Should the Commonwealth have its own Peace Corps?

[Machjo]

I think the idea of a Peace Corp is a wonderful idea and we could always create something even better than the US Peace Corp (though this still wouldn't change the fact that they can still lay claim to having initiated it).

I could see the establishment of a Commonwealth Peace Corp with a few improvements added. For example, in the Canadian military it is possible to sign a ten year contract whereby the government offers five years of education in exchange for five years of service. A Commonwealth Peace Corp could introduce this added bonus, except that it would be five years of volunteer work instead of paid work like in the military.

A Corp de la Paix de la Francophonie could likewise be created as a francophone parallel organization. What would be your thoughts on this?

[Machjo]

I could also see this as an alternative for people who land on hard times but are too proud to apply for social assistance. This way they'd have the option of joining the Peace Corp instead.

Of course I'm not saying this with any intention of suggesting we eliminate social assistance or that we ought to look down on people on social assistance, and there may be legitimate reasons for people to apply for it that are none of our business. However, this does not change the fact that some people in need of help might feel very uncomfortable with the idea of applying for social assistance and so a Peace Corp could be an attractive solution for them.

[Machjo]

I should add that a Peace Corp could likely save us money too. After all, with the military, it's not just five years of education, but then five years of paid service too. With this Peace corp, it would be five years of volunteer service, meaning that the government would only need to pay for the education and then get five years of free service minus food, clothing, shelter and other necessities along with perhaps a monthly allowance. Much cheaper than the military model. And add to that that to join the military you must meet various standards. With a Peace Corp as proposed above, anyone could join and work at their own capacity, bearing in mind of course that the university contract would be reserved for those who can meet certain standards of course. perhaps an alternative contract, let's say three years of vocational education in exchange for five years of volunteer work could be offered too with different standards being required.

[Machjo]

Another advantage I could see is that this Peace Corp would essentially eliminate the need for government stimulous packages in recessions. If you can't find a job and don't want to apply for social assistance and don't qualify for EI, then you could always join the Peace Corp, where you'd receive the education you need to succeed in the upcoming economic recovery. It would naturally follow the economic flow. In good times, recruitment in the Peace Corp would naturally decline, while in recession it would natrually grow.

[William Ashley]

I think the idea of a Peace Corp is a wonderful idea and we could always create something even better than the US Peace Corp (though this still wouldn't change the fact that they can still lay claim to having initiated it).

I could see the establishment of a Commonwealth Peace Corp with a few improvements added. For example, in the Canadian military it is possible to sign a ten year contract whereby the government offers five years of education in exchange for five years of service. A Commonwealth Peace Corp could introduce this added bonus, except that it would be five years of volunteer work instead of paid work like in the military.

A Corp de la Paix de la Francophonie could likewise be created as a francophone parallel organization. What would be your thoughts on this?

Why? Perhaps instead you could offer people paid employment so they can repay their student loans? Do people want to volunteer until they are 28? What if they want to do a masters?

Good idea but it ain't too feasable. This type of program would be much better for demand industries eg. medical on agreement for placement in underserviced areas, skilled trades employment etc..

Volunteering doesn't pay, why drain the public purse with services that don't pay back. If anything the government should be implementing profitable ventures, not charity work that costs money to perform.

It shouldn't be the governments duty to fund volunteer projects, leave it to the public to donate to these organizations. They are tax deductable anyway. If you have private wealth floating around by all means donate your tax dollars to private charities.

I think the peace corps idea is more in line with private charities or ultra rich donors to provide charities for people who sign private contracts to perform charities. The government doesn't have the money to be giving to charity it is in debt, coercing funds from the public to fund overspending and pork barrel politics. Government should be self sufficient not relying on threats of violence and control to extort funds from the public.

[William Ashley]

I could also see this as an alternative for people who land on hard times but are too proud to apply for social assistance. This way they'd have the option of joining the Peace Corp instead.

Of course I'm not saying this with any intention of suggesting we eliminate social assistance or that we ought to look down on people on social assistance, and there may be legitimate reasons for people to apply for it that are none of our business. However, this does not change the fact that some people in need of help might feel very uncomfortable with the idea of applying for social assistance and so a Peace Corp could be an attractive solution for them.

There are plenty of volunteer oppourtunities out there. Who cares they can either survive or not, what is more meaningful living on the street eating out of garbage bins and soup kitchens sucking funding from the public purse anyway, or taking part in a program that is suppose to stream people back to wage slavery. Atleast in Ontario you need to work to get social assistance (usually)

There are plenty of things that can be done, unfortunately the peak demand for services does not exceed the availability of employment, meaning that it requires excess to be created, or for people who hoard resources to distrubute them. There are no shortages.

I don't see the volunteering connection. If people want to help another country then volunteer in that country, but keep the federal government CIDA ect.. working in Canada, until we are a profitable nation that doesn't rely on coercion and extortion to fund public works projects.

The government should be able to operate without instituting laws using violence, imprisonment or exportiation of wealth to get their way at the regular citizens expense.

Stop giving ours away, if we want to give it away we will donate but don't hold a gun to the publics head.

Edited February 1, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

I should add that a Peace Corp could likely save us money too. After all, with the military, it's not just five years of education, but then five years of paid service too.

Five years of wasting resourcing topling foreign governments, what a way to make money? Where all the Afghan slaves at? Where are the ships with booty from Afghanistan?

With this Peace corp, it would be five years of volunteer service, meaning that the government would only need to pay for the education and then get five years of free service minus food, clothing, shelter and other necessities along with perhaps a monthly allowance.

I would hope their was paid work for someone with five years of post secondary studies. There are some issues though, where are they going to school? Not everyone qualifies for post secondary studies.

Much cheaper than the military model. And add to that that to join the military you must meet various standards. With a Peace Corp as proposed above, anyone could join and work at their own capacity, bearing in mind of course that the university contract would be reserved for those who can meet certain standards of course.

Why waste valuable skilled workers on volunteer work when they could enter the workforce instead? For isntance why doesn't the govenrment institute profitable works projects and pay gradulates, who put in to work for them?

perhaps an alternative contract, let's say three years of vocational education in exchange for five years of volunteer work could be offered too with different standards being required.

why?

[William Ashley]

Another advantage I could see is that this Peace Corp would essentially eliminate the need for government stimulous packages in recessions. If you can't find a job and don't want to apply for social assistance and don't qualify for EI, then you could always join the Peace Corp, where you'd receive the education you need to succeed in the upcoming economic recovery.

Retraining is suppose to exist through EI, and those people who qualify for post secondary studies can do so, with funding available for those who need it. What is the difference between paying for a project, and paying for a peace corps.

I do agree that a well trained and available labour force is a good thing, but frankly, I think a "labour management system" is a much better and more economical system. Most "volunteer" work doesn't require skilled people. And most skills could be learned while volunteering rather than having people do a degree.

University and College are time consuming ventures, but the funds are already available for post secondary studies by way of student loans. Why not just pay, and provide jobs when required?

Unemployment - institute programs like ontario works, to have people perform labour for social assistance. That simple.

There are always going to be a segment of the population that will be partially unemployable - but that is what medical research is for. Atleast they are still contributing to society by providing potential cures for their illnesses.

It would naturally follow the economic flow. In good times, recruitment in the Peace Corp would naturally decline, while in recession it would natrually grow.

Great idea, why not start a business of it, fact is though, the government don't have funds for massive public works projects. If they want to spend money on stuff lower taxes and let the public spend it on starting businesses.

The 5 years of education during economic downturn is also partially issued - afterall if there is a recession 5 years ago do you really want to do volunteer work as jobs become available? While a portion of the unemployed workforce is youth a large chunk of it is adults who perhaps arn't capable, or have already had post secondary studies, meaning constrained effect. Also a chunk of those non educated youth who are unemployed might be drop outs of highschool, or didn't take secondary school courses as to allow them to enroll in post secondary studies, meaning that retraining would be for highschool, or precollege preuniversity courses, meaning at best those might get only a 3 year degree in that span, and while better than nothing, perhaps they just can't do it, based on their own intelligence short comings. Perhaps not. But for those who want post secondary studies, atleast in ontario, you can do your highschool or preuniversity or precollege and go on to college, that already exists, why enter a contract, when someone can enter the workforce instead of the volunteerforce?

Excess production = waste.

The government needs to set definate guidelines on public works projects it would like to acheive, such as energy self sufficiency, clean water and food supply for the public, shelter and affordable housing, and a clean transportation system, taking care of natural ecosystems, or production of arts and skilled experts.

The current system of hole in the bucket problem solving isn't gonna do it, and all a peace corps will do is drain public money for constrained effect.

We don't need a peace corps, we need a well managed labour system, paid employment, available funding for post secondary studies, and a managed post secondary training program to insure that underserviced areas demand are met.

We don't need higher taxes, we need a smaller debt, we don't need a government managed labour force we need essential public services to be created by the government, we don't need to do this for foreign countries, we need to do it for Canada.

Canada First!

Edited February 1, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

after writing replies to all these...

what is with this?

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=85042

OP kindly don't delete this thread though but it is multiposted.

[Machjo]

Why? Perhaps instead you could offer people paid employment so they can repay their student loans?

the current system allows students to learn what they want and then wonder what to do when they can't find a job. Under the concept being promoted here, they'd be learning skills the government actually needs. You don't go out learning religious studies for example and then the government tries to figure out what kind of job it could create for you to work in. It's got to be the other way around. The government figures out what kind of skills it needs, and then trains people for them, knowing these skills will fill an already existing need. That would be fare more efficient than the current student loan programme. By the way, a lot of private colleges with poor teaching standards have been known to exploit the programme too, with students leaving with debt and still not having learnt much. What a waste of taxpayers' money. I don't mind private schools participating in the education of these people, maybe through some kind of voucher programme, but the government must still keep a close eye on them. In the end, it might be easier just for the government itself to provide the education in reputable colleges. I suppose we could go for a voucher programme, but with strict government controls to ensure the quality of the education.

Do people want to volunteer until they are 28?

Good question. Woud it hurt to offer the option? If a person has been unlucky in life and so failed to get the education he and society could benefit from, he might very well be willing to do that. Who are we to deny him that option because we wouldn't do it ourselves?

What if they want to do a masters?

Sure, why not. Let's say the deal was one year of education for one year of unpaid work. Then he goes to school for five years and then works for five years. Of course we could tweak it a bit. If no one applies, then we raise the salary a little. If too many people apply, then lower the salary, etc. until you find the right balance to get enough recruits for government service while still ensuring low cost.

Good idea but it ain't too feasable. This type of program would be much better for demand industries eg. medical on agreement for placement in underserviced areas, skilled trades employment etc..

Strange that. That's pretty much what I had in mind. For example, if you want to be a teacher, physician, ambulance driver, mechanic for police cars, or whatever, the Peace Corps would train you and then you'd serve the community through placements through the Peace Corps, which could be in a school, hospital, police garage, ambulance, etc. etc. etc. Much cheaper than all the castle with student banckruptcies, student loan money going to courses in basket weaving, etc. and then having to pay an arm and a leg for skilled trades and professions from the start of their careers.

Volunteering doesn't pay, why drain the public purse with services that don't pay back. If anything the government should be implementing profitable ventures, not charity work that costs money to perform.

That depends on how you look at it. volunteering doesn't pay the volunteer, but it does pay the one who receives the service, which in this case would be society. If anything, this would save the government and taxpayers money by not having to swallow the cost of defaulted student loans gone to courses in some cheap yet expensive career college that'sin it just for the money, or basket weaving courses in university or some other course for which there just isn't a market. Also, it would provide the government with a pool of trained professionals willing to work for free for at least the first few years of their careers. This would save even more money.

It shouldn't be the governments duty to fund volunteer projects, leave it to the public to donate to these organizations. They are tax deductable anyway. If you have private wealth floating around by all means donate your tax dollars to private charities.

The idea here is to not waste money on welfare on people who can't find work but want to work for example. If we're giving them salaries anyway, then we might as well get work out of them too, no? In this case, the government could recruit from the Peace Corps for anything from health care to mechanics to education, etc. all at low salary.

I think the peace corps idea is more in line with private charities or ultra rich donors to provide charities for people who sign private contracts to perform charities. The government doesn't have the money to be giving to charity it is in debt, coercing funds from the public to fund overspending and pork barrel politics. Government should be self sufficient not relying on threats of violence and control to extort funds from the public.

Ironic, that. So you would rather the current system whereby student loans, social assistance, and government work are totally separate issues unrelated to one another and so each operating inefficiently when they could all be rolled into one? Right now, you've got the student learning basket weaving 'cause it's cool, the man on social assistance getting a pay check but who's otherwise bored out of his skull without work, and the teacher, construction worker, etc. always threatening the government with a strike for a raise. We could roll them all into one whereby instead of student loans, the government would pay directly for the education for skills it actually needs, much like the military. The unemployed who are willing to work could get that education so as to move ahead in life, in exchange for free work for the government. By fully integrating government work, education and social assistance in this way, we could essentially get rid of unemployment, lack of skills for the workforce, and unionized extortion of the taxpayer, and yet you oppose this?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Sure, why not. Let's say the deal was one year of education for one year of unpaid work. Then he goes to school for five years and then works for five years. Of course we could tweak it a bit. If no one applies, then we raise the salary a little. If too many people apply, then lower the salary, etc. until you find the right balance to get enough recruits for government service while still ensuring low cost.

Sounds like RMC you get 4 years of university in exchange for 5 years of service.

[Machjo]

Sounds like RMC you get 4 years of university in exchange for 5 years of service.

Similar, but not quite. It would be, for example, 4 years of university for 5 years of unpaid service, whereas in the RMC, it would be 4 years of university for 5 years of paid service. Some people might refuse to join the RMC on religious or other grounds but could still benefit from the same kind of structure. In some cases, their beliefs are strong enough that they would in fact choose the 5 years of unpaid service over 5 years of paid service, and that ought to be their prerogative, and it does not make their service any less valuable to society, while saving the government and taxpayers money. Some people, for example, even intelligent ones, fall through the cracks, either since they graduate from high school in the midst of a recession, or get tangled up in costs in immigration bureaucracy because they ended up marrying a foreigner, or other bureaucracy requiring them to move province because a family member doesn't know French, etc. etc. etc. There could be various obstacles to their getting an education even if they are intelligent, and this kind of civilian service organization could be a way out for some of them. It might not be very tempting for most, but for those who have been quite unlucky, it still wouldn't be a bad deal.

[William Ashley]

the current system allows students to learn what they want and then wonder what to do when they can't find a job.

I don't think educational counseling is out of the question. Wouldn't it just be more prudent to have student councilors mention demand industries To students when enrolling. Thing is though that having a job or not having a job isn't what is important - it is doing what you enjoy doing in life. Giving someone a job they hate for 5 years ain't doing no one a service.

Under the concept being promoted here, they'd be learning skills the government actually needs.

There really aren't needs but social effect. We don't need food, but if we don't have food, we die. So it is a benefit to grow food, any moron can grow food if they have seed some soil, sunlight, water, nutrient and the right temperature, but it takes a lot of effort to grow enough food, or own enough land to do this. These are things that private institutions do, if there are needs then there ought to be people to pay for them. If there ain't no money to pay then labour becomes the payment. So then you put people to work. As a voluntary program I don't see an issue with people proscribing to a quota employment system, but I don't see the reason to lock people into a contract, or how it can be managed effectively, with people who fail out of post secondary studies, become ill during studies, die, or become unable to perform the services they opt for due to medical reasons, or family issues. Also people who drop out of the program won't want to go to jail, so a convertable system, eg. initially paid by student loans but then the program would write off a certain amount of loans for with say pay. Unpaid, it is still costing money, so why not give people money instead of food? Government usually buys everything at twice the regular cost so it would likely cost half of what it would under a government buying program to pay them directly.

You don't go out learning religious studies for example and then the government tries to figure out what kind of job it could create for you to work in.

Fact is that most post secondary studies in university train people on two program paths arts or sciences. Arts tend to prepare students for administrative and textual duties, while sciences prepare people for science and engineering duties. Colleges are usually very trade specific. Admissions to programs are also limited. So in my opinion if you want social controls then you set quota by enrollment limits or tuition incentives for entry into an under serviced areas. Currently for instance medical schools can be extremely expensive, if you want more doctors why not lower the costs of going to medical school. And recruit people to these programs by offering an incentive for them to enroll in those programs, such as scholarships to under serviced trades. If there are shortages, have government recruit people while they are still in undergrad, like some scouts might to a sports teams. I've heard stories CSIS does this in university, so why not other public services?

It's got to be the other way around. The government figures out what kind of skills it needs, and then trains people for them, knowing these skills will fill an already existing need.

I don't see an issue with that but I think an anyone can sign up method, isn't going to be the most effective way of recruiting skilled workers to the government. It is much more meaningful to actively recruit, rather than accept anyone. For example the Canadian Forces has a multiscreened entry system, you need to go through 4 or 5 screens before you enter your unit. Then after that training is run each season for certain qualifications.

Having an open recruitment (people can apply through the government employment database - which already exists), and actively recruiting via education records. Eg. people who get aiming for the top each year, or those with student loans and good GPA's etc.. to be given invitations for entry to the public service, with incentives such as student loans write offs for a multiyear employment contract. I'm pretty sure there are some students who would very much like the security of having paid employment and their student loans written off in such a secure employment stream. But taking anyone into the public service for some trades just ain't going to fly. It seems far more efficient to recruit from those passing training for skilled trades than after the fact.

After this point though those unemployed could be dealt with through meaningful provincial works systems for unskilled labour, or directed to the student loans system or highschool if they need to upgrade.

Sadly some people may only be suited to unskilled labour - and strangely there is an unmet need according to employers for unskilled labour which requires immigration - and this while 8.5% of the workforce is unemployed, go figure. The issue may be in part a well managed labour / manpower system, not the fact there are deficiencies in the labour force, except in skilled trade shortages, which require incentives for people to enter those employment streams.

That would be fare more efficient than the current student loan programme.

How so?

By the way, a lot of private colleges with poor teaching standards have been known to exploit the programme too, with students leaving with debt and still not having learnt much. What a waste of taxpayers' money. I don't mind private schools participating in the education of these people, maybe through some kind of voucher programme, but the government must still keep a close eye on them. In the end, it might be easier just for the government itself to provide the education in reputable colleges. I suppose we could go for a voucher programme, but with strict government controls to ensure the quality of the education.

Provincial aid programs set the schools that qualify, if they don't meet the expected standards then the solution to prevent this issue is pretty simple.

Well that is why loan programs should inquire a level of quality education that is expected .

Good question. Woud it hurt to offer the option? If a person has been unlucky in life and so failed to get the education he and society could benefit from, he might very well be willing to do that. Who are we to deny him that option because we wouldn't do it ourselves?

Who are we to pay for it, if there are alternatives within the existing system. I think it is better to offer flexibility in the systems. The fact this is also a commonwealth system is problematic at who foots the bill and where is the work done. It has me think that suddently all this tax payer funded education is going to go to the third world rather than Canada. The contract basis is just problematic for individual freedom - ahving employment is good or having loans written down is good, but what someone agrees to do at 18 may not sit well with them at 27, and what after 27? Why does the gaurenteed employment stop there? I invisioned a system that has education and public service throughout ones eudcation streem, having kids plant trees, or some other beneficial activity to the community, having jnr and senior highschool students carry out service, which exists in ontario for senior high school, and likewise there are options, voluntary options for doing volunteer work while in university. I think the system relies a lot on options and acceptance. People have the option to compete for volunteer programs, say tree planting in the summer, or working at a summer camp. Having a system to manage these like jobmine in coop streams ain't a bad idea, but the fact is Co-op already exits, government work databases already exist, work programs already exist. So why the need to create a program that already can address the program. Especially if the current system is not as narrow in application as the proposed program?

Sure, why not. Let's say the deal was one year of education for one year of unpaid work.

Why are you so set on unpaid work?

Then he goes to school for five years and then works for five years. Of course we could tweak it a bit.

Why is the year for year thing there? Is one year of education the equivolent to one year of work in economic incentive? Also is person x going to cost as much as person y - no, because person x may have an resp or other funding person y doesn't, so why do they need to work for the same amount of time, if they didn't draw the same resources from the program?

If no one applies, then we raise the salary a little.

Didn't you say this was unpaid work?

If too many people apply, then lower the salary, etc. until you find the right balance to get enough recruits for government service while still ensuring low cost.

As far as I am aware the public service is overemployed in overserviced areas, and in demand areas are private sector? What public sector trades are underserviced?

If anything, this would save the government and taxpayers money by not having to swallow the cost of defaulted student loans gone to courses in some cheap yet expensive career college that'sin it just for the money, or basket weaving courses in university or some other course for which there just isn't a market.

Perhaps you can see it in terms of "life fullfillment" rather than occupational success. Life is about provide a life for people, not a slavery.

I'd rather see someone learn to twiddle their thumbs at tax payers expense than see people day in and day out hate what they are doing and hating the society for forcing them to do it. We need not train wage slaves, we ought to train freedom.

Also, it would provide the government with a pool of trained professionals willing to work for free for at least the first few years of their careers. This would save even more money

Perhaps then where to tweak is what programs are applicable for aid, eg. those that set a mandatory program requirement, which most degrees have, eg. you need to take these courses by default. However I see fault in suddenly arts programs are meaningless so funding to arts programs won't occur anymore.

There are plenty of people with applicable skills out there who are unemployed because they haven't found employment that is befitting of their expectations of an employer or employment.

The idea here is to not waste money on welfare on people who can't find work but want to work for example.

Yet your program is just another form of welfare? Why not just tweak existing welfare or EI program to include unskilled labour or retraining as a requirement for payment - this already exists in the welfare system in Ontario - does it not in your province?

If we're giving them salaries anyway, then we might as well get work out of them too, no? In this case, the government could recruit from the Peace Corps for anything from health care to mechanics to education, etc. all at low salary.

What benefit does the peace corps offer that already isn't possible? But are those private or public sector trades - as far as I'm aware the programs you mention are private sector trades, not public sector for the most part.

Ironic, that. So you would rather the current system whereby student loans, social assistance, and government work are totally separate issues unrelated to one another and so each operating inefficiently when they could all be rolled into one?

What and cut those programs to people who don't want the peace corps? Peace corps just serves to be overhead on administration and programs that already exist, why not just fill in the gaps and overlying legislation.. Why roll everything into one if it will just cost more and not replace programs that already exist. It makes far more sense just to rely on the existing infrastructure, the elements already exist, just everyone ain't aware of them. That is why school counselors are the front line, and having as mentioned above skilled trade recruitment. People will have the option. If you like the gloss, then why not label things priority entry in labour streams eg. public service training program, then recruiting from those people who enroll in the system at the outset, eg. having a recruitment stream at the entry and exit points. But there will be a quota so the guarantee employment thing is bogus, then you have the skilled willing workers, who can do volunteer service with other ngo's the program could coordinate with - however I think a skim system works far better than a guaranteed employment system. People who don't find NGO or GO employment will find themselves in the welfare system anyway, Ontario at least is a work for welfare system anyway, so it is those program areas that need to be fine tuned eg. Ontario works screens labour pools based on skills and training, then applies people that way. Thing is, there are limited public service jobs available so I think it is a more efficient labour control system that is required.

Right now, you've got the student learning basket weaving 'cause it's cool, the man on social assistance getting a pay check but who's otherwise bored out of his skull without work, and the teacher, construction worker, etc. always threatening the government with a strike for a raise.

If someone wants to learn basket weaving fine, but the student loan systems doesn't admit every school, it sets guidelines for those institutions - have you gone to post secondary studies before? Frankly most programs I've seen offer a mix of training, to create rounded individuals, not solely basket weavers.

We could roll them all into one whereby instead of student loans, the government would pay directly for the education for skills it actually needs,

What an not offer student loans to basket weavers - once again this is the loan program prerogative to set guidelines for what institutions and programs are eligible for student loans.

much like the military. The unemployed who are willing to work could get that education so as to move ahead in life,

And how doesn't this exist already?

in exchange for free work for the government.

People can't work for free, they need money to survive. Even the military provides money for their employees. This isn't the age of levee and conscript labour without economic incentive - a large majority of people are wage slaves anyway, Why not let people spend the money, if the government wants a cut or control then they could sell goods to their employees if they can offer a better deal, but why take away the choice and independence?

By fully integrating government work, education and social assistance in this way, we could essentially get rid of unemployment, lack of skills for the workforce, and unionized extortion of the taxpayer, and yet you oppose this?

Oppose what more bureaucratic overhead, and less freedom in society?

I do not oppose offering employment for youth or even older people but I think the public service ought to be able to pick the best and most abled people, like the military, not take just anyone.

I think having volunteer programs ain't a bad idea, but these open programs might as well be manage from the welfare stream - perhaps with people opting into them if they want - eg. northern works projects. But there ought to be screening. I think the way to get rid of unemployment is to get rid of the unemployed by employing them. To do this 1. you create a labour management system - these already exist, you have a welfare system that is work for welfare and integrated into any existing public service needs - it is employment. Not only youth are unemployed, there are plenty of adults who are unemployed as mentioned above. Recruit above not below.

I think the program is too narrow and tries to do what programs that exist can already do. There ought to be integration and efficiency in existing gears, if you want to make a machine - eg. windows dll system, why not use the parts to make the system rather than making a system that has to duplicate parts.

There is no need for the inefficiency. Making a labour stream program eg this seems much better than what you propose.

1. Preliminary - on highschool entry have early entry to a public service stream, with volunteer activities and job shadowing - like cadets - also you might like them to enter or connect them with programs like scouts and cadets.

2. Have oversight by a program director who tries to insure grades are kept high and tutoring programs exist from within the program. Eg. have it like a big brothers or fraternity system where members of the program mentor people who enter the "progrom".

3 Those who succeed in continuing the stream get to pick from quotas set by the government in expected needs (which may or may not change) and having the program recommend entry based on skills, interests, and needs. (not just needs)

4. Continue the program as a co-op stream programs, with people given priority entry into government co-op program required they are as qualified for the co-op jobs as other people, eg. co-ops to health Canada - this means that many more people might enter the program in university to be given an edge on other coop applicants.

5. The government would actively recruit people who are qualified at this stage, eg. those who enroll in coops, and personnel files which were kept with the program would be cross referenced.

6.Those people who are still not needed because there is no work for them in the public service could then be streamed to government works projects should they not have employment elsewhere - they could still be members of this program - eg. young communists to the communist party.. errhh uhm.. but essentially you could have them continue to volunteer to the program, and receive a tax credit of some sort or a preferred loan interest rate eg. prime rather than prime +3.5%

I think a program like this might be more efficient and useful All that is required here is a little coordination. however a program that requires more tax payer funds for the same results seems a little more wasteful.

The elements already exist you just haven't researched them it seems.

Edited February 3, 2010 by William Ashley