A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
ceptable level of unemployment which in real terms is in excess of 20 per cent for young people.
Members of the House will recall that a little over three years ago the Liberal government was elected on a promise of jobs. The red book promised jobs and a new hope for change from the Conservative government. Instead, what we have seen are levels of unemployment particularly among young people which are even higher than they were when this government was elected. In fact in September alone over 19,000 jobs were lost in the age group of 15 to 24.
There is a growing insecurity which young people are facing as they look at their futures. The very tragic unemployment situation is completely unacceptable.
I spoke earlier today at the conference celebrating the 15th anniversary of the Canadian Federation of Students. The chair of the Canadian Federation of Students, Brad Lavigne, spoke out strongly earlier this year on this issue. He said: ``Where are the red book promises of jobs, jobs, jobs? Instead of creating jobs, the Liberals have made cuts to the public sector and pursued a destructive high interest rate policy. That is not a long term approach to jobs''.
Young people today are facing soaring tuition fees, except in the province of British Columbia. The New Democratic government in that province has actually frozen tuition fees for this year, next year and the following year. Students are facing increasing debt loads. The average debt load of a graduating student is about $24,000.
There have been cuts in research and development. That is not what the Liberal government was elected to do, certainly not to cut funding for example in research for environmental technologies. There has been no renewal of the national AIDS strategy.
Cuts have been made in arts and cultural programs and to the CBC.
All of this has directly affected the opportunity of young people to find meaningful jobs in our economy.
Young people are looking for tax relief in the education system. I appeal to the government to listen carefully to the Canadian Federation of Students' request for tax relief and also for an academic component to any infrastructure program.
The fact is that there are too many young people who not only cannot find work but who are underemployed. For example, there is the physicist who is driving a cab in Toronto and cannot find any other work and the historian who is delivering pizzas.
There is a tremendous amount of insecurity, not only about jobs, but because of the growing number of part time jobs, contractual jobs and temporary jobs, more and more young people do not have jobs which will provide them with decent pensions. At the same time, the Canada pension plan is under attack. The Reform Party suggests that we wipe out the Canada pension plan and replace it with super RRSPs. The Liberal Party talks about cutting the benefits of the Canada pension plan and increasing the age of retirement. Now is the time for us to be reaffirming our support for the Canada pension plan and strengthening it as a very important social insurance program.
There are fewer summer jobs for students. There are fewer part time jobs. There is a lot of pressure on them.
(1850 )
What this country needs is a government that is committed to full employment, committed to putting jobs at the heart of its economic strategy. There are many ways of doing that. One is a fair tax system. The national leader of the New Democratic Party, Alexa McDonough, has been travelling across the country getting out the message that there are alternatives.
It is time that this country had a government that did not just listen to the wealthy and the powerful. It is time that we had a government that put young people and employment of young people at the heart of its economic policy.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed helping young Canadians make the transition into the workforce has been a priority of this government.
This is an obvious statement in that the 1996 budget reallocated some $315 million of budget savings to help create employment opportunities for young Canadians over the next three years. This included, contrary to what the member just said, a doubling to $120 million of the 1996-97 contribution to student summer placement initiatives which enabled the creation of more than 60,000 summer employment placements this past summer.
In addition through our Canada employment centres for students, some 664,000 students have benefited from a variety of other employment measures since 1994. Youth Service Canada has already given some 5,200 young Canadians the opportunity to learn work related skills and life skills while engaging in community service activities across the country. Youth Internship Canada will provide over 35,000 youth with the opportunities to gain employability skills and work experience that will help them get and keep a job. In total more than 430,000 young Canadians will benefit from this government's youth programs this year alone.
As the hon. member is aware, the Government of Canada appointed a ministerial task force on youth to obtain input from Canadians on how to help young people make a successful transition into the labour market. Furthermore this government has also made public its intention to introduce a program to help students better manage their Canada student loan debts.
This is what we have started to do for young Canadians. We will continue to examine ways of supporting youth so that they can succeed in the future.
[Translation]
I think we must look at this agreement in the context of what we are doing in Canada to diversify our trade with the United States and to find new markets, especially markets opening up in the Asia-Pacific region and in Latin America. In this context, it seems to me that Chile is very important, because it is now associated with Mercasur, an association of four Latin American countries: Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Brazil.
If we really intend to create a free trade zone in the Americas by 2005, as stated in Miami a year ago, we must remember that there is a lot of work to be done in terms of international trade and the signing of agreements like the one we have with Chile.
[English]
In that context I would like to pursue my question of the minister. In his answer to my question, he specifically said that he perceived that the additional advantage this agreement would bring to this country would be in the areas of investment, tariff reduction and perhaps serving as a model whereby the United States would be brought into this process.
Clearly tariff reduction is there. That is a factor in every agreement of this nature, so let us leave that aside and speak for a moment on both the investment issue and the American issue. I would like to ask additional questions of the parliamentary secretary.
(1855 )
How do we see Chile in terms of its investment regulations? My understanding is that when the tesobonos problems arose with Mexico it shook the very foundations of the financial markets of Latin America. Chile was one country which survived that experience precisely because it had in place investment controls which were more strict than those of other Latin American countries. Mexico in fact collapsed and then Argentina very nearly collapsed on top of it, but Chile survived.
Surely it would seem to me that when we enter into an agreement with Chile that we would want to reinforce and enable that type of arrangement to be in place. We would be a part of it and we would relate that to the International Monetary Fund and other monetary policies. That is certainly an issue which I think is preoccupying for many of us when we look at this agreement.
Perhaps more preoccupying is the role of the United States in this. It is clear that it would be beneficial to bring the United States into this agreement. It is clear that if free trade of the Americas is going to be realized by the year 2005, an essential first step is to bring in the United States.
Will the United States be brought in with environmental and labour standards side agreements such as those we have insisted on in NAFTA? My understanding is that the present political climate in Washington is that an ever increasingly conservative Congress will resist a great deal any suggestion by the administration that we should have side agreements of this nature attached to the Chile agreement.
It seems to me that if ultimately Chile is going to be a part of NAFTA, then we have to incorporate into its arrangements with us these very important agreements because we are all concerned with the problem of the harmonization of standards.
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the member's time has expired.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer the member as best I can.
The recently signed Canada-Chile free trade agreement is an important development for Canadian businesses. With this agreement Canadian exporters will gain significant access to one of the region's fastest growing economies and a gateway to all of Latin America.
All Canadian exports are currently subject to an 11 per cent duty when they enter Chile. This agreement paves the way for increases in trade with Chile by eliminating the duty for roughly 75 per cent of current Canadian exports to Chile. The agreement will mean immediate duty free access on goods such as telecommunications equipment, electrical generating equipment, mining and forestry equipment, durum wheat, barley, lentils and maple syrup. A further 15 per cent of current Canadian exports will have duty free access within five years.
Since 40 per cent of our GDP depends on trade, an agreement such as this one is essential for the creation of jobs and growth.
[Translation]
Furthermore, if Chile provides, for key products, improved access to other countries where Canadian products cannot enter duty free, this ensures that Canada will also enjoy improved access.
Elimination by both sides of anti-dumping measures will guarantee free access for Canadian exports and move forward the international reform of anti-dumping measures.
[English]
Cultural industries and the autopact are exempted from this agreement and social services and health care are fully protected. High tariffs for dairy, poultry and eggs over quota are preserved.
We have signed side agreements on labour and the environment that provide us with the new mechanisms to seek to influence Chilean policies in these important areas.
This bilateral agreement is a step toward fulfilling Canada's broader trade policy objective of promoting hemispheric trade liberalization under the FTAA. This free trade agreement will be a bridge to Chile's accession to NAFTA. Canadian exporters will have an important advantage over the United States, Asia and Europe in the Chilean market. This will give Canadian exporters a head start on their U.S. competitors when Chile does eventually join NAFTA.
The Canada-Chile free trade agreement sends an important message to our trading partners that Canada is prepared to take the lead in creating a freer trade environment throughout the world.
In 1993 the Canada infrastructure works program was a rightful promise kept by the government within weeks of taking office. The result of this joint federal-provincial-municipal program has been the creation of over 110,000 jobs for Canadians, all for the purpose of improving Canada's infrastructure and enhancing the skills and technological expertise of Canadians.
Before the infrastructure program, unemployment stood at 11.4 per cent. Today it is at 10 per cent with youth unemployment around 14 per cent. We need more job creation by government if we are to cope with almost jobless growth.
Today about 97 per cent of the $6 billion in federal, provincial and municipal funding has been committed. Consequently we need to prime the pump. Again, we need a new infrastructure program with the same funding formula as the first but with new goals. For instance, we could target new infrastructure funds for energy efficient investments, to make buildings more efficient, to reduce energy consumption and CO2 emissions. This would create jobs for Canadians in the construction trades and environmental technology fields.
The Canadian Home Builders Association estimates that for every $10,000 spent on a renovation, half a person year of direct employment is created. Increased funding for the residential rehabilitation assistance program would be a good vehicle both for creating jobs and increasing energy efficiency because it aims at improving the safety, health and energy efficiency of older buildings, structures and homes across the country.
A new infrastructure program would help stimulate private sector job creation and community initiatives. Again I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board: Does the government intend to launch a new infrastructure program this winter?
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the chance to respond to my colleague, the hon. member for Davenport. My friend asks if the government intends to launch a new infrastructure program.
The Prime Minister first invited provincial premiers at the first ministers' meeting in June 1996 to consider renewal of the infrastructure program.
At the October 4 meeting of the Minister of Finance and his counterparts, the federal government outlined what its position would be if the program were to be renewed. This position included the following points: The federal government will fund no more than one-third of the total program in every province. The program will continue to be focused primarily on improving municipal infrastructure. The financial participation of the private sector will be actively encouraged.
In order to contribute to job creation programs, funds should be incremental. Infrastructure investments should also have a strategic focus on the 21st century by improving the conditions for medium and long term job creation, enhancing competitiveness. And the program would continue as a national program. We will not proceed without the full participation of all provinces.
Since that meeting the media has reported that British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario are now onside to join the new infrastructure program. However, provinces have not yet indicated they are ready to increase their overall capital spending on infrastructure to match federal contributions for the new program.
The premiers' deadline of November 1 for the report back from their finance ministers has passed. However, we are still waiting to hear something official from the provinces.
With respect to the renewal of the program, any decision to extend it must be taken in the context of fiscal realities, and in light of the objectives of both the provinces and the government.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until2 p.m. tomorrow.
(The House adjourned at 7.03 p.m.)