Madam Speaker, allow me to congratulate our acting leader, who is doing an extraordinary job for our party. She just demonstrated it again by defending some really important causes for the poor.
First of all, I want to thank the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche for tabling a motion that shows great sensitivity on his part.
Earlier, I heard a Reform Party member say that the motion was too narrow. Go ask children in families where the difference in terms of survival, adequate clothing and food is often a mere $25, $30, $40 or $50 what they think about this.
I say to the member who suggested that today's motion is too narrow, that he should go and repeat his comment to his constituents. I am convinced he would not get a very positive reaction.
A Conservative member who rises in this House always gets the same reaction: “Under the Conservatives—”. I think we should also talk about the current government's track record in terms of public finance. So here is an excerpt from an editorial written by Mr. Murray in Le Droit , following the last budget: “It took all these years for the unpopular measures taken by the Conservatives to produce the conclusive results that we are witnessing today”.
Whenever we rise in this House, we are regularly told “you Conservatives should be ashamed. Everything you did was wrong”. I am pleased to have been around when the growing debt was brought under control. I want to take a minute to talk about this, because it is important. We must put the 1974-1984 period in its proper perspective.
During that period, the Liberals increased the debt from $18 billion to $200 billion. The important thing here is the rate of increase. Under the Liberals, the debt grew elevenfold in a decade. Under the Conservatives, it increased twofold over a period of nine years. However, let us not forget that we also took important measures, including the signing of the free trade agreement that allowed us, among other things, to double our exports to the American market. The GST also helped the government reduce the deficit. The purpose of all these initiatives was to alleviate the burden of Canadian taxpayers. All these measures could not have been in effect for just one year. They had to be implemented over a number of years.
Despite the royal commissions, the standing committees and so forth, the Liberals always voted against these measures that were essentially good for the future of our country. They always voted against them. I am definitely not about to go on a guilt trip here. According to the Reform and Liberal parties, the motion my colleague is proposing today is not a structural one.
It is most certainly a structural measure for the families of this country. It is a structural measure for the poor people of Quebec, the maritimes, western Canada, Ontario and elsewhere. But the government does not seem to want to take it seriously. I repeat, as my colleague, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, pointed out a few minutes ago, for the vast majority of Canadian families, $25, $40, $50 is the difference between surviving and not surviving. “mesure étroite”?
Members should try telling single parents that asking for an extension of the small weeks project is too limited an approach, as one of our Reform Party colleagues was saying, when we know very well that some people are having trouble just surviving. Young people are going to school in the morning on an empty stomach. There are serious problems of poverty in our country.
While I am on the topic, I would like to make another point. I was part of a government with a very substantial agenda in all areas, including regional development, the environment and acid rain—I was present at the signing—trade and tax reform. Right now, none of these items are on the government's agenda.
I would propose one item for the government and this country to tackle: the fight against poverty, which is the number one problem in the country right now. I read an article in which Michel Vastel said “Elected representatives are not listening to anyone any more”. That is serious.
Today, a motion was proposed to help the poorest of the poor in our country. While I have nothing against deputy ministers or senior government officials, the Parliament of Canada is paying closer attention to what senior officers say than to what the poor are saying, when it is a well-known fact that the taxpayers see millions and billions taken out of their pockets without benefiting from any return on their investment.
It is my pleasure to ask all my colleagues in this House to support this extremely important measure proposed by one of our colleagues from a riding that is not among the richest in the country.
It does not resolve the whole issue of employment insurance, of course, but at least it is a small step that could immediately benefit every Canadian family whose extremely low income is not enough to ensure adequate subsistence for their children.
We must bear in mind that the government is not a private insurance company. Overcontributions like those currently being paid by every worker and employer in Canada are inequitable and cannot be allowed to continue. A start must be made with a little measure such as we are requesting today. It is about paying attention to Canada's poorest citizens. It does not mean establishing a structural measure, but it does give us the opportunity to propose a solution to the surplus in the employment insurance fund. It would at least enable us to ensure the survival of the poorest families.
I also understand that, for the minister, it is difficult to travel across the country. He is having a really hard time convincing himself to visit the maritimes. Clearly, a politician needs to be able to remember some things. We know about that. It is true in Quebec and it is true in all the regions of the country.
Politicians have to choose. In opposition, it is a legitimate question to ask the government whether it should be more attentive to the wealthier element in our society, that is senior public servants. I have nothing against them, but the salary increases given federal government deputy ministers are worth a look. When you put those figures before people who have a hard time surviving, it is not much of a balance sheet.
I hope we will have the support of all of the members in opposition in support of this measure, which at least sends a signal to parliament. It is possible to listen to those who are the most disadvantaged.
