House of Commons Hansard #62 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was education.

Topics

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

7:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I must remind the member to please adhere strictly to that rule.

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

7:40 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Thank you for the reminder, Madam Speaker. As a new member of Parliament, it is something that takes a while to get use to. I appreciate the reminder and will continue with my remarks.

The finance minister has slashed $2.29 billion from post-secondary education. What this means is that by the year 2000 colleges and universities will have lost $3.27 billion due to Liberal policies. That is unconscionable, especially when we hear the hypocrisy that comes out of the mouths of Liberal members who profess to be concerned about the future of young people in this country. We need student aid today, not in the year 2000, not a millennium fund and not a scholarship fund. We need a national grants program and a tuition freeze.

If the Liberal members truly care about the future of young people and about poverty in this country, this motion is something that should be critically debated and acted on to show that we are serious about that commitment.

Instead of meaningful assistance, those who are on social assistance are caught up in a cynical public relations game.

In December 1997 the Minister of Finance described child poverty as a priority. However, based on the actions of the government to date and as the evidence shows, child poverty has not been a priority. It has been rhetoric. Child poverty has been increasing.

We have heard a lot of talk about the national child benefit but we all know that when the finance minister presents his budget next week he will be announcing the national child benefit for not the first time, not the second time, not the third time but the fourth time. Meanwhile poor kids in this country and their families have not seen a dime in terms of improved circumstances to relieve the poverty stricken measures that they live with in their local communities.

Whenever the Liberal government is called to account for this government's appalling record on poverty, it tries to hide behind the national child tax benefit. With these repeated announcements and exaggerated claims by Liberal ministers the fact is the truth is coming out that not one thing has changed. As I have pointed out in this debate tonight the situation has worsened.

The announcement by the Liberals on the child tax benefit does not even come close to making up for the 40% cut in federal transfers to social services and other programs since the Liberals took office.

Anti-poverty groups in this country have been outspoken. They have made it very clear that the $850 million that has been announced so many times is simply not enough to deal with even the limited program that the federal government has announced. And it does not apply to those on welfare.

It is important that we address and lay out clear and meaningful targets for the elimination of poverty and reducing unemployment. In the upcoming budget I believe there is a critical question that each of us has to ask ourselves. That is, will the measures that are outlined in the budget eliminate poverty, will they reduce poverty and unemployment or will they increase the growing inequalities that we have seen?

I would like to point out that there are good alternatives we can look to. An alternative federal budget was put together and presented by a group in Winnipeg, Choices and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It lays out in a much better way than what the finance minister has done in all of his years of dealing with this, very clear choices and targets that we can systematically move toward to reduce unemployment and poverty if we have the political will and if we have the fortitude to speak out. We must call for things like fair taxation and minimum wages, and for ensuring that the massive profits of the banks are reinvested in our communities.

I believe that we must set national targets. We must embark on a national housing program. What better program could we have to reduce unemployment, to pay people decent wages and also to fulfil a social need? That is a program for people who are living in inadequate housing.

I would urge the members of this House to take this motion seriously. I would also seek the unanimous consent of the House to have this voted upon.

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

7:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

7:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

7:45 p.m.

Kenora—Rainy River Ontario

Liberal

Bob Nault LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate the hon. member's motion. In the words of her motion the hon. member for Vancouver East is asking that the Government of Canada “set targets for the elimination of poverty and unemployment and should pursue those targets with the same zeal it has demonstrated for targets to reduce the deficit”.

I would like to assure the hon. member and all members of this House that the Government of Canada is responding to the challenges of poverty and unemployment with innovative and effective policies.

I am sure the hon. member realizes that reducing the deficit, as Canadians say we should do, is helping to create a stable economic environment for private sector growth which in turn helps create jobs and reduce poverty.

The Minister of Finance has made it clear that future dividends from deficit reduction will be distributed to reduce the national debt, to reduce the tax burden and to invest in new programs.

We know that too many people are unemployed and struggle to make ends meet. We are sensitive to the plight of Canadians who are doing their best to provide for their families. In this regard we do have a number of effective programs that are designed to move on in the right direction toward reducing points of unemployment.

That being said, I believe it is important to stress that shared responsibility is the key to helping people return to the labour force and alleviate poverty. The Government of Canada cannot shoulder this responsibility on its own. Provinces, businesses, individuals, the labour movement, community agencies, everyone needs to contribute.

We emphasized shared responsibility once again in last fall's Speech from the Throne. We are prepared to work with the provinces and territories to develop a Canada-wide mentorship program. We are prepared to work with the private sector to better forecast the number and types of jobs available in the future and then jointly develop a plan to ensure that young Canadians are qualified to fill those jobs.

On poverty we are already working with the provinces on the national child benefit system.

Let me first address the issue of unemployment. The government's contribution is to help by setting the right fiscal environment, supporting learning, making available up to date information and facilitating sectoral based partnerships. Our strength is in giving Canadians more options to pursue employment. I am thinking of the ways in which we promote labour mobility so workers can take advantage of job opportunities across the country.

Hon. members will be familiar with the saying “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. That is the philosophy behind the formation of sectoral councils that bring together employers, workers, educators and governments to address human resource needs before they become problems. These initiatives are showing concrete results.

Some 370,000 new jobs were added to the economy in 1997 and the unemployment rate declined steadily in 1997. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Canada is expected to have the fastest growth among G-7 countries in 1998. Since this government was first elected there are over one million more Canadians working.

I believe our new employment insurance program is designed to get unemployed workers back into the labour force. As part of the new employment insurance we are investing $800 million more in active employment measures for a total investment of $2.2 billion by fiscal year 2000-01. As well we have a $300 million transitional jobs fund designed to create 40,000 permanent jobs and productive partnerships in areas of high unemployment.

All members of this House are concerned about the high rate of youth unemployment. Again in co-operation with our partners the government is tackling that challenge with renewed vigour. Our youth employment strategy builds on some $2 billion in Government of Canada programs. It helps Canada's young people make the often difficult transition from school to work and land that all important first job.

For example, perhaps the hon. member has heard of the youth employment strategy project in Vancouver where this past spring a number of young people created a healthy living space for both seniors and youths. For over six months the group constructed a rooftop garden at the Vancouver General's Banfield Pavilion which is a long term care facility for seniors. As well they designed a rooftop garden at VanCity Place for Youth. When the project was completed, several participants began providing horticultural therapy for residents at the Banfield Pavilion.

In the future we will increase funding and expand programs under the youth employment strategy. Since a sound education is crucial in today's knowledge based economy, we will ensure that post-secondary education is accessible and affordable. For those young people who lack education and have inadequate skills, we will assist them by further developing community based programs.

Of course in a changing economic environment it is essential that we all upgrade our skills and think in terms of lifelong learning.

The hon. member's motion also calls for the elimination of poverty. The initiatives I have just mentioned, which result in sustainable employment are the most effective way to eliminate poverty.

The government is also addressing the horrendous problem of child poverty. For the member to continue to suggest that this government has not made this a priority, the fact is it has been made a priority. The provinces are now working with our government very closely in order to deal with this blight on our society. We are determined to do everything possible to eliminate it.

In the February 1997 budget the Government of Canada committed $850 million to create an enriched child tax benefit. The new investment will give much needed support to 1.4 million Canadian families and will help more than 2.5 million children. In June the Minister of Human Resources Development and his provincial and territorial counterparts reached agreement to establish a national child benefit system.

In the Speech from the Throne we promised to at least double the $850 million investment over the course of our current mandate. This will bring the total Government of Canada investment in the well-being of our children to almost $7 billion per year.

The government's commitment to provide more income support for low income families will enable our provincial and territorial partners to redirect savings in social assistance. Those savings can go into complementary programs and services with the goal of helping welfare parents become employed. This is the basis for the national child benefit system.

Building on this collaboration last January, we agreed to work with the provinces and territories to develop the national children's agenda. This will be a broad, comprehensive strategy to address the developmental needs of Canada's children.

As part of the agenda the Speech from the Throne announced three new federal initiatives. In addition to the national child benefit system, we will develop indicators to measure and report on children's readiness to learn. We will expand the aboriginal head start program for First Nations children on reserves and we will establish centres of excellence for children's well-being to help us better understand children's needs.

In closing, I would say to the hon. member that there is no magic means of eliminating poverty and unemployment. What is needed are concerted efforts from all concerned, including members of this House. I encourage the hon. member and her party to work with the government on constructive ideas to meet these challenges. In that manner we will be serving all Canadians.

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

7:55 p.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB

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.

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

8:05 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Vancouver East, who by introducing this motion, has enabled me to participate in today's debate and to speak to a subject that I hold dear and that is of concern to the Bloc, namely the increase in poverty.

The motion by the member of the NDP proposes that the government set targets for the elimination of poverty and unemployment and that it should pursue these targets with the same zeal it has demonstrated for targets to reduce the deficit. The Bloc Quebecois has no disagreement with the aim of this motion, but we would point out that the means proposed to fight poverty must respect provincial jurisdictions. We do not want flowery speeches on poverty, but action when we have the means to change things.

That is why I would like to point out today that the very same Liberals, now in government, criticized the government of Brian Mulroney in the 1993 elections for systematically weakening the social safety net. This is what the red book says. They accused the Conservatives of cutting hundreds of billions of dollars in health care and assistance to children, seniors and the unemployed. These fine words come from the red book of the Liberal Party, while it was in opposition.

It looks a lot like the criticism levelled at the present Liberal government. Since the Liberals have been in government, few specific measures have been taken to slow the rise of poverty in Quebec and Canada. Worse yet, despite its election promises, the current government refused to unleash a vigorous fight against poverty and to a large extent it has weakened measures taken by Quebec.

Tom Kent, one of the main architects of social programs under the Liberal government of Lester B. Pearson, is very critical of this government, accusing it of being largely responsible for the cuts in health and social programs in the provinces.

A few days before the Minister of Finance brings down his budget and with the little time we have, I would remind this House of what the government refused to do to improve the situation of the most disadvantaged and what the Bloc proposes in order to really fight poverty. The situation is not as rosy as the Liberal members in this House would have us think.

We strongly encourage the Liberal government to stop wandering about and to drop its obsession with looking after its own visibility before the interests of taxpayers. Otherwise, it will have to face strong opposition from the Bloc Quebecois MPs.

There must be a proper strategy for dealing with the problem of poverty. The provinces need to have the necessary funds to put into place measures tailored to their realities, which may differ from one context to another. Is it too much to ask for this government to respect the need while respecting jurisdictions?

What the Bloc is proposing first of all is that the amounts that were taken away from the provinces for social transfers be paid back. It is all very fine for the Liberals to boast that their cuts are over now, but I would like to remind them this evening that the cuts to health, education and social services cost the provinces more than $6 billion a year, and will do so until the year 2003, for a total of $42 billion.

To illustrate the unprecedented impact of these cuts, we need only remember that, in Quebec, out of every dollar cut from health, education and social assistance by the National Assembly in 1994 and today, approximately 75 cents are the result of the downloading done by the federal Liberals.

Clearly put, Quebeckers must realize, and we cannot ever repeat it too many times, that it is through their efforts in recent years that the federal deficit was eliminated, as the Minister of Finance boasts.

Before starting up its spending again, it is imperative for the federal government to reimburse the provinces. This is why we are proposing that, to cancel out the effect of the cuts there have been since 1993, the government need only restore to the provinces tax points equivalent to 25% of the forecast surpluses for the next two years.

If the federal government gave the provinces $2 billion in tax points in 1998-99, and an additional $4 billion for 1999 and 2000, they would end up with the same amount of money they were getting at the start of the Liberals' term in office, when they were elected in 1993.

In the next budget the government will be tempted to make new expenditures, once again in the jurisdiction of the provinces. We therefore encourage the Minister of Finance to resist such temptation, but we know he will not.

In the 1997 throne speech, the federal government clearly announced its intention to create programs for children and young people in the areas of health, education and social policy. Should we applaud that? Not yet. The federal government is talking about looking after home care, community services, strategies for youth, bursaries, pharmacare, ways to interest young people in science, a national school nutrition program, Canada wide benefits for poor children, a Canadian foundation for innovation, and a partridge in a pear tree. All provincial jurisdictions.

It would be unspeakable for the government to use some of the savings from transfer cuts for hospitals, schools and social assistance to increase its visibility while putting its stamp on areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

A number of representatives from different milieux are very critical of this government's approach. Its centralizing attitude without regard for the provinces has but one aim: to show it off in the best light and thus justify its existence.

Viewers must be wondering why the Bloc Quebecois is making such a kerfuffle over reimbursement of social transfers to the provinces. The reason is simple: the government's cuts to the transfers considerably hamper the establishment of real social policy.

Quebec already has policies in these areas. The Quebec government released its white paper on family policy in 1997. The Premier of Quebec emphasized that economic recovery had to be achieved through a better coalition of labour and family, through more equitable policies and more work incentives. A true redistribution of wealth and a genuine effort to combat poverty must place the focus on children and their families.

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

8:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

8:15 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

You would do well to listen, sir. When you were in opposition—

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

8:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Order please. I must ask the hon. member to please put her remarks to the Chair and not to colleagues across the way.

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

8:15 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to put my remarks to you, but I am being addressed from the opposite side.

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

8:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

8:15 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

They would like to throw me off, so that I will not speak about the way the government is fighting poverty, but I will go on.

In six years, the cost of these new measures undertaken by the Government of Quebec will require $235 million on top of what the Government of Quebec now spends on the family.

I urge members of the House to consult this white paper. They will be able to see how Quebec is better placed than the federal government to intervene in family policy. I must point out that the proposed policies will benefit all families, particularly those with low incomes.

This is why it is so important that we recover the amounts paid under the Canada social transfer so that we can implement real strategies, so that we can stop making the mistake this government is making of having no policy on poverty.

The Bloc Quebecois will therefore continue to call for full indexing of tax levels, personal exemptions and credits for GST, medical expenses and child tax benefits. Furthermore, $2 billion is now needed for the child tax benefit, and not the mere $850 million being touted by the Minister of Human Resources Development. Two billion dollars must be invested now to help children. If there had been real tax benefits, the goals would already have been reached, but now, we are lagging behind. The federal government is missing the boat on poverty.

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

8:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak this evening to Motion No. 133 as put forward by the New Democrats.

I must compliment the New Democratic Party for submitting this motion which reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should set targets for the elimination of poverty and unemployment—.

From 1993 to 1997 this House lost some of its social consciousness which was provided to a large degree by the New Democratic Party. I think we have a stronger and healthier Parliament since the return of the NDP which can now speak to these issues. I do not think there is a member in the House who thinks child poverty is funny. Individuals in this country are unemployed.

Statistics can describe the unemployment rate and the child poverty rate in Canada, but the big issue for many families in this country, whether they be from Atlantic Canada, British Columbia, the north or elsewhere, may not necessarily be the political philosophy they follow. It may actually come down to the issue of whether they have milk in their fridge or whether they actually have bread in their cupboard. Those are the greater issues for which we are here. It is a higher calling than actual political rhetoric.

There is an adage in business that is used quite often. It is what gets measured gets done. What the New Democratic Party wants to do with this motion is challenge the government to set benchmarks with respect to unemployment, challenge the government with respect to child poverty.

It was brought up by one of the hon. members of the NDP earlier that the poverty rate in Norway, a country I have been too as well, is such that it essentially has no child poverty and it is directly connected to its unemployment rate which is quite low as well.

I would advocate that children are not poor necessarily, it is their parents who are poor. Children are poor because their parents are poor. They do not have a job. They do not necessarily have the economic means to provide for their families, provide for their children to seek post-secondary education. It is those very issues which are our duty and responsibility as legislators to address.

We believe for too long, for over a decade, Canadians have not had any increase in disposable income. In fact, Canadians now earn 6% less after taxes than they did in 1990. Canadians are poorer than they have been in a decade.

I cannot fathom, and I know my colleagues in the NDP as well cannot fathom, why we tax individuals who only make $9,000 a year. What we believe is our economy needs a plan for growth. We need to ensure that we have more individuals participating in the economy to have a better standard of living than they are experiencing now. We need to create more growth in the economy so that more individuals can participate and have a decent standard of living.

That is why earlier today the leader of the Conservative Party and our finance critic, the hon. member for Kings—Hants, tabled a plan for growth. Within that plan for growth there are initiatives that will help those individuals most in need. One of the things we want to do is raise the personal exemption on an individual's income tax form from $6,500 to $10,000. It would take two million Canadians off the tax rolls overnight. Those are two million Canadians who simply should not have been there in the first place. Because we have not indexed the personal exemption on income tax forms, today we have 500,000 Canadians paying tax who did not in 1990.

Another initiative we want to put forward in order to stimulate the economy and to help those in need is tax relief with respect to payroll taxes. It has been proven time and time again by economists that if there is one kind of tax that has a most negative effect on creating jobs it is that of payroll taxes. The reason we are having this debate about a fiscal surplus or a fiscal dividend is this government takes in nearly $6 billion more in the EI fund than that program actually consumes. That is what is responsible for the surplus.

We have balanced the budget on the backs of Canadians and unfortunately on the poorest Canadians in that regard. We want to make sure the EI fund is sustainable. The chief actuary for the government points out that although the EI payment is $2.70 per $100 of insurable earnings, it is sustainable at $2. I know the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead understands that as well.

Two dollars for every one hundred of insurable earnings would put $6 billion back into the economy. The other thing it would do is stop taxing every new job that we create.

Another thing we put forward earlier today in our plan for growth, and I think my hon. colleagues in the NDP will be receptive to this, was with respect to the child tax credit. For too long it has not been indexed to inflation. What happens is we take money away from the poor families that need the money.

We have to challenge ourselves. The intent of this motion is to measure our success. The NDP should be applauded for bringing forth such a motion.

What this government is not willing to accept at the moment is that we have had unemployment above 9% for well over 80 months. That is the longest single stretch of high unemployment since the depression. What the economy needs is a plan for growth through less debt, less tax and more jobs.

In conclusion, we need to ensure that we challenge the government to raise the personal exemption from $6,500 to $10,000 and take those 2 million people off the tax rolls overnight.

There is another social cost here which has a very negative effect on our economy overall. I said during my campaign in Fundy—Royal that for too long Atlantic Canada's best export has been our best and brightest young people.

Unfortunately it is not only an Atlantic Canadian phenomenon. Some of our best and brightest are now seeking opportunities in the United States. Why? There are those who have been successful enough to get a university degree who are now seeking opportunities in areas where they do not necessarily have a chance for employment. They end up going to the United States. They do not have to pay for the last 30 years of overspending, mom and dad's spending binge. They will be taxed less and they will have more opportunity.

What we need to do is ensure that more individuals have a chance to participate in the economy by growing the economy through less debt, less tax, more jobs and more opportunities. Above all we need to help those most in need, those in the margins of society. That is why we want to take 2 million people off the tax rolls overnight.

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

8:25 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Madam Speaker, my colleague has just been saying that the labour movement ought to be involved throughout the entire process, so as to create youth employment.

I am pleased to hear that, on the other side of this House, the Liberals realize that there is a labour movement here in Canada, that they are prepared to talk to them, unlike the former Minister of Human Resources Development, who said that if he met the president of the CLC in the desert after wandering about for 2 weeks, he would not even drink a glass of water with him.

At last they are beginning to acknowledge that there is room for the labour movement, that it can discuss with government and employers to create employment.

Not long ago, I was talking with the people at a food bank in my riding. They told me “It would be nice if they came to visit, came to see how well we are operating. Even though there is nothing to get excited about, as the fact we exist is no reason to rejoice”.

There is no reason to rejoice when we have food banks just about on every corner. There is nothing to rejoice about when, in the past, a person could walk the streets of Montreal and not see all those people—

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

8:25 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that the House is scheduled to adjourn at this time, I wonder if you would seek the unanimous consent of the House to extend the time by two minutes to allow the member who moved this motion an opportunity to reply before the House adjourns.

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

8:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House?

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

8:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

8:30 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the members of the House for consenting to a further few minutes to conclude this debate.

I only regret that we could not have a longer debate beyond the designated time. I feel if we could have had some more debate in this House, we would have had an interesting dialogue and exchange of ideas about this motion that is before us today.

I listened very carefully to the members from the other parties in the House in terms of their response to this motion. I would like to say that while I hear the Liberal members say that they are sensitive to the plight of poor Canadians, I really believe that the programs that have been put forward by the Liberal government are very superficial and do not even begin to address the damage that has been done since 1993.

The hon. member from the Liberal Party spoke about the child tax benefit as being a positive sign that things are improving. However the reality is that if this is an anti-poverty measure, why does it not apply to people who are on social assistance? Why will the child tax benefit not be fully indexed? If it was an anti-poverty measure, it would be.

In my riding we had a round table on youth unemployment. One of the concerns was brought forward by young people themselves. Because many of the government programs are not sustained and because they do not have a continuity in terms of training and moving people into good paying jobs, young people become very frustrated. They get into a program, it ends and before they know it they are back on the street or they are back in the unemployed lines.

The issue before us today is to set timetables, to set targets for a full employment strategy. I believe this can be accomplished if the government is seriously committed to it by a program of fair taxation, by a national housing program, by encouraging the provinces to adopt a minimum wage that is liveable, by ensuring that welfare rates are above the poverty line, and by reducing student debt.

We have not talked about the issues raised by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, where we see the greatest poverty in this country.

I believe that these are things that can be done by the House.

PovertyPrivate Members' Business

8:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

It being 8.32 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8.32 p.m.)