Debates of Feb. 11th, 1999

Committees Of The House

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, I think you would also find, based on discussions between the leaders of the various parties, unanimous consent for the following motion:

That Jill Wherrett, research officer for the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, be authorized to travel to Toronto from February 17 to 20, 1999 in order to attend the forum on aboriginal economic development.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I rise to speak to this very important opposition day motion.

The issue of poverty is one that touches each and every one of us as members of parliament, as parliamentarians and as Canadians. One of the things we value and on which we pride ourselves in Canada is equality of opportunity, not necessarily quality of outcome which cannot be guaranteed by government. There is no area of government that is more important if we are serious about dealing with equality of opportunity than to ensure that children in Canada are not living in poverty.

One in five children is living in poverty. The government likes to say the fundamentals are strong. That is one of the fundamentals, that one in five children are living in poverty. That is absolutely atrocious. It is unacceptable in a country like Canada.

The personal debt rates in Canada are an unprecedented high. Personal bankruptcy last year set record highs. We have never had as many people declare bankruptcy as have declared bankruptcy last year. Personal disposable income has dropped 7% over the past six years.

John Kenneth Galbraith, an ex-patriate Canadian economist, once said beware of governments who say their fundamentals are strong. That is extremely appropriate for the government. Despite its assertions, its fundamentals are not strong for the average Canadian and most egregiously for the poorest of Canadians who are not doing well under the government.

One of the most regressive and pernicious taxes on the poor in Canada is EI premiums. The EI premiums are the most regressive form of taxation that we now have in Canada. Someone making $39,000 per year is paying the same amount of EI premiums as someone who is making $300,000 per year. Yet when a lower income Canadian needs employment insurance less than 35% are now qualifying. This is scandalous. The government is effectively doing the reverse Robin Hood theory. It is taking from the poor and redistributing to everybody else. This is absolutely, fundamentally unfair.

Our party believes that equity for all Canadians, starting with the poorest of Canadians, is more important than padding the books of the federal government. We believe that a Canadian making less than $10,000 should not be paying income tax. We believe very strongly in those principles.

The issue of equity and the issue of doing the right thing are only possible when governments have economic growth to make it happen. I do not have to remind anybody in the House, particularly not the Liberals who at one time opposed these initiatives, that the fundamental structural changes made by the previous PC government, including free trade, the elimination of the counterproductive manufacturers sales tax, the deregulation of the financial services industries, the transportation sector and energy, were the cornerstones that provided any opportunity for economic growth to eliminate the deficit over the past several years. It was those basic changes that provided the strength for the Canadian economy to grow today.

A Conservative government, having recognized the need for those changes then, implemented them. The Conservative government had a vision for Canada that would provide economic growth and opportunity to all Canadians. We did not anticipate that there would be a government in Canada which would take advantage of the changes it previously opposed when it was politically convenient. It took that money and failed to deliver the equity to Canadians that we value as a cornerstone of Canadian social policy.

Members opposite have argued today that increasing the basic personal exemption would not be a good idea. Then I heard a member make the ludicrous argument that increasing it by $500 was a good idea because it would take 400,000 Canadians off the tax rolls, but increasing it to $10,000 which would eliminate two million people from the tax rolls was a bad idea. I would have thought the logical corollary of his argument would have been that if we further increased the basic personal exemption to $10,000 it would be even better. Somehow this is Liberal economic logic or lack thereof.

I am very concerned about the trends of the government in terms of accountability relative to spending programs. There is the issue of the millennium scholarship fund. There is not a member of the House today who would not agree that investment in higher education is an important activity and an important initiative that needs to continue if we are to ensure that Canadians can compete in the 21st century. The structure the government chooses to engage in these types of programs is absolutely ludicrous.

In the last federal budget the government took $2.5 billion out of the federal treasury and away from Canadians for a millennium scholarship fund that will not help any Canadian until after the year 2000. Even then it will only benefit 4% of students seeking higher education. It is the Mother Hubbard theory on spending. Stock the government's cupboard for the time being. It is fancy book work. It is the type of accounting principle that offends the auditor general. It is the type of social policy that offends right headed Canadians because they know that if the money is stocked away in some type of self-gratifying government program for the future, it cannot benefit Canadians when they need it. Canadians need help today and the poorest of Canadians need help today.

We believe very strongly that at this time we should be increasing the basic personal exemption significantly to reduce the disincentives for Canadians at lower income brackets to participate in the workforce and to provide more money in their pockets. We also believe very strongly that at this point it is not just appropriate but right to eliminate bracket creep and to reindex the tax brackets.

There are members opposite who say the previous Conservative government was the party that implemented deindexation back in 1984. At that time that initiative, as were other tax initiatives, was implemented to eliminate the deficit. Given that some of those initiatives have obviously worked and we have eliminated the deficit, now is the time to recognize the role Canadians have played in eliminating that deficit and giving them some money back in their own pockets.

One million, four-hundred thousand low income Canadians have been dragged kicking and screaming on to the tax rolls since 1993 by bracket creep. This has to stop. It is fundamentally unfair and we are calling for the government to fully index tax brackets.

Next week will be the week of the federal budget. We have our alternative program and I just want to share with members and Canadians that a single earner making $20,000 per year will save $694 with our tax relief versus a Canadian making $20,000 with the current Liberal plan.

Last year the Liberals said they were giving tax breaks to low income earners. The fact is someone making $10,000 per year, according to the government's own figures, would only receive a benefit of $80 per year. That is a pittance. It is an insult. That is one cup of coffee per week at Tim Horton's, one per month at Starbucks. That is clearly unacceptable.

This government does not get it. It is out of touch with reality. It is out of touch with Canadians and very soon after the next election it will be out of touch with power.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague whether he agrees with me that, if we looked through the past fifty years of history, we would be hard pressed to find such eloquent examples of governments deliberately contributing to people's impoverishment. My colleague will recall, because I know he is interested in history and is a reasonable and educated man, that, in 1968, for example, the Liberals talked about a just society. He will recall, despite his young age—I think he must be several years my junior—that the Liberals were going to create a just society and eliminate poverty in Canadian society.

Would my colleague agree with the three measures I propose for fighting poverty? The first, as the member for Shefford said, is that social condition must be included in the Canadian Human Rights Act. This would make it possible to invalidate provisions in the Employment Insurance Act and in the Banks Act. The second is to convince the banks to intervene in disadvantaged communities. The United States has had a law since 1977 called the Community Reinvestment Act. Can I count on my colleague to promote these measures?

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The hon. member always has erudite interventions in the House and has been consistent with his intervention today.

He points out something very interesting, that the Liberal government has betrayed the basic principles that the Liberal Party of Canada based itself on for so long, social justice, equality, recognizing that all Canadians deserve to succeed in this great country of ours.

I was at a conference a couple of weeks ago, the international democratic council meeting. It was centre-right parties around the world and we were talking about different policies. They asked to describe the difference between a political leader and a politician. What we came up with after some discussion is that a politician is someone who does what is necessary to get re-elected. A political leader is someone who does something that is right for the people they represent.

On the other side of the House we have a lot of politicians but we do not have any political leaders.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member. He mentioned Robin Hood, Mother Hubbard and the definition of politicians and political leaders.

My question to the hon. member concerns financial information. This motion includes something that is not particularly new. I believe it was in “Let the Future Begin” which was to increase the basic income tax credit from $6,459 to $10,000. This is simply a rehash of the 1997 election platform on this issue.

Will the hon. member tell Canadians exactly how much it would cost the treasury to increase the tax credit tomorrow from $6,500 to $10,000 and where would the money come from?

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his softball question. I feel like we are on the other side of the House now and he is a backbencher asking a question to try to make us look good.

The member is right to point out the consistency in our position since before the last federal election. What a stark contrast to his party's position. They change positions more often than in the Kama Sutra . This year raising it would cost $1.8 billion. Next year raising it to $8,500 will be another $2.5 billion. The following year would be $3.75 billion to raise it to the full $10,000. I was happy to be given the opportunity to answer his question unequivocally. The money would come from the economic growth that is available to Canadians. It would also come from the fact that we do have a projected surplus this year that will be quite significant. It will not come from more boondoggle spending programs, the Mother Hubbard ones he has referred to, that will benefit no Canadians today and few Canadians tomorrow.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I do not question the goodwill of the mover of the motion and I do not question the compassion that has been very well expressed by pretty well all the speakers on the opposition side today.

I admit that some of the social ills that have been described by the members of the opposition do exist. But I reject the basic premise of their arguments that suggests all the social problems are based on the actions of the government. Nowhere in any of their remarks did I hear mention of the changes that have been happening all around the globe. The whole world is in the middle of something called the technological revolution. Some people view this as a period of transition and turmoil between the industrial age and the information age. Historically such revolutionary periods are periods of social dislocation. Some people who live during those periods adjust quickly to these changes and they prosper, but others find these periods of change difficult and they experience economic insecurity.

To govern during such a period of economic revolution is both a privilege and a challenge.

Unlike the opposition, this government is not looking nostalgically backward to a safer time and wanting to revive and apply the solutions of the past. We do not want to go back to a time, for example, when unemployment insurance was mainly a passive income support system, a system which encouraged people, generation after generation, to languish in semi-poverty with little hope of a better future.

We want to motivate and actively support Canadians to enter the labour market of the 1990s. For example, our youth employment strategy and our Canada jobs fund are helping young people across the country and workers in areas of high unemployment to get on board the train that is rushing us forward toward the 21st century.

We are proud of our post-TAGS program for fishers and our package for Devco miners because these packages prove that we are not abandoning some people who are in trouble; our family supplement for families on EI; our national children's benefit; our removal of 400,000 low income Canadians from the tax rolls, our recognition on our part that some Canadians are struggling and that we want to help them.

At the same time, though, it must be recognized that this government has created the right climate of no deficit, low interest rates, low inflation and lowering taxes, the climate most conducive to job creation and, I might say, a climate the previous government tried to achieve and failed.

We are also proud of our ever decreasing unemployment rate, another phenomenon the previous government failed to achieve.

There is no purpose in being outraged at poverty. It is far more intelligent to be looking at its causes to understand where we are in the historical evolution of the country and to apply measures to alleviate that poverty as we are doing. We want to bounce people back into the labour force because a job is the best economic security we can provide and we are doing those things.

However, we are not denying that there are social problems out there, poverty and homelessness. We approaching them one by one because they are tasks of work to be done. This government has its shoulder to the wheel. It has its intentions in the right place. As we have sufficient money to tackle of these problems, one at time we will tick them off the list that the opposition has provided us with today.

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after the comments I heard today from the government and all the opposition parties, I have concluded that we must ensure parliament is a co-operative place for the development of real solutions to the glaring problem of poverty.

This is why I seek the unanimous consent of the House to strike a joint parliamentary committee to study the serious problem of poverty in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member's proposal?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Liberal Party mentioned one at a time. Here is one person, Darrell Daniels from Port Alberni, B.C. I would like her to say what she can do for him. He writes: “I am 23 and I have lost hope. I went to Manitoba and Alberta looking for work but all I found were part time jobs”.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that you may have misunderstood. I am sure that, if you were to seek it again, you would find unanimous consent.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I shall put the question again.

Is there unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I heard no. That settles it.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker. Darrell Daniels of Port Alberni, British Columbia writes: “I am 23 and I have lost hope. I went to Manitoba and Alberta looking for work but all I could find were part time jobs”.

He could not get enough hours for EI. He was turned down for job training because he has never collected EI and therefore was not eligible. For a young person like him, 910 hours of work is far too much. He will now have to apply for welfare. What can the hon. member and her government do for this one person?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would resist the temptation to draw the same conclusion as the questioner. He said that all the person could do was apply for welfare.

It seems to me that if a young person who is 23 years old can only find part time jobs and part time work that will not add up to a sufficient number of hours to qualify for employment insurance, then there is one answer. This young person should be being trained or be back in school and we have measures to assist such a person to do that.

Certainly the idea of qualifying for EI is not a sufficient goal for a young Canadian today.