Ethel Blondin-Andrew

[House Of Commons, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have notes on both. As a member of the House I do not believe I have risen on a question of privilege in almost 10 years.

I find it quite disturbing when I think that Canadians are watching us as members of Parliament. We all have a certain responsibility to uphold the decorum that my colleagues spoke about. When they came to the House of Commons they said they would change decorum in the House because we who preceded them were apparently quite objectionable in our behaviour.

However, what I see being demonstrated here is something that is adding fuel to the fire. It is adding to a sense of intolerance. I am quite disturbed by the fact that a sensitive area is drawing me into this discussion. Members opposite seem to have the—

[House Of Commons, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today as a northerner, as a Canadian and as a member of the government to speak to what I consider to be a truly balanced budget. After a week—

[National Head Start Program, February 19th, 1998]

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.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises some very important points. There is no doubt in my mind that this bill is directly aimed at dealing with the issue of certainty which will give comfort to the various constituent groups that they can proceed in a balanced and sustainable way with development. That is easier said than done. We do not always have friendly partners in that process.

The north has exemplified through the kinds of agreements it has reached over the years under various development regimes that it can work together and I think this bill will aid that. When this bill comes to its final resolution it will do that.

The issue of devolution is a little more complicated. I am not sure of all the micro managing details and all the tasks assigned to the various members of the board. I am not that familiar with the bill. I am aware of the general structure of what would result from this bill.

The boards are designed to have an adjudication process that would serve itself well without too much interference, but there is an overriding obligation because it is government legislation. It would not be guided on every detail of what it does. There is a process for them to be the masters of their own destinies, as we would have in the House standing committees but on a higher level. It requires legislation to enact those boards. They have the power to guide themselves.

I am not totally familiar with the reporting system but I know they have a great deal of autonomy. They must be arm's length and I believe the bill speaks to that quite clearly.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak on behalf of the minister responsible for this bill. However, within the confines of the territorial government's legislative assembly a speech was given about the support for devolution. Following there were arrangements with regard to health and we transferred responsibilities for that. We are in the process of looking at various other opportunities on both sides which will speak to honouring the whole process of devolution. However, we must take caution.

In devolving responsibility we must understand that there are many players and many people are affected. There are the Inuit people, the first nations people, the Metis people, the non-aboriginal people who come from all parts of Canada to be permanent residents of the north, whom we love and respect, who share with us in our toils every day in building a wonderful part of this country. We must be cautious that we do not exclude, undercut or destroy the rights of those people in achieving what we might perceive to be a higher goal. We must be conscious of that and that is not easy to do. It is complicated. It is complex and is something that requires a great deal of sensitivity and a great deal of care.

My hon. colleague will know that there is a commitment but it is one that is undertaken with great caution.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in Parliament for nine years, now in my third term. It has been my experience that amendments are a way of life when we are dealing with various acts and bills.

We are talking very strongly about the principles of this bill. I have not heard any amendments come forward. I do not have a list of amendments. Those groups that will best speak for themselves, that have those concerns have not come forward and given me those lists or inventories of amendments. I am not the minister to speak to those or the parliamentary secretary. They will be dealt with in a fair and judicious manner.

However, we must remember that the principles of the bill should be upheld and not be undercut by amendments which would take the bill down. That would not be acceptable. It would defeat the original purpose of the bill.

I believe that we have a consultative process and ideas are brought forward which will best reflect what is needed for all constituents concerned with this bill. I think those will be entertained.

I cannot come forward today and say that certain sections of the bill will be amended. I cannot do that because it is unrealistic. I would assume it does not undercut the principles of the bill or undo the bill generally. At various stages amendments are entertained. However, I do not know of any specifics from the constituent groups yet.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-6, the Mackenzie Valley resource management act. I have been listening to my colleagues on all sides of the House speak to this bill. It has been a very interesting and rewarding experience, to say the least, that we have agreements on various aspects, if not the total intent and principle of the bill.

First, the principles on which this bill is based are sound and acceptable I believe to most members. The obligation to provide a bill to help us to give life to provisions of those claims that have been settled is quite clear.

We have an obligation because we have enacted legislation at another time that clearly indicates that in order for those claims to have full effect and force, this regime needs to be enacted. That is quite clear. It is indisputable.

I believe that Bill C-6 is proposed to enhance local public government in the Mackenzie Valley, to provide certainty and consistency for residents and industry and fulfil outstanding obligations under the Gwich'in and Sahtu Dene and Metis land claim agreements.

It is not unusual for any government to find itself in a catch-22 situation because not all things happen at the same time or at the same speed. There are those in the Mackenzie Valley area who have yet to settle their claims. There are those who have concerns but we are only at second reading of the bill. It is quite plain to see that the democratic process will allow them to have their say, that will make provisions for them to speak their mind to the bill and to quell their fears.

Some features of the Mackenzie Valley resource management act will act as an advantage to Mackenzie Valley First Nations without claim settlements. These are to be interpreted. When we interpret them each individual and group comes up with its own interpretation.

First, clause 5(2) should give some comfort to those individuals. It speaks to the aboriginal and treaty rights being protected under that clause. It is an act that would be reviewed in consultation with First Nations, which I just spoke to previously. Clause 5(1) states that it does not affect the Indian Act.

Clauses 99 and 112 provide for the nomination of members to the boards, thereby providing a much stronger voice in resource management decision making throughout the Mackenzie Valley.

Clause 108 allows for permanent regional land and water panels on settlement of land claims.

There are also advances for the Government of the Northwest Territories. It clearly support this. We have in writing the support of the territorial government for this integrated management resource regime. It is a system it feels holds the principles of equality that will allow for all groups to come forward and to participate with a good sense of fairness and equal participation.

It also talks about public boards in parts 4 and 5 while integrating the regions. It provides a form of public government that may accommodate self-government, co-management of resources endorsed by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

Many of these issues and nuances that relate to it or aspects of it could be debated by various members but generally the obligation for us to enact this bill is clear. The principles that it holds are democratic, fair and representative and I believe have a fair buy-in from all parties concerned.

The government is not into a regime of overregulation so that industry cannot move. That is not what this government is on about. We are not about exclusion and hiding a set of guidelines that preclude everyone else. That is not the extent to which the government would like to operate. What we are on about is to make it so that the goals are commendable and that there are clear reasons for this House to support this legislation.

The parliamentary secretary has informed the House that the regional land claim agreements of the Gwich'in, the Sahtu Dene and Metis commit the government to establish a new resource regulatory regime in the respective settlement areas. They have also heard from NDP members, members opposite, and my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party who just spoke about some of these issues.

The boards created under Bill C-6 are public government boards which will operate in the public interest. These boards are extremely important. Not only is the process important but the ensuing products of this act will be extremely important because they are integrated and they are meant to serve all people. They are meant not to prejudice, nor to abrogate or derogate the rights of those who have yet to settle their claims.

The intent of the government is to serve all fairly. That is what raises the whole spectre of a catch 22. In trying to serve all members of its constituencies fairly, we face this dilemma. We are at second reading. We know that those individuals who have concerns have the opportunity to be heard. That is extremely important.

Under the new regime, people from the Mackenzie Valley will sit on the boards. There will be an opportunity for increased input through public hearings. As well the nominees of different groups will bring their own perspectives to the boards resulting in a balance of interest and best overall decisions.

I would like to speak to why it is absolutely important that we have this regime. In the Northwest Territories we are about to become the producer, a significant producer of quality diamonds in Canada's north. By 1998 the first mine will account for about 6% of the world's diamond production by value. With other prospects coming into production this could climb to 15% or more within the next 10 years.

We do not hear much about that. We hear about Voisey's Bay and all of the other regimes which are coming forward, but this is significant. This is the largest diamond development in the western hemisphere, outside of a small diamond development in Colorado to the south of us.

The diamond industry is unlike any other. Canada will soon join an exclusive club of producers of one of the most valuable and coveted commodities on earth. We are believed to be in the top percentage of the highest value of diamonds in the world. Diamond mining produces an exceptionally high return on investment at approximately 50%.

For example a company which is currently in diamond development in the north will recover the capital costs associated with its first mine at Lac de Gras within the first five years of operation. How many businesses do that? Usually there are long term strategic goals for economic recovery in a new business. This is significant. The company will go on to generate over $14.3 billion in income during 25 years with just one mine. There are other proposed mines. Its profit over that same period is estimated at $4.3 billion.

Yes, I am aware that there are fair returns for the people who live there, but there are other things we must consider.

The Government of Canada will also be a major beneficiary of the north's new diamond mining industry. It will earn $2.4 billion in taxes and royalties just with the first diamond mine. The federal government's net fiscal benefits increase to $4.4 billion when royalties, corporate and personal income taxes, indirect and induced fiscal impacts and grant offsets to the Government of the Northwest Territories are factored in. These are all new numbers. They are not generated by our government but they are out there.

Of all the parties involved, the Northwest Territories stands to gain the least from this lucrative industry. It will receive only $.2 billion. So far that is the information we have and the information I have. All this to say that the $7 million raised annually in tax revenues by the territorial government will be far less than what it will spend on infrastructure and social programs over the lifetime of the mine. That is significant considering the cutbacks various levels of government have experienced.

Despite advertising claims, diamonds are not forever. The governments and people at the territorial level feel that the newest industry in Canada, developing diamond value added industries in Canada should be done in the north. Billions of dollars and potentially hundreds if not thousands of manufacturing and retail jobs are at stake.

Every diamond producing country in the world demands valuation and sorting take place within its borders before diamonds are exported. This apparently is the standard. Many require that diamonds be set aside for domestic production or insist on a cutting and polishing industry domestically.

As a result, thriving diamond industries exist in places as diverse as Gaborone, Botswana, Freetown and Perth. In the Northwest Territories the residents and the leaders believe no less and we share the same view that those value added activities should happen within our own borders. What happens in the Northwest Territories is good for Alberta, Manitoba, B.C., Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Quebec and Ontario because we have a small population. We attract those people by way of service contracts and workers.

When I go home I travel almost every week with workers who are going out to those activities including the other mines that had a rough ride with their stocks and shares last night. Nonetheless there is that kind of development in the north.

In the Northwest Territories we have other activities that are ensuing. Lots of land has been put up for bid for exploration. Some very welcome contenders have put bids on those. I cannot say the names of those groups. They are in the oil and gas field and we also have gold and other mineral resource development in the north.

Oil and gas is a major industry for our people in the north and we value that. That is why we seek a balance with this legislation. We know we need to have that kind of a balance. We know we need to be able to speak to all the parts of this bill, all the constituents of this bill, not just one aspect.

It is extremely important that the recipients, the major benefactors in terms of resource development, be northerners. That does not mean them exclusively. It means other levels in this country, the federal government, the territorial government, the municipal governments, industry and various other industries from abroad should benefit as well. There is a balance to be struck but there is far greater opportunity than I think we recognize.

This is an important bill because it is a step forward in the devolution process in the Northwest Territories. It will ensure government for and by those directly affected by the decisions. It will ensure better overall planning of development, as well as a better understanding of the cumulative environmental effects of development. These boards will serve the interests of land owners, developers and the public alike.

I am not a stranger to the views that prevail out there on this particular bill. I have had access to industry members who do not necessarily favour it. I have had access to aboriginal groups who do not favour various parts of this bill but who think the principles if they apply to everyone are fair and okay.

I have had access to the groups that will be well served by this bill but who understand and are sensitive to their colleagues. They know that nonetheless unless they have this bill they will not be able to enact those provisions in their claims. They cannot move forward to actualize and implement their claim the way they should unless they have this bill.

Therefore the dilemma we have is that we must do our level best in this House, as members of the House, to serve all of those who would best be served by finding the balance in the legislation to respect the rights of all those who will be affected by it. That does not mean we do not do anything, that we are caught in inertia or that we are paralyzed. It means that we must be careful and thoughtful, which is what we do as legislators, and we should be.

The new boards will have powers under the legislation. The boards will have the right to summon witnesses and order them to give evidence or produce documents necessary for carrying out the board's responsibilities. This will be enforceable in the same manner as an order of the courts.

Decisions and orders of the boards may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. If there is a conflict between this legislation and a land claim settlement, the settlement agreement will prevail. That is apparently the law.

The law is subject to interpretation and it is subject to the way it is enforced. Laws are not meant to be brutal. Laws are meant to be enforced considering the human factor. The human factor is a multifaceted one. It is one which has many sides.

We do not live in the Northwest Territories, especially in the Mackenzie Valley, in a homogeneous setting. We live in a heterogeneous setting. We have many cultures and many groups. We have many people with different levels of education and skills. We have people who are in industry. We have people who have an extreme attachment to environmental issues.

We continue in our own way in the Northwest Territories to find the balance. I as a legislator am tasked with this. My view is that it is important that we fulfil the crown's commitments to the Gwich'in, the Sahtu Dene and the Metis.

As the parliamentary secretary has indicated, extensive consultations have taken place regarding this legislation. I appreciate the concerns and issues which have been raised by the First Nations in the Northwest Territories. It is my obligation as their member of Parliament to see this time as an opportunity for discussion and debate to continue. Let them come forward with their views. They can best speak to them. I cannot speak on their behalf.

I therefore urge my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-6. It speaks to many of the issues I have raised, such as the profile of one of the major developments in the western hemisphere, the whole diamond industry, which is unprecedented in North America.

We have an opportunity to build. We have an opportunity to share. We have an opportunity to work together. I do not see any mitigating factors which would prevent us from doing that. I do not see anything stopping us from engaging in a process that is fair, consultative and that looks for the best product for our citizens. It is our obligation to do that as members of Parliament, as ministers of the crown, or whatever role we are engaged in in an official capacity.

I hope we will take this opportunity to invite those who have questions to come forward and to speak for themselves.

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member.

The hon. member spoke from what I consider to be a perspective from his riding in Quebec. It pleases me to say we have engaged in the area of the labour market agreements. We have an agreement with Quebec that frees up the resources for that province to the tune of $7 billion or $8 billion to effectively structure the resources and the framework of labour market activities so that they can best benefit.

I talked about partnership. Have we done enough. No, we have not done enough. In the prime minister's words, as long as there are unemployed people in this country what we have done will not be enough. But we are attempting to do a number of things.

I indicated that currently all levels of government are seized with this problem. The provincial premiers as well as the ministers at provincial and federal levels are discussing this.

The hon. member said students do not want summer jobs. That is not the case. About four or five years ago the summer employment program was to phase out. We have doubled the amount of money for young people. Talk to any young people coming out of university or high school. Not only do they want permanent jobs, but they want summer employment. I have met many who want to be gainfully employed to pay their own way during that period of time while they are attending school.

The hon. member asked what will we do about the poor people, those who are most in need. For many of the programs that I have taken part in developing and assisting I have gone to those people to ensure that it passed their litmus test. If people are at a disadvantage, including youth and children, programs should reflect that and provide opportunities for them.

I am sure the hon. member reads the material that he receives in the House. This government is currently engaged in starting the national child benefit in July which will give $850 million to those needy families, to those individuals who are most in need. In much of the legislation that we are engaged in there is always a provision as we have for unemployment. The hon. member talked about seasonal workers. I understand and I sympathize. I know that no piece of legislation is wonderful and perfect but the fact remains that many of the opportunities, as in the $800 million in active measures, are designed to reach those people who are the poorest.

The transitional job fund is for high unemployment areas. I know that people in not necessarily his constituency but in high unemployment areas have benefited from that. They have taken a part of the $300 million and a good portion of the $800 million as well as the youth programs. They are now in that position as a province. They have a labour market agreement of $8 billion.

The hon. member should engage in dialogue with some his provincial separatist government members to give them the same kind of message he gives the federal government, to care about the people in his province and to transmit those resources into success for the people who need it most.

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to present what we have done as a team in attempting to deal with and improve the lives of young people across the country and with the troublesome concerns about employment opportunities for young people.

We understand that in an ever-changing workplace and with the global markets as they are, that this is not a simple problem, not one tasked to one minister, one department or one level of government. It is one that we share with other countries and organizations that have amassed the collective experience and wisdom to deal with such matters. It is a partnership.

Since we were first elected in 1993, the government has shown a great deal of concern and has taken significant steps to improve the prospects for young people.

I have had the good fortune to be in this position, first to work with youth and training and now with children and youth and to follow the progress in perhaps a more detailed way than most members have because of my mandate. We intend to continue to build on those opportunities.

We have reason to be somewhat hopeful, although there is a sense of doom and gloom. We have an obligation as elected officials to give hope to people, not false hope but to be honest about the problems. I am not prone to brush problems under the carpet and forget about them. I am one who is honest about the progress that has been made.

In the last four months youth employment has risen by 63,000 jobs, which is the best four month performance in this decade. Youth are at last benefiting from the economic recovery that has favoured adults to date.

Today's generation of young Canadians are the best educated in our history and, as a nation, we are in an excellent position to thrive in the emerging knowledge based economy.

We need to ensure that young Canadians benefit from the economic revival so that they can take their rightful place in society.

Partnership is the key to success. And as stated in the Speech from the Throne, we will continue to work with our provincial and territorial partners to reach mutual objectives in that area.

The government has identified three priorities: first, providing a better chance for youth who are at risk because of low skills and lack of education. We cannot afford, with the resources we have to be distributed among our citizens, to forget those who are most in need. This has been cited time and time again.

The second priority is helping youth make a successful transition from school to work and the third priority is ensuring that young people have access to education so that they can fulfil their educational potential.

To support youth at risk, we will develop and expand community based programs with partners to assist young Canadians who lack skills and have low levels of education. Part of that will include establishing aboriginal multi-purpose youth centres to provide targeted support for urban aboriginal youth. We will build on the success of the school to work initiatives under the youth employment strategy.

The Government of Canada will also create a Canada-wide mentorship program. This will enable a young person to link up with a mentor who has experience in the field that the young person wants to explore. We will also expand the youth internship program and extend support for summer student job action.

What is more important than ensuring that young people who are coming out of college, universities and high schools have an opportunity to work in the summer and to help contribute in their own way to their community and to their country?

The Government of Canada will do its part to ensure that post-secondary education is accessible and affordable to as many Canadians as possible. Education is, after all, one of the keys to their success and we continue to reduce barriers by providing further changes to the Canada student loans program. But we cannot do that alone. We have our partners at the provincial level to consult and our partners with the organizations that hold that expertise and responsibility.

Increased assistance for low income students with dependants through special opportunity grants should help 25,000 students each year. New scholarships, such as the Canada millennium scholarship endowment fund announced by the Prime Minister, will help low and moderate income students who show excellence in their studies.

Everyone deserves an opportunity. Everyone deserves a chance to do the best he or she can. Young people do not want a handout. They want a hand up.

When the youth unemployment numbers are analysed, two trends appear. First there are young Canadians who, for whatever reason, do not get beyond a high school education and have low skills. They are in danger of being left behind in today's economy. These individuals need more help than they can get through work experience alone. They need a variety of interventions such as counselling, skills, upgrading and literacy coaching.

Second, we find that those young Canadians with a post-secondary education are doing relatively well on average but some of these individuals find themselves in a catch-22. They have no experience, therefore they cannot get a job and they have no job, therefore they cannot get experience.

Third, we know that education is one of the factors in weighing a person's success in society. Rising post-secondary education tuition costs may make this difficult for some. Providing access to post-secondary education is a central goal for this administration and government.

The leader of the NDP was not a member of this House in the last Parliament. Perhaps she is not aware of just how much the government has done in an attempt to deal with this very troublesome problem that we are addressing today.

In 1994 we began fulfilling our election promise to help Canadian youth when we brought in the youth employment and learning strategy. After five months of being in government we pulled together a strategy. This initiative gave us our first look at youth internship, Youth Service Canada and student summer job action, programs that have proven their worth and continue to do so to this day. In our March 1996 budget the Minister of Finance announced the reallocation of $315 million over three years to help create employment opportunities for youth.

We have been building incrementally. We understand there is not one quick fix. We understand that what we have done is not enough. We understand and realize that. Our commitment is longer than one effort to deal with this issue. Other measures have followed.

In February of this year we introduced the new youth employment strategy. This strategy which consolidated over $2 billion in new and current funding builds upon existing programs and is helping 110,000 young men and women acquire extremely valuable on the job experience. For example, the new federal public sector youth internship program in partnership with the private sector's Career Edge and YM-YWCA will help 3,000 young Canadians gain experience in occupations that have great potential for future demand.

I wonder if the hon. member realizes that our youth internship and Youth Service Canada programs have a high success rate. Youth Service Canada has a 68% success rate and youth internship has a 78% success rate. This means graduates either return to school or find meaningful employment within six months of completing their work in the program.

However we cannot just measure the success of the programs quantitatively. We must look at them qualitatively as well. I have had the opportunity of meeting with many of the participants of government sponsored programs where we have engaged in some very good partnerships. Qualitatively some of these programs have given the opportunity, the hand-up that these young people need which otherwise would not be there. It has made a difference in the lives of young Canadians who want equality of opportunity. They are not asking for freebies. They are asking for an opportunity and this is what has been made available to them.

Youth Service Canada and youth internship are helping approximately 20,000 youth at risk this year alone. That is just one section of the program. This year summer student job action provided summer jobs for more than 63,000 young Canadians. Our human resources centres for students helped about 200,000 students prepare for the job market. We understand they need the counselling, they need the assistance and they need the support. That is what we have made available to them.

Nearly 40,000 callers have made use of the youth info line since the middle of August. Our Internet site has been visited more than 66,000 times since it was introduced.

In the hon. member's province of Nova Scotia, young men and women are participating in our youth internship programs. Our partner, Manutech Regional Industry Council, is helping the participants to become COBOL programmers for which there is an increasing demand as we approach the year 2000. The first class of these programmers will graduate shortly and a local employer is offering employment to those with at least an 80% average.

In my own riding of Western Arctic five young people spent the summer and early fall researching job growth in northern mineral and mining industries. Anyone who watches the news will know we are encroaching in the Northwest Territories on the largest diamond mine development in the western hemisphere. There is a small diamond development in Colorado, but for all of North and South America this is it. These young people are becoming a part of that by participating in this program. Their work will give us a data bank of 142 mining occupations which will soon be available on the Internet so that youth across the north can learn about the mining industry.

Despite these accomplishments, this government has no intention of resting on its laurels. We fully realize that youth unemployment is a serious problem. We share the concerns with hon. members of the opposition parties. We understand and share the concerns of our provincial partners. It is important enough that the premiers will convene a meeting with the Prime Minister to deal with youth unemployment and some of the other social issues that evolve around this particular problem.

In the Speech from the Throne we renewed our commitment to make employment opportunities for Canada's young people a major priority. One of the key ways for doing that is to create an economic environment that will stimulate job growth.

I am pleased to tell hon. members that we are seeing signs of improvement. We now have the lowest interest rates in 35 years and the lowest mortgage rates in 30 years. Our exports and international trade are at record levels. The overall unemployment rate is now at 9%, the lowest it has been since October 1990.

Since we first took office in 1993 more than 1.1 million jobs have been created in the private sector. We do not pretend that government creates jobs. That is not what we are all about. We understand that we have to create the climate. In just the past seven months, 292,700 jobs have been created. Among the G-7, Canada's rate of economic growth is second only to that of the United States. The OECD is projecting that our rate of employment will be higher than any other G-7 country both this year and in 1998.

In closing I would like to say to the hon. leader of the NDP that this government has demonstrated that helping Canadian youth fulfil their potential is a major priority. It is a priority because we understand that they are the future leaders of this country. They are the people who will fill the seats of this House in the years to come. They are the people who will make the decisions that will forever effect this country. We understand that and we do not see the expenditure under education experience as being wasteful. We see it as an investment. We cannot afford not to invest in the future of these young people.

I invite the hon. member from the opposition party and all members of this House to join us in working together because the interests of young people go far beyond partisanship and beyond politics. It is something we share in. We all have children and children whom we know and care about. We all understand that their future lies within the kind of initiatives that we can take in partnership to work on together.

I invite them to work with us. I also invite them to encourage the young people by visiting their local projects, by participating in the committees and meeting with the people who have ideas. The wealth of ideas is not contained within the walls of Parliament. There are people out there who have ideas and experience.

Take for instance the Ottawa-Carleton area. It has one of the best crime prevention programs for young people headed by Constable Claude Turgeon who is an expert in his field. In Vancouver there is the Picasso Cafe. Street youth provide the services in that very wonderful restaurant. Those young people have made the transition from street life to engaging in a very positive activity to advance themselves in their own life and also to contribute to the economy. There is Covenant House in Toronto for young people.

Many organizations are seized with the issues of the day that affect young people and want to help us. The Canadian Paediatric Society is interested in doing something about street youth. There are ideas outside of these walls that will help us to engage in further contributing to getting rid of unemployment for young people, in making the quality of life for young people better and in making Canada what it really is.

Despite all of the problems in our country we still have more opportunity than we have doors closed in our faces. We still have a future in this country. We are a new country which is building. In the Northwest Territories we will create two new territories in 1999. We are preparing for that. The majority of the young people in that area are under the age of 25.

A commitment cannot go any further than that, on my part or on the part of other members. We must work together to deal with this problem.

[Poverty, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we know that child poverty is a major issue and that it is a priority for all governments.

We are working with our territorial and provincial partners on a major reinvestment plan. We are increasing the national child benefit by $850 million starting in July and an additional $850 million. There are many projects and services that we offer for children, too many to mention, but I know that our hon. colleagues support us in our work on these programs for the children of Canada.