Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to do two things. The first thing is to correct the record with respect to what was in place when we took power on February 6, 2006. The second thing I want to do is highlight the reason I oppose this bill; I think the issue speaks to a broader question about political community.
On the first issue, and that is regarding the facts, the original Liberal national child care plan was really a two-step process. The first step in the process was to execute 13 bilateral agreements between the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories. The second part of the plan was to actually execute 13 bilateral funding agreements between the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories.
When we took government on February 6, the case was that in terms of the first stage of the process, the agreements in principle, only 10 out of the 13 had been signed. The three territories had refused to sign the first stage in the plan because they were holding back on base funding, in addition to per capita funding. With regard to the second stage in the process, the process that would actually trigger the funds that would flow, only three bilateral agreements had been signed; seven provinces and three territories had not signed funding agreements. The three provinces in question that had signed these bilateral funding agreements that allowed the money to flow were Manitoba, Quebec, and Ontario.
When we took power on February 6, we did three things. We triggered the one-year termination clauses in those three funding agreements with Manitoba, Quebec, and Ontario. We released the funds for the balance of the 2005-06 fiscal year, the $1 billion in funds that had been allocated, and we committed to the provinces that in the fiscal year 2006-07 we would flow the $1 billion to the ten provinces and three territories on an unrestricted basis. That was the case.
The reason I point that out is that even after all the effort on the part of the previous government, the national plan had not actually been fully executed. This serves to highlight the challenges of cross-jurisdictional programs and the problems in coming forward with a national program in this particular area.
The second point I wanted to make today had to do with national programs.
Regarding Outremont, for example, if this bill is passed and the act goes into effect, the member for Outremont will be able to vote for child care services in my riding of Wellington---Halton Hills in Ontario. But he could not vote for child care services in Outremont, because, under clause 4 of this bill, Quebec is not part of the national system.
One of the reasons I oppose this bill is what I call the Outremont question. It really is a situation where, because you're exempting Quebec from the provisions of this so-called national plan, you create a situation where the honourable member from Outremont can vote for the service levels and standards of this program in Wellington—Halton Hills--it affects the Canadian citizens of Wellington—Halton Hills--but she would not have the authority to vote for or have a say in the services and standards that would apply to Canadian citizens living in her own riding of Outremont.