Debates of Sept. 29th, 2011

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economy

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to join in this important debate. I congratulate New Democrats for bringing this important issue forward. There are a variety of things to touch on, but overall it is one of the issues that we all care about, whether it is pensions, or infrastructure investments, or the economy. We will continue to work on behalf of all Canadians to bring these kinds of issues forward.

Given the urgency and the importance of the subject, I would have liked to have seen more time devoted to pensions, an issue that I have been involved in for a couple of years now as the pension critic. I look forward to finding ways to improve Canadians' retirement years. The clock is ticking on this issue, and if the government fails to act, which is clearly what we have seen so far, then it may be too late to avoid many of the problems that our aging population will have to face.

Pension security, coverage and adequacy are issues that I have worked on for a while. Last May in the House, I prompted a take note debate on pension security, hoping the government would take notice and act on the looming pension crisis.

Why have I been pushing this? Not only because I am the critic, but because Canada is a nation rich with resources and potential and our citizens should be able to enjoy a measure of dignity during retirement. I have a weekly meeting in my office with seniors who are struggling, and it is quite a shock to realize how little they have to live on.

More than 200,000 Canadians over the age of 65 continue to live below the poverty line. What that really means is that after a lifetime of working to raise their family, paying their taxes, 200,000 Canadians are being forced to choose between buying groceries or paying the rent because their retirement income is simply too low to allow them to do both. This covers a lot of people, whether it is a woman who chooses to stay at home to raise her children or someone caring for an elderly relative. A variety of people have been caught in a certain portion. In the last election, the government introduced a bit of help, but that only covered a small amount of people. People going into retirement are thinking they are going to have a blissful life, but they are clearly finding out that living on $14,000 a year is a difficult struggle.

In response, the daily goal that should be set by the present government, or any other Government of Canada for that matter, is to eliminate of that wrong.

How do we do that? For a start, we need to get serious about pension security, coverage and adequacy before we see more situations such as the one which is still threatening 17,000 former employees of Nortel. The House spent a lot of time last year talking about it. As the opposition, we asked a lot of questions. Many Nortel employees continue to struggle. Those 17,000 people worked for a lifetime, paid their taxes, put money away for a rainy day, but despite all of their efforts, they saw their savings wash away because of inadequate legal protections in our system. They were promised action, but the government continues to ignore these important people and their financial security. Thousands of others in Canada could be threatened in the event that a company goes bankrupt and they have no pension protection.

Historically speaking, prior to the Great Depression, most Canadian social services were delivered by a patchwork group of religious, volunteer and charitable organizations. The reality is that today, in addition to being essential for basic living, many Canadians view pensions as defining elements of our national identity.

In 1927 Liberal prime minister Sir William Lyon Mackenzie King approved the old age pension plan. In 1963 Liberal prime minister Lester Pearson began working on the Canada pension plan. The Conservatives stood firmly in opposition to the idea of retirement income security for working Canadians, with the ideology that they could take care of themselves. Imagine where we would be today if we did not have old age security and, most important, if we did not have the Canada pension plan.

As I said earlier, the Conservative Party has a long history of opposing improvements to it. Conservatives opposed the Liberal old pension. They opposed the Liberal idea of the Canada pension plan. They opposed helping the former employees of Nortel, including pensioners.

The real sad part of it was that there was a group of Nortel employees on long-term disability. We had a bill before the House and the Senate that would have helped that small segment of people. However, the Conservatives brought in more Conservative senators and voted down that bill. It would have helped a small segment of people. One of the men who appeared before the committees of the House of Commons and the Senate several times died shortly after, a sad, desperate man. Today we continue to hear very little about real pension reform.

Where do we go from here? On October 13, 2010, I presented a white paper on pension reform and I sent a copy of it to the government, because it had a lot of good ideas. I imagine, if the Conservatives can distance themselves from the Liberals, they will try to implement some of them as long as they can take credit for it.

I want to see improvements done, and if the Conservatives pick up some of those comments in the white paper and move them forward, I am happy to congratulate them for doing so.

However, it is time again to see that kind of national leadership shown by Mackenzie King, Pearson and by Mr. Chrétien, who put the Canada pension plan back on a stable footing for nearly a century.

Most Canadian seniors are eligible for old age security and most former workers can receive Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan benefits, based on their contributions during the course of their careers. Those on the lowest end of the income scale are also eligible for the guaranteed income supplement. Alone, these mechanisms provide somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30% of one's replacement income in retirement.

In dollars, these plans pay a maximum of about $20,000 annually, if we are lucky, but the average payouts continue to be significantly less. Current economics suggest that this will not be enough for most Canadians, who will need private retirement savings to survive.

A number of Canadians do have a private pension through their employer and take advantage of government tax shelters such as RRSPs or tax-free savings accounts. However, recent events have called the security of these private investments into question. I believe, as Canadians, as parliamentarians, we can find better solutions.

In the past few years alone we have seen a number of private companies become insolvent. Once that occurs, it would seem that employee pension plans are inadequately protected under current Canadian law. When markets crash, things like Nortel happen.

Despite repeated calls for action, the government seems willing to sit back and allow the market to do as it will with these people. Again, the same ideology: let people take care of themselves.

The undeniable fact is that over the next 20 to 30 years, Canadian pension regimes will face a perfect storm of an aging population, longer lifespans, dramatically higher levels of personal debt coupled with lower disposable incomes and global, economic and market instability. Therefore, steps must be taken in the short term if pension security, adequacy and coverage are to be attainable in the long term for many Canadians.

In an effort to ensure that Canada's retirement income system is prepared for this challenge, I would suggest that adopting a multi-pronged, internally coherent strategy that would shore up our system would be mindful of several key principles.

First, we need to underscore the value of a functioning pension system, and I strongly feel that the reliable retirement income regime is in everyone's best interest.

Second, we should be rethinking the three pillars of the existing pension system.

Third, we should consider the integration of existing systems.

Consideration must also be given to those who have traditionally fallen through the cracks. In particular, women who statistically endure a greater rate of poverty due largely to factors involving longevity, employment type and tenure, must receive the attention needed to ensure retirement income security, adequacy and coverage on par with all Canadians.

With these principles in mind, my white paper proposes several specific recommendations to help ensure Canada's pension and retirement savings structures are fortified in a way so as to ensure they are prepared for the anticipated storm.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I remain somewhat confused by the speech of my colleague across the way from the Liberal Party. My confusion comes from some statements made by her colleagues, which I will quote.

While my colleague from Kings—Hants indicated he intended to support more stimulus injection, his colleague from Markham—Unionville said, “Liberals are not calling on the government to stop its deficit reduction efforts, let alone engage in new stimulus spending”. I am a little confused about the two positions. However, I am also confused because the member for Kings—Hants clearly said in the National Post, on May 30, “Canadians remain skeptical of Liberals on the issue of economic management”.

As my colleague from the Liberal Party talks about a white paper and some suggestions, her own colleagues are telling Canadians not to trust their position on the economy. She may have a white paper, but I have a green paper that clearly includes those quotes, which can be searched on the website.

I would like her to answer the following question. Why on earth is she saying Canadians should follow her plan if, clearly, her colleagues do not believe in anything they—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for York West.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, my white paper was a 27-page document that was sent to finance, with suggestions on pension reform, an area that I believe is of extreme importance, as I indicated earlier. If there is no long-term plan so Canadians can have a decent retirement, then we are letting them all down.

As far as our ability to balance cutting the budget and continuing to invest in infrastructure, in 1993, when we came into power, there was a $42 billion deficit as a result of the Conservative government. We made the changes we needed to make and we made the hard decisions that were necessary. However, we are in a very unique time. There are severe problems around the world. Her government said that it would never run a deficit or get into a recession. Both of those things, we clearly know now, came true.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party certainly agree that we need to create retirement security for Canadians and we need to expand the Canada pension plan, which does not rely on tax dollars but on contributions that go directly into the plan by Canadians and employers.

Could the member tell us what her view is on the pooled pension plan idea offered by the government? What it would do, in our view, is once again throw the savings of seniors into the stock market, which makes financial planners wealthy but does nothing to provide for the retirement security of Canadians.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the market is good and healthy if it has a lot of options, but clearly the option the government has put forward is an opportunity for insurance companies and banks to make money, which is great as this is free enterprise, but it will not help with the real problem.

Liberals have put forward the idea of a supplementary Canada pension plan that would allow people to put away a small amount of money. They can put $50 a month into their supplementary plan and their employers, if they choose, could add a few extra dollars. Homemakers would be able to put a few extra dollars aside to try to catch up for the years they were not in the workforce.

A supplementary Canada pension plan would be voluntary. It would be run by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and would not require employers to add contributions, though they could if they wanted to. Otherwise, it would provide a safe vehicle that would be administered with low interest rates, would be well managed and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board indicated it could administer a supplementary plan with very little problem.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

I rise today to speak in favour of our party's opposition day motion which calls on the government to take swift action with regard to the economy. First, I would like to commend the member for Parkdale—High Park for all her hard work on this important issue.

As the Conservatives boast about their economic action plan, Canadian families know that times are still tough for them and they want the government to take meaningful action that gets them back to work. Rather than the billions of dollars in cuts to services and departments which the government is proposing, New Democrats believe that now is the time to provide targeted incentives for real job creators.

Even the Department of Finance has noted that infrastructure investment has more than five times the economic impact than corporate tax cuts. Yet, the government continues to follow unsustainable and unfair economic policies that have shown to be ineffective.

An excellent example of infrastructure investment which the government could do immediately is to work with provinces and municipalities to provide badly needed public transit systems. Communities across Canada are dealing with major shortfalls in transit funding.

New Westminster, Coquitlam and Port Moody have been waiting for the Evergreen Line for over 20 years. It has been plagued by delays since the early 1990s. My community is one of the fastest growing regions in British Columbia with a high rate of commuters who travel to work. There is a severe lack of public transit. This infrastructure project is a necessary component for our long-term regional plan. Traffic congestion is a problem for many residents in my riding.

The Evergreen Line is expected to serve 70,000 people a day by 2021. Canada needs to transition toward a low-carbon future. The Evergreen Line is critical for my neighbourhood to meet future challenges associated with climate change and rising energy costs. The Evergreen Line is projected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air contaminants from cars by 4.7 million tonnes cumulatively by 2020.

One of the best things we can do for our economy is to invest in infrastructure projects that are needed to service our communities. The Evergreen Line would create approximately 9,000 construction jobs in my community. These jobs are needed now.

I call on the federal government to increase its investment in the Evergreen Line. The shortfall in funding falls on local taxpayers who are constantly being asked to pay more for vital infrastructure programs. It would be an excellent initiative for the federal government to increase its contribution to fund the gap and build the line.

The Evergreen Line is an example of why we need to adopt the New Democrats' proposed legislation that would create a national transit strategy in this country. The International Monetary Fund is predicting that unemployment will only continue to rise if swift action is not taken. Investing in public transit is an excellent way to create jobs and move us forward toward a sustainable future.

Small business is a major economic driver in Canada and in my riding of New Westminster--Coquitlam and Port Moody. In Canada, over one million small businesses employ over 50% of the workforce.

The federal government must support small businesses because it has become increasingly evident that they are the ones investing in domestic job creation. Yet, the government continues to reward large corporations with tax cuts, which tend to ship their jobs overseas, and does not do enough for small businesses.

Canada's New Democrats have called on the federal government to reduce the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%. This would help create jobs in communities right across the country. We also propose that employers who hire new employees get a tax credit.

Canada has a real opportunity to build the economy of the future by investing in vital green infrastructure. We also need to invest in research and technology.

The government continues to emphasize the expansion of oil and gas, while I believe we need to move into the 21st century and invest in a transition to cleaner technologies and energy supply. If we do not move forward with green energy and technology, I fear Canada will be left behind. Other nations are moving in this direction. If we want to compete, we must understand that our reliance on conventional oil and gas as a major driver of our economy must change.

There are many initiatives the government could pursue to assist people with retrofitting homes and buildings. When the eco-energy retrofit program was cancelled, I called on the government to reinstate it. This program helped thousands of Canadians renovate their homes, cut home heating costs and save an estimated three tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per home, or 1.5 million tonnes of emissions after four years of retrofitting.

The eco-energy retrofit program not only created jobs, but helped working families make needed improvements to their homes. I was pleased when the government brought back this excellent program. However, I believe it can be expanded and made more accessible to Canadians right across the country. We can work with industry and commercial enterprises to retrofit their buildings. We can better work with homeowners to help insulate their homes and drive down their reliance on energy. This would create jobs, would be good for the environment, and would help lower energy costs.

The primary economic problem in Canada is a slow economic recovery and a weak job market. The current job market remains weaker than before the financial crisis in October 2008. The unemployment rate is up to 7.3%. Many of the new jobs of which the government speaks are part-time positions. If we actually take into account the real unemployment rate, which includes people who have dropped out of the labour force and involuntary part-time workers, the unemployment rate in July of this year would have been 11.1%.

The youth unemployment rate is also alarming. This past summer, student unemployment hit 17.2%. This is higher than the previous summer and is up from 14% prior to the recession. Students are not earning the money they need to attend post-secondary school. They are incurring more debt than ever before.

Our most important investment is our future, and that includes ensuring our children have the ability to gain the skills needed from good-paying jobs.

There is another issue I would like to address that is having a negative impact in my riding and in the regional area of southwestern British Columbia and Vancouver. I am very concerned with the proposed changes to Service Canada, including the proposed closure of offices across the country and the reduction of staff which will have a negative impact with regard to employment insurance cases. Given the chronic staff shortage and current hiring freeze at employment insurance client services, the proposal to cut budgets, close offices and lay off workers is alarming. Levels of service are already unacceptable with wait times increasing weekly and clients often not able to make contact with an agent. There is a large backlog which is reflected in calls that we have received at my constituency office. I have been contacted by constituents who struggle to buy food and pay the rent.

This is a horrible situation for people who find themselves out of work and have to turn to government for assistance.

Service Canada, in particular EI, needs increased resources, not cuts, to ensure that it continues to be effective and responsive to the needs of Canadians especially in these difficult times.

Canadians want public investment. They want the government to take swift action to create jobs. This is critical in order to have healthy, sustainable and stable communities.

I encourage all members of this House to support his motion.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the NDP motion, I would like to address four particular points.

With respect to part (a), the government has already taken action to promote job creation through the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. We will take another step to implement it shortly with the next budget bill.

With respect to part (b), the government is taking action to support improved retirement income security through pooled registered pension plans.

With respect to part (c), the government is making record investments in infrastructure through our economic action plan and phase two, investments that are in the economy right now.

With respect to part (d), the government is already stimulating the economy with temporary stimulus spending. While this is difficult, it is necessary in order to support the economy through phase two of the economic action plan.

Will the NDP member support the government measures that answer the four concerns indicated in his party's motion?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, it sounds as though the member is going to support this motion given the facts that he just stated. He seemed to indicate that our motion provides things he feels he can support. I absolutely welcome the support of the member. I welcome his voting in favour of the motion. We look forward to his support.

The motion calls for increased investment in this country. While the government thinks it may be doing some work in this regard, obviously we think it needs to go further.

I have outlined some of the concerns that need to be addressed in terms of small business and increased investment in public transit. This is where the federal government could play a real role in creating jobs, stimulating the economy and going further.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the time available, I would ask my colleague to expand on one element he raised which was job creation through energy conservation.

A unit of energy harvested from the existing system through demand-side management measures is indistinguishable from one produced at a generating station, except for the fact that it creates as many as seven times the person years in jobs and it is available and online immediately instead of the length of time it takes to create a new generating station.

Would the member not agree that job creation through energy conservation is an idea whose time has come, considering seven times the person years of employment for every dollar invested?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a point I absolutely agree with and only touched on briefly in my speech.

That is a definite direction in which the government could be headed, if it were to make a serious commitment to job creation and our environment. The two can go hand in hand. It is time to move in that direction in the 21st century as opposed to the status quo direction in which the government seems to be heading, which is continued reliance on oil and gas.

It is clear that Canadians want to see a shift. They want to see a change. They want to be put back to work. They also want to see a clean environment. The two can go hand in hand. That is the direction in which we must go in order to provide the sustainable future all Canadians are looking for.

We can get a very good return on an investment in a green future, a green energy future, whether it is through retrofitting homes, large buildings, commercial buildings, or whether it is through moving to a sustainable energy supply. It is a good healthy direction in which we could go if we were to focus seriously on a clean energy future.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for splitting his time with me and I also want to thank the member for Parkdale—High Park for putting forward this very good motion and for stimulating the kind of debate that it is important for us to have. I want to reference one part of the motion which says:

That...the government should take immediate action to promote job creation and address the persistently high unemployment rate among Canadian workers--

The motion also says:

--the International Monetary Fund prediction of yet higher unemployment rates in the future unless swift action is taken--

In my 10 minutes, I am going to focus on just two aspects of this. I am going to focus on the persistent high rates of poverty in this country, and national child care and early learning.

We know there are a variety of statistics, but one that we really need to pay attention to is that the official unemployment numbers in Canada are around 1.4 million Canadians and that is closer to two million when we include those who are discouraged or unemployed. This unemployment rate represents lost wages of more than $20 billion and that does not include the lost economic stimulus and tax revenues.

When we talk about these numbers, we hear from the government about all the jobs that are created, yet in an article by the Catalyst in the summer of 2011, it indicated there are approximately four million Canadians living in poverty, many of them despite having a job. It poses the question, why? It says there are not enough full-time well paying jobs. Nearly one million Canadians are working part-time involuntarily. Their jobs are increasingly characterized by instability and insecurity, few or no workplace benefits and little or no access to government benefits.

We know that when people do not have stable employment, that contributes to economic uncertainty in their lives and makes it more difficult for them to contribute to the local economy.

In addition to these persistent rates of involuntary unemployment or unstable unemployment, we also have an increasing income gap in this country. According to the Conference Board of Canada in a news release, it said that:

Canada had the fourth largest increase in income equality among its peers.

It went on to say that:

--high inequality both raises a moral question about fairness and can contribute to social tensions. In Canada, the gap between the rich and poor has widened over two decades, especially compared to our peer countries.

There was an article in the National Post on September 21, entitled “A Problem for Everyone”. The challenge with this income inequality is just not a problem in terms of the poor which is what we often think about this, it is a problem for each and every Canadian.

In the article it indicated that Canada's top 100 CEOs have seen a 13% year-over-year jump in average pay, rising to an average of $6 million. In contrast, the average earnings of employed Canadians has fallen to $38,500. Things are better for full-time year-round workers, but not by much. Median earnings inched up from $44,100 to $45,600 and in inflation-adjusted terms, not over the last year, but since 1976, and this translates into a $1,500 increase after 33 years. We all know the costs of everything have risen much more than $1,500 in the last 33 years.

In the same article, it translates this into what this actually means for Canadians. Since one of our targets is youth, I want to talk about what it is like for youths. In this article the author said, “I see it in my own life. Back in 1979, it took six weeks working the minimum wage full-time to cover my full-time undergraduate tuition in Toronto”.

She went on to say, “Today's typical student in Ontario has to work 16 weeks”, that is 10 weeks more, “at the minimum wage to cover just the cost of tuition, let alone anything else. Yet most are still frozen out of the job market, with 180,000 fewer 15 to 24-year-olds employed across Canada than when the debt crisis broke in 2008”.

This income equality is not just about CEOs getting way more than the rest of us, but it is about the real impact on young people and everyone else who is working in the current economy.

In addition, one of the things we often hear when we are talking about raising people out of poverty is the government referring to it as spending. In a recent report of the National Council of Welfare, it talks about spending on poverty as an investment.

In an article in The Toronto Star on September 28, 2011, it indicated it would take:

--$12.6 billion to give the 3.5 million Canadians living in poverty enough income to live above the poverty line in 2007. And yet Canadians spent at least double that amount--

That would be $24 billion.

--treating the consequences of poverty that year.

Clearly, the spending pattern does not make good economic or social sense.

The article goes on to say that to lift people out of poverty what we need is a long-term plan and a long-term investment to:

--lift people out of poverty and prevent others from falling into its grip.

It goes on to say that this:

--would benefit all Canadians in reduced costs for health care, education, criminal justice, social service and other areas directly affected.

It would seem that a good start for the government would actually be to support Bill C-233, my bill on income inequality, which lays out a strategy for national poverty reduction in this country. The NDP does have good concrete ideas on how to tackle some of these problems.

I want to switch now, in my brief few minutes left, to talk about national childcare and early learning. In the same report from the National Council on Welfare, it wanted to give a good concrete example of why investing in national childcare makes good economic sense. It is not just about looking after children and giving parents options in terms of being able to go back to work. It wanted to talk about the economy of it all. It says that provincially, Quebec's universal $7-a-day childcare program is credited for cutting the poverty rate of single-parent families by 15 percentage points between 1997 and 2007.

We in Canada are fortunate enough to actually have a provincial childcare program in place that gives us some real meaningful data on what the impact is on the provincial GDP. We actually have a study that has been done on this and it was called “The Economic Consequences of Quebec's Educational Childcare Policy”. I want to just read some of these numbers.

There are three macroeconomic impacts. Quebec's ECEC program has had major macroeconomic consequences on women's labour force participation, on gross provincial income and on federal and provincial finances.

First let us talk about the impact on taxes and transfers. Increased family incomes generate more tax revenues and lower government transfers and credits. All types of tax revenues increase not only income and payroll taxes but all levels of government benefit, not only at the provincial level.

For the longer term, the effects will be larger still. These are some short-term effects that the article predicted. On net, for every dollar spent on ECEC, the provincial government harvests $1.05 and the federal government gets 44¢ for nothing. This is because of the increased income. People are paying provincial and federal income tax, so the government, not investing in a program in Quebec, gets 44¢ for doing nothing. This persistent effect will probably grow over time as pre-ECEC mothers, aged 50-65, are replaced by post-ECEC mothers. This implies that the long-term effects on the growth of provincial income and government net revenues will also be larger.

In summary, by 2008, Quebec's ECEC program had increased women's employment by 70,000, that is plus-3.8%; had increased provincial GDP by $5.2 billion; and was entirely self-financing within the provincial budget.

Clearly, here we have a good solid economic case for investing in a national childcare program and an early learning strategy. Other data indicate that for every dollar we spend in the ages of zero to six we actually save $7 in the long run, whether it is on the justice system, on education, on income assistance, or on health care.

I would call on the government to support the motion put forward by the member for Parkdale—High Park and invest in a poverty reduction strategy, and national childcare and early learning.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP and the Conservative government clearly disagree on the issues of taxes. The NDP supports higher taxes on Canadians while we believe that lower taxes should be in place.

This was demonstrated when our Conservative government lowered the GST, twice, from 7% to 6% and then to 5%, providing tax relief for all Canadian families. The NDP voted against both these GST reductions. In fact, it is proud of it. Here is what the current NDP finance critic said, “Cuts to the GST...take us in the wrong direction. I am very proud that our caucus stood opposed to that--”.

Is the NDP still proud that it voted against lowering the GST? Does the NDP think that the GST reduction is still wrong?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member is putting forward a very simplistic statement. However, I have to look at the impact on families and children.

When I look at the Conference Board of Canada report from September 2011, I see that Canada scores a C grade and ranks 13th out of 17 countries in terms of child and family poverty. More than one in seven Canadian children live in poverty. So when New Democrats call for these kinds of policies around corporate taxes, we are also calling for an investment in Canadian children and families. We are calling for an investment in poverty reduction. We are calling for an investment in a national childcare strategy.

I would encourage the government to take a look at putting some of this money toward Canadian children and families.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, worldwide governments are concerned with making a shift to the green economy to stimulate growth, create new jobs, eradicate poverty and limit humanity's ecological footprint. It is no longer a choice between saving our economy and saving our environment. It is a choice between being a producer and a consumer in the old economy, and being a leader in the new economy. It is a choice between decline and prosperity.

In 2009 the government missed a real opportunity for a triple win with the renewable stimulus for positive impacts on the economy, jobs and the environment.

I wonder if the hon. member thinks that, going forward, the government should develop a green economy and job strategy to create more jobs. If so, what should it include?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam in his speech very ably outlined part of that approach to a green economy when he talked about investment in public infrastructure.

New Democrats have long called for an investment in the green economy. We have laid out a number of measures in terms of investment in renewable energy. For example, removing the subsidies from oil and gas so that the money could be diverted into renewable energy and other green jobs.

In my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, we have been calling for investment in rail in order to encourage people to get out of their cars and into rail to contribute to greenhouse gas reductions.

I agree, and that is part of what we are aiming for with this motion, that it is very important to invest in a green job economy.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow-up on a question from my Conservative colleague who asked about taxation.

I wonder if my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan knows what the small business tax is in the socialist paradise of Manitoba. I can tell her, as a clue, that it was 11% when the NDP formed government. I will help her with the answer: it is now zero. It went down from 11% to 10% to 9%, to 8%, to 7%, and so on.

Would she agree that a tax cut to small business generates jobs, as per the socialist paradise of Manitoba with the lowest unemployment rate in the country, whereas with a tax cut to corporations, we do not really know what happens to the money?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing up that fine example of what an NDP government can do. The NDP government in Manitoba does get it by supporting small businesses.

We know small businesses are the job generators. However, with some of these big corporations, we have seen them take the money and run. They ship our jobs out of the country. We have seen that in British Columbia with the raw log exports where our jobs are being shipped south.

I agree with the member, it is a very good suggestion. Let us support small business.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion presented by the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

I can understand the member's concern about the economy and its effects on the lives of Canadians. Our government has been clear that our priority is job creation. I can assure the member that our government remains focused on our low-tax plan to create jobs and economic growth.

However, Canada does not stand alone in the world. We are aware that when our closest trading partner, the United States, is experiencing considerable slowdown in the pace of GDP growth--from 3% in the first six quarters of the recovery to only 0.4% in the first quarter of 2011--there can be an effect on Canada.

It is because of Canada's job creation ability in these fragile economic times that we have had the confidence that our government's approach is the right one. In the first eight months of 2011, Canada realized employment gains of over 193,000 jobs, and close to 600,000 new jobs have been created since July 2009.

While Canada's unemployment rate increased by 0.1% in August, we are currently experiencing the lowest levels of unemployment since January 2009. In many regions of the country, from south central Ontario to Quebec City to Saskatoon and Regina, we are seeing significantly lower levels of unemployment. We are seeing the signs of economic recovery.

Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, the economic action plan helped Canada respond to the global economic recession. Let me reflect on some of those programs that helped us respond in these fragile economic times.

Our government is dedicated to improving opportunity for Canadians through skills development. Employers increasingly require highly skilled workers who are adaptable and willing to learn. We recognize that it is more important than ever for young people to gain skills and experience to prepare for and succeed in the jobs of tomorrow.

Our youth employment programs are part of the Government of Canada strategy to create the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world. The Government of Canada understands that helping young Canadians prepare for the jobs of tomorrow is important, especially during these hard economic times.

That is why in 2011 we permanently increased the budget for Canada's summer jobs to $10 million. The additional funding created 3,500 additional jobs for students this summer across the country, thereby strengthening our local economies and communities.

Under the 2010 budget, our government committed an additional $60 million to the skills link and career focus programs within the youth employment strategy. Through this additional support, we are helping more vulnerable youth, including high school dropouts and single parents, gain the skills and experience they need to access the labour market.

In the economic action plan and previous budgets, our government has acted to make post-secondary education and training more accessible for Canadians. For example, in budget 2011, it will help more students and low- and middle-income families get the skills and education to succeed.

Some of these initiatives include the following: allowing students to work more without affecting their student loans, allowing part-time students to have higher family incomes without affecting their eligibility for a Canada student loan and increasing the eligibility of a part-time student to access the Canada student loans program.

The Canada student loans program is a program I am proud to support, and I know first-hand its incredible benefit. Having been a recipient of the program myself, I was able to put myself through university, go to medical school and eventually become a pediatric orthopedic surgeon and help countless students and families' children. I know the tangible results of this program. I am proud that our Conservative government continues to support it.

These and other initiatives can be found under canlearn.ca, a great resource tool for Canadians, especially for those young Canadians who are applying for work and programs and scholarships and who need to find information on programs and financial assistance.

Employers in communities across Canada and around the world are always looking for workers with the best skills and talent. That is why the Government of Canada encourages people to enter the trades.

We created the apprenticeship incentive grant program, which helps Canadians pursue their apprenticeship training. This grant is a $1,000 taxable cash grant available to registered apprentices upon completion of their first or second year of an apprenticeship program in a designated Red Seal trade.

To date over 195,000 apprenticeship incentive grants have been issued, and under the economic action plan we have now made apprenticeships even more attractive. These grants are a necessary component of our job strategy, and they are designed to improve accessibility to apprenticeships and to encourage the apprenticeship process and programs so that those individuals who want to work can find those full-time jobs in their respective trades.

We are offering the apprenticeship completion grant introduced in Canada's economic action plan to encourage Canadians to complete their apprenticeship training and receive certification in a designated Red Seal trade. The Red Seal is widely recognized and respected as an industry standard of excellence in the trades, and our apprenticeship grants program ensures our apprentices continue their progress toward that goal.

The apprenticeship completion grant is a $2,000 taxable cash grant available to apprentices who complete their program and receive a journey person certificate on or after January 1, 2009. So far we have issued over 44,000 completed grants. Our government is committed to supporting hard-working individuals who work toward that goal and complete it.

With each of the apprenticeship grants, an apprentice can receive up to a total of $4,000 in grants from both of these programs. While the statistics and program descriptions are necessary, the great news for Canadians is that there is nothing better than hearing from Canadians as they describe the concrete benefits of these programs.

In my riding of Simcoe—Grey, Tim Young, the owner of Steer Enterprises in Glen Huron, is one such individual whose hard work and dedication helps him to grow his business by utilizing the apprenticeship grants program offered by the Conservative government. Currently he has three apprentices working in his company, but over the course of this program he has utilized the apprenticeship grant program offered by our government to the tune of up to 50 apprentices. These apprentices are now all getting their first successful jobs so they can move forward. These are real results and benefits, and precisely the things we need to be focused on so that Canadians can be successful. I encourage any young Canadian who is considering the trades to apply for these grants.

Through our targeted initiative for older workers, our government has helped over 16,000 older workers to find new skills and employment to help them transition at a vulnerable point in their lives.

In the first phase of Canada's economic action plan, we provided an extra five weeks of employment insurance benefits to 1.1 million claimants. We also helped 190,000 long-tenured workers receive extended EI benefits and we provided career transition assistance to support longer-term training.

We make work-sharing more flexible. In response to the recent economic downturn, our Conservative government temporarily extended the maximum duration of work-sharing agreements to 52 weeks, eased requirements for employers' recovery plans and streamlined application processes. More than 298,000 individuals have benefited from over 10,800 work-sharing agreements from February 2009 to September 2011.

Our government's work-sharing program is designed to help employers facing a temporary downturn in business to avert layoffs, and the results are clear: our program is working. Work-sharing provides a win-win circumstance for everyone involved, and our government is committed to supporting this program.

Canadians continue to enjoy the dignity that comes with a job. Employers are able to address a reduced requirement for labour, and at the end of the day people who otherwise would accept unemployment insurance benefits are attached to the workforce and continue to contribute to Canada's economic growth.

We extended the targeted initiative for older workers by $50 million over two years in the 2011 budget. This program is a federal-provincial-territorial cost-shared initiative designed to provide support to unemployed older workers in communities affected by significant downsizing or high unemployment. These programs are normally coordinated by community-based organizations and offer a combination of approaches that include skills training, work experience and assistance to become self-employed.

Older workers are valuable to our economy. They provide experience and skills and stability. They have helped build our country over the years and have contributed to our society and our economy. We need to ensure that their transition out of the workforce and into retirement is a smooth and trouble-free one that they enjoy.

Our government has also invested $420 million to renew two EI pilot programs for one year. These include working while on claim pilot projects and the best-14-weeks pilot project. The purpose of an EI pilot project is to test, for a definitive period of time, changes to the EI program. The goal is to make it more consistent with current employment practices and trends in order to improve service to the public.

The working while on claim pilot increases the working while on claim threshold to allow individuals to earn greater than $75 or 40% of their benefits and tests whether this increased threshold will provide a greater incentive for individuals to accept all available work while receiving EI benefits.

The best-14-weeks program calculates EI benefits based on the best 14 weeks of earnings over a 52-week period. It tests whether this approach encourages claimants to accept all available work prior to establishing a claim.

Furthermore, we enhanced the wage earner protection program. We are extending this program to employees who lost their jobs when their employers attempted restructuring. It takes into account the six-month and the end of bankruptcy or receivership time program. This will cost about $4.5 million annually.

In my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, I can speak to the next phase of the economic action plan. We saw a $1 million investment over two years to expand the delivery of our preventive mediation program. The goal of this program is to help employers and unions move from adversarial to collaborative relationships.

Let me conclude by talking about Stephen Cecchin, who participated in the skills link program as an apprenticeship builder. Previously Stephen worked in seasonal and part-time jobs that did not provide him with much of the skills training he needed to advance his career. After participating in the Niagara Peninsula homes employment project, he was offered an apprenticeship with an electrical contractor. That is the break he needed. Now he is looking forward to building a better future for himself and his family.

Our government is working hard on making sure Canadian workers and their families can gain the skills and training they require to create opportunities for themselves.

Canadians are not asking government to create makeshift jobs. What they want is a government that believes in them and will help them with building their future. Canadians are not looking for a handout; they are looking for a hand up.

As we saw in the last election, Canadians overwhelmingly supported this government's low-tax plan for jobs and economic growth. I would ask members to do what Canadians did and support our Prime Minister as he continues to deliver on this important priority for Canadians.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has painted a very rosy picture for Canadian youth, considering that youth unemployment in Canada is more than double the already high unemployment rate for all Canadians and considering the terrible tragedy that goes with that for a young individual just starting out in life.

I would ask the member how she and her government can justify, for example, the minister from Muskoka spending $50 million in his riding for gazebos and hockey rinks. How can she justify the creation of fake lakes in Toronto, procurement costs that cost Canadians billions of dollars and the inappropriate use of government jets and search and rescue vehicles? How can she justify this gross misuse of our scarce tax dollars when so many youth are still unemployed and facing an even bleaker future, according to the International Monetary Fund and all economists today?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to put these numbers into context. Youth unemployment in Canada is 14%, and we do need to focus on that, but it is 21% in the EU, 18.1% in the U.S., 23.4% in France and 46.2% in Spain.

In 2010-11, the youth employment strategy helped 57,000 youth get job skills and work experience so that they could be successful in entering the labour market. The economic action plan is helping to grow and create jobs. That means an opportunity for employment for all of our students.

Under our government, Canadians have benefited from the creation of 600,000 net new jobs. Our plan is about creating jobs. Those are jobs for Canadian students and youth. Unlike NDP members, who want to raise taxes and eliminate jobs, we are creating jobs across the country.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned economic development. I want to ask her if she believes in the corporate welfare for corporate serial killers that the government continues to give to the asbestos industry when the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Cancer Society and the National Institute of Public Health are all calling for a complete ban on asbestos in all of its forms.

How can the member, as a medical doctor, in all good conscience defend and even participate in actively promoting and subsidizing the asbestos industry--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. I would like to remind all hon. members of the matter that is before the House today. Their questions and comments ought to be oriented toward that.

If the hon. parliamentary secretary would like to respond to that comment, she has the floor.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government has promoted the safe and appropriate use of chrysotile products.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It's a disgrace.