Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to be able to raise an issue that is particularly close to my heart.
The motion I am putting forward today reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should overhaul all its programs for young people in order to evaluate their impact and performance, and in order to ensure that all funds for such programs maximize young people's chances of joining the labour force.
In the coming minutes, I will explain my reasoning on the merits of this motion.
We all agree that the government is already paying out a significant amount of money in various programs for young people. According to government documents, the Youth Employment Strategy alone “makes effective use of investments of over $2 billion the Government of Canada has set up for young people”. That is quite a sum.
The Youth Employment Strategy combines 250 programs. Funding for these initiatives comes from some 12 departments, including Human Resources Development Canada, Industry Canada, Heritage Canada and a number of others.
Sometimes several departments share in the funding of a program. This can create an accountability problem. There can be a whole slew of programs, but they have to be effective, and the resources must not be wasted.
Since there is no central body controlling all these programs, they are not readily available to young people. There is a web site, but the government must make it much better known. A number of young people simply do not know about all these programs.
I want to assure all the members of this House that my motion does not arise from a preconceived idea that all the programs are bad and useless. Far from it. My aim is to ask the government to ensure that the money intended for young people is spent on effective and useful programs. Young people deserve it.
As parliamentarians, our duty is to insist on an accounting and to ensure that Canadian taxpayers' money is put to good use.
In order to focus today's debate, let us take the Canada student loans program as an example. I am sure all MPs are aware of this program, which affects nearly 60% of post-secondary students. The Canada student loan program, or CSLP, represents a huge investment by the government.
The Department of Human Resources Development estimates that the CSLP has given out loans of some $15 billion to over 2.7 million Canadians since its inception in 1964. Also according to the department, the average debt load in 1990 of a student in a four-year program was $8,700. In 1998, they expect the debt load to be some $25,000. In other words, student debt has grown by 187% in Canada in only eight years.
Can we talk of effective investment when so many Canadians are struggling under the weight of overpowering debt even before they start their career?
The government has taken a number of steps to try to ease young people's passage from their studies to the workplace. I am sure its intentions are good, but the results are sometimes dismal.
Let us take a look at the current youth employment situation. In August, youth unemployment was at 14.5%, almost double the Canadian rate. In my province of New Brunswick, youth unemployment is close to 25%. In 1996, 17.7% of welfare cases in Canada were single parents under the age of 24. These figures certainly suggest there is a problem.
Part of the problem is that, in recent years, the transition between school and work has been made more difficult by the limited job creation that had taken place since the 1990-91 recession. This has particular impact on those who do not have the training or skills currently in demand on the job market.
Young people in the high risk group, those who did not complete their secondary education, are particularly affected. There are simply no jobs for them. Most of the jobs available for low skilled workers before them have been made obsolete by technological innovation or have moved to a third world country where labour is cheap.
As for young people in the average risk groups, those with secondary education but no post-secondary education, they have seen their diploma lose much of its worth. More and more employers are looking for people with post-secondary education for positions that, less than one generation ago, would have gone to high school graduates.
And young people at low risk, those with post-secondary degrees, need something to help them make the transition to the labour force, to help them get their first job.
Traditionally, the unemployment rate among young people goes up when the economy is weak. However, what we are now seeing is that young people are not taking advantage of the benefits created when the situation improves. During the last economic recovery, the gap between the unemployment rate of young people and that of adult workers did not close as much as in earlier cycles.
Whether they are studying or not, young people are over-represented in atypical jobs, that is to say part time, temporary, fixed rate, piecework, or occasional jobs, most of which are low paying and require few skills.
If society turns a blind eye to the problem, it will have to pay increased costs because of the number of unemployed workers and welfare recipients, as well as the inevitable social problems in a polarized society.
Studies show that long periods of unemployment result in a loss of skills and permanently alter potential employers' opinions of young people. Unemployment therefore has an impact on the present and future contribution of young workers to society.
That is why it is so important to ensure that we supply all the winning conditions that will help young people join the labour force quickly.
It is also important not to focus exclusively on the government's role. Businesses have also produced good results in the fight to help young people find jobs.
In 1997, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce published, with the Canadian Youth Foundation, studies and profiles of very successful programs. I invite members to take a look at these documents.
I want to quote a few excerpts from one of these publications, which I find particularly relevant to our discussion:
Big numbers encourage big responses, including massive government-let “wars” against the latest social scourge. Even in these times of fiscal restraint, the first response to a big number is still to throw some money at it.
When the youth employment crisis is seen in terms of people rather than statistics, the response changes.
Programs become humanized and flexible when it's understood that real people never fit into the categories of those oh-so-precise charts and graphs.
Programs also become more unassuming without the illusion that there is true path, one best solution for all young Canadians or for the nation. Together, these elements help make these people-centred programs particularly effective.
The government often announces with great fanfare its initiatives for young people. Just think of the millennium foundation announced in the last budget. In spite of a $2.5 billion budget, only 7% of Canadian students will benefit from millennium scholarships. Is this a really good investment? I doubt it, particularly when you consider that this government cut $17.3 billion from transfer payments for health and education.
Would the money not have been made better use of by the provinces, who have had to cut funding to colleges and universities, thus forcing them to raise tuition fees.
Without these cuts to the transfer payments, perhaps students would be less in debt and less in need of these millennium scholarships.
Members will have figured out that these are hypothetical questions I am asking. I have not done enough research to assess the impact of all these measures. That is why I moved the motion now before the House, moreover. If we do not have the means as individuals to assess the need for, and effectiveness of, over 250 government programs involving billions of dollars, it is absolutely necessary for someone to do this.
In conclusion, youth unemployment and underemployment rank foremost amongst the major social and economic questions facing Canadians as this century draws to a close.
I also realize that these matters cannot rest solely in the hands of governments. The private sector must also determine what it can contribute to solving these problems, and what approach it must take to give today's and tomorrow's young people the chance to play an active role in the Canada of today and tomorrow.
However, what we can do today is to urge the government to take the first step.
If the government absolutely wants to help improve the situation for our young people, then it will not mind reviewing the existing programs. Nor will it mind sharing the results of these reviews with members of parliament and the general public .
Lastly, the government will not hesitate to consult and involve all stakeholders, including young Canadians themselves, and to take advice from them.
Young Canadians are waiting for us to show some leadership. Let us not disappoint them.
