Debates of Feb. 15th, 2005

Supply

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe in accountability. My point is that provincial members are accountable. The member for Sault Ste. Marie will know that in Ontario the ridings are essentially the same.

I do not understand why the federal government feels it has to be accountable for these dollars. The provincial governments by constitutional mandate are responsible for these services. If a province misspends the dollars, then the taxpayers, the citizens and the parents of that province have the right to deal directly with the province. I do not think the federal government needs to play nanny to the provinces.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise to address the motion put forward by our leader which states:

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.

At the outset I want to outline the Conservative Party position. We do recognize that parents are in the best position to determine how to care for and educate their children. They are the ones who make the best decisions, not the federal government and not any one political party.

Also, there is no one size fits all system of child care that could possibly be created by any government to meet the needs of all Canadian families and children. The fact is we stand for choice. We stand for alternatives which would include obviously some form of day care, but would include other forms, such as day home, which a lady in my office uses. It would include one of the parents in a partnership making a choice to stay at home to care for their children, especially in those early years. It would include the issue of choice.

It is not to say we could not do more to assist parents and children in finding care and in expanding learning opportunities. Access to quality early learning programs and child care is critical to the future of a person's development and to the future of our society.

Unlike the government, we in this party realize that these programs can be delivered in a number of ways, including direct payments to parents through deductions and other policy measures. We do support some of the basic initiatives that have been put in place by the government, such as the child tax benefit, which goes mainly toward lower income families. For all families, for all parents, we want to see a level of choice that enables them to make the best decisions for their children.

The previous speaker raised the issue of provincial jurisdiction. The member opposite raised the question should the federal government be holding the provincial government accountable. The fact is the provincial government is the level of government closer to the people. It is the level of government, according to the Constitution, which has been given responsibility for more social programs. It is a level of government which in the past has been the most innovative and creative in dealing with social issues.

The federal government can, through the child tax benefit, through providing a tax credit, allow parents to make a choice. It can enable parents to make decisions for their children by providing more fiscal room for them to do so. The fact is we should respect provincial jurisdiction in this area.

The member who spoke previously also pointed out that the federal government has a number of responsibilities on which quite frankly it has been failing. Federal responsibilities are outlined in the Constitution.

Citizenship and immigration is one of them. Can we honestly say that this is being well handled by the government? Eighty per cent of the case files in my office are immigration files, frankly because the bureaucracy is in a complete flux over the number of cases that are brought before it. Is the whole issue of national defence being handled well by the federal government? On international trade there are issues with the beef industry and with softwood lumber.

Those are the issues on which a national federal government should be focusing. It should not always be delving into and interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

I want to touch upon some of the issues relating to federal policies and the family. There is not one department that deals with this issue. There is instead a set of diverse policies, such as tax policies, social assistance policies, industrial policies, health policies and education policies that work in tandem to support all types of families.

The Conservative motion we are debating today highlights changes in tax policy as one way to help children. This is something the federal government could legitimately do to assist families in the raising of their children. It is an important point.

As Don Drummond from the TD Bank has recently pointed out, the take home pay of the average Canadian worker has stagnated during the Liberal government's time in office. Between 1989 and 2004, real after tax income per worker rose just 3.6%. That is an absolute shame, as the member behind me just said. That is frankly one of the biggest problems.

Most of my friends have kids. They face these challenges and choices all the time, where to allocate resources and what kind of decisions to make. The fact is they have felt the crunch. Even though government members stand up and talk about a $100 billion tax cut, which was really only $47 billion over five years, these people actually feel the crunch. Don Drummond, bless him, actually revealed that it was a 3.6% income rise over the last 15 years.

Beyond this, the Vanier Institute reports that two-thirds of Canadian families are short of cash at the end of the year. They make tough choices during the year, but at the end of the year two-thirds of them still come up short.

At the prebudget hearings in the finance committee witness after witness talked about the importance of personal tax cuts but not in some abstract sense about helping the economy, which it would do. They talked about tax cuts in a real personal sense of allowing individual Canadians and families to better allocate their own resources, to have more control over their own lives because they would have more control over their own resources.

The fact is we look at taxes in sort of an abstract way in the House, but they should not be looked at that way. They should be looked at as taking a person's life energy. For people who work 40 hours a week, the government takes 20 hours of their life energy that they pour into their jobs. They would like to use that for their kids, their families and their own pursuits but it is taken away. That is actually taking a person's life energy away, not some abstract concept.

The fact is that tax cuts and the resulting increase in disposable real income, which has not risen over the last 15 years, allows families to make real choices that address their needs. They are choices such as obtaining dental care for their kids, allowing their kids to play on a soccer team or a hockey team, purchasing a new computer, sending their kids to nursery school. These are the real choices that people could make if they had more income in their pockets.

I challenge the Liberals on the opposite side to ask any parent the simple question of who they would rather make the choice as to where they spend money. Would the parents rather it be the federal government or themselves who decide how to allocate resources? Every person I have asked, especially people of my generation who have children, who he or she would like to make this decision, has answered that they would make the best decision in the case of their children. That is basically the philosophy behind this motion, to really gear more disposable income toward parents to allow them to make the choices.

My party believes in a strong education system to support our society. I am the son of two teachers. I can say that it was an absolute blessing for me to have two teachers as parents. It was an unbelievable blessing. They certainly taught me the importance of education not only for me as a person but for our society, our social fabric.

The reality is our education system could be improved by working with the provinces. Education is primarily a provincial responsibility.

The minister often speaks about the first six years of a person's life being the most important. Most people in the House would agree that the first six years, if not the most important, certainly are the ones that determine to a certain extent how a person will turn out. They are very important and should be addressed. Children who enter school ready to learn are more likely to continue on a positive path during their entire school year. Early childhood education programs like nursery school, play groups, home study programs and formal day care are part of this network.

Each child learns differently and each family has different needs and wants. These differences could be genetic, cognitive, economic or cultural. No two families are the same. We as policy makers must be sensitive to these differences. Parents should have choices as to programs available to their children, including if they choose to do so, staying at home with them.

If parents choose to stay at home, they should not be punished for making that choice. The key is that the option should be available, day care, day home, or staying at home, and parents should not be punished for the decision they make.

In conclusion, the overall philosophy behind the motion is to give parents the means and resources to make the decisions and allow them to make the choice and for the provincial and federal governments to respect the choices they make.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the previous two speakers. I am a big supporter of universal high quality early childhood education and child care. The sooner that reaches every corner of this great country, the better. I am intrigued by the view of my colleagues opposite of the role of the federal government.

I strongly accept that there are three levels of government, the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government. I greatly have supported the efforts of the federal government to strengthen the municipal level. I do believe there has been downloading from the provinces, as well as from the federal government, on to the municipal level. I strongly support the gas tax and the GST allocation. The municipal governments in Canada need to be strengthened. I am looking now to the provinces also allocating to them more long term resources so that the municipalities can perform their role better.

My view is that in addition to the traditional constitutional roles of the federal government, one of our jobs in that circle of three is very often to kickstart things. I do accept that.

There has been mention of our only flowing $5 billion. One of the reasons we have the $5 billion now is that we made changes in the federal system in the 1990s. The federal government now has a surplus and we are able to do that.

I know that my colleague is not from my province, but in my own province the tax cuts by his party, the Harris government, were five times greater than the cuts which we made in putting the federal house in order.

What is his view of the role of the federal government in a case like this? I am not saying the federal government should deliver this child care. I am saying the municipalities and the provinces should deliver it. Does he not think that the role of the senior level of government now is to kickstart this thing so that our children will be better off?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, actually there are not three levels of government. There are three orders of government. The municipal level is not recognized within our Constitution. I think the member--

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Are you proposing to do that?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, no, I am not proposing to do that. I am just recognizing the reality as it is. I think the member misspoke.

I find it a little ironic that the member would criticize the Ontario provincial government for downloading on to the municipalities when the finance minister, the current Prime Minister, was the ultimate downloader of all time.

If the member wants to talk about a fiscal imbalance, this is the fiscal imbalance: the federal government raises two-thirds of the revenues across Canada but provides one-third of the services. That is a fiscal imbalance. The fact is that the Liberal government in the mid-1990s downloaded everything on to the other two orders of government. That was the basic problem with the fiscal imbalance.

In terms of which order of government, which level should actually do child care, I have been very clear in saying it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

What the federal government ought to do is get its own house in order. It should deal with citizenship and immigration, get the border open to our beef and our softwood, repair our national defence, none of which the government is doing. It has failed miserably on every one of those counts. Instead it interferes into provincial jurisdiction. It interferes with municipalities. It should get its own house in order. It should leave these areas of social responsibility to the provinces, which can better deal with them.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam into the debate this afternoon and let him know that I appreciated his comment about choice. It was similar to the comment made earlier by the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

I do not think anybody would disagree that parents need to have choices and should be allowed to make choices, particularly where their younger children are concerned. As a matter of fact, some of my own children went to junior kindergarten and some of them did not, depending on whether they were ready or not.

If there is not a child care system out there funded by government and available, there really is no choice is there?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I should correct the member. I am not the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam. He is known as “James the greater” and I am “James the lesser”, and everyone can understand why.

I am not against institutional day care. However, I do believe that if the citizens of a province, Alberta for example, such as has been done in Quebec, feel that they want to make this option more available, they want to fund it more, then they are free to do so, at the provincial level. What I believe is that it should be funded at the provincial level.

What the federal government ought to do is do all it can to leave more resources in the hands of parents and allow them to make the decision as to what type of care they want.

Whether institutional day care is funded across the country, it should not be funded by the federal government. Instead it should be funded by the provincial government as reasonably requested to do so by the citizens in the province.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Oak Ridges--Markham.

I will not be supporting the motion before us today. I believe very strongly that our children deserve a better start in life. At least 70% of women in families in Canada work. They work because they have to and they work because they choose to; I do not think it matters why they work. The important thing is that 70% of women in this country do work. I say that only because this issue of child care goes along with the issue of poverty. Child care is a major issue for women who work, especially single parents.

I want to broaden the debate, though, because this is not just about child care. It is not just about childminding. It is not about babysitting. We are not talking about babysitting. We are not talking about looking after children to make sure they are safe. Of course we are talking about children being safe, but also we are talking about the developmental issues. I believe that every child, regardless of whether the parent is working or not, needs to have at least half a day of early education experience.

I am not talking only about assisting families where parents both work or assisting single parent families that need early education and child care in order to be able to work. I am talking about giving all children, regardless of whether the parents work or not, the best start in life. This is extremely important.

It is not about babysitting. It is about early education. It is about providing a quality program, a developmental program, universally inclusive, for everybody, accessible to every child. This is about providing an environment in which every child is encouraged to learn and feel safe. We cannot provide a professional developmental program, a quality program, without having professional staff, and those professional staff need to be well paid and well trained. I believe, of course, that the system should be a not for profit system and should be publicly administered.

I should point out that our caucus has been getting ready for our next convention, coming up in March. We were allowed to prioritize five resolutions for presentation to the national convention and one of those resolutions deals with early education and child care. This shows the importance that our party and our government place on this issue. We also reiterate very clearly in the resolution the importance of the quad principles: quality, universality, accessibility and developmental focus.

We also reiterate in the resolution the importance of a publicly administered, not for profit sector. We remind the Government of Canada to negotiate a requirement that provinces and territories maintain or increase their own child care funding. Because the last time that we negotiated something, in the year 2000, was $2.2 billion with the Province of Ontario, and the Government of Ontario ratcheted back off the table money that it was putting into child care and then opened up new little centres, calling them early education and early learning centres, and put its logo on them. It did this with moneys transferred from the Government of Canada. Children suffered because early education spaces were actually reduced in that province. We do not want that to happen again.

Also in our resolution, we ask the Government of Canada to maintain its current federal funding commitments under the early childhood development and multilateral framework agreements which we already have and were established in the last budget. We are talking about establishing a real commitment to early education for every child across this country.

All our experience shows very clearly that development of the brain or what some people call the wiring of the brain starts at a very early age. Many people have read the Fraser Mustard and McCain report which indicated that brain development starts from the time a child is born. From zero to three years of age, brain development is very rapid. From three to six years of age, it is extremely rapid. By the time the child reaches six years of age, which is when they would generally start grade one, it levels off somewhat, so in a sense we are investing a tremendous amount of money in elementary school, and I am not suggesting that we should not.

In this country we have decided that elementary school is compulsory, that it must be professionally delivered by professional teachers, and that it must have a proper curriculum. Why is it that we are not prepared to give the same advantage to younger children when they are at the most critical time of development in their lives, the early years, which are much earlier than elementary school years? I find it totally astounding that these many years later we are still talking about doing it through tax cuts and whatever instead of looking at the importance of every child.

I am on the finance committee. I hear about the productivity problems that Canada has. I hear about all kinds of things. Members should know that early education goes to the issue of productivity because every child would have the best start. I spoke to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Dodge, who made a statement to the finance committee. He said that if he had one dollar left to invest, and one dollar only, and he had to choose, he would invest that dollar in early education. That was said by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, so members need not tell me that this is something we have somehow dreamed up overnight.

The OECD has chastised Canada for being so far behind. Let me tell members about what the OECD countries do and then see whether people here think they somehow have it all wrong, because there are a lot of them. In Europe in general, access rates to publicly run services are high for children aged three years to six years. About 98% of all children receive free full-day places in Belgium and France, about 96% in Italy, and about 85% in Denmark, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the U.K. Many of the same countries also provide highly subsidized places for children from one to three years of age. They have an actual target: to reach 90% of all children aged three years to six years and from zero to three years as well.

I cannot believe that everyone here is saying that Germany, Spain, Sweden, the U.K. and Denmark are somehow off the mark and have it all wrong. Quite frankly, I think we have it wrong and it is about time that we got it right.

The OECD makes some pretty strong recommendations and suggestions to our country with respect to this issue. For instance, six recommendations deal with the aspect of quality: in particular, to link accreditation of services to essential structural requirements, such as adequate funding, sufficient numbers of qualified staff, favourable child/staff ratios, enriched learning environments and resources, and the achievement of quality targets. These are very strong and very good recommendations. I believe that this is very important.

The best examples I have seen in Toronto, where good early education and child care really work, is where child care centres are attached to elementary schools. I have visited a couple of them. Where they are attached to an elementary school, the fantastic thing is that the child has a continuum, the same place to go to, and the parents have a local place to leave their children, the same place where they leave their elder children.

In one instance, the kindergarten teacher comes in to teach in the child care, the kindergarten, in a more formal way for the first half of the morning, and in the afternoon it is more creative, with the early development teachers. The point is that in one case I know of a child was having some difficulty but it was identified early on. Before the child gets to grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3 and is lost in the system, the assistance is given very early on. This creates a seamless approach.

I would say that the challenge we have is not one of whether or not we should provide it, but one of making sure that we actually meet the needs of the different families across the country. Families have different needs, such as families in rural Canada, families who work part time, shift workers, our aboriginal communities and so on. That is where our challenge is; it is not so much in whether or not we do this but in making sure that when we in fact do it every child is included and we do not lose.

This is why we introduced parental leave for all parents as well as what I was very involved with, which was increasing the child benefit for families to ensure that there is proper income for families. This is the last piece that I am convinced we have a moral duty to provide to our children, the last piece to make sure that they have the best possible start in life.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to approach this from a different perspective than my colleagues did, but I think I am going to arrive at the same conclusion.

I am just going to quote a couple of things I heard the member say. I just listened to the member say that our children deserve a better start in life and every child deserves half a day of early development. I am not sure I disagree with the statements themselves, but merely with who provides that development.

The member contends that it is professional quality and well paid staff who can provide the safe environment and the love that children need to succeed, but empirically, study after study demonstrates that the best outcomes for our children are actually from home schooling, from parents who teach their own children, whether those studies are about the United States or Sweden or other countries in Europe or Asia. The outcomes for children who are home schooled are actually higher for parents who do not have teaching certificates, so any parents can teach their children better than a school system can.

I do not understand how an early childhood education system is somehow going to replace parents. No one provides a better learning environment for their children than parents do. What children need is a full day of their parents at home, not a half day of development with someone else.

I have figured out the problem. Statist governments, whether they are in Ottawa or Quebec City, see autonomous families as competition to the state. That is wrong.

Here is my question. Why will this government not give children their true best start and cut its bloated spending so parents can work fewer hours with less stress to spend more time at home with their children, teaching them, loving them and providing them with the right atmosphere? That is going to give them a better educational outcome. It is going to give them a better financial outcome. It will give them a better relational outcome than anything the government could possibly provide.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly and first of all, I have never said that parents could not give love, attention, affection and guidance to their children, because of course that is fundamentally important and parents do that.

The member is totally wrong about his empirical research when he says it has been shown that the best way to make sure every child gets a better start in life is to ensure that they all have parents staying at home. There is no question: if every parent could stay at home, they might, but quite frankly, not every parent wants to stay at home. This is 2005. Not every parent can afford to stay at home. My mother could never afford to stay home. And not every parent chooses to stay home.

All of the empirical data in fact shows quite the opposite. It shows that early education is absolutely fundamental to the proper start for a child. If the hon. member is saying that every country in the western world except for Canada has a better handle on this, all of the other countries have it all wrong, and all of the data that has been accumulated on the other side, apart from the one that he is referring to, is all wrong, then I think the hon. member is not being very sure.

There is one country that knows where to put its value: on its money. If we look at the money of one country, it shows a mother and a child at the table studying and on the other side it has Mama Montessori. That country understands the value of education. It puts its value on its own money.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague references the OECD study. I said earlier this morning that when we had the authors appear before our committee a week or two ago, I asked one of the authors, who appeared by satellite link from Paris, a question about his comparison of test results from kids in what he called high quality environments with low quality environments. When I asked him about kids who were raised by their parents at home, his answer was that actually those children do very well in tests.

I value early years learning opportunities for children, but I reject the notion that parents, with some support and some help, cannot do that job as well or better at home themselves.

My second point, and I think this is really important, is that not only are small children absorbing facts and figures, they are absorbing values. Many parents from many different backgrounds are very uncomfortable putting their two year olds and three year olds in a public education system that they feel is further and further from their own values. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I was not at the meeting, so I am not going to comment on that, but I find it incredible that the hon. member thinks children who go to a public school are learning values that are further and further away from families. That would suggest the public school system in this country is not working.

In fact, I think it works very well, especially in a multicultural society where children ought to be together in the same environment, where they are exposed to one another, working together, learning about each other and learning how to respect one another, how to work together and how to be able to build a country together. To be honest, I find the hon. member's comments about the public system not working for many parents because the values are different quite astounding.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the motion raised by the official opposition. I am grateful for this opportunity because it provides me with the chance to remind members from all parties, and indeed all Canadians, about several of the extraordinary measures that our government has taken in recent years to reduce the tax burden faced by our citizens from coast to coast.

Let me be clear. Our government has always recognized the need to reduce the tax burden on Canadians and their families. This is because we have always understood that ensuring that our tax system is fair and competitive plays an important role in building a 21st century economy while also strengthening our social foundations. With the elimination of the federal deficit in 1997, the government provided tax relief in both the 1998 and 1999 budgets. In 2000 the government unveiled the most ambitious and far-reaching tax cutting effort ever launched in Canadian history, the five year tax reduction plan.

As we announced at the time of the 2000 federal budget, our government tax reduction efforts would be founded on four broad principles.

First, while a tax reduction must ultimately benefit all Canadians, it must primarily benefit those who need it the most: middle and low income earners, especially families with children. Second, broad-based tax reductions should focus initially on personal income taxes. Third, the business tax system must be internationally competitive. Finally, broad-based tax reductions should not be financed with borrowed money.

With these factors in mind and with strong economic growth underpinning a surging Canadian economy, our government set out a five year tax plan that aimed specifically at reducing Canada's personal and business tax levels by $100 billion over five years. This plan, which has provided real and significant tax relief, was initially anchored by two fundamental structural changes.

First, the plan dealt with the issues of inflation and its effects on tax rates. As all members of the House know, taxes cannot come down in earnest until they stop going up with inflation. With this in mind, we made the most significant change to Canada's tax system in more than 10 years. In the 2000 budget the government restored full indexation to the personal income tax system, effective January 1, 2000.

Second, our government did something that no government in the previous 12 years had been able to do. We lowered the actual tax rate of Canadians. Over the five year period of our tax reduction plan, we have lowered the middle tax rates from 26% to 23%. Most importantly, two-thirds of that reduction, down to 24%, came into effect on July 1, 2000.

Reindexing the tax system and lowering the tax rates have, over the past five years, provided a significant benefit for all Canadians, but our government has gone further. We have increased the amounts Canadians can earn tax free to $8,000 and we have raised the income tax levels at which middle and upper tax rate begin to apply to $35,000 and $75,000 respectively.

They are important structural changes that have occurred in Canada's tax system. They have benefited millions of Canadians and have helped contribute to a higher quality of life for our citizens. Some of the most important and in many ways the most significant changes we have made directly relate to the support we have provided to Canadian families through our reform of the tax system.

I hardly need to remind my hon. colleagues that the cost of raising children is a significant expense. Ask any parent about the price of new shoes or snowsuits. Ask any parent whose child plays sports or takes music lessons. Ask any parent trying to save for their children's education.

The purpose of the Canada child tax benefit, CCTB, is to help with these costs. When we asked Canadians about what we would do to help them provide their children with the best possible start in life, one of the key issues they raised with us was the need to ensure that our tax system provided support for low and modest income families. We listened and, more importantly, we took action.

In budget 2000, we increased the maximum amount a family could receive under the Canada child tax benefit for its first child to $1,975, but we did not stop there. In fact, we announced a further increase in July 2001 to $2,265. In subsequent budgets we continued to raise the maximum and in the most recent year, 2004, it stood at $2,719. By the time the current round of mandated increases is over in 2007, the maximum CCTB benefit will stand at $3,243. That is more than double the $1,520 level in 1996. That is a clear example of our commitment to provide significant and sustained tax relief to Canadian families.

Canadians have also benefited from the significant reduction in employment insurance rates over the past decade. Each and every year for the past 11 years the government has lowered EI rates, which have fallen from their peak of $3.07 in 1994 to the current level of $1.95. As a result of these rate reductions, employers and employees will pay $10.5 billion less in premiums in 2005 than they would have paid under the 1994 rate.

I could go on about other measures the government has taken to provide support to Canadian families. I could speak about the substantial support it provides to persons with disabilities through the disability tax credit and the medical expenses tax credit. I could point to other efforts to help families provide funding for their children's post-secondary education through the establishment of the Canada education savings grant and the Canada learning bond. I could speak of the support that we have provided to small business owners and entrepreneurs, many of whom are operating family run businesses to help them achieve success. Instead, I will conclude my remarks with some facts for my colleagues.

First, the five year tax reduction plan represents the largest tax cuts in Canadian history. Second, three-quarters of the benefits from this plan are flowing to individuals, with most of the tax relief going to low and modest income Canadians. Indeed, in the current fiscal year, the tax reduction plan has lowered federal personal income tax by 21% on average and 27% for families with children.

Make no mistake about it. These measures have translated into real benefits for Canadians from all walks of life. For example, a typical single parent with one child and an income of $25,000 in 2004 would have received an additional $1,139 in annual net federal benefits compared to what would have happened if the tax reduction plan had not been in place. A typical single income family of four earning $40,000 in 2004 now pays $2,003 less in annual net federal tax. These are real tangible savings and they are making a difference in the lives of millions of Canadians and their children.

Given the government's strong commitment to providing support for low and modest income Canadians and their families, I will not be supporting the opposition motion and urge all of my colleagues to join me.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Fisheries; and the hon. member for Charleswood--St. James—Assiniboia, Health.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the information that was shared by the member in terms of some of the programs that have been put in place to alleviate poverty and support families with low to modest income. We need to do more of that. Certainly, there is no one in our caucus who would disagree that we need to help families look after themselves, look after their children, and have the money to make some of the choices that we keep hearing about in this place today.

The reality is that one choice will not be there. Unless the government is willing to take a strong stand, put significant money, work with the provinces to ensure that there is a national child care program in place, the spaces will not be there and they will not be affordable.

I want to ask the member a question regarding the national child tax benefit. He may be aware that some provinces are in fact clawing that money back from some of our most at risk and marginalized families on social assistance. I think of Ontario where I served for 13 years and launched a campaign in my last few years there to stop the clawback. Could he talk to us about how that happened and how this government might stop that discriminatory practice which is really hurting some of our most at risk and vulnerable families?

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when tax programs are put in place federally, they do have some jurisdiction over provincial matters. In this case, when a province would prefer to claw back on benefits, we are definitely not in agreement and do not condone those types of practices. They hurt the most vulnerable people in our society, which are modest and low income families.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is providing an alternative of choices with respect to assisting families with child care. The Liberal government has no choice. The money is going to go into day care. That is it. In fact, I am not even too sure whether it is going to be public day care or private day care. I suspect it is going to be mainly public day care.

The member for Oak Ridges—Markham spent a great deal of time on the financing of child care, but as I understand it, the $5 billion that is being set aside by the Liberal government is coming from the surplus and that is going to be spread over five years. I have two questions. Should that issue not be debated in the House? The issue of this slush fund, this $5 billion that is coming out of a surplus by surprise, and unilaterally the Prime Minister of the country says this is going to go into child care. Should that not be debated? Finally, what happens to day care in this country after five years?

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we definitely support the public day care program. We ran on it in the last campaign and we are going to deliver what we said we would during the election campaign. In regard to the debate, this is part of the debate. There are ongoing debates that will be continuing. The minister for child care will be unveiling a program. He is in discussions with the provinces to ensure they strike an agreement that is appropriate for all Canadians.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.

I am pleased to take part in the debate today on the very important subject of child care on behalf of my constituents in Fleetwood—Port Kells.

Today's motion is about recognizing that parents and not the federal government are in the best position to determine which type of child care best suits their children. The government believes that Canadians want a one size fits all national child care program.

The Conservative Party supports giving parents a choice in child care. We propose giving parents the financial flexibility to make their decisions about what is best for their kids.

To say that Canada's greatest natural resource is its people is a gross understatement. I have no desire to trivialize or indulge in partisan politics with a subject that cuts across party lines. There should be no political line in the sand insofar as child care is concerned.

Children are our future. Their health, well-being and education will guarantee that future.

Governments, municipal, provincial and federal, have failed our children miserably in allowing change to overtake reality without recognizing the change and putting mechanisms in place to accommodate it.

Our society has done a complete 180 degree turn. When we were children, the husband was the breadwinner and the wife stayed at home. Wives jokingly called themselves domestic engineers and there was nothing that they could not do in the house.

In 1967 only 17% of mothers with preschool age children were employed outside the home. Today that number is approaching 80%.

By preference or for financial necessity, both parents have gone out into the labour force. For some it is fulfilling the desire for a second car in the driveway, a bigger house, winter or summer vacations or finding the cash for university tuition for their children.

For others it is a matter of needing the extra income to provide for the very basic necessities of life; food, clothing and shelter. The reality of life in North America, not just in Canada, is that there is a need for child care or day care.

I am new to Parliament and I often wondered why throne speeches were called governor generalities. Now I know. The most current throne speech is certainly no exception. The few lines in the throne speech dealing with child care are an insult to our intelligence. The only buzz words in the two or three sentences where I see hope are “quality, universality, accessibility and development”, which could apply to a hot dog concession at a Knights of Columbus picnic. They certainly do not constitute a declaration of legislative intent.

What I want to know is what the plan will encompass, how it would be implemented and when and how much the federal government is prepared to commit in partnership with other levels of government.

I am amused to see the Minister of Social Development meeting with his provincial counterparts last Friday. The poor man had no goalie stick to lean on and he looked very uncomfortable.

The government's response to child care is inadequate and certainly not well thought out. Canadians will not be gulled or fooled by empty government promises. Or, is the government fooling itself by attempting to convey an impression of progress?

There is a line of a child's book, Alice in Wonderland , I believe, where one of the characters accuses another of confusing motion with activity. The Liberal government, and particularly its leader, has been looking confused for some time.

If we were to lump together all the boondoggles in which the government has been involved, HRDC, EI, the gun registry, ad scam, high spending diplomats and senior mandarins, and other spending abuses, we would end up with a very healthy kick-start to any national program for child care.

We in the Conservative Party recognize that the parents in communities across Canada are the best judges of which child care program is best for their children. To the contrary, the Liberals believe that universal means that a program is the same across Canada.

We believe that each defined community and each defined ethnic group should have the right to tailor their program to their needs. Parents must have that choice. Governments at the three levels have a responsibility only to provide basic universal standards of health, safety, cleanliness and qualified and safe caregivers. Beyond that, it should be left to the local communities to structure their programs to meet their specific needs.

One size child care does not fit all child care programs. One size child care does not recognize the rapidly changing mosaic of Canada.

Not far from this building there are already operational Hebrew child care facilities. In many parts of my province of British Columbia, there are communities where there are very large Indian, Chinese, Italian and German populations. Their needs will not be met by throwing their children in a melting pot because the only two languages recognized and deemed to be official languages are French and English. Not recognizing the contribution that immigration makes to Canada will defeat the basic premise and deny the wishes of the local community.

A made in Ottawa child care program is not the answer. It will not work. The program's roots must spring up in local communities and if they are all different, so be it. Parents know best, not Ottawa bureaucrats or cabinet ministers far removed from the reality of life across Canada.

We in the Conservative Party will continue to give our unqualified support to all existing child benefits and, when we form a government, one of our first priorities will be to introduce broadly based tax relief that will directly impact on parents and allow them to make the key choices of care and education for their children.

Any child care program put in place must recognize that although values must be constant, cultures and traditions differ in different parts of this great country.

The Conservative Party believes that parents deserve options. We are a multicultural society and child care should recognize that reality. Canadians want their children to be raised and educated in a way that reflects their values, cultures and traditions. The Liberal one size fits all day care system is misguided and unfair. The government is promising inadequate funding. It has limited support among the provinces. It is dealing in an area over which Ottawa has no jurisdiction.

However, most important, the Liberal proposal does not allow parents to have such a dramatic impact on the care and nurturing of their children, and that is unacceptable.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with much care to the hon. member's speech but I just want to clarify two things on what we have been saying all day today.

No one on this side of the House is talking about not giving parents a choice. The parliamentary secretary did mention the tax advantages that we have given to low and middle income Canadians in order to have the means to choose where they would like to place their children, whether at home with themselves or in a child care centre. Whatever the circumstances, economic or being single parents, those options are exactly what we are trying to ensure those parents have. That is why we are working with the provinces.

There is a system in place at the moment and that is what I want the hon. member to acknowledge. The provinces have come together with the federal government to establish a national system for those parents who choose early learning in child care facilities. It is not a question of us imposing or of us telling parents what to do. The parents have those options at the moment. We are not imposing anything.

I would like to ask the hon. member again the question I have been asking all day. When the provinces come to the table and ask for assistance in terms of coming up with a system that can respond to the various needs of parents across the country, what is the Conservative Party proposing to those provinces that have agreed to come to the table?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I want to say is that a one size fits all child care program fails to provide parents with the choices they need to address the specific needs of the children. I and my party believe that quality child care should be accessible to all but the shape it takes must be left up to the parents.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague was talking about the years gone past, it certainly reminded me of our situation. My wife and I were married before the time of technological on-off switches for when babies were born and so our family started growing within a year.

We made the decision then that my wife would be a full time mom. At that time we could afford it. My annual income was about $5,300, as I recall, and my taxes were about $25 or $30 a month. When we compare that to what families have to face nowadays, we see that a proportion of income that goes to taxation is a hundred times as big now as it was then. Our incomes are maybe ten times as big.

The fact is that it is high taxes that are driving a lot of parents into the workforce and to find other care for their children. That has been our experience and I think that it is probably true when 70% of parents say that if they had the choice they would like to stay home with their families. Therefore, increasing the taxes so that those people who go to work have to pay even more taxes to fund this, does not solve that particular problem. The money must go to the families.

I would like my colleague to comment on that particular point of view.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. I think we should give parents tax deductions of $2,000 to $3,000 and allow them to spend it on child care. It should be a matter of their choice, be it formal day care, in the home care, stay at home parenting or otherwise.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure today to speak on the Conservative Party's motion on child care funding.

I believe it is very important that assistance should be provided to parents and that they should be able to choose the type of child care they want for their children. After all, parents know what is best for their children.

The Liberal one size fits all child care program has been criticized lately by the provinces. The criticism echoes what the Conservative Party has been saying all along; that the program fails to provide parents with the choices they need to address the specific and varying needs of their children.

This is why the Conservative Party will continue to support all existing child benefit programs, such as the national child benefit, the early childhood development initiative, the multilateral framework on early learning and child care and other federal government support of early learning and child care in Canada. Of course the Conservative Party would introduce a broad based tax relief that would directly benefit parents and would allow them to make their own choices about the care and nurturing of their children.

We believe parents deserve options. They want their children to be raised and educated in a way that reflects their family values, cultures and traditions. A Liberal institutional day care system will not allow parents to have such a dramatic impact on the care and nurturing of their children. It will not reflect their family values, cultures or traditions. This is very sad.

Let us not mention the fact that total child care expenditures have risen by over 20% in the last 20 years. Demand for child care services has risen and fees for full time day care are on the rise. The cost of living has also risen dramatically, causing the rate of employment for mothers with preschool age children to rise from 17% in 1967 to 65% in 1997. Eighty-three per cent of married couples with children both work, and the percentage of single mothers working has soared to 82%. That trend is continuing.

That is why choice is so important. Parents should not be forced to put their children in an institution that the government wants. They should be free to raise and educate them in a manner that they feel is in the best interests of their children.

Early childhood education is so important because this period sets the stage for long term emotional, behavioural and intellectual well-being. That is why we need to have the necessary childhood programs to prepare children to succeed in school, to improve the well-being of all of our children and facilitate the participation of parents in the labour force and continuing education.

However, the Liberal program is just not up to the job. That is why Alberta and Quebec are considering opting out. New Brunswick has requested autonomy for its system. The current systems in Ontario and Manitoba are more advanced than the Liberal program.

The minister came out of the meeting with his provincial counterparts on Friday, and believe it or not, there was no agreement on a national child care system. Why? Because the federal government refused to provide any financial commitment beyond the five years. The provinces have seen this song and dance before and they know how it ends. The federal government launches a massive new social program and when the bill comes in, it is nowhere to be found, except maybe in this case, on the hockey rink.

Provinces are struggling now to provide good quality education, elementary education with text books that are in good repair. The Liberal government wants to launch into a whole new institutionalized day care. We cannot afford our elementary system.

A Conservative government would cater to the needs of parents and their children with a plan that would last and a plan that the provinces could and would support.

The Liberal government has been promising Canadians a national child care program for over 10 years. However, it is clear that once again it is not up to the job. In fact, we heard the minister talk about and describe day care over the past decade as stagnant, fragmented and unregulated. Let us give the Liberal government a round of applause on this one. It is this way because this Liberal government has failed to deliver on its promises for the last decade.

I fully support our motion. I 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 that additional funds for child care are provided directly to parents.