Debates of May 8th, 2008

Opposition Motion--The Economy

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP for introducing this very important motion today. It really deals with the hearts of many of the constituents that we serve.

My colleague on the other side has a lot of experience, as we all do, with this issue. I would like to ask him whether or not he thinks it would be intelligent for the government to, yes, lower taxes for those who are in the poorest economic brackets but also to provide a Canadian low income supplement for those who make less than $25,000 a year.

In doing so, it could be an effective redistribution of money for those who need it across age groups, which would include singles, families, the young and the old. The premise, the condition, would be based on the amount of income that one makes.

We all see the number of people, whether they are seniors living in penury, families trying to make ends meet, or singles who are living hand to mouth, who have the fundamental challenge of not having enough money in their pockets to pay for their basic needs.

I would like to ask the member, what is his opinion on a Canadian low income supplement? I have a private member's bill to do this. The amount of $2,000 would go into the hands of people who make less than $20,000 a year, and which would decline linearly to $40,000. In doing so, we would actually get real money into the hands of those who need it the most, and it would not compromise our economics or negatively hurt our private sector.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that helpful suggestion and certainly, it is something that we should be considering.

We have said, in this corner of the House, that the child tax benefit should be increased and that if the Conservatives had put the money from their increased baby bonus, their so-called child care program, into the child tax benefit, it would be at a level that actually delivers serious assistance to families with children in Canada.

That is the kind of measure that we think should have been taken by now and it would have been a much better way to spend the money that went into this failed child care program of the Conservative government.

However, we are not going to be able to do any of these kinds of programs if we continue the kind of tax cutting program that the Conservatives are on, when they have gutted the fiscal capacity of government to assist Canadians who need the help of government, who need the collective support of their fellow citizens across the country. That is what we use our tax system to do.

Instead, we have given away billions of dollars to the wealthy and to profitable corporations, to big polluters in Canada, and we continue to do that at the expense of hurting the government's ability to assist Canadians with the kinds of programs that would really make a difference in their lives.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that really confounds me about this motion is that it flies in the face of the facts on how the Canadian economy is actually doing.

The Canadian economy is outperforming, by any measure, any other economy in the G-7. Employment is up. We have the lowest unemployment level in over 33 years. We have year after year salary increases of some 4.5%. We have reduced taxes.

I cannot tell members how many families, how many seniors, have come to me and thanked me for reducing their tax burden and how much that means to them. Regular everyday people are benefiting. The domestic economy is strong, very strong. We see domestic demand for everything from autos to homes. It is incredibly strong.

I do not understand the premise of this motion. I think the NDP, just like the Liberals and the Bloc, is looking for an issue, but quite frankly, Canadians are not going to buy it. They know the economy is good. I would love to know why the member is not speaking to the facts.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member can justify the loss, just this year alone, of 55,000 manufacturing jobs, jobs that pay good wages, that have benefits associated with them, replaced by part time jobs, by low paying jobs with no benefits. That is not the kind of healthy economy that we in this corner anticipate or look forward to, or think Canadians want to participate in.

I would encourage him to maybe drop down to Oshawa and give that answer, or to Windsor and give that answer, or to come to Vancouver Island, where folks in the forestry industry are being laid off and are not being eligible for employment insurance benefits, or find that they run out after a very short period of time. He should try that answer in those communities and see what kind of feedback he gets.

Those are the people whom we are concerned about here and we want to make sure that Canadians have well paying jobs that have benefits. We want to make sure that Canadians are eligible for employment insurance, a program that over the last few years governments have taken billions of dollars out of and not put into benefit programs. In fact, governments have kept cutting back on the EI program. Indeed, some of us believe that some of the progress that was made on the deficit and the debt was made on the backs of workers who contributed to the EI program.

We need a program that actually assists people who are out of work in this country. EI used to be that kind of program. Sadly, it has been gutted and it is only a shadow of its former self.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak in opposition to today's motion.

This House is going to hear a lot of rhetoric from the NDP during the course of today, a lot of skewed statistics, in fact we have already heard some, and a lot of misinformation.

Before continuing, I would like to refute something we have heard repeatedly from the NDP. If one were to only listen to that party on the issue of the Canadian economy, one would think we were in the midst of the Great Depression with double digit unemployment. It is disappointing the NDP would paint such a pessimistic picture for Canadians, especially when we consider the actual state of our economy and the job market.

We all acknowledge that certain sectors of the economy, like manufacturing, are having trouble adjusting to Canada's changing economy. We have unfortunately seen some job losses specifically in these sectors. This must be truly difficult for those directly affected. We need perspective here, however. The Canadian job market has remained exceedingly healthy under our Conservative government and let us review some of the facts.

Over the past 12 months, 325,000 net new jobs have been created, 100,000 plus net new jobs in this year alone. What is more, the unemployment rate is near a 33 year low with the share of the adults working at a record high rate. Overall, net employment is up over three-quarters of a million since we took office in 2006 in all regions of this country, with full time jobs accounting for 80% of that increase.

One would hope that even the NDP would recognize that the robust job creation we are seeing in Canada is good and the best way to ensure that our economic prosperity is broadened. If they do not believe me, they should listen to their NDP colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, who we need to recognize this morning. I think he may actually be at the hospital getting a cast on his wrist as a result of one of the page's trying very actively to score a goal on him in a soccer game last night. Our thoughts are with that member.

I will quote the hon. member who, during an exchange in this very House in February last year with the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, stated the following:

He said that the best social program is a job; that the best thing we can give Canadians is a full time job. He was absolutely right. When Canadians have jobs that they like and can depend on to look after their families, they have pride and dignity.

I could not agree more with the NDP member. I further want to briefly clarify something we will also hear today about new net job growth in Canada. Often, observers on the left, when trying to paint a doom and gloom scenario, will dismiss positive job numbers, claiming new jobs being created are in sectors of the economy that are not as high paying or as high quality. Let us be clear. That is not the case. New jobs being created today are largely equivalent to or are of greater quality than those being lost. Listen to CIBC economist Benjamin Tal, who said:

Not only did the Canadian economy generate close to 400,000 new jobs in 2007, but the vast majority of them were in high-paying sectors...in Canada the loss of manufacturing jobs is being offset by job gains in sectors with equivalent and higher employment quality.

However, as I mentioned previously, we are seeing specific sectors of the economy bearing the brunt of this economic volatility.

As a trading nation fully emerged in the global economy and international financial markets, it is only natural that we would be facing economic challenges from outside our borders. As the United States is our largest trading partner, we are bound to feel the impact of its economic slowdown, especially on our exports. Additionally, the weak U.S. dollar has caused the value of the Canadian dollar to appreciate thus challenging the manufacturing, tourism and forestry sectors.

We are further seeing increasing economic competition from abroad, especially emerging economies like China, Brazil and India. Unfortunately, this is leading to job losses in Canada. We recognize that and we are taking real concrete action to assist those workers in communities that are affected.

That is why we are investing $1 billion in the community development trust. This money will support provincial and territorial initiatives that help communities, as well as help workers transitioning from the economic challenges of today into the opportunities of tomorrow. The fund will provide for job training and community transition plans that foster economic development and create new jobs, and infrastructure development to promote economic diversification.

I would note the reaction to our initiative has been overwhelmingly positive. It was unanimously endorsed in Parliament through Bill C-41. It was also supported by provincial premiers of all political stripes across Canada. New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham was “pleased that the Prime Minister and his government have made this commitment”. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty applauded it as well saying that it is “good for the people of Ontario. The Prime Minister has done something which we've been asking of him”. Even Manitoba's NDP Premier Gary Doer has praised our initiative by stating, “I also believe that this is very, very important to the regions and the communities in Canada and the money will be very, very helpful and important”.

This Conservative government's approach has been to encourage economic growth and job creation while simultaneously assisting those facing economic downturns. It has been an approach of balance. I am not merely referring to balanced budgets, although we have of course three of those already completed. I am also referring to a prudent, long term approach addressing the priorities of Canadians. That includes lowering taxes, reducing debt and carefully managing government spending. That approach will allow Canada the ability to face the upcoming economic challenges.

Indeed, our solid economic and fiscal situation has put Canada in a position of strength, well prepared to meet future challenges head on. However, we cannot rise to a strong position like this in a hit and miss fashion. In times of economic uncertainty, Canadians cannot afford leaders who would advocate panicky, band-aid and ultimately short term solutions. These are not solutions but rather, irresponsible attempts at public policy that would lead to deficits and higher taxation that would only drive businesses and jobs away, in effect only exacerbating the economic downturn it has attempted to correct and further disadvantaging those Canadians for whom today's motion purports to speak.

The sponsor of today's motion, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, should know that better than most members in this House. In the early 1990s he served provincially as a member in Ontario's disastrous NDP government under the leadership of the then premier, the current Liberal member for Toronto Centre. That NDP government in Ontario reacted to economic turbulence not through prudence but through panic, and panic at a price. The NDP government's first budget alone tripled Ontario's deficit to $9.7 billion, and increased to $10.1 billion in its final year. The damage was long term, leaving future generations to pay the price.

As Sun Media columnist Lorrie Goldstein reminded us earlier this week, the NDP government, which the member for Sault Ste. Marie belonged to:

--ended up doubling the province's debt in five years.

What that disastrous experiment showed is what nanny states forget--they can't command the economy to do what they want and when they try, the usually make things worse.

Even the member for Toronto Centre has acknowledged the fiscal havoc wrought by his government noting, “I'll admit I ran a deficit during the worst recession since the 1930s”. Regrettably, it would appear neither the sponsor of today's motion nor the member for Toronto Centre has learned from their experience. They both still advocate panicky, short term, band-aid measures, measures that would max out the national credit card with billions and billions in reckless deficit spending, leading to massive tax hikes and a greater debt burden for future generations.

We must ask ourselves then, if we are talking about ensuring the economic prosperity of typical Canadians, why do the Liberals and the NDP persist on tax and spend ideology along with short term, panicky reactionary measures that would do absolutely nothing but ensure such prosperity is never fully achieved?

Contrast that with our Conservative government's prudent action to ensure Canada has strong economic fundamentals through our long term economic growth plan Advantage Canada. That plan seeks to provide Canada with global advantages through lower taxation, to reduce net debt, and to provide more entrepreneurial freedom, the best educated and most skilled workforce and modern infrastructure.

We are making steady progress toward reaching the objectives of that plan, and we have very solid economic fundamentals to help us do it. Our budget is balanced and it will remain balanced. We have the fastest growth in employment and living standards in the G-7. Interest rates are low and inflation remains low and stable. Canadians have countless reasons to remain confident and optimistic.

The true power of our strong economic and fiscal fundamentals, however, lies in their ability to make constructive choices possible. Thanks to these solid economic fundamentals and long term economic planning, we have made the kinds of choices that put Canada ahead of the curve. While others have only recently begun grappling with the effects of global uncertainty, our Conservative government saw signs of an economic slowdown coming well in advance. We knew we had to act, and under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the finance minister, we did.

Our strong fiscal position provided Canada with an opportunity that few other countries have to make broad based tax reductions that will strengthen our economy, stimulate investment and create more and better jobs. That is why in last October's economic statement we announced bold new steps to build a better Canada by reducing taxes for Canadians, including a reduction in the GST, by establishing a new era of declining business taxation, and by reducing federal debt by $10 billion this year.

In total, actions taken by the government since 2006 are providing $21 billion in tax relief to Canadians this year. This is equivalent to 1.4% of Canada's GDP. As a share of the economy, this is significantly greater than the stimulus package just now reaching U.S. households.

Moreover, our tax relief is sustainable, backed by a track record of balanced budgets, and this tax relief is permanent. This proactive aggressive action to support the Canadian economy has been praised by prestigious non-partisan international and domestic economic organizations for its foresight and effectiveness.

The University of Toronto's Institute for Policy Analysis declared, “helping offset the weakness here will be the 'fortuitous' injection of stimulus from the tax cuts...announced” in the October economic statement. BMO economist Doug Porter congratulated our government for our economic statement that was “brilliantly timed. Just as the economy was running into serious heavy weather”, Canada has some “serious fiscal stimulus”. Most impressively, the distinguished IMF World Economic Outlook released this April praised the measures, “A package of tax cuts has provided a timely fiscal stimulus”. The Canadian government's “structural policy agenda should help increase competitiveness and productivity growth to underpin long term projects”.

Since coming to office, this Conservative government has taken action to reduce the overall tax burden for Canadians and businesses by nearly $200 billion.

Overall, we are bringing taxes to their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in nearly 50 years. Canadians are getting back their own money in increasing amounts, more money in their pockets where it belongs, which means our economy will benefit from consumers with thicker wallets and every reason to be confident about their future.

As for those who suggest that our economic leadership and tax reductions are not benefiting low income Canadians, I ask them to consider the facts.

Statistics Canada reported this week that in 2006, the first year of our Conservative government, the rich did not get richer but lower income Canadians did. Families at the bottom of the income ladder saw strong growth in their earnings in 2006. I will quote from the report:

After-tax income improved for families in all five income groups, except for those at the top, where it remained stable.

Why? Consider that approximately 700,000 low income Canadians will be removed from the tax rolls by 2009 because of our actions. Consider that since coming to office, our tax cuts have disproportionately benefited the bottom two income tax brackets. Indeed, over three-quarters of personal income tax relief is being provided for Canadians in the lowest two tax brackets with people in the lowest bracket alone realizing almost 30% of all annual personal income tax relief. Most important, we cut the GST, the only tax cut benefiting the one-third of low income Canadians not paying income tax.

Accordingly, it is somewhat odd that the NDP and their colleagues on the left have been so adamantly opposed to this reduction. Even Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom is puzzled. I will quote him at length:

The New Democrats say the [GST] cut favours the rich....

And yet...were equally outraged...by a new study pointing out that the tax system has become less fair since 1990 because (wait for it) governments have been relying too much on regressive sales taxes, like the GST.

He continued:

The reason that sales taxes are unfair is that those toward the bottom tend to spend more of what they earn (and hence pay more in sales tax as a proportion of their income) than those at the top.

He further noted:

Economist Marc Lee, who authored the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives study, calculated that roughly half of the increased tax burden borne by the poor between 1990 and 2005 came from small hikes in regressive levies such as sales taxes....

So in this context, it could be argued that [the Prime Minister] struck a small blow for social justice by reducing Canada's most notorious regressive tax. Indeed, it could be said that he took a small step towards rectifying the tax unfairness created by former prime minister Jean Chrétien's Liberals...

I find the left's attack on the GST cuts both baffling and sadly indicative.

Nevertheless, unlike the Liberals, we are taking concrete action to help low income Canadians through tax measures like the landmark working income tax benefit ensuring people are better off as a result of taking a job. Taxes, reduced income support and loss of benefits often discourage individuals receiving social assistance from working, clawing back nearly 80% of their income. This benefit, a first step we hope to build on, will increase income support while simultaneously strengthening work incentives. This is a move that has also been praised across the political spectrum.

The Caledon Institute of Social Policy acknowledged it was a “welcome addition to Canadian social policy. It fills a long recognized gap in Canada's income security system”. The NDP member for Winnipeg North approved our measure as an “important program that goes in the right direction”. Even Ontario's Liberal finance minister called it a progressive move saying, “I think that will help those at the lower end of the income ladder and I think”--the Conservative government--“has taken a good step.”

Clearly today's motion ignores what this government has accomplished and will be defeated accordingly. For that I applaud the Liberal opposition for once again expressing its unwavering confidence and approval of our Conservative government.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's dissertation, he spoke about a central issue on which he and the Conservative Party continue to press. I disagree with some of his statements. They continue, correctly, to talk about the increase in GDP. The problem, however, is not one that deals with a central increase in GDP. It is an issue of distribution, of equity, of those people on the ground, the poorest people, and their ability to have the resources in their pocket to go to school, to get the skills training, to get into a place where they a roof over their head, to have the necessary medical care for things like substance abuse or mental health problems. These people cannot get access to those. They do not have the money to do it and the levels of government do not have the money to provide for the type of care these people need.

As a country, thankfully, we are doing well, but the people who most need our help, most need the help of the House, are not getting it.

Could my friend tell me if his government would reconsider some of its policies and put a significant structural investment into access to skills training, put money in the pockets of the poorest people and help our seniors? The child tax benefit helps those children, but does not help single people or seniors who have had their children. Money in the pockets of people, lower tuition fees for students, better help to the provinces for mental health disabilities and substance abuse are the things those people most need.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague made such splashy headlines last weekend in one of our national papers, which showed him giving blood. He probably still has the mark on his arm from that. I applaud him for making note of that and showing some leadership on that file as well, as he does on many other files. He has shown a great deal of passion for poorer people, not only in Canada, but in other countries too. We should applaud the member for considering those who are less fortunate than others.

I find it fundamentally appalling that we have this kind of a message going forward to Canadians from the House, the message that all is doom and gloom in our country. The hon. member has seen what the poor people in other countries go through. I am sure, as I have, he has come back to this country and realized how fortunate we are to live here, how fortunate we are that our parents, if not our grandparents, chose to move to Canada, how fortunate that we born here, that we have stable governments, that we can look forward to having a job when we graduate high school, university or college.

We have members of a party who every time they stand in the House they condemn how fortunate we are by scaring people. The government has done a tremendous job in taking many Canadians off the tax roll and reducing their taxes. I get letters every day from my constituents. They tell me how much money they have saved after they have filed their taxes. They tell me how they are able to stimulate the economy and provide more for their families because we have reduced taxes.

I hear optimism. I do not know why the NDP only listens to negativity.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate and disappointing that the parliamentary secretary is not willing to listen to the evidence that has been presented to him. The Statistics Canada report, which is supported by economists who have looked at it, very clearly indicates that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is stuck. As I crossed the country and looked at the anecdotal evidence, Calgary is probably the most obvious example of this separation now between the rich and the poor. Between 3,500 or 4,000 homeless people live at the base of large buildings built in the honour of big oil.

I suggest the member spends too much time around the board tables and not enough around the kitchen table of families in places like Hamilton, Welland, Windsor and communities in northern Ontario or B.C., which has been ravaged in the downturn of the forestry sector. Would he take some time, go out there with some of his colleagues and sit at a kitchen table and hear what those families and those folks have to say?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the suggestion by the hon. member that I do not listen to my constituents. I have the privilege of representing a riding in Alberta. That riding is not filled with rich people, and everyone in the House realizes this. I take exception to the suggestion by the hon. member that I do not represent all members of my constituency, that I do not listen to the poor as well as those who have done well.

I spend much time throughout my riding. I have visited many ridings across the country and I hear the same thing, that there are job losses. However, Canadians are resilient people. They have mostly found new jobs. That is why our net new jobs are over three-quarters of a million in the last two years. I do not know how many times I have to stand in the House and repeat that number. This is net new jobs.

Yes, people have lost jobs. We understand that and we empathize with that, but those resilient Canadians have found other jobs. In 80% of those cases those jobs are higher value jobs than what they had before.

We have faith in Canadians. I wish the hon. member from the opposition, who put forward this negative motion, this motion that reduces Canadians' ability to have faith in themselves, would listen to his constituents who have faith in the government.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance's speech, and he said something that I cannot accept. Here in the House, we are discussing real situations that real people are going through. It sounds like the government is saying that people who do not think the way it thinks should not submit that kind of request. That sounds an awful lot like the Bush government's approach in the United States, but that is not how we do things here.

Early on in his speech, he said that there are people all over the world who are far worse off than Canadians and Quebeckers will ever be. I always thought that we treated our people here the same way we treated people elsewhere.

Can the parliamentary secretary explain how the government managed to funnel the $54 billion surplus out of the employment insurance fund and make it look as though workers and the unemployed never contributed in the first place?

Can he explain how the government managed to justify diverting $54 billion dollars and make it legal while leaving international aid at 0.3% even though so much wealth is being created here? We are way behind developed nations on this. Coincidentally, the same thing is happening here with those who are the worst off, the unemployed.

The government should be getting that message rather than reacting negatively to the NDP motion, which reflects a reality that I believe should be an election issue.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy sitting on the finance committee with the hon. member. He provides some very strong input and does a great job of bringing the concerns of his constituents forward, and often raises the issue of lost jobs. It is his job to do that.

We in the government share his concerns for what happened with the EI fund. I will not try to defend what the Liberals did or did not do with that fund, but we recognize how it failed the unemployed. That is why we put forward suggested changes in the budget for an independent fund that could not be tampered with by any government. It would be completely at arm's length from government, which will protect the money paid by both the employees and employers for employees who get into a situation of job loss.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate. I will be splitting my time with perhaps the foremost expert on economics in the House, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

I thank my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie for bringing forward the motion. We come to Parliament, we work with our colleagues and we forge relationships with other members of the House, which can be very productive based on respect. This is the relationship I feel I have with my colleague. I know other members of my family have it as well.

The motion is one that needs to be addressed because it deals with a hugely important issue, Clearly though, and I will say this up front, it is not an issue that Canadians would want and certainly do not expect to be the impetus for a national general election. The motion raises an issue that Liberals, and particularly our leader, have brought front and centre to the national agenda. It will be the centrepiece of our next national campaign, the time of which will be determined carefully and not as a result of the latest move in a game of inside Ottawa parliamentary checkers.

A couple of months ago, the member for York Centre, an outstanding Canadian hero, embarked on a country wide tour focused on poverty in Canada. I think he went to more than 20 locations in this immense country. Canadians will know, knowing the member, that this was not a photo op, but somebody who was trying to find real solutions on poverty.

One of his first stops was in my riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. We thought we would have a decent crowd, but we were all surprised to see over 300 people come out to a church basement in Dartmouth to talk about poverty, its causes and some solutions. We heard from a number of groups and organizations, homeless shelters, youth in crisis workers, food banks, mental health workers and many more, people who combat poverty on a daily basis and try to make a difference in their communities. These groups expect their politicians and their governments to do something about it.

We should acknowledge that improvements have been made over the years to help Canadians with many major national initiatives such as the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan Act and the Quebec Pension Plan Act, the guaranteed income supplement in 1967, the national child benefit in 1997, which has had a significant impact on reducing child poverty in our country. We implemented personal income tax cuts. We brought forward the plan to strengthen health care, which followed on the 1960s plan to bring a national health care system into Canada.

The member for York Centre understood that among the challenges facing low income families was the lack of affordable and universal access to child care. Our Liberal government signed child care agreements with each of the provinces and territories, agreements that would begin to chip away at family poverty, allowing individuals to work to earn a decent living and support their families. Those child care agreements were one of the first casualties of the Conservative government.

We all know we live in a prosperous country where our standard of living ranks among the best in the world. Despite this success, far too many Canadians are left behind and it should be unacceptable to us all.

Last fall, the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, a man who is serious about solving serious problems, laid out the most ambitious plan to tackle poverty in Canada. This is what we will do when we return to office. It is our 30:50 plan. We want to reduce by 30%, or cut in half, the number of children living in poverty over five years. That plan includes the creation of a making work pay benefit to lower the welfare and to encourage and reward work by Canadians. It includes support for working families to expand and improve the Canada child tax benefit and to help lift the vulnerable seniors out of poverty by increasing the GIS for the lowest income seniors.

I want to talk about another issue that is referenced in the motion, and that is employment insurance. Our government in the last decade reduced EI premiums, both for employers and employees. Since 1994, the EI rate for employee contributions has been reduced from $3.07 to $1.95 in 2005 and for employer contributions from $4.30 to $2.73 by 2005. As a result of these rate reductions, employers and employees paid some $10.5 billion less in premiums comparatively than they would have paid in 1994.

On the benefit side, from 2000 to 2005 the Liberal government invested in the EI program. Parental benefits were extended to one year. In 2004 a new employment insurance benefit, the compassionate care benefit, was introduced. In 2004 a pilot program was introduced to provide workers with five additional weeks of EI regular benefits in regions of high unemployment. Several other pilot programs were introduced, which included benefits for those who were new to the labour market to have access EI benefits after 840 house of work rather than 910 hours. We also went to the best 14 weeks of earnings, not a bad idea for people in high unemployment areas, and we increased benefits for the working while on claim threshold.

However, I think we can all agree, and certainly members of my party understand, that we should do more. We should re-evaluate employment insurance. Members in this House for Labrador, for Madawaska—Restigouche, for Honoré-Mercier, for Beauséjour and from parts of Cape Breton have stood up and have been involved in discussions to make that happen.

As Liberals we have worked hard over the past two years to work with labour groups and other opposition parties to find common ground to improve benefits for EI recipients. We need to evaluate this. We need to look at a number of things, such as the waiting period and what is referred to as the black hole.

How about the expansion of sick benefits, as proposed in Bill C-278? Bill C-278, a private member's bill, was introduced by my colleague from Sydney—Victoria and is supported by members of the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society. It is a recognition that the workplace has changed and illness has changed. People are recovering from strokes and from heart attacks, but they need support. This bill was supported by all parties except the government party. It would have been a perfect thing for the government to stand up and do for workers in Canada.

We need to address how EI relates to people who are working part time. Often they are women working in poverty. We need to do more about that.

In budget 2008 the government introduced the idea of a new crown corporation. It may be a good idea. Some people have called for a different agency to look at EI, but there has been no consultation on it, and if it were not for the fact that the Liberals brought forward a motion at the human resources committee, which was supported by other parties, there would have been no consultation on this.

Is $2 billion the appropriate amount of money as a reserve fund? What is the bureaucracy going to look like? Should there not be some consultation and discussion with workers across this country? I think there should be. EI needs to be changed. We need to do it rationally and sensibly, balancing the workers and employers. It is imperative for us to do that.

Over generations, Canada has built a social infrastructure that is designed to help vulnerable Canadians. Improvements have been made, with public health care, pensions, EI and support for children and others, but we need to do more. Furthermore, I believe there is a public appetite in this country for us to do more. However, today we have a government that seems to love power but seems to hate government and sees little or no role for government in assisting those most in need.

Partly through design and, in fairness, partly through incompetence, the federal fiscal framework has a reduced capacity to help, but Canadians want a government with a heart, a mind and a solid plan to reduce poverty in this country. Our leader has put forward such a plan. In the next election the Liberal Party will campaign on that alternative. We are the only realistic alternative to this government.

Poverty in our country is not inevitable, but it will take leadership, energy and national will to make the difference. We should talk about it here in Parliament. I am pleased that we are also studying it at the human resources committee, but to really make a difference we need a government that sees a role for government in standing up for those who need help, a government that balances budgets but not at the huge social cost and huge social exclusion we see now.

I believe the Liberal Party has the leader, I believe the Liberal Party has the plan and I believe the Liberal Party has the team to attack poverty in our country and work for those who most need help.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting on this side of the House to hear the positive comments about our friend from Sault Ste. Marie. It certainly is appreciated because we know how hard he works, but following those kind remarks was a bit of a listing of the Liberal record. I would like to add a couple of things to the Liberal record.

In the mid-1990s we had--

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Make sure they're good.

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

Oh, they will be good.

The Liberals set out the Canada health and social transfer, which basically gutted moneys transferred to the provinces and led to Ontario's Mike Harris government in particular off-loading social costs to the municipalities. That transferred money from income tax to property tax, so that the poorest people and the people on fixed incomes had the biggest problems.

One of the biggest changes the Liberals made in the mid-1990s, though, was the change from unemployment insurance to EI. At that time, 85% of the people applying for unemployment insurance received it and also received benefits for a longer time. Following the changes, nowadays between 28% and 35% qualify and for a shorter period.

That is the Liberal record.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his addition to the record. Maybe I should add a few more things as well: in 2004, the 10 year plan to strengthen health care, at $41 billion; in 2005, increased benefits for the guaranteed income supplement; in 2005, $5 billion invested for early learning and child care; and $5 billion invested for five years for the Kelowna accord.

I do not need to go into the fact that in 1993 the Liberals took over that side of the House facing a $42 billion annual deficit and a $500 billion debt, most of which built up over the previous Mulroney government. Conservatives take an economy, make it worse and then turn it back to us. We are going to have to do it again, probably not too far from now.

However, we do it by balancing the need for solid economics in this country with an investment in social infrastructure that recognizes and understands that not everybody gets to be an equal beneficiary in the great wealth that is Canada. A government should stand up for those who most need help and this Conservative one does not.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member, who sits on the committee with me and is so pleased that we are studying the EI account. However, I am very discouraged with our study because it appears that we are continually talking about a $54 billion surplus that was “siphoned”. That is the word that is used.

If the member is really that excited about the account, perhaps he can explain at committee where the $54 billion went. The account is not being studied as it should be. I am surprised that he thinks this is going to be any kind of solution for the EI account.

He named a few promises that the Liberals made, but he did not assert who really delivered on those promises. It was this government.

The member also did not stand up and vote for the $39 billion that we transferred back to the provinces after his government took $25 billion out of the provinces.

I just wanted to clarify a few things. I do not want the member to get overexcited about there being any solution to the EI account unless he can bring some sort of understanding as to where the $54 billion surplus went.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's work on our committee. I also enjoy working with her. I hate to even suggest it because it seems mean, but it causes me pain to hear her being so wrong on these issues. She suggested that we promised things but her government delivered them. Is that the $5 billion for child care? As for the Kelowna accord, yesterday the Conservatives were asking to see it. Apparently they have not even seen the Kelowna accord. They do not even know what is in it.

They talk about the cuts made by the Liberal government in the early 1990s. The Minister of Human Resources, among others, stood in this House then and said those cuts were not deep enough, that we did not cut enough, that we should cut more and hurt vulnerable Canadians.

Liberals take a balanced and sensible approach. We balance the economics of the nation with the need to invest in the social infrastructure that provides opportunities for Canadians who do not get them. The Conservative government does not do that.

The government has some nice people over there--they disperse now and then--but as a government they are mean and nasty and they do not do anything for the people who most need help in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on this motion today. I am going to tackle this question by focusing on two aspects.

The Statistics Canada data to which the NDP makes reference has two problems attached to it.

The first is the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, so it is a question of distribution. Here, I think, only the Liberals have a coherent plan to help those Canadians who are worse off.

The second aspect is that the average person's income has hardly grown over many years, and that is a question of growing the pie, creating wealth and improving our productivity performance. This is an area in which the NDP has absolutely no understanding.

As well, as I shall indicate in my remarks, the Conservatives are wrong-headed by adopting measures that will not do anything to improve productivity and living standards in this country.

First of all, I would like to point out that the NDP has taken a contradictory position, which is not all that surprising.

On the one hand, the NDP claims that, as a party, it now understands Quebec and Quebeckers. On the other hand, based on my calculations, if the NDP manages to get its motion adopted, when would the election be held? It would be held June 23, the day before Quebec's national holiday. For a party that claims to understand Quebeckers, it is a little strange that the NDP would make Quebeckers vote in a general election the day before their national holiday.

The first issue here is to help those who are worse off. On this issue I at least agree that the NDP would be in the same spirit as the Liberal Party. The difference is that we have a concrete and very ambitious plan, and we will form government at some point and will be in a position to implement this plan.

As my colleague has mentioned, this is the so-called 30-50 plan, in which we have committed publicly to reduce the overall number of Canadians living in poverty by 30% over a five year period and to reduce numbers of children in poverty by 50% over a five year period. By setting out those concrete targets, we are holding our feet to the fire, because the commentators will monitor our progress and make sure we hit our targets.

There are three basic components of this plan. One is an expanded “making work pay” benefit, which will help lower income Canadians climb over the welfare wall, get over the disincentives to work and become full participants in the labour force. This is good for the incomes of lower income Canadians and also good for productivity.

The second component is that we will provide major support for working families. We will provide child tax credits as the Conservatives did, but ours will have one key critical and crucial difference. The Conservative tax credits are non-refundable, meaning that if people's incomes are so low that they pay no tax, they get no credit. Therefore, the high income Canadian, like the Minister of Finance, gets large sums of money from these credits, and he does not really need it, while the lower income Canadians who do not make enough to pay tax and therefore are not eligible for this credit get nothing at all. Our child tax credit will be refundable, meaning that the lower income Canadians who pay no tax will get just as much, at least as much, as the higher income Canadians.

The third important component of our 30-50 anti-poverty plan is to increase the GIS, the funding for income for lower income seniors. We will increase that as well.

Through these measures and a number of other measures, we are totally serious about making a radical dent in poverty in general and in child poverty over the five years from the time we come to power. These measures will certainly have a major bearing on this increased inequality that has afflicted Canada and indeed countries throughout the western world over the last decades.

I come now to the second aspect. The first aspect is to reduce the inequality and our anti-poverty plan will make a major move in that direction.

The second component is to grow the pie: to increase the productivity so that the income levels and the living standards of all Canadians will rise more quickly over the coming 10 years, let us say, than they did over the last 10 to 20 years. It is here I believe that the Liberal Party is unique in this House, because the NDP has no understanding of wealth creation, of growing the pie, and the Conservative Party and government have zero interest in helping those who are in poverty because that is not their base.

We are the party of balance. We understand that one has to grow the pie and create the wealth in order to redistribute it.

On the subject of productivity, I think the NDP should study very carefully the new ideas and new policies emerging in Europe among their social democratic brethren, particularly in Scandinavia, and indeed among NDP-led provinces, which have to actually govern and therefore understand the real world.

I would say that only the federal NDP is left in a kind of class warfare mentality of the 1960s where anything that reduces corporate taxes, for example, is inherently evil, while the NDP-led provinces and Scandinavian countries led by social democrats are in fact leading the way and understand the need for lower corporate taxes to enhance productivity. Indeed, the Scandinavian countries are leading the world in terms of having among the lowest corporate tax rates. Among those with the highest corporate tax rates, one finds George Bush's United States.

I would suggest to the NDP that it is necessary to grow the pie, as well as to share the pie, because if we do not grow the pie and the pie shrinks then we will have very little to share.

As we in the Liberal Party have said, competitive corporate taxes are an important part of the productivity agenda. We need look no further than Denmark, Sweden and Norway to find leadership in this area. I know the Conservatives agree with us on this. Following our leader's call for corporate tax rates, soon thereafter they copied the idea.

Another important angle about improving productivity and living standards is to tax smart. We in the Liberal Party have favoured not only lower corporate taxes but lower personal income taxes to give people the incentive to save, to work and to invest. That would be a part of our program, funds permitting.

Whereas, on the government side, the Conservatives put no less than $12 billion a year, $60 billion over five years, into the worst, dumbest possible tax cut that anyone could imagine, and that is to cut the GST, a tax on consumption, rather than to use that money to cut taxes on income.

There is not an economist on the planet who would disagree with my view that if we want to improve incentives to save, to invest and to work, if we want to improve Canada's competitiveness and productivity, the way to go is to reduce income tax. According to IMF,OECD, C.D. Howe, The Fraser Institute, name it, the worst thing to do, the most anti-productivity tax agenda is to reduce the GST.

To conclude, to deal with this problem of a growing gap and stagnant incomes requires a double policy to provide public assistance to those at the low end, which is at the core of the Liberal 30-50 plan, and, on the other hand, to produce a sensible, credible, coherent plan to raise the productivity growth of this country and thereby grow the pie and enhance the living standards of all Canadians.

I submit that in terms of this balance between wealth creation and wealth distribution, it is only the Liberal Party that offers the balance that this country needs.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am always disappointed when I hear the arrogance of the Liberals and some other members in the House when they suggest that we do not know anything about the economy and that we should not actually have any thoughts about the public life of this country because we will never be government one day. It is disappointing because it reduces the level of respect and dialogue in this place to one of not being very productive and helpful.

The member talked about the Liberal anti-poverty strategy that was rolled out. The criticism of that, not just by us but by others out there, the Toronto Star included, was that there was no substance. It was a lot like other Liberal programs that have been rolled out. We saw the programs that were trotted out just before the election of 2006 that, when the veil was lifted, there was nothing there. There was no reference to Treasury Board for the money to support Kelowna, Kyoto or any of the programs that the Liberals, at that time, said that they were running on.

This morning I heard the member say, and I guess he was being honest here, that he supports the tax cutting agenda of the Conservatives. The Liberals did that when they were in government for 13 years, and it is the reason that we do not have the money any more to transfer to the provinces to take care of things like health care, education and infrastructure. The province of Ontario is in big trouble right now with its health care system because Mike Harris, who also had a tax cutting agenda from 1995 to 2003, depleted that treasury.

So, you depleted the treasury from 1993 to 2005. The Conservatives are now doing the same thing. If you get back into office, I guess from what I--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie keeps using the second person. He is not in the Ontario legislature where that is permissible. It is not permissible here.

The hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member does not seem to understand our 30-50 plan. In fact, it was endorsed strongly by the Toronto Star. There is nothing more concrete than one can imagine. We lay out the exact measures that would constitute this plan. This plan has received strong endorsement from the anti-poverty groups and other social groups around the country. We are serious about it and we will do it.

In terms of his comment that we endorse the government's tax policies, I thought perhaps he was listening a little more carefully to my speech. The one thing we have in common is that we believe over time that Canadian corporate taxes should be competitive internationally, but I do not think any party in the House has been more critical of the government, both for engaging in the dumbest possible tax cut, which is the cut to the GST, and for its overspending, which led Canada from a massive $13 billion surplus, which the government inherited from the Liberals, to the brink of deficit in just over two years.

At a time when the manufacturing sector in the country needs support, because we are entering into a time of economic uncertainty, the government has depleted the treasury and has left the cupboard bare. It has engaged in the most irresponsible macroeconomic management--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. We want to get one more question in. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening intently to my friend on the other side and I have simple questions for him that can be answered with a simple yes or no.

First, if his party were to get back into power, would it support raising the GST? Second, will he support the NDP motion today? Third, will he vote to bring down the government? Those are simple yes or no questions. I know when the hon. member gets up in question period--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Markham—Unionville, briefly.