Debates of Oct. 8th, 1998

Programs For Young People

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should overhaul all its programs for young people, in order to evaluate their impact and performance, and in order to ensure that all funds for such programs maximize young people's chances of joining the labour force.

Mr. Speaker, before I start I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to pass over to my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West, the closing five minutes that I have available to me.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to be able to raise an issue that is particularly close to my heart.

The motion I am putting forward today reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should overhaul all its programs for young people in order to evaluate their impact and performance, and in order to ensure that all funds for such programs maximize young people's chances of joining the labour force.

In the coming minutes, I will explain my reasoning on the merits of this motion.

We all agree that the government is already paying out a significant amount of money in various programs for young people. According to government documents, the Youth Employment Strategy alone “makes effective use of investments of over $2 billion the Government of Canada has set up for young people”. That is quite a sum.

The Youth Employment Strategy combines 250 programs. Funding for these initiatives comes from some 12 departments, including Human Resources Development Canada, Industry Canada, Heritage Canada and a number of others.

Sometimes several departments share in the funding of a program. This can create an accountability problem. There can be a whole slew of programs, but they have to be effective, and the resources must not be wasted.

Since there is no central body controlling all these programs, they are not readily available to young people. There is a web site, but the government must make it much better known. A number of young people simply do not know about all these programs.

I want to assure all the members of this House that my motion does not arise from a preconceived idea that all the programs are bad and useless. Far from it. My aim is to ask the government to ensure that the money intended for young people is spent on effective and useful programs. Young people deserve it.

As parliamentarians, our duty is to insist on an accounting and to ensure that Canadian taxpayers' money is put to good use.

In order to focus today's debate, let us take the Canada student loans program as an example. I am sure all MPs are aware of this program, which affects nearly 60% of post-secondary students. The Canada student loan program, or CSLP, represents a huge investment by the government.

The Department of Human Resources Development estimates that the CSLP has given out loans of some $15 billion to over 2.7 million Canadians since its inception in 1964. Also according to the department, the average debt load in 1990 of a student in a four-year program was $8,700. In 1998, they expect the debt load to be some $25,000. In other words, student debt has grown by 187% in Canada in only eight years.

Can we talk of effective investment when so many Canadians are struggling under the weight of overpowering debt even before they start their career?

The government has taken a number of steps to try to ease young people's passage from their studies to the workplace. I am sure its intentions are good, but the results are sometimes dismal.

Let us take a look at the current youth employment situation. In August, youth unemployment was at 14.5%, almost double the Canadian rate. In my province of New Brunswick, youth unemployment is close to 25%. In 1996, 17.7% of welfare cases in Canada were single parents under the age of 24. These figures certainly suggest there is a problem.

Part of the problem is that, in recent years, the transition between school and work has been made more difficult by the limited job creation that had taken place since the 1990-91 recession. This has particular impact on those who do not have the training or skills currently in demand on the job market.

Young people in the high risk group, those who did not complete their secondary education, are particularly affected. There are simply no jobs for them. Most of the jobs available for low skilled workers before them have been made obsolete by technological innovation or have moved to a third world country where labour is cheap.

As for young people in the average risk groups, those with secondary education but no post-secondary education, they have seen their diploma lose much of its worth. More and more employers are looking for people with post-secondary education for positions that, less than one generation ago, would have gone to high school graduates.

And young people at low risk, those with post-secondary degrees, need something to help them make the transition to the labour force, to help them get their first job.

Traditionally, the unemployment rate among young people goes up when the economy is weak. However, what we are now seeing is that young people are not taking advantage of the benefits created when the situation improves. During the last economic recovery, the gap between the unemployment rate of young people and that of adult workers did not close as much as in earlier cycles.

Whether they are studying or not, young people are over-represented in atypical jobs, that is to say part time, temporary, fixed rate, piecework, or occasional jobs, most of which are low paying and require few skills.

If society turns a blind eye to the problem, it will have to pay increased costs because of the number of unemployed workers and welfare recipients, as well as the inevitable social problems in a polarized society.

Studies show that long periods of unemployment result in a loss of skills and permanently alter potential employers' opinions of young people. Unemployment therefore has an impact on the present and future contribution of young workers to society.

That is why it is so important to ensure that we supply all the winning conditions that will help young people join the labour force quickly.

It is also important not to focus exclusively on the government's role. Businesses have also produced good results in the fight to help young people find jobs.

In 1997, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce published, with the Canadian Youth Foundation, studies and profiles of very successful programs. I invite members to take a look at these documents.

I want to quote a few excerpts from one of these publications, which I find particularly relevant to our discussion:

Big numbers encourage big responses, including massive government-let “wars” against the latest social scourge. Even in these times of fiscal restraint, the first response to a big number is still to throw some money at it.

When the youth employment crisis is seen in terms of people rather than statistics, the response changes.

Programs become humanized and flexible when it's understood that real people never fit into the categories of those oh-so-precise charts and graphs.

Programs also become more unassuming without the illusion that there is true path, one best solution for all young Canadians or for the nation. Together, these elements help make these people-centred programs particularly effective.

The government often announces with great fanfare its initiatives for young people. Just think of the millennium foundation announced in the last budget. In spite of a $2.5 billion budget, only 7% of Canadian students will benefit from millennium scholarships. Is this a really good investment? I doubt it, particularly when you consider that this government cut $17.3 billion from transfer payments for health and education.

Would the money not have been made better use of by the provinces, who have had to cut funding to colleges and universities, thus forcing them to raise tuition fees.

Without these cuts to the transfer payments, perhaps students would be less in debt and less in need of these millennium scholarships.

Members will have figured out that these are hypothetical questions I am asking. I have not done enough research to assess the impact of all these measures. That is why I moved the motion now before the House, moreover. If we do not have the means as individuals to assess the need for, and effectiveness of, over 250 government programs involving billions of dollars, it is absolutely necessary for someone to do this.

In conclusion, youth unemployment and underemployment rank foremost amongst the major social and economic questions facing Canadians as this century draws to a close.

I also realize that these matters cannot rest solely in the hands of governments. The private sector must also determine what it can contribute to solving these problems, and what approach it must take to give today's and tomorrow's young people the chance to play an active role in the Canada of today and tomorrow.

However, what we can do today is to urge the government to take the first step.

If the government absolutely wants to help improve the situation for our young people, then it will not mind reviewing the existing programs. Nor will it mind sharing the results of these reviews with members of parliament and the general public .

Lastly, the government will not hesitate to consult and involve all stakeholders, including young Canadians themselves, and to take advice from them.

Young Canadians are waiting for us to show some leadership. Let us not disappoint them.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate on this very important subject. I am especially happy to have a chance to outline the efficiency and the effectiveness of the Government of Canada's youth programming.

There is no question Canadians have a right to expect the best possible performance from Government of Canada investments. Certainly young Canadians are looking for results. They deserve and expect results.

I assure the member for Madawaska—Restigouche that the monitoring and evaluation of the Government of Canada's youth programs is already underway. When it launched the youth employment strategy the Government of Canada instituted a comprehensive strategy to monitor the performance of its programs for youth and to evaluate their impacts.

Even more assuring, our youth employment initiatives are producing concrete results. Thousands of Canadian youth know from their own experience that the Government of Canada's youth employment strategy is working to help them find work.

I want to explore these two important points one issue at time. The first is a matter of program monitoring. As I mentioned, the Government of Canada's youth employment strategy has a built-in system to measure the strategy's success. This system includes participant follow-up surveys, longitudinal studies and individual program evaluations.

I will do a quick review of some of our key findings to date. I think they will be found very important. Youth internship Canada, a program that provides wage subsidies to employers who create work experience opportunities at home and abroad for youth, has a stellar record. This program will create 25,000 internships in the current fiscal year. Each year Human Resources Development Canada conducts follow-up surveys with former youth internship Canada participants to assess the results of the program.

The most recent survey was in November 1997. That indicated that 88% of former project participants are now employed or have returned to school. The youth service Canada program has an equally impressive record. This initiative provides funds to community organizations to help higher risk youth find their place in the workforce.

This year some 5,000 young people will receive youth service Canada support.

The 1997 survey of the youth service Canada program found that 6 to 12 months after taking part in a youth service Canada project 85% of the youth are employed or have returned to school, and that is very impressive. Incidentally, this year Human Resources Development Canada will be going ahead with an in-depth evaluation of youth service Canada.

The Government of Canada student summer job action has enjoyed similarly positive results. Like other youth programs, this initiative is reviewed periodically through follow-up surveys with young Canadians. The 1996 survey found that 55% of placements provided work experience in the student's area of study and, just as important, we discovered that 69% of employers would not have hired a student without the Government of Canada subsidy.

Findings like these demonstrate that we are on the right track. But let me assure my hon. colleague this government is not about to rest on its laurels in this matter. In addition to the measures I have already outlined, all federal departments and agencies involved in all our 250 youth programs under the youth employment strategy are required to conduct and report on the evaluation of their youth employment strategy initiatives.

To give members some sense of our commitment to quality of this program let me profile just one department. Human Resources Development Canada alone is conducting an interim formative evaluation as well as a final summary evaluation of its youth employment strategy initiatives. The formative evaluation is already in progress. We should be able to report back to this House on its findings by the fall of next year.

Equally valuable, all these review activities are being incorporated into longer term evaluations of the Government of Canada's youth initiatives. Human Resource Development Canada has developed an evaluation framework to integrate the results of individual departmental evaluations into an overall evaluation of the youth employment strategy. This massive undertaking will be completed within two years.

Even the newest initiatives such as those developed for youth at risk are going under the microscope. These initiatives which provide work experience and assistance to young people facing multiple barriers to employment are currently being assessed as part of the comprehensive evaluation of the youth employment strategy.

I point out that all the major initiatives under the youth employment strategy grew out of our experience with early youth programs such as youth internship Canada and youth service Canada. Our new programs are built around feedback and refinements to these pioneering programs.

Clearly there is no shortage of opportunities to identify any program weaknesses, nor is there any lack of willingness to address them properly should problems be found. That is important to note.

The fact that our youth programs enjoy such remarkable ratings, however, reinforces that Canada's youth employment strategy is meeting is commitment to help young Canadians find their way in the world of the job market. Yet we are still not content that enough is being done. That is why this year we added the Canadian opportunities strategy as well.

The Canadian opportunities strategy provides Canada study grants, Canada education savings grants, the Canadian millennium scholarship fund, tax measures for interest on Canadian student loans, part time student and child care expenses as well as more funding to university granting councils. We are making these investments in young Canadians because we know there is no better investment in the future. Learning is the absolute best guarantee for better jobs in the new millennium and the new economy. I was happy to hear the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche acknowledge in his speech early on that the government is making an enormous investment in our young people.

If there is any lingering doubt about this government's ability to maximize young people's chances of joining the labour force let me bring my fellow parliamentarians up to date on our overall success. I point out that youth service Canada has helped 12,000 young Canadians in three years. Youth internship Canada has given work experience to more than 89,000 young people since 1994. I also point out that student summer job action had over 75,000 participants this last summer. I finally point out that approximately 100,000 work experience opportunities are provided each and every year. Anyone looking for evidence of the effectiveness of the Government of Canada's youth employment initiatives need look no further than these figures.

Do not get me wrong. This government is always receptive to new ideas about ways to improve our youth programs. We regularly consult with our public and private sector partners who help us to implement the youth employment strategy. Partnerships and collaboration form the cornerstone of our approach to youth programs and are the primary reason for the strategy's overwhelming success.

I do not want the hon. member to conclude that we are not open to his input and support. We are. I hope he will recognize that his motion is not necessary. This government is already doing its job of ensuring that our programs to put young people into jobs are fulfilling their mandates. That is in the best interests of young Canadians and all Canadians and in the best interests of this great country of ours.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the new youth critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to speak today on the important issue of young Quebeckers' access to the labour market.

The motion before us today will shed some light on the two injustices the federal government is committing with its overall program for young people. First of all, the Liberal government is unfair to young Canadians because its first goal is not to maximize the efficiency of its youth programs, but to maximize its visibility in the eyes of young people. The government is also unfair to Quebec and young Quebeckers, because of the unfair distribution of money among the provinces.

Also, the motion will demonstrate the lack of openness shown by the Liberal government, which will once again object to any public review of its programs in order to conceal their unfairness.

Before explaining my point of view any further, I will read the motion by the member for Madawaska—Restigouche we are debating today:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should overhaul all its programs for young people, in order to evaluate their impact and performance, and in order to ensure that all funds for such programs maximize young people's chances of joining the labour force.

In theory, youth programs are aimed at creating jobs. Granted, but how many? Nobody knows. What everybody knows though is that these programs are a blatant intrusion into the provinces' jurisdiction. They create more duplication, which is bound to harm our young people.

This motion brings to mind one of the basic rules the auditor general quotes every year. In order to assess the effectiveness of government programs, we must know what their total budget and measurable goals are, and be able to measure progress in the field.

If these requirements are not met, taxpayers cannot know whether their money is wisely invested. This is a situation common to young people in Quebec and Canada as a whole.

In reality, if the Liberal government is refusing to assess the impact of these programs, it is not because it ignores basic accounting rules. It is because the first objective of the government's youth strategy has nothing to do with employment for young people.

According to the Minister of Human Resources Development himself, the ultimate objective of that program is to, and I quote “continue to work to keep our country strong and united”. He said that in the House of Commons last year on October 2, 1997, in a formal speech in response to the Speech from the Throne. It is now clear that the strong and united country he is trying to impose on Quebeckers will be brought about by attractive and highly visible programs.

The millennium scholarship fund is a very good example of a program that completely disregards the real needs of the young people of Quebec, of a program where visibility is the priority. First, it duplicates the Quebec loans and bursaries program. On average, Quebec students already have a smaller debt load than their counterparts in the rest of Canada: $11,000 compared to $25,000. In Quebec, tuition fees are about half what they are in the rest of Canada: $1,700 compared to 3,200$. Moreover, Quebec is the only province to award bursaries on the basis of financial need. The others only give loans.

But, as the prime minister said in this House, the visibility of the program is not negotiable, no matter what choices Quebeckers made collectively concerning their education system. This is a totally unacceptable situation, but there is worse.

Where is the money to finance such encroachments in areas of provincial jurisdiction coming from? The budget surplus was reached by robbing the provinces of transfer payments, for education in particular.

The Quebec government must now impose cuts of several hundred million dollars on its education system. This is one of the tangible results of federal budget cuts.

In other words, the federal government takes the money from one pocket and puts it in the other one, after stamping it with the Canadian flag. It has absolutely no concern for the provinces, which are responsible for consistently managing their education system as a whole, or for young people who gain nothing from being used by a government willing to do anything to promote its strong and united nature.

The money for these highly visible programs also comes from employment insurance reform. The fund surplus, which will reach $20 billion by the end of the year, was achieved mainly by excluding many young people from entitlement to benefits.

In fact, since these limitations have been imposed, thousands of young Quebeckers have had to go on welfare. The numbers speak from themselves: the recipient-unemployed ratio went down from 72% in 1990 to 26% in 1997.

Now, more young people than ever before pay premiums, while only one young person out of four is entitled to benefits if faced with unemployment. But do they receive this money back in the form of active measures, as the government claims? Let us compare the amounts.

The government wants to spend as it pleases the $20 billion surplus that will accumulate this year in the employment insurance fund whereas, for the same year, it plans on spending $391 million for all youth programs, which is less than 2% of the amount taken from workers and businesses who pay EI premiums.

In short, the federal government is hindering the academic training of our young people by contributing to the deterioration of the education system in Quebec. It makes our young people poorer by forcing them to go on welfare instead of making them eligible for EI benefits. And, to make itself look good and to promote a strong and united Canada, it fills university and city newspapers with ads praising its youth strategy.

As suggested in today's motion, it is high time the House of Commons as well as Canadians and Quebeckers examine the real objectives of the Liberal government's cynical youth strategy.

The figures are just as disturbing with regard to Quebec's fair share. Of the $391 million earmarked for federal youth programs, Quebec gets only $63 million. That is only 16% of the allocated funds, even though we represent 25% of the population.

Moreover, effectiveness is not the ultimate goal for these programs. The federal government has already recognized that the provinces are in a better position to meet this type of need.

That is what led the Liberals to give Quebec full responsibility for manpower training before the last federal election. If it was fine just before the election, why is the federal government now rejecting any opting out by the provinces, which could then keep on working in close co-operation with those affected by these programs?

First of all, a significant reduction in EI premiums would result in the creation of tens of thousands of jobs. As it stands now, small and medium size businesses are penalized by the regressive payroll taxes of the federal government. The end result is that the way we are financing the EI system not only kills jobs by increasing the cost of labour, but kills a great deal of them in the businesses that tend to create most jobs.

I used a few examples to show that a good youth strategy is not necessarily a strategy that will give the most visibility to the federal government. I support motion M-213 because it would help us make a clear distinction between these two fundamentally different goals.

Such a review would demonstrate once and for all that the federal government has lost touch with the young, because of its obsession with visibility.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the problem of youth unemployment has been one of the more persistent difficulties in Canada in recent times. Though I have problems with the motion before us, I commend the member for his attention to a very pressing need in our country.

I want to begin by saying that my overall concern with the motion introduced by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party is that it seems to share the Liberal Party assumption that the problem of youth unemployment can be fixed by improved government programs.

Whether we are talking about increasing the size of government programs or merely restructuring and re-focusing those programs, the motion as it stands assumes that specific government programs are the answer rather than focusing on government policies across a much broader front, policies that would create an environment in which the problem could be solved by young people, by educational institutions and by employers themselves.

That such a broader view of this problem is needed was confirmed last week by the study entitled “Hire Expectations”, released September 30 by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. In that survey young people did not view government programs as the key to solving this problem. This was from the mouths of the young people themselves. They did not regard government programs as the key.

On the contrary, of the various groups regarded as being responsible for addressing the youth employment issue, government ranked lower than the self-reliance of youth themselves, the efforts of schools and also behind job referrals from family and friends. In other words, job help by way of government programs was way down on the list.

The majority of youth surveyed, almost 60%, said that finding work is primarily their own responsibility. Less than 10% of the respondents said that it is the government's responsibility to make sure they have work.

The point is not that students should be left to fend for themselves, but rather that our students are smart enough to know that direct intervention by the government as urged by the present motion is not the answer.

These young people in this extensive study were clearly saying that they do not expect the government to be directly—and I underline that word—involved in the job creation or job search process. Rather, in their view the government's task is to create an environment in which young people have the best chance possible of finding meaningful work.

Most Canadians would say that the government has failed on this score. As the authors of the study “Hire Expectations” put it, “Despite numerous programs targeting young workers, youth employment rates have not significantly dropped in the last 20 years, which suggests the need for new approaches to the issue”.

Where should the government focus its approach? The government needs to lower payroll taxes, as a beginning, on small business and create a more tax friendly environment for small and medium size businesses. Incidentally, a reduction in employment insurance premiums would be a good place to start. Instead of raiding the EI surplus, as the Minister of Finance has intended to do, a reduction for these small businesses would be of great assistance to the problem of youth employment.

The study also revealed a genuine willingness on the part of small businesses to hire young people. Business owners emphasized that they were not looking simply for skills, but also for enthusiasm and a willingness to learn. This willingness to hire young people is especially true of new firms which are likely to have twice the proportion of young employees compared to older businesses.

I believe that tells us something very significant. It tells us that if the government could bring itself to create an environment in which business start-ups are attractive, this would have a tremendous positive effect upon employment opportunities for youth.

But 40% of these small businesses also said that payroll taxes, which are a barrier to hiring, are far too high. Small business is not presently confident that the government is intent on lowering the costs associated with hiring someone. They do not believe there is any genuine effort to do that.

That is what the study “Hire Expectations” had to say about the broader economic environment in which jobs are created for young people. It also had some needed advice for governments. At the most basic level this study warned that government should avoid make-work programs. Such schemes, they said, affect only a small minority of youth and have more political value than actual substantive value for young Canadians looking for work.

The level at which government has a genuine contribution to make is in the role of facilitator, encouraging communication among educators, employers and youth. I want to emphasize again in the context of the present discussion that this must-read study, “Higher Expectations”, urges greater facilitation by government, not direct intervention by government.

A good example of an area in which facilitation is needed is in the area of education. The study revealed a lack of interaction between schools and businesses, and youth feel that school does not prepare them for the transition into the workplace. They report experiencing a form of culture shock when they begin their working life. They indicated that they wanted a better understanding of the workplace before they leave school, university or college. This suggests that a greater role could and should be played by co-op education in Canada. We could talk about apprenticeship programs as well.

Co-op education and other kinds of measures have proven to be an effective means of smoothing the transition from school to the workplace.

While I cannot support the motion as stated, I thank the member for raising this very important issue in the House.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of this motion. I would like to congratulate the member for Madawaska—Restigouche for bringing forward what I think is a very thoughtful and reflective motion which needs to be seriously addressed by this House and certainly by the Government of Canada.

It was surprising to hear the government member across the way say earlier that this motion is not necessary. I was very surprised to hear that.

Is it possible that they believe the motion is not necessary because it would actually be an embarrassment for the Liberal government to go forward and, as this motion states, overhaul all of its programs for young people in order to evaluate their impact and performance and in order to ensure that all funds for such programs maximize young people's chances of joining the labour force? Who could disagree with that?

It was very surprising to hear the Reform member and the Liberal member actually speak against this motion, which I think is something that could well be done and from which we would get a lot of benefit.

In looking at this motion I think it is incumbent upon us to actually look at what is the situation for young people in Canada today. Unfortunately, the facts present a very gloomy picture for young people.

When the government announced its youth employment strategy in February 1996 there were 2,065,000 youth who were employed. But the StatsCan figures for November 1997 show that there were 2,039,700 young people who were employed. That is a drop of over 26,000.

In fact youth unemployment is at 16.8%, up from 15.7% in February 1996. As we all know, those are only the official numbers. The real numbers are much higher.

Since February 1996 when the government first announced its major youth employment strategy, and we heard today a very rosy picture about that, the reality is that 48,300 more young Canadians are out of work. It is not a rosy picture at all.

Even according to the CIBC, one of the major banks in Canada, about one in four youth, aged 15 to 24, has never held a job. That is more than double the rate in 1989.

How can government members stand here today and tell us that we do not have a crisis? This motion should be supported today because there is a crisis in this country for young people.

In December 1997 the proportion of the youth labour force with no job experience was 24%. That is up from 9.8% in December of 1989. There are so many statistics that it is just mind-boggling. What the trend really shows is that throughout this decade there has been a continuing drop in the participation of young people in the labour market. There is persistent high youth unemployment. There is just no getting away from it.

As well, there has been growth in involuntary part time employment. At the same time there has been a decline in real wages.

What has often been characterized as the recovery from the 1990s has basically bypassed young people. They are still, to a great extent, very marginalized and do not have the kinds of opportunities that we hear in the rhetoric and the propaganda coming from government members.

We have to ask the question of how we address youth unemployment. We in the NDP believe that two key issues need to be addressed. One is through education and the second one is through a comprehensive youth employment strategy.

If we agree—I think all members would agree—that education is the key for our young people then we also have to ask why the government is attacking post-secondary education. As my colleague from the PC who presented this motion pointed out, the attack and the assault on post-secondary education is simply unprecedented.

The Liberal youth strategy must be seen in the context of the massive cuts to post-secondary education in Canada. It becomes just an empty promise for the government to say that it wants young people to get jobs. It knows they have to go on to post-secondary education to obtain jobs, but it does not really care that tuition fees have skyrocketed, that student debt has gone up and that university and colleges are less and less accessible. That is the reality facing young people when it comes to education today.

Even Human Resources Development Canada tells us that 45% of new jobs by the year 2000 will require post-secondary education. The reality is that the ability of young people to get into post-secondary education is more and more limited, particularly for low income Canadians.

Since 1995 the federal Liberals have cut $1.5 billion from federal funding for post-secondary education. Since 1980 the Liberal and Conservative governments—we have to put this on record and look at the historical context—have cut federal funding from $6.44 for each dollar of student fees to less than $3. We see the real decline in support for post-secondary education.

Tuition fees over the last 10 years climbed by 240%. What an absolutely shocking statistic. Tuition fees in Canada have reached a national average of $3,100. That is higher than the average tuition fees of publicly funded universities in the United States. The story goes on and on. Student debt is up from $13,000 in 1993 when the Liberals took power to $25,000 now. Student bankruptcies have increased 700% since 1989. The picture is very grim. Given this situation, one would hope that the government would be assessing and reviewing its commitment to support post-secondary education.

What did we have yesterday? The Minister for International Trade attended the second annual Canadian education industry summit and actually talked about further industrialization and privatization of post-secondary education.

What is quoted in the Toronto Star today is the minister saying that education is an industry and that Canada needs to improve its marketing. This is how the government sees education now. It does not see it as a social investment, not as something that we provide as a societal responsibility to our young people, but simply as a marketing strategy, as something that the private sector wants to get its hands on.

The minister said that we need to identify our markets, develop and promote our products, differentiate them from those of our competition, and create business plans to bring all those elements together. Does this sound like we are talking about post-secondary education? It sounds like we are talking about the private sector to me, but that is what one of our cabinet ministers is saying.

The second part of a comprehensive strategy is a youth employment strategy. We have to point out that $129 million of the $345 million allocated to youth job creation programs go to short term summer jobs. There is no emphasis on the long term investment that needs to be made for young people. Virtually none of these programs are targeted at economically and socially disadvantaged youth.

Research has shown that to help such young people the programs must be targeted specifically and be designed to meet their very unique needs. Unfortunately these programs do not exist. Most of the Liberal youth programs benefit the most highly educated young people, which cynics say is more about cheap labour than real opportunity.

What should be done? We can learn by example from my province of British Columbia where our premier, Premier Clark, has made a personal commitment to make youth a priority. We have an extensive summer job program. We have environmental youth teams and environmental youth groups. We provide first jobs to graduates in science and technology.

There is entrepreneurial training for young people. There are thousands of jobs that have been created in B.C. crown corporations. In fact the B.C. government's record when it comes to supporting post-secondary education has been superlative in comparison to what the Liberal government has done. In fact our B.C. minister has called for a national tuition freeze on national grants program.

In conclusion I say that this is a very good motion. It deserves our support. We need to make that commitment to the young people of Canada, to evaluate the Liberal programs and to expose the fact that they are not helping the young people of Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have about three minutes remaining in the debate. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis has three minutes.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the three minutes that you have granted me I would like to address some remarks related to those of the MP for Rosemont. I heard his diatribe. I do not know how long he spoke. It seemed endless. All of it was laced with the usual contempt for everything federal: all the faults in Quebec are as a result of the federal government. It is due to the federal government that unemployment is very high in Quebec. It is due to the federal government that the economy is so bad and so many youth have to find work.

Amazingly enough, I never hear a word about the provincial Government of Quebec. I never hear a word about the problems caused by wanting to have one referendum after another.

[An hon. member]

Referendum fever.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Referendum fever. In October 1995 we went through a searing referendum, a divisive issue which put Quebec on hold for months at a time before, after and certainly during.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

It scares business away.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

It scares business away like nothing else. What does the Quebec government, the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois have for a solution for young people and for older people? It is: “Let us have another referendum”. Then when they lose the next one, the third one in a row, they will say that is not enough, that the people have not spoken, and they want to have another one.

The member has the cheek to come here, paid by federal taxes supplied by people in the maritimes, British Columbia, Alberta and throughout Canada to give him a platform to rain on the federal parade and blame everything under the sun on the federal government.

I spent nine years in the National Assembly of Quebec and I remember the debates. It is almost like a time warp. It is the same old thing. Everything under the sun in Quebec that was going wrong was due to the federal government. If it rained it was federal rain. If it was cloudy it was a federal cloud. Anything that happened was federal. If one was sick it was due to the federal government. If people were not employed it was due to the federal government.

I am sick and tired of this diatribe. What we need in Quebec is another climate to realize that a lot of people want to take their time to accent quality of life and the things that matter to them such as education, social issues and work. If more accent is put on those things in Quebec rather than referendums and the separation of Quebec, we would all be better off.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We are down to the last five minutes of Private Members' Business and the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, has given the hon. member for St. John's West his last five minutes.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche for giving me this five minutes to address an issue which is probably the most serious one that faces the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and probably all of Canada.

The resolution simply asks in a very non-partisan way to allow the House of Commons to assess, to evaluate and to appraise the 250 different programs to help young people get involved in the labour force in Canada.

I congratulate the NDP member for Vancouver East who had some excellent suggestions on how we should go about this. Obviously education is key to what any of us would understand as creating a higher employment rate in Canada.

The member for the Reform is a little misguided and could easily support this resolution. We believe, as does the Reform member, that there are better ways. Probably we could in a non-partisan way finds ways to help young people in Canada. The Liberal member obviously thinks that everything they are doing is absolutely perfect. That is just simply not the truth or the reality in Canada today.

There are a lot of good programs. I read a memo from the Minister for Human Resources Development the other day. It mentioned a whole range of programs and some with success ratios that are very high, like the youth internship program. Some 88% of the people who took part in that program are either presently working or are back in studies.

That is a very successful program, but we wonder if all the 250 programs handled by several different departments are as equally successful. We believe a review should be done. The review could be very simple. It could be done by an all party parliamentary committee of the House, or it could be done by an outside person who is non-partisan, just to find out if these programs are getting to the people who really deserve them.

Some of the programs are excellent. There is no question that in St. John's West this summer we had over 1,200 students working in student programs. The Government of Canada saw it as a high priority to make sure there was student employment so that some students could actually save money toward their education.

The training allowances for adults and young adults are very meaningful. In our office in Newfoundland the highest ratio of phone calls that we get is from people trying to get assistance in training and to get back to school. They have come to the realization that without better education there is not much chance of a better job or a better life.

We do not know what is the success rate of all the other programs. We would like to know and the Government of Canada should want to know. If we have 250 programs obviously some might not be as productive and some might not be targeted to the right groups.

Another concern in our caucus is that if there is 250 programs spread over six or seven different government departments, what are the administration costs? If $2 billion is being spent on 250 programs with several government departments, what are the administrative costs? Is it 10% or $200 million? Is it 30% or $600 million? We want a review to find out how much money is spent on administration and to make sure that as much money as possible is directed to the three groups of Canadians the programs are designed for.

When it comes to the labour force basically there are three groups in Canada. The first is young Canadians working within Canada who are contributing to our country, their provinces and their family. Many of these workers were assisted by programs such as the Canada student loans program and training allowances. Many are also so heavily in debt that for many years they cannot contribute fully to the Canadian economy. They will not be able to buy homes and new cars and start their own businesses. Maybe there is a better way to set up the student loan system to allow Canadians to get an education, to work here and not be so heavily in debt.

Another group of young Canadians are those who are working outside the country. Why are they working outside the country? It is because of the lack of opportunities in Canada, the high tax rate and those kinds of problems.

Another group I want to touch on, especially in Newfoundland, is the vast number of young Canadians who are living unemployed in Canada. Often they are undereducated and living on temporary assistance programs from the government which really become permanent assistance programs from their parents and family.

I had a call today from one of my constituents who contributed to the EI surplus and is now on welfare. That EI surplus could be used to help get Canadians back to work, which was the original intent of the EI program.

I am delighted to be able to second this motion to ask for a non-partisan evaluation of these 250 government programs and I seek the unanimous consent to make this motion votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud, on behalf of my hon. colleague for Halifax West, to speak on behalf of the 223 Volvo workers and their families in Nova Scotia.

The other day in this House the Minister of Industry said the closure of the Volvo plant has nothing to do with Bill C-11, the auto tariff reduction bill, and that the plant is not moving to Mexico. Obviously a memory lapse seems to have happened on the cabinet side.

I want to quote some editorial sections. They are very true. The company plans to assemble S70 and V70 model automobiles, the same automobiles currently built in Halifax, at a plant at its bus division that it recently purchased for $70 million in the U.S. and Mexico. There is a sense from everybody in Nova Scotia, especially those workers and families, that Ottawa played a key role in sacrificing the Halifax plant's future when it decided in the last round of world trade talks to lower auto tariffs from 18% down to just over 6%.

In the past, the Halifax small plant was valuable to Volvo because it gave the firm the right to import cars to Canada under duty free under the auto pact. Yet Ottawa made no contingency plans for the possible impact of a tariff reduction on a major employer here. All we ask is that someone go down there and assist those workers in that regard.

Volvo states the Halifax plant is too small for the 8,000 car units it builds every year, yet it wants to start up a 1,000 car operation in Mexico. It does not make any sense, but that is what it is doing.

Volvo states that it is going to build buses in Mexico. It just purchased a bus plant. I ask Volvo and I ask the minister what does that do to Prevost Car Inc. and Novabus in Quebec? What happens to the 1,400 workers in Quebec?

Volvo plant workers are very disappointed with the federal and provincial government response to their crisis. Right now the CAW union along with members of the board of commerce and whoever else will go are planning a trip to Sweden to try to get Volvo to change its mind and do something for the workers.

As all Canadians know, after the recent Swissair fatal crash off the coast of Peggy's Cove in Nova Scotia, the world got to know exactly what Nova Scotians are made of. We are compassionate. We are caring. We are giving. We are salt of the earth people, as all Atlantic Canadians are. Why would a profitable company not want to stay here and utilize that valuable workforce to meet its needs?

The workers and I are very disappointed with a memo I received from sources within Volvo about the severance package given to these workers. It says anybody who criticises this measly severance will be terminated from the severance package. They will have no access at all. What kind of a democracy do we live in?

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the 223 great, hardworking workers of Nova Scotia and their families. I only wish that this government would think before it enacts laws that destroy the jobs and the economy of Nova Scotians.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, on September 9 Volvo announced it was shutting down its vehicle assembly plant in Halifax on December 18, 1998.

The federal government is acutely aware of the importance of this plant to Halifax. On October 5 the Minister of Industry wrote to Volvo to express the disappointment and regret of the Government of Canada with its decision and the loss of the 223 jobs.

The closure is part of Volvo's worldwide restructuring strategy and the plant is not being moved to Mexico as the NDP questioner implies. Volvo has acquired a Mexican bus and coach manufacture which will be the primary business. I understand it will also produce a limited number of vehicles, around 1,000 for the local market.

Volvo's Halifax plant built vehicles for the Canadian market and never sold those vehicles in Mexico. Volvo's plans for Mexico are completely unrelated to the closing of the Halifax plant. Closing of the Volvo plant has absolutely nothing to do with Bill C-11 and obviously the member does not understand what is in C-11.

I wish to point out that the federal government has done its part by ensuring that the business climate in Canada is favourable and conducive to the continued prosperity of the automotive assembly industry. The fact is that Canada remains a very competitive location for vehicle manufacturing.

Volvo itself remains a major transportation company in Canada with $1.8 billion in annual sales and more than 4,600 employees across the country.

The Government of Canada will continue to work with the local organizations in the Halifax region, with Volvo and with the Canadian Auto Workers, CAW, to find a solution.

Mr. Walter Fitzgerald, the mayor of the Halifax Regional Municipality, has formed a task force which includes the province of Nova Scotia, the Greater Halifax Partnership group, the CAW, and the federal government through ACOA to explore alternative uses for the facility and to ensure that the port of Halifax is in Volvo's future transshipment plans in North America.

We will continue to support all stakeholders seeking a positive solution to this announced closure.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

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

(The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.)