Mr. Speaker, there is something in the NDP motion that I very much support. The motion demonstrates a deep concern about the shortcomings of the government.
Unemployment is at an unreasonably high level and it has been sustained. It is about the only thing that has been sustained by the Liberal government. Unemployment remains consistently high and the debt has consistently increased.
The unfortunate part of the motion is that it mixes up causes and effects. I will not defend the Liberal government in any way, shape or form but I will support the intent of the motion.
Its intent is to call to the attention of Canadians that the government has failed to create jobs, to make adequate investments in health and in education, and has not done what it should have done with the fiscal management of the affairs of Canadians.
The government has failed to recognize that people care about the unity of Canada, about the fiscal management of their affairs and want to have a standard of living of which they can be proud of and can pass on to their children. Hopefully their children will have a better standard of living than what they enjoy.
Under the current regime that is not likely to take place. The average family of four has $3,000 less to spend today because of the increase in taxes. Thirty-eight tax increases have now taken place.
We need to recognize that it is the skills and abilities of people that create the strength of a nation. It is not primarily the natural resources although they help. The use and the application of natural resources comes through the skill, abilities and hard work of people.
What is it then that the government ought to be concerned about? It ought to be concerned about creating jobs. There is ample evidence that by increasing taxes the government is doing the exact opposite. Increasing taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, income taxes, surtaxes or excise taxes, has the impact of decreasing jobs and not increasing them.
Let me refer to a particular incident in the United States. There have been several instances of tax decreases but I want to pay particular attention to the Michigan experience. In 1991 John Engler took power in the state of Michigan. Since that time total employment has grown to 4.6 million people, a record high in just six years.
Over the same period the state unemployment rate was cut in half from a high of nearly 10%, which by the way is just about where it is in Canada, to a low of 4% in May of this year. That is something the government could be proud of.
How did he achieve that? Governor Engler states “Our strategy of cutting taxes, reducing regulations and balancing budgets is paying off in more jobs, higher pay and healthy growth”.
I would like the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions to pay particular attention to what I am about to say. Since 1991 Engler has instituted 21 tax cuts. That is the exact opposite to what has happened in Canada. We have had 38 tax increases.
If the government really wants to increase job opportunities it should cut taxes, not increase them. There is ample evidence for that. This is only one example. There are many examples which I could cite at this time.