Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to be speaking today in the House of Commons. As this is my first speech, I would like to thank the citizens of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for giving me the great honour of representing them once again.
Indeed, it is humbling to be in the House. As somebody once said, there is no bad seat in the House of Commons. There are only 308 of us here and there are over 30 million Canadians. It is indeed an honour. I think everybody here feels the same way about giving our best for the people of our communities and our great country.
Having said that, I must say that with regard to the Speech from the Throne one can always admire brevity, but our country is more than five points. What the Speech from the Throne had in it were five simple points that were good politics but bad policy.
One can see what the end game is. I think most people understand that this is a way of setting the bar extremely low so that at the end of the day the government can go to the public and say that it accomplished five things. Our country is more than five challenges. What I am going to do is take a look at each of those five policies, or as much as we have time for today, and take them apart piece by piece.
Let us take a look at the GST issue. It is wise to put money in the hands of taxpayers. Indeed, when the Liberals were in government, our finance minister took one million people off the tax rolls. We put forth and implemented in 2005 a plan that decreased the lowest tax bracket from 16% to 15% and increased the basic personal exemption.
I know that members on the other side are deeply interested in putting more money in the pockets of Canadians. In fact, and across all party lines, we would agree with that. The question is, what is the most effective way of accomplishing that goal? Is it really to lower the GST one percentage point versus a decrease in personal taxes?
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Don Valley East.
Let us look at reducing the GST. Who primarily does it benefit? It benefits the people in the higher income tax brackets. For example, somebody who makes $150,000 a year would at the end of the day receive roughly $900 in benefits from a one percentage point decrease in the GST. If we were to look at the 43% of Canadians who make less than $40,000 a year, we would see that a GST reduction would result in about $190 in their pockets. Let us compare that to the Liberal plan, which would put into the same category those who make less than $40,000 a year. Those individuals would actually have about $380 in their pockets.
I would encourage the government to rethink its position on the GST, as I think members from across party lines would. While it may be attractive on a superficial level, it does not in fact put more money in the hands of individuals, particularly the poor and working poor, who need the money the most.
The child care tax issue has been looked at quite closely.
I also want to look at the issue of the military because I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence and had the honour, as others of us have had, of representing and working hard for those men and women who give their lives every day for the benefit and the defence of our country. All of us are strong supporters of them and their families.
It was disappointing, I may say, to see how little the military issue and our defence forces received in the Speech from the Throne. This is critically important. We are actually having a competing debate right now. The government is pursuing a 1980s course of action with respect to its plan for the Canadian Forces. It is completely different from the ones we laid out. It is different from the one we hammered out with General Hillier and his staff, one that is very attractive to the members of our Canadian Forces, a plan that in fact meets the asymmetric threats we are faced with today in this changing world of ours.
I would ask the members of the government to please look at the plan that the current Minister of National Defence is pursuing, because it does not reflect the asymmetric threats we have today. They are not the kinds of battles we will fight in the future. It is based on an old, obsolete cold war vision, a plan that was put forth in 1987 and was roundly defeated because it was unaffordable.
For example, the Canadian Forces do not need armoured icebreakers in the north right now but they do need other things. We went a long way to putting more boots on the ground and putting more resources in the hands of our forces, particularly in terms of equipment. We certainly hope the government pursues that course of action. However putting armoured icebreakers in the north would take away the valuable resources our forces need to engage in the quite exciting transformation in which they are engaged right now. I also hope that vision for the Canadian Forces will receive closer scrutiny.
With the few minutes I have left I want to draw attention to the issue of economic productivity. In order for our country to continue on the course of action that we hammered out, we gave the government the best books that any incoming government has ever received in the history of our country, with the lowest unemployment rate we have had in 30 years, the lowest interest rates we have had and a growth rate that is the envy of the OECD. That is the plate the government now has.
What the government cannot do is compromise the wonderful gift it has. I have to say that it is disappointing that more specific references were not made to a productivity agenda that would include strategic investments into human capital, that would involve the continued reduction in taxes that we started off, both for individuals and the private sector, and a comprehensive plan that the government could offer the Canadian public that would do something to ensure that we will continue the economic productivity that has been taking place over the last few years.
On the issue of health care, the wait time strategy nibbles at the edges of a problem that is vexing most Canadians. In fact, it is the number one issue that challenges all of us. We cannot shy away from our aging population. To simply talk about wait time guarantees is not enough. What is the point of having a guarantee if we do not have the resources to pay for what we are guaranteeing? That is the central problem.
Health care expenditures are growing at 8% per year and our GDP is at 3% per year. The gap between supply and demand is widening and it is the poor and the middle class who fall through the cracks. It is utterly unacceptable that in the Speech from the Throne we cannot have a more comprehensive, dynamic and intelligent series of solutions that will address this problem. It affects all of us and all of us are willing to put our backs into solving this for every person out there who needs care now or will need it in the future.
As I said before, our aging population and the more expensive technologies will only create a widening gap. The rich will not suffer because they will always be able to find care. It is the poor and the middle class who have justifiable fear. For heaven's sake, let us stop the shopworn non-debate that has been taking place in health care for far too long. Let us talk about the facts and about the reality on the ground. Let us listen to the health care workers and to the patients and their families.
Every person in the House, themselves or their families and certainly their constituents, knows full well what is taking place on the ground in health care. For God's sake, let us ensure that we talk about the reality on the ground and have the courage to implement the solutions and talk about the truth so that at the end of the day we will have a public health care system that is accessible, affordable and ensures that Canadians will get timely access to quality care across the country and that it is portable.
We should work with the provinces to implement those changes that are within our purview, as well as implement strategic preventive solutions. Some effective preventive solutions will decrease demand on our health care system, such as the issue of childhood obesity.
I know that members of the government will find in the opposition a vast array of individuals across all party lines who are willing to work together for the benefit of our country and to implement solutions that are based on fact, not on cheap politics.
