Debates of Feb. 28th, 2002

Committees of the House

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to resume debate on the New Democrat Party's 12 point solution to save Canada. As I indicated before, I am quite confident Canada does not need to be saved because of the work our party has done in a variety of areas.

One area I have been working on at the request of our Prime Minister concerns our red book commitment to strengthening our cities. We recognize the challenges cities face given amalgamation. Cities throughout the country have been under many pressures. We all recognize that cities are the front line in delivering a variety of necessary services. They are struggling to meet those needs. We are trying to sort out where we can fit in and be of assistance.

One of the things that has clearly emerged in our travels has been what a great country we have. People are proud to be Canadian. The talent we have in Canada makes us all proud to live in such a great country.

Along with other members of our task force we have established a dialogue with professionals et cetera throughout the country to talk about where the weaknesses and opportunities are. A variety of areas have challenges in them. I hope that through co-operation with governments and private industry we will meet the challenges before us when it comes to providing housing, transit and infrastructure. A variety of issues clearly need to be addressed in Canada. It provides a great opportunity for us to continue our work and look for opportunities to work in partnership with others.

When urban regions undergo stresses and strains as they do with amalgamation it puts enormous responsibility on them to deal with complex situations. They often cannot do it on their own and need the support of partners in government. In our role of working to see how we can strengthen our urban regions the opportunity presents itself to work with all parties involved to solve the problems cities are experiencing.

I will talk about the infrastructure needs of our cities. In Budget 2000 we committed $2.65 billion to infrastructure. More than $2 billion of it will go to municipalities for water, sewer systems and so on. These are major commitments that cost millions of dollars. Given the pressures cities are under it is difficult for them to do these things without partners coming to the table to help them.

The things we have done as a government clearly indicate our commitment to working with municipalities. The Kyoto targets are another example. With the consultations that are going on it will be our urban regions that have the opportunity to see them implemented.

There is also the issue of amateur sports. We were proud that the $82 million we invested in amateur sports spelled out victory last weekend when Canada took home 17 medals. It shows the investment we are making in our young people, an investment that will ensure we have strong, dynamic urban regions and can go forward and build the country in a way we are proud of.

Immigration is another important issue for our urban regions. It has always been at the heart of Canada's social, cultural and economic fabric. Canada is a nation of immigrants. It is a destination of choice for people seeking a new and better life. This has been going on for more than 300 years. It is what built our country. The new immigration and refugee protection act would enshrine the principles of generosity and compassion toward immigrants and refugees while ensuring the security of Canadians.

One issue that has arisen is the need for skilled workers in Canada. We need skilled workers to continue to build apartments, industries, factories and so on.

We must also do what we can to meet the needs of an aging population.

I was pleased to see that one of the first things Minister Coderre has done is change the point system with respect to--

[The Speaker]

I think the hon. member was referring to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I know she would want to refer to him by title rather than by name.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. The new minister has clearly been listening with respect to the issues. He has made changes to enable us to meet the demands on us and go forward on the issues. I am pleased the government is responding to the pressures it is hearing about from cities regarding their need for help in a variety of forms.

I will speak to the issue of child poverty. Our commitment to children has been reaffirmed in every speech from the throne since the National Children's Agenda was announced in 1997. In the 2001 Speech from the Throne the government challenged Canadians, stating:

Now Canadians must undertake another national project—to ensure that no Canadian child suffers the debilitating effects of poverty.

To this end we have invested $2.2 billion in the Early Childhood Development initiative which increased the child care expense deduction and the Canada Child Tax Benefit.

We are continuing our commitment to our country, our cities and our citizens. We are continuing to look for solutions to all the problems. Finding answers will not be easy. However as true Canadians who care about the issues we are setting out to find new ways of dealing with our cities and the stresses they are under, all the while respecting the constitution and working with our partners to achieve our goals.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the issue today. We will go forward and build a country of which we can all be proud

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to split my time with my hon. friend from Skeena.

The NDP introduced a 12 point plan to save Canada. I compliment it for doing so. Contrary to my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party who said Canada did not need saving, it does. It needs saving in a big way. That is why we are here. That is why the government continues to put out nothing but pablum while we in the opposition continue to put out forceful, constructive, specific solutions to address the big problems affecting Canadians. That is what we are all about.

I compliment the NDP for introducing its plan to save Canada no matter how hopelessly misguided the plan is. It is unfortunate the NDP has not learned lessons from social democracies around the world. It continues to proffer solutions that have been rejected by great social democracies around the world including Sweden.

If adopted the NDP plan would turn our nation into a country that looked like Bob Rae's Ontario or Glen Clark's British Columbia. We know what a disaster that would be. B.C. is still trying to dig itself out from the hole and will be doing so for many years. Adopting the 12 point plan would ensure Canada became a needy backwater that would probably be on the IMF's list of countries that need transfers to survive. We do not want that.

The NDP and the government should listen to our party. For Canada to be saved it needs lower taxes, less regulation, a smaller and more efficient government, and above all else, democracy. The House needs a good strong dose of democracy. That is perhaps the one point the NDP, our party, all opposition parties and most members of the government could agree on.

The government is more interested in maintaining and acquiring power than using it for the public good. One need look no further than at what my colleague from Elk Island witnessed at the finance committee. He saw a disgusting display of anti-democratic behaviour when a private member's bill was gutted.

When members of parliament introduce private members' bills they must go through extraordinary hoops to get them into the House so they can be debated. The public would be interested to know that at the end of the day the government thinks nothing of whipping into line the Liberal committee members who form the majority. It does so to ensure bills emerge with nothing unchanged but the paper on which they were written. Not one original letter, period or word will survive in private members' bills that go to committee.

That is the ultimate violation of basic democratic rights. It violates the rights not only of members of parliament in the House but, more importantly, individuals who support their members of parliament. All members of parliament across party lines including members of the government suffer under the same draconian, fascist rules and regulations which are unwritten but are nonetheless applied by the government's leadership.

The Prime Minister's Office rules the government with an iron fist, not for the public good but for the maintenance and acquisition of power. The real tragedy is that all the fantastic ideas of people across the country both in and out of parliament cannot be brought to bear on the problems of the nation.

The public often asks why it is not seeing action on health. It asks why it is seeing more studies. Why does it not see action on the economy? Why has the dollar plummeted from 73 cents to 62 cents on the government's watch? Why is our military begging for soldiers? Why does our military lack equipment to do its basic work? Why does our government have discordant defence and foreign policies? Why does our government not have environmental policies that make any sense? Why does our government's environmental policies violate the laws that have gone before?

These are the questions Canadians ask. Because they have received no meaningful answers for the last eight years they are turning away from the House. They are turning away from parliamentarians. They are turning away from the democratic institutions people fought two world wars to maintain.

That has profound implications not only for the House but also for our nation. If the House cannot be a place where solutions are debated, where we can have dynamic tension between us, where we can have fights over meaningful solutions to problems that affect Canadians, then the House does not deserve to exist.

All members of parliament would agree that the House does not work democratically. If there is one solution the government could do to benefit the people of our country, it would be to democratize the House. It would be to give members of parliament a free vote. It would be to liberalize the committee structure so that committees can analyze government legislation properly, can analyze supply properly and be free to do that. Private members' business should have some meaning. Private members in the House regardless of their political stripe should be able to introduce meaningful solutions to address problems affecting their constituents.

We do not need, as the NDP would want, big government and many rules and regulations. Sweden is an example of where that was applied. Interest rates have skyrocketed. Unemployment rates have skyrocketed. There has been a weakening of Sweden's social programs. High taxes and complex rules and regulations kill jobs and erode the tax base that is needed to pay for health care, education and other social programs.

The perverse logic and the type of socialist policies advocated by the NDP actually hurt the very people the NDP wants to help. Those policies do not help the poor and underprivileged. They erode earning potential. They deprive people of jobs. They erode the social programs that people require.

We would like to describe the so-called right of centre policies that are wanted. Why do we want lower taxes? Why do we want smaller government? Why do we want an elimination of rules and regulations? Why do we want more free trade? Why do we want globalization? Because that is the best way in the world to pursue job creation and a healthy economy. By doing that we have the money and the tax base to support healthy social programs. We have the money to support welfare for those who need it. We have the money to support health care. We have the money to support education. High taxes and complex rules and regulations do the exact opposite.

[An hon. member]

High debt.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

And high debt, as my colleague mentioned.

I challenge any member of the House to show me one case in any country in the world where high taxes, complex rules and regulations and interventionist government actually have improved employment, strengthened social programs and improved the freedoms of people in that country. There is not a single case in the world.

We have a situation where the interventionist, socialist policies of the NDP, Bob Rae's Ontario and Glen Clark's British Columbia, should be dead. We have struck a knife right through the heart of those policies because they simply do not work. Those policies hurt the very people the NDP professes to help.

The Canadian Alliance has been fighting for smaller government for the Canadian people. We want democracy for the Canadian people. We want lower taxes so we can create jobs. We want a healthy economy so we have the money for health care and education.

We support globalization. Globalization is the only way to have a rules based mechanism for better labour laws, better environmental protection, and to resolve disputes between nations. That is what we are trying to do. We have managed to balance good, strong fiscal policy with good, strong social policy. Those policies will help all Canadians equally.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member because he is very interested in foreign policy which is not common among his compatriots on the other side.

Part of the motion by the New Democratic Party talks about sovereignty. As I listened to many of his party's members intervene in the House, I heard them be concerned that they do not think our foreign policy specifically on Iraq mirrors that of the United States. They have been concerned that our military should be more harmonious and work more closely with the United States. Just today we talked about the airport tax. They questioned why it could not be just like in the United States. They have been very vocal on the whole issue of a continental energy policy, that somehow we ought to integrate the energy policy of North America, that Canada's energy policy should be dovetailed with that of the United States.

I find it miraculous that the member can say that Canada needs saving. It seems to me that we need saving from the kind of thoughts his party is putting forward, that if we want to have an independent foreign policy, we have to walk the talk and have an independent foreign policy.

Every time members of his party stand, I hear them ask why we cannot be ready, aye ready with the Americans. Could the member address that issue?

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is not one of harmonization but one of efficiency. We cannot deny that the United States is our closest partner whether it is trade or security. The bilateral security relationship we have with the United States enables us as a country to receive benefits far beyond those we could possibly engage in ourselves. This does not preclude having an independent foreign policy nor an independent monetary and fiscal policy. That is why this party has not pursued dollarization.

The hon. member should read the very eloquent solutions that have come from my colleagues on how we can strengthen our economy through a good strong monetary and fiscal policy and indeed on our foreign policy where we perceive harmonization as being for the benefit of the Canadian public.

We want harmonization on security so that we are within a North American envelope. That will ensure Canadians greater protection and will protect our north-south trade while ensuring that we have a steel fence enabling us to pick up terrorists and other unwanted individuals.

The Canadian Alliance foreign policy is a balanced one. It reflects the realities of the world today and enables us to make our own independent decisions on foreign policy.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP supply day motion reads:

That, in response to Canadians' desire to save Canada as a sovereign nation and strengthen our distinctive contribution in the world, this House calls upon the government to reflect in its budgetary policy the New Democratic Party 12-Point Plan to Save Canada.

The first of those illustrious 12 points is on the Kyoto protocol. Specifically it states:

Enhance Canada's environment, including a national implementation plan for reducing greenhouse gases and ratification of the Kyoto protocol in 2002.

Although the goal of protecting the environment is one most Canadians, including myself, are certainly very interested in achieving, a few simple questions come to mind.

First, how can this be achieved in a society so dependent on fossil fuels? Second, how can Canada, and in particular certain provinces with economies largely built on the sale of that fuel to other countries like the U.S., still function successfully without that income generator? Furthermore, if the U.S. does not sign on, it creates even larger problems for Canada.

The simple answer is we need to work toward a balance between the interests of the environment and that of industry and the economy. To consider the merits of one without the other is not only disrespectful to stakeholders, but it is also foolhardy in the long run.

Point number 2 on the list states:

Strengthen the role of aboriginal, Metis and Inuit people in the Canadian family.

This is doublespeak by polished NDP spin doctors. What do they mean by strengthen their role? Their role is the same as the role we expect all Canadians to try their best to play. That is the role of nation builder through earning an income to support the family, by contributing to society, to community involvement and volunteerism and to use their creativity and initiative to make their individual lives better in any way possible in their particular situation. This is what society expects from anyone in Canada.

We all strive to be better people, better citizens and better stewards of our environment. That ethic is present in everyday life in Canada.

What I find frustrating is that this particular point suggests that unless the government and therefore society forcefully and intentionally intervenes on behalf of aboriginal, Metis and Inuit to a larger extent than for everyone else in the country, these groups of Canadians cannot make it on their own merits. This is a premise which I do not believe. They have the ability that we all have. I am quite sure they are capable of implementing it.

Point number 3 states:

Reaffirm Canada's international peacekeeping role and rehabilitate Canada's reputation as respected internationalists.

This is something to which I would give my conditional support. To elaborate further, most Canadians agree that we should continue Canada's international peacekeeping efforts. It has been a proud tradition and strong role we have played for generations. However, the reality today is that our armed forces are so poorly equipped, underpaid, understaffed and overused that we simply cannot keep up our traditional level of assistance around the world.

We have three distinct choices in my view. First, we limit ourselves to the peacekeeping role and reduce our commitments. Our second option could be to focus on becoming a special force military. To do so we would need to reduce, if not eliminate, our current peacekeeping commitments abroad and ensure we are very well equipped to handle the special forces missions we are asked to take part in.

Our third option is one which I believe for a country of our size and stature in the world we should strive to achieve. It would be both options one and two. To do so we need to begin to respect our armed forces by providing them with adequate funding to achieve their goals. We cannot continue to fake support for our military through, quite frankly, such ambiguous statements as the third point by the NDP.

Point number 4 deals with the important topic of health care funding and reads as follows:

Re-establish the federal government as full partner in funding health care and post-secondary education as public, not for profit systems.

This is a frequent topic of heated debate not only in the House but in the media as well as around the dinner tables of many Canadian families. Everyone seems to have their own theory on how to fix the ailing public health care system. It seems the NDP theory is to throw more money at what most people agree is a dysfunctional and unsustainable health care system.

The NDP members are living in the past, what they themselves would likely call the good old days of purely socialized medicare.

However the reality today is that the system is bloated and in desperate need of repair. Our population is aging and the stress we see today on an already overused public system will only increase exponentially as time goes by. Throwing more money at the system is an outdated socialistic view of solving everything, and that, quite frankly, is what is expected from a solution provided by the NDP.

Therefore I would say that the premise outlined in this point of the NDP's 12 point plan to save Canada is false and that although I certainly agree that stable funding for provinces to provide health care is necessary to fix the problem, it is not the only avenue we need to explore. Again, the NDP was never known for thinking outside the box. Although its members have to tried to re-brand themselves, their ideas are still the same old tired ideas of the socialist days of the past.

The second part of point number 4 deals with post-secondary education. Of course once again from the NDP's perspective the quick fix is to throw more money at the system. Just the other day CBC talked about how in the next 10 years Canada will face a critical shortage of university professors. This has little or nothing to do with poor funding and everything to do with the realities of an aging population and, quite frankly, poor planning. Many graduates have stated publicly that the tenure system imposed by universities, which protects the jobs of professors, acts as a disincentive to new graduates because of the need to go through several hoops and spend several years waiting for tenure positions to open up to become an accredited professor. Once again, the system needs an overhaul, yet the NDP would prefer to ignore the details of the problem and throw money at it instead.

Point number 5 calls on the government to “implement a comprehensive strategy for the eradication of child poverty”. This is something everyone wants to see. While we are at it, why not strive to eliminate world poverty too? These are good goals and all governments around the world should strive toward this ideal state. However, I would like to know how the NDP proposes to eliminate poverty. That is the question. The NDP has a unique opportunity to be all things to all people without ever facing the responsibility of implementing those promises.

Point number 6 deals with trade agreements and labour standards. The NDP wants to “ensure all trade agreements include adequate protection for labour standards, and for human rights and the environment”. We are living in a global village and trade is a mainstay of our Canadian economy of which a significantly large percentage is with the United States. The Canadian Alliance supports free trade and as such is certainly concerned with the current softwood lumber dispute with our largest trading partner. We also agree that we need to take down interprovincial trade barriers and reduce government red tape.

The proposal from the NDP would ensure more red tape and regulation without regard for their economic impact. Canada already faces a huge regulatory burden, and higher regulatory costs mean a less competitive economy. Since its inception the Canadian Alliance has stood up for Canadian farmers both in the House and around the country. It is a main plank of our principles and an area of the economy we are very concerned about.

Point number 7 of the NDP plan deals with the family farm. Specifically it states that the government should “enable primary producers and Canadian farm families to compete with foreign subsidies, and reject continental energy and water policies that endanger Canadian control over our natural resources”.

First I would like to remind the House that the Canadian Alliance stands firmly behind the Canadian farm family. Farmers need a level playing field. Rather than engaging in an endless subsidy war, the Canadian Alliance would focus on ending foreign subsidies.

I am short on time so I will jump to point number 11 which speaks to the NDP concern that control in the media has become more centralized. Specifically this point calls on the government to “strengthen pluralistic and democratic discourse”. I cannot understand what the NDP is talking about here, but it would seem that the NDP is concerned that the Liberal left leaning print media is not on its side. I would say they are not on our side either but no one sees us wanting to create more government owned propaganda machines. What we need to do is encourage more competition within the media.

I will conclude by saying that the NDP has a luxury that it shares only with the Bloc, that is, it will never form a government and therefore it can promise everyone everything without ever having to implement any of it. A poll recently found that of all professions Canadians least trust politicians, because they believe we make all kinds of promises and never deliver. The NDP perpetuates this concern and this 12 point plan is a prime example of pie in the sky ideas with no real plan for or hope of implementation.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. He of course represents the party that is now fifth in the public opinion polls in terms of public support in the country. In terms of popularity, I wonder why that is happening. It is in fifth place in the polls in this country in terms of popularity, so it must have a program that is not very realistic. Otherwise Canadians would be buying into this.

I want to ask the member about the 12th point in the program, electoral reform, and hear what he thinks about electoral reform and bringing in a measure of proportional representation and making sure that everyone's vote is equal and no vote is wasted.

Almost every country in the world has some measure of proportional representation. The Americans do not. George W. Bush actually became president even though he had 550,000 fewer votes than Al Gore. Al Gore got more votes and George W. Bush became the president of the United States.

I would like to ask him what he thinks about the idea of serious electoral reform so that we would have a parliament that reflects how people vote. Look at parliament today. There is a majority government with 40% of the votes and there was a turnout of 60% in the last campaign. About a quarter of the Canadian people supported the Liberal government across the way and it has a mandate for five years. Even my friend from the Toronto area is pretty embarrassed by those kinds of results.

I wonder if my friend in the Alliance Party is in agreement with our position that we should have serious electoral reform so that a vote is a vote is a vote, so that no vote is wasted and every vote counts. A person could actually vote NDP in rural Alberta and it would count and a person could vote for the Alliance in Newfoundland and it would count. Everybody in the country should be equal in terms of voting power.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a large number of questions. On the issue of polling, it is very clear that my party did very well in the last election. We certainly have a lot more seats in the House than the party down at the other end of the House. We strived very hard for reform in the House, for giving a stronger voice to the members in the House, which I think is the way to deal with reform and get the voices of Canadians out there. We represent the Canadian people. Reform in the House would go a long way toward creating a much fairer situation in Canada. I think the member very clearly knows that and understands that.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I particularly appreciate the member putting some focus on the issue of child poverty.

As we know, when we talk about child poverty we are talking about family poverty. The member will know well that family breakdown is a significant event in our country. In fact, lone parent families represent about 14% of all families in Canada but account for over 52% of all children living in poverty.

The member did say there is nothing substantive here, but if the member has any suggestions on what element or elements there should be I would be interested in hearing how we can approach this important problem of family poverty.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously this issue is of concern to all Canadians and people all around the world. My party, like all other parties, believes in a strong family unit. I think that the best way to build and strengthen that unit and work toward eradicating poverty is to provide an economic base, a tax regime whereby the economy can expand, where jobs are created for people.

We put people to work and one thing leads to another. They have pride in themselves and the family's pride grows. When people are working the tax base is there to provide a good, strong educational system. It costs money to do this. The way we do it is by creating employment and a regime that would allow people to work and to keep the dollars they earn, not have them all taxed back. We allow them to put those dollars into the economy, to spend those dollars, and in that way create the tax base required to support our systems of education and health care and to help those who need it.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, to a certain extent I would like to congratulate the NDP for their 12 points. I have read them and I think to some extent all of us can subscribe to some of the principles embodied in those 12 points. I am not saying the NDP is perfect. To some extent they are in what might be described as a time warp, following interventionist tax and spend permanent deficit policies that were abandoned years or even decades ago by thinking lefties around the world. Whether we look at Tony Blair in the U.K. or at Scandinavia or at the social democrats in Europe or Australia, all of them have abandoned the kinds of policies the NDP is proposing today.

Nevertheless, there are some positive elements in their 12 points. Indeed, when I think about what the government has accomplished, not just in the last budget but since being elected in 1993, many of those points that the NDP has mentioned resonate with me as things that our government has achieved.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Mississauga South. I neglected to mention that.

I ask members to take themselves back to 1993 and ask themselves what the state of the Canadian economy was then. In a word, I think one could say it was bad, because we had unemployment rates and interest rates at or near double digits and we had a deficit of $43 billion. In late 1994 we had the Mexico crisis and people in Canada and the U.S. were saying Canada would be the next Mexico and the IMF would be coming in. Members may recall that the Wall Street Journal was saying we were going to be a third world country.

Then the government took strong action against the $43 billion deficit. As a consequence, since that time the $43 billion deficit has become a $17 billion surplus, as of last year. We have reduced the government debt ratio substantially. We have reduced the external debt ratio by 20 percentage points over the last few years. We have restored sanity, health and dynamism to the Canadian economy.

I will just mention in passing that a few months ago in the House the leader of the fifth party actually boasted that he and the Tories inherited a $38 billion deficit from the Liberals in 1984 and left us later, in 1993, with a deficit of $43 billion. He was boasting of the $5 billion increase in the deficit. I guess the reason for his boast was that the deficit he left us was a little smaller as a per cent of GDP than the deficit that he inherited. However, it shows the absence of strong objectives by the Tories that they could boast they left us with a bigger deficit when we in fact not only wiped out their huge deficit but turned it into a $17 billion surplus.

Another issue that the Liberal government has addressed effectively is the productivity issue. It is true that there has been, over the last decades, slower productivity growth in Canada than in the United States, but the productivity issue is a new economy issue because Canada's productivity growth in old economy industries has been if anything a little higher than that of the U.S., whereas the U.S. has done better than we have and indeed better than every other country in the new economy industries in terms of productivity growth.

What has the government done to address the new economy and productivity issue? We have done a lot. Not only have we reduced the corporate tax rate to the point where in a couple of years it will be five points lower than that of the U.S., we have also eliminated the income tax surtax, we have slashed the rate of tax on capital gains, we have provided billions of additional dollars for support in research and we have not finished yet because we also have the innovation plan announced recently by the Minister of Industry.

The government's tax reduction package is also helping individual Canadians, particularly the middle class. A Canadian family of four with a combined income of $60,000 will see a decline of about $1,200 in federal taxes this year.

All in all, this program of tax cuts is the most ambitious in our entire history. In terms of dollars per capita, it is much more generous than the cuts proposed by President Bush last year.

Clearly we have made enormous progress in very little time. In less than a decade, Canada's economy, which was one of the weakest among industrialized countries, has become one of the most vigorous.

Earlier today we had news which gives further evidence that we have no technical recession and that indeed we hope that a recovery is underway. Canada's gross domestic product grew by 2% in a quarter, far exceeding analysts' expectations. If we leave out inventory GDP grew by 6% in a quarter. Real take home pay is up by 5.7% largely because of a 7.5% tax cut.

I am not being over confident about the future. There are still weaknesses in terms of profits and investment. The consumer and housing industry are strong reflecting the influence of lower interest rates from substantial tax cuts last year but also additional tax cuts this year.

People in New York and London agree with our story. They agree that we have indeed made enormous progress since 1993 in terms of taxes, productivity, employment, just about anything we care to think of. The foreigners agree with us and we agree about this progress.

It is only across the aisle, particularly Canadian Alliance members who keep giving us their totally distorted statistics and negative attitude on every issue. It is those members who are conveying the wrong impression and as I said earlier they are essentially a part of the problem and not a part of the solution.

I say without any hesitation, for the reasons that I have outlined, that the government has already demonstrated its commitment to fair tax and sound monetary policy as advocated by NDP members. Through the actions that I described it is clear that we have followed their advice.

Let us look at some of the elements in the NDP plan. It calls on the federal government to restore its full participation in health care and education funding. Here again, this government's constructive measures leave little doubt as to its position on this issue.

In health care services, last year's budget reiterated that the $23.4 billion set aside for the health care agreements and early childhood development, concluded by the first ministers in September 2000, were fully protected despite the impact of the most recent economic downturn.

I might say that there is a whole lot of confusion. If we listen to the provincial premiers we might think that the federal government pays for only about 15% of health care. That is because they ignore the tax point element of our contribution which makes the total contribution very much higher.

The worst, when it comes to this, is the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc Quebecois' position is completely contradictory. On the one hand, it does not count the federal government's contribution in terms of tax points. It does not recognize at all the role of the tax points that have already been transferred. Yet, on the other hand, it wants more. It wants more tax points. Perhaps from the perspective of the Bloc Quebecois or the Parti Quebecois this makes some kind of sense, but for us, it is a completely contradictory position.

Let me say in response to the NDP that we have taken substantial actions as well in the areas of infrastructure programs which it wants us to do. We added another $2 billion program.

We have taken strong actions in terms of the aboriginal population including $185 million in support of the development and well-being of aboriginal children. The Prime Minister has signalled his personal commitment for improvements in this area.

We have taken strong actions in the area of agriculture and have committed ourselves to more.

Canada's economy is once again on the move. Our industrial base is being transformed and revitalized. Just as our athletes demonstrated at the recent winter Olympics Canada is ready to take on the world and win. Therefore, I will be voting against the motion.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but ask my hon. colleague about the fairness in the tax system that his government is dealing with. He commented on the Liberals slashing the income tax on capital gains. I wonder how that compares to the finance minister taking back GST rebates from school boards on school busing services. That is one heck of a fair tax system. Seventy million dollars will come out of school board budgets because the finance minister is retroactively changing GST legislation to get it. Is that fair taxation?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham, ON]

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member understands the situation. The government is not taking one additional penny from school boards.

It is simply not allowing them to claim a 100% tax reduction. It was always the system of 66% or whatever percentage it was. It was always the intent and the rule. We must protect the tax base from erosion and we are enforcing the tax system as it was originally developed and put into law.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question along the same vein about a strong economy in terms of sovereignty and independence of our country.

Drawing on his background as a chief economist for a major Canadian bank I want to ask the minister about statements he made right after his appointment. He talked about high credit card interest rates. What will he do about that?

He has increased the expectations of ordinary people that the government would be doing something about it because he took a very progressive stand when he was sworn in. In the meantime, has he been slapped on the wrist? Is that why he has been silent or should we expect something in terms of an announcement that will be very progressive in the next few days?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed modest reductions in credit card interest rates. There was a new credit card introduced by one of the banks in the last few weeks which had an interest rate of prime plus two. There has been a modest amount of progress but this is not to deny that most credit card interest rates remain very high. We encourage individuals to search for the card that suits them best. We have our own Industry Canada website which makes comparisons.

The other thing we are trying to do is enhance competition in financial services. One of the major thrusts is to increase competition by making it easier for credit unions and insurance companies to compete with banks, to allow foreign banks to come in, and for new banks to start up, et cetera.

I would like to see lower credit card interest rates but our primary thrust is to provide better information so that consumers are better able to shop around and to increase the degree of competition in financial services in Canada.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my good friend is sounding more and more like the former deputy prime minister, the member for Windsor West, and he has only been a cabinet minister for five weeks.

Could he go back and reread the comments about credit card interest rates he made after he was appointed and what he would do about them? Will he make that undertaking to the House and then come back to answer the question later on?

It sounds as though he has already been in cabinet too long with all his talk similar to what the member for Windsor West used to give us, the great gray fog in those days. However he did make some commitments that he would be doing something about it in a very specific way. We are not talking about websites or shopping around or one bank putting out a new credit card with a prime plus two interest rate. Even Liberal members are smiling at that answer.

Surely to goodness the minister deserves one more chance to put on the record what he will do specifically to make sure we get a better break in terms of interest rates and credits cards. I want to give him that opportunity. He is a good friend of mine and I want to make sure he has the opportunity to show that he is a man of his word. I do not want to see him embarrassed so I am offering him a second opportunity.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful to my hon. colleague for giving me this opportunity and additional air time. In fact I had been on the job less than 24 hours when I made those comments. If we refer to press articles and so on we will see I made no commitment to do anything specific. I said I would look into it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion today on how to strengthen Canada. There is a 12 point plan.

In contemplating strengthening and saving Canada we must understand what would be indicative of that. Strengthening Canada and measuring the strength and security of Canada is really a measure of the health and well-being of its people. That is really what it comes down to.

One of the 12 points in the motion is to implement a comprehensive strategy to eliminate child poverty. It is extremely important that the issue be understood in a broader context than simply in an economic context. There has been too much said about the money one should spend to eliminate it. It is not that simple.

Poverty is one of the least understood issues in Canada. Advocacy groups call it child poverty. It tugs at the heartstrings of every Canadian. They have invoked images of children starving on the streets and report that the problem has increased by 50% over the last decade. Who could possibly be against eliminating child poverty? The bold reality is that poverty in Canada is more a matter of social poverty than it is of economic power.

There is a debate going on about how we should define poverty. The positions range from food, clothing and shelter deprivation to the other side of something about not being able to fully integrate into a community so that one would not be noticed. It is basically a question of being able to live in a community without being noticed.

Defining poverty first would be an important starting point. Consequently if we had a definition we would then have a foundation for social welfare in Canada. Defining a poverty level would identify the level of poverty that we are prepared to tolerate. There will always be the poorest in the land regardless of how everyone improves. There will always be a fourth quartile.

The absence of an official poverty line means that we must rely on other measures. Statistics Canada has a low income cutoff which suggests that some 17% of Canadians are significantly below the income of the average Canadian family. This is a relative measure of basically who is at the bottom.

Anti-poverty groups use this measure for who is poor, however, the measure does have a number of flaws. For example, 40% of the families who are so-called poor under that measurement own their own homes and 50% of those people who own their own homes do not even have a mortgage. Are people who own their own home outright really poor? There are assets. The measurements we use now really do not take into account the fact that there are underpinning assets.

Anti-poverty groups are growing in size and influence and they report annually on the growing level of poverty in Canada. They fiercely lobby governments to act and it is an important activity but the principles under which they lobby have to be broadened to take into account that there are real social underpinnings.

They have suggested solutions to the House, and to parliamentarians and governments, that include the need for more jobs, social assistance, social housing, tax benefits for families with children, money for health and early childhood development programs, employment insurance benefits and subsidized day care. These are just a few of the demands by the advocates for eliminating poverty in Canada.

LICO is accepted by these groups as the measure of poverty and it is accepted for one simple reason. It is an economic measure that demands or calls for economic solutions. If it had to address the root causes of poverty I believe it would open up a Pandora's box that few would be prepared to face.

Homelessness in Canada has become one of the target areas of discussing poverty in Canada. In January 1999 the federal government provided resource funding for a study on homelessness in the city of Toronto, our largest city that has a very large homelessness problem. The task force chaired by Anne Golden issued a report.

It declared it had workable solutions. It engaged all levels of government, all interest groups to have that input.

If we look very closely at the report, we would find that it paints a much different picture of poverty than simply economic poverty that many seem to talk about. The report identified that of the homeless in Toronto, 35% suffered from mental illness and 15% were aboriginals off reserve.

We all know of the serious problems that occur within the aboriginal communities in Canada. Probably 70% of aboriginals live off reserve. In fact, in Toronto of all its homeless, 15% were aboriginals who were living off reserve and 10% cent were abused women. We know that domestic violence is a serious problem in our society. These homeless people are the poor.

The one that tugs at my heart strings more than any of the others really is that 28% of the homeless in Toronto are youth who have been alienated from their families. Of that 28% of youth who are homeless, 70% have experienced physical or sexual abuse. What an indictment of our society.

Then we could look at the fact that the majority of the homeless across all those groups are also abusers of drugs and alcohol; another social problem within our society that we have to tackle.

Finally, 47% of the homeless in Toronto do not come from Toronto. They migrate to this large urban centre from Mississauga, a next door neighbour. We have nominal homeless situations in Mississauga and yet 15 minutes away in the city of Toronto there are thousands of homeless people on the streets. Why is that? It is because cities like Toronto build facilities, build shelters and provide services. It will give them the food, booze, smokes, anything that they want. It is called the urban magnet. We see the same thing in Vancouver, Montreal and Calgary. It is an urban magnet.

Part of the problem is that communities across our country have to invest in their residences as well rather than have no programs or support for people who have difficulties so that they do not have to migrate to these large urban centres. Large urban centres are not the place where our kids should be roaming around the streets. We have a social problem in Canada.

On the issue of children living in poverty, which is family poverty, lone parent families account for about 14% of all families in Canada. They also account for about 52% of all families living in poverty. Our rate of family breakdown in Canada is just under 50%. The incidence of domestic violence continues. Alcohol and drug abuse in our schools and in our communities has escalated with tragic consequences that we see time and time again. Unwanted teen pregnancies still remain at high levels. Over 20% of students in our high schools drop out and do not complete their high school education. Surely these are Canada's poor in waiting. Nearly 25% of all children enter adult life with significant mental, social or behavioural problems. These represent the social poverty in our society and they are the root causes of the vast majority of economic poverty in Canada.

If poverty in Canada is a horror and a national disgrace, then the breakdown of the Canadian family is the principal cause of that disgrace. Those who express outrage at poverty but who do not express the same outrage at the breakdown of the family are truly in denial.

However these days of political correctness, the family structure and the condition represent a minefield through which few are prepared to tread. Anti-poverty groups have meekly sidestepped the social poverty dimension. However, if we are not prepared to address social poverty in Canada, then we effectively choose to tolerate the very poverty that we so nobly seek to eliminate.

If we could raise one well-adjusted generation of Canadians, poverty as we know it would be a condition of the past. In that context, I mean the physical, mental and social health. It also contemplates that our social, moral and family values are sound and that our families, educators and legislators promote and protect those values. Our children are a function of the society in which they live. Those who become our future poor do so because we fail to put their interests ahead of our own.

Collectively, we are responsible for the poverty that exists in Canada today. Therefore, it is our collective responsibility to resolve both its social and its economic causes.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the area I want to touch on the most, which my colleague from Mississauga mentioned, is the insinuation that the reason big cities like Toronto and Vancouver have so many homeless, and included in that homeless are 35% with mental illness, 15% aboriginals, 10% abused women, 28% youth of which 70% are physically or sexually abused, is that there are shelters and places to look after them.

I would suggest that we are really putting that in the wrong context. The bottom line is any person I knew who ended up in such a situation where they had no home or place to go or shelter to rely on, did so because they usually were leaving someplace that was a hell of a lot worse. They were looking for something better, which was not there. However they were stuck there because they did not have a penny in their pocket to perhaps get back.

To suggest that people with mental will head to that magnet of Toronto, what about looking at the real issue. Our health care system has failed and we no longer have supports in place in a lot of those communities because we do not have the dollars going into the health care system. We have priorized wrong. As a government, the priorities have been wrong. When dollars should have gone to support those small communities so they could keep people in their communities, they were not there. When dollars should have gone into aboriginal communities and education should have been in aboriginal communities, they were not there. They are looking for something better.

On behalf of every aboriginal from my riding who has left a horrible situation on a reserve to look for something better, I take exception to someone suggesting they went there for a free place at a homeless shelter.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the member would want to look at the Anne Golden report to see the details. These are facts in reporting on the situation in Toronto. It does not paint the situation for every community.

However, 70% of aboriginals do live off reserve and, unfortunately, within the homeless of Toronto, about 15% of the demographics of the homeless represent aboriginals off reserve. The single largest service provider for aboriginals in Toronto who are homeless is called Anishnawbe. It specifically knows where its clients are and provides them daily with their food, their clothing and all the things that they need, including cigarettes and alcohol. That is part of the reason why 70% of aboriginals are off reserve. It is not because they are poor. Many are just out integrating into other parts of Canadian life, and that is part of it.

The urban magnet as a concept is well established. In my community of Mississauga, which is a 15 minute drive from downtown Toronto, a survey was done to find out how many people were living on the streets. Five were found. However, 10,000 people were living on the streets in the greater Toronto area. They were not in Mississauga because it did not have shelters, or community supports or services. It said that Toronto had it all. If communities abandon their responsibility to provide supports and services, then naturally people will migrate.

The member is quite right when she says that 35% of the homeless in Toronto suffer from mental illness. Part of the reason is that Ontario closed down 10 of its mental health institutions. We cannot compress these services. People who suffer from various mental illnesses need medication. They probably are unable to care for themselves. By and large, most of them come out of a mental health institution, are given a bus ticket and told to go to a shelter.

That is not the way we should treat people who suffer from mental illness. I agree with that. We have to embrace the fact that we have people in our society who suffer from illnesses or other social conditions and require our attention, our compassion and our love. I believe that the homeless in Toronto, in fact the homeless all across this great land, represent people who no one love.