Jean Charest

[Education, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.

Given the fact that the government will not continue to reward the excellence of students in the area of science and post-secondary education, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Why is it that his department has not continued a stay in school program that seeks to help young Canadian men and women to pursue their studies so that we as a society can do everything we can for young men and women to obtain all the skills they need in their lifetime to participate fully in Canadian society? Why has he cut that program?

[Education, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as usual I am flattered by all of the attention.

My question is for the Minister of Industry who is responsible for the Canada scholarship program for science and engineering students. The government's main estimates in 1995-96 said the "program was very successful in encouraging Canadian students, particularly women, to enter and stay in post-secondary science, engineering and technology studies".

Given the evaluation and the success of the program with the private sector and the rhetoric of the government on post-secondary education and R and D, why did the minister cut the program?

[Education, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry who is responsible for the-

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on a very important issue that came to my attention after the budget. It is a very negative piece of news. It is a situation that needs to be clarified on the government benches. I asked that it be put on tonight so the government could tell us what happened to the stay in school program.

Canada has one of the highest drop out rates in the world among industrialized countries for people in high school. Furthermore, Canada is in a situation in which the skills required to enter the labour market have also increased radically over the last few years.

I can borrow from a document known as the red book. On page 32 there is a graph of rising education and training requirements that seems to indicate that people with less than 12 years of education made up about 45 per cent of the jobs available in 1986. In the years from 1986 until 2000 that will drop to 32 per cent.

Then it goes on to state that people who have 12 years of education make up 10 per cent of the jobs. It will be 2.9 per cent by the year 2000; 13 to 16 years of education will go from 22 per cent to 15 per cent, and 17 years or more, 22.4 per cent in 1986 to 48.8 per cent. This graph says that close to half of the jobs available in Canada by the turn of the century will require 17 years of education or more.

For a country that has one of the highest dropout rates in the world among the industrialized countries, one would think we would want to do something about it. We did. In 1990 we announced the stay in school initiative that addressed itself to communities, to enticing different partners in the community including the private sector to get involved with the issue. It was also co-ordinated with the provinces.

It may be of interest for the House to know that the present Leader of the Official Opposition supported the program even though some people will say that it is in the area of provincial jurisdiction which, if taken literally, is a false statement. To pretend that the dropout problem is only related to the education system is false. It is a broad social program that needs to be addressed.

My disappointment lies in the fact that the government apparently ran on investing in people according to the red book. It said in that document:

Jobs and growth depend upon making the necessary investments in ourselves and our children. Consequently, we will better prepare for the transition from school to the workplace; provide a constructive outlet for the skills and the talents of younger Canadians, the innocent victims of Canada's prolonged recession.

The innocent victims of Canada's prolonged recession had the program cut. The government refused to continue the program which is recognized as a success. Who says that? On April 15, 1994 the government announced, according to a press release, that it would continue to put $30 million in the program. What did it have to say about the program only a year ago? It said that there was a proven link between low levels of education and high levels of youth unemployment and that continued action on the high school dropout issue was therefore crucial to ensuring that the school to work transition was an avenue of opportunity for young people.

It is scandalous that the government would cut the program. When does the government intend to take up the issue so that we can attend to the problem of young Canadian men and women who need to finish high school and need an opportunity to get an education, find a job and participate in Canadian society?

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I was interested in the hon. member's remarks about how her constituents reacted.

I refer her to an announcement made by her government last year with respect to the stay in school program, which addresses itself directly to the issue of dropouts and potential dropouts. Her government announced funding for the program last year and I understand from the wording of the release at that time that the government spoke very positively about how important the issue is for Canada. I wonder whether she has any news on whether this program should continue.

[Zeroplus Inc., March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry and concerns a project of which he is aware in the Eastern Townships. The project, called ZEROPLUS Inc., is a very important project since it could create 150 jobs in the industrial sector.

The promoters of the project are still waiting for an answer from the federal government, the provincial government having already made a commitment in this regard. Since there are short term elements involved in this project, time is of the essence and if the government does not give its answer soon, the whole project could be in jeopardy.

Can the minister give us a progress report on this matter?

[Stay In School Program, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development or for anyone who would be willing to give me an answer. It concerns the Stay in School job program which was introduced five years ago for the benefit of young people still in school. Its goal is to directly discourage young people from dropping out of school. Groups which are interested in this issue and which try to encourage young people heard recently that the program would be discontinued.

I would like to hear from the government itself whether it is true that the program will be dropped.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to answer the question.

There are four things about the budget we think are wrong and need to be addressed. There is no plan or priorities for the country any more with regard to deficit and debt reduction. That means we may run the risk not only of making tough decisions but wrong decisions.

The objective of reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP is not good enough. There should be a clearly enunciated objective of balancing the books within a precise timeframe. Three years is a reasonable timeframe.

Third is its unilateral approach in terms of deficit and debt reduction, which is a complete negation of what a federal country is and how it operates. That puts us in the situation in which we well run the risk of the government's shovelling its deficit and debt problem into the yard of New Brunswick. If it chooses to increase taxes, if it chooses to cut service, we are not going anywhere unless there is a joint effort.

The fourth problem is the hidden agenda. Pension reforms, reform for health care as announced by the Prime Minister are not enunciated in these documents, not clearly laid on the table in terms of the agenda of the government in its document.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Calgary Centre for the question and for the opportunity to set the record straight, as the budget offers us an opportunity to put things in perspective.

He asked me, with respect to the Conservative government, what were the things it did or did not accomplish. Let me point them out in real, objective terms.

When we became the Government of Canada in 1984 program expenditure was rising at an annual rate of over 13 per cent. We brought that down to below or around 4 per cent. When we took over government in 1984 the annual deficit relative to GDP was in excess of 8 per cent. We brought that down to somewhere in the area of 5 per cent or 6 per cent.

I will go further because I know he will be interested in the facts and less in the rhetoric. A document was put out by this government, "Agenda, Jobs and Growth: Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate". I am sure people can write to the Department of Finance to obtain a copy.

This Liberal document of October last has at page 8 a very interesting graph on the federal deficit as a percentage of GDP. If we watch the line very closely, as of 1984 when we became the government the line started to go down dramatically. That reflects the real efforts we brought forward as opposed to the inflated demagogy we have heard from time to time. We produced a surplus on the operating budget of the government

of $13 billion over the nine years we were the Government of Canada.

Does that mean everything we did was right or perfect? Obviously the answer is no. Those are the facts as opposed to the fiction proposed by others.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga South may be a little confused in what he is saying. If I understood him correctly, he was saying the proposed reduction in cash and tax point transfers would reduce the leverage to a minimum, the leverage of being able to ask for standards. He said how we think the government can impose some standards or allude to the fact that we should continue to do so.

If the government is to act unilaterally in this way and announce the cuts in advance I hope he is not naive enough to think it will sit down with the provinces and negotiate some sort of standard. There is nothing left to negotiate.

If the hon. member has ever been to a federal-provincial meeting he would find it quite startling to sit down with ministers of other provinces who will say to the Minister of Human Resources Development: "There is nothing left to discuss. You have made the decision on the cuts. What do you want from us?" That will be the dynamic of the meeting.

This points to one of the major weaknesses in this approach. During the election campaign our view was that if we were going to deal effectively with deficit and debt reduction, given that it is all the governments that enter into deficits and debts, it required a joint effort by all governments.

There should have been a formal process, a federal-provincial meeting, in which the government should have set joint objectives in terms of deficit and debt reduction and as a consequence of that, because it would imply reductions in transfers to the provinces, examine line by line areas of joint spending where the federal government uses its spending power to determine where each level of government should be intervening. That was the common sense approach we proposed. His government chose instead to act unilaterally.