Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in debate to the hon. member's private members' motion. These are initiatives that all members of the House have the opportunity to take when they feel that an issue is important enough for them to bring forward in their own private members' bill. I would like to commend the hon. member for taking advantage of the opportunity that members of Parliament have to bring issues forward for debate and consideration by the House.
The hon. member is concerned about unemployment and poverty and wants to see something done about that. I think there would be no one in this House who would not applaud and agree with the member's concern that in this wonderful and rich country of Canada we do not have citizens living in poverty, nor citizens who are unable to find a job and have a steady income with which to provide for themselves, for their families and for their future.
The intent of this motion is one I think with which this House agrees. I think the reason and the point of the debate is to address these concerns, to examine them and also to talk about some solutions.
First of all, the motion provides that the government set targets for the elimination of poverty. It also provides that the government set targets for the elimination of unemployment.
There are two things to say about this part of the motion and I would like the hon. member to consider them carefully. One is just some practical observations. Elimination of poverty should be considered in the context of opportunity to make sure that a person is not in impoverished circumstances. Those are opportunities that individuals must take advantage of themselves.
There are cases where poverty cannot be eliminated because sometimes the choices of individuals not to take advantage of opportunities cannot be eliminated. I would suggest wording that is this sweeping and this inclusive is not very realistic in light of human nature and in light of the fact that a minority of people may not be able to take advantage of opportunities that ought to be there but, even if they are, are not capitalized on.
The same holds true for the elimination of unemployment. I recommend to the hon. member that the motion would read better if it included setting a target to ensure that every Canadian had the opportunity to have a reasonable standard of living, an adequate and comfortable standard of living, and to have employment. That would be a more reasonable and a more realistic target.
Another difficulty with this portion of the motion is the hon. member's statement “the government should set targets”. This suggests that government is the agency through which poverty and unemployment should be eliminated or, as I have suggested, addressed.
I would argue that the member might want to consider that it is not government particularly that creates unemployment or employment. Government is not the agency by which these issues can be totally addressed. There are other agencies or other entities involved in this whole area. Individuals and their choices, job creators, investors, business people and entrepreneurs are very much involved in the whole area of employment.
Government being the whole entity, the whole vehicle or the whole answer is a very serious fallacy. We have seen that the state as nanny has not worked in many countries around the world. The state as the total agency for central planning, management of the economy and management of employment has failed miserably in eastern European countries and other countries where a total government system was in place.
When addressing these very serious, very real and very heartfelt concerns on the part of Canadians, the member would do well to recognize that the agency of government is not the whole answer. She would do well to remember that.
I am a little bemused the motion says that government should set targets and pursue them but does not say what measures should be taken to reach those targets. Setting targets and pursuing them is nice if they are realistic targets, which I suggest these are not, but also there have to be some practical measures to reach the targets.
I will talk about this a bit later, but I must say the hon. member did a wonderful job of pointing out the real lack of opportunity for Canadians to rise above poverty and to make sure there were adequate resources for themselves and their families. She made a very excellent case for Canadians who are not able to have employment opportunities that are needed and desired. However she failed to spend almost any time—she just barely touched on them—on measures which could actually achieve the goals the member sets out.
It is nice to define the problem. It is nice to expand on the problem. It is nice to underline the problem. It is nice to complain about the problem. It would be a lot more helpful to the people involved if we as leaders and legislators actually laid out a plan of action to address the problem in a substantive way.
Rather than spending 18 minutes on the problem and 2 minutes on what we can do about the problem, it might be better to spend 2 minutes on laying out the problem clearly and practically and 18 minutes on what we might do to address the problem. We have to put a framework around what we are talking about. I have attempted to do that.
I would like to move on to what I believe would be helpful in addressing the problem of ensuring that Canadians have opportunities so they will not live in impoverished circumstances and will not be unemployed. I do not think there is any Canadian who wants to be in these circumstances. Nor do I think there is any Canadian who thinks this is acceptable.
I want to talk about the whole area of job creation and employment. The hon. member referred to the alternative budget put out by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and Choices. It is a very interesting document. The document recommends such popular measures as ending the capital gains exemption on family farms and small businesses. In other words, if someone has a capital asset and it gains in value, that gain should be taken away according to the alternative budget. I am not quite sure how that will help families and business people.
It recommends carbon taxes. It recommends a huge tax on banks, which will simply drive service charges through the roof. It recommends personal income tax rates should be increased. How are families supposed to not be impoverished if their money is taxed away from them when they manage to get some?
The member should be looking at measures that will give us less government spending and take less of our resources so that we have more to provide for ourselves and our families and more to expand business opportunities. We need lower taxes and less government intervention and over-regulation of businesses so that opportunities can be created.
We do not need to do some of the things the NDP is consistently suggesting. We need new measures to bring real prosperity to the country.
I recommend that to the member. I commend her for her motion and wish her well in achieving these goals along with the rest of us.