Debates of Sept. 25th, 2012

Opposition Motion—Income Inequality

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am worried about next year. Over the last few months, we have heard from the people who are being clawed back and now we are hearing about businesses and institutions that are going to be in really bad shape because of what is going to happen with their employees who used to work for them all year and will now be working for them for a day. It is going to have an impact on fish plants, schools and hospitals.

My question to her is this. In her riding and province, is this going to have a detrimental impact on the institutions and businesses so that they go out of business or may not be able to function the following year without the people they used to employ?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague can certainly relate to what is going on in his province just as I can relate to what is going on in mine.

We hear over and over from employers who operate seasonal businesses that the rules that have changed under the Conservative government are having a detrimental impact. If people are being forced to move away to work, that means seasonal businesses will not be able to find employees. That is a serious issue because the economic base for a lot of small communities is seasonal industries. People are going to be forced to move to Alberta where they can get full-time employment instead of being able to do what needs to be done from a seasonal industry perspective and then find other jobs to supplement that. Everyone wants to work. No one wants to be on employment insurance, and that is what we need to recognize.

We need to bear in mind that trying to accommodate people from all walks of life, who work in all types of industries, is what the government should be doing, instead of looking at it as either black or white.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that I certainly support the motion. The motion relates to inequality and so I will speak mainly on the new EI clawback rules that came into effect on August 5. As the leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Toronto Centre, said in his remarks, the government has taken steps that have in fact accelerated inequality. He outlined a number of areas.

I want to talk specifically about the EI changes and how they have really accelerated inequality. My colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador just talked about her riding. She said the wealthy are getting wealthier and the poor, poorer and that the gap is growing. Nothing shows it more starkly than these changes to the employment insurance system.

If a person is making over $300 per week, then they are a little better off, but if they are making less than $300 a week, they are very much worse off.

In my neck of the woods people are in the seasonal industries. We have tourism, fisheries and agriculture, all of them seasonal industries. A farmer may need someone for a day, so the person will only get a day's work, or in the fisheries doing mussels it may be for half a day or a day. A person on employment insurance is lucky if he or she can get more than a day, a day and a half or sometimes two days a week extra employment, because in all honesty, the jobs are just not there, but we need those people in the seasonal industry.

On these very provisions the government introduced, I question whether the minister understands her files according to the answers she has been giving on this issue. However, knowingly or unknowingly, the government has introduced a system that is good for those who are making fairly decent money and are able to get the additional work, but is terrible for those who do not have the work time in their own areas. That is not the way the system should be going. It could be done with balance.

The original system allowed 40% of eligible EI earnings to be kept while working on claim without any clawbacks. If the government had introduced legislation with the 50% clawback starting after the 40% level, then the system would have worked for everyone and it would not have increased inequality.

I want to give the House a couple of examples that are coming our way. Constituent one is a nurse from my riding. She is on parental leave. She lives 45 minutes away from the hospital. The hospital only needs her for one four-hour shift. Another nurse I know works an eight-hour shift, but they only need her for one hour.

The nurse has to hire a babysitter, put gas in the car and drive 45 minutes each way. She is only getting four hours work, but the benefit of that is that it helps the hospital with its scheduling and maintains the nurse's skills. She is in the hospital once a week, seeing patients, seeing any new computer changes and keeping up on all the things she has to do as a registered nurse working in the health care system. Therefore, it keeps her in the field and her skills sharp, which is a real benefit to the health care system.

However, the government, in its lack of wisdom through this change, is now clawing back half of those wages. She is only getting paid 50¢ on the dollar because of this change. That is hurting both the health care system and the nurse as an employee, because she no longer has benefits from going to work. In fact, she said she could not afford it and told the hospital she could no longer work that shift because it was costing her financially. That is a loss to the health care system, and there are hospitals with several such employees. That is the impact of these changes.

A second constituent had this to say in her letter:

I do taxes for a living so our season is 3-4 months in the Spring. When the information was sent earlier in the year about the 50% clawback, I misunderstood the depth of the changes. I assumed (because it wasn't stated clearly) that those on E.I. would still be allowed to earn 40% without it affecting their E.I., and everything they earned while working would, instead of coming off dollar for dollar, come off 50% on the dollar.

However, this is so not true to my dismay 2 weeks ago. There is no allowable earnings? What's to entice people to work while on E.I.? The thought of making half of their wages? We now have to weigh the option of whether to work or whether to stay home because nobody wants to work for free.

There are really four things happening here as a result of the minister's changes. First, the great majority of people in Atlantic Canada are earning far less while working on claim than they were under the old system. Let us keep in mind that these people see it very vividly.

If they were on employment insurance prior to August 5, whether it was parental leave, regular EI, fisheries EI or compassionate care, and they were working while on claim, then they would get their check following August 5. Their total net disposal income, what they get on EI plus what they earned while working on claim with the new clawback, very vividly shows that they are getting less. They can see it because they were in the system before and they can see the return now.

There are four impacts. First, the majority of employees in Atlantic Canada have far less disposable income under this system. Second, employers are affected in that if they want a person for a day or a day and a half a week, they are not going to be able to get them because people cannot afford to work when half of their wages, 50¢ on the dollar, are being clawed back by the Conservative government.

Third, the economy is impacted, because there will be a loss of productivity. Employers will not be able to find employees for short-term work. A potato farmer who has truckloads of potatoes to grade but is only going to have work for half a day a week, where is he going to get employees?

Fourth, and dangerously, it will create an underground economy. People will say, “Look, I know you need workers and I know I cannot afford to work and claim it, so can you pay me cash?”

That is the reality of the system, those four serious points.

Out of concern, I took a number of cases from Atlantic Canada and asked the Library of Parliament to do an analysis of the old system and the new system. They produced a document entitled, “Case studies for the new pilot project, working while on claim”.

Mr. Speaker, because it has been mentioned here in the talking points of the government, you will know that the minister did provide an example, which she put in her letter. However, these are real case studies based on real lives. They tell a story. In all of these cases, people are getting less now than they were under the old system. That is increasing the inequity within our country.

At the very beginning of this document, it explains the system and how it works. It is very clear from a question by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister that was addressed to the member for Cape Breton—Canso that he does not understand the system.

In conclusion, as the government does not understand the system and as this document is from the Library of Parliament, which does good work, I wonder if I could have unanimous consent to table this report so that government members could see actual cases and the explanation of how the system really works or does not work.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we go to questions and comments, does the hon. member for Malpeque have the unanimous consent of the House to table the document?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

There is no consent.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find that the Liberal Party really has some nerve: it gives a speech on the effects of the cuts and changes to employment insurance even though the member for Malpeque was in the caucus that decided to take $57 billion out of the fund.

How can the member have any credibility today when he talks about the impact of the employment insurance measures on families and the unemployed, given that he was a member of the Liberal caucus responsible for those machinations?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really want to go after the member for Saint-Jean, but his question shows what is wrong with this House of Commons.

There is a real issue with people in poverty. I cannot change what happened 10 years ago. In fact, it does not matter today. I can tell members what we did as a government in balancing the books and leaving the current government with a surplus.

However, for the member to get up and ask a question about 10, 15, or 20 years ago when people's daily lives are being injured, and for it to come from the NDP which claims to care for people, is not the way things should be done around this place.

We have a problem. It is a problem with employment insurance and the changes that came into effect on August 5. There is a solution to that problem. It is for the government to recognize that it made a mistake and to institute the 40% again in its new system. That would fix the problem.

However, I have a problem in this place with the way we attack each other as parties all the time and miss the real point, which is the problem with the EI system now.

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe we can give some more recent examples for the member from the Liberal Party of the things he has voted against that actually do harm Canadians.

The Liberals voted against the child tax credit. They voted against the national child benefit supplement. These help low-income families make sure that their children are well provided for. They voted against Helmets to Hardhats. They voted against the targeted initiative for older workers. They voted against apprenticeship opportunities for young Canadians.

I think it is a little rich for the members opposite, in particular, this Liberal member, who voted against all these initiatives for the unemployed and low-income families, to say that we have not done enough.

We are doing a great deal. We are creating jobs. They are not.

I ask--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have created some jobs but they have certainly increased the number of unemployed in their term in office, and now they have undermined the system and are setting up a new system that has in fact increased inequity.

However, the parliamentary secretary just made the point that I expressed a few minutes ago. Instead of dealing with the issue of today, she goes back to the votes of yesterday, of two years ago, of five years ago.

I can go back to the votes, for heaven's sake, in Brian Mulroney's time or when it was the Reform Alliance Party and say,“You voted against this. You voted against that”. It does not matter for this discussion.

The parliamentary secretary destroys her own credibility with that kind of question.

I am embarrassed for her that she gets up in this House every day and spouts PMO talking points, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister did earlier, which shows that they do not know the system they imposed on unemployed Canadians and that they are increasing inequity.

I say to her, forget your talking points and fix the problem.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, I would like to remind all hon. members, when they have the floor, to make their comments directly to the Chair, and for those who do not have the floor to give respect to their colleagues when they have the opportunity to speak.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

I will try to bring the amount of energy of the past speaker, but I will add a little more fact to my speech.

I am disappointed in today's Liberal motion, specifically the attempt by the Liberal Party to play political games with the registered disability savings plan, the RDSP. Even more troubling about this rather distasteful attempt to play politics here is the fact that the Liberal Party actually voted against the creation of the RDSP.

Early after being elected in 2006, our Conservative government recognized that parents of children with severe disabilities faced emotional strains and financial hardships that were often mentally and physically overwhelming. One of the difficult burdens these parents face was the thought of what would happen to their son or daughter in the future, especially after they were gone. It is not an easy topic to come to grips with and not one we would want to sully with political games.

That is why our Conservative government went about creating what became the RDSP by talking to Canadians most impacted directly. We struck an expert panel that toured the country and listened to hundreds of stories, often difficult stories, forcing those involved to consider those events in life that we did not like to talk about frequently. The expert panel held a very open and public consultation. It considered the advice, talked to experts and conducted more research. From that process, a detailed report entitled “A New Beginning” was released in December 2006, with numerous recommendations. The report is available online on the finance department's website and I encourage all Canadians to read it.

I would draw the attention of Canadians to pages 29 and 32, which discuss at length the eligibility criteria to become a beneficiary and a number of possible eligibility criteria the panel considered, to which today's motion alludes.

From the advice the they heard during their deliberations, panel members recommended that eligibility to become a beneficiary of a registered disability savings plan be coincidental with eligibility for the disability tax credit as defined in subsection 118.3 of the act and that there be no additional eligibility requirements.

Making the disability tax credit eligibility a requirement for the RDSP was deemed, as per the panel's report, the most appropriate way to ensure that the plan would be targeted to those with a severe and prolonged disability, based on a definition of disability that was already used and accepted in the income tax system.

With respect to the disability tax credit, it is beneficial to review the general policy rationale and eligibility criteria. Specifically, the disability tax credit provides tax relief to individuals: markedly restricted in their ability to perform a basic activity of daily living due to the effects of one or more severe or prolonged impairments in mental or physical functions; significantly restricted in their ability to perform more than one basic activity of daily living, if the cumulative effect of their restrictions is equivalent to having a single marked restriction in the ability to perform a basic activity of daily living, as certified by a qualified health practitioner; or would be markedly restricted were it not for extensive life sustaining therapy three times a week or at least 14 hours in total.

With the exception of blindness, no specific impairment or condition automatically grants eligibility for the disability tax credit. Rather, eligibility for the disability tax credit is determined on a case-by-case basis based on the effects of the impairment.

The Canada Revenue Agency is responsible for administering the Income Tax Act. Determining whether an individual qualifies for disability tax credit is the responsibility of the CRA. This objective approach ensures that tax relief is provided to those most in need.

Furthermore, the current eligibility criteria are consistent with the advice of another advisory panel, the Technical Advisory Committee on Tax Measures for Persons with Disabilities, established in 2003 under the former Liberal government, to provide advice on how to address tax issues affecting persons with disabilities.

The committee's final report was submitted in December 2004 and contained 25 recommendations. As the report was submitted to a Liberal government, the Liberal Party no doubt recalls that the committee made several recommendations regarding the eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit and that in 2005 the Liberal government accepted the committee's policy recommendations.

The disability tax credit continues to abide by the eligibility criteria the former Liberal government accepted. Nevertheless, our Conservative government knows that the registered disability plan is a program that can always be improved. That is why, when we created it, we explicitly committed to reviewing it three years after it became operational. As members may know, this review occurred between October and December 2011.

Again, our Conservative government encouraged all Canadians, including individuals, families, groups representing Canadians with disabilities, financial institutions and experts in the field, to share their views on the registered disability savings plan. Based on their feedback received during the review, our economic action plan proposed a number of measures to improve the RDSP.

In recognition of the fact that beneficiaries who were disability tax credit ineligible might, due to the nature of their condition, be eligible for the disability tax credit for some later year, it proposed to extend in certain circumstances the period for which a registered disability savings plan may remain open when they became disability tax credit ineligible. This measure would apply to registered disability savings plans where the beneficiary had become disability tax credit ineligible and where a medical practitioner certified in writing that the nature of the beneficiary's condition made it likely that the beneficiary would, because of the condition, be eligible for the disability tax credit in the foreseeable future.

I should also note that in response to feedback from Canadians, we also recently passed legislation to ensure that individuals could appeal, in every case, a determination concerning their eligibility for the DTC.

Rest assured that the government is keenly aware of the importance of the registered disability savings plan to Canadians with severe disabilities and their families. To that end, we remain committed to ensuring that support is provided to those most in need. We will not play politics with it and strongly advise the Liberal Party to do the same, especially considering the fact that it voted against the registered disability savings plan's very creation.

Instead I ask the Liberal members to listen to the stories of those Canadian families that have been touched by the RDSP, families like Antonia Maioni's. Antonia is a noted professor of political science at McGill University, but she is also the mother of a very special boy. In her words, as written in the Globe and Mail recently, she says:

—while most people are worrying whether they can maintain their lifestyle in retirement, parents of the disabled are more apt to wonder whether we'll have the strength or the means to care for our adult dependents--not to mention what happens when we’re no longer around.

She commends our government for bringing forward the registered disability savings plan for these children with disabilities so they can rest assured there will be provision for them in the future.

I have heard a lot of words from the Liberals, but we have not seen a lot of action. When they do act, it is to vote against the measures of our government that bring support to families that need it. I ask all members of the House to join with me and vote against the Liberal record of inaction.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the hon. gentleman's remarks about the registered disability savings plan. Part way through his speech he said that he was always interested in ways to improve the plan and he listed a number of improvements. That is good and helpful, but he did not deal with the one that is included in the motion today.

The motion today notes that there are some people who suffer from chronic health problems, like multiple sclerosis, who will face some very difficult circumstances in future, but may be perfectly fine or in reasonably good shape today. However, they are worried about what will follow years down the road.

By making the disability tax credit the threshold for the registered disability savings plan, it means those people cannot have access to a registered disability savings plan because they are not disabled today. Sadly, they probably will be in the future but not today.

What is wrong with finding some way to revise the access point to the registered disability savings plan to allow those people who have these chronic conditions to begin to prepare today for the unfortunate circumstances they will face in future years?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Parliament putting together expert panels to review these issues is to take their advice. They get the input from Canadians across the country, meditate on what they have heard and make recommendations to the government. This was not a recommendation at that time, but I trust the judgment and the knowledge of the panel.

Regardless whether that was included, the fact is the other party voted against any establishment of the disability pension. Therefore, I cannot understand why all of a sudden it has a concern for it now.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate this morning and it seems there is somewhat of a disconnect. Discussion before us is on the growing income gap and inequality in the country. If we look at the expert numbers that come in, the income disparity is greater now than at any time since before the Great Depression. That is a shocking fact, regardless of what one's political beliefs are. The fact that the top 1% in our country are bringing home one-third of the wealth is shocking in a country that sees itself as solidly middle class.

Does the hon. member think that is a problem? If he thinks that is a problem, then we can begin to look at solutions. If he thinks it is perfectly okay that there is a growing income gap, that people at the bottom are starting to fall through the cracks and that young students are paying higher levels of debt without being offered a chance to make their way in the economy, then that is a different discussion. For balance in a good growing economy, a growing income gap is either a problem or not.

I would like to hear whether my hon. colleague thinks this is an issue that should be dealt with.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question gives me an opportunity to tell Canadians the good news about what we have done in past budgets to improve their quality of life.

First, we have lowered taxes so the average family of four pays over $3,000 less taxes in a year. We have also dropped the GST by 2%, which puts more money in the back pockets of Canadians. In fact, I calculated that $38 million a year just in my constituency alone does not go to Ottawa and stays in the back pockets of my constituents.

We raised the GIS exemption from $500 to $3,500, benefiting 1.6 million seniors.

We have the child care allowance of $100 for each child under six. When I campaigned in the last election, I heard from young mothers who said that it was a great thing, that it really helped their budget and they thanked us for doing that.

We have a number of initiatives to create jobs so people can work and get better jobs. Our committee has studied skills training to empower Canadians to get employment or better jobs.

We have done a number of things to improve the standard of living. In fact, this is the first time in this decade that the centre of income in Canada has surpassed that of the United States.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and to respond to this motion. It covers a number of areas. I would like to highlight our government's success in ensuring that all Canadians have the opportunity to access post-secondary education. My focus will be on that aspect of it.

As a government, our focus is on jobs and economic growth, and we recognize that ensuring educational opportunities for our youth is vital to our competitive advantage as a nation.

Over the last several years, the OECD has consistently reported that Canada has the highest proportion of post-secondary graduates in the OECD and the G7.

It is not just the OECD that recognizes the success of Canada's post-secondary education system. This month the Council of Ministers of Education released Education Indicators in Canada, in which it found that Canadians are better educated than they were 10 years ago. It also reiterated that Canadians have one of the highest post-secondary attendance rates in the developed countries. This certainly is an important indicator of how we are doing overall. The progress we made in the last number of years has been very significant.

Our success in post-secondary education and training contributes to our labour market productivity and competitiveness. It sparks inspiration, drives innovation and pushes us to succeed in the global economy.

Understanding this, our Conservative government has placed a premium on improving access to learning and training opportunities. It is our Conservative government's policies that are ensuring Canada remains a leader in post-secondary education.

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, HRSDC, contributes to Canada's growth and future prosperity by providing supports to students so they can obtain the skills they need to excel in today's demanding job market.

According to the OECD, Canada's youth employment rate is the second lowest among our economic peers. Undeniably, education falls under the provincial jurisdiction and domain, but we do everything within our jurisdictional powers to reduce barriers to those seeking a higher education.

We are taking action in priority areas where we can make a difference. One of the most important areas is removing financial obstacles, which will ensure that an individual's family finances do not determine his or her ability to access post-secondary education. Of course our most powerful tool to establish and accomplish this is the Canada student loans program. In 2010-11, the program served more students than ever before in its history. More than 500,000 students received support to pursue their post-secondary education. Since 2008, our government has implemented major improvements to student financial assistance to help students achieve their educational and future employment goals.

Budget 2008 introduced the Canada student grants program, a very important program. These grants provide upfront, non-repayable assistance to students from low- and middle-income families, as well as students with permanent disabilities or dependents. In 2010-11, more than 320,000 students received funding through the student grants program. That is an increase of 25,000 students over the previous year.

Budget 2008 also brought in the repayment assistance plan, which helps borrowers experiencing difficulty repaying their loans. I have heard directly from students in this regard. It allows them to make affordable payments based on their family income and family size. In 2010-2011, 165,000 students benefited from this plan. In fact, 90% of the students on the repayment assistance plan did not have to make any payments at all. The success of this program has led to an all-time low in student default rates. It is a very important program for students and one that is well received. The difference is quite noticeable. In the 2003-04 year, under the previous Liberal government, there was a 28% default rate. In the 2009-10 year, our Conservative government reduced this to a 13.8% default rate.

Our government has also expanded online services enabling people to apply for and manage their loans online, everything from applications to loan repayments. This provides a more convenient service to students who are increasingly accustomed to managing their lives online, while at the same time replacing a lot of old paper-based processes.

Year after year, we introduce new measures to make post-secondary education more accessible. Sadly, each year we see the opposition vote against making post-secondary education more accessible.

Budget 2010 announced significant supports for Pathways to Education to help disadvantaged youth pursue post-secondary education. This program is a community-based charitable group that was founded in Regent Park in Toronto in 2001. It encourages disadvantaged youth to stay in school and go on to college or university, as education is very important if they wish to advance. It focuses on addressing both financial and non-financial barriers to post-secondary education, and no doubt getting an education is a key.

The program has been so successful that it has expanded to 11 communities over the past decade and has helped to significantly reduce high school dropout rates. Federal funding will help Pathways improve its programming and expand to even more communities across the country, helping up to 10,000 youth access the program.

I can proudly say that we are delivering on these commitments despite the opposition voting against all of these initiatives.

In budget 2011 we expanded the eligibility for both the Canada student loans program and the Canada student grants for full and part-time students. We increased the amount of income students can earn, so they can earn more and still qualify for financial assistance. This is something that the students themselves requested and we have listened to them.

Our government has doubled the amount of money full-time students can earn while they study, from $50 to $100 per week, without affecting how much they can receive in loans.

Since January 1 of this year, new and existing loans for part-time students are interest-free during their studies. This change will save students on average close to $350 a year. Reducing this financial burden will enable part-time students to better balance the responsibilities of work and home while studying. It will also help to put a post-secondary education within the reach of more Canadians.

As well, we have committed significant funds to forgive a portion of the Canada student loans for family doctors, residents in family medicine, nurse practitioners and nurses who work in rural or remote communities. This will provide incentives to new graduates to consider working in parts of the country in urgent need of these services, including first nations, Inuit and Métis communities.

As a member of Parliament from a rural region of the country I can attest to the fact that we need more doctors in rural Canada. In fact, just recently as I was flying to Ottawa, a constituent sitting next to me raised this issue and the fact that getting doctors and nurses in rural areas is a grave difficulty and an important concern to the community.

Doctors will be eligible for up to $8,000 in loan forgiveness per year to a maximum of $40,000. Nurses and nurse practitioners will be eligible for Canada student loan forgiveness of $4,000 per year up to a maximum of $20,000. These benefits will become available in the spring of 2013.

We are not finished yet.

We will continue to work with our provincial and territorial colleagues to streamline the system. For instance, we just recently reached an agreement with the Government of British Columbia to integrate the province's loan program with the Canada student loan program. B.C. students now only need to deal with one service provider instead of two, the National Student Loans Service Centre.

Also in time for the 2012-13 school year, full-time students in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador will no longer need to complete a loan agreement every time they receive funding. Instead, most students only have to fill out one loan agreement for the entire duration of their studies. The six provinces we are partnering with on these multi-year agreements represent 85% of Canada student loan borrowers. We are looking to make similar arrangements with the remaining jurisdictions.

Thus far I have only talked about our government's direct assistance to students and their families, which is enabling young Canadians to attend college or university. That does not even begin to cover the many other ways we support post-secondary education.

Let me remind the House that the Government of Canada also underwrites research and infrastructure funding, and of course it transfers money to the provinces and territories that they spend on education.

All told, our government invests $10 billion each year to post-secondary education opportunities for Canadians, money that is making a major difference in the lives of post-secondary students and our country as a whole.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain chairs our human resources committee and does an admirable job. The point is that governments make mistakes on occasion. Somewhere along the line governments legalized smoking tobacco, and we know the devastating impacts that has on people's health now, but somewhere along the line governments thought that was okay.

The other day, the minister responsible for the Canada Revenue Agency admitted that her department had made a mistake and she was taking actions to correct that. We even had a colleague here from my party who tweeted and commended her on 'fessing up to making the mistake, and the problem has gone away.

I do not think this is a mistake. A large amount of information is now at the minister's disposal. She was numb to an answer for the first couple of days, but I am sure she has been briefed by now. Evidence is overwhelming that people are being hurt by these clawback provisions in the regulations around working while on claim. It cannot be a mistake.

The Conservatives have never provided a rationale as to why they want to hurt these people. Anybody who works less than three days in low-wage-earning positions is being hurt. What is the rationale?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate my colleague on being appointed the vice-vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources. I obviously value his opinion and thoughts on the committee as well as in the House here. I am sure any of the ills he speaks of in previous governments would have had to have been those of the Liberal government of which he is a member. I know he raises issues with the benefit portion regarding working while on claim.

There is no doubt that, in the past program, people could earn up to the greater of 75% or 40% of their weekly benefits, but then their benefits were clawed back dollar for dollar. In the new program we have come out with that benefits a vast number of people, the clawback would not be dollar for dollar. They would be able to keep 50¢ of every dollar they earn in addition to getting their EI program. I do not know how this person feels that clawing back 100% of what they earn might be better than keeping 50% of what they earn. Keeping 50% of what they earn is far better. It certainly would be an inducement for people to want to continue to work so they can earn their wage while on EI and receive the EI benefit and receive 50% of every dollar they make.

Is that so difficult to understand? That is certainly a benefit.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. member's speech.

As I mentioned in another question, I am still shocked by the succession of fragmented, clientelistic measures.

Even the objective of the motion has been forgotten, namely correcting the growing income inequality in Canada. I am going to ask the hon. member a question on one very specific point.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, corporate tax on annual profits over $500,000 has more or less been cut in half. That has been the result of a combination of decisions made by different governments since the beginning of the century. So it is not in the exclusive domain of the Conservatives.

This has had a number of consequences, because it has led to a huge amount of speculation, all the more so since it was a global movement. But it has not prevented salaries from dropping radically in a number of groups in society. Neither has it prevented the loss of 500,000 manufacturing jobs nor the ransacking of pension funds.

So why does he keep advocating such devastating measures budget after budget?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that a lot of the action taken is to ensure that it pays to work and that each family can keep more of what they earn. Since we have taken over as government, an average family keeps about $3,000-plus more than it would have previously, and that is a positive thing. We have taken initiatives to ensure we have enhanced things like the national child tax credit, ensuring that families are the ones that benefit by the actions we take. We are ensuring that families can continue better under this government and its programs than they did in the past.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants.

The growing gap between the rich and poor in Canada is a sign that we as a society are failing to preserve the core Canadian value of equality of opportunity for all people in Canada. Unfortunately, it is clear that the Conservatives do not believe that government has a positive role to play in facilitating equality of opportunity for all Canadians.

This morning, our leader asked the House to call on the government to take several simple and immediate actions to reduce the growing income inequality in Canada.

Clearly, those measures can begin to reduce the unacceptable gap between rich and poor.

It is clear that the Conservatives' ideology is focused on leaving Canadians on their own to fend for themselves. We recently saw the Conservatives' answer to social inequality when the UN special rapporteur on the right to food highlighted serious food insecurity issues in Canada, in particular in aboriginal communities.

We have seen the Conservatives' strategy play out time and time again. First, they emphatically deny that there is a problem and then savagely attack the credibility of those raising the issue. It is particularly shocking that aboriginal Canadians suffer from one of the largest gaps in terms of income inequality given that the Crown has a unique and historic fiduciary relationship with first nations people in Canada. The most recent Statistics Canada data shows that the median income for aboriginal peoples was 30% lower than that of non-aboriginals. Aboriginal Canadians are working to build sustainable prosperity in their communities but they can no longer count on their federal government as a partner.

Canadians know that education is the key to success. Appallingly, only one in three first nations students graduate high school and, under the Conservative government, the rate is getting worse. First nations receive only two-thirds of the annual per-student funding as non-first nations students in provincial systems but not one penny of the government's so-called new funding is targeted to close this annual $3,500 per-student gap. Why does the government think that an aboriginal student is worth less than a non-aboriginal student and why does it think that aboriginal students do not require that same equality of opportunity?

The Liberals support equal rights to high-quality and culturally appropriate education for first nations students and recognize that the present situation prevents them from participating fully in the social, economic and cultural life of their communities and of Canada as a whole.

With first nations suicide rates five times the national average and Inuit suicide rates eleven times higher, the Conservatives are cutting the aboriginal youth suicide prevention strategy. These are young people who feel hopeless and helpless and the government is cutting help to them. Even though aboriginals are much more likely to suffer from diabetes, have significantly higher infant mortality rates and significantly lower life expectancies, the Conservatives are cutting aboriginal health programs. The National Aboriginal Health Organization, the aboriginal diabetes initiative, the aboriginal health human resources initiative and the aboriginal health transition fund have all been cut by the government, but the government knows that social inequality is the key to health inequality.

Despite overcrowding rates on reserves six times those off reserve and more than 40% of on reserve homes in need of major repairs, the Conservatives have no plan to deal with the crisis in first nations housing.

Last November, the Conservatives supported a motion made in this House by the Liberal Party. The motion urged the government, as a priority, to address the needs of first nations communities whose members have no access in their homes to running water fit for drinking. This crisis requires more than those words; it requires action from the government.

The government has failed to provide funding to upgrade the huge numbers of first nations water and waste water systems, which have been determined by the government's own national assessment to be at either high or medium risk.

The government is turning its back on first nations, Métis and Inuit Canadians and the Canadian values of compassion and fairness. We know that health outcomes are the ultimate report card for the success of a society. Closing the gap in the health status of first nations, Inuit and Métis will only be possible if the government chooses to accept its role to address the equality of opportunity for the first peoples of Canada.

Since 2009, Richard Wilkinson's book, The Spirit Level, has brought together the evidence and raised the consciousness about the role of inequality and health outcomes. I will quote from his new and updated edition, The Spirit Level: Why Equality Is Better for Everyone. It reads:

It is now time egalitarians returned to the public arena. We need to do so confident that our intuitions have been validated and found to be truer than most of us ever imagined. Because the evidence shows that few people are aware of the actual scale of inequality and injustice in our societies, or recognise how it damages the vast majority of the population, the first task is to provide education and information.

Understanding these issues is already changing attitudes to inequality among politicians. In Britain, The Spirit Level has been endorsed across the political spectrum. In a major speech at the end of 2009, David Cameron said that the book showed that, among the richest countries, it is the more unequal ones that do worst, according to almost every quality of life indicator.

In September of this year, in his first major speech as the leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband said:

I do believe this country is too unequal and the gap between rich and poor doesn't just harm the poor, it harms us all....

Words are a start, but changing policies and politics, changing the way our societies organise themselves, will require the evidence to be recognised even more widely.

Few tasks are more worthwhile than this as we think The Spirit Level shows. The health of our democracies, our societies and their people is truly dependent on greater equality.

I am calling on the government today, if it is to share embassies with the British people, maybe it could listen to the experts and the politicians who are in the United Kingdom now on the importance of working on social inequality.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that during the nineties the Liberal Party actually cut $25 billion in social funding right across the country and hurt every aspect of every province and every citizen in this country.

Then the Liberals went on to actually steal some money from Canadians to put into brown envelopes to help other Liberals. Recently they voted against a number of our initiatives, such as the EI hiring tax credit, the targeted initiative for older workers and the Helmets to Hardhats.

I could go on, but I will ask my question. How does the member square what her party did with what her speech says today?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is a fantastic opportunity to explain that after we inherited the $43 billion deficit, the debt that the Conservative Party had given us, our economy was viewed by the rating agencies to be a basket case. There had to be serious measures, which were done with consultation with Canadians, in order to understand that the interest that would be paid on that debt would get in the way of us doing the important things that we knew needed to be done in terms of investment.

How did we move on early learning and child care that we know is very important in terms of single moms being able to go to work and become taxpayers if they wanted to do that.

It is unbelievable that the member would ask us why we have voted against budget after budget, which is exactly the “survival of the fittest, fend for yourself” kinds of programs that the Conservative ideology continues to visit upon the people of Canada, including the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for the Conservatives.