Mr. Speaker, for some time now some we have had some discussion with respect to the situation of our economy. Now that we have surpassed the concern of the deficit, or at least now that we have reached the targets the government has set for itself, interest rates are the lowest we have had in decades and inflation is low.
There is a great deal of discussion in all corners of the country about what should be done now with what is perceived to be extra moneys available to ease up the pressures of the deficit situation. A great deal of what we here is also about tax cuts. I have some serious concerns and recommend that the government should not take this direction.
Tax cuts are not the solution. Lower interest rates have helped to save a great deal of money across the economy. Tax cuts in themselves tend to help people with the highest incomes and not those with the lowest ones. They tend to lower revenues, which means at a time of deficit and high debt there must be another way to replenish revenues.
It has been done in the province of Ontario where user fees are being brought in for just about everything. User fees are a regressive form of taxation because they hit everybody equally, especially those who have low incomes. They hurt people who are struggling at the moment. I do not see tax cuts as a solution to the situation of today.
The government has to look at the whole issue of how to ease up funds, what do do with them and in what areas of society to invest. It has to look at how to encourage the creation of jobs, assist people in difficult situations and invest in the future and the people of the country, the best resource we have.
I would like to look at what I call the social economy. We tend to look at social issues as having something to do with charity and social programs as opposed to something directly tied to the economy. The two are one and the same. I call it the social economic policy as opposed to one or the other.
The working income supplement was increased for poor families in the last budget. I am glad the finance committee recommended a further increase. That will put money into the hands of average families. These people do not have extra money. They do not use the money for holidays. That money is used to survive. It is used to buy products in their communities. It assists the economy at the same time as it helps families.
We need to address the issue of child care very aggressively so that affordable quality child care across Canada is accessible. A proper child care program allows people to work. Some family members are not able to go to work. Some are working and the children are being left in situations which are not healthy and nurturing. That does not assist in their development. That affects their future ability to produce and contribute to our society.
There is the whole issue of child poverty. Child poverty is very detrimental to the family. The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development recommended-and the government is now committed to dealing with it-enhanced child benefits which puts money into the hands of families that require it. Again that assists in the nurturing of the child.
It is no secret that a child who is assisted from birth to three years of age or six years of age is an investment in society. These children will have a greater opportunity to develop normally and compete with the best in the world. We need to invest in the future of our children. Otherwise we will not be able to compete with the rest of the world. That is reality. That is part of our economy. The social costs down the road will be that much less.
We must guard our health care system. We must ensure that it is protected and that it remains a wholly public system. Health care is not only an economic issue. If people are worried about whether they will be able to protect their health tomorrow it increases their stress. The health of people contributes directly to their ability to work and to their ability to contribute to society.
In addition, the Canadian health care system enhances the ability to attract business. The quality of our health care system is one of the reasons businesses come to Canada, as well as the quality of life and our safe cities. Money spent in social and physical infrastructure attracts business to Canada. That is very positive. It has to do with the economy; it is not only a social issue.
When we invest in literacy, people are able to work. It is very sad that there are jobs going begging in the country which people cannot fill. Investing in literacy is investing in people: people are able to take the jobs which are available and we are able to compete with the world. It is an economic issue.
Let me touch on the whole issue of work. We need to look at work in a different way. We cannot simply talk about employment. We have to look at the quality of work. What does that mean?
It is time to look at things such as work sharing and possibly a four-day work week. Husbands in my constituency have said they would love to be able to work four days so that they could share in child rearing responsibilities with their wives. It is social, but it is part of the economy and helps the employment situation.
Any moneys invested in assisting youth in the transition from education to employment or in youth training are very important. The recent announcements of the government in this regard are excellent. It is investing in people.
The Donner report to the government stated that it would like to see the government implement a 40-hour week, giving people the right to refuse overtime. Overtime in this country has become enormous. People go home so stressed that it is affecting families. When stress becomes chronic, it affects health, production and the
economy. Again, it is something else that we need to look at. It is very important.
We need to find a way to bring together the skills of Canadians in a national apprenticeship program. We need to negotiate with the provinces an agreement for portability of trade. This is something that is very critical. We cannot have people who are trained in one province that cannot work in another. It is not a social program. It is an economic program.
Finally, we must begin to recognize that protecting the environment does not kill jobs. It creates jobs. We call them brain jobs sometimes.
We have tremendous ability in technology that we can sell abroad and invest in protecting our environment. At the same time it is creating jobs. Protecting the environment not only protects the future of Canadians and our planet but it also creates jobs.
I want to give a bit of an emphasis today on how to approach social infrastructure. When we talk about social infrastructure we are talking at the same time about economic infrastructure. The two are not separate. They are one and the same. They are very interlinked. I want to encourage the government to take that direction very aggressively in the next budget.
