Debates of Oct. 21st, 1997

Supply

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from South Shore.

I would take this opportunity to thank the people of my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac for electing me to represent them in Canada's House of Commons. I feel very humbled and honoured to be able to stand here today on behalf of the people of my riding.

Tobique—Mactaquac is a riding which stretches some 250 kilometres along the Saint John River Valley from Grand Falls to the outskirts of Fredericton, from Plaster Rock to Woodstock, from Bath to Stanley and all points in between. It includes some of the hardest working people in the country. I fully realize they would expect nothing less from their member of Parliament.

The people of Tobique—Mactaquac are a proud people. They are proud of their families, proud of their rural heritage and proud of their community. It is a privilege to sit in the House on their behalf. I will make every effort to represent them to the best of my ability.

This week we are celebrating National Business Week. It is sad the government only recognizes businesses one week out of the year. The other 51 weeks it is choking us to death in taxes.

In 1996 Canadian businesses shut down in record numbers. We have in New Brunswick the harmonized sales tax and a 15% federal tax. It is the government which introduced and put the bill into effect.

I am also a businessman. I own and operate a little convenience store and I sell gasoline. Before the HST came into effect I was selling on average 3,000 litres of gasoline per day. Now I sell on an average 300 litres a day. This is a drop of 90%. At the same time, before the HST came into effect, 80% to 85% of the people buying gas would come into the store to buy something else. My gross sales have now dropped by 40%. I have five employees in my little convenience store. Now I have one. Is this what the government calls job creation?

Today there are many Canadians who believe it is up to the government to create jobs. As a businessman I say it is not up to the government. Government cannot create jobs. It is up to us, the private sector and the business community, to create jobs. The government has a responsibility to help us create the climate and to create much needed jobs for Canadians.

The government could start by giving us a tax break that would help us create much needed jobs. A good way would be to cut the EI payroll tax, not from $2.90 per hundred to $2.80. Why does the government not bring it down to $2.20? Why have a $5 billion surplus in the EI fund when we could keep people to work?

When the government came to power we had a $42 billion deficit. I agree totally that this deficit had to come down and had to be eliminated. What I do not agree with is the way the government brought it down. It shoved its problems on to the provinces instead of cleaning its own mess in Ottawa. The only cut the government made wasted a lot of money.

What is more important to all Canadians is their health and education of their children. Yet the government cut those two items by $6 billion. What a shame to see the youth unemployment at 32% in New Brunswick. The government had a youth internship program but it was cancelled this summer. According to the Speech from the Throne the government will be putting more money toward our youth. I hope that some of that money will make its way to my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac because the people are hurting.

Government does not come first. The people we represent come first. I will be voting for the NDP motion because in my riding we believe in the same values and principles attached to it.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick comment for the Conservative member. It seems that when the Tories were in power they refused to listen to the people. They pulled all sorts of shenanigans, including loading the Senate in order to jam through the now hated GST.

It seems the GST, the mother of all hated taxes, has a daughter called HST. Now for some reason they are talking against the HST. Clearly it has a tremendously deleterious effect on the economy. There is no doubt about it. The member has said that his own experience shows that. I would like to know whether he would enlighten the House regarding what they would do with the HST/GST. What is their intention?

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

First of all, Madam Speaker, I am not on the government side. I am on the opposition side. I am just like one of them. Second, I was not part of the past Conservative government that put the GST into place, but I agreed with the tax 100% and I will tell members why.

I own two companies. As a contractor and as a painter, before the GST came into effect in 1990 when I wanted to buy a gallon of paint it would cost me 18% on that gallon of paint. It never showed because it was incorporated into the price of the gallon of paint. On a roll of masking tape, I would pay 11%.

When the GST came along, the companies would have had to get out of that tax and include the 7%. Some of the companies did that. They took the manufacturers sales tax out and just included the 7% but there are a lot of companies that did not do that. They kept the manufacturers sales tax as a profit and included an extra 7% on top of that. That is what made it a bad tax but it is not the fault of the previous Conservative government. The GST was a good tax.

Talking about the HST, this government felt that the HST was not a good tax. They brought up the HST but now we are paying 15% instead of 7%. In my store alone my business went down by 40% and my gas consumption went down by 90% but my electricity bill went up by 8% and my oil bill went up by 8%. Do you call that fair?

If I were here in the province of Ontario or in Manitoba or further west, I would only pay 7%. Why should I have to pay 15%? That is why I am saying to this government to give us a tax break so that we can really create jobs in this country, especially in New Brunswick. We cannot create the jobs we need because this government is choking us to death with taxes.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have just a couple of points for the Conservative member. I thank him for his support of the NDP motion. I believe if it does get passed it will go a long way in helping Canadians out there.

I do want to debunk the myth that comes from members of the Reform Party mostly that the government cannot create jobs. If they keep saying that eventually people may say “Why do you keep saying that?” I do believe the government can create jobs.

A prime example is our post office. It has taken away what were good jobs, a job my father did for 11 years as a letter carrier, and now there are superboxes. All they have to do is replace the GST and in Atlantic Canada the HST. Take that money off, put it back into the corporation's profits, get rid of the superboxes and thousands of letter carrier jobs can be created right across this country so that those shut-ins, those seniors, those people who are disabled or those single mothers at home do not have to leave to go get their mail in inclement weather. There would be thousands of jobs created right there.

Another area where they can create jobs is in regulation. The state of Oregon from my understanding has no self-serve gas stations. There is a station open right across from my constituency office in Lower Sackville with 12 pumps, all self-serve. I asked the manager. She said that it was Petro-Canada's policy. That is insane. The fact of the matter is that gas prices will not rise if full service stations are implemented.

Does the Conservative member honestly believe that government cannot create jobs or does he believe that government in consultation with industries can create jobs together?

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, to answer the question from my colleague from the NDP, government cannot create jobs but it can work in co-ordination with the private sector with big companies to create jobs in this country. It is the companies that will create the jobs, not the government.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on the NDP opposition day motion condemning the immediate human tragedy of 1.4 million unemployed Canadians.

Earlier the leader of the New Democratic Party alluded to the fact that it had been four years since her party had been able to present a motion in this House. I would like to congratulate her and remind her that the NDP is not alone in that predicament. We have also waited four years to participate in debate in this House. And truly thus have all Canadians waited from sea to sea to sea to participate, for surely the last Parliament was the least participatory of any Parliament in Canada's history. In that Parliament we had one party that wanted to break up the country, another party that wanted to help them and a third party called the government that did whatever it wanted.

I agree with the parts of the motion that state that we need to set targets to reduce unemployment but the flawed NDP notion that 1.8% inflation regulates the 9% unemployment rate is an oversimplification of a wrong-headed policy. How many times must we state that government is not the engine to drive job creation? Government creates the atmosphere so business has a climate it can thrive in, live in, breathe in, eat, drink and sleep in. Business is a living thing and we control it. From that climate industry will grow and industry will create jobs.

Today government members rose to their feet and applauded the fact that unemployment has only increased by 300,000 Canadians since 1990. I hesitate to call this good government.

In the area of infrastructure where government can actually help build a foundation for job creation, this government has a dismal record. Infrastructure is one path that leads to jobs. Highways, container piers, railroads, wharves, navigational aids, a well educated workforce all belong on that path. Make work projects do not belong on that path. If we ever in this nation choose to follow the path of make work projects, we will be lost.

Earlier the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester spoke about the possible social and psychological costs of high unemployment. Food banks, poverty, hospital line-ups because of transfer cuts to health and education, these are real problems.

What in the world is the matter with this government? It credits itself with reducing unemployment from 11.4% to 9% as if that is some kind of a record. Instead of slapping themselves on the back, Liberals should be ashamed of themselves.

The minister stated earlier that actions taken today do not take effect until a year or so down the road. This will be the closest the government will ever come to crediting the previous Tory government for the unprecedented recovery and growth from 1992 to 1997.

There has been no discussion of the casualties of frolicking in the sunshine of this unprecedented growth without a bit of sunblock. Who has been burned?

Let us start with the youth of Canada. There has not been enough discussion in this Parliament about the fact that Canada's youth are the part of this equation that has been completely left out of the unemployment numbers. We have had a recovery in the 1990s. We have had a recovery for adult workers in the 1990s. We have not had a job recovery for youth. The adult unemployment rate is 9.4%. The unemployment rate for youth is 20%. This government is not prepared to do anything about the radical imbalance of the unemployment figures as they affect youth in this country.

Last week in the town of Bridgewater on the south shore of Nova Scotia in the riding I am fortunate enough to represent, I spoke to high school students at Parkview Educational Centre. It was a tough and difficult speech to deliver. They asked me to come as their MP and discuss their opportunities to participate in the future of this nation, their opportunities to continue their education and come out with the prospects for a job.

Job prospects for Canada's youth are terrible. Everyone in this House should go into a classroom filled with 150 high school kids and try to tell them that the best thing they can do is continue their education, get a post-secondary degree, spend $12,000 a year, run up a bill of $50,000 to $60,000 and that will increase their chances of getting a job. That does not guarantee them a job, but that will increase their chances of getting one and they should feel good.

I delivered that message because that is the truth but I did not feel good about delivering it. I did not offer them much promise and I did not offer them much hope. Somehow it is the job of the government of this nation to be able to offer them some promise and to be able to offer them some hope.

Yes we have business initiatives for youth. We have internships. We have co-operative education programs. We have mentor programs. But they are not putting numbers of youth back to work. It is too little, too late and there is not enough of it. Yes the federal public sector youth employment program has helped create 6,000 jobs for aboriginal youth. It is the tip of the iceberg. It is not enough.

Last is an issue that has not been touched upon while we have discussed unemployment in the House. That is the 60,000 people in the east coast fishery who are out of work. That is a very real problem.

If you would indulge me, Madam Speaker, I would like to relate a story to the House. It relates to this caring, sharing government. Hon. members opposite would have us believe that somehow they are a caring, sharing government.

At the height of the downturn in the fishery in the town of Shelburne, Nova Scotia when there were no jobs in the fishery sector and all the services were downloaded on the backs of these fishers, the government in its wisdom decided at that time, at a crucial moment in the history of Shelburne county, to pull out of the naval base in Shelburne. They lost 120-some armed forces personnel who contributed to the economy of that town. They lost 40 to 50 full time jobs supplying that base and all of the income generated from it. And this is a caring, sharing government? That is how it answers the east coast fishery problem?

While we are on the subject of fisheries, we have an interception fishery on both coasts of this country. We have done nothing about it in British Columbia. Those salmon under international agreement were headed for Canadian rivers. They were Canadian fish. We allowed the Americans to catch them. We did nothing about it. On the east coast of Canada we have an interception fishery off of Greenland. We have done nothing about it. We allow the Europeans to catch all the fish they want.

We cannot even as a government support the salmon hatcheries in Nova Scotia. There are three salmon hatcheries slated for divestiture in Nova Scotia. This government has chosen to allow them to go. There is a $400,000 cost of maintaining them. In return they create employment. They support singlehandedly a $10 million sport fishery in Nova Scotia.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention of the member for South Shore to a few numbers which he may like to consider. I listened to him with great attention and I hope he will listen to me with the same attention.

In 1990 when his party was in power the bank rate was 13%. Today in 1997 I believe the bank rate is 3.75%. In 1990 when his party was in power the prime rate was 14%. Today the prime rate is a mere 5.25%. Best of all, in 1990 when his party was in power the five year mortgage rate was 13%. Today in 1997 under the Liberal government after four years of fiscal responsible administration of the country, the five year mortgage rate is a mere 6.75%.

I suggest to the member that the reason there is so much unemployment and so many problems is that the previous Conservative federal government failed to manage the economy responsibly, created a stranglehold on the economy and jobs were lost. Now we see that even the NDP has to admit that because of excellent fiscal financial management of the affairs of the nation we have driven down interest rates in an extraordinary fashion. When the economy is rolling the jobs will follow and they have been following.

I wonder what the member for South Shore has to say about that?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of things to say about that.

First is his judicious use of numbers from 1990 versus 1997. Let us get to when we actually had an increase in the economy of the country when the Tories were still in power in 1992. Take a look at and spout those numbers because they do not wash quite as easily.

His party does not change economic policy or the bank rates in this country. That did not happen overnight. They rode on the Tory coattails and are sitting there because the economic policy was put in place before you ever won your seat.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I thank the Conservative member for South Shore for his efforts in the application to get our motion passed today.

It is ironic to hear the Liberals speak about how great they did on the fiscal policies and the low interest rates. It means absolutely diddly-squat if you do not have a job.

I wish you would get this through your head. It means absolutely nothing—

[The Speaker]

I remind hon. members that they should address all remarks to the Chair. We do not want members going to nose.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. As I have asked before, in terms of tax cuts that the Reform and Conservative parties have asked for in the past, would he not agree that a tax cut to the HST and the GST would be much more beneficial and provide a much more immediate dividend to the Canadian people?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, of course a tax cut to the GST and the combined HST would be a benefit but there are other ways to do the same thing. We can put more money back into the economy by cutting payroll taxes. We have said it. We have been preaching it. We will say it one more time.

As long as we put the money back so it is in the hands of the consumer, I do not care if it comes from cutting the GST and the HST, from cutting the EI payments, from cutting whatever payroll taxes we want to cut, if we give the money back to the consumers they will spend it. They have to. Times are too tough.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Durham.

Today, I wish to address the motion tabled by the NDP. I listened to several speakers from the Bloc Quebecois who raised the issues of federal transfers, employment, health, inflation and monetary policy.

For three and a half years the Bloc Quebecois has been urging the federal government to amend its monetary policy to take into account its impact on employment, saying “We believe that the Bank of Canada's strategy condemns the Canadian economy to operate below its potential. To keep inflation at a very low level adversely affects the economy, and the benefits of such a policy have not been demonstrated”.

According to the Bloc Quebecois, the Bank of Canada's monetary policy is based on an excessive desire to throttle inflation by maintaining high real interest rates. It is a policy which impacts negatively on employment and on the economy as a whole.

To stimulate employment and to promote economic recovery and development, the Bloc Quebecois proposes an in-depth review of the Canadian monetary policy, and primarily a change in the monetary policy, so that the inflation target of the Bank of Canada, through its interest rate policy and the expansion of the monetary supply, would be set at 3%, with a variation of plus or minus 1%.

During these months and years, Bloc members proposed an inflation rate target of 3%, rather than 2%, as is currently the case, with the same 2% variation. This, they claimed, would result in the creation of 460,000 jobs, while also bringing the unemployment rate down to under 7%. As we know, the idea was put forward by Pierre Fortin, a professor of economics from Montreal, before the finance committee, when it was doing preliminary work for the budget. It seems that the Bloc members bought Mr. Fortin's arguments, since they adopted this idea in their report.

When we came to power, the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada agreed to aim at a lower inflation rate. Thanks to a moderate monetary policy and the effectiveness of the new deficit reduction measures, interest rates have not been this low for 35 years.

When we came to power, Canadian interest rates were two points higher than U.S. rates. Today, the opposite is true.

I would like to paint you a picture. We have heard the Bloc members speaking numerous times today about federal transfer payments. What exactly are federal transfer payments in Canada?

Whether the topic is offloading the deficit, health care or welfare cuts, or whether there is a more sophisticated debate on the advantages and disadvantages of the federal system, the question of transfer payments to the provinces keeps coming up in the House of Commons, in the Quebec National Assembly, in ridings throughout the great province of Quebec.

Let us make an important distinction right away. There are two sorts of transfer payments: equalization payments and social program funding. Equalization payments are calculated in a complex way, based on the fiscal capacity of each province. The idea is to ensure all Canadians, whether they live in rich provinces or poor, of access to public services that are more or less equivalent in quality. Equalization payments have no strings attached, in other words the provinces may use them however they see fit. That is important: the provinces may use them however they see fit.

Equalization payments have not, however, always been affected by federal transfer payment reductions.

When we speak of offloading the deficit, we are referring essentially to the other transfers. That is the truth. Up to last year, these transfers were made under two programs, that is established programs funding, such as for education and health, and the Canada assistance plan, social assistance.

The Minister of Finance regrouped all that in a single program, the Canada social transfer, much less generous, to be sure. But if we look at the significance of the federal tables for each province for the 1996-97 fiscal period, the figures are expressed in a per capita basis. It goes without saying—

[The Speaker]

My dear colleague, I believe your earphone is up close to the microphone. You should put it in the desk. It is right by the microphone, and should go in the desk.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your comment, my paper was blocking the microphone, and I apologize. I am brand new in the House of Commons, I have just arrived.

On the subject of equalization payments, which vary enormously from one province to another, we can see that Quebec receives a lot less than the others. This is not injustice, it simply reflects the fact that Quebec is the least poor of the poor provinces.

Payments made under the Canada social transfer, which are based merely on the population size, do not vary obviously a lot from one location to another. On the subject of transfers between provinces and with respect to Quebec, there was a very spectacular drop, which must be situated in a broader context. There are columns on the right and on the left. For Quebec, the equalization payment was $216 of the Canada transfer and for the others it was $1.381 billion.

The figure is based on the size of federal transfers not as a function of provincial budgets but rather of the economy of the individual provinces. We can see that the federal transfers have not decreased in Quebec; they have increased. This may appear odd but it is true. However, the amounts are the same. How can this be? For my friends of the Bloc Quebecois, I would point out that provincial governments' expenditures increased much more rapidly than federal transfers until 1990. This is the history of federal transfers.

The other day they were talking about health care. There is a small community at Clova, and I heard the PQ MNA, Jean-Pierre Jolivet, say “They are closing the CLSC in the small town of Clova and transferring it to Parent. We are not the ones transferring it. The federal government is to blame”. Who took the decision to transfer a nurse from Clova to Parent at a cost of almost $30,000? The decision to transfer this small centre from Clova to Parent was made by ministers, by Lucien Bouchard and Jean-Pierre Jolivet.

I would like to say something. When it comes to job creation, what is the role of the government? What is the role of the government in the Province of Quebec? If we look at the government's role—

[An hon. member]

No props.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, these are my personal notes. He is trying to say they are props. You can start in with the same old refrain, dear colleagues. Go ahead, there is more fun ahead.

The government plays a large and critical role in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Why? Because our economy in Abitibi-Témiscamingue is always up and down like a yo-yo, depending on market prices, on the price of metals, gold, copper, or the price of softwood lumber and particle board. With people from our area and from the Province of Quebec, and the government in power, we decided that there should be a regional and local development fund, that is the public and parapublic sector, in which the Government of Canada is involved, and in which the Government of Quebec is also involved.

If we supply human resources in our region of Abitibi-Témiscamingue, almost 53% of the funds are provided through partnerships.

Why those funds? Where do they come from? I will tell you. They come either from Desjardins investments, or from the FTQ. I hear the member for Témiscamingue talking about a donation, when he means a loan, and saying that a loan is a donation, that it is the same thing. I never understood the story. It is true that the donation was $1.7 million to the Bloc Quebecois before the 1993 campaign, but they never noticed that the donation was not like the one borrowers are given in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, that is, the interest was thrown in. If the interest on loans is 6%, what they got at 2% is a donation. In any event, we will come back to this.

In conclusion, our people, whether we are talking about the Government of Canada, the Government of Quebec, or through the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec and the CDIC, are partners contributing to the creation of jobs in order to lower unemployment.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask a question of my colleague from Abitibi and will start by rectifying once again some of the statements he has made.

He said something earlier on about transfers to the provinces. I would like to remind him of this. He said that the provinces could do what they wished with transfer payments, could use them as they saw fit. I would remind him that, when he was a Conservative—he ought to remember—there was quite a battle with the Minister of Health to make sure that the Canada Health Act was respected by the provinces. There was a huge fuss connected to transfer payments. British Columbia had been threatened with a loss of its transfer payments less than two years ago, because it was not conforming to certain aspects of the Canada Health Act. So saying that these are transfers with no strings attached is totally false, and once again a misleading statement.

As for economics, my colleague has suggested here already that a gift and a loan were the same thing. Allow me to say that this is totally false. I went to the manager of my caisse populaire, and told him that I would not be repaying my mortgage because a gift and a loan were the same thing. All he needed to do was to phone the hon. member for Abitibi, who would explain it all to him. He strongly suggested that I make my mortgage payments, because that was not the way it worked.

The third point, federal transfer payments—I am getting to my question now—the hon. member for Abitibi does not say this when he talks about health and social programs. As for cash transfers the government was making when the Liberals came to power, these were $17 billion a year. Now, the figure is barely $11 billion. They cut $6 billion in cash transfers and forced the provinces to play the bad guys in health and education, which are their responsibility.

He spoke of another concept as well and I would like him to take the next few minutes to clarify it for us. He referred a great deal to equalization payments—

[The Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I want to give the hon. member for Abitibi the opportunity to respond.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Bloc Quebecois member, the member for Témiscamingue, when I said the provinces could use the money as they saw fit, I was referring to an article by Claude Piché in La Presse on Saturday, October 4. It is well written, and I would like to quote from it. “The calculation of equalization is a complex matter. It is based on the fiscal capacity of each province. The idea is to ensure that all Canadians, from rich and poor provinces alike—that is what I am explaining—have access to public services of essentially equal quality. Equalization payments are therefore unconditional, that is the provinces may use them as they see fit. Equalization has not always been affected by cuts in federal transfer payments”.

One thing the member opposite has not spoken about today is job creation. He never mentions it. His riding of Témiscamingue benefits from what the federal government provides. It benefits from money from all Canadians in the CDIC and many companies—there are 40 companies in his sector—create jobs. I do not have a lot left, but this pamphlet from—

[The Speaker]

Members are not to use props. The hon. member for Halifax West.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my comment focuses on the fact that the member opposite spent a lot of time debating the NDP opposition motion and yet said very little with respect to it.

All day members opposite have had very little to say about what our motion actually entails. The message in the motion is very simple. The federal government has failed miserably in dealing with the real problem. By attacking the deficit it has not dealt with the issue of setting targets for unemployment. Our motion is very clear on that point.

A previous speaker asked us to consider this motion for what it really is and then proceeded to talk without even dealing with the motion.

Another member opposite was educating the “dinosaurs” on this side of the House on the difference between fiscal and monetary policy.

When I campaigned during the federal election I spoke to one of my constituents. It was interesting because, again, a speaker on the other side—

[The Speaker]

We will have to come back to the debate. The hon. member for Durham.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to enter this debate.

The motion by the New Democratic Party talks about the immorality of the government in reducing its deficit and debt. The previous intervener talked about dinosaurs. It seems to me that every time the NDP brings something to the floor of the House I have heard it before, usually about 20 or 25 years ago.

We had to deal with the deficit and debt problems. We have done that ferociously, so much so that interest rates in the country are at an all time low.

These are some of the basic fundamentals of economics which create jobs. In the last nine months 297,000 new jobs have been created. Only in the last couple of months 63,000 of those jobs were filled by young people.

Why is it difficult to set targets, as the motion entertains? It is because of something called the elasticity of labour. As people begin to seek and find work in the economy more people offer themselves for those jobs. Even though there has been a tremendous amount of job increase, a number of people are seeking employment. It is very difficult to determine who is going to seek new employment. As more and more people reach the labour market their friends, who are at home for one reason or another, may decide they also want to enter the labour market. It is a very difficult problem to solve because it is always changing.

One part of this motion deals specifically with education, which I find interesting. The Conference Board of Canada recently issued a report. I suggest the members of the NDP take some time to read it. Despite its motion, which talks about the dismal failure of the government to deal with matters of education, the Conference Board of Canada states that in 1993 Canada spent 7.6% of its gross domestic product on education. That is more than in the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Italy or the United Kingdom. Nearly two-thirds of all Canadians aged five to 29 are enrolled in educational programs, a record exceeded by only three other OECD countries.

Despite Canada's spending, its grade 8 students placed only in the middle of a pack on standardization in international tests in science and mathematics. Domestic testing confirms these disappointing results.

What is being said here? It is saying that increased spending does not necessarily get results. This flies in the face of the rhetoric of the NDP whose members believe that they can solve all problems simply by cranking out cheques.

I was amazed to notice in this survey that in the area of post-secondary education, Canada spends 2.8% of its GDP. That is the highest in the world. The one area for which the federal government has some responsibility, post-secondary education, Canada is spending the highest amount of any country in the western world.

The NDP members say that we are not doing enough. Are we supposed to be spending three times more money than every other country in the western world? I would have thought the NDP would have been concerned about giving people basic skills to get high paying jobs. I would have thought that they would be trying to find ways in which to make that spending more effective, not just to crank out more dollars. In fact, I suspect less money can actually be spent while getting better results, that is, if we take a little more of an approach to managing the way we are spending some of our money today.

At the same time as this spending is going on, Canada's literary skills are only middle of the pack in the western world. I am proud to be part of a government that recognized that two years ago, before many of these members showed up here, increasing the budget by over $50 million in the area of literacy skills.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

You've done a wonderful job.