Debates of Feb. 19th, 1998

National Head Start Program

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Madam Speaker, I begin by congratulating the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his commitment to the welfare of children in general, in particular Canada's children. If his work on the land mines issue is any indication of his commitment, he is to be congratulated and appreciated for his sensitivity and his caring on such matters.

I agree with his point quite aside from the intention of his private member's bill that there are some things we cannot legislate. We cannot legislate love. We cannot legislate proper nurturing. We cannot legislate a healthy environment but we can aid in that process. We can provide the tools for families, individuals and communities. We can provide that environment and work toward that healthy relationship of nurturing between parents and children.

Child development is a complicated issue. The hon. member's suggestion that increased resources be channelled into early child development is a laudable one. It reflects a growing consensus that the well-being of Canada's children is a shared responsibility of all citizens and all levels of government.

As the hon. member will recall, the Government of Canada recognized the importance of early child development in the Speech from the Throne. Early childhood experiences influence overall health, intellectual development and well-being of individuals for the rest of their lives.

By investing early in children's healthy development, we are investing in their long term health and in the long term health of society. Federal, provincial and territorial governments have identified healthy child development as a priority and have been working closely for some time on collaborative initiatives aimed at helping children living in conditions of risk to get a better start in life.

These initiatives include the community action program for children. This is a very successful program. This program is so successful that the views are to expand on that program and to continue that program. It speaks to many of the concerns and many of the initiatives that should be undertaken as stated by the hon. member opposite.

The aboriginal head start program was referred to in one of our documents for the election. It was a commitment that we made and it is a commitment that we saw through. The aboriginal head start we have found so successful that we have expanded on it. We have doubled the funding. I would like to see a further expansion.

I think there is an area that the Canadian model does not address and that is the fortification of the linguistic and cultural base that individual children have. This adds much to the self-esteem of the individual once they have that basis. They are able to develop properly in and out of their own environment.

The Canada prenatal nutrition program is another one that talks about early head start. We believe we have a head start when it comes to this initiative. When we have 21,000 low birth weight babies born and it costs approximately $60,000 per infant to deal with the effects of low birth weight or premature births, which are sometimes the case from not having the proper prenatal nutrition care, we feel this is a very worthwhile investment.

We also know that we can avoid the exorbitant cost if we do continue on with this program. It is extremely successful, not only with the children but also with the parenting. It also provides the appropriate foundation for young people, particularly single parents, single mothers in this instance, to go forward and to build a proper nurturing and caring before the child is born as well as to continue on once they have given birth.

All these programs have proven highly successful in meeting the needs of the target population, not to mention the Inuit and first nation child care program which we know that we did not have a jurisdictional issue on. The federal government has very clear jurisdiction. We went forward and instituted $72 million. On the other child care issues we did not enjoy the same kind of agreement among our partners out there, so we could not proceed, this being one of the reasons.

If we as a society are to ensure that all Canadian children have the best opportunity to develop to their full potential, our investment must be much broader and much more comprehensive than early child development alone. I can assure my fellow parliamentarians that the Government of Canada fully supports the idea of a national strategy focused on early child development, but not in a narrow sense. Every program, every service offered to children should have that litmus test that speaks to early intervention, that speaks to child development per se from the age of zero onwards.

A substantial body of evidence exists which shows that the quality of early childhood experiences is at the root of many adult health and social problems and I think my hon. colleague spoke quite well to that. The links between poverty and chronic illness, teen pregnancies, youth suicides, drug abuse, family violence and long term unemployment are well documented.

To achieve this, the national children's agenda will be taking discussions beyond the government level. All Canadians will be invited to help shape this agenda. As part of the agenda, we believe the overriding issue is addressing child poverty, something we are working toward with the new national child benefit system. This is one approach. This is one effort.

The national child benefit will give Canadian children a better start in life by improving economic benefits and social services available to low income families with children. It will reduce the barriers many low income families face in moving from social assistance to the workforce. Over time it will reduce poverty, support families, make work pay and enable governments to work together to improve children's chances of success.

Over the course of this mandate we will double our initial investment of $850 million in the national child benefit system. We are also collaborating with the provinces and the territories on the national reinvestment framework to redirect savings from welfare spending into new and improved services and benefits for low income families with children.

The national child benefit system is a cornerstone of the national children's agenda. Together, governments are working to develop the agenda as one that will continue to evolve and build on programs to support children. It will include many partners across Canada.

I remind my hon. colleagues that these are not the only activities we are engaged in to promote and improve children's well-being. The Government of Canada has announced three new initiatives as part of the national children's agenda.

First, we are establishing—and I am sure my hon. colleague with his background will appreciate this very much—centres of excellence on children's well-being to broaden our understanding of how children develop and what we can do better to support them in the early years of life.

One of the cornerstone pieces of research that the centres of excellence can undertake is the effects of FAE and FAS children have had to endure, the long-lasting effects of fetal alcohol effect and fetal alcohol syndrome. I hope we realize that FAS and FAE are the most preventable disabilities that our country can do something about.

Second, we are expanding on the successful aboriginal head start program to help children on reserves to get a good start. We are doubling the funding.

Finally, we will build on the HRDC and Statistic Canada leading edge survey, the national longitudinal survey on children and youth, as the foundation for reporting on the readiness of Canadian children to learn. We have a profound interest in how our children develop intellectually, not just in one particular way. In a very multifaceted way we want to know that our children develop psychologically, mentally, physically, spiritually and intellectually in a manner that is appropriate for their age group.

Collectively these new initiatives, along with existing federal programs such as the community action plan for children, first nations child care and child care vision, are equipping us with powerful new tools that will help us to create a made in Canada strategy for the country's children.

I congratulate the hon. member. I hope he realizes that perhaps we do not call it a national head start program but the collective of these is early intervention and head start.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to rise in support of the motion. It is critical and comes at a critical time in our development. As our society changes there is more and more stress on families. We do not have the ability to stay home and look after our children. The environment I grew up in was a mother at home with eight family members.

I would agree that the motion is not about money. It is about time and about how we allocate time to the nurturing and development of our whole society because each individual adds or detracts from our collective.

We cannot expect to have healthy communities and a strong country if what is coming up behind us is a lot of individuals who have lived in poverty, who are uneducated and who have been neglected by their parents. They do not fit in because they do not speak the same language as us or communicate in the same way.

If we are to have any positive effect on the future of our country, I would agree with my colleague who introduced the motion that we have to do it at an early stage. We have to be diligent, aware, conscientious and particularly caring if we are to have a constructive and co-operative intervention at an early age and be serious about it.

We have the example of what is happening in a town in B.C. There is outrage. The intent on all parts is to work together to do something positive to protect those who are vulnerable, our children. We have to focus on our children and put the rights of parents second.

It is a very sensitive issue both culturally and individually. I have worked with people who have had their children taken away from them. Extreme trauma is suffered by both the children and the parents.

If there is a will ,there is truly a way for us to overcome these obstacles. We should not say that it is a provincial responsibility or the mother's responsibility and has nothing to do with us. We need to work together because it has everything to do with us.

When Reena Virk was killed we all felt horror and outrage. Where did we fail? The motion is an attempt to look at where we failed. What on earth went wrong to create that level of violence among Canadians?

If as a collective group, as citizens of the country, we want individuals who are physically strong, who are emotionally strong and who have psychological health so that their energy is directed toward being teachers, carpenters, architects, lawyers or doctors, we have to go to the beginning. A large part of that is to recognize the role of motherhood and the role of fatherhood within society. From there we should link it to every policy we make so that we strengthen families, so that each family in turn produces children who are strong, who are a benefit to our country and who are people we can be extremely proud of.

It has been said that we cannot teach love and caring, but we can. We can teach by example what love is and we can teach how to care. Through every gesture which shows care and protection we show love. It is up to us to do that.

If someone does not know how to do that, there have been examples given of how one mother will work with another mother, which is a very natural process, or one father will work with another father. Just think of all the men and women who act as coaches. They teach sportsmanship and how to work together in difficult situations. For children sporting events are difficult situations. If we teach them principles and values at that stage they will follow through to how we treat each other in the House. We can teach how to love and how to care. We cannot legislate those things, but we can certainly make sure that people know how to do them. We can set the example.

If we want to address these issues we have to recognize what they are linked to. A lot of it is poverty. We have to address what our government can and should do about poverty. We have to address what we can do to make sure people are educated and fed. We have to intervene when there is abuse, whether it is physical, emotional or verbal. Again that relates to teaching.

If we are to address alcoholism we need a drug strategy. We need to be serious about it. We need to address it at all levels, from its beginnings to the violence and the criminality which result from alcoholism.

We cannot change the fact that there are many people afflicted with fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect but we can prevent it. We can be very serious about preventing it and making access to alcohol a lot more difficult than it is, rather than it being a ritual or some sort of right of passage of drinking and carrying on at a certain age. That does not have to be part of our society.

We should remove stress from families. Our role as government is to see how we connect, how our policies link to each other, instead of dividing everything into separate parts and saying you are responsible for this, that department is responsible for that or the provinces can do this. We should be open minded enough to look at where we can really make a difference in the lives of families so they have the time they need to look after their children who are a part of our community and society.

Once again I would like to say it is not just about money. It is about time, the time we need to bring up our children. We must recognize that and make sure it is possible for people to bring up their children and not have to do it alone.

It is very difficult to be left alone with many young children. We should recognize the hardship of that and that it is unnatural. We need to help each other in bringing up our children. It benefits us all, or it will be to the detriment of us all.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me say from the outset that the Bloc Quebecois is against Motion M-261, the purpose of which is to develop more national standards and guidelines in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Through this motion, the Reform party calls on the Liberal government to ensure greater government visibility across Canada by developing an integrated program for children under the age of eight, which would involve both hospitals and schools. We need not analyze the motion before us very long to realize what the Reform Party is really trying to do.

By putting Motion M-261 forward in this House, the Reformers are acting as accomplices of a government desperate for visibility and more concerned with promoting Canadian unity that with resolving the problems experienced on a daily basis by Quebeckers and Canadians.

I want to make it clear that the Bloc Quebecois and the Quebec National Assembly are sensitive to the rise in youth crime. All Quebeckers agree that we must deal with the root causes of crime. What institution is in a better position than the family to address the problems experienced by children under the age of eight?

The Quebec government is so keenly aware of the importance of these 1.6 million children and of the key role of families in the future of our children that, in 1997, it tabled a white paper outlining its new family policy.

This policy statement creates links between the Quebec government's economic and social priorities and comes out in favour of our families and our children. The Quebec minister of education and family stated that “In Quebec, as elsewhere around the world, family is at the heart of society. That is where children learn the values that will shape them and help them spread their wings. On the eve of a new millennium, we must preserve the best we have come up with to support children and their parents”.

There are a lot of things, but it is of prime importance for me to highlight the principle underlying this statement of policy: the recognition of parents' primary responsibility for the needs of their children and of the support role of government. This principle finds expression in three objectives: to ensure fairness through universal support for families and additional help to families with low incomes; to facilitate the reconciliation of parental and professional responsibilities; and to promote the development of children and equal opportunity.

These are not just fancy words, this is the way Quebec wants to increase the consistency of its action to promote greater equality in family matters. This is the way Quebec identifies the role of the family in child development.

However, despite the fact that these measures proposed by the National Assembly received broad approval from the people of Quebec, it has become very difficult to implement them, because of the obsessive policies of our federal government.

This government wants to dictate national standards at all cost out of a concern for visibility and in order to justify its presence. This is the third time since the start of the week that I have risen in this House to criticize the devastating effect of the federal government's centralizing policies, and I hope we are being heard.

The centralizing measures of the Liberal government have, since 1993, been devastating for Quebec. Why? Because the Liberal government, with the support of the Reform Party today, is doing its best to prevent the Government of Quebec from developing measures that are so vital for young people in Quebec and for the support of their parents. Why?

The measures limiting Quebeckers' choices are the cuts in transfers to the provinces, the refusal to reimburse Quebec the $2 billion for harmonizing the GST, the Liberal government's refusal to review its tax system and the measures that are impoverishing the less fortunate put in place by the government.

I will take a few minutes here to talk of the harmful effect of one of these measures: the savage cuts by the Liberal government to the employment insurance plan.

The Minister of Human Resources Development is trying to sell us on the idea that this is a generous reform for the workers, but what planet does he come from, this minister of human impoverishment? Giving it the name of employment insurance does not make the reform equitable.

The Liberals need to come down from their ivory towers and go ask the seasonal workers, those who have to live through the “black hole of spring”, or the students who pay into employment insurance but cannot collect it, if they think the reform is a generous one. At the same time, they could ask them if they agree with the Liberal government's using the surplus it has saved in this way to eradicate the deficit and sneak still further into provincial areas of jurisdiction.

This disdain of workers has its limits. If the employment insurance fund records a surplus, let it be given back to the people who have contributed that surplus, by creating jobs, by improving this cobbled-together employment insurance program, by lowering the contributions made by workers and employers.

The Minister of Human Resources Development is viciously attacking the unemployed, while the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is trying to stifle seven million Quebeckers by asking nine judges to put words in our mouths that are not ours. While the Prime Minister is getting ready to trample over provincial jurisdictions as never before, the Minister of Finance is forcing us to take a magnifying glass to a bill which would allow Canada Steamship Lines, which he fully owns, to be completely sheltered from any Revenue Canada attack on its profits from its holdings in tax havens.

When we look at everything the Liberal government is doing to increase poverty, I wonder why the Reform Party is so bent on encouraging it to disregard provincial jurisdiction. How can the Reform Party encourage the Liberal government in new overlapping and interference in exclusively provincial jurisdictions instead of urging it to return, in the form of tax points, the money the Minister of Finance grabbed, with his cuts in provincial transfer payments for hospitals, schools and income security?

The Bloc Quebecois is convinced that the provinces are better placed to implement measures that will effectively address the problems of youth. Despite this attitude, we are in no way imposing our point of view on other provinces. We respect the provinces that prefer to let the federal government call the shots in these areas. Why would we not be entitled to expect the same from the provinces, the Liberal government and the Reform Party?

We oppose this motion because it will give the government the power to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the hon. members today on Motion M-241, in my capacity as the Progressive Conservative spokesperson for children.

Although the motion in large part addresses child and youth crime, I believe that the problem goes beyond the mandate of the justice system. I am delighted with my colleague's initiative, since it is high time that the matter of prevention is addressed, and an attempt is made to find the causes and solutions for some of the violent behaviour among children and youth.

There is a consensus among experts in social development that certain physical and psychological needs are fundamental, and must be met if a child is to develop into a well-balanced, responsible adult concerned about his environment. The experts agree that children who spend their first few years of life in a secure environment, with decent housing and diet, coupled with positive experiences free from any aggression or neglect, are more likely to lead prosperous and productive lives as adults. They will also be less likely to commit serious crimes. Is there not, therefore, a close connection between children's behaviour and their economic situation?

According to a long term study by the National Crime Prevention Council, those who commit crimes and re-offend the most frequently come from the poorest families and the poorest housing. According to a study carried out in Michigan, there must be early intervention, with a focus on the whole range of disadvantages which have heavy consequences for the children of low income families.

We would be well on the way to preventing juvenile crime if we were able to focus on child poverty. We in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada firmly believe that the best defence against poverty and crime is a strong economy. Parents with good jobs can provide their children with living conditions that are conducive to normal psychological development.

I would certainly not wish to suggest that all children living in poverty have, or will have, criminal behaviour, but I think the relationship is too close to ignore. I think we must do everything possible to prevent crime. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

By keeping young people in school, by intervening earlier in the lives of people having trouble, by making young people more aware of the consequences of criminal behaviour, we increase our chances in the fight against crime. In addition, by developing head start programs, social stakeholders in hospitals and schools will be able to identify families who are at risk and in need of assistance and provide them with the resources they need to redirect negative behaviour. Both children and their parents must be educated.

Many parents will themselves have come from disadvantaged backgrounds that will have seriously hindered their psychological development. It is difficult to turn around problems of this nature later in life.

For example, a teenager who has seen his alcoholic father mistreat the family all his life will also have a tendency to adopt the same behaviour. If the cycle is very hard to break in adolescence, imagine what it must be like in adulthood.

This is one more reason to begin the programs at a very early age, before the development of behaviour that will lead some young people to turn to delinquency and crime.

There is a whole series of social development programs that have proven effective, including programs of intervention in early childhood and programs providing recreation for young people. On the whole, the children taking part seemed better adjusted socially and to have overcome a number of risks relating to their poverty and their environment.

Statistics show clearly that early prevention efforts are successful and benefit the participants, their families and the community as a whole.

I can therefore assure my colleague that our party will support his motion, because, when it comes to the welfare and the future of our children, we are always there to lend a hand.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, it was my intention to speak at this moment in the House notwithstanding that I have sat here slightly aggravated in listening to the presentation by the Bloc Quebecois speaker.

There is a comment I must make before I give up the balance of my time to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. He cancelled a flight in order to be here, disappointing his constituency, and to reflect his respect for the subject matter. I will be pleased to give him his time, but in one moment please.

The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has presented a very important motion, the concept of which I fully support. The mechanism is a matter for discussion just so long as the ends are found.

The Bloc Quebecois' narrowness of spirit and narrowness of view is totally reflected in a lack of understanding in this North American continent and in fact within the western nations that share many of these problems, the issues of what to do for youth, for children, particularly prebirth, prenatal and immediately following birth, love, nurturing, affection, emotion and how to be a parent.

All these are issues we are all looking at. It is hard to know the reason why we have the number of young people acting out as the member pointed out in his speech.

I just wanted to highlight that if we were to put these walls around Quebec so that we should not be, God forbid, working together federal, provincial and municipal and volunteer associations and researchers, we would be losing or perhaps duplicating and wasting money.

I refer them to a study on crime prevention by Dr. Tremblay in Montreal. He was the director for youth protection in the province of Quebec. My colleagues who were the directors of youth protection and I have looked at all kinds of programs worldwide, in particular in Canada, including Quebec. We would have looked at Dr. Tremblay's longitudinal study on the root of criminal behaviour. It can often be traced back to childhood experiences, the reasons for aggressive behaviour.

Researchers have begun to investigate the protective factors that allow a child to be resilient and to succeed despite bleak negative environments. Their research has revealed that resilient children generally have certain characteristics. This can all be found in the initiatives of the Canadian government combined with the provincial governments. It was done under safer communities, a parliamentary crime prevention guide. The status of women's group was very much involved with this as were parental groups and many others.

I suggest that the Bloc take heed of what this member has brought to this House. It should look at ways of implementing it. Never mind the name, never mind the party. Just look at the possibility of addressing a very serious problem that we do not want recycled generation after generation.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member from the other side. This is a very serious issue. Since their are seven or eight minutes left, I ask for the unanimous consent of this House that I be given the opportunity to finish my speech which will carry us two or three minutes over.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the members present in the House.

It is a privilege to participate in this debate on Motion No. 261 which was introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I note the concern expressed in the comments of members from all parties with the exception of the Bloc. This is an issue of great interest to me as a father, as a lawyer and as a parliamentarian.

My colleague is asking the government to develop a comprehensive national head start program for children in their first eight years. He is talking about a co-ordinated effort between the federal and provincial governments and ministries. There are programs out there and he would like them to work together. That is what this is all about.

I agree with him that it is important to ensure our children have the best opportunity to develop to their full potential. While parents have the greatest responsibility in the nurturing and development of our children, we as legislators must ensure parents have the support they need. We must develop partnerships with our provincial and municipal counterparts to support initiatives aimed at reducing youth crimes. This is all about co-ordination and working together for the good of all our children in this country.

We must go beyond crime management. We must shift to crime prevention. I will discuss some examples I am familiar with through my practice in criminal law as a lawyer in youth court. Verbal, physical and sexual abuses are all obvious threats to normal psychological development. They have a devastating effect on children.

I saw the consequences of child neglect firsthand in the courts. They were easy to identify. They say it costs about $95,000 a year to keep a youth in a detention centre. That is arguable. I know we could debate that.

Stories of some of my personal experiences in the courtroom will emphasize the importance of prevention. A child of 12 or 13 could be before a judge for the first time. If a good, understanding judge had the tools and programs available, although quite often they were not, and there was family support, there were success stories.

We could follow up on these youths and the schools that played an integral role in the management of these youths who were not back before the courts. Yet we could see the chronic youth, those at the age of 14 with criminal records two and three pages long who were going through a revolving door. Yes, we have to hold these children accountable.

What the member is talking about is that we have to get to these children at an early age. There will be some who will slip through and end up in our justice system. However, from what I have seen in the courts, I honestly believe that we could stop a large part of this if we started at day zero. That is the key.

The Reena Virk case is an example. I probably saw some of these youths in the courtroom when I was practising law. It is the very courtroom I practised in. A 14 year old girl was savagely beaten by a gang of eight or nine children. Other children watched and did nothing. They beat her again and then broke her arms and her back and threw her in a river to die. It brings tears to our eyes. The worst part is that this is not an isolated event. In my own community of Sydney in the last few years we had another youth killed again by a group of youths. These are within 20 miles of each other. These are not isolated incidents.

We cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend that these things are not going on. We as parliamentarians have a responsibility to co-ordinate. My comment on the remarks by the member who spoke earlier is that I support all the programs and things that are being done.

I do not believe the member is asking for a big wheelbarrow full of money. He is asking that we co-ordinate this together with the ministers from the provinces and the federal government and the people who are involved. We should get together to try to really and truly help these children to ensure they are getting the love, the nurturing and assistance they need in order that they do not end up in our justice system, like a revolving door.

These examples prove to us that the earlier years in life are so crucial. If we address them we will drastically reduce the social and economic costs to our society. This is a very small investment with a huge return. It is like an RRSP, the benefits are just enormous at the back end.

Many programs already exist in centres in Canada and the U.S. There is the program in Hawaii pioneering early intervention programs for children focusing on high risk families. They go right back to when the woman is still pregnant. If assistance is needed at that time it is provided. There is also a program in Michigan which my colleague has spoken about. The evaluations of these programs have shown a decrease in juvenile and adult crime by 50%. These programs are working and that is the most important part.

I am really encouraged to participate in a debate where all the parties, with the exception of the Bloc, seem to have children in their hearts. The long term savings to the taxpayers will be absolutely enormous. It works out to roughly $6 in dividends for every $1 invested. This is going on the statistics from these other programs. That in itself is something we cannot ignore.

The Reform Party stands for tougher laws. In no way is this motion suggesting that we cannot hold people accountable for their actions. The ones who slip through, yes, we have to hold them accountable and ensure they are dealt with toughly. However, what this is all about is stopping half of them before they get to that door. It is a travesty to see them coming through.

I practised in the criminal courts myself and of my own choosing. In our occupations we always want to feel we are making a difference and are quite proud of our work. Some would argue how anyone could be proud of their work while practising as a criminal lawyer.

However if we get the youth early and get them into the programs, we can make a difference, even for offences such as shoplifting which are deemed by the courts as very minor offences.

Sometimes we would get the family in there. We would send them off to counselling, probation, all kinds of programs. We could tell that that person was not coming back, that they were not going to be back and they were not. This is just enforcing that we should take that one step before and give these programs.

I listened to my friend's comments about the baby in the hospital and having to do an examination before sending the baby back into that terrible environment. It almost brings tears to one's eyes.

When sentencing these children in the courts they go through the child's history before giving the sentence. Every single time they describe the circumstances, the sexual abuse, the prostitution in the families, the physical abuse between the parents, just horrible conditions. Almost every time with those who are involved in serious crimes that is what is described without exception. That is what they went through.

Again, I commend my friend and colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his dedication to these very sensitive issues, something he believes in dearly in his heart and wants to make a difference. I thank again the hon. member for Mount Royal for her gracious offer to allow me to speak today.

I have a two and a four year old at home. I believe very much that we have to look after the most valuable resource in our country, our children.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, on October 28 I asked the finance minister a question prefacing it by saying to him that he is rumoured to be a successful businessman in Canada or elsewhere, we are not sure now. But this businessman, I said to him, is now telling our kids that he will be taking 10% of their lifetime earnings and he will manage their money so that they will get back a 1.8% return on all that money, that lifetime investment. I asked the minister that as a businessman would he put his money into a venture with that kind of a return.

The minister's answer was very instructive. He said first of all that the return that is projected is a 3.8% return, not 1.8%. This was very disingenuous of the finance minister who knew very well that his own actuarial report says that our children will indeed get only a 1.8% return on their lifetime investment. The 3.8% return he was referring to, to kind of muddy the waters, is the return that he says will be earned by his new CPP investment fund.

We just saw in the pages of the newspaper today some grave warnings by financial analysts saying that as this fund's investment is presently structured it is doubtful that it will get even such a low rate of return as 3.8%, which I might point out is not even as much as the new RRSP bonds that Canadians can buy from the Canadian government. But to get back to the point, our children for a lifetime of having to put 10% of their earnings into this CPP fund will get a return of 1.8%.

He also said that the great advantage of the Canada pension plan is that the Government of Canada stands behind it regardless of market fluctuations. I might point out that the government in fact intends to invest our money in the market, but of course we are not smart enough to do that ourselves. Only the government can do that. But then he said the Government of Canada stands behind that. Is that not reassuring?

Guess who the Government of Canada gets its money from. From us. So if the Government of Canada screws up and miscalculates and does not do its investment properly, guess who it can look to to make it up. Us. So we get to pay more in premiums, in taxes or in lost benefits. That is not very reassuring.

Then he said, using some scare tactics to keep people from looking at alternatives, that Canadians should not have to be subjected to having their retirement at the whim of market volatility, as if the stock market were the only kind of investment Canadians could make.

I just have a follow up question which I would be very pleased to have the government answer. I hope people who are watching these debates at home will answer the same question.

Your child or grandchild comes to you and says “I want your advice on some investments. You have lived a few years and have managed your money well. Now I need your advice. I have heard about a good new investment. I will contribute 10% of my salary and the fund manager will guarantee 1.8% return on my investment, a real rate of return over the years. Should I buy in?”

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry but the hon. member's time has expired.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, let us understand that whether you are 16 or 60 the Canada pension plan will be there for you when you retire. Those who say otherwise are mistaken and those who wish otherwise are wrong.

Ultimately this is about values. You either believe in the CPP or you do not. The government does. The Reform Party does not. The Reform Party can talk about its plans to destroy the CPP. The government will talk about what we have done to preserve it.

The member for Calgary—Nose Hill has said in recent radio shows that we need to look at perhaps getting some of this unfunded liability out of the general tax revenues.

Paying off the outstanding obligations year by year as they come due would require a $20 billion to $75 billion payment each year over the next 60 to 70 years. Paying off the outstanding obligations over 30 years would require almost a doubling of GST or a 25% increase in personal income tax. Which taxes do the Reform Party want to increase to pay these outstanding obligations?

Canadians have told the government that they want the burden to be spread evenly across generations. If no changes were made, our children and grandchildren would be asked to pay 14.2%. Some claim, as the Reform Party does often, that young people are getting a raw deal from the CPP changes. Young Canadians will get 50 cents for every dollar they invest.

This type of statement is incorrect. The fact is that all CPP contributors, present and future, will receive more from the CPP than they pay in. Young people will receive $1.80 for every dollar of contributions. The return could be higher if we as Canadians were prepared to renege on existing contributions for today's seniors and for those who have been paying into the CPP for years.

The federal government and the provinces as joint stewards of the CPP will honour all commitments made to Canadians in the fairest way possible. The government will not renege on our obligations to Canadians as the Reform Party will do.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I compliment the Reform member for Saanich—Gulf Islands who, just prior to the rant we witnessed by the member opposite, made what I thought was a very thoughtful and important speech about young people.

He spoke about his concern about young people, about children. He talked about having a two year old and a four year old at home and how he was concerned about their future. That is the exact reason why I asked the question some time ago of the Minister of Human Resources Development. I talked about what the government did in its first mandate and what it is continuing to do in this mandate as it relates to youth unemployment.

I too have children. They are not really children any more. They are 23, 25 and 27 years of age and in various stages of education and working. I see all three boys and a lot of their friends who come to our place. These young people today, who are the immediate resources that will be leading us in the near future, are very concerned about their future. They want to know about opportunities for advancement. They want to know about training opportunities.

In my riding of Mississauga West we are experiencing an unemployment rate that is a bit below the national average. It is about 12% for young people. That is way too high, even though it is lower than the national average.

My question has to do with my concern that I hope the minister will work with local community groups and boards of education that have put forward alternative proposals and with the private sector to implement programs that will create opportunities for young people.

Recently the minister approved a program known as Ice Youth. Ice Youth is a tripartite agreement between the private sector, a company in the business of building arenas; the board of education in Peel; and the government. These young people will be trained and given class b refrigeration licences. It will teach them about all the sophisticated equipment and everything necessary for working around an arena. In Canada that is a huge business and a terrific career opportunity, but it is a very small program.

I hope the minister will look at other programs like that one where we can involve our young people in working co-operatively with the private sector, the local municipality and the school boards to create new opportunities.

We have seen training programs in past governments designed to train people but no jobs tied to them at the end. Programs like the Ice Youth program and others I hope we will see approved following the budget of the Minister of Finance next week will be tied directly to jobs.

The private sector will take advantage of funds from the government to create economic growth by saying to a particular young person “We are going to train you in this field. We are going to give you a trade. We are going to give you skills. We are going to give you knowledge that will then be tied to a job”. What is the point of training someone and then having them sit at home with nothing to do?

I hope the parliamentary secretary can reassure me an my constituents—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry but the hon. member's time has expired.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very important question.

I can inform him and the House that through the government wide youth employment strategy we are creating nearly 280,000 work experiences for youth over three years. This year alone the strategy will create over 93,000 work experiences for young Canadians.

We know that our programs are working. A November 1997 survey of Youth Internship Canada and Youth Service Canada programs show that 85% of Youth Service Canada participants and 88% of Youth Internship Canada participants are either employed or in school 6 to 12 months after completing the program. This year alone these two programs will help over 30,000 youth get valuable work experience.

Today the Minister of Human Resources Development launched student summer job action 1998. This program with a total budget of $120 million will create over 60,000 summer jobs and help 350,000 students across the country in their search for summer employment. These are but a few of the initiatives we have undertaken to help young Canadians find work.

Much remains to be done. A 15.8% youth unemployment rate is still much too high. That is why the Prime Minister and his provincial colleagues confirmed during last December's first ministers meeting that helping our youth find employment was a national priority. They reiterated the need to work together.

Consequently the Minister of Human Resources Development will continue to work with his provincial and territorial colleagues to put in motion an action plan on youth employment. The plan will recognize that governments, the private sector and communities have roles to play to help young Canadians get and keep a job.

Madam Speaker, stay tuned on Tuesday when the budget is released and you will see even more priorities of the government.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

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 6.49 p.m.)