Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2007

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very concerning topic because in my region we have tens of thousands of new Canadians who are separated from their families and looking forward to the opportunity of bringing their families together.

We have the once in a lifetime bill that was proposed by the member for Hamilton Mountain. It is shameful that there was nothing in this throne speech to even begin to address that significant issue.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brant.

I am pleased to speak in response to the Speech from the Throne in this second session of the 39th Parliament. However, much like the original first session throne speech, there is a lot of rhetoric but little substance. Even worse, the new government has completely failed to live up to its billing in its first throne speech. I need to mention a couple of those points.

One of the reasons that I believe I need to mention that is because we really need to see specific legislation because the words of the government mean little other than to try to manipulate the public minds, in which it tries to leave the impression it will do something and does not do it. I will give a couple of examples.

In its highly publicized and propagandized Federal Accountability Act, the public appointments commission never came into being and yet Conservative political patronage just about flows like molten lava, frothing against what seems to be a brow-beaten federal bureaucracy and the appointments go through. I cannot understand how many of those appointments that are going through are strictly political patronage appointments coming out of former premiers' offices.

On accountability itself, the new government finds itself under three investigations and the Prime Minister fails to answer questions on those matters. Question period is dominated by the Conservative in and out scheme, in which the Conservative Party padded its last campaigns to the benefit of its national election spending.

Increasingly, there is evidence of the Prime Minister for the new government saying and doing two very different things. Nowhere is this more evident than the government's response to primary producers, the farmers of this country.

One of the new government's greatest failures is in agriculture. I want to spent a little time on that subject as agriculture critic for the official opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will remember the Prime Minister, in April of 2006, standing in this House and promising farmers cost of production. He even promised cash before spring. That cash never did come through. Did farmers see cost of production? Is a $720 cheque on a $60,000 loss meeting cost of production? No, I certainly think not.

The Prime Minister in fact broke his word and he cannot be trusted.

The former minister though did cancel the family farm options program that took $246 million directly out of hard-strapped farmers' pockets. Again, the Conservatives broke their commitment to hard-pressed farmers in this country.

The Prime Minister did in fact keep one commitment. He did not have the right to make that commitment, mind you, and he attempted to do it illegally. He attacked the Canadian Wheat Board and its duly elected farmer board of directors. The only thing that stopped the Prime Minister from his ideological attack on the Wheat Board was that the federal court ruled that the Prime Minister, the Government of Canada, broke the law of this country. That is a Prime Minister who claims to talk about law and order but, against the advice of the Department of Justice, he went out there hoping that farmers would not challenge him in court, which they did, and he was stopped by the Federal Court of Canada for trying to do an illegal act.

Obviously, the bottom line is that the Prime Minister cannot be trusted, especially when it comes to the farm community. He cannot be trusted on accountability. The evidence is in. He cannot be trusted on his word to farmers because he failed to meet cost of production. He cannot even be trusted on law and order because the federal court has basically claimed that he was involved in an illegal act.

The throne speech absolutely fails to address the agricultural concerns of our country. The government has failed to follow through on its commitment to farmers in the last election. The throne speech has failed to demonstrate any concern for the plight of beef and hog producers facing historic low prices. It has failed to address the unfair trade practices used by our competitors internationally. It has failed to bring in more aggressive safety net programming to deal with low farm incomes and high debt. It has failed to propose implementation of an all party agriculture committee recommendation to deal with the farm crisis.

That all party committee made 36 recommendations, any number of which the Government of Canada could have picked up. For example, it could have ensured that a product in a box was a product of Canada. The government failed to pick up that recommendation. It could have ensured that imported food met the same standards as those that Canadian farmers have to meet. It failed on that one and failed to pick up on 34 others.

If the Conservatives really wanted to go a little further out on a limb, they could have gone back to a report that I drafted in 2005 called “Empowering Canadian Farmers in the Marketplace”. They could have picked up on any number of recommendations in my report, such as strengthening the Competition Act so farmers had some protection or policies to help farmers receive decent prices from the marketplace. Again, they failed in that regard.

Let me mention where the government has tried again to manipulate the public mind through the throne speech.

The throne speech claims support for supply management. However, with the government's targeted attack on the orderly marketing of the Canadian Wheat Board, which appears in the very same paragraph, it is demonstrating complete hypocrisy and an absolute contradiction of its stated support.

Actions speak louder than words. The Prime Minister stated “he will enact market choice” for western grain farmers. This completely undermines collective marketing through either the Canadian Wheat Board or supply management.

Let me be clear. The alleged support for supply management in the throne speech is an absolute and complete fraud, nothing less, nothing more. We just need to look at the paragraph. If there is choice in one marketing system, it has to be allowed in the other. It will undermine collective marketing, which empowers farmers in Canada to receive decent returns in the marketplace. Obviously that point is in the throne speech for consideration only.

Let me come back for a moment to hogs. The hog industry is in terrible trouble. Let me quote a letter from a person in my riding:

I'm not angry, just resigned to the fact that the Canadian government is stepping away from small independent production models in agriculture.

Perhaps if that is going to be the policy they can help farmers exit with some dignity and maybe their house.

In P.E.I. alone, in the last several months producers accounted for some 2,500 sows that went out of business. That is the equivalent of 80,000 hogs. This industry is in trouble, yet there is not a word in the speech about the hog industry and hog production.

There is not a word about beef either in the Speech from the Throne. Beef producers find themselves in the situation where they are receiving around $900 when they were receiving $1,400.

I would love to get into the government's failure in terms of coming up with a safety net, but let me conclude this way.

The throne speech sets out the government's vision for the near term future of our country. There are only 60 words in the speech that are devoted to the government's vision for an industry that provides the food we eat each and every day. Only 60 words have been given to the industry that provides jobs and sustains communities. The Conservatives spend more time attacking a marketing institution than talking about a vision that would put income and returns in the pocket of farmers.

The throne speech is absolutely unacceptable. The government is an abject failure in terms of what it is doing, or not doing, for the farm community.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by identifying the absolute hypocrisy in the member's speech. I am offended and so are the producers in my riding of Peterborough, who wholeheartedly rejected his government's vision of agriculture. That was the government of the CAIS program. That government was so complicit on supply management that it allowed milk protein concentrates to escalate in the country. It allowed butter oils to come into our country. It took away 15% of the dairy market in our country and there was not a word from that government.

The Conservative government has moved on compositional standards for cheese. We have moved on article 28 to protect supply management.

The Liberals were also complicit on BSE. When we saw it breakout in the early 1990s in the United Kingdom, what did the Liberals do to protect Canadian farmers? Nothing. BSE absolutely decimated the beef industry in our country and that government wears it because it was complicit to it.

I have heard enough about the Wheat Board. Sixty-three per cent of farmers said that they wanted a choice and the Liberal Party said they should not have one. Those farmers will render their decision on the Liberal Party at some point in the not too distant future.

Our government will take no lessons from the former government on agriculture because it decimated agriculture in our country. This government is providing some of the best times for agriculture that our country has seen in decades. I am proud of it.

I would love to hear him comment on some of that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member seems to be the attack dog for the Conservative Party these days. All he needs to do is look in the mirror. That member stood on the stage and said, “the CAIS program would be destroyed”, that the Conservatives would end the CAIS program.

What did the Conservatives do? They changed the name. AgriStability is the new CAIS program. They have failed to change it. The former minister of agriculture, the one who was fired for failing to meet the mission of the Prime Minister in getting rid of the Wheat Board, went out to farm community in Ontario. Ontario farmers want business risk management. They want companion programs. They want regional flexibility. What did the minister from the Conservative Government of Canada say to them, “absolutely no”.

That member does not represent farmers in his riding. He is applauding the moves of his government. I know there is only one minister in that government and that is the Prime Minister. The member is like many of the rest, a trained seal sitting in the back corner to take his direction from the PMO.

It is time he stood up for farmers in his riding and for farmers in Ontario and demanded business risk programming for those farmers.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. There is still two and a half minutes left for hon. member's questions and comments period. I am having a great deal of difficulty hearing both the question and the answer.

I will go to the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood for another question or comment.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick question for the hon. member. It says in the throne speech:

Together with our Government’s strong support for Canada’s supply-managed system, these approaches will deliver stable, predictable and bankable support for farm families.

Is there a more silly statement in the throne speech?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is one of the silliest statements in the throne speech. The fact is we have to look at what the government says and what it does.

I have outlined from the previous throne speech how the government failed absolutely to meet the needs of the farm community. We do not expect any better from this throne speech.

We know the government took $246 million out of the pockets of farmers on the family farm options program. By undermining the Canadian Wheat Board, we know the Conservatives are trying to take $655 million, which the Wheat Board maximizes in returns back to Canadian farmers.

Who will make that gain? It will be the grain trade in the United States, the corporate grain sector. Is that who members on the other side really want to represent, the corporate grain trade, rather than the primary producers of our country who are suffering?

We cannot believe those words.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all four political parties have different sentiments regarding the Speech from the Throne. Canadians have said, overwhelmingly, that they do not want an election. The Liberal Party understands this and we will continue to make the government work, despite obvious Conservative attempts to orchestrate its own defeat.

Ontarians went to the polls less than two weeks ago. Saskatchewan will be voting in two weeks time and Newfoundlanders voted just two weeks ago today. Canadians are justifiably tired of elections and they want to see this Parliament work.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the Speech from the Throne and to voice some of my concerns with it, concerns on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Brant.

I will deal with the manufacturing sector. Although it was mentioned, albeit briefly, along with the forestry, fisheries and tourism sectors, I was troubled by the Prime Minister's failure to mention any specifics regarding a plan to support Canada's ever important manufacturing sector. As manufacturing jobs are being lost in Ontario and elsewhere across Canada, the Conservative government is doing virtually nothing to stop this very significant job loss crisis. I am fearful that the government does not fully comprehend the consequences of its inaction.

Canada has lost over 300,000 manufacturing jobs since 2002 and real output in manufacturing is declining, not just employment. For instance, value added GDP is below its year 2000 peak. Some argue that manufacturing is simply becoming more efficient and that is why it is shedding jobs. In reality the entire sector is shrinking.

As a country, Canada is especially sensitive to exchange rate concerns since fully 90% of our exports go to the United States. We are thus much more vulnerable than Europe, Japan, China and India to changes in the international value of the U.S. dollar. With our dollar now at par with the U.S. dollar, the government must come to understand that reliance on a weak Canadian dollar is not a strategy. It is certainly not an effective strategy with respect to preserving Canada's manufacturing sector.

A manufacturing sector under pressure clearly affects the 2.1 million Canadians who work in the sector as well as their families. Job loss in this critical sector affects the millions more jobs that depend on manufacturing as the engine of our economy, especially in Ontario.

In my riding of Brant, with a population of some 130,000 individuals, the manufacturing sector is represented by six of the top ten employers. Therefore, I urge the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry to at least match what the Ontario Liberals are doing for the manufacturing sector.

Premier McGuinty's Liberals put together a $500 million package that attracted over $7 billion worth of new investment in the auto sector. The Ontario government also improved the tax credit available to businesses, which take on the important task of training of future skilled workers. This incentive is designed to reduce training costs in an effort to get more young people into skilled trade apprenticeship programs. Education sources confirm that students are lining up to enter the skilled trades, but have been unable to secure training positions for the essential hands-on portion of their programs.

Clearly the Ontario government is helping out.

How should the federal government? For starters, the federal government could adopt the 22 recommendations made by the House of Commons industry committee, including the key recommendation of a five year window for writing off capital investments at an accelerated rate.

The purpose of that window obviously is to encourage investment in the equipment needed to regain and enhance Canada's competitiveness. Instead, the Minister of Finance has reduced that window to just two years, not enough time for businesses to properly plan and three years less than the all-party committee itself recommended.

While Canada's manufacturing sector clearly struggles, the booming oil sands industry continues to enjoy a much more generous accelerated capital cost allowance, an advantage which will continue at least for the oil sands until 2015.

Many business leaders have justifiably called for an extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance for the manufacturing and processing industries. This is especially true with the Canadian dollar at par. It has never been more affordable for Canadian businesses to invest in new machinery and equipment.

Canada needs to create more investment, to create rising living standards, to create the jobs of tomorrow in the Canada of today, to create a competitive tax system, to create a true Canadian corporate advantage.

I was also bothered to hear virtually nothing in the Speech from the Throne about poverty. We need a plan to fight poverty. Poverty today for many Canadians is a reality, a reality that mocks the prosperity known by most Canadians. Today in Canada more than half a million of our senior citizens live in poverty.

The men and women who built this country deserve much better. Pension splitting I concede is of some assistance for seniors with partners, but what about those seniors without partners? What about the hundreds of thousands of single seniors? There is no mention whatsoever in the throne speech of anything that will help single seniors.

What about the disabled? It is to Canada's shame that over 50% of disabled individuals cannot find employment. These are individuals who through no fault of their own were born visually impaired, born hard of hearing, born physically disabled. Surely in arguably the fairest, freest, finest country on earth everyone without exception deserves a chance, deserves an opportunity, deserves the affirmation and the self-esteem which accompanies a job, which accompanies a place in the workforce.

For Canadians who do not face physical challenges, the unemployment rate is around 6% or 7%. For Canadians with disabilities, the unemployment rate is in excess of 50%. This is shameful. There is no mention in the throne speech about incentives for corporations or businesses to hire individuals with disabilities.

I commend the Minister of Finance for a provision with respect to severely disabled children, but those are the children. What about disabled adults in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s who want to work but have no opportunities presented to them? I think it is time with a $14 billion surplus that this country come to the aid of those individuals who have disabilities.

I appreciated this opportunity to speak in the debate on the Speech from the Throne.

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to poverty in his speech. I would like him to comment on a specific population that is affected by poverty: our seniors.

Guaranteed income supplement recipients who are getting the maximum benefit are living under the poverty line. The current Conservative government, which has been in power since 2006, has given no real indication, either in the throne speech or in its actions, that it intends to address this dramatic situation.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. The premise of her question is that governments have a responsibility to incrementally, slowly but surely, narrow the gap between those who have and those who have not.

There are many seniors who have not. They have not enough and they have no opportunity, because of their age, to better their situation. They have left the workforce on a permanent basis. I agree with the member that there has been no provision for seniors for many months.

Again, with the $14 billion surplus available to the Minister of Finance and the government, more could and certainly should be done for Canada's seniors.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are many seniors who are having difficulty finding money to buy prescription drugs. These seniors are having difficulty finding affordable home care, finding high quality services so they can stay in their homes. Some of them have difficulty in paying nursing homes that have decent nursing care.

The member talked about the importance of narrowing the prosperity gap, the gap between those who are rich and those who are having difficulty making ends meet. However, I noticed the Liberals' record while they were in government that there was a huge tax cut of $100 billion which started in 2000. Each year since then, until 2006, there is almost $50 billion to $54 billion in tax cuts. This means that Canada has fewer financial resources to invest in seniors to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. The prosperity gap continues to grow.

How would the member justify that kind of huge corporate tax cut? I recently heard the Liberal leader saying that it is the direction in which he would like to take Canada.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, something that often escapes members of the New Democratic Party is that business creates wealth. The private sector goes a long way toward creating wealth. At times the member and her colleagues rather forget that simple lesson of economics.

The Liberal Party wishes to foster a competitive business climate in this country that will assist every single Canadian.

If the member wants to go back 10 years and talk about the Liberal record when the Liberals were in power, that is her prerogative, but frankly, we prefer as a party to look to the future. We prefer to move forward and not replay the past.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak concerning the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

As the Speech from the Throne made clear, the Government of Canada will continue to build a better Canada by focusing on five clear priorities: first, strengthening Canada's sovereignty and place in the world; second, building a stronger federation; third, providing effective economic leadership; fourth, continuing to tackle crime; and finally, improving our environment.

Our government will continue to provide Canadians with the economic leadership they want and deserve. That leadership has delivered practical and positive results. Today, after 21 months of Conservative government, our economy is strong and our finances are healthy. We have the right long term economic plan for Canada, called Advantage Canada, a plan that will give us the means to deliver on all of our commitments set out in the Speech from the Throne.

After 21 months, by any measure our economic and fiscal fundamentals are the strongest they have been in a generation. Canadians are enjoying the second longest period of economic expansion in Canadian history. Canada's unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in 33 years and the share of adult Canadians participating in the workforce is at a record high. In fact, since our government took office, employment has increased by more than 590,000 jobs, with employment up in every province in Canada. Indeed, Canada is one of the few countries with a public pension system that is financially sustainable.

This past weekend, I met with my G-7 finance minister counterparts in Washington. While we have much in common, Canada stands alone in one key respect. We are the only G-7 country with budget surpluses and a falling debt burden. That is something of which all Canadians can be proud.

There are many reasons why our country is doing so well: strong consumer demand and employment growth; record high commodity prices; near record corporate profits, which have boosted investment; low stable inflation; and a shrinking tax burden. I will have more to say about the state of the Canadian economy shortly when I release the fall economic and fiscal update.

Thanks to our strong economic and fiscal fundamentals, we have what it takes to deal with any existing or new challenges to the nation's future prosperity. One such challenge is the potential for weaker growth in the United States and overseas as the United States housing market continues to contract and recent turbulence in global financial markets continues.

Another challenge, of course, is the rapid appreciation of the Canadian dollar vis-à-vis the U.S. currency. On the one hand, our stronger dollar should lower costs for imported machinery and equipment for businesses, and it should also reduce prices for consumer goods. On the other hand, we recognize it has been a real challenge for the manufacturing, forestry and other exporting sectors.

Finally, Canada is on the verge of a demographic change with the rapid aging of our population. This issue will affect all levels of government as the share of the working age population begins to decline.

While challenges are out there, they are not insurmountable. Private sector forecasters expect continued economic growth over the next two years. What does that mean for the government's finances? It means government revenues should remain strong and government finances healthy. It means we can continue to eliminate debt, reduce taxes and invest in the priorities of Canadians.

We live in an exciting, changing, challenging world, a world where people, jobs and investment move more rapidly across the globe than ever before. It is a world Canada is more than capable of taking on.

Our government recognized early on that building an even greater country for our children and grandchildren requires a solid plan, a plan to create jobs, keep unemployment low, reduce taxes, reward hard work and help people get ahead. That is why in November 2006 we unveiled our long term economic plan, Advantage Canada, a plan to make Canada a world leader for today's generation and for generations to come.

Advantage Canada focuses on creating five key advantages: first, a fiscal advantage eliminating Canada's total government net debt in less than a generation; second, a tax advantage reducing taxes for all Canadians and establishing the lowest tax rate on new business investment in the G-7; third, an entrepreneurial advantage creating a business environment that unlocks private investment by reducing taxes, reducing unnecessary regulation, reducing red tape; fourth, a knowledge advantage creating the best educated, most skilled, most flexible workforce in the world; and fifth, an infrastructure advantage building modern infrastructure to ensure the seamless flow of people, goods and services.

Advantage Canada was designed not only to provide our country with a clear long term economic vision, but also the ability to adjust to ever changing global realities. It is an ambitious plan. Just as important, it is a practical one.

This government has not allowed Advantage Canada to become another document accumulating dust on a shelf. Over the last 21 months we have been creating an environment for further investment by reducing taxes significantly for individuals, families and business, a $41 billion reduction over three years and by moving Canada's overall tax rate on new business investment from third highest to second lowest in the G-7 by 2011.

We released a plan to create a Canadian advantage in global capital markets, a plan designed to achieve increased protection and income for investors, better jobs, more investment and prosperity. We set out a global commerce strategy. This is a new course for Canada's engagement in commercial relations worldwide and we released a new science and technology plan to guide future government decision making.

After years of debate we have restored fiscal balance in Canada. These achievements are clear evidence of a government ready and willing to go a little further and reach a little higher.

On building a fiscal advantage for Canadians we have already made a significant down payment that any homeowner can appreciate. We have reduced the federal debt by more than $27 billion over the past two years or more than $1,142 for every man, woman and child in Canada. This is at the same time provincial and territorial governments will have reduced their debt by almost $40 billion.

What does this mean for Canadians? This means that we are paying off the national mortgage and at the same time reducing taxes even further. Under our tax back guarantee we are giving Canadians a direct stake and a direct benefit in how we manage government finances on their behalf. We are dedicating all interest savings from the shrinking public debt to further reduce personal income taxes. To date we have provided Canadians with over $1.5 billion in annual personal income tax relief as a result of our tax back guarantee.

We also intend to focus future federal-provincial discussions on strengthening the economic union by improving regulatory efficiency and removing barriers to internal trade and labour mobility in Canada.

On creating a tax advantage, I have already described the tax back guarantee. We have reduced taxes for Canadians by over $41 billion over three years and yet that is not enough. Canadians still pay too much tax and deserve to keep more of their hard-earned tax dollars.

We have taken initial steps also to bring forward the working income tax benefit which the official opposition failed to do and this is to help Canadians who are receiving social assistance to get into the workforce and not have all of their benefits clawed back so that it is not worthwhile for someone to enter the workforce in Canada. We need people to enter the workforce. We have labour shortfalls across Canada and this is a good way of moving forward on that agenda.

The entrepreneurial advantage is important. Reducing red tape is very important. We need to support the RCMP and industries, as we have indicated in the Speech from the Throne. Also requiring assistance are the forestry industry and of course the automotive industry which is facing some manufacturing challenges as are other manufacturing industries, particularly in Quebec and Ontario.

We have accomplished a great deal in the first 21 months. Of course there is more to do. That is why we have the five new clear priorities that will enable us to build a legacy of peace and prosperity.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised by what the Minister of Finance said. The throne speech contains absolutely nothing for the manufacturing industry or the forestry industry in particular.

I would remind the minister that since April 1, 2005, 21,000 workers who depended on forestry for their livelihood—including plant workers, forestry workers, machinists and truckers—have lost their jobs and 156 plants have closed.

The situation throughout Quebec is catastrophic. Many towns are threatened, and many regions are in difficulty because of the forestry crisis. What is more, the federal government has cut $68 million from the budget of the Economic Development Agency of Canada, money that was to go to help communities in difficulty.

Will the Minister of Finance promise to reinvest massively in the Economic Development Agency of Canada and help affected communities? Absolutely nothing has been done to date and absolutely nothing will be done in the future, judging by the throne speech. The government claims that it is sensitive to this issue, but it has not announced any real measures.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member opposite knows, the unemployment rate in Canada is the lowest it has been in more than a generation. It is the lowest it has been in 33 years.

It is true that there have been losses in the manufacturing sector, particularly in central Canada. Fortunately, those folks who are losing their jobs are largely being able to obtain new employment, good jobs by the way, in the service sector. Indeed, this is part of what has happened internationally in terms of the developed countries having strongly growing service sectors.

Having said that, regarding the forestry sector and other manufacturing sectors, in the last budget we brought in a very large, accelerated capital cost allowance provision, estimated to cost about $1.3 billion. This is to permit our manufacturers to get brand new machinery and equipment over two years and write it off over that period of time. That is the way we are going to keep manufacturing strong in Canada: by moving up the scale and making sure that our manufacturers have the best and most productive technology.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members of the House might know the story of old King Canute, who hundreds of years ago took his throne to the beach, ordered the tides not to rise and his feet got wet.

I would submit that the minister is Canada's new King Canute. He goes to bankers and says, “Let the bank rates come down”, and the bankers say, “Get lost, king”. Then he goes to the retailers and says, “Let the prices come down”, and the retailers say, “Get lost, king”.

The point is that the minister is engaging in blatant posturing in matters over which he has achieved nothing and has no leverage. Is he not embarrassed at this blatant political posturing?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I knew the member for Markham—Unionville was the president of the GST club. I did not know his contemporary was King Canute, but I guess he has been having informed discussions with that person.

I congratulate him and his leader for their persistence in raising the GST. They want to get that GST up. His leader has called it wasteful that we are reducing the GST. They want to raise taxes for Canadians by $12 billion, led by the finance critic, the member for Markham—Unionville, and the Leader of the Opposition. These are the people who are asking Canadians for some credibility. They want to raise their taxes by $12 billion, something they think is a good thing to do. I do not think Canadians agree with them.

I am very proud of the fact that ATM users in Canada, seniors, students and people with disabilities, all got positive responses from the banks in Canada. I know the member for Markham—Unionville does not care about those people. We accomplished that. The Liberals did nothing, which is what they usually do.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that the minister talked about reducing the deficit by $24 billion. What he did not talk about was the social deficit that he has increased in this country.

I want to know about the deficit of 200,000 homeless Canadians. I want to know about the deficit where there are no additional child care spaces. I want to know about the deficit where 1.6 million children live in poverty in this country. I would also like to know about the $100 billion municipal infrastructure deficit, the loss of 300,000 jobs, and the additional 33,000 jobs that we are going to lose because of this Korean free trade deal.

I want to know what the minister is going to do about the social deficit the government has created?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Minister of Finance has approximately 30 seconds to respond.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the WITB program, not only because it is my riding of Whitby--Oshawa, but it is the working income tax benefit.

I do not know why the NDP votes against it. The New Democrats say they care about working people. They say they care about people getting engaged in the workforce. Here is a government program and initiative that helps people on social assistance come into the workforce and they are against it.

They talk about caring, but when it comes to actually taking action that helps real people in Canada get to work and support their families, they vote against it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I notice that the hon. Minister of Finance only used 10 minutes of his allotted 20 minute time slot. Was it his intention to share his time?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member for Mississauga South on a point of order.