House of Commons Hansard #30 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.

Topics

Department of Social Development Act
Government Orders

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is certainly right. She led off her comments with the fact that poverty is on the rise and that there are several things that we could be doing as a government to alleviate that. One of them would be to stop the clawback. The other thing we could do would be to introduce a national child care program that would be delivered by the not for profit sector.

She was also right when she said that studies have been done on this issue. A legal opinion was delivered only a week ago saying that if we were to go down the road of for profit delivery of child care, we would stand to trigger some of the NAFTA sections that would allow for the takeover of our national child care program by the corporate sector. We know it is waiting to move in when real money begins to flow for child care in Canada.

Department of Social Development Act
Government Orders

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member discussed the Liberal failure to build social infrastructure in this country. Can he address the government's failure to confront the physical infrastructure problem in our country? For example, the government has failed year after year to provide support to build the Strandherd to Armstrong bridge which results in enormous commercial traffic through the village of Manotick. That is just one example of how the physical infrastructure of this country has been neglected by the government.

I would like to return to the issue of social infrastructure. The hon. member gave a passionate plea in favour of the government run babysitting bureaucracy that the government intends to set up. Our party is going to be the only party that will stand in the House in defence of parents. Our party is the only party that actually trusts parents. Let me give members an example why. Why does that party over there refuse to take child care dollars and give them directly to parents and let those parents decide what to do with those child care dollars?

The first reason the hon. member gave was that big American corporations were going to take over the raising of our children if we let parents decide what to do with their own kids. The hon. member believes that parents do not know how to decide what to do with their own children.

We on this side propose that any child care program ought to be universal, contrary to the proposal which that hon. member and the government put forward. It would apply only to those parents who put their children in a government run babysitting program. Those parents who decide to send their kids over to grandma or decide to stay at home and raise their kids or go to a local synagogue or church for their child care would not be covered by the government's babysitting bureaucracy. Thus it would not be universal; it would not be national. It would apply only to that narrow group of people who would entrust the government to raise their kids.

Why would New Democrats oppose a universal system of child care?

Department of Social Development Act
Government Orders

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Speaker, the national child care program is certainly not a babysitting service. It is a program based on research and science and all of the best knowledge that is available in terms of how children grow and develop. It is a program that should be available to everyone across the country.

In fact, one of the principles that those who support a national child care program talk about is exactly what the member says he wants, which is universality of access.

He also referred to the fact that we do not have good social infrastructure and he talked about physical infrastructure. The reason for that is that we have chosen different priorities over the last 10 or 15 years, driven by the member's party, to focus on tax breaks and paying down debt aggressively to the detriment of some of our social infrastructure and physical infrastructure.

If we want to build a country that is reflective of the wealth that we have here and the intelligence that exists, I would suggest that he should begin to encourage his party to participate with the rest of us and talk about priorities that will deliver some of the physical and social infrastructure that he and I know we desperately need .

The House resumed from November 18 consideration of the motion.

Business of Supply
Government Orders

5:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, November 18, 2004, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the opposition motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Business of Supply
Government Orders

6 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from November 19 consideration of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act and to make related amendments to other acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of Motions Nos. 1 to 3.

Department of Canadian Heritage Act
Government Orders

6:05 p.m.

The Speaker

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-7.

The question is on Motion No. 1. The vote on this motion will also apply to Motions Nos. 2 and 3.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Department of Canadian Heritage Act
Government Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare Motion No. 1 carried. Consequently, I declare Motions Nos. 2 and 3 carried.

Department of Canadian Heritage Act
Government Orders

6:15 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville
Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Minister of the Environment

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

Department of Canadian Heritage Act
Government Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Department of Canadian Heritage Act
Government Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act
Government Orders

November 23rd, 2004 / 6:15 p.m.

The Speaker

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to refer Bill C-21 to committee before second reading.

Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act
Government Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yes, except for those members who would like to be registered as having voted otherwise.