Debates of Sept. 25th, 2012

Opposition Motion--Income Inequality

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referenced the Kelowna accord. There was also the child care agreement that was within three months of being finalized. Unfortunately, the NDP voted against that and we lost one of the most progressive social programs we could have.

The Kelowna accord is another example of the kinds of programs that can be worked on together and the kinds of policies that can come out when everybody works together, but that means truly listening.

I go back to the comment from my Conservative colleague. I think he was quite sincere in his intent to move forward and to try to help many of these families out. I think a positive result today on something as important as income inequality, by having all of us vote for it, could maybe be a start in the right direction. Then maybe tomorrow there would be less rhetoric in the House and a little more of an ambience of actually working together on something.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I am pleased to speak to the motion from the interim leader of the third party.

When addressing the topic of income inequality, I had hoped he had researched what has happened to the level of poverty in Canada under our Conservative government.

Under our Conservative government, poverty has decreased to an all-time low. In fact, it was in 1996, under the previous Liberal government, that Canada's poverty rate reached its highest level in more than 40 years. What an abysmal record.

Under the Liberals, Canada's poverty rate hit 15.2%. In 2010, as the world economy continued to struggle and Canada continued to show leadership on the world stage under our Prime Minister, with a strong, stable, national majority Conservative government, 9% of Canada's population lived in poverty. This number was still too high so we have continued to act to reduce it. This number represents the lowest percentage in Canadian history. In fact, it is 32% lower than under the Liberals. To put it in context, 1.3 million Canadians under the Conservative government have escaped poverty.

In 1996, under the Liberals, the peak of poverty in the last 40 years, 16.2% of women were considered to be low income. In 2010, I am pleased to report that poverty among women dropped to an all-time low of 9%, which is a 57% decrease in poverty.

Another hard truth for the Liberals is that, before 2006, children experienced a higher rate of poverty than adults in Canada. In 2006, after we Conservatives formed government, for the first time in history children had a lower poverty rate than adults in Canada. That is something all of us can be proud of.

In 1996, under the previous Liberal government, 18% of children lived in poverty, which is 3% higher than working aged Canadians. As a mother of a young son myself, I find it appalling that the Liberals not only tolerated but continued to contribute to the increase in child poverty through their mean-spirited and poorly thought out cuts to transfer payments to the provinces.

However, under our Conservative leadership, by 2010 this number had been cut in half, with 8.2% of children considered to be living in poverty, a rate that is 1.9% lower than working aged Canadians.

To be fair, any amount of child or adult poverty in Canada is too much.

There is, however, a pattern here: under the Liberals, we get more child poverty; under the Conservatives, we get less child poverty.

For 13 years, the Liberals, who are so sanctimonious today, held a majority government. When they had the votes to pass any piece of legislation to enact any program whatsoever what did they do? These self-proclaimed mighty defenders of those Canadians in need did the following. They launched an attack on the poor, the sick and the needy like no government before or since has ever done. They gutted transfers to the provinces and territories with staggering unprecedented cuts totalling tens of billions of dollars each and every year.

When they cut money to the provinces for health care, hospitals in my community closed, nurses were fired and doctors saw their working conditions deteriorate like never before. When they cut money for social services and for transfers to schools, colleges and universities, those buildings crumbled and community services were scaled back like never before.

This is not rhetoric. I am not exaggerating for effect. This is what happened. This is the Liberal record.

The statistics speak for themselves. Under the Liberals, the increase to the highest rates of poverty in 40 years happened in tandem with the cuts to provincial transfers.

Unlike the Liberals, our Conservative government made a commitment and cemented in law that those transfers will never be cut and that they will always continue to grow each and every year. That is exactly what we have done.

Let us think about our approach to transfers to the provinces for things like hospitals and schools. These transfers are the most significant means by which provinces help those in need. The transfers have been called more than generous by all sorts of third party observers. Why have the Liberals voted against these transfers at every opportunity?

We have taken many crucial steps as a government to ensure that vulnerable Canadians can fully participate in our economy. In 2007, we introduced the working income tax benefit to help ensure that more low and modest income Canadians are financially better off as a result of getting a job. In budget 2009, this tax benefit was enhanced by $580 million, effectively doubling the initial investment to provide further support to working Canadians and their families.

We believe the family is a very important building block of society and it is one of the most important investments we can make as a society. Our government is committed to the family's well-being. We gave Canadian parents the choice to decide what kind of child care they needed for their families by providing parents with $100 each month for each child under six years of age, a benefit that I certainly received for my son. The universal child care benefit enables parents to choose the care that best suits the needs of their children.

In budget 2010, we made changes to the universal child care benefit to ensure that single parent families and parents with joint custody are treated fairly. Our government provides annual financial support under the universal child care benefit to about 1.5 million Canadian families. This is one program alone and it is responsible for lifting 55,000 children out of poverty. We provide over $800 million to parents through the child care expense deduction, as well as about $1.5 billion per year in tax support for families through the child tax credit. This money amounts to the largest investment in early childhood development and child care in Canadian history.

Our government recognized that it may be difficult for people who have full-time jobs to care for family members with serious illness or disabilities. Our government introduced improvements to the EI program to help parents balance work and family responsibilities during financially difficult and emotionally devastating times. For example, we expanded the list of family members and others considered as family under the compassionate care benefits so that eligible workers can take a temporary absence from their work to provide care for a gravely ill individual who faces a significant risk of death.

For the first time ever, our government created a program so that self-employed Canadians could opt into the EI program to receive maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits. Foster parents who have a child placed with them for the purposes of adoption can now take parental leave earlier instead of having to wait until the legal proceedings conclude.

We have also expanded access to parental benefits for military families. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I have the privilege of serving the brave men and women who stand up for our nation. It was our government that made the changes to ensure that military members who returned from deployment could take their parental leave over a longer period of time, ensuring they have a very important opportunity to bond with their new babies.

Most recently, our government introduced the helping families in need act, which was tabled last week. It is a bill that introduces necessary legislative changes to help hard-working Canadian families when they need it the most. As a mom, I was thrilled that the government introduced the helping families in need act to provide supports to families in their times of need. The bill provides for an EI benefit for parents and guardians of critically ill children. It also provides an EI benefit of $350 a week for 35 weeks for parents of children who have been kidnapped or murdered. I cannot imagine the devastation and anxiety of family members as they struggle with a kidnapped child or critically ill child. In these types of circumstances, I think Canadians can understand why we would want to support these families. We want to ensure that their prime concern and focus remains on their children and that they do not need to worry about their jobs, paying the mortgage or putting food on the table. Sadly, the NDP voted against the ways and means motion required to introduce this new law.

I would hope that the opposition parties could stand and support our measures to help Canadian families. We have been very strong, very solid and our track record speaks for itself.

Very succinctly, child poverty, adult poverty and poverty among women has been dramatically reduced in Canada under Conservatives. Members will recall that under the Liberals it was dramatically higher, an all-time 40-year high.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member opposite for her remarks.

I am not sure how she can be opposed to the Liberals' plan to such an extent, especially given the provision that seeks to help students with their loans. We can see that students are deeper and deeper in debt, partly because salaries have not kept up with inflation in the last 25 years.

Our proposal is to improve the funding for Canadian student grant programs. That would come to an additional $200 million per year because federal transfers have decreased.

Would the Conservatives be interested in a measure that would help students to be debt-free when they graduate, so that they could actually focus on their studies?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to clarify the record. I certainly spoke to it during my remarks. The fact is that, under our Conservative government, transfers to the provinces for health care, universities, colleges and hospitals have not decreased but have actually increased.

I think the hon. member was probably thinking about the Liberal majority government that dramatically slashed transfers to hospitals. That was when all those hospitals in the Toronto area closed, as they did across the country.

The Conservative government has a very strong track record in maintaining transfers to our provinces for our needed social programs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has demonstrated that she has the ability to read speaking notes from the Prime Minister's Office and I applaud her for that, I guess. She has also demonstrated that she knows how to manipulate statistics, but I do not necessarily applaud her for that.

The reality is that, during the Trudeau era, poverty went down from double digits of around 11% to 7% or 8%. Then, during the Mulroney years, it hovered between that 7% and 8%. When the Chrétien government came in, it was reduced from 7% to 5% and we left the present government a huge budget surplus. We left an economic opportunity to make a significant difference in tackling the issue of poverty.

Why does the member not recognize the facts as they are as opposed to trying to deceive Canadians by being very selective in what she is pointing out, which is not necessarily reflective of history?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I lived in Ontario at the time of the Martin majority government and he balanced the budget by dramatically cutting transfers to the province of Ontario and other provinces. During that time, a slew of hospitals crumbled and had to close. Nurses had to be fired. That is the Liberal track record. Every Canadian, certainly every Ontario resident and those who lived in the Toronto area, recalls those times.

Our Conservative government has maintained transfers to hospitals and each and every year has continued to increase them, which is something I campaigned for and it is something that every Conservative budget has delivered. We actually keep our word.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us touches on many aspects of the work that our government has been doing to benefit hard-working Canadian families.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on how these benefits contrast with the NDP's plan to impose a job-killing carbon tax.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an outstanding question and one that my residents also want to hear about.

Unlike the NDP, which wants to bring in a new tax to take money out of hard-working Canadian families' pockets, to have civil servants in Ottawa spend more, and to increase the cost of groceries and every single aspect of their daily lives, our Conservative government continues to cut taxes. One of the most obvious ones is the GST. We have cut that from 7% to 6% to 5%. That helps every Canadian family every single day every time they make a purchase.

We continue to provide all sorts of additional tax benefits. We have lowered the tax burden on Canadian families to the lowest levels in Canadian history.

That is the Conservative track record and we will continue on that track.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House to share with members the reasons why I will not be able to support the motion by the interim leader of the Liberal Party.

Although our government really takes the issue of income inequality seriously, to be quite frank I find the motion to be vague and disconnected. It is a typical Liberal approach to these issues.

The Liberal leader said he was proposing five very practical steps, but when asked what the cost would be, he did not have any idea.

As I have listened to the debate throughout the day, I have not heard how many people the motion would help or how it would have an impact on them. It is really very nebulous. These ideas do not knit together as a comprehensive strategy. For example, what about seniors? There is nothing on that. Are seniors not important in terms of income inequality?

I am proud to be part of a Conservative government that really acts rather than wanting to do more studies.

I would like to share with the House some of the actions that we are taking as a government. I have given one example already, in saying there is nothing about seniors in the motion. However, I will share with members some of the things that we are doing to deal with this important issue.

I first want to thank seniors for the sacrifices they have made and the foundational role they have played in building our nation. They certainly deserve our gratitude and support. They are the men and women who have worked tirelessly to build a better country for future generations. They are the men and women who have served in our armed forces to keep Canada free and make the world a safer place.

This weekend I had the opportunity to go to the War Museum. As I went through the exhibits from the War of 1812 to the Boer War and World War I and II, I was struck by the personal stories of those people who made this great country what it is today. It was very touching. I encourage people to take some time to go through that particular museum if they have not been there already.

Our seniors are the men and women who worked endless hours, gave their blood, sweat and tears, to build the economy of today, be it in a business big or small or on a farm.

That is why our Conservative government has introduced a lot of initiatives since 2006 to benefit our seniors and make their golden years a bit easier.

As we have seen time and time again, when we introduce what we think are important measures, the Liberal Party has stood up and voted against them. These include many of the measures we have introduced to help some of Canada's most impoverished seniors.

Here also, when the motion talks about the registered disability plan, it is a bit disingenuous, considering that we introduced it and the Liberals voted against it.

Another example is the guaranteed income supplement or GIS top-up for the most vulnerable seniors. Since July 2011 this top-up has helped seniors with little or no income other than OAS and GIS, by giving them additional benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and up to $840 for couples. I have heard loud and clear from constituents in my riding how important that is and what a positive change it has been. This is the largest GIS increase for the lowest income seniors in a quarter century. This is an investment of $300 million per year for our seniors. This initiative will improve the financial security and wellbeing of more than 680,000 seniors right across Canada. Even the Canadian Labour Congress, which is probably not the best friend of our government, has said “This is a win for every senior living in poverty in Canada”.

What did the Liberal Party do? Liberal members voted against helping those seniors most in need.

We have done more. We made sure that seniors can earn up to $3,500 more before their GIS is reduced, so that our seniors can keep more of their hard-earned money without any reduction in their benefits. The Liberal Party voted against that too.

Unfortunately, those are not the only measures the Liberal Party has voted against. It has opposed our measures reducing taxes for seniors. Our government cut taxes for seniors and pensioners by more than $2.5 billion via targeted tax relief. Specifically, our government has increased the age credit by $1,000 in 2006 and by another $1,000 in 2009. We have doubled the maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit to $2,000. We have introduced very popular pension income splitting. We also increased the age limit for maturing pensions and registered retirement savings plans, or RRSPs, to 71 from 69 years of age.

All of these are hugely important measures that are helping reduce the inequity for seniors.

With these combined measures, our Conservative government's low-tax record for seniors has substantially increased the income seniors can earn before they are required to pay a cent in income tax. For example, in 2012 a single senior can earn just over $19,000 and a senior couple over $39,000 before paying any federal income tax whatsoever. Even better, as a result of our government's actions, 380,000 seniors have been removed from the tax rolls altogether.

We know there is much more to be done and that is why we have done more. Seniors also benefit from our general tax cuts when we moved the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. The Liberals opposed that. When we reduced the lowest personal income tax rate to 15% from 16%, the Liberals opposed it. When we increased the basic personal amount that Canadians can earn without being subject to federal income tax, the Liberals opposed it.

I could go on. For example, when the Liberals opposed the tax-free savings account they opposed something that was really helpful for seniors because the income earned within a tax-free savings account and withdrawals from it are not taxed and do not affect eligibility for federal income-tested benefits such as old age security or the guaranteed income supplement. In the words of the respected personal finance columnist Jonathan Chevreau, “[T]here is now a way that seniors can save that rewards rather than punishes them”.

Seniors know that they have to be responsible and plan for the future and understand that one must spend responsibly to ensure that the next generation will have the services it needs. That is why as part of our economic action plan 2012, our Conservative government took important steps to ensure the future sustainability of Canada's social programs, placing key social programs on a sustainable path, ensuring that they will be there for future generations. At the same time, we recognize that many Canadian seniors who have the knowledge to share and skills to use do not want to be forced to retire before they choose to. We have given them more options to stay in the workforce if they wish, because we believe they should have the flexibility to continue to work if they so choose. That is why we eliminated mandatory forced retirement for federally regulated industries and why we will allow seniors who wish to remain in the workforce to delay or defer their OAS pensions for up to five years, allowing them to receive a higher annual pension down the road. That is why we have given massive new funding to the ThirdQuarter project to help seniors keep using their skills in the workforce. That is why we have introduced proactive enrollments into the OAS, removing the need to sign up for benefits for many seniors, a positive measure that columnist Gordon Pape, writing in the Toronto Star, applauded as “[A] welcome elimination of bureaucratic red tape that should have the effect of putting a lot more money into the hands of seniors”.

The bottom line is that we have a government that is taking action on so many fronts in a connected way for the entire population. In that regard, this motion is typical of the Liberals in being very disconnected and one that really will not accomplish what they say they want to accomplish. Again, our government takes very seriously the issue of income inequality in Canada.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. Conservative member that there are regions in Quebec and in Canada, some of which are in my riding, where seasonal industry contributes to the economy and is often the last industry that is keeping the regions alive.

For example, in Charlevoix and the Haute-Côte-Nord, people will just have to choose between going away and going hungry. Whatever they choose, there will less money in the region. That is going to create a vicious circle and cause a dynamic economy to go into decline, forcing people to leave the region.

Do the Conservatives understand this reality?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we have people in seasonal industries across this country. In my riding we have a number of tourist industries that are very periodic, for example skiing or apple picking in the Okanagan. That is why we made some changes to support those folks on EI, letting them know about opportunities that are near them and within their job skills category and available to them.

We have taken many important measures over the last year in the budget implementation act to support the folks in those industries. Those have been very important for the communities and the economy and will really help them move forward.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate we have spent a fair bit of time talking about people on a first name basis and hypothetical people. I want to talk about Roger Byers, who has given me permission to use his last name. He is a real person who lives in a real apartment on Hillsborough Street in downtown Charlottetown.

Roger Byers is a frequent user of the EI system. He is from Atlantic Canada but he is not lazy. He has two jobs. One job is full-time for six months of the year as a labourer for the city of Charlottetown. Another job is part-time, year round, $10 an hour for 20 hours a week at a bingo hall. For six months of the year this man works 60 hours a week. At the end of his term every fall he goes on EI, and under the present rules the clawback from his $10 an hour job at the bingo hall is $6. However, the clawback is now $100 because of the changes.

I invite my colleague opposite to look in the camera and explain to Roger Byers from Charlottetown how these measures are fair to him.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what the member is talking about generally is very important. This is someone who wants a job, has two jobs and is willing to work hard. That is why we have made a the economy and jobs and long-term prosperity a priority, because I know that the person mentioned would want to have a job available to him.

Over 770,000 net jobs since the worst part of the recession have been created and we are creating a climate for success for new businesses to open in those communities. Those are the things that this person would be very interested in and the opportunity to put in the good work that he does.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's outlining how the situation for seniors has improved under our government. What initiatives by our government have had the greatest positive impact on low-income, vulnerable seniors in Canada?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there were so many items that I outlined, whether it was the increase in the GIS or the ability to make a little bit more money before the GIS is clawed back.

The Liberals and NDP are perhaps forgetting what is most important. As a finance committee we held meetings in the United States and at every single meeting the people said that we were so lucky in Canada, that our economy was stable and that we were such a fortunate country.

Again, the most important thing we can do is to have a strong, stable economy so that we can continue to support our seniors in need and those around us who are most vulnerable.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

I rise today to address the growing income inequality gap and to ask that the government take immediate action to make a real difference to Canadians, many of whom are suffering.

I have the privilege of representing the riding where I was born and raised. While we are proudly one of the most multicultural ridings in the country, we also have our challenges. Almost 20% of our residents are not yet citizens, and so our families face family reunification challenges and language and job barriers. Almost 25% of our families are headed by single parents, who work two or three jobs just to put food on the table. Almost 20% of our riding is engaged in manufacturing, the second highest percentage for the entire country.

Income inequality hurts Canadians. If middle-class families cannot buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, the entire economy can be affected. In fact, research shows that countries with less inequality tend to have steadier and stronger economic growth in the long term.

This Parliament should be able to imagine and fight for a future where the people who work hard in my riding and ridings across our great country can get a good job, buy a home, raise a family, pay for their children's education and save for retirement, and where the income inequality gap is not ever-increasing.

I am going to provide three concrete examples of how income inequality disproportionately affects our children, those living with disabilities and those who provide care, and how income inequality hurts real Canadians.

Let me begin with children, society's most vulnerable and the voiceless, particularly the one in five who live below the poverty line. I ask directly of the government, what is the state of childhood in Canada? How does Canada compare to other countries? Does the federal government spend enough money on children? Do we even have the data? Who speaks for children and ensures that every child matters? Are children asked and listened to? Do we have the right government structure and policy agenda to ensure effective advocacy for children?

We need change for children. We must put children at the centre of our policies. Nurture demands political advocacy for children's best interests, starting with the basics of love and care and seeing through the eyes of children. This is why, as the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie is advocating, we so desperately need a children's commissioner in Canada who is independent and can speak for the most vulnerable in society.

Tragically, in some parts of our great country families eat only one meal a day instead of three. More often than we would like to admit, some family members eat while others go hungry. No family should face such choices in Canada. No one should face such hardship, not in a country of such enormous wealth.

Hundreds of thousands of Canadian children go to school hungry, and 40% of our elementary students and 62% of our secondary students do not eat a nutritious breakfast. As a result they may stop growing and may be too hungry to learn. When they are older they may be too undereducated to work to their full potential.

Despite the staggering statistics, percentages and well-known outcomes, Canada remains one of the few developed countries without a student nutrition program. If providing food at school increases graduation rates by only 3%, a pan-Canadian school meals program in high schools, at a cost of $1.25 a day, could result in an annual net payback of more than $500 million.

Mere private members' bills or motions are not good enough to protect our children, their futures and our collective future. The government must demonstrate courage and tenacity to swiftly tackle the tragedy of child hunger in Canada while building local markets for Canadian farmers. As Buzz Aldrin says, “If we can conquer space, we can conquer childhood hunger”.

In addition to serving my riding, I have the privilege of serving thousands of Canadians living with devastating multiple sclerosis, who bravely fight their disease each day and fight for clinical trials for CCSVI, as well as all those living with a brain disease, disorder or injury, which, along with mental health, affect one in three Canadians or 10 million Canadians.

While the government has promised a registry and clinical trials for CCSVI, all we have to date is announcements and no action. There are no cures and no effective treatments that will consistently slow or stop neurological disorders.

Families often feel impossibly alone and helpless, people like an extraordinary lady with MS whose young son recently suffered an aneurysm and a stroke. She has had to quit work to look after him. They are people like my own aunt who, in her 70s, is at her daughter's house at 6:30 in the morning to feed her daughter and then goes home to her husband who is now suffering with Alzheimer's disease, and my friend's grandfather who is 80 years old and was married for 60 years. He kept his promise to his wife, installed a bed in the living room and for seven years was her sole caregiver, bathing her, feeding her and carrying her upstairs to the washroom.

The government has to do better in terms of income and caregiver support. Whether a neurological condition is diagnosed in childhood, such as cerebral palsy, in early adulthood, such as multiple sclerosis, or later as in Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease, as the diseases progresses it takes a toll on the caregiver's or person's productivity. This includes no longer being able to work, perhaps because of the disease but all too often because of the lack of accommodation in the workplace.

There are some relatively easy actions that could be taken now, for example, making employment insurance benefits more flexible to allow people who have episodic conditions to work part time and receive partial benefits.

In terms of neurological conditions, the role of the caregiver changes throughout the course of the condition. Initially the focus may be on helping with finances, personal care and transportation; then later to ensuring that services are delivered safely as scheduled; and finally to being a member of the care team.

Today 2.7 million Canadians provide care for seniors. Family caregivers are responsible for 80% of Canada's home care services, providing over $9 billion in unpaid care each year. Caring for family often results in lost income from work in order to provide care, as well as unexpected out-of-pocket expenses. For example, over 40% of family caregivers use personal savings to survive. One-quarter of family caregivers miss one or more months of work to provide care, and 65% of family caregivers have household incomes under $45,000. Three-quarters of family caregivers are women, who are more likely to have lower wages, fewer savings and additional responsibilities for child care.

The government must provide meaningful support for caregivers in the form of a comprehensive package of education, respite and mandated workplace accommodation with regard to the episodic needs of caregivers, and of course making the family caregiver tax credit refundable so low-income Canadians are not excluded.

The government must recognize the economic and social costs of caregiving, make existing tax credits refundable and explore ways to reform income security programs.

In closing, inequality can also twist or distort democracy. It can give a greater voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists. I leave members with one final thought from the voiceless, a Canadian woman living with multiple sclerosis who says:

Don’t forget me. I’m still in here, trapped in a body that can’t move, that can’t talk. But I think and I feel just like you do, and I hurt. I hurt physically and mentally.

The time to act is now. Our fellow Canadians are hurting.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the member listed off a number of issues that families deal with every day.

Indeed, I would argue that families have been dealing with issues like this forever. When I was a kid my father virtually always had three jobs, and my mother virtually always had two jobs. They did what they had to do to provide for their family, and I appreciate it.

My mother also, after my father passed away, looked after both of her parents and she still worked her full-time job and she still had time for us. She is an incredible woman and I think an example of the things that, frankly, many families and many people encounter every day.

What the member seems to be proposing is some kind of utopian society where government looks after everything, where we do not have these concerns and where big government is there to pick everyone up and make it happen. I just want to invoke Thomas Jefferson at this point, because I do not believe that is the role of government. Thomas Jefferson said:

A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.

I do not believe that government can fill all the gaps. It never can and that is why I think this debate is almost getting silly.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada signed the 1992 declaration regarding food. We have a responsibility to meet that declaration. The government shows no sign of changing course and improving student nutrition.

The Minister of Health's office stated:

We see education very clearly as a provincial/territorial jurisdiction, so it's nothing that's being considered by our government at this point in time.

This is extremely disappointing, considering the recognition by Dr. David Butler-Jones, Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, who stressed:

As a result of being hungry at school, these children may not reach their full developmental potential--an outcome that can have a health impact throughout their entire lives.

We are one of the few industrialized countries without a national breakfast program, the only G8 country without.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Etobicoke North for her excellent speech and for raising a very important subject.

We have to tackle child and student hunger. Years ago, we promised to fight and defeat child poverty. Investing in health is not a waste of money; it is an investment. That money can prevent the harmful effects of all kinds of social problems caused by child poverty. We have to focus on health and education.

My question for my colleague is very simple. She has actually already commented on this. Why does she think the Conservatives are refusing to support the health and well-being of our children? What is preventing them from taking care of our children?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress what my colleague has brought forward. Better eating is not only about education. Rather, it is about improving nutrition, grades and health. Schools are merely the delivery mechanism, as this is where children and youth congregate. This is precisely why, for example, the federal government gives money to provinces and territories to deliver vaccine programs through schools.

I want to bring home the fact that there is a real potential economic stimulus for Canadian agriculture here.

Realistically, 70% of a pan-Canadian nutrition program could have a domestic content with an annual return to Canadian producers of $1.5 billion. As a general rule, for each dollar spent in the community, an additional two dollars or three dollars would be generated through processing, storage, trucking, et cetera.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I rise in support of the Liberal Party's motion in hope that members will see the value of recognizing the important issue of inequities and that widening gap between the rich and poor.

There is a role for the government to play. I think at times there is a great number of Canadians who are disappointed in the decision the government has made not to assist in trying to minimize that gap, as that gap continues to grow. Let there be no doubt that the government does have a role to play.

Prior to the last federal election, one of the big issues was corporate tax breaks. Members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party said that we should no longer move ahead with the corporate tax cuts in favour of giving additional money to individuals who are on pension. We were referring to the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.

Those moneys, if spent in that area, would have assisted hundreds of thousands of individuals, many of whom are very much part of the living poor from coast to coast to coast in Canada, arguing at the end of the day that we need to provide more money or put money into those pockets and purses. We all benefit by doing that. We questioned at the time why the government was giving significant corporate tax breaks.

It is not to say that we should never give corporate tax breaks. All political parties have given significant corporate tax breaks, whether it is the provincial NDP in government, the federal Liberal Party in government or the Conservative Party in government. However, we would question the timing of those tax breaks.

We are in very difficult economic times. In comparison, on a worldwide basis, our corporate national tax rates are among the lowest and could actually be the lowest in the G8. However, the government wanted to reduce it even further. Was there a need for that? I would argue that there was not. The real need was to assist the seniors who need more money.

We have seniors who have to make difficult decisions about buying the pharmaceuticals they require or buying the type of food they enjoy. It is an issue of priorities.

There are programs that the government provides that go a long way to provide the equality of services, such as our health care. Health care has been a great asset over the years for Canadians. Whether people are rich or poor, they have the ability to access a free public health care system. Canadians assign a great deal of value to it.

We need to look at programs that would take it one step further. One of the biggest areas of debate today is in regard to pharmaceuticals and the cost of pharmaceuticals. When we look at provincial budgets across this country we see that some of the greatest percentage of increases in health care today deal with medicines. There is a huge vacuum in Ottawa where there is very little, if any, leadership on that particular issue.

A proactive national government would see this as an issue that is worth the battle. It would get into the trenches to see if it could do something about it. We in Liberal Party recognize the importance of that issue. B dealing with issues of that nature, we will narrow the gap. That is something we need to work toward.

My colleague from Toronto Centre made reference to education, the child advocate and how important it is that we, as much as possible, try to give every child the opportunity to succeed through education. It is very difficult. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of kids who go to school every day on an empty stomach. This is something that crosses all political party lines. Whether it is the NDP in provincial governments, the Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives or the Reform-Conservative government, they have not been able ensure that children going to school are not having to worry about being fed. It is hard for a child to concentrate in a classroom if he or she is hungry. In many situations, it is because of economic means that determines whether a child will eat.

Have we made progress in certain areas? We have made significant progress. I know the government likes to take some very specific statistics but there has been progress in combatting poverty in our country over the last few decades. I made reference to the fact that during the Trudeau government back in the 1970s poverty was in the neighbourhood of 11.5% to 12% and then it was reduced to 7% or 8%. It was stagnant for a few years and then it was brought down by a couple more points during the Chrétien era. There is still a lot more room to improve on it. We need to develop programs that will actually make a difference.

For the last week, members of the Liberal caucus have been advocating for their constituents and Canadians with regard to employment insurance. There is a lack of confidence by the opposition toward the government in its ability to understand the issue to the degree now that Liberal members of Parliament are citing specific cases to get the government to better understand the real impact that its policy decisions are having on average Canadians and that are increasing the income inequality gap that needs to be addressed.

There are policy decisions by the government that have profound impacts. On the Prairies, I can talk about the Canadian Wheat Board and the hundreds of small prairie farmers who will be lost because of the government's policy decision, which will benefit the rich, I would argue. The greatest amount of benefit, I should say, will go to the wealthy. The ones that will be penalized the most will be the smaller prairie farmers, in good part.

Now we are hearing from colleagues in Atlantic Canada with regard to inshore versus offshore fishing. There are some similarities. We are concerned for the inshore fishermen. The fisheries is an industry that is critically important to Atlantic Canada and the government plays a very important role in its future. We need to ensure that those jobs will be protected.

That is why I say that the government has a role to play when it comes to dealing with the widening gap of income inequality. Whether it is a federal or provincial government, governments do play a role in the decisions that we make.

I believe this is an important issue that needs to be debated. The NDP should be looking at this opposition motion as a motion in recognition of the importance of the issue of inequality, what we can do and how we can contribute to ensure there is more opportunity for prosperity for all Canadians.

I think the core of this motion is about ensuring that all Canadians have the opportunity to be prosperous in a country that is so blessed with resources. We should be taking advantage of the great ethnic diversity and the great opportunities that are there. Governments should be there to support and develop it for all Canadians.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of town hall meetings with regard to the changes to EI and the eligibility age for old age security moving from 65 to 67. The people who are on social assistance or on a disability pension will now have to wait until age 67 for old age security. Both of those are paid either by the municipality or the province, which will now have to pay two years longer.

The changes to EI is an abdication of responsibility by the government. It is off-loading costs of about $5 billion a year.

When we talk about inequity, there is a built-in inequity for those people who were looking forward to having a little more money at the age of 65 because of OAS and GIS but now they face an extra wait of a couple of years.

What is the member's opinion? Is it the agenda of the government to put people on welfare?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government tries to give the impression that there is a crisis out there and that is the reason it is making the change to the age eligibility for OAS. However, that is just not true. The facts do not indicate that is the case. The reality is that Canada is in a great position to maintain and, I would argue, enhance our old age security program. If the government continues to neglect this and not reverse its change, let there be no doubt that as a direct result there will be more seniors in poverty. I think that is the message the member was trying to get across and what I mean in terms of government policy.

The government has the ability to narrow the gap but when it makes decisions, such as increasing the age of retirement from 65 to 67, it is doing the reverse. It will put more seniors into poverty.

The government does have a decision to make on this issue. We trust that the Conservatives will do the right thing before the next election or I can assure them that this will be one of the issues that we will be taking to the voters.

People should continue to have the option to retire at the age of 65. It is an important measure in terms of defeating the income inequality gap.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I just came in at the tail end of my colleague's speech but I think he mentioned something about the Canadian Wheat Board as if that was a detriment to the rural part of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta. However, just the opposite is true. I do not know if the member is aware but I will share with him the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board is now purchasing canola. It has never done that before. It is also making purchases in wheat, flax and other grain cereals.

The truth of the matter is that the Canadian Wheat Board has never had it so good in terms of its profitability and how this crop year is looking. It will be interesting to see the bottom line a year from now, but it certainly is not a bad story for the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we have to do is listen to the 10,000-plus farmers who voted against the government's dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. They realized that at the end of the day, it would mean fewer Prairie farmers and the economies of many rural communities would be negatively impacted as a direct result.

I would believe those tens of thousands of farmers more than I would the Prime Minister's Office, or his speaking notes.