38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 057
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
|
 |
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Human Resources Development, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.) |
|
|
Finance |
|
|
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) |
|
|
Divorce Act |
|
|
Hon. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Opposition Motion--Child Care Funding |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Black History Month |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.) |
|
|
John Robert McCaig |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC) |
|
|
National Flag of Canada Day |
|
|
Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.) |
|
|
Université de Sherbrooke |
|
|
Ms. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ) |
|
|
Brampton Call Centre |
|
|
Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.) |
|
|
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada |
|
|
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) |
|
|
Skills for Change |
|
|
Mr. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.) |
|
|
Inter-University Trade Exchange Simulation Competition |
|
|
Mr. Roger Clavet (Louis-Hébert, BQ) |
|
|
National Flag of Canada Day |
|
|
Hon. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.) |
|
|
National Flag of Canada Day |
|
|
Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) |
|
|
Beslan Schoolchildren |
|
|
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
Nicole Leroux |
|
|
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) |
|
|
National Flag of Canada Day |
|
|
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) |
|
|
Auditor General's Report |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Auditor General's Report |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Child Care |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Public Security |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Child Care |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Foundations |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Auditor General's Report |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Millennium Scholarship Foundation |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Forces |
|
|
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Gas Tax |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Godfrey (Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Godfrey (Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), Lib.) |
|
|
Airports |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Public Safety |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Russ Powers (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Equalization Program |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Cleary (Louis-Saint-Laurent, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.) |
|
|
International Trade |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Aerospace Industry |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Printing and Franking Privileges--Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Opposition Motion—Child Care Funding |
|
|
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Christian Simard |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Christian Simard |
|
|
Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Barry Devolin |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Barry Devolin |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna |
|
|
Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna |
|
|
Mr. Lui Temelkovski (Oak Ridges—Markham, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Lui Temelkovski |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Lui Temelkovski |
|
|
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Nina Grewal |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Nina Grewal |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
Mr. Jeremy Harrison (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Division 35) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Department of International Trade Act |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
(Division 36) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Division 37) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Bill read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
Department of Foreign Affairs Act |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
(Division 38) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Constitution Amendment, 2005 |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Adjournment Proceedings
|
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1000)
[Translation]
Committees of the House
Human Resources Development, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities entitled: Restoring Financial Governance and Accessibility in the Employment Insurance Program.
This report calls for the creation of a new EI fund that will be dedicated exclusively to EI, will have the capacity to maintain premium rate stability and will be managed by an independent EI commission that is broadly representative of EI contributors.
* * *
(1005)
Finance
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-33, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2004, which agreed on Thursday, February 10, 2005, to report it without amendment.
* * *
[English]
Divorce Act
Hon. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-334, an act to amend the Divorce Act (child of the marriage).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill, an act to amend the Divorce Act, child of the marriage.
The bill is about the legal obligation imposed by the Divorce Act on divorced parents to pay child support for their children who are older than the age of majority and who are in fact adults at law. The bill would address that category of persons now inappropriately styled as adult children. The term “adult children” is an impossible legal concept that is only possible in family law and creates adults with rights greater than other adults.
I am certain many members of the House would want to adjust those rights.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Petitions
Marriage
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians, including from my own riding of Mississauga South, concerning the definition of marriage.
As we all know, the majority of Canadians believe that the fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament and not by the unelected judiciary.
It also is the duty of Parliament to ensure that marriage is defined as Canadians wish it to be defined. Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including the invocation of section 33 of the charter, the notwithstanding clause if necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure on behalf of the citizens of Prince George—Peace River, and particularly residents of Fort St. John, my home town, to present a petition on their behalf concerning marriage.
The petitioners note that the House passed a motion in June 1999 that called for marriage to continue to be recognized as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. They further note that currently the institution and definition of marriage is under attack and therefore they call upon Parliament to recognize in federal legislation the institution of marriage as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Supply]
* * *
(1010)
[English]
Opposition Motion--Child Care Funding
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) moved:
|
That the House call upon the government to address the issue of child care by fulfilling its commitment to reduce taxes for low and modest income families in the upcoming budget, and, so as to respect provincial jurisdiction, ensure additional funds for child care are provided directly to parents. |
He said: Mr. Speaker, our members will be splitting their times and I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
I am pleased today to introduce a motion calling for the government to honour its throne speech commitment to reduce taxes for lower and modest income Canadian families.
[Translation]
We also urge the government to take advantage of the coming budget to keep its promise on child care, while respecting provincial areas of jurisdiction and meeting the needs of Canadian families.
[English]
We call upon the government to give any new funds for child care directly to parents themselves. This debate comes just after the government's apparent failure last week to reach a federal-provincial agreement on child care and it gives the government one more chance to get things right and act on 12 years of broken promises.
As we all know, the Liberal Party has been promising Canadians a national child care program since 1993, so the recycling of this promise in the 2004 election was no surprise. However there is one major reason that the Liberal vision of child care will inevitably fail. In listening only to the government funded experts, who dominate the child care debate, the government has completely lost touch with the needs and aspirations of Canadian parents.
Parents have made it clear that they want choice and empowerment when it comes to deciding how they can best take care of their children.
A recent survey by the Vanier Institute of the Family asked parents to rank a series of possible child care options. Parents' first choice for raising their children was their spouse or partner. Second was a grandparent. Third was another relative. Fourth was home-based day care. Fifth was institutional day care. Finally there was the option of babysitting by friends or a hired sitter.
But the message is clear: parents want choices and they want to make those choices themselves. Yet the government's preferred option is to make the choice for them, to take parents' tax dollars and plough all available money into one option, that of supporting institutional day care centres, an option that parents themselves rank fifth out of six.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that I am a parent myself, with two young children. They are now in the early years of school and have just passed through the more intensive years of preschool care. Laureen and I chose a healthy mix of various day care options for our children. Some of this care was provided directly by their mother, especially in the first year and a half. We also have used close relatives. We have employed caregivers and, for a number of years, Benjamin and Rachel attended a regulated, institutional day care centre on a part time basis. For us, fortunately, all of these experiences have been good experiences, but for us the key has been choice, and in this party we want to ensure that a similar range of choices is available to and affordable for all parents.
It is certainly a mistake to assume that parents with choices would overwhelmingly select regulated, institutional, not for profit child care. This is not the experience elsewhere. Finland, for example, provides high quality, municipally run day care centres, but it also offers a monthly home care allowance for parents who choose to take an extended leave of absence from work in order to care for their children. The evidence shows that almost 70% of parents with children under three choose home care, while only 11% choose formal day care centres.
This brings me back to the other issue we raised in our motion today. Parents with children often indicate that they would prefer to stay at home or work part time in order to care for their children, yet at the same time a high percentage of parents with young children both work outside the home, often full time. I have no doubt that some of those parents would prefer and do prefer access to quality institutional day care, but what these facts tell us is that a large number of those parents would prefer to stay at home, work only part time and spend more time with their children were they able to do so.
Is it not possible that part of the reason so many parents with young children work outside the home is that our tax system makes it all but impossible for them to do otherwise?
Canada is almost unique in the industrialized world in providing no tax benefits to married couples and almost no tax benefits to families with children, beyond a very low income threshold. Other countries provide tax benefits like income splitting between parents, an additional basic personal exemption for children, or universal per child tax credits or deductions. Canada provides nothing except for the universal national child benefit and tax deductions for institutional care.
The Conservative Party certainly supports the existing deductions and the national child benefit program and would like to see this enhanced, but the benefit program does not provide enough assistance for many lower income parents to be able to consider staying at home to raise their children, and it provides next to nothing for parents once they are in the middle income range.
Rather than devoting billions of dollars to a child care program that will help only a small group of parents, that will pay for structures rather than services, that will lead to even higher government spending and higher taxes for families, and that runs the risk of conflict with provincial governments, we urge the federal government to devote much of the money to cutting taxes for lower income and middle income Canadians, enhancing the existing tax credits for families with children, extending them to more families, and using tax relief and credits to help support those choices that Canadian parents want to make for their own children.
(1015)
The tax system is completely within the jurisdiction of the federal government, so there is no need for complex negotiations or confrontation with provinces that may have different priorities.
[Translation]
The best division of the work, one respectful of Canada's federal nature, is what was agreed on when the National Child Benefit was created. In other words, let the provinces define the child care program they want, which may or may not include in regulated daycare spots, while the federal government provides financial support to parents and children through the tax system.
[English]
These changes could begin as early as next week's budget.
If the other parties in the House support this motion, it would be a strong signal to the government that it is time to end the pipe dream of a universal program of institutional child care and instead replace it with a universal program of supporting Canadian parents as they make their own choices for their own children.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I understand the motion presented to the House today, it is calling for choice so that families can choose the type of care they want to provide for their children. On that basis, I am going to support the motion.
One of the first petitions I presented in the House had to do with income splitting in families so that one of the family could stay at home and care for preschool children. The petition stated that “managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its contribution to our society” and that unpaid work is still work and should be recognized.
In addition to the comments made, let me say that there is a child care expense deduction under the Income Tax Act which is available only to those who pay others to provide care for their children. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition would also agree that this child care expense deduction should be changed to a credit which would be available to all families regardless of the form of care.
Hon. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comment and his question. As the member and I know well, there is an existing child care deduction for expenses, something that my family has availed itself of in the past.
The difficulty with that program is twofold. It is not simply that it supports only particular types of choices for child care, institutional choices, but as the member and others have pointed out in the past, it also discriminates toward high income earners. Not only is it mostly available to those who can afford heavy child care costs, but obviously the value of a deduction is greatest when one's income is highest.
This party has proposed in the past to enhance those deductions along the lines of what the member said, by providing deductions or credits which would be given regardless of the type of child care chosen. Obviously, I think, we should be looking at systems that would move to credits and enhance these benefits across income ranges.
I would not want to do away with the existing tax deductions that people have come to rely on, and I am not sure the member is implying that, but I obviously would suggest giving a wider range of benefits and choices.
We all know the government has the surpluses necessary to provide this kind of tax relief. We know also that all parties agreed to an amendment to the throne speech to recognize the necessity of reducing family taxation, so I urge the government to bring in a wider range of tax relief for parents with children in order to recognize the deficiencies of the system that we have today.
(1020)
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments. The hon. member for Simcoe North.
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we in this party will certainly not be supporting the Conservative motion today because we think it will just put another nail in the coffin of--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I stated the wrong riding name for the hon. member because members have to be in their own seats in order to ask a question. I would encourage the hon. member to be in his own chair, and then we will start his question at that time.
Mr. Tony Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am relatively new to this place and have seen on other occasions, perhaps under other rules, members sitting in different places and participating.
However, I want to repeat that we will not be supporting the resolution put forward by the Conservatives today because we think it will simply contribute to the growing gap between the rich and the poor and will fail to take advantage of the economic value that exists in good quality, not for profit, licensed child care.
I want to ask the opposition leader how he squares the circle in terms of this question of choice: between the women who do choose, 70% of them right now, to be out in the workplace, and the fact that we have huge lineups for licensed, registered, not for profit child care today in our country.
Hon. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is simple: because the tax system encourages people, whether they want to or not, in that it penalizes them for staying at home and it encourages them to enter the workplace and then provides only one option. It is fairly obvious why one option has a lineup and other options, even if people express a preference for using them, are not as available.
As I said in my comments, I am not in any way quarrelling with the choice of institutional day care. It is a choice I have used myself quite frequently, but we want to make sure that the range of options is available to people at a range of income levels.
I would just say this to the member from the NDP. I do think that the stand of the NDP on this reflects why over time the NDP has lost so much support from ordinary people. Once again we have the NDP backing the vested interest of a system, in this case the institutional day care system, rather than actually being concerned with focusing on the fundamental needs of ordinary people, and that is child care. It is the child care needs we should be concerned about, and the children, not the system and those who provide it.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have been listening since this debate began and I wonder where we are. My interest in politics began when Maurice Duplessis was in power. I do not know if this rings any bells for you, but it was during Quebec's dark ages. I have been listening to the Conservative Party and I feel as if we are taking a huge step backwards.
When child care is being discussed—
(1025)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, but this is not a point of order; this is debate, I believe. Unless there is a point of order in there that I have not heard, I ask the member to get directly to his point of order. Otherwise I believe he is engaging in debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon: I did not rise on a point of order. I wanted to ask the Leader of the Opposition a question.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The time for questions and comments has expired, unless there is unanimous consent to have another question. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: We will allow another question.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, thank you for letting me ask my question. I really thought that I still had some time. I am listening to the Conservative Party, and I listened to it throughout the election period, which is not so far behind us. I consider this to be a step backward.
They are talking about a universal child care system that encourages—and on this I agree with the NDP—discrimination between the rich and the poor. Quebec has established a day care system which, according to just about everyone in Quebec, is quite extraordinary: one that allows families, be they rich or poor, to enjoy the same benefits. So why go backward—why promote again a system that is 50 years behind the times?
Hon. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, clearly the hon. member misunderstood what I said. I said that there is a system in the Province of Quebec. This motion does not oppose the power to set up such a system. That is a provincial choice. One of the reasons why we are in favour of direct benefits to parents is to ensure that we do not impose an Ottawa policy on Quebec.
At the same time, the hon. member mentioned a former premier of Quebec—I do not know why—but I have to point out that I am a parent, whereas Mr. Duplessis never was.
[English]
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to an issue that affects Canadians in every area of this country. Raising children can be a challenge but changing demographics have only served to highlight these situations.
With new challenges come new problems and new opportunities.
Today, families can be blended, both parents usually work, families are separated from support systems by distances unseen just 25 years ago and many only have one parent.
No party in the House has a monopoly on care and love for children. No person in the House, no matter what party they come from, can be accused of not wanting the best for our children.
These matters are not up for debate. What is up for debate is the path we, as a government, can and should take to achieve what we believe is best for Canadian children.
Let me state what the biggest difference is between the Conservatives and other parties in the House on this matter.
The Conservative Party of Canada recognizes that parents are in the best position to determine the care needs of their children, not the federal government. Parents should be able to do so in an environment that encourages as many options as possible. The government should not be limiting options, but encouraging options. Any child care strategy must be achieved in a manner that does not discriminate against those who opt to raise their children in family, social, linguistic and religious environments. Parents must be given the freedom to choose what is best for their children, their families and their priorities.
Very importantly, we also recognize that the delivery of education and social services are provincial responsibilities under the Constitution. We intend to not only support the provinces, but to encourage the provinces to implement services that best serve their own citizens.
We believe that support should go to parents and families raising children, especially to lower and middle income parents. It is completely unfair for those needing assistance to hear that resources are limited, especially if they need help and see it going to those who do not need it.
All existing levels of support will be maintained and improved, if necessary. We would not reduce spending in this regard. This is very important. This is an important enough issue for all Canadians that we should all have a say, not just the Liberals.
Much of what we hear from the NDP and the Liberals today is very different from what we heard in the past in the Liberal minority report on child care. The current members of Elmwood—Transcona and Niagara Falls sat on the committee. Back then, the Liberals called their report, “Choices for Childcare: Now and the Future”.
At that time, the Conservatives and the Liberals both believed in parental choice. The Liberals said:
|
...there is high support for a number of locations for child care, including school facilities, child care places, licensed private homes, the child's home and the workplace. |
The Liberals said:
|
A choice as to the location and setting of child care is extremely important in meeting the individual family's needs. The key factors are quality, parental involvement and convenience of location. |
On flexibility, the Liberals said:
|
...services must be sensitive to this need, as it varies from community to community. |
At that time, the Liberals saw the need to prioritize low and moderate income families and to offer employer incentives to stimulate workplace day care.
In fact, the Conservatives at that time recommended a 100% tax write-off for such facilities. The Liberals said that was good but that the write-off should exceed 100 percent.
At the same time, the Liberals said:
|
Good parenting requires time to spend with children. We must also provide for better recognition and services for the full-time parent. |
The Liberals went on to say:
|
Quality child care must be designed as a support to good parenting, not a substitute for it. As such, it should provide for strong, positive parental involvement.... |
The Liberals at that time also commented on the delivery of day care by saying, “such a system undoubtedly would be a mix of profit and non-profit centres”.
(1030)
Why? The Liberals said that it was because:
|
...the federal government must be mindful of varying provincial fiscal capacities; varying letters of existing service and programs to expand child care; geographic or culturally based differences.... |
Then the Liberals demanded that:
|
...any new federal spending arrangement must be properly accountable to Parliament; that is, should receive authorization through an act. |
Those were their words, but not the actions we see today.
The Liberals said:
|
The system must be accountable, on an ongoing basis, to parents and taxpayers. As the...system expands, adequate measures will be required for ensuring that parents, taxpayers and employers receive value for money. As well, parents must have mechanisms to ensure quality and to call the system to account in cases where the child's best interests have not been served. |
The Liberals call for regular reporting, a system of indicators for regular long term measurement and continual parental involvement.
The Liberals insisted services be available to all families.
The Liberals recognized choice and said “...there must be first a system of quality choices from which families can choose” and that provides , “quality, accessible and affordable child care that does not vary unreasonably across Canada”.
Why have I so heavily quoted the Liberal minority report? I have done so to point out that the Liberals have lost their focus on this issue.
Often my own kids would make the right decisions, head down the right path and have a focused goal. Then, all of a sudden for no reason, when it came time to do the task, they would head in the opposite direction. As a parent I would turn to them and ask them what they were thinking and I would think a lot of other things. Seeing the Liberals' new direction I cannot help but ask the same thing.
The Liberals used to value parental choice, governmental accountability, quality care, parental involvement and the flexibility of delivery. Why not now?
The Conservative Party is very supportive of measures that will actually assist parents to provide a quality upbringing for their children. This is an important issue that must be handled properly. We cannot afford to throw good money into a bad plan.
A child care solution that only helps some children, some parents or some provinces is not much of a solution. Conservatives want a program that takes care of all children because nobody should be left behind.
The Conservative Party of Canada recognizes that parents are in the best position to determine how to care for and educate their children, not the federal Liberal government.
There is no one size fits all system of child care that could possibly be created by the Liberals to meet the needs of all Canadian families and children. This is a matter of provincial jurisdiction and they need the proper tools and resources to meet their unique needs.
Access to quality learning programs and child care are critical to the future of Canada's economy and social well-being.
The Conservative Party recognizes that these programs can be delivered through a number of ways, including through direct tax payments to parents through tax deductions and other policy matters. The current plan is a failure. Alberta is opting out. Quebec is expected to opt out and New Brunswick has requested autonomy for their system.
With the advancing systems in Ontario and Manitoba, it is obvious that the Liberal program does not meet the needs of Canadian parents or the provinces.
The Liberals have been promising Canadians a national child care program for over 10 years. However it is clear that once again they have put forward a plan that is not workable.
The Minister of Social Development has been attempting, without much success, to create a large government program at taxpayer expense. For the sake of our children and the Canadian taxpayer let us get a good plan before we rush ahead. He has failed so far, not because we, or the provinces, or average Canadians do not care about children, but because the plan is not sound.
Will the Liberal government now work with the rest of the House and the provinces to properly build a sound, sustainable child care strategy?
(1035)
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with much care to the speech of the hon. member and she said that her party will be helping the provinces.
I wonder if she could elaborate a bit more on how the Conservative Party will help the provinces while at the same time give tax cuts to low and middle income families.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, we will allow the provinces to do their work in a proper and timely manner.
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, what problems do the Conservatives have with the principle of accountability and a program that asks the provinces to answer to the federal government for the expenditure of the money that will flow toward high quality licensed child care, but more important, the issue of choice which they have brought to the floor here today?
In my experience as a parent and as I have crossed the country, I believe parents have made choices. They have chosen to participate in the workforce and they know they can do this best with high quality licensed child care. Women have made choices. They want to participate in the workplace using their intelligence, gifts, training and education and to feel good about that. They know they can do that best when they have high quality licensed child care.
The economy and the workplace have made a choice. They want women with their gifts, their talents and their training in the workplace. I wonder why it is the Conservatives cannot accept that.
(1040)
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, as a woman, a mother and a grandmother who has raised my children and who is watching my three children raise their children through various choices, I have to wonder where the hon. member is coming from. No one in my party has said that we have a problem with licensed day care. I want the member to listen when I say that I do not have a problem with it. However licensed day care is not available all across the country and therefore parents need choices. Women who are working need choices. Men who stay at home and look after the children need choices.
I have a wonderful daughter who is in the workforce but she cannot use licensed day care because she is a shift worker. Families need to have all kinds of services. I find it slightly offensive when you say that I do not understand what you are saying.
The Deputy Speaker: I would remind all members to address their comments through the Chair.
The hon. member for Laval.
[Translation]
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether our colleagues in the Conservative Party of Canada have drawn from the platform that a provincial party attempted to introduce in the last provincial election, but they should know that the party lost seats on that occasion.
I believe it is very important, if we want to ensure we have a consistent child care services policy, for that policy to be developed by the provinces and not by the federal government. The federal government must determine, with the provinces, the best way to guarantee a consistent policy. That means quality day care services, services that allow children to develop normally and give them every possible opportunity.
I am not sure whether my friend can understand. I too am a mother, a grandmother and a woman, and I demand quality day care services. It is not by taking money away from regular day care services and giving it directly to parents that we will end up with qualified day care services.
[English]
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what I can say to that but I think in my speech I mentioned that the funding would go to the provinces but that we also need support for families and the families need to make the choices on that. I understand the Quebec system and have looked at it extensively but not all provinces have a system like Quebec. We believe all Canadian parents should have choices.
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to today's opposition motion. The motion calls upon the government to address the issue of child care by fulfilling its commitment to reduce taxes for low and modest income families in the upcoming budget and, so as to respect provincial jurisdiction, ensure that additional funds for child care are provided directly to parents.
Why is the government doing what it is on early learning and child care? About 10 years ago I went back to high school for a year to sit in class to try to figure out who was learning, who was not and why, who was a good a teacher, who was not and why. It became very clear that all kinds of kids at that age had not learned well, had not done well and had the wrong understanding of themselves as students.
Students walk into a grade 10 math class feeling they do not know math, they cannot do math and they never will be able to do math. Then the class begins and the results are predictable.
That kind of wrong story begins before elementary school. From that experience of being in a school, it becomes much clearer why we hear often and understand well the phrase “the formative years”, those early years of a child's life. Why should those years matter so much in the course of one's learning over a lifetime? When people have many more years to grow older, many more years in school and many more years of experiences, why should those early years matter so much? It is in those early years that children start to take in the big messages and understandings of the world. Is this a good place? Is it a place where they want to be? Is it a place where they want to experience, enjoy adventure, curiosity and be rewarded for that?
All those big angles are set in those earlier years. It is through those angles and filters that we take in the experiences and learnings for the rest of our lives. That is why the parental role matters so much, especially during that time. Parents are there to guide. They take in the experiences of their children, except they are one step ahead. They know where the dangers lie and the implications of those dangers. If the curiosity leads to hurt or physical harm, then the likelihood is children will not want to have that next experience.
These are critical years and the role of the parent is critical. This explains why it matters so much that the parent be at the centre of the child's learning experience during that time of life. It also explains why the research is so clear and is becoming even more clear. Child development experts to economists, like Nobel laureate in economics, James Heckman, and Governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge, have been very clear in stating that an investment in early child development pays off far more than any other educational investment at any other time in a person's life.
We know the importance of this time of life, but what do we do about it, especially given these other facts? As has been mentioned, today in Canada 84% of parents with children are both in the workforce and 70% of women with children under the age of six are in the workforce. The great majority of kids under the age of six are in child care of some form. Yet only one in five is in regulated care, a number that has barely budged in the last decade.
(1045)
Simply put, child care is how we live in the country. It is a reality. This is the fundamental question between the government and the party opposite. Do we reject this reality and try to change it, as the Conservative Party would, or do we work with the reality and try to make it better as the government would? How would we do it and would that work?
The Liberal position is quite clear. It was made clear in the last election campaign and set out again in the Speech from the Throne. The government has committed $5 billion over five years to help build an early learning and child care system in every province and territory. While it is a large amount of money, it is a modest amount in terms of a system.
The question is, what can we do with that amount of money? How can we give the whole area of child care a boost? For the last 20 years, despite lots of good things happening and lots of good programs in existence, the area has been largely stagnant. However, at the same time, we are that much more aware of the importance of those early years. How can we do it better? How can we give it a boost? How can we create something that is consistent with the rigour and importance of early childhood development?
What has not happened much in the last 10 to 15 years is with respect to wages, facilities and conditions. In every case there have been attempts made on a one-off basis to try to improve in those areas and they have largely failed because the analogy is an analogy that does not work; the analogy of the origins of child care in the custodial part and in the babysitting part. Therefore, wages do not increase.
How do we help raise the wages, increase the training and keep early childhood educators in the system? We change the analogy from babysitting to education, to early learning and development.
The only way we can do that is if we approach it with the kind of rigour and ambition that is consistent with the importance of this area. Without the commitment made in the last budget, it is very likely that we would remain stagnant for next five or ten years. Nothing much happened in the last 10 or 15 years and nothing much would. Whatever priority provinces and territories may have had for early learning and child care, with very few exceptions, they were not in the position to do much about it. Without the commitment made by the federal government, the Liberal Party, in the last election, not much would happen in any foreseeable way.
The Conservatives talk about tax cuts, about putting more money into the hands of parents and allowing them to make their child care choices. Except in their campaign platform, the specifics would see a child tax deduction of $2,000 per child under the age of 16. What would that mean? Besides being, as the Caledon Institute puts it, “retrograde and regressive”, assisting wealthier families far more than those with lower modest incomes, what would it do for child care?
(1050)
For a family earning $30,000 a year, for one earning $50,000 or $70,000 a year, it would put less than $1,000 into their hands. The average family pays about $8,000 a year per child in child care, and that is for average child care, which is mediocre at best and unregulated. How likely is it that an extra $1,000 in the hands of parent will mean putting their child into child care or into better child care? Will putting in money that way build up early learning and child care, push wages for child care providers higher so better trained people go into the field and stay in the field? Will it improve facilities?
We did not create an education system by putting extra money into the hands of parents so they could get together, pool that money and create a school with well trained teachers. We did not create a health system by doing the same. We decided as a public that education and health care were so important that they should be available to everyone. The money went into the training of teachers and doctors, into building schools and hospitals. The quality went up, and as a country many decades later, we are immeasurably better off for it.
What would the Conservative plan do in terms of early learning and child care? It would do next to nothing. It would reward very modestly the stay-at-home parent or pay the cost of perhaps one day a week child care, but it would leave child care in the country too much where it is, fragmented, unregulated, uneven, largely custodial, with little for the child that would encourage real development, and would waste the time, the opportunity and the possibility of the early years.
As parents, we are all ambivalent about child care. We are ambivalent because we are parents, because we feel guilty about not spending more time with our kids. That is the way it was for us as parents, that is the way it is for us and is the way it will be for us. We will always feel ambivalent. We will always feel some sense of guilt in that way. The question is the other side of it as well, the non-ambivalent side for us as parents and that non-ambivalent side is the early learning side, the early childhood development side, and about that we are not ambivalent and we will never be ambivalent.
A recent study, as was cited by the Vanier Institute of the Family, has found that most moms and dads with pre-school children would prefer that one parent stay home and take primary responsibility for raising the children. Again, that is not surprising. As parents we all feel guilty about the time we are not spending with our kids. However, if we asked the same group of people or any group of people if they would like to lose weight, 90% would say yes. If we asked them if they would like ice cream once a week and chocolate twice a day, about the same percentage would say the same. The question, as in all of these matters, is not what we would like to do, but what we will do, and what we do.
For economic reasons, for reasons of lifestyle, for reasons of independence and lots more, in the great majority of cases both parents, even with young children, are in the workforce. We can feel guilty and we can wish it were not so, but it is so. All the time we are wishing, our kids are growing up without the rich, important learning experience that early learning and child care can offer. Our kids are paying the price for our wishful thinking. We need to get on with it, do it right and do it the best we can.
For parents, early learning and child care is not giving over one's child to the state. It is another option. As I have said before, that ongoing, ever-there set of adult eyes experiencing the world as their children do is absolutely crucial to the learning and developing experience of their children. But as parents, we also want a variety of experiences for our kids. Early learning and child care is not all or nothing. It can be for a day a week, two afternoons, whatever makes sense to the parent.
(1055)
The Conservative position on tax cuts even if it helps disproportionately those who need the help the least is at least honest and clear. Putting more money into parents' pockets is not a way to deliver on child care. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the differences between the Conservative Party and the government on early learning and child care could not be more clear. Members of the party opposite should speak to the philosophy and ideology they so proudly espouse. They should be bold, be honest and allow these differences to be clear and then let the people decide.
The Conservative plan, a tax cut it is; early learning and child care it is not.
Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, we have discussed this matter on a couple of occasions. I sit on the committee that has been investigating any sort of national day care program.
Last week the authors of the OECD study on child care made a presentation to our committee, two were via satellite video conference from Paris and several from Canada were in the room. There was discussion around the test scores of children who had been in what they called high quality regulated care versus low quality care. They never mentioned kids who stayed at home with their parents. When I asked how children who were raised at home by a stay at home parent fared in their testing, the response from one of the authors in Paris was that in fact children who had been raised at home did very well in testing.
I reject the very notion that some monolithic government operated day care system will inevitably lead to better results in terms of early learning than the alternative, which is to support parents who want to stay home with their children. Not only should it be financial support, but as we do with early year centres in Ontario, we should support those parents with tools and resources to help them teach their children.
I find that the minister has jumped from the fact that early years learning is needed to the notion that the inevitable result is some large government run monopoly for child care, which is the way Ontario seems to be going. I am wondering how the minister squares that with the fact that even the OECD says kids raised at home by their parents do very well in testing.
(1100)
Hon. Ken Dryden: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that kids raised at home can do very well. I have no doubt about that; I have never had a doubt about that, and there is nothing in what I said today that casts any doubt about that.
What I do say is the fact of life is that in this country over 70% of parents with children under the age of six are both in the workplace. That is a fact. It is a reality and is the way in which we live. It is the way in which we have chosen to live. It is the way in which we very likely will be living in the future. The question is, what do we do about that? How do we best deal with that fact?
This is not about wishful thinking. This is not about imaging that next week, next year or five years from now only 20% of parents will be in the workplace. How could we imagine that we would ever get there? How would we ever conceive that would happen? It is an irresponsible assumption. There is no indication that is the direction in which we are going to be living. The fact is that all of these kids are growing up and what kind of development experiences are they having beyond the experiences that they are having at home?
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thought the minister made an excellent contribution to the discussion this morning, particularly his focus on the early learning and development nature of a new child care program, if we are to have the kind of quality that everybody who has looked at this anticipates we could have.
Having laid that out so very clearly, has he made the connection yet between quality in a national child care program and a not for profit delivered system? Has he given much thought to the possibility of some legislation? We in this place could have a full public debate about what it is that needs to be in a national child care program if it is going to be of the quality that we all expect. What does the minister want to do on that front, particularly following his discussion in British Columbia on Friday?
Hon. Ken Dryden: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is yes. A lot of thinking has been done in terms of delivering child care in this country. A lot of thinking has been done about whether the best route is legislation.
As we have mentioned before, and has often been mischaracterized by the party opposite, we need to work with the provinces on this program. Because of the commitment we made, we are in a position to assist the provinces and territories in terms of the money. They will be delivering this system. We are agreeing on the principles of what kind of system we would like to see in every province and territory in Canada, but the provinces and territories will be delivering it.
At this particular moment there is one province in the country that is in a position to deliver only through the not for profit sector. Every other province in the country is in a position where they deliver in both ways at the moment.
(1105)
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was a little surprised to hear the minister complain that the Conservative policy in the last election was not sufficiently broad, given that his $5 billion would simply expand funding of regulated day care spots from 7% to 10% of such spaces available.
I have considerable respect for the minister, but what really surprises me is the degree to which he has been overtaken by a radical ideology which believes that the state knows better how to raise children than parents do themselves.
Just listen to some of what he said. He said that 60% of children are in some form of child care. He has left out the children who are being raised by their parents as though they are not in child care. He said that only one-fifth are in regulated child care, which suggests that children who are raised at home somehow fall out of his vision of children who are raised in child care. This he referred to chillingly as custodial child care. He referred to children being raised at home as being in the custodial cart or the babysitting cart. He said that children being raised at home are being denied critical early learning opportunities. So-called custodial child care, i.e., children being raised by mom and dad at home constitutes what he said was a waste of time and opportunity. He said that they are being denied a rich learning experience.
I believe that millions of Canadian parents who make an economic sacrifice to spend time with their kids, who give up a second income to help raise their kids at home, are providing their children with a rich learning experience. They are providing their children with critical early learning opportunities.
Will the minister take the opportunity to apologize to the millions of stay at home parents, including the parents of many people here, who provide critical early learning opportunities and a rich learning experience? Will he apologize to those parents whose choices he has belittled?
Hon. Ken Dryden: Mr. Speaker, I only wish the member opposite had listened. Once again that was a significant mischaracterization. None of what he said is what I said.
I said repeatedly and very clearly in my speech that the experience of the parent and child is central. I clearly believe that. That was, that is and that will be. Child care is simply another option for parents to decide to take part in or not.
Parents, including stay at home parents, are looking for additional vivid, stimulating experiences for their kids. They are looking for an opportunity for their kids to be with other kids in other places and in different circumstances. They want their kids to have the opportunity to learn. These are not either/or issues no matter how the party opposite wants to characterize them. Early learning and child care is very simply another option for parents. Parents, as I said, before, now and always are at the centre of that learning and development experience.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the House for unanimous consent for a five minute extension of the period for questions.
The minister is present and it is a great opportunity to pose questions of the guy who will be drafting the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for a five minute extension of the period to question the minister?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me today in regard to the motion of the Conservative Party of Canada, which is of concern to all members of the Bloc Québécois. I would like to re-read the motion:
|
That the House call upon the government to address the issue of childcare by fulfilling its commitment to reduce taxes for low and modest income families in the upcoming budget, and, so as to respect provincial jurisdiction, ensure additional funds for childcare are provided directly to parents. |
I think that this motion is very inconsistent. The members of the Conservative Party of Canada said that they would respect the areas of provincial jurisdiction, but they table a motion like the one this morning for debate. It is hard to see how one can mix things like reducing taxes for low income families and instituting a national child care system, as the government wants to do. This question is of concern to us.
I think that there is bad faith here. The Conservative Party of Canada says that it wants to gain ground in Quebec. I would argue that with this motion, with this failure to respect Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and the general consensus in Quebec regarding parental leave and daycare, they are not going about it in the right way.
I can tell you that this is a very contradictory gesture, which in no way serves Quebeckers' interests or Quebec's jurisdiction, in particular. Intervening in this way, directly in families, is contrary to what we want now for Quebec.
The government wants to set standards and conditions for the national system, a Canada-wide system. Here too, we have a different opinion in Quebec, but we agree on the principle. We respect the desire of the other provinces for a Canada-wide system.
What Quebec wants is for there to be no conditions attached to this Canada-wide daycare system and none of the standards Quebec has put in place, namely: quality, universality, accessibility and development. We respect these four standards in Quebec and we have them already in place.
As a matter of fact, the Organization for Economic Development and Co-operation, the OECD, congratulated us on establishing a real daycare system that takes these features, these standards, into account. So why impose them on Quebec when we already have them? What we want is to have control over this daycare program, which Quebec established.
Following the Speech from the Throne, which was bristling with encroachments, the Bloc Québécois tabled some amendments. The amendment on respect for provincial jurisdictions was adopted. This morning's debate is of the highest concern to us in terms of this government's willingness to respect the jurisdictions and to resolve the fiscal imbalance.
I was therefore very surprised this morning to see the Conservative Party of Canada present this motion, which we will debate. Some of my colleagues are going to be questioned on this issue and will offer a number of arguments that might give the Conservative Party of Canada food for thought. As I was saying earlier, if the Conservative Party of Canada wants to make gains in Quebec it will also have to adjust to the consensus reached there.
I will provide some background to explain to the members of the Conservative Party of Canada where the desire for a child care system in Quebec came from. This service began following a consensus that had been reached in Quebec. In 1960, there was already talk of having a child care service in Quebec. In 1980, the Parti québécois minister, Pauline Marois, went ahead and contemplated replacing the existing community networks in Quebec. Neither standards nor basic framework existed. Furthermore, there was a lack of resources. They wanted to be much more consistent and to provide more help to families in need of child care.
(1110)
As we are all well aware, there was an economic summit in 1996. All segments of society involved in the summit, whether unions or groups involved in the health or education, have contributed to the consensus on the implementation of a child care system in Quebec.
We refer often here in the House of Commons to that consensus in Quebec. We defend the interests of Quebec, not out of caprice or vanity, but because we respect that consensus. In fact, we are spokespersons for the progress made in Quebec toward the implementation of this child care system.
Political will was required, and we know the social development minister's own political desire to implement a national child care system has been challenged. As I have said, I can understand the needs outside Quebec, those in Canada, but he must not impose his conditions on us, nor the way this system will be put in place.
If the Conservative Party wants to lend an ear to what the public wants, it must focus on more than a single province. We know there is no unanimity on a Canada-wide child care system, and that is why certain Canadian provinces wishing to proceed on their own and implement different measures need to be respected.
This is what Quebec is calling for: flexibility, as well as respect for what it is doing. The Liberals, like the Conservatives, have a long way to go before they will understand the reality of Quebec. Quebec has 40% of the licensed child care spaces in Canada and, what is more, is the only place where there has been any significant growth in early childhood education and child care services.
The Conservative Party has just raised some questions of interest to us. They seem to be mixing up apples and oranges. This is not a debate on the quality of child-rearing by a mother, grandmother or a neighbour close to the children. The other day, we had a conference with some of the people involved in the OECD report, and asked the same question. We were told that there were few licensed child care spaces in Canada outside Quebec. I do not think that the way we were raised by our parents was being judged as good or less good, at least I did not take it that way. It was merely a statement with respect to the implementation of a system of licensed child care centres.
I think they are mixing things up. The Conservative Party once again wants to make us look bad when we talk about a child care system with supervision and qualified educators. We know that is an important element. Quebec developed its child care system with emphasis on personnel training. What existed prior to 1980 was well done, but Quebec wanted to adjust to changing times and to the obligation to look after the children.
The Conservative Party was saying it thought having a state-regulated day care system had no impact on the quality of the child's development. I would like to remind the Conservative Party that studies in Europe and the United States prove quite the opposite. In fact, child development improved. Moreover, every dollar invested bore fruit in the education and development of children. For example, in the case of delinquency and school dropouts, the more access a child has to resources, the more chance he has of being successful.
Besides, that is why we want a universal child care system, a system that does not discriminate based on social class. Children are entitled to the same service whether their parents' salaries are higher or lower.
(1115)
That was the goal Quebec had in mind: to provide a child care system for all children from all social classes.
I think this is quite unusual, inconsistent and disrespectful of Quebec's wishes. The government has provided $5 billion over five years. I can describe this as a step in the right direction, a step towards helping Quebec. Quebec's child care system costs $1.4 billion; in 2006-2007, it will cost $1.7 billion. We can certainly imagine that there will be pressure to put in more money.
There is also the issue of stable funding and a policy permitting a view of things in the longer term. We think the government is making errors on this subject. Is five years enough for a long-term policy, and is it enough to allow the partners—the provinces, according to the minister—to get involved? In Quebec there is no problem. We will upgrade what is already there with the goal of reaching a total of 200,000 places.
I invite the Conservative Party of Canada to read certain studies that have been done since the day care system was introduced in Quebec, and see how the parents have supported this system. Quebec has been a victim of the success of its day care system, because many people wanted to take advantage of it. We know that 70% of women are in the work force, and where there are couples, both spouses work. It is also necessary to meet expectations, and Quebec has been able to do this.
The Conservative Party of Canada is out in left field with its motion today. That is not to say that we are against a tax reduction for low- and modest-income families. We have shifted the debate, we have moved on to somewhere else. We simply want to address the establishment of a consistent day care system that meets the expectations of the people of Canada. For us in Quebec, we are talking about $1.2 billion invested over five years.
In addition, to have a real family policy, there is parental leave, day care centres. The government could also take other actions to better meet the needs of the population and families. In 2005 we must not put our heads in the sand and tell women, “Go back home, there is no child care system. Take care of your kids.” I respect the women who want to do that, but on the other hand, to have a choice, there has to be a day care system in place. When there is no day care system, where is the choice? Under such conditions there is no choice.
As I was saying earlier, we shall have to follow the debate. We are a little disappointed at how slow the Minister of Social Development is in making a decision on funding. When is he finally going to give us his answer on the date when the funds will be available?
He was speaking of principles just now. This is a subject on which we cannot be in agreement. He said that there will be no conditions for Quebec, although not in so many words. We have asked about 20 questions in the House since we came back, since our election. We have asked the minister to explain his thinking. His thinking is rather shaky so far as due respect for the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces is concerned. This is something that is not clear to us. He often praises the work we have done in Quebec on day care centres, referring to a 100-page OECD study that comments on the administration that has been done.
(1120)
Furthermore, in its report, the OECD indicates that the best way to establish a child care network is to make it a provincial responsibility, because local governments are much closer to the needs and the reality of individuals.
The Minister of Social Development missed a meeting on February 11 in Vancouver, where he was to indicate his financial commitment. As a result, he has put this off until a later date, because he was not prepared to reveal how he will invest. Furthermore, if we remember Ottawa's stance on parental leave, we know quite well that it takes pushing and shoving to get clear answers from this government.
In short, why have a child care system. In Quebec, as we know, child care costs $7 a day. I understand that caring for an infant elsewhere in Canada can cost approximately $558 per month. This is a great deal of money for a family where both parents work. As the minister mentioned earlier—I agreed with him—it would be attractive even to women who want to stay home or who want to have the choice to stay home. They have other obligations too, so it is important to have accessible, safe child care for their children, that provides a good education so their children can develop in a secure environment. That way, parents can leave feeling reassured, when they do not have a sister, cousin or friend able to come care for their child.
Perhaps that was the way things were when we were in that situation. However, young parents today need two salaries. We are hearing that it does not take much to get by on one income and to sacrifice the other to provide a better education. Some of the comments made during this debate are questionable. However, when the need is there and the service is not, one of the parents has to think about their social commitment.
The consensus in Quebec is clear. It exists. We see that a coalition has been created on parental leave. We are receiving more and more e-mails showing the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development the way and asking her to respect Quebec's consensus on parental leave and secure it with the money that was already negotiated and accepted in 1997 by the government at the time, which was a Liberal government.
There are messages. In fact, this morning, I have two messages to deliver; one is for the Conservative Party, on its consistency with regard to respect for Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and its needs and wishes. Further, I have a second message for the Minister of Social Development. We will not object to the creation of a national day care system, as long as it is done with respect for provincial jurisdictions and carries no conditions.
Since Quebec is held up as a leader, it is not at all apparent how it could be put in its place with conditions, standards, and accounting. In Quebec, there are child care centres, and there is also a complete family policy. If we are already investing $1.4 billion in the child care system, that is a lot. Will there be redistribution of the money once the public's expectations are met? There is a goal of 200,000 places. I am certain we will reach it. When it is reached, money will be invested matters of family policy.
In my opinion, Quebec is capable of managing its needs and listening to what the public wants. It is within this context and in this sense that we ask the federal government to establish this child care system.
Because we have reached the time for questions and comments, I await the minister's questions. I am sure he will have some questions for me.
(1125)
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three questions which the member could assist me with. I know this member well and I know that she has taken an active interest in this file.
First of all, the member may recall that there was a major round table by HRDC on the early years of life. Many experts were there and all of those experts talked about the importance of the first year of life. I think that was encapsulated by a statement by Dr. Fraser Mustard, who said that the first year of a human life in terms of neural development was dynamite. I wonder if the member could comment on what special arrangements are made with regard to newborns, because I believe that the Quebec system initially came in only for ages three or maybe four to six.
Second, the minister and I think others have said that because all these systems have been classified somewhat as glorified babysitting, there is going to be a necessity to either upgrade the skills of existing people or hire better qualified people to provide the services. I want to know what Quebec's experience was in terms of the qualifications of the people in the existing system and what was done there.
The last issue is simply this. What is done for families who are not near child care centres, those in remote areas or who have long or unreasonable distances to travel to get to facilities that are provided in Quebec?
(1130)
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I will try to respond, but the three questions require more elaborate responses than my time allows.
The important part is training the educators that work in child care centres. That is why it is very important to have qualified staff for each age category using the services at these centres. This was an important objective for Quebec and that is why we wanted the child care centres to be better structured. We also wanted to offer better salaries in order to get qualified staff and ensure better support in terms of training to meet the children's needs.
Home-based childcare is also available in Quebec in cases where child care centres are not accessible because the family lives too far away.
However, the 200,000 spots that were created did not just appear out of thin air. They took time to develop, with age categories and availability of spots. When parental leave is implemented for young couples, we know full well that once they return to work they want access to child care. They are currently on waiting lists.
That is why a child care system has to be developed in terms of quantity, but also accessibility. When we think of QUAD, or the four principles, Quebec wanted to respond by establishing a better quality service that was more suited to the needs of the children's age categories. We also know that the minister attended this information session. In Quebec, the child care centre policy had to be explained.
The OECD submitted a 100-page report on this issue. Quebec was cited as an example and influenced their perception of a true child care program. They say it is one of the best in the world. The 100 pages certainly contain convincing arguments for the need to have this type of service and point to the excellence of services in Quebec.
(1135)
[English]
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the resolution that is before the House deals with choice. The Conservative Party believes that parents should have a choice among public day care, private day care and care from parents, grandparents or friends. They should have that choice.
The Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party are actually quite similar in their philosophies. They believe that the state should decide where preschool children should go and they believe children should go to a day care centre.
I would recommend to the Liberal Party and the members of the Bloc Québécois a very interesting article put forward by Peter Shawn Taylor in the National Post quite recently, called “Listen to the parents”. It talks specifically about the Quebec philosophy.
Really, Quebeckers only have one choice: they have to enrol their kids in day care. That is their only choice. They do not have any other choice. If they read this resolution being put forward by the Conservative Party of Canada, they will see that we believe in all kinds of choice. My question for the member from the Bloc is, why will she not support real choice in the presentation of day care?
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, there is a real choice precisely because the Government of Quebec set up a day care system. People can opt for home-based child care or day care centres. Ultimately, it is since the start of a real day care system in Quebec that people have had choices.
I would like to remind the member of the Conservative Party of Canada who questioned me that there are parents who sit on the boards and have their say in the early childhood centre systems. There is a consensus that has emerged in Quebec. All the people involved in the educational system, the health system, the unions and the parents' committees agreed to participate in the development and establishment of a quality day care system that meets needs. This had such an impact on Quebec society that there were too many applications compared with the amount of money available. If we had not given Quebec parents choices, they would not have the choice that currently exists.
So the rest of Canada wants to set up a national day care system. I have seen statistics for some provinces taken from surveys of women in the workforce regarding the use of regulated day care services. We know that there is a mounting need. We cannot put our heads in the sand and deny that this need exists. This is a choice made by government. People outside Canada, all around the world, point to Quebec. Quebec influences other countries in regard to the approach to be taken and how to do things.
If the needs of the young families of today are going to be met, we cannot deprive them of this choice. On the contrary, they must be provided with this choice of day care services and other related things. For example, if a parent decides to stay home for a certain amount of time, parental leave—which is one of the measures proposed by Quebec—will enable this parent to care for their baby for a longer period of time. That is very understandable.
Then, however, the parent returns to the workforce. If the people of Canada and Quebec are not provided with a choice at this point, the end result will be no child care at all, or child care that does not adequately meet the public's needs.
[English]
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on this really important subject at this moment in our history, when we can, if we can all work together, put in place another national program of which we can all be proud and that will serve us as we build this great nation.
It is good to be here this morning and to recognize that the minister has taken time out of his busy schedule to listen to what we in opposition have to say about this bill. I know from discussions I have had with the minister that he is thoughtfully listening and trying to incorporate as best he can that which will be in the best interests of our children, our families and a good child care system across the country.
The NDP and I welcome this debate on child care. It is a remarkable debate and is happening not only in this House but across the country from coast to coast to coast. It is an important debate that is taking place in communities, with families, within the child care constituency, with academics and in the media.
The NDP does not agree with the ideas put forth in this motion, because, frankly, a high quality child care and early learning system is about building a nation, not tearing it apart. It is about helping child development in those critical early years of learning so that our children grow up with the best possible start in life. A quality child care and early learning system not only grows our children, it grows healthy communities and a healthy economy.
To talk about a national child care system is to talk about what our country's social priorities will be. It is to talk about nation building, which is what medicare and public education have been. Done well, as Margaret McCain and Roy Romanow have written, it will address child and family poverty and we will enhance school performance and workforce productivity.
Our party cannot stand for vouchers or for child care tax deductions because studies have repeatedly shown that they make child poverty worse and widen the already scandalous gap between the haves and have nots in our country. Vouchers and child care tax deductions do not produce a child development system.
It is a false notion, one perpetrated by a Conservative Party stuck in another century and another generation, that this is a debate between stay at home parents and those who work. Nothing is further from the truth.
Parents are and should and will be the primary caregivers of their children. A quality child care and early learning system is not the nanny state. It is not a judgment on or a condemnation of our mothers, grandmothers, fathers or grandfathers. I can hear many of those mothers, grandmothers, fathers and grandfathers from back at another time now shouting, “Thank God for any help parents might receive to do the best possible job raising their children and grandchildren.”
They would welcome the many potential tools and assets in a quality system: tools such as respite programs that help parents when they are sick, have a medical appointment or a job interview, and seamless programs that help parents deal with juggling work and family duties throughout the day, particularly before and after school. There are opportunities that come with the child for programs or parenting courses or to join child care centre boards as volunteers and have a direct say in the education and development of their children.
No, this debate is not about the nanny state or about any attack on stay at home parents. It is about deciding whether we will build a nation and belong to the 21st century. with kids who grow up because of these best starts to get some post-secondary education, to get and keep a job and to be productive citizens in our social economy.
We have a rare opportunity to end the years and years of broken promises from both Conservatives and Liberals. We have the opportunity to say a resounding no here this morning to a Conservative vision of yesteryear and from another generation.
(1140)
We as New Democrats have been very clear in where we stand on this subject. We have been working very hard, my staff and I, and my colleagues in caucus. Other New Democrats across the country have meeting, phoning and putting together what we think is a very doable, simple, yet successful, approach to how we put in place this national child care program.
I have had this discussion on at least three different occasions with the minister. I think he understands and he is trying, given the challenge that he has with provinces that have different ideas and notions about what this should be about, to find a way to make this truly a national child care program that respects what we need to do on behalf of our children and families.
We believe that any national child care program needs to have a number of characteristics, a number of supports in order to make it successful. We believe that it needs to be enshrined in legislation. We do not start off on a trip not knowing where we are going, not having the requisite resources available to ensure that we get from here to there, and ensuring that we do not get off on the wrong road and end up some place where we did not want to be in the first place because factors take over, as we go down that road.
We believe that the legislation should be enabling. It should be a piece of legislation that empowers the provinces to deliver this wonderful national child care program that we are all anticipating could be put in place. A national child care act should guarantee that the principles that those who have looked at child care be honoured, respected and supported. These are principles such as: quality, universality, accessibility, educational development and inclusive of children with disabilities who also have a role to play and want to participate. These families have hope for those wonderful children who should be looked upon not so much for their disability but for their ability. A child care program should have the resources, the interest, and the developmental approach that would take into account the challenges and opportunities that exist there.
We believe that a piece of legislation would look at two way accountability. A child care system would be sustainable. That is where federal accountability comes in. The federal government must commit beyond the five year, $5 billion it has announced.
Quebec's plan, as we heard from the member from Quebec previously, touted as gold standard costs $1.3 billion a year. The federal government only wants to give $1 billion a year to all 13 provinces and territories over the next five years.
I recognize that the $5 billion is a start and will buy some of the infrastructure that we need to get this national program on the way. However, the government needs to be thinking and sharing with us and the provinces about where we go after the five years and how much money it is talking about.
We have heard the Child Care Advocacy Association, the Canadian Labour Congress and others say that we need to be moving within 15 years, although Stephen Lewis at the conference that you and I were at in Winnipeg, Mr. Minister suggested that--
(1145)
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to remind the hon. member to address his comments through the Chair and not personally to the minister or any other member in the House.
Mr. Tony Martin: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.
In conversations I have had with the minister and from the research and work that has been done to determine how much it would cost to have a full scale quality national child care program, we have to be moving within 15 years. Stephen Lewis in Winnipeg said that over 10 years we should spend 1% of GDP. We need a commitment from the federal government for the sustainability of this program.
The NDP election platform, for example, in 2004 committed $1 billion in the first year, $1.25 billion in the second year, $1.4 billion in the third year and $1.6 billion in the fourth year, with significant increases in the fifth year. This was part of our plank to spend almost $5 billion by the end of a fifth year. In other words, the Liberal promises amount to $4 billion by the end of the fourth year while the NDP promises amount to $5.25 billion by the end of the fourth year. Even that is not enough, but it is a good start.
We also feel that there needs to be some vehicle in the legislation to hold the provinces accountable in order to ensure that in fact the money they get for child care is spent on child care and not simply used to replace money that they are spending which could mean no new spaces and no new programs.
The provinces and territories must spend this new money on child care and not, as in the past, claw it back or spend it in other areas. This requires the creation of an independent child care council, like the Romanow health council, to monitor, gather data and report to Canada's citizens.
Everyone in the House has heard me on a number of occasions ask the minister questions or raise in comments or speeches that this program, and if everyone looks at what has happened in Quebec they will understand, needs to be rooted in the not for profit system. No new money should go to the for profit system to develop new spaces.
We are not saying that we should shut down the already existing for profit system that is out there. These folks are working very hard under sometimes very trying circumstances with very little resources to provide a quality of child care that in each province differs. It has given us in fact the patchwork that is spoken of so often by the Child Care Advocacy Association. We are not saying that we need to get into a fight with those folks or threaten what they have been doing for a number years. As a matter of fact, we probably need to be sitting down and talking with that sector about how it can raise its quality.
We are concerned about the arrival or emergence in Canada of the big box multinational child care reality that we see in so many other parts of the world and to some small degree already exists in Canada. We run up a red flag where that is concerned because that will not get us the quality we want.
As a matter of fact, in jurisdictions where for profit has been allowed to run freely, we have seen in a short period of time the disappearance of the smaller for profit and not for profit sectors almost altogether. We want to ensure, coming out of the gate with this, that we are committed to a not for profit system that will give us the quality the research tells us is connected.
Distinguishing ourselves from the Liberals and certainly the Conservatives, New Democrats stand for public funding in a new child care plan going only to the not for profit sector. We support grandfathering the existing for profit sector to ensure it achieves quality standards in the interim period.
As a matter of fact, the member for Quebec spoke before me and we know that when Quebec began its child care program, which is now the envy of the rest of the country, it put a moratorium on any new for profit development so that the not for profit system could get its legs under it and develop in the way it knew it could given the money, support and the room that was necessary.
(1150)
Our fight is with big box child care, for example, U.S. and Australian corporations that gobbled up neighbourhood, municipal and commercial operators, resulting in lower quality and fewer real choices for parents and families, including in remote, rural or northern communities. Eddy Groves, for example, a Canadian who owns the ABC Learning Centres in Australia, owns 20% or some 900 centres in that country. He has told Canadian media that our new national plan would be an excellent opportunity for him.
The Conservatives say the Alberta position will allow for flexibility and choice. Edmonton-Strathcona MLA Dr. Raj Pannu said yesterday that this is Tory-speak for protecting for profit day care and allowing more government subsidies to flow to private companies operating child care facilities. The previous Alberta NDP leader said:
|
The Tory position is about petty turf politics with Ottawa at the expense of children and families. But Albertans want cooperation between all levels of government on important programs like child care, not political posturing |
We do not demonize the small for profit operators, many not making a profit, who would profit in not for profit. There was a case in Alberta at a for profit centre recently of a six month old baby with severe asthma problems locked and left at the end of a working day. It took the mom three hours to get to her baby. Yes, this is one incident, but it is part of a series of incidents. If we google child care on any given day, we will see the stories that are being written about what is happening out there primarily in the for profit sector across the world.
CUPE got a legal opinion of Canada's exposure to big box child care. It is clear that we have to be careful where we go in terms of NAFTA and what that could trigger in terms of what we might be able to do to control the quality and the kind of national child care program that we want.
I want to share with the House, in response to the resolution before the House here today, some of the challenges coming at us from primarily the Conservative Party and its supporters. I have travelled the country over the last six to seven months, and I have heard from people. I have been in Halifax, Moncton, Montreal, Toronto, Sault Ste. Marie, Winnipeg, Regina, Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster. There is a growing anticipation and expectation across the country that finally, after 20 or 30 years of really hard work, of almost getting there a couple of times, that we will this time get a national child care program.
The passion, the commitment and the expectation is tangible as we meet with these people and as they come to tell us about what they are doing, what they would like to do, and what the expectation is out there among the families and neighbours as they talk about child care. There is a sense of hope now, after years of promise by the Mulroney government in the eighties and the Liberal government in the nineties, that we will finally get a national child care program.
For example, I heard from Margie in Halifax, an administrator and director of a child care program who actually went out on strike with her workers in order to get better pay because she knew that when better pay is given to the workers in a child care facility, they give better quality service and they stay longer in the system.
I remember Sharon in Nova Scotia coming all the way from Cape Breton to talk to me about the need to be inclusive of children with disabilities. I remember a woman from the farm community in Saskatchewan coming to the meeting I had to tell me not to forget the farm communities and the farm families because they needed child care as much as anybody else.
Those stories go on across this country. They need to be heard, they need to be told, and they need to factored in to the government's decision making process where child care is concerned.
(1155)
We must act and act soon. The answers lie not in vouchers or a child care tax deduction, but in a sustainable quality child care system enshrined in legislation that sees both levels of government accountable and public money spent on not for profit child care.
It is a choice time for our country to go with the best research we have, the best studies, to say yes to our children for today and tomorrow. Every one of us here can be architects of a truly national policy, a truly national system. We can build a society that makes the welfare of its younger members its top priority, and create a society that is welcoming of children and supportive of their growth and development.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning the Conservative Party has come up with a motion on an extremely interesting topic. I find it interesting both as a grandfather and as someone who had a hand in the creation of Quebec's child care system. When discussions on that system began, I was sitting in the National Assembly. I chaired meetings and debates in parliamentary committees where people came to share their ideas on the requirements for that system. I remember very clearly hearing from them that what was needed—and this is the reason I am absolutely opposed to the Conservative motion—was for all children in day care, in early childhood education, to be given a chance.
They mention giving the funds to parents, but families can run into situations where they run short of money. A job is lost, or some other situation comes up where there are no other resources available. What happens to the money that was supposed to pay for their child to be in proper child care? It goes for something else. This creates an imbalance between the haves and the have-nots. That is more or less what our interpretation was.
Now for my question. There was talk of a system adaptable to requirements. A person could work in a factory or for Radio-Canada in Montreal and take their child to workplace day care. Then there were the drop-in child care facilities, which I had to speak up for in those days, serving farm families and others living far from major centres.
So this is my question for the hon. NDP member. Since it is true that we have a good system going in Quebec, and there is no need to keep reinventing the wheel—Quebec's system has built-in adaptability—and since it is a given that we do have those services, would he acknowledge that the minister should hand over to Quebec the funds it needs to be able to continue to administer its system without necessarily including the obligation to submit to national standards? It is a matter of providing the funds to Quebec without imposing those national standards. That is what Quebec wants. Is he in agreement with that?
(1200)
[English]
Mr. Tony Martin: Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party certainly respect the contribution Quebec has made in building a child care system that is the envy of the rest of the country. That needs to be reflected in any agreement that is made. We have to find a way to help Quebec grow its system even more, make it better, so that the rest of the country has something to look at and emulate in many ways, and so that the work of Quebec is helpful to the rest of Canada.
I have met with child care providers in Montreal on a couple of occasions. Some people from the Quebec child care community have visited me in Ottawa. We need to have further discussions about whether we can use the experience in Quebec to frame a national program with standards, requirements and accountability mechanisms.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago I attended a meeting and had the opportunity to sit beside Barbara Hall, who is a former mayor of the city of Toronto. We were talking about child care issues. It was about seven or eight years ago.
I remember saying to her that it bothered me that the wages of child care workers were so low, that a person could make more by working at McDonald's. She said that I was absolutely right but that I had to understand it was part of the employment initiatives for women. Is child care for the benefit of children or for the benefit of women to get jobs? The reality is that there are competing interests.
Today we are talking about the care of children. The minister is doing his very best to collaborate with the provinces to find out how we strike that appropriate balance.
If we have the problem, as the minister laid it out in his speech, that it is glorified babysitting and the workers are not properly trained, how long is it going to take to get the system up to a quality of care which would also deal with the problem of ensuring there was secure consistent attachment with an engaged committed adult? That is in fact the recipe for a good learning environment for a child, whether it is the child's parent or some other person, as long as there is consistent care.
(1205)
Mr. Tony Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada has put out a paper called, “From Patchwork to Framework”, which speaks to the timelines. It is looking at 15 years to actually have a system in place that we can feel comfortable is going to do the job.
The member raised an interesting question that has been raised before. Is this agenda about women or is it about children? It is an agenda that can incorporate everybody. What is good for women is good for children. What is good for children is good for women. What is good for women and children is good for the economy and the community.
I visited Toronto on a couple of occasions and there are three types of child care being offered. There is the municipally delivered child care, the not for profit and the for profit systems.
The McDonald's type wages are being paid very obviously in the for profit sector. That is why we are encouraging the minister to move to a not for profit delivery system.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that the hon. member, before getting into the substance of his remarks, did not address the very offensive remarks made by the minister earlier today when he compared the decision of parents to keep one parent in the home to the luxury of having ice cream.
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe we are trying to keep the debate at a certain level in the House. Out of respect for the House, I think alluding to offensive is not the type of language that is acceptable in the House. I would ask the hon. member to be very careful in his choice of words.
The Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the intervention, however, we are going to allow a certain flexibility. Of course all members should be careful in their choice of words, but I do not think it is a point of order.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the very offensive remarks were made by the minister when he compared the decision of parents to keep one parent in the home with the children to the luxury of having ice cream.
The Vanier Institute said that 90% of parents would make that choice if they could; they believe it to be the ideal choice. In fact it is a larger number of women who prefer this choice than men. I think it is deeply offensive, and I wonder if the hon. member agrees, that the minister would compare that choice, which by the way 47% of parents make, to the luxury of having ice cream or losing a few centimetres off of one's waistline.
Not only were his remarks offensive, they were actually untrue. It is not a luxury that cannot be afforded and cannot occur. Forty per cent of parents do it and the other 53% who might like to do it cannot because the government structures a tax system that makes it unaffordable to do so.
Instead of trying to enable parents to make the choice they want to make, the government is putting in a new program that forces them into the choice that they do not want to make. Would the hon. member stand in the House and address the ill-founded logic and the offensive nature of the minister's remarks?
Mr. Tony Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister was simply making an analogy which in the context of his speech was fine.
The member made a point that 90% of women choose to stay at home with their children. The reality is that 70% of women choose to work. It has nothing to do with the tax system. It has everything to do with their wanting to use their gifts, their training and intelligence to participate more fully in their communities, in the social economy or the market economy. They want to be involved and play a part. Women have a role to play. Those who have studied economics understand that women with their intelligence, talent and gifts need to play a part if we are going to compete in the global economy.
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to address the motion put forward by the Conservative Party. I am splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove.
I am completely in support and in favour of developing strategies that put children and families at an advantage. Although this is primarily a provincial issue, the federal government has a role to play in developing those strategies and in setting standards, both along the lines of minimum standards, whether it is for profit or not for profit, or whether it is just providing funding that the provinces can count on, and not simply to get us through the next election and then pull the rug out from under that funding.
Members of the NDP seem to be mixing some of the philosophies and appear to be quite confused. On the one hand, they are not supportive of for profit day care, but on the other hand, they are supportive of raising the wages. Raising wages is an extremely good idea but that is actually personal profit. I am confused about that.
The NDP also seems to feel that the only reason women are out working is because of a choice to provide intelligence and benefits to the community. While that is absolutely correct, I think it is very simplistic that this is a choice and only a choice. The truth is that Canadians cannot afford to live on a single income any more. I would beg the NDP to do a little more research and to completely understand that for women it is not just a choice, it is that there are no other options.
One other thing I would like to make clear on this argument is that the Conservative Party is not saying no to day care. What we are saying is that day care should not be the only option. This is not about dictating. It is not about winning elections or trying to put forth a promise that who knows how many times this has been promised. This is about children and about families.
I am a parent of two children. I have had the opportunity and the pleasure to have my children schooled in private schools. I have had them in day care. I have had the good fortune of having a sister-in-law care for my children. My mother and my spouse were fortunate enough to stay at home for many years. That is the choice. What we see with Canadians families is that they do not have that kind of choice. I was very blessed to be able to do that for my family.
What we have here is a government that is putting forth a program that does not offer all of those choices. It is institutional day care or it is nothing. The hon. minister has proposed $5 billion, which is the 10th or 11th time this promise has been made. I completely disagree with my colleagues in the NDP. This is not after 20 years of hard work. This is after a decade of broken promises.
I am concerned that the hon. member, in an attempt to do the right thing, has put the cart before the horse. I do not see a plan or a strategy. I see a proposal and I hear discussion and talk. I have no faith this will ever go anywhere. I am concerned that the government is in over its head on this issue and is moving forward without considering the true needs of all Canadians or the fallback of another program that will not score well with Canadians. No matter how many times we tell Canadians that this is a universal program for all children, the fact is that is completely not true and it is very misleading.
My party and I do not use the term “universal” because that is absolutely not what this program is all about. For me this appears to be more about spending money and keeping promises, at least until the next election, hence the five year limit on this funding. It is more about keeping a promise than helping Canadians and I am very concerned about that.
(1210)
The fact is that this program from the government will not help all children. A very limited number of children and families will be helped. The only universality in this program is that all parents and non-parents will pay for it.
What about the millions of children who fall outside the program's parameters? An estimated 250,000 children might benefit from this so-called universal institutionalized day care. What about the other approximately four million children who will not get any benefit? This is actually the fifth out of six options presented by the Vanier Institute. It is actually the second-last.
The program, as I mentioned earlier, fails to promise stable funding to the provinces. Provinces will get into an adversarial kind of positioning as a result of this limited funding. They will feel separated and divided from their federal counterparts. This kind of option promotes divisiveness. It promotes this theory of having to fight with the federal government, which again leads to this business that this is not about the people for the people of the people. This is about the Liberals trying to fulfill a promise, again without thinking about the collateral issues behind this extremely expensive and very limited program in terms of benefits.
We have had far too many opportunities to see what happens when the Liberal government gets a hold of another program that has to do with billions of dollars. We certainly do not want, nor can we afford, another boondoggle that will race out of control in terms of funding and ultimately end up somewhere in the neighbour of 20¢ efficiency on a $1.
The Conservative Party has better ideas. Just because it is the Conservative Party that has come up with these creative solutions, which are far more long term and far more universal, is no reason in and unto itself to not listen to them. I would ask the House and the minister to consider the benefits of all parents of children maintaining control and choice on the rearing of their most valuable possession.
The Liberals' program excludes grandparents. It excludes stay at home moms and dads. It excludes extended families for cultural or choice reasons. It excludes rural families.
Although I did hear the hon. member from the NDP say that we should listen to our farmers, I have travelled the country. Does the member actually think there will be a day care at the end of every lane? The people in those farming communities cannot drive 40, 60, 70 kilometres to put their children into day care. It is ridiculous to assume that this program will benefit those rural families.
What about the children in communities who have special needs?
What about the waiting times to get into this limited program? We all know about waiting times when the Liberals manage a program.
I would encourage the House to listen to the ideas that are presented. We need to give tax breaks to parents. If the hon. member in the NDP wants better pay, then we should give the people a tax break. That is better pay.
Why not add a child tax credit to the existing child tax exemption which favours the more wealthy Canadians? A child tax credit puts money back into the pockets of all parents.
Why not eliminate the penalties in the income tax system that seem to punish single income families over the double income or multiple income families?
(1215)
Those are Conservative ideas but they represent true fairness and true equal rights. They support choice, they support family and they will work well beyond five years. This gives a no strings attached approach to parents across Canada in every community and from every ethnic and cultural background. This is how parents can then use this money to simply choose whether they will put their child in the day care program or pay their mother, for example, to rear their children.
I will suggest that this is a reward, not punishment. This is choice, not dictation. This is a costed and predictable way for Canadians. It has no opportunity to become a boondoggle.
(1220)
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Madam Speaker, I want to discuss with the hon. member the very offensive remarks that were made by the minister earlier today when he compared the sacrifice of a parent who decides to stay at home with his or her children to the luxury of tasting ice cream.
For the 47% of parents who do make that choice and for the 90% of parents who wish they could make that choice, according to the Vanier Institute study, it is not a luxury like ice cream. It is an important decision that they are making to pass on to the next generation, a life, the care, the love of a family. It is not merely the frivolity of this luxury of ice cream.
I want the hon. member to comment on the fact that the Liberal program is not universal. It excludes 85% to 90% of children: those who have a parent who stays home, those who are cared for by a family member, those who are in community based care, or at synagogues, mosques and churches that offer care, and those who are in private care facilities. All of those children are excluded under this Liberal babysitting bureaucracy.
I wonder if the hon. member would comment on the overall mentality that permeates the entire Liberal proposal and is most exemplified by the minister's ice cream remarks earlier today. I wonder if the hon. member would comment on those offensive remarks.
Mr. Gary Goodyear: Madam Speaker, I too was appalled by the minister's comments. As a parent and having had children who have scraped their knees and needed a hug, they did not need a hug from a bureaucrat. They needed a hug from a parent.
The comments, although appalling and extremely offensive, were not surprising. They smack of the government's inability to be sensitive to the value of the family unit. The minister himself lacks the sensitivity to understand the importance, if given a choice, to have family, either immediate or extended, rear, discipline, teach and foster our children, our future leaders.
I was not surprised by the comments and I am not surprised that the government is moving forward with a plan that really has no base in logic or reason.
What we need to do is put money back into the pockets of parents and let them make a choice. If day care is what they choose, then that is great, and let us make that day care program the best it can be. However if a parent chooses to use a relative to babysit or if a parent chooses to work part time and stay home with the children, as I believe many parents would choose if they had the option, we need to support those kinds of decisions and not discriminate by encumbering tax laws and holding Canadians down where they have no choice but to go to work every day and put their children into some institution and just assume and hope that 20 years from now it will all be okay.
That kind of insensitivity and lack of lateral thinking on the part of the government is exactly presented in the comments that we have heard lately by the minister.
(1225)
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have been listening to most of the speeches today. I want to get back to the first question I asked this morning. I have heard a lot about choices, and I think there is no one, neither the minister nor anyone on this side of the House or in the other two political parties, who is not in favour of choices. I had choices in where I wanted to place my children.
I have heard nothing on the other side in terms of how they are going to work with the provinces, not in any way imposing, but in the way of ensuring that there is quality child care across Canada. I have heard nothing from the other side in terms of how that relationship will work. How will they at the same time offer tax cuts to low and middle income families? We have already provided those. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance will put that on the table later on this afternoon.
In terms of the relationship and the collaboration that they would like to have with the provinces in assuring--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre: We trust parents.
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos: The hon. member is very abusive in this House on a continuous basis. He had his say.
My point is how will they ensure that the necessary training, which is not under federal jurisdiction, will be provided by the provinces? How will they ensure that children are in regulated day care? How will they bring in other measures?
The only thing I have heard today is about choices. No one on this side of the House or in the other political parties is against choices, despite the verbal diarrhea on the other side.
Mr. Gary Goodyear: Madam Speaker, I am not even sure the comments warrant an answer. This is clearly coming from a government that professes choice, but comes up with a program that has no choice.
Clearly, there are standards within the child care system. These are early childhood educated workers who come out of their community programs highly skilled already, with standards that are set by the provinces, and the member should very well know that. We are clearly suggesting that the federal government give money back to these lower income persons and families and let them choose which program they go into. If the program is not up to snuff, they move the children somewhere else.
I assure the member that the programs will be up to snuff, as those are choices in a typical system. It was a silly question.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): Before I call for questions and comments, this is a very important topic for all our families who are watching. We would like to keep the decorum in the House. I would appreciate the cooperation of all members. I know members can do it.
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP): Madam Speaker, I want to put this question to the member who just spoke and who obviously is concerned about the lower income families who need child care.
This is from a mother and a worker in child care who at one point was a single mother. She says that the Conservative position on child care does not address availability of care, does not address enough spaces and available choices, does not address the research that early learning activities must be a part of the child's development, even if the parent is primary caregiver and does not address supports to parents, the issue of the seamless day. She says that tax cuts do not help low income families who do not have tangible money to pay.
This is from a mother who has lived this experience.
Mr. Gary Goodyear: Madam Speaker, as the member should already know, many of the programs mentioned in that letter are already in place. There are already programs out there where parents can put their children into early kindergarten, for example, and the day care centres would still be there if that was the choice of the parent.
I would like to express once again and request that the members in the House listen very carefully. This is not only about tax cuts. I will repeat it and I will say this really slow. We are also requesting that there be credits that will definitely benefit lower income earners. The Liberals have put in place a tax exemption rule that only helps more wealthy Canadians.
Again, I would encourage the member to listen very carefully. We are encouraging moving forward on the day care program, but in a way that includes tax cuts and credits that will help all Canadians equally.
If the member were to study the Liberal program, he would find that there are not enough seats either.
(1230)
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for tackling this important issue. I would also like to commend my colleague, the member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar and the Conservative critic on social development, for her fine work on this issue.
I would like to begin by outlining the Conservative Party position on child care so there are no mistakes and no questions as to why we have raised this issue today.
The Conservative Party understands the Liberals motivation to help parents so that quality child care is made more accessible. The problem is the Liberals intentions are misplaced. The Conservative Party believes that parents, and not the federal government, are in the best position to determine which type of child care best suits their children. My party also believes that when it comes to child care, parents deserve options, something the current Liberal government seems unwilling to allow.
As the intergovernmental affairs critic for the Conservative Party, I feel a strong need to speak on this issue because child care and early childhood education are matters of provincial jurisdiction. All the provinces, as they are constitutionally empowered to do, have already established their own unique child care programs. It is the Conservative Party's position that all social programs are a matter of provincial jurisdiction.
Let me begin with some facts.
Canada has one of the highest international participation rates of mothers in the workforce. In fact, 70% of Canadian women with children under the age of six are working. This is a tremendous achievement for women. As a result, Statistics Canada recently reported that 53% of Canadian children are receiving some form of child care outside of the home and 25% of those children are enrolled in day care centres, up from 20% in 1995.
I imagine many child care advocates and the Liberal government believe these statistics reinforce their position that more funding for regulated child care spaces is required. However, it is important to note that while more children are in institutionalized day care, the number of children cared for by a relative has also gone up in the same timeframe, from 8% to 14%.
It seems we have two increasing but very distinct types of care emerging for children whose parents work: those who choose formal institutional care and those who choose to have their children cared for by a relative in what might be called informal arrangements. The Liberals seem to want to ignore this second form of care, but I will discuss that further later.
Recent information provided by a Vanier Institute study is also interesting in that it indicates that nine out of ten Canadians feel that in a two parent situation, ideally one parent should stay at home to raise the children. The study also indicated that almost all employed mothers would work part-time if they could afford it, as would 84% of fathers. Parents surveyed indicated that day care would be their last choice for child care.
I mentioned the Vanier Institute study and Statistics Canada information not to suggest that children must have a stay-at-home mother or father. Rather I use the study to demonstrate that parents want to have choices when it comes to child care. Increasing the number of day care spaces is not necessarily the only solution to providing parents with access to quality child care services.
The Statistics Canada information also indicates that within each province there has developed a different style of child care, with parents using commercial and non-profit centres as well as employing relatives to care for their children. The fact that in some provinces the percentage of use by parents of non-profit centres is higher than in others demonstrates that different types of day care systems are needed in different provinces.
It has become clear that the Liberal government is not interested in offering the provinces different arrangements, and this fact was glaringly demonstrated this past weekend as the federal government was unable to reach a deal with the provinces.
The provinces have been understandably leery of the Liberal Party of Canada's pledge to pour $5 billion into child care and create 250,000 child care spaces by 2009.
The Liberal plan to create a “national system of early learning and child care, a system based on four key principles...” has been met with increasing criticism by the provinces, primarily because it infringes on their jurisdiction and because it does not reflect the uniqueness of their situations.
It is as a result of this increasing pressure by the provinces and the Conservative Party that the Minister of Social Development has begun to backtrack. A national system of early learning has quickly become a national strategy, and its most recent incarnation, a national vision. Just last week the minister caved under pressure and agreed to allow funding to private, regulated day cares, upsetting many of his core supporters among child care advocates.
Also of concern to the provinces is the clear lack of understanding as to where the program is going and how much it is going to cost in the long run.
(1235)
The Minister of Social Development has remained vague about the future of the proposed child care program, stating in January in a speech:
|
You start out with a commitment of $5 million over five years for a national early learning and child care system based on QUAD principles...Then you're faced with the challenge of how you can translate that into a system. Five billion dollars over five years--that's a lot of money, but it's a modest amount in terms of a system. A system costs a lot more than that. |
The minister has also remained unclear about who will foot the bill for a national program after the five years. As such, the cost of the program has become a genuine concern to the provinces and taxpayers in general. If one is to examine the Quebec program, hailed by both the Liberal government and child care advocates as a model for the national program, it becomes clear that $5 billion will not get the provinces very far.
The province of Quebec currently spends $1.4 billion on its $7 a day child care program, providing spaces for nearly 190,000 children. However, 35,000 children remain on waiting lists. It is estimated that it costs the Quebec government $15,000 a year to care for every young child enrolled in the program, and these costs are expected to rise.
Child care advocates often suggest that a program in which parents make 20% co-payments be implemented in Canada. If this were to take place, taxpayers could expect to fund a program which would cost $10 billion a year.
One by one, the provinces have expressed their concern about the proposed federal program. Their apprehensions are understandable and are what prevented an agreement from being brokered this weekend.
The Government of British Columbia has questioned the federal government's long term commitment to a national child care program and is concerned that the provinces will be left paying for the program after five years.
New Brunswick, a province in which 57% of its pre-school children are in child care but only 21% in day care, has also expressed reservations about the federal government's plan. The minister of family and community services in New Brunswick stated that he “wants to make sure we are able to provide a service that is tailor-made for the children of New Brunswick”.
The province of Alberta has been particularly vocal about maintaining its autonomy. The province's minister of children's services has expressed concern over the fact that none of the $5 billion will be available to stay-at-home parents.
Alberta has been particularly supportive of stay-at-home parents and recently introduced the “kin child care funding program”. The kin child care funding program is unique in that it provides eligible low income families with $240 per month per child to pay relatives to care for their children. The program provides families with flexible alternatives for child care where there might be limited options, for example, in rural locations or for parents who work non-traditional hours, like shift work.
Alberta's Children's Services also offers other programs such as the child care subsidy, which provides financial assistance to Alberta families with pre-school children who attend a licensed day care centre, an approved family day home or a licensed out of school care centre.
The government of Alberta is concerned that a national child care program will not offer the parents of its province enough choices. It has already 26,000 spaces in 533 licensed day cares. However, only 20,000 children are using those spaces. It, therefore, seems unlikely that offering more day care spaces is the solution for Alberta.
I have also discussed Quebec's day care program at length. However, it is clear that the province has a well established system, one which the Quebec government feels meets its appropriate standards. The Ministère de l’Emploi, de la Solidarité sociale et de la Famille has made it clear the province wants the money without any conditions and that the province should not have to be held accountable for how that money is spent.
The point I wish to make is that good child care programs currently exist in the provinces. The federal government has no jurisdiction to meddle with these programs or to force the provinces to conform. What the federal government should be focused on is helping parents access these programs by empowering them financially.
The Conservative Party believes that parent deserve more options and more choices. As such, our party will continue to support all existing child benefit programs and introduce broad based tax relief to provide parents with the freedom to make the decision that best suits the needs of their families.
It is the Conservatives' strong belief that this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. I do not wish to suggest that the federal government has no role in early childhood education and development. However, that role must focus primarily on providing assistance to Canadian parents.
The Conservative Party is in favour of child care choices being available to parents of all provinces and allowing parents to make child care decisions for themselves.
(1240)
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.): Madam Speaker, as we have been hearing all day, again it is a question of choices. As I said earlier, and I will put it on the record one more time, we are not against choices.
I would like to ask the hon. member to comment on a study done by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which stated that the opposition's tax proposals for low income and middle income Canadians would disproportionately benefit men and wealthier families at the expense of women and low income to moderate income families. In fact, the study shows that 36% of families with incomes over $70,000 would receive 88% of the total tax decrease. The other one-third of the total value of the tax cut would go to a mere 7% of families with incomes of $150,000 or more.
By trying to wrap the tax cuts in child's clothing, the hon. member is once again reiterating what was said earlier this morning: it is tax cuts, tax cuts and tax cuts. Absolutely nothing in what she has said today leads me to believe that her party actually does believe in quality child care or in the four principles that the government has put forth and on which we are trying to work with the provinces in order to establish some national standards.
Again, I have heard nothing in the member's speech in terms of how her party would not impose, as she implied in her speech, but collaborate with the provinces, because there is a system in some provinces. At the moment, that system needs an infusion of extra dollars, which we have put on the table in the amount of $5 billion over five years. Perhaps there will be more in the future if the economy continues to grow.
I have heard nothing in the hon. member's speech or in the speech of her leader this morning which would lead me to believe that they actually believe in a regulated child care system. Obviously she does not agree, but what proposals does the hon. member bring forth to ensure that there will be quality accessible child care across this country? And what role will the federal government play? Obviously she says, “No role”.
Ms. Rona Ambrose: Madam Speaker, quite a number of questions are wrapped up in those remarks.
First, let me be clear that the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, the leader of the official opposition, has used and accessed all types of day care for his own young children, as he indicated in his speech this morning on the supply day motion on day care. He and his wife, both being young professionals in the workforce, have experienced all of these things at first hand.
We have always said that we are committed to providing all types of day care choices to young parents. We are in favour of money being transferred to the provinces to supplement and continue to fund regulated day care spaces, but the $5 billion over five years that has been promised by the government to the provinces actually will only increase the funded day care spaces from 7% to 10%. If we look at those numbers, we see that only one in four children across Canada is actually using funded regulated day care spaces. The parents of four out of five children in Canada are not receiving some sort of assistance to provide child care for their children.
In addition to looking at increased funding for day care spaces for the provinces, we would like to see the finance minister in this budget also consider, in addition to tax credits, ideas like income splitting and changes to the tax system, which young parents have been calling for this past number of years, that is, in particular, treating dual and single income families equally so that they are not punished under the tax system.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam, CPC): Madam Speaker, the issue of discrimination is very much inherent in the Liberal system. We decry the one child policy in China, the government control, and all the fines and penalties against families for lifestyle choices, but we have a Canadian version of that same kind of government fine.
Two families are living on the same cul-de-sac, with the same style of house and the same income, but if one has a single income and the other has a dual income, the system fines those parents because of their lifestyle choice. The government takes several thousand dollars away from them; let us say that both families have a family income of $100,000. That is government discrimination; let us try to find some international parallel to it. It is completely socially unacceptable. We want to fix that. The member alluded to that, so perhaps she could expand on how our party would end that kind of discrimination against families.
(1245)
Ms. Rona Ambrose: Madam Speaker, as I alluded to, there have been discussions, actually on both sides of the House for years, but particularly in industry and among economists, about how the tax system is very unfair to families, and about how in particular it is unfair to working women and to women who would like to make choices of their own. For myself as a young working woman, I find this policy particularly offensive because it discriminates against me. It discriminates against my opportunity to make choices as a young working woman. I agree that the tax system can be changed to help young families, but in particular, it can also be made much friendlier to young working women.
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Ahuntsic, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development.
Supporting low income and modest income families is a priority for the government. We have delivered on our commitment in a number of ways through different instruments, including tax relief and, more specifically, by providing access to additional funds to help offset the costs of raising their children in a safe and supportive environment.
The government recognizes the important contributions that parents make to society. Parenting, as many members know, is never easy. I have five children, and frankly, I find that being Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is a cakewalk compared to parenting five children.
It is particularly difficult if one is from a low income or modest income family, because of course money is always then an issue. On behalf of the government and other members of the Commons, let me begin by acknowledging these challenges and sacrifices of low income and modest income families on behalf of their children in order to provide a nurturing environment in which they can be raised despite their financial constraints, which are for many a constant struggle.
I would also be remiss if I did not remind members of the steps the government has taken to help low income and modest income families raise happy and healthy children. These measures are designed to offset the costs incurred by having children and to recognize the financial status of the families themselves. More important, these measures put money back in the hands of people who need it most, and I think that is a significant distinction. The help we have tried to provide is targeted to people who need the most help so that they can create safer and more nurturing environments for their children.
As hon. members will recall, the 2004 budget reaffirmed this enduring commitment by announcing a number of measures to help Canadian parents with their responsibilities. For instance, we accelerated the implementation of the multilateral framework agreement on early learning and child care. We introduced a new Canada learning bond. We enhanced the Canada education savings grant, matching rates for low income and middle income families. These measures are designed to help families through every stage of a child's development.
Members will also recall what was done prior to the most recent budget. In the year 2000, we introduced a five year tax reduction plan. I would draw the House's attention to the fact that in the five year plan of $100 billion in total, three-quarters of that was directed to benefits for individuals, with the most relief going to low income and modest income families with children. In 2004-05 the government's tax reduction plan will have reduced personal income taxes by 21% on average. Families with children benefit even more with an average tax savings in the order of 27%.
May I also remind the House that under this plan, families with children also benefited from reduced tax rates for all income levels, the elimination of the deficit reduction surtax, and the restoration of the full indexation of the personal income tax system, which protected families against automatic increases and erosion of benefits caused by inflation. The first number of measures were specifically targeted to people with low and modest incomes; the latter number applies to all tax filers.
The plan also included significant enrichments of the Canada child tax benefit, possibly the most significant initiative of this government in quite a number of years. It is to these changes that I would like to draw members' attention specifically.
The Canada child tax benefit, CCTB, is the main vehicle through which the government achieves its commitment to generally assist families with costs associated with raising children. It is a non-taxable amount paid monthly to help eligible families with the cost of raising children under the age of 18.
(1250)
Since its inception this program has been significantly enriched. For example, the 2000 budget and the 2000 economic statement and budget update enriched the CCTB by an additional $2.6 billion. The CCTB enhancements under the five year tax reduction plan continue to benefit families with children, with the final steps implemented in July 2004.
These include increasing the family net income threshold at which the national child benefit supplement, the NCB supplement, is fully phased out and the CCTB benefit begins to be phased out, and reducing the phase-out rate of the base benefit of the CCTB. Taken together, these measures will ensure that more Canadians will receive CCTB benefits.
The 2003 budget went even further and announced further substantial increases in the NCB supplement by annual amounts of $150 per child in July 2003, $185 in July 2005, and $185 in July 2006. These enrichments translate into an increase of $965 million per year in the NCB supplement of the CCTB by 2007.
Currently the CCTB provides $9.1 billion annually in assistance to 3.5 million families, roughly 10% of the population, with annual benefits of up to $2,719 for the first child, $2,503 for the second child, and $2,507 for each additional child. In fact, I would say it goes to probably more than 10% of the population of Canada.
With these increases, together with full indexation restored under the five year tax reduction plan, the minimum CCTB benefit is projected to reach $3,243 for a first child, $3,016 for a second, and $3,020 for each additional child, by July 2007. Overall assistance to families with children through CCTB is projected to reach $10 billion annually, an increase of over 100% since 1996. So from 1996 to 2007, we will see a 100% increase in the benefit.
From an individual family's point of view, this means that over the same period the maximum annual benefit for a first child under CCTB will have more than doubled from $1,520 to $3,243. That is $1,723 more per year to help cover the costs associated with raising a child.
I would also like to add that the 2003 budget created a new child disability benefit. This benefit is paid for children qualifying for the disability tax credit, with the full $1,653 per child benefit being paid to all families receiving the national child benefit supplement who have a qualifying child. The measure is expected to benefit 40,000 low income and modest income families and will represent an investment of $50 million per year.
Given these initiatives, there could be no clearer evidence than this of the high priority the government attaches to families with children. The growth in the CCTB is a clear example of the government's efforts to put money in the hands of families of low and modest incomes.
Let me conclude by saying the Government of Canada continues to work diligently on ways to support families of low and modest incomes. The government's record on tax relief for families with children is solid. From the perspective of government, strong arguments can be made that assisting families is not only the right thing to do but the smart thing to do.
The fact of the matter is that it is also an area in which this government has created a number of initiatives, many of which have been very well received by Canadians. The government can be counted on to continue its support for low income and modest income families and expand and improve the multitude of supports like the CCTB that we have already put in place.
(1255)
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I have discussed as colleagues on the finance committee the issue of eliminating the discrepancy or the discrimination in the taxation system between dual and single income families, and how this obviously would be a benefit not only to working women and young parents but also to senior citizens. I wonder if the hon. member can commit to those kinds of changes in the tax system being in the upcoming budget.
Hon. John McKay: Madam Speaker, the short answer to the question is no. The budget will be delivered on February 23 at 4:00. I am sure that the hon. member's attention will be riveted to what the finance minister has to say.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for laying out to the House a broad range of initiatives which have taken place over a series of budgets. It is very important to understand that every budget cannot address all issues. We can look at them over a period of time and see how children have been a very top priority of the Liberal Party.
I want to ask the member a question with regard to the tax relief for Canadians with low and modest incomes. I think the way everyone has been talking about it, that the Canada child tax benefit is in fact part of the tax system although it is a non-taxable payment, it is an effective way to target because the Canada child tax benefit is means tested. After a certain level of income, families cease getting that benefit.
Certainly the Canada child tax benefit is targeted at Canadians with low and modest incomes. Is the parliamentary secretary aware of any other efficient way to direct so-called tax cuts to Canadians with low and modest incomes without having them also automatically extend to the highest income earners because of our marginal tax rate system?
Hon. John McKay: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga South has asked a very subtle question.
It is something that gives us some difficulty. Clearly on the face of it, if we simply raised thresholds, we would appear to be giving relief to all tax filers. If we merely lowered tax percentages, we would give relief to all tax filers. If we look at it more carefully, in terms of the benefit in thresholds or marginal rates, we would find that the disproportionate benefit goes to the upper and upper middle income tax filers. That makes it somewhat difficult to simply give a broad base tax relief if the decision is to target folks with low and middle incomes.
One of the ideas that came up at the finance committee which I thought was quite intriguing had to do with enhanced GST tax credits. A lot of people particularly at the low end of the spectrum have either no income on which to declare, or have income that is fairly modest. One of the benefits would be that an enhanced GST tax credit would benefit those who are at the lowest end of the socio-economic scale.
That is one of a myriad of ways in which the government could possibly look at the modification of things. A great number of witnesses at the finance committee had suggestions along those lines. It is not as if we are not aware of those.
The other point I want to make with regard to the CCTB is that it is a directed benefit that actually puts real cash into the hands of people who are, as the hon. member said, means tested.
(1300)
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address the motion tabled by the hon. member for Calgary Southwest on the question of reducing taxation for low and modest income Canadian families in the upcoming budget. For my part I would like to put the question into a larger context, because I believe the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has already put it into context in terms of tax cuts, by examining the economic implications of child care for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Even as the Government of Canada was taming the deficit during the 1990s, it continued to invest in Canada's children. Indeed, in 1996, first ministers established children and families as a priority for joint action, and they remain at the forefront of the national policy agenda today.
As the October Speech from the Throne clearly states, investing in our children is the best investment we can make as a nation. Experts agree that the early years are the building blocks for a child's future. They establish the foundation for competence and coping skills that affect learning, behaviour and health in later life.
For that reason alone, it would make good sense to invest in children.
[English]
There are even more compelling reasons. If the early years are the building blocks for our children, it is equally true that our children are the building blocks for our future and that of our country. The future viability and prosperity of Canada depends on our children's ability to become adults who can thrive in an increasingly complex global environment. That is why the Government of Canada has invested in children and their families.
By the end of this fiscal year, as my hon. colleague the Parliament Secretary to the Minister of Finance said, the Government of Canada will have invested more than $13 billion in programs that support children and families. We have invested in child benefits that have helped lift 55,000 children out of poverty in the year 2000 alone. We have expanded parental benefits to allow parents to remain at home with their infants for up to a year. We have developed new partnerships and joint initiatives with the provinces and territories from the national children's agenda, to the early childhood development agreement, to the multilateral framework on early learning and child care.
[Translation]
Yet for all the positive impact of this set of initiatives, there is a glaring omission. I speak, of course, of the need for an early learning and child care system in each province and territory.
The Canadian family has evolved dramatically over the past few decades. Close to 70% of mothers with children under age six now work outside the home. Everyone in this House agreed on this, even the Conservatives.
I want to emphasize that quality child care can help bring opportunities that might not otherwise exist for children whose families may face broader challenges
[English]
Too often parents of low income families cannot find quality accessible and affordable day care, contrary to what hon. members on the other side of the House have been saying all day. In Toronto alone in 2001, 17,000 low income children were on a waiting list for subsidized child care. In Montreal apparently the list is even longer. Across the country we have regulated child care spaces for only about 27% of young children with mothers in the workforce.
Low income parents in fact pay a high price for taking care of their children at home. By the time they put their children in school and start to look for work again, they may no longer have the skills to get well-paying jobs in a rapidly evolving economy.
That is why quality child care is so important. It allows both low income parents to work outside the home if they choose to do so. Not only does employment bring immediate economic benefits, but it also begins to reverse the cycle of poverty. By staying employed while their children are young, parents can continue to develop skills that will keep them employable in the knowledge economy, again if that is their choice.
(1305)
[Translation]
Research shows that, over the long term, the right combination of income and service supports for all young children and families—including, I might add, children in middle-income families—pays handsome dividends. Every dollar invested generates a long-term payoff of between two and seven dollars. Quality child care is an important part of this economic equation.
[English]
I would like to make reference to the OECD report which was referred to earlier. In fact if the hon. members would take the time to read the report, they would see that it underlines the fact that with a good early learning and child care system in the country, the quality of life for children and their families will be increased.
[Translation]
It is for that reason that the Government of Canada has committed to spend $5 billion to develop an early learning and child care system in each province and territory over the next five years.
We know this money is well spent—that the benefits far outweigh the costs. Not just for the positive impact on our children families, but also for the economic returns for Canada as a nation. That is exactly what was said in the OECD report.
[English]
The Government of Canada is working hand in hand with its provincial and territorial partners to create an early learning and child care system that is based on the principles that experts and parents say matter: quality, universally inclusive, accessible and developmental.
The motion being considered today stresses the need for the child care system to respect provincial jurisdiction and as I come from the province of Quebec, I think I am very sensitive to that issue. I have not heard, as I said when I put my first question earlier this morning to the hon. critic for social development and early learning, in what way will the Conservative Party work with the provinces in order to make sure that the system that is in place, or the system that is not in place, will in fact develop? The Conservatives do agree, and the last speaker from that party said so, that there is a need for quality day care across the country.
The new initiative will give the provinces and territories the flexibility to address their own particular needs and circumstances. They will use the money to make existing programs and services better and to create new quality spaces. I am still waiting for the answer from the Conservative Party on exactly how it would contribute to that, besides the issue of tax cuts.
While the specific impacts of the initiative will vary across the country, Canadians can expect to see more child care providers and early childhood education, more children with access to safe, secure and stimulating early learning environments, and higher rates of retention among early childhood educators. I repeat that is exactly what the OECD report said is needed.
[Translation]
At a meeting last Friday of ministers responsible for social services, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers took another step forward in realizing our joint vision. In the words of the co-chair, the hon. Chester Gillan, Minister of Health and Social Services in Prince Edward Island, the provinces and territories were extremely pleased with the progress. We all agree on the need for clear accountability that allows citizens to track the progress of their respective governments on child care.
The time has come for an early learning and child care system in every province and territory—for the sake of our children, our families and communities, and our country.
Once again, I will emphasize the fact that this is precisely what was said in the OECD study, that Canada needed this system. I was very encouraged by everything that has been said by the hon. members from the Conservative Party of Canada. They agree that we need an accessible, quality system all across Canada.
However, they have said nothing about how to set up such a system. What methods, what tools will they adopt to have this system all across Canada? Neither have they answered the question of their view of the system currently in place in Quebec. How are they going to collaborate with Quebec to ensure that they have the tools necessary to set up a system like Quebec's all across Canada? I see nothing about this.
We know that the hon. members from the Conservative Party of Canada are always talking about giving money to parents, but this system exists right now. How are they proposing to encourage this system?
We on our side are working with the provinces and territories. We have $5 billion on the table. We also want to provide parents with choices, with quality choices on child care.
(1310)
[English]
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is clear from the studies which came out just this past week that the Canadian people do not want the system that the Liberals are proposing.
What else is clear is the difference that is forming in today's debate. On this side of the House we believe that parents, not politicians, should decide what is best for their children. We on this side of the House believe in parents.
What the government would do is effectively expropriate billions of tax dollars and put that money into a single option that is not universal. It would exclude stay at home parents, family based care, community based care, linguistic and religious institutions that might provide care. It would exclude 95% of the options, and the Liberals call it universal. It is universal in only one way. Everybody gets to pay. Even if they do not like what is on the menu, they have to pick up the tab.
How would the member, while looking into the eyes of stay at home parents, explain to them why they should be forced to pay for a system which they do not believe in and which they do not wish to use?
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, I would have no problem looking at parents and telling them that they have that choice at the moment. In fact, they have those choices based on the type of tax measures we have already brought into the system for low and middle income families.
They also have a choice if they choose to work. They also have a choice under our parental leave to stay home for a year if they wish. If they wish to go back to work, we want to make sure that those children, who we care as much about as the other members on the opposite side, have a system that offers them the best possible tools to grow and become contributing members in our society.
What we are talking about today is providing children with the a foundation to become members of this society. However, to have that basis we need to have a system, which is what we are talking about today. I have heard nothing from the other side in terms of how they will contribute to the existing system that is uneven.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre: Canadians do not want a system.
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes, they do. The polls say that they do want a system.
The difference between our party and that party is that it wants to force its vision of society on families but that is not the family's vision.
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development has spoken passionately many times, both here in the House and in committee, about the building blocks for a social economy.
There is no question in my mind and in her mind that the legislation is very important for building those building blocks for the social economy.
On the issue of child care, which is essential for so many parents and, of course, for the province of Ontario and the city of Toronto, which is where I was elected, about 20,000 people are on a waiting list for subsidized spaces. No matter how much money is given to parents, there will never be enough spaces in the system. We do have to be aggressive in implementing this particular policy.
The federal Liberal government has been trying for many years to get all provincial parties to the table in order to put a comprehensive child care system in place but most provinces in the past have resisted. Perhaps the hon. member could give us her views on the social economy.
(1315)
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, it is a fact that a lot of the day care centres are part of the social economy, or l'économie sociale, in Quebec. Those day care centres do provide day care and an educational early learning program that is very beneficial for children from low and middle income families. That is the type of social enterprise that will be encouraged by this government and I am assuming by the provinces when we reach the agreement that we are working toward.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle.
I rise today to speak in support of the Conservative motion that reads:
|
That the House call upon the government to address the issue of child care by fulfilling its commitment to reduce taxes for low and modest income families in the upcoming budget, and, so as to respect provincial jurisdiction, ensure additional funds for child care are provided directly to parents. |
I support the motion because I strongly believe that parents, not the government nor any other government for that matter, are in the best position to determine what is best for their children based on their own values, their own culture and their own traditions.
I would like to read an excerpt from a report called “Canadian Attitudes on the Family”. I reads:
|
...many Canadian parents feel trapped by economic pressures and are not able to make the sort of choices they would like for their families. Sometimes, of course, this is unavoidable. Economic reality has a way of interfering with our dreams, and everyone has to live within their means. In this case, however, the Canadian tax system is clearly stacked against the interests of Canadian families.... |
I agree wholeheartedly. This tax system is stacked against the interests of Canadian families.
The Liberal government's national child care strategy does absolutely nothing to address the problems with the tax system. It does absolutely nothing to provide for the choices that parents need to address, the specific and varying needs of their children, inasmuch as the proposed $5 billion that the government will be bringing forward over five years is slotted only for government run day care centres and educational programs.
The government needs to stop pushing Canadian families in one direction, which is toward government run day care centres. Instead, it must allow Canadian families to make their own choice with as level a playing field between the alternative choices as possible.
We advocate choice because the Conservative Party of Canada truly trusts Canadians to make decisions that are in their best interests, in the best interests of their children and, ultimately, in the best interests of society as a whole.
Last week there was an article in the National Post entitled “Listen to the Parents”. The article reads:
|
It is worth noting that the study shows nearly half of all Canadian mothers and fathers still do their own parenting. And the category that displayed the biggest increase was care at home by relatives, such as grandparents, rather than in formal daycare centres. All of which suggests Canadian parents are still not sold on the notion that their children should be raised by strangers in an institutional setting. |
However the Liberal government has totally ignored this most important aspect of child care. The Liberals “one size fits all” day care strategy ignores the realities of Canadians' delicate work-life balance. It ignores the realities of rural Canadian families who do not have access to government run facilities, who work varied hours, or who are self-employed on their farms and therefore not eligible for any day care assistance despite the fact that many Canadian farmers and farm families are living below the poverty line.
Many farmers, depending on the way their farm is structured and the way it is set up for tax purposes, are ineligible to use receipts for day care on their farming operation. Although the most dangerous time for young children to be on the farm is harvest time when everyone is tired, the tax structure does not, in some cases, allow parents to use a child care receipt as a deduction on their income tax.
The government ignores the fact that many Canadian families choose to have one parent stay at home with their children. Where is the assistance or subsidies to help these struggling families?
(1320)
One of my former constituents, a long time neighbour and friend, Joyce Oberg, has been a home day care provider in my home town of Killam for many years. Joyce rightfully points out in a recent letter she sent to me that not all parents work Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and yet there is no government run day care that is open seven days a week ready to accommodate parents who work those types of shifts. Why should these parents be short-shifted by a government that ignores or is oblivious to this fact and to many other realities of the work-life balance in Canada?
Many of my colleagues today have spoken about the financial burden that has been imposed on Canadian families. They have come forward advocating tax cuts that go directly to parents to pay for their preferred choice and in providing care for their children. I wholeheartedly agree with those tax cuts.
However I have noted that what many have neglected to talk about today is the horrific stress that work imposes on Canadian families and the growing need to provide more flexibility in the workforce to alleviate those stresses and the stresses placed on society in general.
A recent article in the Ottawa Citizen stated that, “An alarming number of Canadians are at risk of developing serious health problems unless something is done to redress the balance between work and family life”.
The Ottawa Citizen referenced a Health Canada study which found that:
|
The health care system is completely overburdened and a large part of that is because people are completely overloaded. They have way too much to do and no time to do it in. People are more likely to be absent from work, take mental health leaves, have stress episodes, depression.... You're going to see direct and indirect costs to productivity. |
A number of factors have created this result, including: 25% of the population is working 50 hours or more a week, which is up from 10% in 1991; employees are more likely to work overtime without being compensated, which adds to more stress; 70% of all workers are parents with an average of two children each; 60% had elder care responsibilities; and 13% were what is called the sandwich generation that cares for both children and for an elderly relative.
What do the authors of this study recommend? They recommend that the government take the lead in issues of child and elder care, to lead by example in letting employees work flexible schedules and find ways to reduce the “financial penalties” associated with parenthood. This study is drawing reference to the fact that there are financial penalties right now in the tax system that need to be addressed.
The Liberal government has failed dismally in this regard. It has failed dismally because it does not understand the social and financial realities of Canadian families. We would implore the government to ensure that, in the 2005 federal budget, low and middle income Canadians are given tax relief, tax relief that will allow them to make the choice in how to care for their children, whether that be in their own homes, with a relative, with a neighbour or in a government run day care centre. The operative words are “choice, freedom and flexibility”.
The Conservative Party of Canada is asking the Liberal government to allow Canadian parents to parent, allow them to make the choices and allow them to make decisions without the government's intrusion, obstruction or penalties.
(1325)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear that I am very much in favour of supporting a first step on a national child care program. It is one of the tools that we have available for parents. The choice and flexibility are also important.
The member commented a couple of times about the objective of providing tax relief for low and modest income Canadians. We have heard the rhetoric. Could the member explain exactly how a tax break for low and modest income Canadians can be delivered without having the same benefit go to the higher income earners in Canada? Can he be very specific about what changes would be made in the Income Tax Act to specifically target low and modest income Canadians?
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Madam Speaker, we, in this party, have suggested that we allow Canadian parents to make the decisions. In my own circumstances as a farmer and the owner of a small business, there have been times when we have had to use day care facilities. We have used babysitters, family members and one of us at times stayed at home.
We are suggesting that the marketplace can always make the decisions and that it will react. If more money were put into the pockets of young mothers and young families who are raising their children which would allow them the opportunity to choose with their own dollars where they would best want to have their children--
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos: How?
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: We do it by increasing the credits. There are many different ways of doing it. We allow so much for the child credit. We have always suggested that we need to encourage this and we need to allow parents to stay at home.
Members opposite are hollering and screaming over there. Government members typically stand in this place and say that they know what is best. They know what is best for the farmers. They come up with a program and the farmers do not like it. They know what is best when it comes to provincial jurisdictions and they jump into those jurisdictions. Now they are telling us that they know what is best when it comes to parenting. The only way it will work is if we have a government day care centre that everyone will be able to access.
People and critics across this country have made it clear that even with a government day care centre, not everyone will be able to access it. There will be many people who will not access it. Let us give them a better credit so that they can choose the facility they want to use. Put more money back into their pockets. Allow them the opportunity to choose.
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos: How?
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Members opposite continue to say “how?”. We do not have a revenue problem with the government; we have a spending problem with the government. Now the Liberals are looking for ways to rip off more money from hardworking Canadian taxpayers, and I say shame.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Madam Speaker, I have three quick questions here and he may need to take notes so he can give me intelligent and wise responses.
Earlier today, we heard the minister talk about the whole issue of parents needing to suppress the guilt. It is a given that parents would feel guilty because they do not have enough to time to spend with their kids. Parents have to live with that and it is par for the course. In effect, he was inferring that we need to suppress the guilt.
When there is guilt about something in a person's life, and I know the Liberal minister's Ph.D. is not in psychology, I would have thought the person should do something about the root cause that is creating the guilt. He is inferring that we simply suppress that guilt. Do we not try to nudge or move to the ideal of spending more time with our children instead of just living with it, going with the flow and suppressing the guilt, as he put it?
I believe that parents would like the choice. Maybe there will continue to be many families where both parents work full time outside the home. Some will choose full time, some part time and some not at all. I would like the member's response to those questions.
(1330)
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Madam Speaker, as far as the minister's comments are concerned, I was in committee this morning and did not hear him talk about guilt for putting children in child care. The guilt thing is part of what society is. Parents will be putting children into day care centres. I have had to use babysitters on occasion. However, there are also choices.
It boils down to two things. First, there is absolute need. In some cases, there may only be one parent who has to work and they need help. The other thing is the choice of priorities. Some people have the ability to decide that one parent stays home. Whether it be the husband or the wife, we leave that up to them. Parents must decide what is best for their children.
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Madam Speaker, there are three main things I would like to discuss today.
First, is the issue of the limits of the federal government. It is important that part of this babysitting debate is centred around the acceptable limits of government intrusion into our lives.
Second, is the issue of the quality of babysitting. Many of the arguments from the proponents of a national babysitting program have made statements concerning the fact that only a government-run, government-delivered babysitting program can meet qualifiers.
Third, is the issue of the matter of choice. If the House does indeed decide that we should provide further assistance to families to ease the burden of rearing children, how best can we deliver that assistance?
On the issue of the proper role of the federal government, I must say that the Liberal government is giving a whole new meaning to the term nanny state. Not trusting Canadians to make their own decisions about child care, the government is again stepping into unchartered territory of government control. We used to believe that it was the role of parents and guardians to raise children, but now we have a government that pretends that the raising of children is now a federal responsibility. Is there any aspect of society that the government recognizes as being outside of its scope? Is there any area of our lives that we can be sure the government will not tread on? I fear that with this government, the answer is no.
On the matter of quality, the rhetoric coming from the backers of a state-run child rearing program is disturbing. I sat in committee where I heard one proponent of this notion saying that early childhood development starts in the womb, that waiting until the baby is actually born before addressing early learning is placing the child at a disadvantage. My wife is about to deliver our first child and to date she has not gone once to a day care centre to allow our unborn child to have access to this form of early childhood learning. I guess we are letting our child down. I guess we have a lot to answer for, that my wife is not going to day care pre-birth.
The basic premise of the early learning argument is that early learning cannot happen unless the child is in a state-run day care centre, and I have a big problem with that. I know people who offer babysitting programs from their homes. I have close family who do this. I challenge any bureaucrat to deliver the quality of care that these people provide. My relatives who babysit from their homes offer a wide variety of activities for the children they watch: arts and crafts, field trips to museums, sports, reading exercises, and the list goes on, and all this without any form of certification from any level of government. It is shocking that we are letting people provide care without being certified from a government program. I am really concerned about this. Note the sarcasm in my voice.
I can think back to the times when I was cared for by my grandmother. To state that she did not enhance my early childhood development is an outright falsehood. I can think of many important lessons she taught me, as well as the socializing aspect of growing up with several of my cousins. The Liberal babysitting program offers nothing for those options for families.
I would even argue that not only can family members provide similar levels of early childhood development, in many cases that level of care is superior because the bottom line is that nobody cares for a child more than that child's family. The love a parent, a grandparent or any other family member has for their child or grandchild surpasses the love that the government-licensed day care provider working in a government-run facility could ever provide.
This is not to detract from the dedication of institutionalized day care providers. In many cases they choose to go into the field because they love children and they enjoy caring for them. However, I do not think anyone could argue that family members do not provide a unique level of care. The argument cannot be made that only government-licensed institutional facilities can provide early childhood learning.
The last thing I wish to speak about is the question of choice. In typical Liberal fashion, the government is using circular logic to justify the idea of socialized babysitting. The stat has been used that around 70% of mothers are in the workforce. I heard a member of the NDP say that those 70% have chosen to be in the workforce. Many women choose to re-enter the workforce to further their own career and they make a conscious choice to do so, but how many parents are there in Canada who would love to have one parent stay at home to raise the child, but cannot because they need the extra income to maintain their households?
This entire issue is centred around the question of taxation. We have a situation where people need to have two incomes just to pay their tax burdens, so we need two parents in the workforce. What is the answer? We spend more tax dollars on providing a service because both parents have to be in the workforce. It is a circular argument.
(1335)
The Strategic Council polled 1,500 Canadians across the country on a range of family issues. It found that 82% of respondents agreed with the statement that governments should change the tax law in Canada to make it easier for parents with young children to afford to have one parent stay at home if they choose. About 76% of respondents stated that they would prefer to have a parent stay at home with the children if finances and other circumstances made it possible.
How many families face such a huge tax burden that they are forced back into the workplace? How many families would make that decision to have one parent stay at home if they had the extra income?
However, instead of looking at tax credits and direct funding to parents or other incentives to allow this, the government is embarking on a program that would take an enormous amount of tax dollars to provide. We have seen some of the statistics. The government says that it can do it for perhaps $5 billion over five years. In 1999 a study by the Department of Health estimated that it would cost $12 billion to $15 billion annually to provide a universal system. That does not sound like we are in the same ball park. We know the Liberals have numeric dyslexia over the surplus. I think this is another example; however, in this case, they are underestimating the cost.
The government's program has a one-size-fits-all approach that does not allow a choice for parents. We have seen other provincial models where direct funding goes to the parents.
I would like to address something that was brought up by one of the members over there. He said the length of waiting lists for institutionalized day care is dramatic in some regions. What we saw in other provinces is that when they provided that funding directly to the parents and they had that money in their hands to make their choice, whether it is to pay a family member to provide the care, a neighbour, a synagogue, a church or a mosque, the wait list for institutional day care goes down dramatically.
I received numerous e-mails from stay-at-home parents who are furious that the government's plan leaves them out. I support this motion because it places choice in the hands of parents, it puts money back into the pockets of families, and it keeps governments out of the business of raising children.
[Translation]
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Madam Speaker, I truly envy my colleague and the ideal childhood he just spoke of where his grandparents loved him, took him to the museum, read to him and all the rest.
I wonder whether my colleague realizes that thousands of families in Quebec and Canada are not as lucky. In fact, thousands of families are poor and should probably use the money my colleague wants to give in order to buy milk or diapers for their children. What does he hope to achieve for these people if suitable child care services are not set up by the provinces?
(1340)
[English]
Mr. Andrew Scheer: Madam Speaker, I did have access to a grandmother for some of my day care. Both my parents had to work to pay the excessive tax burden they faced. I spent time at day cares and with babysitters, both neighbourhood babysitters and a babysitter who came to our home. I have experienced a wide variety. Nothing compared to the family members who provided that care for me, as great as was all the other care.
I do not doubt her sincere intentions on this. I know she approaches this question out of a legitimate concern. However, I think my colleague missed the point because when we provide those dollars directly into the hands of parents, they can make those choices themselves. We do not need to have to pump it into a system, a government-run facility, and have all the examples that we have seen of how governments deliver services. We should put the money back into the hands of parents, let them make those choices, let them find out what they need to do for their own children to get those things the member mentioned, and let them provide the care for their own kids.
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.): Madam Speaker, speaking of the type of supports we have given families, I think the hon. member missed the whole speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance on the amount of tax cuts we have made and the types of support we have provided, such as the child tax benefit.
However, I thought it was a way of demeaning the whole debate by talking about babysitting. We are not talking about babysitting. We are talking about early learning and child care. There is a huge difference, and it is by choice. It is by choice because we have increased the limit on the child care expense deduction from $4,000 to $7,000 a year for each child under seven years of age. We have provided the child disability benefit for low and modest income families to provide up to $1,600 per year for a child with a disability. We also have reduced net personal income taxes for families with children by at least 21%. Since they are very good at quoting different studies, I will quote the Caledon Institute. It said, “at the current level the child tax benefit reduced the rate of poverty among families with children by 25%”. There is more to come in the budget.
When the hon. member refers to babysitting, does he not agree that there should be a system in place for those families who choose to put their children in a child care system? Does he object to those families, because his vision of society is not the vision of society that we share in the House?
Mr. Andrew Scheer: Madam Speaker, first, I thank the hon. member for making my point. When we reduce taxes through tax credits, we reduce child poverty. I could not have put it better myself. I think it basically backs up everything I said.
The whole premise of my speech was on choice . When we put the dollars directly into the hands of parents, if they choose an institutional day care with early learning programs, they can do so. They do not need to have all those funds go into one size fits all approaches.
Parents who choose an institutional form of day care will have the funds. Those who choose to stay at home will have the funds. Those who choose to send their children to a neighbourhood babysitter, a mosque, a synagogue or church to provide those forms of day care will have that choice too.
I do not know why the Liberals are anti-choice on this question.
[Translation]
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to point out that I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.
It is as critic for families and caregivers, as well as a woman, a mother and also the grandmother of two wonderful grandchildren, Alexy and Tiffany, that I am speaking this afternoon to the Conservative Party motion. The Bloc Québécois categorically opposes this motion because we have established a very good system in Quebec.
It is simple. First, child care is part of family policy and that falls exclusively under Quebec's jurisdiction. In this matter, Quebec and the other provinces should at any time be able to opt out, with full compensation, of the federal program the government is trying to implement.
Second, the money to be used for setting up the child care network should be transferred to Quebec and the provinces, since family policy is a provincial jurisdiction.
Third, by giving money directly to the parents, the federal government would be going against the concept of respecting jurisdictions.
The Conservative motion is totally contradictory. On one hand, they advocate respecting provincial jurisdictions, while on the other hand they want the federal government to intervene directly with the families.
It was already clear in the Liberal Party's election platform that this system would be established with a lot of conditions that would infringe directly on the provinces' areas of jurisdiction. Four standards were established: quality, ensuring that the provinces would regulate the daycares and their staffs; universality, making the daycares available to all children; accessibility, establishing a program that is affordable for all parents; and child development through learning. These are standards that have already all been achieved in Quebec's day care system.
The Bloc Québécois had to ask a number of questions in the House in order to get the government to acknowledge the expertise and effectiveness of the day care services in Quebec and honour its commitment in the Speech from the Throne to fully respect the provincial jurisdictions.
In fact, we asked more than 18 questions in the House to determine the real intentions of the Liberal government, namely whether or not it would respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces in this regard. We are still waiting for the answer.
However, several Liberal ministers have expressed their views to the media in this regard. I quote the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who said in Le Soleil of June 4, 2004: “The money will go to Yves Séguin without restrictions and it will be up to Claude Béchard to negotiate with him. ...Mr. Séguin can decide to use this money elsewhere.” In addition, on two occasions when the Prime Minister was being interviewed on Radio-Canada, once on June 3, 2004, and another time last December 14, he said that Quebec would receive its $5 billion share without any conditions. Finally, my honourable colleague from Human Resources and Skill Development said in this House last November 1st:
|
The Liberal government of Quebec is capable of sharing common objectives with the other provinces and having comparable indicators, as it has shown in the case of health, while having an agreement tailored specifically to Quebec's priorities. This is what we are going to be doing. |
Let us hope that they will say the same thing here as well and that they will finally give us a clear, unequivocal answer.
Quebec has had its own plan since 1998. All we want are the funds that the federal government owes us to enable us to develop the 30,000 places that are still missing in order for us to achieve our objective of 200,000 places by 2006.
As Ms. Jocelyne Tougas said so well at the Canadian Council on Social Development's national conference:
|
—It is in an environment of stress, pollution and conflicts of all sorts that we have to raise our children and provide them with every opportunity to develop and grow, in the full knowledge that development and growth are only possible for those who belong to and identify with the group. |
(1345)
That is why structured childcare is important, so children can succeed at school, grow healthy and strong and become independent.
The OECD believes that Quebec has the best child care system in Canada and one of the best in the world. Why? Because Quebec's approach to childcare services is based on the social economy, which means that economic development goes hand in hand with social development. The Minister of Social Development himself has nothing but praise for our system.
Child care has five major functions.
First, it has an educational function by being a place where children acquire the knowledge and skills they need to develop and reach their potential, both physically and intellectually.
Second, it has a practical function, by ensuring that children whose parents work are cared for.
Third, it has a social and cultural function, by continuing to transmit values taught at home. Children develop their vision of the world, learn to socialize and function in a group.
Fourth, it has an economic function, because child care services provide thousands of people with a workplace where skills are recognized and where working conditions improve each year to ensure that job quality is maintained. It allows some parents to remain in the workforce, while others are able to continue their education or improve their job skills before returning to the work force. These measures contribute significantly to fighting poverty.
Fifth, it has a democratic and civic function, because everyone is admitted, without regard for gender, origin, religion or financial situation, which signifies a healthy environment in which children can develop. They benefit from a system where equal opportunity and justice for all is a daily reality. A policy for families including quality child care with a strong focus on all these functions allows many underprivileged children to get a better start in life.
That is why the Bloc Québécois supports the other provinces that want to have a child care system. Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois cannot support the Conservative Party's motion, because Quebec already has the expertise, the network and the contacts to identify and meet the needs of its citizens. That is why we want a firm guarantee in the budget, which will be tabled on February 23, that Quebec will get its share of the $5 billion, unconditionally, as soon as the funding is in place.
In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois members cannot approve of the Conservative motion, which would give money directly to the parents or of the conditions a national law would impose on us. Finally, we are against anything that could prevent achievement of the objective of receiving full compensation from the federal government for continuing the exceptional development of the network of child care services in Quebec.
(1350)
[English]
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP): Madam Speaker, I want to commend the member for her presentation, which was well delivered. I also want to let people know that she participated in a conference in Winnipeg a few months ago at which child care was discussed. In fact, the Quebec model was featured, and a previous Parti Québécois minister who was responsible for introducing the program spoke to it.
When Quebec introduced this, a definite decision was made to have a system in place, a national program so to speak. Also a decision was made not to go the route that the Conservatives are suggesting. Could the member elaborate on why that was done?
Also with respect to the Quebec model, for the first few years there was a moratorium on any for profit centres receiving government money. Would the member speak to that point also?
[Translation]
Ms. Nicole Demers: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie for his question. Indeed, the child care services in Quebec were established and created a national consensus. We are very much aware that child development—egalitarian and healthy development—requires very consistent policy.
As we heard previously. it is very hard for parents to have to make choices when they do not have the money to buy everything. The rent must be paid, or milk must be bought or things bought for the babies. Therefore, we need consistent policy.
Quebec decided to establish a child care service because we wanted to give our children the best opportunity for a good start in life. We continue to think it is the right way.
We also put a moratorium on child care services that cost, because we thought it was the best way to ensure equal child care services for everyone. Otherwise, many inequalities arise and the children do not receive the same quality of care in child care services. It is important to maintain a standard of quality for development and growth, and for the services provided for our children.
(1355)
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Madam Speaker, I want to point out that the members from the Bloc Québécois are always interested in provincial jurisdictions, but they do not appear to see any importance in family jurisdictions. I think that is very interesting. They contradict themselves by taking this position.
[English]
It is clear that the Bloc would like to speak constantly about the jurisdiction of the provincial government, namely in Quebec, but never about the jurisdiction of families to make their own decisions. It is an enormous contradiction for that party to stand in the House and constantly speak about the need to take power out of this place and give it to another level of government, but never to take the power out of the hands of both governments and give it directly to the parents themselves.
Would the hon. member stand in the House and explain to us from which funding envelope the government is going to find the billions and billions of dollars that this new babysitting bureaucracy will cost?
[Translation]
Ms. Nicole Demers: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question. I think that, basically, everyone in this House wants the best for our children and grandchildren. There may be some conjecture, of course, that we prefer to support the provincial policies. It is true, no one will take offence at that. We are known to be sovereignists. However, we pay taxes and are entitled to get the best in exchange for the taxes that we pay. We will therefore defend the citizens of Quebec, who have already established a system.
As I said a while ago, there is an MNA who wanted to be Premier of Quebec and tried to institute a system like the one that the Conservative Party would like to have now. The result was that he lost the elections and lost four seats. Quebec families do not want this, and I do not think that families in Canada want it either. There is a minority that can pay for services if it wants. But the others do not want it.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I feel summoned to speak by the question from the hon. member of the Conservative Party. I would like to ask my colleague if she feels the same frustration as I do. I see how the government wants to make us suspect for wanting to have a daycare service, in Canada or Quebec, suspect in terms of the value judgment that is made, for example, on the quality of education that our mothers and our immediate families have provided and continue to provide for children.
I think they are putting their heads in the sand. It is not a value judgment on the perceived quality of education that is provided by parents. It is the choice that may be given to parents of having a real daycare system where children can be given equitable supervision and not of not offering a choice. Not offering a choice is what the motion of the Conservative Party is proposing to us today. I am outraged.
Ms. Nicole Demers: Madam Speaker, I am glad my colleague is outraged because I am as well.
I know that my mother got up very early every morning to raise her six children. She would go to work and come home at noon to make lunch because there were no child care services. Now she is 76 and she wishes she could have had such services. She knows full well that just because you have a good mother, a good grandmother or good neighbours does not mean your child will be well looked after.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[Translation]
Black History Month
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Black History Month is a time of celebration for Canadians of African descent and it is a time to reflect on the significance of their history in Canada and the substantial economic and social contribution they continue to make to this day.
(1400)
[English]
2005 will mark 50 years since Canada signed the first formal labour market agreement with the Caribbean. This marked the beginning of controlled immigration from non-white countries. This was a domestic scheme now known as the live-in caregiver program. Since then we have depended on teachers and other professionals to fill our labour needs.
Seventy per cent of our total labour force growth is now made up of immigrants. They come from the Caribbean and other parts of the African diaspora.
[Translation]
I congratulate therefore the 2,000 or so constituents of Laval—Les Îles of Black African descent as they celebrate their history. I also want to thank them for continuing to contribute to improving their adopted land, Canada.
* * *
[English]
John Robert McCaig
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on this the 40th anniversary of the Canadian flag, it is fitting that the House pay tribute to a distinguished Canadian.
John Robert “Bud” McCaig passed away on January 11. He will be sorely missed by his family, by fellow Calgarians and by his countrymen.
Bud McCaig was a member of the Order of Canada and was one of Calgary's most respected business leaders, philanthropists and citizens.
Over the course of his life, Bud McCaig built Trimac Corporation from a small regional trucking company into one of North America's largest transportation conglomerates.
Bud was a great family man and a great friend to many causes. He was a member of the board of governors at the University of Calgary. He was chairman emeritus at the Calgary Health Trust. He founded the Alberta Bone and Joint Institute with an extraordinarily generous donation. There are many other causes too numerous to mention.
Most important, Bud McCaig brought kindness, humility and compassion to everything and everyone he touched. Today we pay tribute to the flag and to one of our finest citizens who served it so well.
* * *
National Flag of Canada Day
Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today marks the 40th anniversary of the Canadian flag. It was first raised on Parliament Hill on February 15, 1965.
The debate in Parliament prior to the adoption of the maple leaf as our official national symbol is recorded as one of the most controversial of its time.
Much more than a symbol, the Canadian flag is now recognized worldwide and represents our values as a peaceful and generous country. National Flag of Canada Day is a day for us to reflect on our history, our identity and what unites all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
The first National Flag of Canada Day was established in 1996 largely due to the efforts of a former member of the House. Jesse Flis represented the constituency of Parkdale--High Park for many years, and through his efforts we now celebrate National Flag of Canada Day every February 15.
* * *
[Translation]
Université de Sherbrooke
Ms. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 2004 marked the 50th anniversary of the Université de Sherbrooke. The closing event in its year of celebration was a video presentation on the role of women at this institution.
The 30-minute video was prepared by the affirmative action program in order to leave for posterity a valuable account of the significant contribution made by women to this institution.
In the video, 20 women describe the role they and other women have played in the development of the Université de Sherbrooke. In the past 50 years, these women have served as professors, directors, deans, union presidents, counsellors and assistants of numerous kinds.
The Université de Sherbrooke and the entire Eastern Townships owe these women a debt of gratitude for making this a top-ranking institution and an economic driver for the region.
* * *
[English]
Brampton Call Centre
Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this month Brampton City Council announced the creation of an after hours customer service call centre.
This new centre will lead to improved customer service by enhancing the city's handling of bylaw and other complaints after hours.
Concerned about long constituent wait times on the phone, councillors found a way to rectify the situation. They will invest $1.5 million and hire seven additional employees to staff the centre to be located on the third floor of the Civic Centre in Brampton.
Once again councillors in Bramalea, Gore and Castlemore have found an innovative proactive solution to a difficult problem. I proudly salute Brampton City Council on its efforts to improve after hours customer service in that rapidly expanding municipality.
* * *
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the great work done by Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada. Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada is a leading child and youth mentoring organization.
In St. Thomas and surrounding Elgin County the Big Brothers Big Sisters program, in operation for over 35 years, has expanded beyond the traditional matching to include couples matching, singles matching, and my favourite program, the Cops for Kids initiative. These unique programs have led to over 60 matches this year, nearly doubling last year's numbers.
I look forward to continuing to work with Big Brothers Big Sisters in my riding to ensure that every child in St. Thomas and surrounding Elgin County who needs a mentor has a mentor. I encourage Canadians from coast to coast to do the same. Canadians can make a difference.
* * *
(1405)
Skills for Change
Mr. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate an outstanding young man from my riding.
Eric Acuna, who works for Newark Paperboard Products, has been selected to receive the 2005 New Pioneers Graduate Award from the Skills for Change organization.
Skills for Change is a non-profit charitable organization that raises public awareness of the work of immigrants and refugees across Canada. It provides them with the employment focused programs that they need.
The Skills for Change organization was given recognition for its work in 2003 when it received the Citation for Citizenship Award from Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
The award that Eric will receive honours new Canadians for their hard work, determination and contribution to our communities. The award also celebrates Canada's diversity and the continuing multicultural growth of our country.
In recognition of Eric's work, I would like to once again take this opportunity to congratulate him on receiving this award.
* * *
[Translation]
Inter-University Trade Exchange Simulation Competition
Mr. Roger Clavet (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on January 21 and 22, Laval University held the 17th Quebec and Ontario inter-university trade exchange simulation competition. This year, the organizers from Laval 's finance and insurance student association innovated by adding a college category to the competition.
The students from the faculty of business administration at Laval University were the winners in the university category, while those from Collège François Xavier Garneau were the winners in the college category.
My congratulations to them, as well as to the participants from the other universities and colleges and the organizers, who did a huge job in carrying out an instructional activity on one of the most visible feature of our financial system.
They have given us more reasons to be proud of the students from Louis-Hébert and the Quebec City area, who outdo themselves with every new opportunity.
* * *
[English]
National Flag of Canada Day
Hon. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is National Flag of Canada Day.
Forty years ago many of us were gathered in schoolyards around this time, proud witnesses to one of the great events in Canadian history. It was a cool day in many parts of the land and downright freezing cold in others. Yet there was a warmth in our hearts as we listened to a story unfold about a distinctive symbol, one that would soon become recognized and revered the world over.
In 1964 a Senate and House of Commons committee was formed. It called for submissions and received hundreds of designs and patterns. Hundreds of speeches were made in Parliament. Parliamentarians and other eminent Canadians had but one shared goal, to find a family symbol for the people of Canada that painted a portrait of justice, peace and equality for all humankind.
That goal has been reached. Whether we work to build our nation here at home or reach out to help a foreign nation in need, the flag of Canada waves a signal that harmony will prevail.
Let us look up to our flag with affection and pride. Its threads are woven tightly to create one seamless community from sea to sea to sea.
* * *
National Flag of Canada Day
Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago today the maple leaf flag was raised for the first time here on Parliament Hill and all across Canada. It is a cherished and welcome symbol for all Canadians and is a familiar and welcome sight around the world.
Today I recognize one of my predecessors, a former member of Parliament for Leeds, who was one of the strongest supporters of the flag. He played a key advisory role in its choice and recommendation by the flag committee.
John Ross Matheson wanted all Canadians to become consciously Canadian. The flag he helped create supports that wish, probably far beyond his imagination. In his book, Canada's Flag, he wrote:
|
May the maple leaf, our emblem dear, continue to fly for so long as the wind shall blow. |
I join all Canadians in acknowledging Mr. Matheson's contribution to Canada.
* * *
Beslan Schoolchildren
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a special delegation that is visiting Parliament today.
Eighteen children held hostage in Beslan on that fateful first day of school are in Ottawa today seeing democracy firsthand and exploring our scenic capital. I am proud to host their visit to Parliament.
As innocent victims of terror, their plight touched the hearts of all Canadians. Today I would like to convey a message of solidarity with them, for Canada was aghast at the brutal targeting of kids in their school. While nothing can dispel the trauma of that terrible ordeal, I hope that this two week vacation in Canada will give back a dose of innocence and a carefree childhood to these remarkable kids.
I wish them all the very best in the future. I want to assure them that Canada stands strong with them in the fight against terrorism.
* * *
(1410)
National Defence
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, four times as many Canadians strongly oppose Canada's participation in the U.S. missile defence program as those who strongly support it. It is alarming to know that the Liberal government was poised to sign on to Bush's missile defence that would inevitably weaponize space and launch a new and dangerous global arms race.
While the Prime Minister is being coy with his position as he tries to avoid the scrutiny of the Canadian public and his own caucus, New Democrats are clear on where they stand. We want Canada to stay out of it. We want no part of G.W. Bush's ill thought out and unilateral policy agenda. We will continue to press this demand in Parliament and work with anti-war and peace groups to ensure Canada is an advocate for peace and human security.
The NDP has consistently supported and pressed for Canada to meet its international commitment that 0.7% of gross domestic product be dedicated to international development assistance. We call on the government to heed the priorities of Canadians: no to star wars and yes to human dignity.
* * *
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 1972 I was a co-founder of the Big Brothers of Dufferin, along with Bill Bissel, Bill Parke, Spencer Finch, Wes Prosser, Bill Roberts and Vera Rogers. Big Sisters was started in 1977 by Jim McCloskey and Dave Ferrier, along with board members Penny Smith and Mary Wells. Then in 1996 the two agencies were merged to form Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Dufferin & District.
As the leading youth mentoring organization in Canada, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada is committed to the healthy development of youth in our community by providing them with quality relationships and adult mentors. Those who volunteer their time as a big brother or sister are to be commended for the time they take from their personal lives.
This Saturday, February 19, I will be attending the 26th Annual Bowl for Kids in Orangeville. Last year $37,000 was raised. This year over 100 participants have signed up so far and over 50 volunteers.
Sponsors for this year's Bowl for Kids are Kelsey's, Subway, the Banner, K&G Trophy, Mono Arts & Graphics, J.S.T. Printing and The New VR. Bowl for Kids is certain to be a big success.
* * *
[Translation]
Nicole Leroux
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate Nicole Leroux on winning the Governor General's Literary award in the youth category with her book entitled, L'hiver de Léo Polatouche.
It is with pride that I point out that Ms. Leroux was born in Saint-Georges-de-Windsor and raised in Danville, in my riding of Richmond—Arthabaska. For the past 25 years, she has been working as a psychoeducator with children in difficulty, while continuing to practise as a psychotherapist.
L'hiver de Léo Polatouche is her first novel for young people. The jury described her novel as a charming and poignant tale for readers of all ages, adding that the story accurately illustrates the value of each individual, regardless of their limitations.
Nicole Leroux does not plan to stop there. Having now been bitten by the bug, she is working on her first adult novel. I wish her the very best.
* * *
[English]
National Flag of Canada Day
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there are times in one's life or in the life of a nation when it seems like everything comes full circle. That is how I felt this morning during a flag day ceremony in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.
Forty years after the maple leaf flag came into being, I was honoured to watch Cornwall's own Gaetan Secours, the former RCMP officer who raised the first ceremonial maple leaf flag on Parliament Hill, repeat that ritual for a local audience.
The first maple leaf flag to fly over the Peace Tower is being returned to Ottawa by the family of the late Lucien Lamoureux, the member for Stormont—Dundas and deputy speaker during the flag debate. Just like 40 years ago, Canada now has a minority government, which means vigorous debate and real compromise, just as we saw in the debate over the new flag. Canada was built on that kind of debate and compromise.
As we recall the birth of our nation's most important symbol, I urge all Canadians to recall and relive the spirit of rejuvenation that gripped this nation 40 years ago. Together we can forge our own destiny.
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Marriage
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer some advice on the Conservatives' new gag law, their policy of vetting same sex marriage speeches through their leader's office.
So here, Mr. Speaker, are the top five lines—actual quotes from his recent interview with ethnic media—that should be deleted from the member for Calgary Southeast's forthcoming speech on same sex marriage.
Number 5: “Look, equality does not mean treating everybody exactly the same”.
Number 4: “We are against unjust discrimination. But there are forms of just discrimination”.
Number 3: “Marriage is open to everybody as long as they are a man and a woman”.
Number 2: “Personally, I am not against a referendum... Most democracies in the world, when they seek to amend their constitution, do so through a referendum process”.
And the Number 1 line to eliminate from a member's same sex speech: “I am a bachelor, so I do not know anything about marriage anyway either way”.
Well, at least that last quote by the member for Calgary Southeast is something that everyone in this House can agree on!
* * *
Auditor General's Report
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the first report of the Auditor General of Canada for the year 2005.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Auditor General's Report
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report you just tabled indicates the government has learned nothing from the sponsorship scandal. That scandal happened because the Liberals stashed millions away from the watch of Parliament. Now, even after repeated warnings, billions of dollars continue to be hidden away in these unaccountable foundations.
When will the government learn and put foundation spending under the scrutiny of Parliament and the Auditor General?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the foundations are available to Parliament. The Canadian Foundation for Innovation, as an example, has appeared over 11 times in front of parliamentary committees.
The fundamental point the hon. member seems to be raising is he is questioning the validity of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and other such foundations.
The Leader of the Opposition should go to the universities and the teaching hospitals in the country and ask them what they think about the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. He will find that they support it. They are supporting fundamental research in the country, and that is what is important.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am only quoting the Auditor General who says today, “Given the significant sums involved, I am concerned about the lack of adequate accountability to Parliament”. It is for $8 billion.
The Prime Minister has just finished appearing before the Gomery commission where he could not remember anything about finance in the last 10 years.
Will the Prime Minister promise the House that this time he will ensure in the upcoming budget that more taxpayer money is not hidden away in foundations?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no money is hidden. Public reports are made. All the hon. member has to do is read them.
If the hon. member would like to call the members of any one of those foundations in front of a committee, he is certainly free to do so. In fact, I can tell the hon. member that those foundations would like to appear.
If the hon. member is challenging what the foundations do, saying that the money is hidden, then why does he not go to the hospitals, go to the universities and go to those who benefit from what those foundations do and say that to them?
* * *
Child Care
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is so sure of his position, why does he not go to the Auditor General and say it to her?
[Translation]
On another subject, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta and Quebec all expressed reservations about the child care project, because it does not respect provincial jurisdictions.
Will the government allow the provinces to opt out of a federal program with full financial compensation?
[English]
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I may in the time available to me, I will respond to the preamble to the hon. member's question. He wonders if I am prepared to say what I have said in front of the Auditor General. I assure the hon. member I am prepared to say it in front of the Auditor General.
In fact, I would suggest to the hon. member that he might want to look around him and smell the roses.
(1420)
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, almost 100% of young working moms and dads in Canada have said that if they could afford it, they would stay home part time to care for their own children. Today in the House the Minister of Social Development said that young working moms only say that because they feel guilty.
Instead of offending working women, why will the minister not listen to what young working moms are asking for? How dare this minister ignore their desire for choice.
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just because the hon. member mischaracterizes and misstates, does not make it so. I was speaking of polling numbers. What polls allow us to do is to say yes to a number of different, often contradictory things. As parents, we all want to spend more time with our kids. For reasons such as economic, social and independence, we do not.
By far the most persuasive polling data we have is, after working through all the choices, that the great majority of parents with kids are both in the workplace.
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we fought long and hard for the right to vote, the right to participate in universities and the workforce, and the right to make our own choices. Working women want to make their own choices. We do not need old white guys telling us what to do.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove has the floor. We will hear the remainder of the question.
Ms. Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is clear. Why is this minister so opposed to providing choices for working women?
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, just because the hon. member misstates and mischaracterizes does not make it so. Real choice is the opportunity for men and women across the country, for women across the country, to have the choice of high quality early learning and child care.
* * *
[Translation]
Employment Insurance
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, because of the Liberal government's massive cuts and broken promises, 55% of workers are still not eligible for employment insurance when they are out of work. This situation has lasted long enough, so long in fact that, in committee, after initially objecting to these recommendations, even the Liberals supported the improvements proposed by the Bloc Québécois. This is a step forward, but now we must go through the budget stage.
If the government wants to improve the fate of workers, will it pledge to take into consideration, in its budget, the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities?
(1425)
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will certainly review with interest all the recommendations made by the parliamentary committee on human resources development. We hope to be in a position to do so in the timeframe provided by the rules of the House.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, clearly stated, this means that we will wait another six months, after two general elections and promises broken one after the other. Enough is enough. The solutions are known, and the government has the means to respond favourably to the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources which, as I said, were supported by Liberal members.
Since the workers who have suffered a prejudice because of this government have already been waiting too long, will the Prime Minister assure us that the employment insurance program will be with the budget, in compliance with the committee's report? For the Prime Minister, who talked about the democratic deficit, the time has come to prove that he meant what he said.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was very clear on this point. So was the government in the Speech from the Throne. Indeed, we stated that we would review the employment insurance program and make the necessary adjustments to meet the needs of employers and workers. Therefore, it is with great interest that I will examine all the recommendations made by members of this House.
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the progress that has been made, it is not as clear. There would be fewer problems with the employment insurance program if the fund were self-directed by the employers and workers. That principle was recognized in the throne speech, as well as in today's committee report, so the government cannot back down any longer.
Does the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development intend to insist that her colleague in Finance create an independent EI fund to put an end to the federal government's pillaging of contributions?
[English]
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly included in the report that the hon. member references were a number of suggestions, including that espoused by the hon. member, and certainly that is being taken into consideration as the finance minister prepares his budget.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ): Mr. Speaker, these are not suggestions, but recommendations.
Various labour organizations, including the Conseil du patronat, are calling for the creation of an independent EI fund, yet the minister is still shilly-shallying. Employment insurance has become an employment tax, and this is unacceptable.
So, does the minister intend to get her act together and support the creation of an independent employment insurance fund, as recommended unanimously to her by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities?
[English]
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member assurance that the report of that particular committee has been in front of the finance minister. The rate setting mechanisms and the independence of the commission have been before the finance minister and they are in fact being given due consideration.
* * *
The Environment
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Kyoto accord comes into effect and I hope that some day we might look back on that day as the day we began to actually save the planet, but it seems to me the most appropriate thing that the Prime Minister could do tomorrow would be to apologize to Canadians for a decade or more of inaction.
The Prime Minister promised in the red book to reduce emissions by 20%. Instead they are up by 20%. Could the Prime Minister tell us why he did not meet these targets, why these promises were broken, and why emissions never went down under a Liberal government?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 2002 we came up with a plan that will give results. The plan has come up with some measures that will take some years before we see the greenhouse gas emissions decreasing, but that is not enough. We need a stronger plan and this plan will be released pretty soon.
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, so far we have not seen a plan, and in 1993 the Liberals promised to do something about it then, not starting in 2005.
I was here when the Prime Minister was the environment critic for the Liberal Party, when he criticized Brian Mulroney for wanting to freeze emissions, and yet under 11 years of Liberal government they went up by 20%.
Could the Prime Minister tell us when we are going to have a plan and when is he going to apologize for contributing to the destruction of the planet the way he has?
(1430)
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government will certainly not apologize for the fact that we have kept the situation of our government and Canada in such a way that now we have surpluses which we will wisely invest in order to improve the environmental policy of Canada. The difference between us and the NDP is not that they care or we care about the environment. Both parties care. The difference is that they do not have any strategy to keep the fiscal house in order for Canada.
* * *
Justice
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino said on the weekend that hard-core, gun-crazed gangsters were perpetrating a frenzy of violence and bloodshed in Toronto on the weekend. When the smoke cleared, two were dead and six were injured. Seventeen of these 18 crimes involved guns.
Alarmingly, Chief Fantino made a damning assessment that criminals have no fear of the justice system and that it neither deters nor rehabilitates. He and many others are calling on the government to take action to crack down and restore safety on the streets. When will the government legislate mandatory minimum sentences for the criminal use of firearms and end this ineffective gun registry, putting the money into front line policing?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we care no less than the opposition about the safety and security of Canadians. We made safety and security a centrepiece of our meetings with federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice and we will continue to promote and protect the security and safety of Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
Public Security
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the CBC is again reporting that the Liberals are not taking terrorist threats seriously. Our borders are like sieves, and our major dams are open to attack at any time. The Liberals are cutting back on the number of RCMP in Quebec and ignoring all the alarm signals.
The minister needs to wake up. She needs to tell us what steps she plans to take, without further delay, to protect Canadians.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in this House, the redeployment of RCMP officers in Quebec is not reducing the complement in that province. In fact, what the force is doing is redeploying those officers to ensure they can provide better border protection; for example, through the creation of more integrated border enforcement teams. In fact, we are redeploying officers so they can work more effectively with the Sûreté du Québec in the fight against organized crime, drug trafficking, gun smuggling, people smuggling and so on.
We are redeploying to be more effective and more efficient in protecting the people of Quebec and Canada.
* * *
Child Care
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the social development minister has said that parents wishing to raise their own children at home are “out of date”, that children should be put into institutionalized care instead. Will the minister admit that he is the one who is out of date and understand that women deserve and want choice?
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this House before, and as I said in the House earlier this morning, at the very centre of any development of any child is the parent-child relationship. That is at the very centre.
What early learning and child care is, is an option. It is an extra choice for those parents to put their children into an experience with other children where in fact they have a better opportunity of growing up with that variety of--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, working moms would prefer to help raise their own kids. However, the minister says that at home parental care is mediocre. He said that kids raised in their own homes do not have a rich experience. How dare the minister say that parents raising their own children constitutes mediocre care? Will this minister apologize to working women for his demeaning comments?
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. I am quite prepared to suspend the sitting until we get some order. The minister is rising to respond to this question. The question was asked. He is entitled to give a response. We will have order.
(1435)
Hon. Ken Dryden: Mr. Speaker, what I find stunning is the fact that it seems as if the party opposite feels that if it repeats a misstatement or if it repeats a mischaracterization often enough, it will make it so. Clearly it is not so. It never was so. It will not be so.
* * *
[Translation]
The Environment
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment keeps repeating to anyone who will listen that he is in favour of signing a bilateral agreement with Quebec to implement the Kyoto protocol.
Can the minister give us a report on the state of negotiations with Quebec, since the time repeats that he wants an agreement?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, negotiations with the Government of Quebec are going very well. The last thing I would want to do is choose the hon. member from the Bloc to be a stakeholder in these discussions.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if there is an agreement with Quebec, the Minister of the Environment must take into account the enormous effort Quebec has already made in connection with the greenhouse gases.
Will the minister commit to signing a specific agreement on a territorial approach, which would enable Quebec to manage its own implementation of the Kyoto protocol on its own territory and would finally recognize the efforts made by Quebec in the past?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each one of us will do his part, and we will sign agreements with each province in order to ensure that each province's specific situation is taken into account.
* * *
Foundations
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once again, the Auditor General is condemning transfer payments to foundations. She believes that these foundations are being used to hide federal surpluses and that Parliament is losing control over funds transferred to them.
Given the numerous scandals that have tarnished the current government and given that most of these foundations were established by the Liberal government, will the President of the Treasury Board agree that, at the very least, there is only one thing to do, and that is to designate the Office of the Auditor General as the external auditor of these foundations?
[English]
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Auditor General for her report, as I have done each time she has laid down her report.
I would like to maybe add to the member's information about what the Auditor General has actually said about foundations. She said that a number of improvements had been made to the framework for the accountability in foundations to Parliament; that the government was committed to better reporting of the foundation; that we found more information each year on foundations than the estimates documents of all the sponsoring departments; that 10 of 11 funding agreements between sponsoring departments and foundations had provisions for independent evaluations; and that the annual report of the foundations included audited financial statements prepared in accordance with general accounting--
I think we are doing it.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board should have read, too, the excerpt in which the Auditor General asks for the right of oversight of these foundations.
The Treasury Board continues to turn a deaf ear to repeated requests by the Auditor General and parliamentarians demanding better accountability by foundations.
Does the government not realize that it is possible to increase financial controls while maintaining the operational autonomy of these foundations?
[English]
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is not suggesting that there is a problem with the way the foundations are spending their money. Certainly they are accounting for it in all possible manners and are quite willing to have evaluations. All the foundations in our sample have provisions for a financial statement and a report by an external auditor. Some foundations have included significant evaluation findings in their annual reports.
There is a dispute about whether or not the government should be directing the allocation of research funding. We prefer to use an independent peer review and I think the government continues to be of that view.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, $7.7 billion still sits in foundation bank accounts. In her report today, speaking of foundations, the Auditor General said, “Given the significant sums involved, I am concerned about the lack of adequate accountability to Parliament”. I have to say that I would take the Auditor General's word on this over the Prime Minister's word any day.
In the shadow of sponsorship, what possible excuse could the government have for not having adequate parliamentary oversight of the billions of dollars sitting in foundations?
(1440)
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member would like to take the Auditor General's words, let me give him a few.
|
The government is committed to better reporting in foundations' corporate plans and summaries and their annual reports, and in the Estimates reports of sponsoring departments. |
She went on to say that a number of improvements had been made to the framework for the accountability of foundations. In fact, the new Comptroller General is working closely with the Auditor General. Significant improvements have been made. I would invite any committee in the House to call any one of the foundations before it if it has concerns. However if they are suggesting that the foundations are mismanaging or illegally managing funds, they should say so.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my esteem for the member would rise tremendously if he would acknowledge what the Auditor General said today, that there was no ministerial oversight and no performance audits. This is just like an absolute mirror of what has gone on in sponsorship. The only thing missing is the paper shredder on the desk.
Why does the government continue to defend these practices when the Auditor General said, “Transferring funds to these foundations continues to place public money beyond the reach of effective parliamentary scrutiny?” What is the problem over there?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two separate issues.
The first issue is the government's policy decision to put some amounts into foundations so they could be delivered, not by politicians, but by peer review to research institutions. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, if members talk to the university presidents across this country they will find huge support for this foundation.
On the issue of reporting, they all have audited financial statements. They appear before House committees when asked. They are subjecting themselves to evaluations. There is a dispute about how this gets done. We are working with the Auditor General and we will get to a conclusion.
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, crown corporations have 73,000 employees, manage $78 billion in assets and consumed $5 billion of taxpayer money last year, and the Auditor General pointed out today that four of the largest crown corporations have no chairs or chief executive officers. Governance is a mess at the crown corporations because nobody is minding the store.
If we are spending $5 billion on crown corporations and there is no management, how can we be sure there is not another sponsorship scandal out there?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the member has a deep interest in this topic and we have talked about it many times.
I want to inform him and other members of the House that at 10 o'clock on Thursday morning I will be tabling the government's report in response to the Auditor General's concern, the result of nearly a year's work looking at how we modernize the accountability regime for crown corporations.
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is not reports we want, it is action.
It is interesting to note that Canada Post, VIA Rail and the Business Development Bank have been waiting for months for new chief executive officers. Hon. members may recall that those CEOs left under one mighty big cloud because of the sponsorship scandal.
How much more money has to be wasted, how many more scandals have there to be and how much more Liberal incompetence do we have to tolerate before the government hires good people to do the big jobs?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the foreword to the Auditor General's report members will see that she comments on the fact that there have been enormous problems in the management of large, publicly traded institutions. A lot of changes have taken place in the Ontario Securities Commission and in the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley. We decided to take a look at all of that so we could provide the most modern, up to date, comprehensive review of the governance of crown corporations in 20 years. I will be tabling that at 10 o'clock on Thursday morning.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand the official opposition is now vetting speeches on civil marriages out of fear of what their members might say.
In light of this, could the hon. leader of the government in the House assure the chamber that the issue of civil marriages will receive full and open debate, even if the Conservative members are not allowed to take advantage of this opportunity?
(1445)
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the civil marriage bill, our members will speak to their convictions in a free and unfettered way.
For members across the floor, the issue should not be about hiding behind ineffectual leadership, it should be about standing up for the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians.
It is a contradiction in terms to say that the Conservatives will allow a free vote when they will not allow for free speech.
* * *
Auditor General's Report
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General made it crystal clear in her report today that the government is hiding from the Auditor General unaccountable foundation money.
Eleven recommendations were made by her and seven were rejected by the government. So much for working with Sheila.
We have seen the sponsorship scandal. Instead of allowing the Auditor General to protect Canadians in all areas of federal funding, the government is stonewalling.
Will the Prime Minister commit today to end the flim-flam and make these foundations fully accountable to the Auditor General, to Parliament and to the Canadian people?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me quote again:
|
...we cannot state unequivocally that the government's method of accounting for foundations contravenes the accounting standards established by the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. |
In other words, the foundations are accounting exactly as they should be.
The report went on to say that provisions for corporate plans and annual reports have improved, that most foundations provided information on how much money was spent and how many projects were funded. It also stated, “We found more information each year on foundations in the estimates documents of the sponsoring departments”.
The Auditor General had a great deal to say about this.
* * *
Millennium Scholarship Foundation
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government insists foundations are doing well, but for students forced to incur record high education debt, the roof is caving in. What is the government's response? Its response is to build the bank account of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation.
Accrued interest from this foundation alone would pay 200,000 students' tuition for a full year, according to the Auditor General's figures.
Will the government finally redirect millennium scholarship foundation dollars to needs based funding for students?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to date, the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation has helped hundreds and hundreds of students in Canada. Each year, improvements are made to better assist students. It is quite obvious that we will carefully consider the Auditor General's recommendations and that staff at the foundation will follow up on them.
* * *
[English]
The Environment
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government's attempt to comply with Kyoto will hurt Canadian families. They will pay more for electricity, for transportation and for heat.
In a report released today by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation it states that for every household it will cost about $3,000 extra each year.
Will the minister stand today and tell Canadians exactly what Kyoto will cost them?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in industry it is the same as in politics. In politics we have the slow movers, always late for the industrial revolution, and we have the government that knows that to put the environment and the economy together is the way to go.
We have our champions in the industry who are saying the same thing. I want to quote Eric Lloyd from Petroleum Technology Alliance of Canada who said that Kyoto was not a hardship but an economic opportunity.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the chamber of commerce said that Canadian businesses would not be able to compete. Canadian manufacturers say we are going to lose thousands of jobs.
Today the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said that every family will be charged $3,000 more a year because of Kyoto compliance.
Will the minister stop dodging the questions and tell Canadians exactly what it is going to cost them in their family incomes?
(1450)
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true that we will have to invest in let say CO2 sequestration. Yes, we will have to invest public money in it, but imagine that Canada will invent the best way to have CO2 sequestration and that we will be able to send it everywhere in the world.
We will decrease megatonnes of CO2 and we will make megatonnes of money with it.
* * *
Canadian Forces
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for days now we have heard cries for help from the newly installed Chief of Defence Staff and his colleagues.
Nearly 300 of our Canadian Forces reservists from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island who take part in South Bound Trooper, an annual training exercise at Fort Picket, Virginia, have been left to rent a charter flight in order to get there.
It appears that the Canadian Forces cries for help are still falling on deaf ears.
Could the minister assure the House that this will not be the practice of the future for transporting our troops?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the transport of troops to a given location at any one time we always find the best way to do it. This was the most efficient way to achieve it in that particular circumstances.
We are always able to do that. We always look for the best way to achieve this type of situation and that was what we did in that circumstance.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, not only did our reservists have to take a charter flight, they also had to ask Uncle Sam if he could send a plane to Halifax to transport their exercise equipment.
Canadian Forces stated that they simply do not have the air lift capability, echoes of the chief of our air force who appeared before the Senate defence committee and revealed that our air force was stretched beyond its capability.
Can anyone imagine an army that flies charter and asks friends to transport their weapons? Will the minister commit today to the purchase of air lift for our forces and end this embarrassment?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the government is committed to is bringing forward a defence review that will allow the House and Canadians to judge the best investments we can make for our military.
I will not commit today to the purchase of any one asset. What the government has made clear and what the Prime Minister has regularly emphasized is that we will have the best equipment and the best trained troops to do the job that we have to do both in Canada and around the world. They are doing it now and in the future they will be able to do it better thanks to the efforts of the government.
* * *
[Translation]
Gas Tax
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the head of the Fédération québécoise des municipalités had some pretty harsh things to say about the federal government's attitude as far as the transfer of part of the gas tax to the municipalities is concerned. To quote him, “We are in a better position than the feds to assess our own needs. It is up to us, with Quebec, to decide what will be funded, not Ottawa.”
Does the Minister of State responsible for Infrastructure and Communities intend to respect the opinion of the FQM president and therefore leave it up to Quebec and the municipal sector to decide what use will be made of the gas tax money?
Hon. John Godfrey (Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a long history of close collaboration with the Government of Quebec and the Quebec municipalities in seeking shared objectives. We will continue that approach, while respecting provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the head of the Fédération québécoise des municipalités, representing 900 Quebec municipalities, finds it obscene that the federal government is talking about a limited margin of manoeuvrability, whereas a surplus in excess of $10 billion is expected for next year.
Does the minister not think Quebec and the municipalities have been squeezed long enough? What is he waiting for to transfer part of the gas tax to Quebec, as promised, with no strings attached.
Hon. John Godfrey (Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made a commitment to the municipalities for a total of $5 billion over five years, with the amount in the fifth year being $2 billion. As for the first four years, this will be revealed in the budget. I can, however, give you a guarantee at this time that there will be some serious amounts for the municipalities of Quebec and Canada in the coming budget.
* * *
[English]
Airports
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is a report from Transport Canada indicating that the government thinks it needs a private air terminal for cabinet ministers to keep them comfortable and isolated from the public. Besides keeping them isolated, the new terminal would also provide “a drop-off point for catering or flowers”. Is that not a beautiful thing?
How bad is it that ministers cannot mix with ordinary Canadians? Would the minister not be better off scrapping this idea and telling his colleagues that if they do not want to talk to ordinary Canadians, they should lock themselves in their offices until the next election?
(1455)
[Translation]
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was once a Conservative minister and this is exactly the same standard of treatment as in his time. We are talking about $160,000 over three years. We are a long way from a private terminal. We are a long way from deluxe facilities. We simply want to have the same kind of facilities as in commercial aviation in general.
* * *
Public Safety
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it appears that democratic elections can be held in Iraq but not in Kanesatake. The climate of violence in this part of Quebec is such that the protection of citizens cannot be guaranteed. The Liberals meddle in sectors under provincial jurisdiction, but abdicate their responsibilities when courage is needed.
When will the minister take charge and guarantee citizens a minimum level of safety?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member does not realize that security in the province of Quebec is in the hands of the province of Quebec and the Sûreté.
* * *
The Environment
Mr. Russ Powers (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Kyoto protocol will take effect tomorrow. Can the Minister of the Environment advise the House why participation in the agreement will provide a major commercial benefit for Canada?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a very good opportunity to organize our technology, to better conserve our energy, to decrease costly waste, to boost renewable energy in all sectors, to boost environmental technologies and services, to conquer new markets in emerging economies, to be the champion of sustainable economy, and to do our share for climate change.
* * *
Equalization Program
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board of Canada says by all objective standards Saskatchewan is anything but a have province. The Conference Board also says that the clawback of non-renewable resources is most unfair and detrimental to the interests of Saskatchewan.
Why will the finance minister not extend the Newfoundland and Labrador-Nova Scotia agreement and the principle of that agreement to other provinces like Saskatchewan?
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan has recently been the beneficiary of increased revenues and has graduated in status to a have province. We on this side of the House congratulate Saskatchewan for doing that.
With respect to the converse of the question, I do not think that Saskatchewan enjoys a 63% debt to GDP ratio like Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not think it enjoys a 14.5% unemployment rate like Newfoundland and Labrador. In this Confederation, we do try to make accommodations to special--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince Albert.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with answers like this, is it any wonder that whooping cranes are becoming more common in Saskatchewan than federal Liberals?
Saskatchewan's per capita income is $5,000 below the national average. Saskatchewan has the longest surgical wait list in the country. Saskatchewan has the second highest out-migration of citizens in the country and farmers in Saskatchewan are facing some very serious challenges.
What does the government have against the province of Saskatchewan?
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to the out-migration. Possibly it has to do with the election of certain members of Parliament.
Saskatchewan has been the beneficiary of increased oil revenues. That has in fact resulted in very good fortune. In the last fiscal year, Saskatchewan was the beneficiary of $710 million in adjustment money as delivered by the Minister of Finance. It is a beneficiary of the synchrotron program as delivered by the Minister of Finance. Saskatchewan has done very well under this government.
* * *
[Translation]
Aboriginal Affairs
Mr. Bernard Cleary (Louis-Saint-Laurent, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal government promised $5 million to the Native Women's Association of Canada for the Sisters in Spirit campaign. Now we learn that Ottawa has informed the organization that the announcement will be delayed.
Can the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development explain to the House why the announcement of the $5 million grant has been delayed and can he tell us if he still intends to give this amount to the Native Women's Association of Canada?
(1500)
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recognizes that an overall plan of action is needed in order to address violence against native women. We are involved in the Sisters in Spirit program and we shall be announcing it as soon as possible.
* * *
[English]
International Trade
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the United States of America is by far our largest trading partner. Nearly $1.8 billion in two-way trade across Canada crosses the Canada-U.S. border everyday. About 86% of our exports to the U.S. and 96% of our trade is dispute free, but trade irritants from softwood lumber to the Byrd amendment continue to dominate the headlines.
What will the minister do to ease these irritants and improve our trade relations with the United States?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the U.S. trade relationship is critical to our prosperity. We have opened seven new consulates and we have created the Washington advocacy secretariat. Yesterday, I met in Washington with the new secretary of commerce and I look forward to working with him to resolve our trade disputes, promote North American competitiveness and foster global trade liberalization.
On March 1 I will be leading a Canadian advocacy day in Washington, along with the Canada-U.S. parliamentary group who will meet with our American counterparts. I want members from all parties to attend. We welcome the help of all members with this most important of our relationships.
* * *
[Translation]
Aerospace Industry
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, Robert Brown, the head of CAE in Montreal, was lamenting the fact that despite his approaches to the federal government before Christmas, it still has not made its aerospace policy known.
Does the Minister of Finance intend to use the budget next Wednesday to finally announce an aerospace policy, as the federal industry minister has been promising for months?
[English]
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we continue to work with the industry and provincial governments. We will have an aerospace strategy announcement in the next few months.
* * *
Privilege
Printing and Franking Privileges--Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on Tuesday, February 1 by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton concerning the authorization required for printing and franking.
In presenting his case the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton charged that during the Christmas adjournment a 10 percenter was sent to residents in the member's riding without either the member's authorization or that of the person in his office to whom he had delegated his authority pursuant to the provisions of section 12 of the Board of Internal Economy bylaw 301.
(1505)
[Translation]
Further, the member alleged that contrary to the provisions of section 35 of the Canada Post Corporation Act these 10-percenters had been mailed using the member’s franking privileges without his authorization.
[English]
The hon. chief government whip then intervened to explain that she had had the opportunity to look into the methodology used in obtaining the delegated authority referred to by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton. She went on to say that she agreed that the methodology had been flawed and apologized to the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for the error.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for raising this matter and the hon. chief government whip for her forthright explanation and apology.
As your Speaker, I am concerned, as was the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton, that printing and franking activities that were not authorized by the member could be undertaken on his behalf. That said, since the hon. chief government whip has acknowledged the error and graciously apologized, I believe that this particular file has been resolved.
It remains only for me to assure the House that I have instructed my officials that in the annual disclosure of MP expenditures, any expenditures related to the production of this 10 percenter not be attributed to the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.
Both the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton and the Chair have received assurances that this error will not happen again. I therefore consider the matter settled and find no prima facie breach of privilege.
Government Orders
[Supply]
* * *
[Translation]
Supply
Opposition Motion—Child Care Funding
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to debate this opposition motion, although the Bloc Québécois will vote against it.
The Conservative motion reads as follows:
|
That the House call upon the government to address the issue of childcare by fulfilling its commitment to reduce taxes for low and modest income families in the upcoming budget, and, so as to respect provincial jurisdiction, ensure additional funds for childcare are provided directly to parents. |
I want to draw attention to the words “address the issue of child care”. I also note a very strong contradiction, in form and substance, in the reference to respecting provincial jurisdiction by transferring funds directly to parents.
Although we will vote against the motion by the Conservatives, this is an opportunity for us to debate the federal government's intention to intervene in the area of childcare, which reflects inefficiency, bad management and investments in areas outside its jurisdiction.
The Minister of Social Development, who was once a famous goalie, now seems to be tending goal for a centralizing and ineffective federalism which is preventing the provinces and Quebec from scoring for parents and families in Quebec. Yet, his child care system could benefit from better funding if the money was transferred directly to Quebec from this government's obscene annual surplus.
We will soon be struggling with a poorly designed and underfunded program that will not meet the needs of Canadians or Quebeckers, if Quebec does not receive an immediate transfer payment with full financial compensation. Since 1998, successive Quebec governments have invested significantly in children so as to create a child care system that helps parents, who benefit from support by competent workers whose salaries continue to rise, and that helps families improve their situation and also fights poverty.
We are proposing a pan-Canadian program in an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. Once again, instead of “Ottawa knows best”, we will see that “Ottawa knows nothing at all”. It knows nothing, but will manage a program as it manages its foundations, the famous foundations where, the Auditor General just told us, $7 billion is sitting, money for which the federal government is not accountable and about which it has no knowledge.
Once again, there will be investment in a child care program that will be costly but inefficient, as well as centrally administered, but with no guarantee, despite what the ministers have been saying one after another outside this House. We are told that 18 questions have been asked here in the House about the child care program. I think that we are now at over 20, with the ones from my colleague from Québec today. Yet there has never been a statement in this House that, yes, the day after the announcement of a federal child care program, even a poorly put-together one, for other Canadians, an agreement would immediately follow to provide Quebec with the funds it has unfortunately had to take from elsewhere. In so doing, Quebec no doubt has had to deprive students of text books and to make cuts to the health system, which is not as good as we would like it to be.
Quebec has had to make some hard choices in order to create its comprehensive and efficient child care system. When it is all in place, in 2006, it is going to cost $1.7 billion. Unfortunately, while Quebec could obtain compensation totalling $1.25 billion over five years, the feds are hemming and hawing indecisively, and it is the old who knows best, who can trample over others' jurisdictions the best.
As a result, we end up with a Canada that is less and less efficient, one that is built on ideologies, not on serving the people. This government is engaged in unhealthy competition with the provinces, arrogantly building itself up and thereby building up public cynicism toward federal Liberal MPs. I hope that the cynicism will stop there. This is an unfortunate situation.
(1510)
I am a new member of Parliament. I may be a little naive. I thought governments existed to serve the people. I admit we have seen this type of shilly-shallying over the parental leave issue and over employment insurance. In fact, we just received the unanimous—or nearly unanimous—recommendation by a standing committee and the minister said it was not a recommendation, but a suggestion. Some ministers promised—and even the Prime Minister promised on television—that Quebec would definitively receive money for the child care program unconditionally. Now we see that in reality, the minister is waffling. He is the goalie, keeping Quebec from scoring.
I think the whole idea behind child care relates to the struggle against poverty. The federal government has a sorry record when it comes to dealing with poverty. The promises made 15 years ago were not kept in the 2000 campaign. This government is ineffective in fighting poverty. Those that would handle it better, that is, the provinces, including Quebec, do not get any help and do not have enough resources because of the fiscal imbalance. and because this government takes all the resources and plays the sorcerer's apprentice of child care. It is too bad that the great goalie, who was my childhood hero, is the one who is blocking Quebec's progress in the area of child care. It is distressing and sad.
I am the Bloc Québécois housing critic. I realize that in a few years, if we do not resolve this problem immediately, we will have to beg for another transfer to Quebec. This might generate all sorts of absurdities as well, such as at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which enjoys a $2.5 billion surplus and keeps it in its coffers, without helping people get a roof over their head at a better price, as its mandate suggests.
In a few years I do not want us still begging. We must have the right as Quebeckers to exercise our power to emancipate ourselves. The child care system in Quebec encourages employment, skill and parental involvement. It is not a state system as the Conservative ideologues would have us think. It is not a system that takes children away from their parents but one that supports parents' possibilities of having a decent life earning a living and thereby becoming better citizens.
In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the opposition motion and opposed to the funds going to parents. The Bloc does however fervently wish that this government would get the message, stop its shilly-shallying and decide right now to put its money where its mouth is, that is to say compensate Quebec immediately for implementation of the new child care program. We hope that the Canadian government will also get the message that more money needs to be invested for the other provinces as well, because the program it is proposing is cobbled together, underfunded and an embarrassment not only to Quebeckers, as far as respecting their jurisdictions is concerned, but to all Canadians.
(1515)
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member will know that in 1989 the government of the day passed a private member's motion on a Friday afternoon with 20 people in the House to seek to achieve the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000. There was not even a recorded division.
The member probably also knows that 15% of all the families in Canada are lone parent families, but they account for 54% of all the children who live in poverty. It is nonsense to say we are going to eliminate child poverty without dealing with the fundamental and social problem of the breakdown of the Canadian family.
My question for the member is more of a request for information about the Quebec model.
Some people have to work shifts or work seven days a week, or a combination thereof. How does the Quebec system deal with families who do not have Monday to Friday nine to five jobs? What exactly happens with infants? What special arrangements and ratio adjustments of caregivers to children are made for infants?
[Translation]
Mr. Christian Simard: Mr. Speaker, if I understand properly, am I to interpret the question from my eminent Liberal colleague as a news announcement? In other words, does it mean that Quebec will not be getting its fair share of the child care program, and that they will instead try to impose the Canadian model on it? Is that what I am to understand?
That is not a criticism made of the Quebec program. It does not come from the OECD, or even his own minister, who keeps on using it as an example, while systematically refusing to commit to proper funding via a transfer payment with full compensation. Is he dissenting? Is that what he is telling us?
I have spoken with the director of school child care services in my riding, Mr. Jean Cormier. The program offers parents all possible flexibility. Mr. Cormier also co-ordinates child care services for the Commission scolaire de la Capitale. He was alarmed and outraged to learn that, eventually, there might be a two-fold approach with complicated funding. He thought the federal program might end up perhaps providing direct funding to private child care, which might lack the proper skills and accreditation.
Mr. Cormier wondered, “Are we going to have to fight for our recognition all over again? We have set up a magnificent system. Please, Mr. Simard, help us and prevent this ridiculous overlapping created by incompetents who do not understand anything about the management of child care facilities, since they have never done it, while the program in place in Quebec since 1998 is the envy of the Americas.”
I am confounded by this penny-ante morality of people who know nothing about the social sector, because they are incompetent. It is not their job.
[English]
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I commend the member on his comments this afternoon relating child care to fighting poverty and relating child care to encouraging jobs. That is exactly what this is about. This agenda does that and then some. It is a hugely important social agenda for the country and for the government.
I went to Montreal on a couple of occasions on my pan-Canadian tour on child care back in the fall. I was impressed with how rooted in the community and family the child care program in Quebec is. There are boards of directors, advisory boards and parent involvement in a myriad of different ways in the offering of those services. The parents of the children are intimately connected to the child care system in Quebec.
Perhaps the member would care to speak a bit more about that.
(1520)
[Translation]
Mr. Christian Simard: Mr. Speaker, that is a fascinating aspect. I have worked a lot in social economy enterprises in Quebec. Day cares and early childhood centres—centres de la petite enfance as they are called in Quebec—are fine examples of social economy enterprises, where parents and staff sit together on the board, with the parents in the majority. These are virtually self-managed, non-profit organizations.
In this context there is more than just learning to being good parents; they also have an opportunity to experience what their children are doing, while they are providing care and they learn to be better citizens and to manage a small business.
For people who have self-confidence problems, for single parents burdened with work, the opportunity to have their children looked after in such facilities, to be part of the management of the enterprise, and to have input as parents in the program and in the daily activities, means that they become better citizens. In the end, it makes for a better community and a better society. It is wonderful to see this. Let us recognize the expertise of people who do this in all provinces, particularly Quebec.
Let us fund it properly and not just play child care apprentices with the children's future, the way the Liberals are doing with their pseudo-program.
[English]
Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and participate in this debate on child care in Canada. I want to note that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Edmonton—Leduc this afternoon.
I have a keen interest in this subject for a variety of reasons. First, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. As such, our committee has talked about the proposed national day care strategy. When legislation comes forward, we will no doubt be reviewing that. Therefore, I have a professional parliamentary interest in it.
Second, in a previous life, when I worked at Queen's Park for the provincial government, I served as the Ontario premier's special adviser for children's education. That was at the time when Dr. Fraser Mustard delivered his report on early years learning in Ontario. This is a seminal work and speaks to many of the issues before us today.
Third, I have some personal experience as a teacher. I am a certified ESL teacher. One time in my past I taught English to young children, preschoolers and kindergarten children in South Korea, so I have had some experience.
Last, but not least, I am the father of two children under 30 months of age, so I have a personal interest. I deal with early years learning every morning at my breakfast table and every night before they go to bed.
As a result of all these, last fall I decided to create an early years round table in my riding. I wanted to talk to people active in early years learning and day care. I do not profess to be an expert in the field, but I wanted to bring together a group of people with a variety of perspectives who could inform me on what was going on in the riding, what were some of the challenges they saw going forward and what they were looking for in public policy in this area.
My riding is in central Ontario, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. It is rural. It is a scattering of small villages and people living between those villages. One thing we have learned over the years is that often programs devised by experts or civil servants living in downtown Ottawa or downtown Toronto often do not work well in a rural community.
Through my discussions with my early years round table and with other groups in my riding, I have identified several concerns going forward in terms of what the government doing. I raise these in a general context because at this point none of us actually knows what the government is proposing. There has been much talk. It has been stressed many times today that the Liberal government's commitment to do something about early years learning and about day care goes back 10 years. On the one hand we are all taking the, we will believe it when we see it approach. Beyond that, the minister has talked in generalities about the program, but we really do not know what is in it yet.
My comments are not specific criticisms or our concerns about the government's program, given that we have not seen it. Rather they are more general comments which I have heard, and they fall under three different categories.
The first group of comments have come from working families in my riding. One concern is that many people work irregular hours. They work shift work. If they are in retail, they may work evenings and weekends. They want to ensure that whatever government does to help them with child care or to help them pay for the cost of child care, that it will be sufficiently flexible for someone who works a 4 to 11 shift or who works on Sunday will have access to a program.
This is particularly true in a rural community where we do not have the critical mass in many of these small villages to create a government owned and operated system. At present, many people scramble to find child care for their kids and pay for it. There is a concern that the minister and the government, in conjunction with our Ontario Liberal government and the Ontario Liberal minister, would like to move toward a national system, or what I would call kind of a monolithic publicly owned and operated system that looks a lot like schools.
(1525)
Ontario has had grade one for a long time. We have had kindergarten for many years. More recent, junior kindergarten was introduced in Ontario. I guess the concern is we went from SK to JK. Now we will have JJK and JJJK. Basically, we are extending the elementary school system down.
For anyone who works shift work or weekends, the notion that the schoolhouse will not now accept two year olds and three year olds does nothing to solve their problem, if they do not happen to have a 9:00 to 3:00 job, Monday to Friday, with holidays off.
That is a real concern in Ontario. Recent moves by the Ontario minister to introduce day care in schools on the opposite half day of when children are in half day kindergarten suggests that this is where the government will go. That will do nothing for working families in a rural riding such as mine who have to put their kids in care during irregular hours.
The second group of concerns has to do with families who choose to have one parent stay at home with their children. For most families, this is a financial sacrifice. It is a decision that people make because they feel it is important that one of the two parents stays home with the child during those early and formative years.
The concern is this. If government moves forward with some public system, similar to the public school system we all pay for through our taxes, but it is optional whether we participate, those parents who choose to stay at home will effectively be discriminated against, in the sense that they will pay through their taxes for the public system. However, if they choose not to participate, they will also have to pay for the care of the children themselves.
I asked the minister a question this morning. We had the authors of the recent OECD report on early years before our committee a couple of weeks ago. There was much discussion around test results of children who come out of different kinds of programs. One of the authors who participated via video conference from Paris noted that children who stayed at home with the parents did very well in the scores.
I reject the notion that children who are looked after at home by their parents or by relatives will inevitably perform more poorly in tests and will perform more poorly when they ultimately move on to elementary education.
The third point I want to raise has also been brought up many times today. It has to do with cost. The quick math is that the Minister of Social Development frequently refers to the Quebec model, which costs somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion. I am not saying the minister is saying this, but if we put in a similar system is across the country, it would cost about $10 billion a year. The federal government has made a commitment of $5 billion over five years. That is $1 billion a year, which is approximately 10% of the final cost of what this program would cost at full build out.
The minister has said many times, including last Friday when he was interviewed in Vancouver, that this is the first step, that basically the government is opening the door. A billion dollars is a significant amount, but he recognizes it is not nearly enough to pay for what he hopes ultimately blooms from his idea. I agree with him. It is not nearly enough. My question is from where will the other $9 billion come?
Both provincial and municipal officials have had lots of experience with federal governments that announce some grand strategy and program, get everyone excited, get everyone's expectations up, then the federal government puts a small amount of money on the table and the provinces and municipalities are left picking up the balance.
In this case, given that it is only a five year commitment, there is even concern that if the federal government steps back five years from now, the provinces and the municipalities will be left carrying the entire bag.
Any sort of a universal national day care system, even if it is one implemented by the provinces, will ultimately cost many billions of dollars. I suspect it will cost $10 billion or more. The question is, and provincial and municipal governments have the right to ask the question, who will come up with the rest of that money? If it is the provinces, then they will want to have a say at the front end.
The motion we have brought forward today is eminently sensible. The government has made a commitment to reduce taxes to low and middle income families. That is a step in the right direction. If dollars flow through parents, it gives parents the choice to provide or to find the kind of child care and early learning opportunities which work for them in their circumstances.
(1530)
I agree with many of my colleagues who have pointed out that this is federal incursion into provincial jurisdiction. It seems to me that the federal government has enough of its own problems right now. It also has its own responsibilities which is not doing a very good job of looking after, such as our national armed forces. Why is it wandering into areas of provincial jurisdiction?
I would encourage all my colleagues on all sides of the House to support the amendment. Let us move forward with the program that will ultimately empower parents and put them in a position where they can make the choices that are best for their families.
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully all day to the debate that has taken place in the House. I think we have to agree that there will never be much of a meeting of the minds in terms of how we view this issue. Repeating information about what the minister said or did not say or calling him names, as was the case during question period, is certainly not the way to go about this debate.
However, I want to bring something to the attention of the hon. member. We talk a lot about polls. On February 14, the Toronto Star reported on a poll by Ekos. It showed that 61% of Canadians stated how they would like to see more investment in social programs, while only 19% made tax cuts their top priority. Wrapping tax cuts in kids' clothing is not the way to put a system together.
The system does exist. The provinces have said that we should work with them to provide the tools that will be needed. In some cases those tools may be money. In other cases there may be expertise that can be shared around the table. We have a collaborative effort in terms of the provinces, not in terms of imposing our view but sitting around a table and reaching a consensus with the provinces on this issue. That is what the minister has tried to do.
On the other side I have heard nothing in terms of recommendations. How do they propose to work with the provinces? The provinces have already said that they want to work with the federal government. Canadians want us to work together to provide for those families who need early learning and child care, options they have chosen for their children.
What does the hon. member propose to do with the provinces? That was my question this morning to the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. It is the same question for that hon. member. The provinces have already said to the government that they want to work with us, and we have put the money on the table.
Mr. Barry Devolin: Mr. Speaker, first, I have never called the minister names. I do not think there is anything I said in my statement today that was a misstatement of facts. I want to clarify that. In terms of the provinces wanting to work with the federal government, I would say some provinces do and some do not.
I want to make a couple of points.
First, many people believe that government should help them in the provision of child care services and early learning opportunities. That is a provincial jurisdiction. It has been a provincial jurisdiction. Many provinces, including Quebec and Ontario, have made significant strides in those areas. The provincial governments are more than able and capable of dealing with this issue. I do not think that there is either wisdom, or accountability or competence in Ottawa that cannot be found in provincial capitals. I do not agree with the notion that somehow the federal government is necessary to coordinate or to make this happen.
In terms of the money, obviously provincial governments of all political stripes, which are struggling to balance their budgets and fund their programs, are interested when the federal government comes along offering money. I have said many times before that we have a fiscal imbalance in Canada and that there are officials from two levels of government, namely municipal and provincial governments, who go to bed every night and worry about how they will pay for things. It is on