs. This is one area where we can see a fundamental difference between the approach of the government and of the Reform Party. It proposes across the board departmental cuts without little regard for any consequences, fiscal or social, with no regard for the impact such cuts would have on other levels of government and with no calculation of value for money.

We took the tougher, more effective approach in program review, eliminating programs that are not working and streamlining others. The government's approach to the reduction of the public service is one of right sizing. Simply, right sizing promotes a careful and strategic approach to removing waste and duplication from organizations. We must work hard and co-operatively to find ways for departments and organizations to operate with a maximum of efficiency and effectiveness while maintaining high standards of service and program delivery.

Slashing and cutting with any organization or business merely for the sake of downsizing without clear direction or strategy is clearly irresponsible.

The small business representatives on our panel agreed with the continued support the government has given to this important sector of our economy. In the budget we recognized there are times and places where government can and should assist the private sector in today's fast changing global environment. For example, the government will continue supporting exports for companies in the sectors facing intense international competition. This is especially important in my province which has seen an incredible growth in the export trade.

The government will also be working with Canada's banks between now and the fall to determine meaningful benchmarks for small business lending. Small business owners in Alberta share the national problem of securing capital for businesses.

Since we came to office we have implemented several initiatives which small business owners indicate will help improve their ability to do business: the reduction of regulations and paperwork; the introduction of single window business service centres; and the reduction of unemployment insurance premiums. These are all commitments to reduce the deficit which will help small business.

Participants in the budget discussions all indicated their approval of the tax fairness measures implemented in the budget. This theme of fairness was also present at my social security forum where participants suggested that the government supplement its social program reforms with taxation reforms.

In the budget there are several measures to promote equity in the tax system. Equity starts by ensuring that taxes owing are taxes paid. The government implemented rules to ensure that the construction industry, where the underground economy thrives, complies with tax laws. There will be no tax deferral advantages for investment income earned by private holding companies. All tax advantages flowing from family trusts have been eliminated. There are several more. We have raised the corporate surtax on profits from 3 per cent to 4 per cent. We have added a temporary tax on the large deposit taking institutions, including the banks.

Participants at my forum expressed support for the fact that the government dealt with deficit reduction primarily through expenditures. We have taken the right path at the right pace. In fact over the next three years spending reductions will total $25.3 billion against $3.7 billion in revenue actions. That is almost $7 in spending cuts for each $1 in new tax revenue.

During our conference call I asked the participants what issues arising from the budget are important to our riding so we can follow them up for future action. The reaction of the group assembled was that the budget presents them with an opportunity to act in co-operation with the provinces and with the federal government in the development of a shared set of principles and objectives that will underlie the new Canada social transfer. This way we can ensure that our core Canadian values and priorities are maintained in our social programs.

Participants were heartened by the loud and clear message in the budget that the principles of the Canada Health Act will continue to be enforced. Albertans, like all Canadians, want their social security programs to be more efficiently delivered. They want to reduce overlap and duplication. However, they are

concerned about the potential impact of increased provincial flexibility on their province, considering the lack of care and concern the current provincial government has shown toward social programs. All participants agreed that we need to maintain key principles in our social system so that we can continue to protect our most vulnerable citizens.

At this forum and others held on social security review there was widespread support for our social programs. While everyone agreed that there was a need for reform-people wanted to see programs such as the UI maintained-there was no support for the dismantling of the system which is implied in the Reform Party's registered personal security plan.

Another concern of people in my riding is that the rising cost of the public pension system is placing their pensions at risk. The government is committed to providing a fair and reliable system of protection for seniors but this requires action to ensure the pension system is sustainable in the long term. Later this year the Minister of Human Resources Development, in collaboration with the finance minister, will release a paper dealing with the changes required in the public pension system to ensure its affordability. The budget states what the basic principles for the reform will be, and that is what we will work co-operatively with. The review is another area in which residents, particularly seniors, can participate.

Some might say that the budget did not cut enough, that it could have been tougher. However, a budget is not just about balancing books; it is about balancing the needs of the nation. We have a fiscal responsibility to do that.

Also some could complain we did not set longer deficit reduction targets. However two years of rolling targets keep our feet to the fire, making it impossible to postpone spending reductions and other actions to reduce the deficit. Past governments have made long term plans but always ended up pushing necessary action further and further into the future. The short term targets we have set make sure we act to reduce the deficit, keeping our feet to the fire.

In conclusion, there is general agreement in Edmonton East that the 1995 budget takes far-reaching action to restore the fiscal health that supports a strong and growing economy. The residents of my riding found many things in the budget they like. They also identified the Canada social transfer and the retirement income review as issues for future focus. I look forward to working with them and with the government on these issues as we continue the government's progress on program and service improvements.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleague that she did not consider the consequences of our very large debt on investment and employment in Canada.

This debt has a very negative impact on job creation. To finance our debt-I already said, but it is worth repeating-we are forced to offer a premium to foreign investors. This premium increases as the debt grows, which means that the Canadian taxpayer cannot consume as he or she should. The consequences of that is that there is less and less work, and more and more people on unemployment insurance.

Now, because of new eligibility criteria they must rely on welfare. Therefore, the impact is very negative. Here is my question: The present federal system offers only status quo, which means compromises, clumsy compromises between two groups. In our area, we call that endless complaining. The status quo means eternal resignation to a dreary existence. Is it what you are going to offer to the upcoming generation? This status quo is simply jiggery-pokery and fiddling.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the Bloc. Federalism is as important to those of us who live in Alberta as it is to those of us who live in Quebec.

I understand the analogies of the family and fighting and feuding, but healthy families work out their differences. There is a kind of evolution, not a revolution, in the way we do business. I truly appreciate that there is getting to be a less centralist feeling to government these days. What we are seeing more of is the ability for the provinces to determine their own needs and to work on their own solutions. That is how I see this unfolding. It is very beneficial for Quebec, it is beneficial for the maritimes, it is beneficial for every part of our country; working together to solve our common problems.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was interested in the hon. member's remarks about how her constituents reacted.

I refer her to an announcement made by her government last year with respect to the stay in school program, which addresses itself directly to the issue of dropouts and potential dropouts. Her government announced funding for the program last year and I understand from the wording of the release at that time that the government spoke very positively about how important the issue is for Canada. I wonder whether she has any news on whether this program should continue.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a very specific question and I am not prepared at this time to answer it. I am not aware of the press release or the program. My apologies to the hon. member.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have quite a number of questions but in the interests of brevity I will limit them to one or two.

The hon. member for Edmonton East put a lot of emphasis on fairness in transfers to the provinces and individuals as part of the government's responsibility of ensuring they have a standard of living we can respect.

One of the biggest transfers we now have is the $50 billion we transfer to lenders; not to poor people, not to old people, not to young people, not to those who need an education, but to rich lenders around the world. In a survey 41 per cent of Canadians said the deficit was not being cut fast enough in order to eliminate the growth in that transfer so that money is available to Canadians.

What does the member propose since the Minister of Finance has been far too slow in getting the deficit down?

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are two plans of action we are taking, one on a short rolling, two-year target. They are extremely important so that we do not put off what we need to do. In order to get the deficit down it is important to have short term targets. I will leave it at that.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour on behalf of the constituents of Hamilton West to speak on Bill C-73, an act to provide borrowing authority for the upcoming fiscal year, and by logical extension the firm but fair budget tabled on February 27 by my hon. colleague the Minister of Finance.

In keeping with the principles of fairness as promised in the 1995 budget, it reflects the government's desire to cut the deficit primarily through spending cuts rather than massive tax increases, as suggested by the third party. This is substantiated by the fact that over the next three years there will be $7 in spending cuts for every dollar in new tax increases. Consequently the budget will have an enormous impact on Canada's ongoing economic recovery.

It should also be noted that in the process of creating the 1995 budget, the minister took care to obtain the input of Canadians right across this country. This was done by means of the prebudget hearings conducted by the Standing Committee on Finance.

These hearings were held in cities throughout Canada, including my hometown of Hamilton. I am proud to say that almost 90 per cent of the recommendations of the finance committee were accepted by the Minister of Finance and are reflected in the 1995 budget.

As chairperson of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, I should also mention that our committee is currently assisting the Minister of Transport with a comprehensive marine review. As indicated in a recent post-budget document released by Transport Canada, "Transport Canada's New Direction and the 1995 Budget", the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport is holding extensive consultations on the future of Canada's marine sector. It plans to submit a report of recommendations by the end of April.

The review focuses on identifying inefficiencies in the Canadian marine system and eliminating unnecessary and counterproductive waste and mismanagement in the marine sector. This will also help eliminate unnecessary federal government expenditures by examining ways to provide competitive and efficient marine services as part of an integrated transportation system.

The finance minister went to great lengths to accommodate the opinions expressed to him directly and indirectly by his parliamentary colleagues as well.

On January 6, I issued an open letter to the Minister of Finance on behalf of the constituents of Hamilton West imploring him not to increase personal income tax. Prior to the tabling of the budget we were on a break. When walking through the malls, on the streets or stopping in a coffee shop, my constituents told me that increasing personal income tax would impose an insurmountable burden on many low to middle income families. They also said it could have an adverse effect on federal revenue targets by creating an added incentive for underground economic activity.

Clearly, the Minister of Finance listened to Canadians as far as personal income tax is concerned. We did not see a hike in personal income tax in this budget. This budget is firm in its commitment to cutting government fat, but fair in sparing the flesh of essential government initiatives designed to stimulate economic growth and job creation in this country.

The notion of budget fairness is reflected in the minister's willingness to address the historically lopsided personal income tax contributions made by individual tax paying Canadians versus the amount contributed by large profitable corporations. In the last three decades the corporate share of total taxes collected by government has fallen while the share collected from individual taxpayers has almost doubled. In light of that fact, the 1995 federal budget also includes key measures designed to establish a fair and balanced system of taxation.

For example, there will be an increase in the corporate surtax from 3 per cent to 4 per cent, as well as a 12.5 per cent increase in the large corporations tax. Furthermore, in a year when major Canadian banks reported record profits in the billions, the 1995 budget imposes an immediate increase in the existing tax on capital of banks and other large deposit taking institutions.

For the edification of the naysayers across the way, it is worthwhile to consider the opinions expressed by various reputable organizations and individuals across the nation who have expressed their support for the measures announced in the 1995 budget.

Let us go to the editorial in the Wall Street Journal : ``Canada's bold budget ought to be an inspiration to other countries struggling with overextended governments''. This is for the naysayers across. We have been listening to the Reform Party go on and on about how terrible this budget is, how awful this government is and how we do not know what we are doing.

All that is outweighed by the people who do know a little something about economics and I am sure they are not Reformers. An editorial in the Financial Times of the U.K. says: ``The Canadian budget announced on Monday brings the country back from the brink of fiscal disaster. Mr. Paul Martin, the finance minister, appears to have achieved a skilful balance between the increasingly onerous demands of investors and those of his constituents''.

An excerpt from a Reuters AFP news report in The Strait Times , Singapore's most widely read daily, states: ``Economists praised the government's efforts generally, saying it was perhaps the first serious attempt by a Canadian government to get a handle on spending''. I know that one-half of the former Tory government who is sitting in the House today would appreciate a remark like that.

How about William Dudley, an economist with Goldman Sachs, who stated on CBC Radio: "In the end you would have to say that the government has definitely gotten the message that this consolidation is required and the financial markets, I think, have to reward Canada for that". That is pretty good stuff for the government.

If that were not enough, the budget has also been endorsed by the Chartered Accountants of Canada, an organization representing 55,000 chartered accountants. It seems reasonable to assume that these people would know a thing or two about getting one's fiscal house in order. What are they saying? The Chartered Accountants, the 55,000 represented, state: "We are pleased that finance minister Paul Martin has cut spending in significant ways. In particular, the seven to one ratio of cuts in spending to taxes should signal to investors that government is addressing our fiscal situation".

Here is the one I like: "We are very pleased to note the government has not taken any drastic measures to impede the ability of Canadians to save for their own retirements. The budget brought down challenges Canadians to continue to seek to redefine the appropriate role and scope of governments as essential steps toward fiscal stability".

That is something we can be proud of. Despite the previously stated, let us say, expert opinions in the province of Ontario, Premier Bob Rae has been playing Chicken Little with the federal budget. According to that premier, the sky has been falling in Canada since February 27 when the federal budget was tabled in this House.

In response to this government's attempt to finally get this nation's fiscal house in order, Rae states that the budget will bring about "a historic change that literally ends the Canada that we have known and sets us on a much meaner course". This comes from a man who clearly knows little or nothing about managing public funds.

It is worth noting that in 1991 Ontario's accumulated provincial debt was 15.5 per cent of Ontario's GDP. This spring, Ontario's debt is expected to balloon to almost 30.5 per cent of provincial GDP. Clearly if the sky is falling, it is falling on the provincial NDP government in Ontario.

In closing, for all the doom and gloom of those who may be questioning the character of the Liberal government and in fact Liberalism itself, I quote a great Canadian and a former Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier who once said: "I am a Liberal. I am one of these who thinks that everywhere in human terms there are abuses to be reformed, new horizons to be opened up, and new forces to be developed".

I am proud to say that this government is holding true to that enlightened Liberal vision.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have one simple question. We always hear the Liberals talk about the budget and how many cuts they have made, but they have not cut anything. They have transferred. They have not cut $7 for every $1 increase in taxes. Money that was going to programs to help Canadians has been transferred as interest to the lenders.

When will this government recognize that the spending of this government has not gone down? There have not been any cuts. It has only transferred money from Canadians who need it to lenders who did not need the money in the first place.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure of the hon. member's background. Do not take my word for it; let us go to the experts.

How about Fred Ketchen, chairman of the board of the Toronto Stock Exchange who states: "It seems to me that the fellas at Moody's and the other bond rating services will be encouraged by what they heard the finance minister say today in what I would assess as being a responsible, a fair, a realistic, and even a humane budget".

Let us go back to the chartered accountants, the group that represents the chartered accountants of Canada, the 55,000 accountants. They support the restructuring of transfer payments to the provinces and the decision to build more flexibility into Canada's educational and social program transfers to provinces with the creation of the Canada social transfer program. This is precisely what this member has been concerned about.

The Reform Party in its questions talks status quo. Before the budget it came out with this ridiculous plan to cut everything; gone in two years: "We are going to put them in sleeping bags in the streets across Canada, but we are going to get that budget deficit down to zero". That is not the way it is going to be with the government. The government does it fairly and equitably and it is going to work. With our two-year rolling plan the House is going to be full of Liberals after the next federal election.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I will recognize the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, but he has only 30 seconds left for questions or comments.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Madam Speaker, as vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, I would like to put a short question to the chairman of the committee.

Since he mentioned that he tends to go to coffee shops and shopping malls where he has a chance to talk about the budget, I would like to know whether be brought this up with his constituents in Hamilton West. One of the provisions of the budget provides for commercializing the St. Lawrence Seaway, but if this does not work and the Seaway is closed, how would the people of Hamilton react and how would they get their iron ore pellets from Quebec's North Shore?

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an appropriate question and I thank the hon. member for it. Coming from Hamilton, Stelco and Dofasco are two very familiar names. The lifeline of the steel industry in my home town and the rest of the communities along that Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway is that seaway.

If we leave it the way it is the hon. member knows full well it will collapse on itself and we will not have a seaway. The status quo does not work. We have to find a new way. We have to find a way to make that system stand on its own feet and be competitive in a global economy and give the stakeholders of that system the opportunity to play a greater role in how that system works.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on a very important issue that came to my attention after the budget. It is a very negative piece of news. It is a situation that needs to be clarified on the government benches. I asked that it be put on tonight so the government could tell us what happened to the stay in school program.

Canada has one of the highest drop out rates in the world among industrialized countries for people in high school. Furthermore, Canada is in a situation in which the skills required to enter the labour market have also increased radically over the last few years.

I can borrow from a document known as the red book. On page 32 there is a graph of rising education and training requirements that seems to indicate that people with less than 12 years of education made up about 45 per cent of the jobs available in 1986. In the years from 1986 until 2000 that will drop to 32 per cent.

Then it goes on to state that people who have 12 years of education make up 10 per cent of the jobs. It will be 2.9 per cent by the year 2000; 13 to 16 years of education will go from 22 per cent to 15 per cent, and 17 years or more, 22.4 per cent in 1986 to 48.8 per cent. This graph says that close to half of the jobs available in Canada by the turn of the century will require 17 years of education or more.

For a country that has one of the highest dropout rates in the world among the industrialized countries, one would think we would want to do something about it. We did. In 1990 we announced the stay in school initiative that addressed itself to communities, to enticing different partners in the community including the private sector to get involved with the issue. It was also co-ordinated with the provinces.

It may be of interest for the House to know that the present Leader of the Official Opposition supported the program even though some people will say that it is in the area of provincial jurisdiction which, if taken literally, is a false statement. To pretend that the dropout problem is only related to the education system is false. It is a broad social program that needs to be addressed.

My disappointment lies in the fact that the government apparently ran on investing in people according to the red book. It said in that document:

Jobs and growth depend upon making the necessary investments in ourselves and our children. Consequently, we will better prepare for the transition from school to the workplace; provide a constructive outlet for the skills and the talents of younger Canadians, the innocent victims of Canada's prolonged recession.

The innocent victims of Canada's prolonged recession had the program cut. The government refused to continue the program which is recognized as a success. Who says that? On April 15, 1994 the government announced, according to a press release, that it would continue to put $30 million in the program. What did it have to say about the program only a year ago? It said that there was a proven link between low levels of education and high levels of youth unemployment and that continued action on the high school dropout issue was therefore crucial to ensuring that the school to work transition was an avenue of opportunity for young people.

It is scandalous that the government would cut the program. When does the government intend to take up the issue so that we can attend to the problem of young Canadian men and women who need to finish high school and need an opportunity to get an education, find a job and participate in Canadian society?

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I paid attention to what the hon. member stated in reference to the stay in school initiative to provide the tools to motivate the key stakeholders in the community to engage in the process of outlining and telling young Canadians that it is very important to stay in school as a vehicle to achieving a job and to acquiring the life skills required to remain competitive in a very competitive marketplace.

Obviously the hon. member missed the announcement the government made last Friday. There has been some redirection of funding. The government announced a summer job action plan, a package of six job creation elements for secondary and post-secondary education students which will result in the direct creation of approximately 44,500 jobs. In addition, Canada employment centres for students will once again be in operation across the country.

Last year close to 200,000 job vacancies were filled and over 141,000 young people participated in group information sessions. The number is expected to surpass last year's budget for students. The $8.6 million will be increased to $10.4 million. It is also important to note that the budget of the youth internship program has increased from $25 million in 1994-95 to $118 million in 1995-96.

Even though we are living through difficult fiscal times our commitment to young people speaks to two realities: the fact that we believe it is a priority and that we want to engage in effective partnerships at the community level. The announcement last Friday achieved both.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.05 p.m.)