Debates of Oct. 25th, 2007

Opposition Motion—The Economy

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when the member talks about taxes, I find it very frustrating. He made the comment that I talked about the disparity between the rich and poor and how that gap was growing. He said that the poor did not pay income tax and that we should help them. I know he does not want talk about raising the personal income tax because the Conservatives have already done that. We brought it down, they raised it.

What they do not seem to understand is we are talking about investment in Canadians. We are talking about investing in people. The gap continues to grow because we are not investing in people who need help getting over the hurdles. We are talking about investing in post-secondary education and affordable housing.

When I meet with seniors in my riding, they are very disappointed that the Conservative government has not invested one penny in activities for seniors. In fact, it pulled back the $25 million from the past Liberal government on—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has said that she wants to stand up for women, for children, especially up in the north. I wish the member had the courage last night to stand up against the wrong agenda of the Conservative government.

I wish the member could say to the government that instead of more corporate tax cuts, money should be invested in northern areas, especially for aboriginal children. A lot of them are living in poverty. Money should be invested in housing so there would be a good standard of living and in clean water so one-third of the children would not have difficulty getting clean water in their reserves.

In the future I wish the member would vote against a budget that cuts the GST by 1¢. That $5 billion can be invested in the community that she talked about.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the member that the reason we have the current government is because of her party. Her party put the government in power.

When she talks about that community, I am talking about my community. I am talking about 33 first nations. Half of the fly-in communities in Canada are in the Churchill riding. I know very well about the challenges of remote communities. I know very well about the Kelowna accord, and it is the reason I ran in the last election.

However, when the member talks about children, clean drinking water, the Kelowna accord and Kyoto, I remind her and her party of this. The reason we lost Kelowna and Kyoto is because they put the government in power.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Trinity—Spadina.

It was amusing today to read the motion by the Liberals when last night the Liberals gave the Conservatives what they cannot get from the electorate, and that is a majority in the House. How can they criticize when they cannot perform their own functions in Parliament?

In some ways, though, the Liberals and the Conservatives come very close together. Really, we cannot expect much difference from them on economic policy.

The motion today, which talks about a number of things, may differentiate slightly on the details of how the Liberals would turn more money over to corporations, whether it is through income trusts or through more significant tax breaks for corporations, but they are after the same thing. They are together in this.

We do not see any trouble with their members moving from one side to the other, especially in the front benches where they really do have a great deal in common. They represent the interests of large corporations. They do not, in any way, represent the common people of this country, who, over the last 15 years, have been working more hours, getting paid less and are going into debt deeper and deeper. That is the situation for workers, ordinary people of this country. Both those parties follow the same line.

The working families of Canada expect their MPs to do their jobs. Northerners expect that I will do my job, which means standing up to the wrong-headed approach that the government is taking. I am sure the voters in Nunavut and Yukon expect the same. I am sure the voters in the Yukon did not expect their MP to be a pamphlet writer here in the last few days for the Conservative Party.

In some respects, what we have to show Canadians today is a clear message. On many of the most important aspects of our work in Parliament, determining the breakdown of how the economy will work, the level of resources that we are demanding from different sectors, from people and from businesses, we are seeing that those two groups are very close together.

If the Liberals had done their work, they would know that between 1993 and 1997 they were the ones who cut billions of dollars from post-secondary education. When they finally put money back in, it did not make up the difference that had been created from the original cutbacks.

To add insult to injury, the Liberals in 2004 combined post-secondary education with all other federal-provincial transfers making it impossible to determine how much was really being provided by the federal government for post-secondary education. That was kind of a neat accounting trick but it does not give good government.

If the Liberals had done their work on this motion today, they would have known that the last Liberal budget of 2005 contained zero new dollars for physical infrastructure for our communities. If they had done their job, they would have known that under the last Liberal government federal spending on transportation infrastructure fell by 46%. That is not the road to long term productivity.

If the Liberals had done their work before presenting this motion today, they would have known that their plan for research and development, which is to give greater tax breaks to businesses, does not work. Without connecting the tax breaks to actual research and development investment, there is no way of ensuring that the additional funds flowing from the lower tax rates actually go to research and development.

The Liberals' plan on research and development was an excuse to increase the prosperity gap between working Canadians and their big business friends.

The Alberta Federation of Labour stated:

The most efficient and simplest cure to the nation's lagging R&D would be to increase funding directly to the federal government's own under-appreciated research efforts and to commit significant new funds to the academic researchers at our universities.

That did not happen. It did not happen under the Liberals and it is not happening under the Conservatives.

Regular Canadians want leadership from their MPs, those in this House, and that is what we want to provide as well.

I have been providing leadership to our people in the north of this country by working to increase the northern residence tax deductions. In 20 years there has been no increase. This northern residence tax deduction could help productivity. Right now, throughout northern Canada, we have a tremendous productive zone making wealth for Canadians and fuelling the economy of southern Canada but the workers cannot afford to live there. The workers are not getting the kind of break that 20 years ago a previous Conservative government thought was a good idea for northerners. We have not seen any change in that amount over those 20 years.

However, what we have seen are significant increases in tax breaks for corporations and businesses.

In the last budget, the Conservatives said that we needed tax fairness, that the capital gains exemption for businesses had not been increased for 20 years. It was at $500,000 and they put it up to $750,000. They should look at all aspects of fairness in the system and, when they do, they will see that the northern residence tax deduction has suffered the same fate under the Liberals over those many years.

One aspect of the economy that was not mentioned in the throne speech and is not in the Liberals' motion is energy, the development and use of energy, and yet this issue is the largest single issue facing Canada and the world right now. We need a strategic approach to energy. It is being called for by provincial premiers, business leaders and academic research groups. Everyone is saying that we need to get together to create a strategic approach to energy in this country. Every other energy exporting country in the world has an approach that puts its country first. We need an approach to energy that puts Canada first.

In the Globe and Mail, Patrick Daniel, chief executive officer of the petroleum pipeline and distribution firm Enbridge Inc., said:

I firmly believe that developing and implementing a national energy strategy would help resolve many of the issues facing the oil and gas industries.

Mr. Daniel went on to say:

A national strategy would help in mapping our energy development agenda and serve to prioritize our initiatives, including R&D and training.

Why have these two governments not done this? Because both of them, the Liberal and the Conservative governments, have been too busy down in the United States selling out our energy future.

When will they put Canada first in energy and ensure that our children have a future that has reasonably priced energy for their homes and clean energy as well?

Direct Energy CEO, Deryk King, said in the same article:

We have a need for a national energy policy with federal-provincial co-operation.

On August 9, Canada's 13 premiers released a shared vision on energy that highlights the importance of energy conservation, supply and demand and infrastructure to Canada's prosperity, yet both these parties in their approach so far have said nothing about this incredibly important topic.

[An hon. member]

Shame.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

It is shameful.

Last year the Prime Minister talked about Canada becoming an energy super power. That is highly unlikely. We are heading in the other direction.

We need an energy security strategy. It would go a long way to build this economy, to build prosperity and to ensure we have a continued productivity increase.

We can show leadership on this side. We can address the questions that Canadians have.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that member and a number of other New Democratic members have spent a great deal of time talking about the GST and the fact that they do not want it reduced in any way.

If by some fluke the NDP were to form the government, which would be a remarkable situation, I would like the member to clarify what a New Democratic government would do with the GST? Would it keep it the same or would it increase it? I assume from his comments that he would increase it.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, in the last Conservative budget, it talked about fairness in taxation. I believe in fairness in taxation. I worked in the municipal system where we looked at fairness between various forms of tax bodies, which is what we need. We need to understand what we are delivering with the tax system. Yes, the GST is onerous and, yes, it applies to all of us, but at the same time we need the resources put back into Canadians.

With the failure to consider other forms of taxation, be it energy consumption taxation or corporate taxation, where do we go? We should go toward fairness. We should look at what we want to accomplish with the tax system and apply it accordingly in a fair and equitable fashion. That is how taxes should be dealt with in this country.

When the Conservatives say on the one hand that they can do this in the budget and it will be fair, why do they not apply it throughout the system? When I see actual effort on the part of any party to address fairness in taxation, I would certainly support that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP absolutely amaze me in how it attempts to change the channel from accepting the responsibility for its leader and really making the bid for the Conservatives to cut so many good programs in this country that the NDP actually believes in, like Kyoto, like Kelowna, like early learning and child care and like raising taxes for middle income people.

Instead of taking a whole lot of time, I will refer the member to a book for some evening reading. I would refer him to the book by Tom Flanagan called Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power, chapter 8--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Malpeque is an experienced member of the House and knows that he cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly. Somehow he will rephrase his question and get to the point so that the hon. member for Western Arctic will have time to respond.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, chapter 8, “Winning the Race 2005-2006, New Democrats, New Friends”. It is a good chapter for all Canadians to understand. Mr. Flanagan says:

No matter how well-designed our campaign had been, it would have been hard for us to win if the NDP had not held up its end.

Would the hon. member please accept responsibility for his leader making the bid for the Conservatives so they could kill the very programs that the NDP allegedly claims it believes in?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that it could only be a Liberal who would read the Conservative handbook that the right wing author has created. I would prefer to read something from Naomi Klein or somebody who actually has an analysis of the system that I could understand.

Canadian voters may make decisions. I have run in many elections. I have won some and I have lost some but I do not go around crying about it afterward. I accept what the voters say and I move on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want you to imagine what you could do with $60 billion.

Canada is a relatively large country with a very small population. We need more children in Canada. We need a vibrant economy. Yesterday was child care workers appreciation day. We do know that it takes a village to raise a child. We also know that early learning and child care is critically important. The first six years of a child's life is the time when the child is learning and the child's brain is developing the most. We need to invest to help young people, our children, to learn.

One would think that Canada would be investing in early childhood education and yet that is not what I see. On a day that is supposed to appreciate child care workers, I note that those very dedicated workers have an average income of $23,000. There are child care workers in my riding in Toronto who say that $23,000 is not enough money to take care of their own kids and still be able to pay the rent. Imagine earning $23,000 today. Child care workers have two years of early childhood education training. They have a college diploma. Yet still they make $23,000 a year. That is a very low wage.

As a result there is a large turnover in child care workers. The quality of early learning and child care is not improving. Here in Canada we are at the bottom of the heap. We have the lowest dollar amount of investment in all of the OECD countries. It is a shame that we are at the bottom of the heap. Not only is that a problem but there is a very huge multinational corporation involved in child care, called ABC Learning Centres, from Australia. It is organized and owned by a person nicknamed Fast Eddie.

The corporation has seen an opportune moment. It has a different name in Canada, 1,2,3 Busy Beaver, or something like that. That corporation is beginning to take over a lot of the child care operations in Canada. It is trying to buy them up. We are beginning to see big box child care in Canada. Why is that a problem? In Australia, for example, since the big box child care operation has come onto the scene, non-profit child care centres, mom and pop operations are being taken over by the company ABC Learning Centres. As a result, the wages and quality of service have gone down.

In Canada we need to invest in early childhood education from the funding from taxes. We need to have a legislative framework in the form of Bill C-303 to say that the kind of services we are developing in Canada have to be non-profit. The 10 years of corporate tax cuts represent at least $60 billion. Each year we are losing $13 billion that could be invested in early childhood education.

Not only should we invest in early childhood education, but we absolutely need to invest in young people. It is correct to say that in the last 10 years a lot of cuts have been made to post-secondary education. Tuition fees are putting tremendous pressure on many families. Young people in universities are struggling.

We need a new grants program in order to make post-secondary education more affordable. We need to expand the eligibility criteria for the debt reduction in repayment program. We have to increase federal transfers to the provinces to reduce tuition fees. We have to increase funding to support aboriginal students. We need to look at what kind of grant program we can offer to young people.

If we are looking at productivity and investing in our future, we also have to look at investing in immigrants. We have to bring more immigrants to this country.

I note the motion says that we have to deal with the foreign credential problem. This problem has been around for many years. We bring in new immigrants and yet we do not recognize their degrees. As a result, a lot of talent and skill is being wasted in this country. The Conference Board of Canada has said that we are losing at least $1 billion in earnings because new immigrants are not able to practise the profession they had in their home country. On the one hand we do not have enough nurses and doctors especially in our rural areas, and on the other hand, we are saying to these nurses and doctors that they cannot practise their profession in Canada. That is a waste of talent in this country. No wonder our productivity is slipping.

There has been a lot of debate today about how more corporate tax cuts by some magical means would increase our productivity. A graph would show that for the last 10 years our corporate tax rates have declined from 28% to 21%. Those rates will go down to 18.5% by 2011. That is a huge amount of money.

One would think that our productivity would be rising based on the kind of theory that is being thrown out by the Liberals and the Conservatives, but it is not. It has not increased because we are not investing in our young people, we are not investing in our children, and we are not investing in average Canadian families. We are not even investing in research and development. Those are the reasons that our productivity is dropping.

We are also not bringing enough immigrants into this country. One per cent of our population is supposed to be made up of immigrants, and yet over the last 10 years we have never brought anywhere close to 320,000 immigrants into this country. At most, we have brought in 260,000 or 265,000 immigrants. Canada needs more people. We need more young families. We need to invest in them and yet we are not doing so.

We are having this very artificial debate today about the GST, about the corporate tax cuts. What is the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives? Both parties are saying they will cut the corporate tax rate by 2% each year. There has been no change. That direction was started by the former Liberal government in 2000, and the Conservative government is just continuing with that trend.

With that $60 billion, not only could we invest in children, in new immigrants, and in young people, but we could also invest in our cities, in our crumbling infrastructure, the environment, in energy, to retrofit homes, in farmers, and in artists. There is so much we could do. This is a missed opportunity.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I did notice that my colleague referred to the whole issue of Canada supporting its children. I think she encouraged Canadians to have more children. I do not know if I misunderstood her, but I think I am correct that she was encouraging Canadians to have more children. Children are good.

However, she also focused on what she alleged to be a shortcoming in our government's approach to serving children. She decried the fact that we do not have a national day care program, institutionalized day care funded by the state.

My concern is this. The hon. member well knows that the large majority of Canadian children do not take advantage of day care. They have other models of care. For example, in my riding there is a large Indo-Canadian community. Many Indo-Canadian families have an intergenerational model of care, where the parents live with their children. The children go to work. The grandparents take care of the grandchildren. That is a different model. Others have stay at home parents, like we did. My wife was able to stay at home.

Yet the model that the member's party, the NDP, has promoted for many, many years is one which essentially has excluded those other models of child care. The NDP just like the institutionalized day care.

Why is it that for so many years her party has focused on that one group of children, but have omitted to address the needs of the majority of young children in our country?

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that 70% of mothers work. As a result, their kids, the children of working families, need to be taken care of by someone. Yes, there are some grandparents who can take care of the kids. My mother, for example, still lives in the house and when our kids were young, she occasionally assisted.

However, not every family is blessed with grandparents. Grandparents also from time to time have other needs. Grandparents also need support, which is why part of the child care program that we have been talking about is not just about child care from 9 to 5; it is also about a drop-in centre, a resource centre, so that the grandparents can meet with other grandparents with their grandkids in a school setting, for example. There would be a toy library, a place where they could share some ideas, where the kids could sing songs together and grandparents could talk to each other.

That kind of community based support is critically important, but it requires funding. Funding is needed to buy toys, funding to have a coordinated effort, funding for the grandfathers and grandmothers, for example, when they need to do something else so there would be some other kind of support.

Right now that choice is not available. There are thousands of families waiting for high quality, affordable child care. Your party recognized that because you said that you wanted 125,000 spaces created.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

That will end this question, especially because the hon. member referred to another hon. member in the second person when she knows very well that she should address her comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Newton—North Delta has time for a short question, straight to the point and no preamble.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep it short.

The NDP was happy to vote down a real child care plan for the chance to have a few more seats, including the seat of the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina. The NDP lost its credibility with all the voters when it comes to child care. How can she stand here and tell the House and the Canadian people that their credibility is not lost when it comes to child care?

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish the Liberal members of Parliament would just get over the fact that Canadians voted them out of power.

On the question of child care, what kind of national program is the Liberal member of Parliament talking about? We do not have a national program, because the Liberals never brought in legislation to create--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Social Development.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this important motion brought forward by the hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

I am very pleased that the Liberal Party has recently begun to show an interest in these issues. In bringing forward this motion, the Liberals' new-found interest allows me the opportunity to discuss this government's record, a record I will gladly compare to the previous government's any day.

It is the goal of this government to foster a workforce comprised of the most highly educated and highly skilled people on the planet. Continued success in the 21st century requires nothing less.

The efforts of this government will help to ensure that Canada maintains and expands its competitive edge in a global economy, but despite our great track record, we need to prepare for a world in which the economic prosperity of a country will increasingly depend on the skills and talents of its workforce.

We must continue to encourage and promote post-secondary education and skills training so Canadians can get the best jobs, earn the best living and give their children the best future.

We must also recognize the skills and talent of new Canadians and ensure that they can be put to good use in their new home. For too long, their talents have been wasted. This government will not let that continue. It is their futures that will determine the future of Canada.

I do not have to tell members that our economy is booming. Our unemployment rate, at 5.9%, is the lowest it has been in 33 years. Half a million jobs have been created in the past two years alone. Almost 80% of working age Canadians are in the labour force today, a record level.

The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have created the winning conditions so that more jobs, better wages and a brighter future can be enjoyed by everyone in our great country.

There is more good news. Over the next 10 years, we are expecting about 5.5 million job openings, and 1.7 million of those will be new jobs. A staggering 3.8 million jobs will open up as people retire from their existing careers.

The great economic challenge of yesterday was how to support Canadians in a time when workers outnumbered positions.

At the time, people were desperately looking for jobs.

Now employers are desperately looking for people with the right skills to fill those jobs. This is our challenge and it is a challenge the government is meeting head-on.

Business wrestles with these problems every day. Employers have looked to foreign workers with specialized skills as the immediate answer to this challenge. This is why, after 13 years of broken Liberal promises, this government has acted to improve the temporary foreign worker program and has instituted the foreign credential recognition secretariat so that finally the talents of new Canadians and foreign workers can be fully realized.

In fact, demand in the improved temporary foreign worker program has skyrocketed. In Alberta alone, the number of employer requests has increased by 200% over the same six month period last year.

While international talent can help us address our immediate concerns, the long term solutions to our labour market challenges are not only outside of our borders.

It is right here in our own backyard.

We need to tap into the human resource potential that the country has to offer but is currently not being used to its fullest extent. This government has acted to give Canadians already in the workforce new skills so that they can succeed in a new economy.

We have instituted the targeted initiative for older workers to help workers in sectors such as forestry who have been affected by downsizing. We have announced $500 million to provide additional training and employment supports for low-skilled workers and the unemployed who are not eligible for other forms of assistance. No government in history has invested more in training than this one.

A widely shared opinion is that the greatest competitive advantage a country can have today is an abundance of well educated people with relevant skills. I would go so far as to say that for every problem we have as a country today, the solutions begin with lots and lots of smart people.

Our government has a long term vision for our continued prosperity. A robust and vibrant post-secondary education system is a key component of our vision.

Advantage Canada is our long-term strategic plan for the economy.

It is designed to keep Canada at the forefront in the global economy. It focuses on creating five Canadian advantages that will help us improve our quality of life and succeed on the world stage: a tax advantage, a fiscal advantage, an entrepreneurial advantage, an infrastructure advantage, and the fifth, which is the one that is most relevant to my portfolio, a knowledge advantage. This will create the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world.

Given the importance of learning, creativity, innovation and skills in today's global economy, we cannot settle for anything less than first place in the knowledge based economy. Creating a knowledge advantage means that Canadian businesses, federal and provincial governments and educational organizations must all take action to achieve and deliver excellence so that Canada will succeed.

Access to post-secondary institutions and state of the art skills training is a critical pillar of our strategy to build jobs and prosperity for the future, where the previous government did not get the job done.

Our government has already begun to fulfill that commitment.

We have invested over $8.4 billion this fiscal year to support post-secondary education through transfers, direct spending and tax measures.

Where the Liberals cut, we have invested. Apparently they thought education was part of the problem. We see it as part of the solution. They cut more than $25 billion to the provinces for these priorities under the previous government. That is their record.

Starting next year, our government will invest an additional $800 million more per year for post-secondary education through direct transfers. That is a 40% increase in a single year.

We are providing $1 billion to provincial and territorial governments through the infrastructure trust fund for direct investments in post-secondary infrastructure and equipment to rebuild and renovate our campuses.

Under the previous government's watch, tuitions skyrocketed, attendance stagnated and infrastructure crumbled, yet there the hon. member and his party stand today, claiming to be the saviours of post-secondary education. Canadians know the truth.

As a society we need to find ways to see whether these significant investments are generating results for Canadians. Are we making progress in helping Canadians build the skills and competencies that employers will need and that will allow them not only to compete but prosper with the best in the world?

We are doing more than just investing money.

This government has provided tax measures to help students with the cost of textbooks. We have exempted scholarships and bursaries from income tax. These accomplishments will make it easier for students to pay for their education and will reward the hard work and excellence of our best and brightest.

Budget 2007 went even further. We committed $35 million over two years to expand the Canada graduate scholarships programs. This new money will give more young Canadians the chance to continue on to graduate level studies.

These funds will help 1,000 more students every year.

In addition, this government is making sure that more students are eligible under the Canada student loans programs. This government recognizes that not all parents are able to contribute to the cost of their children's education. The ability to pay cannot be a barrier to access if we are to succeed in the future.

This is why our government has cut the amount that parents are expected to contribute to their child's education. Now, more students will get the financial support to pay their own way and succeed in a new economy.

We have also made major improvements to the registered education savings plan by eliminating the annual contribution limit and increasing the lifetime contribution limit. These changes will make it easier for parents to save for their children's future.

We have also pledged to modernize and simplify the administration and delivery of student financial assistance, in part to make the system more user friendly and to make sure it meets the needs of Canadians who want to get a post-secondary education.

As the House knows, we recently held online consultations about the Canada student loan review.

The results of the review will be released in the 2008 budget.

We are also working to ensure that Canadians who face barriers to getting the skills and education they want can have access to post-secondary education.

We know that international students have a lot to contribute to Canada.

They enrich campus and community life with new ideas and new cultures, and they are an important pool of potential future skilled workers that Canadian businesses need to stay competitive.

People with disabilities also face barriers to getting the skills and education they want and deserve. In fact, statistics show that among adult Canadians with disabilities in 2001, only 29% received some form of post-secondary education. That is simply unacceptable.

Today, our economic circumstances are providing us with a unique opportunity and a responsibility to improve that statistic. Governments, businesses and post-secondary institutions have an opportunity to help in ways that really make a difference in the lives of each individual.

As a country we have a responsibility to do everything we can to succeed. For example, our government has invested $223 million to support programs delivered by the provinces and territories that help people with disabilities find and keep meaningful employment.

During the 13 years of Liberal rule, the total percentage of aboriginal Canadians with any kind of post-secondary education was only about 38%, a full 15% below the population as a whole. This disparity is reflected in the overall unemployment rate of aboriginals across the country, which stands at 19%, compared to the national rate of 5.9%. This government must and will do better.

In fact, we have already begun to act. Budget 2007 committed to more than doubling the size of the aboriginal skills and employment partnership program over five years, a program that really has produced results.

A university education is not right for everyone, nor will it answer all of our labour market needs going forward. The right people will find great success in the skilled trades, trades which are facing increased shortages across the country. An apprenticeship program is key to giving these people the tools they need to succeed.

That is why this government launched the apprenticeship incentive grant. Now, up to 100,000 apprentices can receive grants to help cover the cost of tuition, travel and tools in the first two years of this red seal trade program. This is real action and it is already getting real results.

This is our record. It is in stark contrast to the record of the former Liberal government. Like they have on so many other issues, the Liberals claim to stand up for students, for new Canadians, for education and for skills training, but their record is one of cuts and inaction.

Learning is essential for Canadians to acquire the skills they need to face today's labour market.

Quality skilled labour is vital to ensuring Canada's competitive advantage.

As we heard in the Speech from the Throne last week, Canada shines as an example of what a people joined in a common purpose can achieve. With the help of this government, our star will shine even brighter. Our greatest strength lies in our energy and determination to move forward and build a better future for all Canadians. We must work to produce even more skilled, innovative and highly educated citizens who can compete with the best in the world. Unlike the previous Liberal government, we will get the job done.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, most countries in the world have a “buy national” program. All G-8 countries do, and in the United States this is at 60%, including the final assembly. What plans does the government have to level the playing field for Canadian manufacturers?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the Minister of Finance introduced an accelerated capital cost allowance that is designed to help manufacturers with the cost of equipment and buildings. This is a very popular program.

In addition to that, we are investing, as I have already pointed out, more money in training than any government in the history of this country. That is extraordinarily helpful to people in the manufacturing sector, because despite the fact that there are layoffs today in that sector, there are also great skills shortages in that sector. That training will be extraordinarily helpful in terms of helping manufacturers get the people they need to remain competitive.

In addition, we have also outlined a suite of tax measures that we have already started to undertake and will undertake in the future. The fact is that today we are seeing some of the most optimistic labour markets we have seen in the history of the country, I would argue, because this government is showing real leadership on the economic front under the leadership of the Minister of Finance.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister talked about the importance of investing in young people. I cannot agree with him more. However, right now in his department the only way that a young person could get employment is for the young person to be out of school full time or out of work full time. Ordinary young teenagers, for example, who want to find a decent job after school will not benefit at all from the minister's department.

What I want to know is whether there could be any consideration for a year round program that is sort of like the ones that we had in the summer that to my mind were very successful and created thousands of jobs in every small and large community. Young people were able to find meaningful jobs in their own communities. Not only does it benefit young people, but it benefits a lot of the non-profit organizations. It also benefits the communities tremendously. It is a good investment.

I wonder whether the minister has any plan or is giving consideration to such an employment program.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my friend from Trinity—Spadina. She has raised this with me before.

Let me answer by saying that I am open to all ideas. One of my great preoccupations today is finding ways to ensure that we do have the best educated, the most skilled, and the most flexible workforce in the world, which is why we have invested so heavily in new training initiatives.

I think it is fair to say that the new labour market agreements that we announced in the budget and are now negotiating with the provinces can and will be used to help young people get into the workforce and receive the kind of training that the member mentions.

As I said at the outset, we are open to those ideas. I would be happy to discuss them with her a little bit more.