Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be part of the debate this morning. l enjoyed the throne speech, but the main event for me and I think for many in the media and others was really the Leader of the Opposition's reply to the throne speech. I always look forward to his comments. What a great job he did.
Reflecting on the throne speech, some Liberals seem to believe that spending money on government programs aimed at children will help with the challenges that Canadian families face. Unfortunately, investing in more new federal programs, the latest code word being investing, is really just more spending and spending financed by whom? It is financed by parents. It completely misses the importance of families in their struggles.
The issues and pressures facing Canadian families are bigger than a few new spending programs. Everything from fiscal and economic policy to justice and community safety issues all affect family units.
High taxes mean fewer family outings and more financial stress. High CPP premiums translate into a tax on jobs. There is also bracket creep. Tax inequalities and inequities mean that families have to consider what effect employment decisions will have on their tax bill.
A massive underground economy means that families are the victims of an especially unbalanced tax burden. A confused health care system means stress and uncertainty about the care of loved ones.
A low dollar, almost two-thirds of the American dollar, and once higher than the American dollar, means that families face a grocery bill and costs for fruits and vegetables higher than ever before.
Lower productivity means a less vibrant economy, higher long term and youth unemployment. Youth unemployment is almost twice the rate of overall unemployment. Many of the jobs young people get are across the border. The brain drain is a real thing and it is breaking up families. Oppressive regulations and bloated bureaucracies stifle the entrepreneurial spirit that is birthed within the family.
A lax attitude toward crime and criminals and using our communities as test laboratories for rehabilitating early parolees makes danger on our streets and violence in the playground sometimes a reality.
Probably a most significant concern to many in the House is the political interference and anti-democratic patronage which weakens the faith of our young people in the system. Special interest group funding, political slush fund contributions and other frivolous attitudes toward spending tax dollars encourages a sort of family tax rage. Children and families are all affected by these issues.
We have heard the government talk about its concern for children but I and other members of the House have repeatedly heard it refuse to deliver even when it had the opportunity to do so. This is a government that says it is against child pornography, it is for greater protection from child sex offenders and it is against family tax discrimination. Let us look at its actions because that is really the most telling sign.
We have seen, in the country, the courts strike down laws that make child pornography illegal. We saw 79 Liberal MPs and senators write a letter to the Prime Minister urging him not to wait for the appeal of the B.C. decision to be heard but to immediately act in defence of Canada's children. These Liberal members recommended that strong new child pornography legislation be introduced as soon as the House returns. That sounds good. I and I am sure all the members of my party would have signed that letter. In fact, they even went on in the letter to encourage the Prime Minister to consider the use of the notwithstanding clause to send a clear message that Canada's charter of rights and freedoms would never again be used to defend sexual abuse of Canadian children.
Tragically, we have the telling sign. These same Liberals voted against a motion in the House to do just exactly what their letter asked for. In February of this year every Liberal MP who signed this letter, except the four who are now in the frozen back land of the Liberal Party over there, the Siberia of the Liberal caucus, voted for the motion. All the others who signed the letter voted against it calling for the motion for child pornography laws to be upheld by parliament, not struck down, the laws shaped by parliament.
Let us talk about another situation. The Liberals had an opportunity to protect children from convicted sex offenders but failed. We all know the Liberals waited to prorogue the House this summer until they could get through Bill C-78. Bill C-78 allowed the government to get its hands on the pension surplus of public employees but they failed to pass another bill, a Reform-driven bill, Bill C-69 which protected children from convicted sex offenders. Bill C-69 was in the Senate before the pension bill but they overlooked that and went for the money. They pushed through the pension bill to grab the money and left our children less protected. If that is not a telling sign of priorities, I do not know what is. Actions speak louder than words to Canadians.
Let us look at another one. The Liberals have refused and failed to end the tax discrimination faced by single income families with children. We know that in the last federal budget a typical single earner family with two children, a family of four with a $45,000 income, pays about $4,900 in personal tax. The same single income family is paying 136% more than a dual earner family. That is right out of the budget. However, the Liberals voted against the motion in the House that addresses tax discrimination. They said no. The vote was 123 in favour, most united on this side, and 145 against on that side. This affirms again that the true vision of the Liberals is a continuation of their legacy of high taxes and less choice for families.
The Liberal MPs say that they are concerned about pornography and child pornography. What are they doing about it? Nothing. We hear that they are concerned about protecting our kids, but when they had a chance to do something about it they did nothing.
The Liberals talk about caring for and wanting to address tax discrimination in the country. They had the opportunity but did not move on it.
What is all this talk about a legacy? We hear them talking about a legacy. The Prime Minister wants a legacy. The Liberal member from St. Paul's was quoted in the Hamilton spectator as saying: “We want something that is a legacy”.
The Liberal member for Don Valley West was quoted as saying: “When they look back at us 50 years from now what will be the great thing that we did? Will anyone remember if we gave them tax cuts? If we are going to be remembered we must do some great thing, some great national project. What more appropriate thing for the millennium for our legacy”—he is concerned about his legacy—“than to do something for our kids”.
This begs the question of what is more important to them, their legacy or our children. Parents look after the needs of kids best but it looks like they might also be asked to finance the Liberals' legacy building project. What a question to ask: “Will anyone remember if we gave them tax cuts?” Where is the credibility in all of this when we hear all this talk about a children's agenda? To me it sounds more like an agenda for children.
The Liberal member for Sarnia—Lambton was quoted recently. I have to agree with the member, although I think his career path in the Liberal Party is going to be severely stilted and derailed. He fears that the national children's agenda is a code word for big spending, social engineering and government meddling. He said: “To me it's all a lot of nonsense. It is as if having children is unnatural and the state is going to tell you how to rear your children”. This was said by a Liberal member and I can agree with him. He is right on.
I have to inform the government that it actually already has a legacy. The Liberal legacy is one of high tax, of high national debt, of increasing taxes and of a huge national debt borne by our children.
Families in Canada are actually aware of the Liberal government's agenda. They are quite confident that they have the ability to look after the children. Statistics Canada noted in a recent study that by far the majority of children living in Canada are in excellent and very good health according to their parents.
I do not think parents want interference by the Liberal government. They want to be left to raise their families as they see fit. They want a government that will give them less taxes and less government. They want a government that respects the natural authority of parents and the choices they are best suited to make on behalf of their children.
I have a lot more to say but I will leave it for another time. My number one concern is that families in the country be given the respect and the freedom to raise their children as they see fit. I would like to move an amendment.
I move:
That the amendment be amended by inserting after the words “airline industry”, the words: “and give Canadians some indication of its vision of Canada's airline industry in the 21st century”.