Debates of May 21st, 2013

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague across the way behaved very rudely. He blabbered on while my colleague was responding. This kind of behaviour and lack of respect is typical of the Conservatives.

I would like to know whether she thinks this government's biggest challenge is basically to agree, to come to a consensus and to talk with other levels of government, particularly when we know there are horror stories in her region. In fact, some owners are exaggerating about the living conditions of temporary workers employed by fast food chains.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard stories from some temporary foreign workers, who have been brought into the country to work in restaurants, about incredibly difficult working conditions. We cannot imagine the kinds of pressure and abuse that these people have to face.

Only three weeks ago I dealt with a cook who came here from Spain. He told me that his first day at work was beautiful. He really liked the first two days. Once he finished his second day, his employer told him that his wife had to start coming in the following week. The cook said he was the only one who had applied for the job, so his wife would not be coming in. He was actually told not to bother coming back to work unless he and his wife came together.

We have also heard stories about workers who are not being paid their full wages, or workers who have to pay money to consultants.

Not every employer is like that. Not every person who comes into this country receives that kind of abuse. We live in Canada, which is a democratic country. We have to enforce our labour rules in each of the provinces. We have to make sure that the people who come here when we need them get a living wage and are treated fairly, in the same way that Canadians are treated.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to this debate on the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The report is titled, “Labour and Skills Shortages in Canada: Addressing Current and Future Challenges”. Our government supports concurrence in this report because it highlights a very real skills gap facing Canada. I am a member of the human resources committee and I listened to the evidence of the witnesses. My comments will reflect the facts that the witnesses presented.

There are employers who cannot grow their businesses because they cannot find workers with the skills they need. At the same time, there are Canadians looking to fill these jobs but they do not have the skills needed to qualify. This is why our government took further action in budget 2013 to more directly connect skills training to jobs that are currently available. We will do this through the Canada jobs grant. The grant moves training decisions out of the hands of government and into those most qualified to determine in-demand skills, those being employers with unfilled jobs.

Most notably, a new Canada jobs grant will provide up to 130,000 Canadians a year with $15,000 or more to retrain. The amount of $5,000 from that will come from the federal government, with the provinces and territories expected to match that contribution. As our Minister of Finance said at the time, “For the first time, the Canada Job Grant will take skills-training choices out of the hands of government and put them where they belong in the hands of employers and Canadians who want to work”.

There are currently thousands of jobs available across Canada going unfilled, at great cost to the economy and all Canadians. With baby boomers starting to retire in large numbers, we are experiencing real skills shortages. This is undermining our country's competitiveness and ongoing economic growth. We are also working to improve the training of apprentices to fill needs in the skills trades. To reduce barriers to accreditation, we will invest over three years to work with provinces and territories to harmonize requirements and examine the use of practical tests as a method of assessment.

We are also reforming procurement practices to encourage contractors to hire apprentices on federal construction and maintenance projects, and we will work with the provinces and territories to ensure that they too support employment of apprentices. Our economic action plan also improves supports to groups who are currently under-represented in the job market, such as youth, Canadians with disabilities, aboriginal people and newcomers to Canada. We want to ensure every Canadian can find a place in the job market because Canadian employers need every last one of them.

With regard to youth, economic action plan 2013 proposes several strategic investments to help them at different stages of their education and careers. For example, to make maximum use of the education and talents of recent graduates, we will, through the career focus program, support 5,000 more paid internships for recent post-secondary graduates. We will also invest over two years to improve labour market information for young people considering careers in high-demand fields, such as the skills trades, science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Under our government's action plan, Canada will continue to have one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the G7. Since 2006, our government has helped 2.1 million youth obtain skills training and jobs. This year alone our measures have created 60,000 jobs for youth. Approximately 400,000 Canadian apprenticeship grants have been handed out to youth since 2007, helping thousands of youth fill skilled trades jobs. These youth-focused initiatives are accompanied by supports for persons with disabilities, aboriginal people and newcomers.

We will continue to work with provinces and territories and stakeholders to enhance the foreign credential recognition processes to increase the successful integration of internationally trained professionals into the job market.

Our ultimate goal is to nurture and enable economic growth by creating more opportunities for all Canadians.

There have been several references today to the temporary foreign worker program. Let me be clear. This program was never intended to allow for the outsourcing of Canadian jobs. When concerns were raised about the program, we acted quickly to ensure the interests of Canadian workers came first. Last month we announced several changes to the program. Before issuing a labour market opinion, we will make sure, through beefed-up questions, that the temporary foreign worker program is not used to enable the outsourcing of Canadian jobs.

Through legislative and regulatory amendments currently before the House, we would increase the government's authority to suspend or revoke work permits and labour market opinions if the program is being misused. We would now require employers who rely on temporary foreign workers to have a firm plan in place to transition to a Canadian workforce. Effective immediately, we would also temporarily suspend the accelerated labour market opinion process in order to determine whether it is the best approach. Our goal continues to be to process applications as efficiently as possible, while ensuring that Canadian workers always come first.

In addition, fees for processing LMOs and work permits would be introduced so that taxpayers are no longer obliged to subsidize the cost of processing these applications. We would require that employers who use the program pay temporary foreign workers at or above the average wage for a job.

The opposition voted against providing funding to skills training for Canadians to qualify for jobs that might otherwise have been filled by temporary foreign workers. It has continued to vote against the legislative changes we are attempting to introduce to ensure the government has the tools to discover and crack down on businesses that are abusing the temporary foreign worker program.

I would like to point out that we have put forward measures to help unemployed Canadians access labour market information to transition back into the labour force more quickly. For example, through enhanced job alerts, registered claimants can receive information up to twice daily on jobs available in their area.

We need everyone's skills and talents at work to meet labour market demands and support the economy. We need action on all fronts, which our government is already taking, to create jobs and economic growth that will ensure continued prosperity for all Canadians. Canada is experiencing significant skills shortages in many regions and sectors of the economy, but we must always keep Canadians first whenever there are job openings.

We have heard from a lot of the opposition MPs when it comes to a plan. Well, we have a plan. It is a plan that the opposition has voted against every step of the way. Our economic action plan has delivered on our commitment to Canadians to focus our efforts on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Canadians understood that the economic leadership of our Prime Minister was a key to navigating the difficult economic times we have faced in the recent past. That trust paid off, by electing a strong and stable national Conservative government.

We have seen the creation of over 900,000 net new jobs. Most are full-time jobs in the private sector, with over two-thirds being in high-wage industries. This reflects the strength of Canada's economy amidst global economic uncertainty.

As good as these results are, however, our focus is still on getting Canadians back to work. While there are currently thousands of jobs across Canada going unfilled, there are still too many Canadians looking for work. We are confronted with mismatches between the existing skills of the local labour force in some regions and the skills required by employers for new jobs. This is leading to shortages in some occupations that are key to our competitiveness and continued economic growth.

Therefore, the Conservatives are pleased to support concurrence on this report and to call on all members of this House to work with us to address the skills gap. This can be most directly demonstrated by supporting our economic action plan and the budget implementation act that is now working its way through the House of Commons.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I listened to the speech given by my colleague opposite.

I would like to ask him a question. How can he ask us to support this kind of initiative when the government is making political hay by broadcasting ads about a program that the provinces have not yet been able to weigh in on?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing the committee found during our discussions with the witnesses who came forward was that a lot of the needs, the skills gaps and opportunities for jobs of today were not communicated well enough to the general public and to educational institutions across the country. What came out over and over again is that we need to better communicate those opportunities and what the government is doing to help come alongside people who want to get this skills training. This is just part of the program. Sure, it is going to be coming in the near future, but it is making Canadians aware so they can prepare themselves to get into the workforce.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a relatively simple question for the member. Canada is at an all-time high of approximately 338,000 temporary foreign workers, more than we have ever had in Canada.

Why has the government done such a poor job at equipping Canadians with the skills necessary to fill those thousands of jobs that could not be filled? Apparently, according to the Conservatives, employers had to look outside Canada in order to find workers to fill those jobs. In the member's opinion, what did the Conservative government do wrong so that employers were unable to fill thousands of jobs with people who live in Canada?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member, as I understand, was part of a provincial government and knows that skills training is the responsibility of the provincial government. The problem has been the communication between the provinces and the skills training to meet the needs of the employers of today. That is why we determined with our Canada jobs grant that there would be funding for the in-demand jobs so we could ensure those job needs are met.

It is obvious that the program has not worked in the past because there was such a skills gap. Our government is willing to take action and move with the provinces and with employers to make this happen, to ensure we get not only the people trained but people who are trained in the right skills so they can meet the needs of today.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I understand the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has an intervention.

Notice of Closure Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give notice that with respect to consideration of Government Business No. 17, at the next sitting a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly in the area I represent, in the province of Alberta, the biggest threat to our economy is a lack of labour, and skilled labour is in great shortage. I know many companies in the oil business and many other types of businesses that cannot find people. There are too many jobs that go unfilled in Canada because the right type of people cannot be found. However, part of our budget, part of this last economic action plan, is the Canada job grant and part of this program would allow business to pay a portion.

The member spoke about youth. Does he believe that part of recruitment will now be carried out by the business community?

Businesses will move into the high schools and explain why they want to hire youth and give incentives. In the past, governments and others tried to perhaps find unemployed persons and put them into positions. However, businesses will now recruit these young men and women, help them get skilled and train them if they work for them. That is the job grant. Perhaps the member would like to expand on that.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, interestingly, we heard today from witnesses at committee that 90% of the temporary foreign workers are actually in the western provinces, which shows the need the member just talked about.

We identified with the union representatives who attended the meeting and talked about the issues of skills shortages and communicating with youth in high schools, colleges and universities about opportunities.

It is interesting that in Canada the average person going into the trades is 26 years old. Most have gone through university, got their degree, but when they came out they could not find a job and then had to go back into skills training. We are saying that we should eliminate the university and get right into the skills training. Part of the Canada job grant is to connect the job and make youth aware of the opportunities in the skilled trades.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap, and I have two questions for him.

The Conservatives have not yet discussed the impact of the Canada job grant with the provinces. Does the hon. member think that the provinces are partners when it comes to employment in Canada, or does he think they get in the way more than anything?

Moreover, the Conservatives have spent thousands of dollars to advertise a program that has not yet been implemented. My colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher asked the question previously, but the hon. member did not really answer, so I will repeat it. Why spend thousands of dollars for a program that does not even exist?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the discussions at the table were interesting, especially with the unions. The member opposite should be aware that the unions have a great part to play in some of these needs, because they see it every day. They are the ones who really helped to put together a strategy. Of course, our government is willing to listen to Canadians and find out what the needs are, and so we reacted to that. Obviously this program was based on information that was provided to the committee. It had to be done in a timely fashion because the longer we wait to put these people into training and get them into the workforce, the more it will jeopardize our economy and the growth that we anticipate for our country.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the debate with interest and my colleague from Okanagan—Shuswap commented that there may be some justification that it is perhaps better that young people do not go to university and go straight into trades instead.

My view is that it is best if all young people have a chance to graduate from high school and are then able to make the choice of whether to go into trades or to university.

Therefore, I would ask my colleague this. There is an underfunding of aboriginal people on reserve compared to the provincial and territorial funding for young people in small communities. That results in an unfortunate high level of young people on reserve who do not graduate from high school and perhaps do not go into technical training or university. Should that not be addressed by his government so that equitable funding is provided for aboriginal people on reserve?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that I was not suggesting that all students should not go to university and should look at the trades. Rather, that is obviously an opportunity they need to be exposed to.

When I first came to this place in 2006, I was the chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. We did a study on post-secondary education for aboriginal students. The outcome of that study was that if aboriginal students were to get to the grade 12 level the percentage who would go on to post-secondary education was the same as non-aboriginal people in Canada. The issue was to get them to grade 12. One of the recommendations was to try to introduce some of the skills and job opportunities in the areas close to the community. That was very important, especially with the young aboriginal males because they might not want to leave their communities in the north and would rather want to look at the opportunities with respect to mining or whatever economic activity was happening in the area.

Our government has put together a first nations job fund of $109 million over five years and $132 million over five years to create the service delivery structure to further help aboriginals get the skills they need to fill the jobs in their area.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House today to speak about a report that was tabled by a committee of which I am a member. In the next few minutes, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

We are focusing our attention on a study tabled by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. This report, which is entitled “Addressing Current and Future Challenges”, deals with the labour and skills shortage in Canada. The report does indeed contain some solutions. However, the entire NDP caucus believes that these solutions are highly inadequate.

Committee members spoke at length about certain recurring points, such as the lack of interest in skilled trades observed throughout the provinces. For several decades now, post-secondary education has been promoted and a BA or other degree has been touted as the key to success. Now, this is causing a significant lack of people with training in skilled trades, and there is a shortage of plumbers and electricians across the country.

In 2008, before the economic crisis and the never-ending economic difficulties, there were signs all along highway 20. Just outside Beloeil, there was a giant sign that said “we are looking for” or “we are looking to hire 12 electricians tomorrow morning”. At the time, before the recent crisis, there was already a labour shortage, particularly in the skilled trades.

The bad news is that, if we are fortunate enough to see a true economic recovery in 2014-15, we will be in exactly the same position, with the same problems we had in 2008. Billions of dollars have been invested in the Conservative government's much-vaunted economic action plans over the past few years. The government could have shown some vision, but it did not. It sometimes even made mistakes. If there is an economic recovery tomorrow, the day after tomorrow or in 2014, we will be in the same position as we were in 2008.

The good news is that, when it came right down to it, all members recognized that the major challenge of the first half of the 21st century would be a lack of human resources. Conservative and NDP members agreed on this.

The not-so-good news is that the government engaged in a completely ridiculous exercise, which is particularly evident at the end of the report, where almost all of the testimony was manipulated. For example, the Conservative majority linked everything that the witnesses said to 2012 budget initiatives.

A standing committee should be a place where members have all the freedom they need to recommend to a minister whether an initiative should be carried out in a certain way, or faster or slower, and so on. Such a place no longer exists.

Witnesses are now being ground down by the Conservative majority, which hacks every argument to bits until each little piece falls into place and conforms with ministers' decisions made months or even a year ago.

Thus, the committees are being completely manipulated. We have known this for the past two years. In this report, however, this exercise is no longer simply verging on the absurd; it has become wholly and utterly absurd.

There is another problem. Throughout the study, this obsession with reducing the size of government was apparent. Let us clear this up once and for all. There are times when the government must support a vision. In order to do so, it sometimes has to spend a little money in order to make more money. Yes, the government can do that. It sounds crazy, but it has happened in the past.

Today we are faced with a huge challenge. We will not have enough human resources, especially entrepreneurs. Quebec alone needs 70,000 people to ensure the entrepreneurial succession of SMEs. That is the big challenge facing our economy and it is by far this government's favourite subject.

As soon as the witnesses started talking about the need to provide more resources, the Conservative majority started tuning them out.

During witness testimonies we heard endless stories such as that of a 20-year-old without the necessary support to become an apprentice because there was a waiting period to receive employment insurance benefits and because the help provided to apprentices does not last for the duration of the apprenticeship.

It is not a total success. Depending on the program and province, 30% to 40% of apprentices drop out. Because the government tries to save a few thousand dollars by failing to support the apprentice for the duration of his apprenticeship, that apprentice resorts to employment insurance or social assistance or returns to an unstable job.

Instead of responding to an urgent need, like the need to have more electricians who earn excellent salaries, we lose that young apprentice. We lose a taxpayer who might have earned an annual salary of $35,000, $45,000, $55,000, $65,000, or $70,000. All because the Conservatives are obsessed with reducing the size of government. The Conservatives do not understand that sometimes they need to invest a bit of money simply to generate wealth and purchasing power. The return on investment can be tenfold or better over a period of 5 to 10 years.

The members opposite do not have this on their radar even though the witnesses agreed that the government needs to make more of an effort and invest more in order to successfully meet this tremendous challenge.

The NDP agrees with a number of the recommendations in the report. I will go over a few of them here. However, none of them go far enough. The Conservatives' logic seems to be, “this is something important that the government should do, but it will cost a lot of money, so let us pretend we did not see it”. It is dizzying.

Let us now look at the second recommendation in the report:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada continue its efforts toward achieving better and more user-friendly labour market information, which could [note: could] in turn [if they get that far] be provided to students, graduates and job seekers...

They are so hypocritical. They make cuts to everything that has to do with statistics. They cut resources for statistics gathering even though they know that good statistics are essential for making the right decisions in order to do something about this desperate nationwide labour shortage.

We know there is a problem, so in our minority report, we wrote something that took incredible courage. We wrote clearly that, “New Democrats recommend providing Statistics Canada with the funding it needs to improve labour force-related surveys and restoring core funding to Sector Councils.”

Oh, what a big expense. Yes, it would cost the government something. However, on the other hand, how can we tackle the greatest challenge of the early 21st century if we do not even have the resources to properly define it?

I will now read recommendation 13:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada review the resources allocated to the Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program to confirm the current levels are sufficient to raise the basic skill level for adults.

Literacy statistics have stagnated for 40 years now. For 40 years, we have known that approximately 20% of our fellow Canadians do not have the basic skills to respond to a simple human resources need like working as a cashier at Petro-Canada. The problem has been around for 40 years. There is no recommendation about allocating adequate resources to resolve this problem. The problem is there and the Conservatives know it.

I would have liked to comment on other recommendations, but I will speak briefly to another aspect that I think is an absolute priority. It is not even about government money, but money that belongs to employers and employees. We have to build the employment insurance fund and leave the money there so that we can respond to urgent, essential industry needs.

I have here the testimony of Mr. Atkinson, the president of the Canadian Construction Association. He said:

One of the things that our industry has been calling for, and, indeed, this committee recommended, was to provide either some tax incentives through the Income Tax Act or some support for relocation expenses through the EI system for workers relocating on a temporary basis.

Someone from the construction industry, not someone from the far left, is simply saying that we need to let the employment insurance fund grow. Workers have basic needs; they need to be mobile so they can get the training they need. Please, let the fund grow.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really liked my colleague's conclusion. This leads me to raise what I think is a relevant point. Employment insurance included funds allocated for training. These funds were drained. A separate program was created and announced, but no agreement has been reached with the provinces. This did not stop the government from advertising the program.

I would like my hon. colleague to continue talking about a broader and more inclusive vision in terms of not only job training but also skills development for the jobs of tomorrow.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

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

The Canada job grant program is a striking example. It has been launched in a rather dogmatic fashion. We know that the provinces were not consulted. What is more, the provinces are opposed to the program for the good reason that training is their jurisdiction.

SME employers and entrepreneurs are also opposed to the program for a very simple reason. The federal-provincial-SME partnership will provide a $15,000 grant. It is much more difficult for a small business that urgently needs to train a plumber, for example, or for an SME in an outlying area than for Bombardier or a major car manufacturer in southern Ontario to pay its one-third share of the grant. Small businesses believe that the program is completely ill-conceived.

Furthermore, employers contribute to the employment insurance fund, and this money is systematically put into the consolidated revenue fund. What happens to this money? We really are not sure. The government buys British submarines that do not work or things like that.

Instead, the fund should be built up, and we should sit down with these people and tell them that we have the money if they need apprentices or training programs.

In Scotland, for example, workers who lose their jobs have to take a literacy test. If it is found that they have difficulty entering the job market because they cannot read, for example, they receive employment insurance for several weeks while they learn to read. Yes, it does cost money, but in the end, someone who is literate can enter the job market with skills. He or she can meet the needs of service businesses that are having difficulty finding people just to be cashiers.

Until we address the structural problem, we will not make any progress, and business people's money will continue to go into a fund that will be squandered. I hope it will not be spent on F-35s this time.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really wish that the member would come to my riding of Crowfoot in Alberta. I would love to take him around the riding and show him the restaurants where signs say they cannot find waitresses or employees or people to fill the jobs. Come to some of the places where oil and gas companies are doing everything they can to keep and retain their employees. They tell us that the temporary foreign worker program is very important, as are many of the programs this government is bringing forward.

If the opposition members are serious about connecting Canadians with available jobs, I would encourage them to take a look at the measures in budget 2013. They are put there because, as we heard earlier, we realize the situation. We realize that 90% of the employers who apply for temporary foreign workers are from Alberta. They are from a place where they cannot find Canadians who are willing to work in those places.

What is the opposition's plan for dealing with skills and labour shortages? We know it has a $21 billion carbon tax it would like to put in to drive the economy down more, but what plan do you have for places like Alberta where we cannot—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would direct the member for Crowfoot to direct all comments and questions to the Chair, not to individual members.

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. He has 30 seconds remaining.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be very concise.

The problem is not with bringing in temporary workers. The problem is that they are part of a temporary worker program. If their help has been needed 12 months a year for the past 10 years, they should be allowed to immigrate. That is all we are saying. That is clear.

If 20% of people—the statistics are the same in every province—do not have the essential skills even to be a cashier, investments need to be made so that Canadians can reach a certain standard of living and have a better job. If these measures are applied and are given the necessary resources, yet an entrepreneur still cannot manage to open an inn or a business because of a labour shortage, then we agree. However, it is imperative that we develop a valid immigration system and support people who need to obtain basic skills. Those solutions, which will make Canadians richer and more prosperous, must be our priority, not an ill-conceived temporary worker program.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief, but there is a lot to cover.

I commend the committee for doing this review and coming together with a good number of unanimous recommendations. I commend our representatives for their additional recommendations and for bringing this matter forward to the House. We have had an excellent debate today.

There is one thing that troubles me in going through the report. I will go through this in great detail because it is of most interest to me, particularly because a lot of the recommendations raise programs that the government has historically funded, but has made the decision of late to de-fund.

I go to recommendation 1, formal public-private academic partnerships to coordinate labour market evaluations. As I mentioned earlier in the House, I have had the privilege of sitting on the environment sector table board for seven years. The government has decided to end that organization, along with all the other sector tables.

The value of the environment sector table, which was ECO Canada, Environmental Careers Organization Canada, was that several times a year it did labour market analyses. Year after year it showed that the highest growing area of employment in our country, in fact worldwide, was in the environmental field. There are endless possibilities for work, endless opportunities for aboriginal Canadians and recent immigrants. The government is ending these sector tables.

One of the things this organization did was form partnerships between universities and small colleges with industry, with the community and with first nation communities on identifying needed jobs and areas of activity where we could be working together.

Another recommendation that I find rather odd is recommendation 14, which encourages young people to acquire work experience through the Canada summer jobs program, particularly including French-English language development.

It is sad to report to the House that for more than half of the jobs under the Canada summer jobs program in my riding for which there was huge demand, as I have three university campuses and one technical college campus, many people were providing opportunity for students. Many of those were bilingual opportunities, and they were not funded. Why? Because the government is not funding that program adequately.

Very sadly, also, the government decided to shut down its funding for the Experimental Lakes Area. That was one of the best programs for providing science-based job opportunities for university students. The government de-funded it, and yet it signed off on a recommendation in the report to create those exact kinds of programs.

As the government moves forward and responds to this report, which is invaluable, I am looking forward to it perhaps reconsidering some of the decisions to cut the funding for these very important programs.

As Shawn Atleo, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, pointed out, in the area of aboriginal Canadians, far more aboriginal youth are being incarcerated than graduating from high school, yet the government still continues to underfund the education opportunities for students, including at university level and technical schools. There is, as I understand, 13,000 students waiting to get into these programs, but there are insufficient funds.

It is one thing to sign off on the report and make recommendations, it is another thing to actually budget for it and support programs.

My final comment would be what my colleague from Newton—North Delta asked, which was why the government was not working on the skill set for the next decade. I had many young people in my riding lined up to start companies to do energy efficiency audits and energy retrofits in homes. Then the government in its wisdom decided to provide the funding for eco-energy home retrofits for only one year, ending all opportunities for these youth, which would have been well-paying jobs using their technical skills.

I commend all of those who participated in this report. We look forward to action on it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forth the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.