Debates of May 31st, 2005

Business of Supply

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, I received a letter from my constituent last week in which she relates that her parents have now been able to join her in Canada. She was quite excited because the grandparents would now have the responsibility of caring for the children while her and her husband were at work. They are shift workers and also hold multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. This was a great advantage to them because they were not able to find any facilities in the community, which is a small rural community, to meet their needs.

With respect to recent immigrants who are forced to sometimes work in multiple jobs, shift workers and so on, could the minister tell me how this program will assist them in meeting their needs? As I understand it, and I would like an explanation, this is focused toward those who have more regular jobs that are within what would be commonly known as a work day and the amount of flexibility that this particular family requires may not be met with the type of program that the minister is suggesting, particularly under the agreement with Ontario, as I read the agreement.

I am wondering where the choice for this family and similar families will be in the program.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, as the hon. member mentioned and as we have talked about before, each province will work out its own priorities in that particular way.

Clearly shift work and the kind of circumstances that the member is describing are much more of a fact of life now than they might have been 10 or 20 years ago.

Once again, I go back to what I was saying before about the flexibility that is inherent in a system that has a number of parts that are of much smaller scale.

I would imagine that while the great majority of child care centres, at least in the foreseeable years, will not be able to provide a lot of what the member is talking about in terms of shift hours assistance or on Sundays but I suspect that some would. I suspect that would be their approach, their way of filling a need within a particular community, and it would be their way of making their application to the provincial government successful.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, the expectations from those in my constituency are that they should benefit as equally from their tax dollars as any other family in the community. I have a large agricultural community and many of those people are here on the basis of seasonal work and are able to bring their families with them. They are farmers and farmers do not have nine to five working hours. Seeding and harvesting the land are seasonal requirements and often both parents have to be out in the fields working. Therefore their demands for assistance as far as their preschool children and their infants are concerned vary according to the season and according to their own schedules.

I have read the agreement signed in the province of Ontario and some of the other agreements. What studies or what work has been done to expand the benefit of the child care program that is proposed to meet the unique needs of these families? These families are equally an important part of Canada as part of Canada's economy, as part of Canada's food production and as part of Canada's heritage as well, and they want to maintain this. They have been able to do this traditionally through family care, through neighbour care, et cetera. However it does not seem to me that I am seeing any of their tax dollar benefits coming back to assist them with their needs.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, in fairness to the question, and it is a good question, I think there is also some fairness to the answer, which is that it is a big challenge, just as one would imagine a big challenge if we filled in the blank, instead of a child care centre, we filled it with an elementary school. That is not part of what our expectation is for an elementary school or a high school, that it is available at whatever the hours that are convenient insofar as the way in which parents live.

Now, as I said earlier, the good news in this is that the larger scale systems and institutions are that much less flexible. The smaller scale like this has a much greater chance at flexibility and of adapting much more quickly to the kinds of needs the member suggests.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to speak in this very important debate on the main estimates for Human Resources and Social Development.

To begin my remarks this evening, I would like to touch on our recent budget, which includes many initiatives for Canada's seniors. This budget makes significant investments in seniors programs from health care to income security, from retirement savings to assistance for their care givers. Our constant goal is to enhance the quality of life for all seniors and we must always remember that this country was built by the seniors we have today.

The guaranteed income supplement provides low income seniors with a benefit that ensures a basic level of income throughout their retirement years.

In 2004, our government, under the great leadership of our Prime Minister and a great Minister of State for Families and Caregivers, made a commitment, along with the rest of our colleagues, to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $1.5 billion over the next five years. That was clearly illustrated in platforms and in items that we have distributed.

However budget 2005 goes above and beyond that commitment. We will increase the guaranteed income supplement benefits for low income seniors, not by $1.5 billion, but by $2.7 billion over two years. By 2007 the maximum guaranteed income supplement will be increased by more than $400 per year for a single senior and by almost $700 for a couple.

Seniors are and want to remain active members of our society. The budget increases support for the hugely successful New Horizons program which promotes voluntary sector activity and supports our seniors. Annual funding will increase to $25 million by 2007 and 2008. This a very popular program among many Canadians and many seniors.

The budget provides $13 million over five years to establish a new national senior secretariat so that we can focus as a government on the many needs of our seniors today.

Seniors have concerns about a range of issues. They include pensions, the health care system, pharmacare, housing and the difficulties associated with living on a fixed income. We hear about it every day.

Our government is committed to upholding the retirement system that provides Canadians with the opportunity to live with dignity and security and the other social programs which define our country and make Canada the best place to live at all stages of a person's life.

The government's strong fiscal management, economic growth and the successful reform of the Canada pension plan have allowed us to safeguard the quality of life for Canada's seniors.

Back in 1997, this government had to reconstruct the Canada pension plan in order to meet the increased demands of an aging population and to ensure its sustainability. It was a difficult move but an important decision to make.

Since 1999, the federal government has invested more than $35 billion to support the renewal of our health care system, research and other health promotion programs. Our government has taken a leadership role to ensure that our health care system remains high quality and meets the needs of our aging population.

Canada's seniors need to know that there is a place for them in our society, that they are of value to us and that they will continue to play a vital role in the community. We will continue a role of mutual respect and understanding. Our valued seniors deserve to benefit from a retirement income system that ensures their ability to live in dignity. Our 2005 budget demonstrates that commitment to our seniors.

Members present in the chamber this evening, such as myself and others, have many constituents who are either on the verge of entering their senior years or planning for them.

I would like to ask the Minister of State for Families and Caregivers the following question: How best can the government work with the other partners in society to meet the changing needs and priorities of seniors in the coming years and to ensure that the actions we take now will endure for the many years ahead?

[Tony Ianno, Liberal, Minister of State (Families and Caregivers)]

Mr. Chair, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for York West who has been working with seniors for a countless number of years. Every several days she has a new group coming into Ottawa and hosts a great number, including a group of 110 seniors from her constituency tomorrow, with whom I hope to meet.

There is a lot we should be excited about regarding our seniors. In 1980 the poverty rate was at 21% and in 2003 it was below 7%. We have a way to go but we will work very hard with all members of the House. We know that without our seniors, who worked to build this great nation, we would not have democracy, freedom and the respect we have around the world.

We should take into account members on this side of the House who have been working on issues regarding with seniors for many years. There are several here today, including the member for Beaches—East York and many others who continue to work with us to ensure that we are always ahead of the curve when it comes to our seniors, who we all respect.

The Prime Minister's task force made 17 recommendations only a year ago and close to 13 of them already have been implemented. We are working toward a way of reducing poverty among seniors and giving them the kind of dignity and respect we all want for our own families.

The hon. member mentioned the GIS increase. When someone is earning $12,400, the amount of $433 is not a lot but it is a good beginning. It cost the government $700 million a year. Along with that we have a new senior secretariat that will be formed when the budget passes. This will allow us to be the lens, where all issues from all levels of government will be dealt with in a way that we around the cabinet table can ensure that any issue that affects seniors will be looked at and dealt with the respect it deserves.

At the FPT meeting for seniors last week in Quebec City, we had a great start. Many of the provincial ministers talked about wanting to go with the program, to meet yearly, to work together cooperatively on issues that would make the lives of our seniors much better.

We work across departments such as housing. The Minister of Labour and Housing has been kind enough to work with us in a way that ensures that a portion of the affordable housing money will be put aside for low income seniors and the disabled, such as through RRAP, to ensure that seniors stay in their homes much longer so they can live in the communities they helped build.

We are working toward ensuring that many issues will come forward to ensure seniors have the access to affordable housing which the hon. member across the aisle asked about earlier today, such as rent supplements. As we know, if we take several of the ratings, whether it is the low income cut off point or the market basket group, whichever method one wants to use, we are trying to ensure that seniors reach this level so they are not living in poverty. We know seniors are living longer, healthier lives so we want to ensure they have the accommodations and extra dollars that will allow them to fully integrate in our society.

This brings us to the new horizons program. It will allow those organizations across the country that deal with seniors to find ways to reduce isolation, to include seniors who have contributed a great deal and who have so much more yet to contribute and to ensure that they are integrated, whether it is in our school systems with our young or mentoring society at large.

We know our seniors contribute more voluntary time, double the amount of others. We have to ensure that they are given the tools to continue to make our lives better together.

Of course there are many other issues that are extremely important to ensure our seniors can contribute in many ways to make our lives better.

We are talking to the minister responsible for CIDA about the Canada Corps and about the possibility of having our seniors participate in that program. On veterans' day sometimes our seniors go into schools and communicate with the children. They tell people of the sacrifices they made so we could live the freedom we so cherish.

We want to expand that. We want to find ways of working together with community groups. New horizons for seniors is a perfect vehicle for that.

There are many more issues about which we can continue to talk, whether it is the caregiving file or seniors who are disabled. We have to find ways to keep them in their homes, similar to Veterans Affairs which uses the home independence program.

We have to find ways that allow our seniors to create, as we did with the minister of housing with the garden suites or seniors flats. This allows seniors to have some company in their home if they so choose. With the money the government gives through the RRAP program, they can create that extra suite and extra source of income. It also creates the opportunity for a low income senior to possibly move in with a senior who has that extra room. It allows for both to have reasonable cost and reasonable revenue.

I think that is the creative approach about which the hon. member asked. She asked what were doing to ensure that we made the lives of our seniors better. Many more ideas will be coming forward. With the minister of housing, I am trying to see if a reverse mortgage will ever be introduced by CMHC for low income seniors. We are looking forward to the day it gives us some good news on that.

I think of the excitement we have within our caucus. Members continue communicating with us and giving us the information that they think will work. We challenge once again our hon. members across the aisle to come up with ideas. Together we can make the lives of seniors better, where they will not in any way live in poverty.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Chair, when we talk about caregivers, many of us know people across the country, many of our own constituents, who are dealing with elderly parents. Usually women have to leave their post of employment in order to take care of an elderly mother or father or someone who is seriously sick in the family.

I know governments have talked for a long time about that very issue. I recognized that we are into a new process in trying to meet these needs. Does the minister have anything to offer today as he continues his very important work on those issues?

[Tony Ianno, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Chair, what is exciting is we are conducting round tables across the country. We hearing from professionals, from caregivers and from the care receivers. We are hearing a lot of ideas. We hope that in late September we will continue to crystallize where the vacuum is in order to achieve some relief for those who continue to make the lives of their loved ones better.

Aside from what we mentioned earlier, take into account the medical expense tax credit and the moneys that will eventually be there for home care. Of course respite care is extremely important to give people a break, especially the unpaid caregiver.

We have also launched in Social Development Canada an interactive web page that will allow caregivers to express their concerns and experiences. That way we can continue to enrich our ideas in a way that will make a difference in their lives.

In the first week alone there were 3,500 hits with personal experiences and suggestions. We encourage all Canadians to go to the Social Development Canada website and communicate with us if they cannot attend one of the other round table perspectives.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to say a couple of things on the child care file and then I have a couple of questions. One is on the clawback of the national child tax benefit supplement. Hopefully, if I still have time, I will have a question on housing.

My one critique of the government's roll out of the new child care funding is that so far it does not look like a national program. It is still very much a patchwork of agreements. Money hopefully will flow if the budget is passed, but there is no real framework that one could look at and say it is a national program. It is not like health care.

The government got off on the right foot with Manitoba and Saskatchewan in terms of their commitment to doing certain things. I was hoping that it would continue to follow that pattern as it went on to the other provinces and get them to buy into the same kind of promise of not for profit and community based child care. I think that will be best for families and children.

How is this a national program? If it is not, how does the minister propose to get there?

We have heard a number of comments from the Conservatives over the last number of months. First, suffice it to say we are not talking nanny state or babysitting here. That is simplistic at best to put that out.

We also need to recognize, and I think the minister would not disagree, that the work stay at home parents do and the contribution they make should be and needs to be valued. We need to find ways to do that. However, we should not hive one off at the expense of another. We need to address the issue and look at financial breaks for them, especially for those in need. It is wrong to pit them over and against a quality child care system. That is disingenuous to do that.

As well, I want to do a quick critique of the argument that there should be some kind of a tax benefit scheme for stay at home parents and the cost to the country to do that. I think the minister referenced that a bit.

Gordon Cleveland and Michael Krashinsky wrote a piece that I thought was rather informative. They said that the idea of paying stay at home parents at the centre of the Conservative child care policy did not make any financial sense. The $2,000 tax deduction, about $600 to $800 per child, for a typical family ignores the reality that paying parents to stay at home is much more expensive. That is another way of putting what the Conservatives want to do.

If a large number take up the offer to stay at home, the social cost will be astronomical. We would have to pay them at least the rate of maternity and parental benefits, currently 55% of their regular pay, up to $413 per week.Those benefits, which now cover the first year of a child's life, now cost about $2.7 billion a year. That is just the beginning year. If we multiply that by six to cover all preschool years, it would cost us more than $16 billion a year. I think we heard the number $10 billion a while ago to do this. I agree with them on that. That is probably what we are talking about at the end of the day if we are going to have a national program and hit 1% of GDP invested in this.

Economists have said, Charlie Coffey in particular, that for every dollar invested, there is a two dollar return down the line in a good quality national child care program. We are talking about $16 billion a year and we are not sure what the return on that would be, although there would be a return.

As I said a few minutes ago, I have no questions and no qualms with evaluating the contribution of stay at home parents and the excellent work they do bringing up their children; however, there is a cost.

Maternity and parental benefits cover only about 60% of all parents with newborns. It would cost $27 billion per year plus the billions of dollars in lost production to cover all families, in addition to the cost of lost income of those families and the cost of the government's current and future lost tax revenues.

According to these economists, this would cost the economy about $83 billion per year. If we were to add all that up, the cost of the Conservative proposal would be over $100 billion a year. That is what we are talking about. That is the Tory proposal. If we go with what the Tories have suggested, that is what we are talking about here.

The new national child care program that we are envisioning is one that will benefit stay at home parents. It will offer them respite. Parents who want to plug in at different times convenient to their schedule will be able to do that. A readily accessible child care program in a community will benefit every family in that community and is only limited by one's imagination.

Let me talk about the economics of child care spoken to very eloquently by Charles Coffey, vice president of the Royal Bank of Canada and just recently David Dodge, Governor of the Bank of Canada. For every dollar spent on child care there is a $2 economic benefit through increased tax revenues and decreased social, education and health costs. Charles Coffey said:

A child's brain development in the first six years of life sets the foundation for lifelong learning, behaviour and health. High-quality early childhood education produces long-term positive outcomes and cost-savings that include improved school performance, reduced special education placement, lower school dropout rates, and increased lifelong earning potential. Not only does high-quality early childhood education make a difference for children, it matters to their employed parents. Employers increasingly find that the availability of good early childhood programs is critical to the recruitment and retention of parent employees. It's estimated that work-life conflicts cost Canadian organizations roughly $2.7 billion in lost time due to work absences.

I guess we could add that to the Tory cost as well. David Dodge, Governor of the Bank of Canada, said:

While parents, along with some psychologists, sociologists and public health experts, have long intuitively understood the importance of ECD, it is really only over the last quarter century or so that scientists, physicians, and social scientists have come to recognize the crucial role played by ECD.

To sum up, the literature clearly shows that intervention to improve maternal and infant health, to support parenting, and to provide early childhood education is effective in improving readiness to learn at age six, thus raising the efficiency of primary schooling as a tool of human capital formation.

In the minister's view, what so far makes this a national program?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, the way that talks have progressed with the provinces indicates a great similarity from one agreement to the other. Maybe 80%, maybe 90%, is the same from one province to another and then there are some differences in the rest of the agreements.

What I would have in mind for a national system is not unlike education. Education is a provincial jurisdiction and it is something that is framed. The authority for it is within the province. At the same time there are similarities across the country. There are certain expectations of an education system whether one is from B.C., P.E.I. or Newfoundland and Labrador. Even though there are differences, and those that would be in each system would see what those differences are and focus on those differences, someone from the outside looking in would see far more similarities than they would see differences.

That is likely the way in which early learning and child care will develop. There will be provincial differences and territorial differences, but there will be a common kind of understanding of what good regulated early learning and child care will look like across the country.

In terms of the math that he did and so on, as I mentioned before in terms of choices, every program that is presented is a choice. It is a choice in one direction and it is not quite a choice in some other direction. What the math revealed was that a $2,000 tax deduction was not a child care choice. It was lots of other things but not a choice. It was a choice as a tax deduction. It offered a benefit as a tax deduction.

As a child care benefit, it was not. If it were, then of course all of those things that the member talked about would follow. If it were a serious child care proposal, then the behaviour would be this and that and all of those things that he said that would affect the economy. It would affect all of these other things and would end up with the kinds of costs that he talked about.

However, it was not a serious child care proposal and it would not be acted upon seriously by parents. Therefore, it would not have the kind of implications that the member talked about.

In terms of the economics of child care and the comments of Charles Coffey and David Dodge, it is something that we have known all along. During all those years, 20 or 30 years ago, we talked about how important the formative years were for a child. We talked about how important the experience of entering school was for a child. We talked about how important it was in terms of the economic status and circumstances of a family, and what was available within that home for that child. What is all that saying to a great extent? It is about the learning environment and the development environment. It is about the interactions that take place during that time, whether they are stimulating or whether they are not stimulating.

Those are the things that we have always known. The challenge we face when our lives change, when the way in which our society changes, and the way in which we live changes, is how do we end up replicating as best as we can that kind of experience that we know is so important for the development of a child?

Our challenge is to create the right environment for those kids. How do we meet it now given that our life circumstances are different?

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

Mr. Chair, has there been an analysis done on the clawback? That is a question I received from those living in poverty. How many people are working in an attempt to keep the supplement but not earning enough to qualify for welfare top up? How many disabled are unable to work and getting the supplement clawback?

How many people caring for a disabled child under the age of six are being clawed back? How many people caring for a baby under the age of one year are being clawed back? How many people living in a homeless shelter who are unable to find affordable housing are being clawed back? How many people are paying more than half their income on rent and how many of them are relying on food banks in order to feed their children? How many of them are losing the supplement?

I will leave the questions for the members opposite to decide who should answer. Is some of the money that is going out the door now for SCPI to be firmed up, so that there is some core funding for the people delivering on some of those challenging and important services?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, those are things that we will have to check for the member. We do not have the answers for him. We are not sure whether there are answers to the questions, but we will look to see if we can find those answers.

[Tony Ianno, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Chair, we are working with the minister and we do understand the issues of affordable housing on this side of the House. I was on the Anne Golden task force in Toronto regarding homelessness and of course caucus colleagues pushed very hard on that report to ensure that SCPI would be the result of all of our work.

A billion dollars toward transitional housing has been in place across the country and I believe also in the member's community. It has worked extremely well for many Canadians, who do not have the income, to allow them to have the home that they want. This has been a great step in my riding alone. Many transitional housing units have been built very successfully and there are more coming.

With the national housing agenda that is coming forward with $600 million in the member's province of Ontario, it will go a long way to build affordable housing. The coop housing administration was passed over to the CHT. I think that has gone extremely well with the support of many members in the House.

There is a lot that is taking place in housing. As I mentioned earlier with the rent supplements, that will go to help low income persons who are on waiting lists in many regions. With the previous Conservative government in Ontario, I went up to see minister Hodgson at the time and of course he would have no part of affordable housing. However, we have persevered and now with a government that is more cooperative with us, we are looking forward to ensuring that all Canadians have the kind of housing of which they can be proud.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Chair, as chairman of the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I am pleased to preface my question to the minister with a few brief remarks.

A defining feature of our nation is our commitment to equality for all. Canadian citizenship is firmly anchored in the principle that every man, woman and child in Canada has a right to expect dignity, justice and fairness in every respect of their everyday lives. We believe everyone has the right to live, learn, work and play an active part in the community and enjoy the responsibilities and benefits of belonging.

The Government of Canada believes profoundly that all individuals should be able to participate in and contribute to society. That is why we work hard to equip Canadians with the tools, resources and opportunities they need to achieve their potential. It is why we make special efforts to ensure no one is left behind.

The people of my riding of Thunder Bay--Rainy River are extremely supportive of these goals. Our track record in advancing the inclusion of Canadians with disabilities reinforces that commitment. Canada was one of the first countries in the world to enshrine the rights of persons with disabilities in its Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the last 25 years the Government of Canada has taken significant steps, particularly in the areas of employment, income and taxation to help Canadians with disabilities overcome many barriers to inclusion. Direct program spending, tax measures, regulations, community support and of course the Canada pension plan disability program mark Canada as a global leader in supporting citizens with a disability, as well as their families.

More than one in five Canadians is affected by a disability. Some 3.6 million Canadians have a disability, while another 2.8 million act as caregivers to family members and friends with a disability or a long term health condition. As our population ages, these numbers will grow significantly since the incidence of disabilities increases in later life. Ensuring the full inclusion of Canadians with disabilities and their families is not only a socially laudable goal but increasingly an economic imperative.

Recognizing this, the Government of Canada has worked in unison with provincial and territorial governments, the voluntary and private sectors, and individual Canadians to build a comprehensive, long term strategy to fully include Canadians with disabilities in all facets of society. Strong federal-provincial-territorial relations have been the pillars of this progress, particularly in increasing employment, income and disability supports for persons with disabilities.

Canada's ministers responsible for social services continue to focus on disability as a collective priority. For its part, the Government of Canada is taking steps to ensure the full participation of people with disabilities within the federal public service. There are government-wide policies in place to create inclusive barrier-free environments.

Our goals are and have been strongly supported by the work of parliamentarians who have played a key role in enhancing the government's understanding of disability issues and informing next steps. Parliamentarians are the front line contacts and liaison between the government and the disabled communities. They are the vital advocates bringing forward the difficulties that their constituents experience. Through the work of committees, members of Parliament also help to identify solutions to these problems and work to overcome obstacles that limit the contributions of Canadians with disabilities to their communities.

In particular, the efforts and research of the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities have provided a venue that enables members of disabled communities and stakeholders to tell government what is working, what is not, and how things can be improved. This role is crucial to developing strong policies and programs.

It is largely due to past recommendations of the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons With Disabilities that the government is actively engaged in such initiatives as simplifying the application process for the Canada pension plan disability benefit; implementing automatic reinstatement whereby CPP disability beneficiaries who leave benefits to return to work can request to have their benefits restarted if they are unable to continue working due to a recurrence of their disability within two years; and improving the income tax benefits and applications processes for persons with disabilities.

Previous work and recommendations dating from 1996 by the federal task force on disability issues have also been pivotal in guiding Government of Canada actions, with the majority of its recommendations adopted in areas such as employment and community supports. Past task force advice has been vital to furthering advancements on disability issues, including the development of the pivotal federal, provincial and territorial policy framework outlined in the text “In unison” in 1998, on which we continue to base our policy approaches.

New funds and new programs resulting from these efforts have meant new opportunities for Canadians with disabilities. Individuals and their families, students, entrepreneurs, athletes and disability organizations have all benefited from these new opportunities over the past few years. These gains show tremendous progress and the great many things that parliamentarians, the Government of Canada, disability organizations and most important, persons with disabilities can achieve when we work collaboratively to improve life opportunities.

While we are making headway, there is still a long way to go to ensuring the full inclusion and equality of people with disabilities.

People of my riding of Thunder Bay--Rainy River and indeed all Canadians realize that in order to achieve full inclusion and equality, we need to remove the remaining barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from enjoying realities others take for granted. We need to ensure that the gains we have made do not make us complacent.

There are many issues remaining to be addressed. Individuals with disabilities remain among the poorest members of society. Far too many continue to face transportation, accommodation, education, employment and attitudinal barriers that prevent them from achieving their full potential. That is unacceptable to the Government of Canada and indeed to all Canadians. We certainly can and must do better.

This is not something the federal government can achieve alone, nor would it be a wise approach. No single sector has all the right answers, nor does it have the necessary resources. We need the input and support of a broad range of partners, provinces and territories, disability organizations, municipalities, communities and the voluntary and corporate sectors to move this agenda forward.

Meeting this collective challenge is essential, not only because it is the right thing to do but also because it is key to addressing many other social and economic issues. Success in addressing poverty, homelessness, economic growth, livable cities, quality health care, violence and crime, child care, strengthening aboriginal communities and seniors issues all require to a great extent the inclusion of people with disabilities.

In an aging society, renewed and concerted action on disabilities is crucial to Canada's future well-being. What is required is a policy and program approach that is citizen centred, flexible, inclusive and clearly set within a social development framework. All federal government agencies and all orders of government need to incorporate disability issues into their policy and program planning. We cannot just look at what we do under a disability banner, but rather, how we bring disability issues into all the files dominating the public agenda. This is the key to inclusion.

Action in this area must not only be a government-wide but a nation-wide priority. Revitalizing our initiatives targeted to Canadians with disabilities will require building public momentum and doing a better job of reaching out to all potential partners so that we can move simultaneously on several parallel fronts.

To do this the Government of Canada, working in partnership with the provinces and territories and the disabled community, has embarked on a process to develop a 10 year plan of action. Work is under way to refocus our efforts to foster stronger linkages with other policy priorities and to develop more effective policy and program responses that will increase the inclusion of Canadians with disabilities within the decade. This work is far from complete. We are seeking ideas and innovations from all quarters as we take on this vitally important task.

I congratulate the minister on his personal commitment to making the issues of the disabled front of mind in his department and in cabinet. Given the significance of this issue to economic growth and social cohesion, I would ask the minister to outline some of the steps he believes need to be taken to continue advancing this agenda.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the hon. member very much for laying out the circumstances and challenges so well. I know this particular area of persons with disabilities is a priority for him from the work he did formerly as the mayor of Thunder Bay and the work he continues to do in the House.

About 20 years ago the effect of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to a great extent was to remind us of the rights of everybody and to also remind us of those who are discriminated against. Twenty years ago and more, most people with disabilities lived out of sight and out of mind. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms helped to move people from out of mind to in mind. What we need to do is to move people with disabilities from back of mind to front of mind in all of the things we do.

The first step is to build on strong foundations. It will mean working closely, as the hon. member mentioned, with provincial and territorial partners and focusing our existing federal-provincial-territorial processes and relations on developing key elements of that 10 year action plan. It will mean making even stronger links with people in the disabled community and making them real partners in developing a plan.

We will also work to address what is generally recognized as a very serious deficiency, the lack of widespread access to technical aids and devices, personal assistive services and other such supports.

It will be critical to explore innovative improvements to the employment and income situation of persons with disabilities, particularly with regard to developing corporate employer strategies. It will be important to make it clear that disability is a core social issue which plays out on so many policy fronts: poverty, employment, learning, housing and transportation, to name just a few. As a consequence it means making disability a Government of Canada issue, one which all federal departments and agencies make a core priority.

I am also committed to work with my colleagues to establish the Government of Canada more and more as a model employer for persons with disabilities and in helping to ensure that high quality service is provided to persons with disabilities.

It is essential that we move forward on developing a broader and deeper public understanding of the growing significance and relevance of disability issues to all Canadians.

We as a country must be prepared to address the looming demographic reality of an aging population. Science and medicine are making it possible for more and more people of all ages to live longer with a disability and to live more productively, rewardingly, satisfyingly and inclusively with that disability.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time this evening with the member for Nepean—Carleton.

I want to jump to some questions for the minister. I want to talk to him specifically about certain forms of discrimination that maybe he has not taken into account in his bureaucratic babysitting program. These hastily announced spending initiatives do not take into account the needs of rural based families. Most of the money, actually I think all of the money, is going to urban based institutionalized day care. Rural families, who count on informal and seasonal day care arrangements and who do not have access to urban programs, are left out of this.

Could the minister tell me why he is creating a system that provides rural parents with no support for their own child care choices?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

First of all, Mr. Chair, that is incorrect. As recently as about two weeks ago we made our announcement in Newfoundland. We made it outside Gander in the village of Glenwood, which has a child care centre.

This whole program is focused on providing service and possibility for children wherever they reside. It means that in smaller places it is more of a challenge, but just as with education, one does not stop attempting to meet that challenge. One works that much harder to try to provide the answer for rural communities as well as urban communities.

There has never been an approach that is particularly urban about this. There has not been and there will not be. This is an early learning and child care system for across the country. “Across the country” means big places and it means small places.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

He may have brought a press conference to a small town, Mr. Chair, but he is certainly not providing any sort of support for rural parents across the country for their own child care choices.

There is a statistic out there which says that less than 10% of parents in Saskatchewan choose to send their children to institutional day care. Right now they are choosing to use other forms: family based day care, neighbourhood nannies or faith based day care. Why does the minister want the 90% of parents who do not want to send their children to a bureaucratic system to have to pay twice, once for their preferred choice and once for the scheme that the minister wants to impose on them?

This is not about choosing ice cream flavours. It is about choosing what is best for their own children. We know the statistics show that the vast majority of Canadian parents want the ability to provide their own forms of day care and have their own preferred choice, not the one size fits all program that the minister is imposing.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, most of the question that was asked has been answered several times earlier in the evening for others who were here. The point is just wrong. One need only to have been present for the child care announcement in Regina to see the reaction of those in the room and to see the reaction of the minister and the premier and hear them talk about how important all of this will be to early learning and child care in the province.

I do not know the exact numbers in terms of what the money will represent to Saskatchewan, but it will mean something close to double what it is they spend up to now in terms of early learning and child care. It will be pretty much doubling what they do right now. That is the kind of possibility and impact that this will have for the whole province of Saskatchewan.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Chair, I would like to make sure I understand that. He does not know where the money is going, but he knows he doubled it and therefore it must be a good thing. That is such a typical Liberal attitude toward things. If there is a problem, the Liberals throw money at it. If the problem is still there, they throw more money at it.

It is not the money we are talking about. I am sure the bureaucrats in the room and the provincial premier from the socialist party were very happy about it. I am talking about the parents who choose other forms of day care. I am not talking about bureaucrats in the department but parents who have children and are facing that challenge themselves. Where is the choice for them?

Why are they being asked to support both the minister's scheme and their own choice when they feel the minister's scheme does not address their own particular needs or that they can best provide the service themselves and can better educate their children themselves or perhaps through a family member or a member of a faith based group or a community association? Where do they fit into this one size fits all approach?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, all the people the hon. member mentioned still have all of those options. One of the options that they do not have very much of now, which is the real shame of it, is regulated care. They do not have the option of high quality care. They do not have the option of inclusive care. They do not have nearly to the extent they would like the availability of affordable care.

What we are looking to do is provide real choice, real choice where somebody can decide on the forms of child care that the hon. member is suggesting. That is absolutely fine. The parents can still do that. What we are looking to do is also offer them the possibility of something which is that much more developmental, of that much higher a quality and that much more affordable.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Chair, I have heard a lot of insulting things in my short time here, but I have never heard something quite that insulting. Is the minister saying that parents who choose to raise their children themselves and provide that early learning themselves do not provide quality care? Is he saying that family members or faith based groups or neighbourhood associations that provide that early learning and child care do not provide quality care?

Do they need to have some certificate from the minister to be able to provide early learning? Are stay at home parents who choose to teach their own children inferior to a bureaucratic scheme dreamed up by this minister? That is unbelievable.

I challenge the minister to talk to the thousands of people who have contacted my office and who provide that early learning childhood care to their own children or their neighbour's children. I challenge the minister to tell them that they do not provide high quality care and to tell them that their level of care is inferior to that of bureaucrats in the minister's office.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member has talked about his short experience within the House. One of the things that is so remarkable about that same short experience in the House is how somebody in the House is able, apparently, to say whatever it is he says one has said even if one did not say it. If they repeat it with words which suggest that kind of outrage, in fact, somehow it is as if one has said it. Of course it was never said. It was never said and never will be said because it is not believed.

Again, all one can say is that if the hon. member had been here earlier he would have heard how in fact, as all of us know, that central relationship, the central source of development and learning in any child's life, is that with the parent. The question is in terms of today's life where in fact the great majority of parents are both in the workplace and have their children in care of some form or another. The question is, what kind of care? What are the options? What are the choices?

What is offered by our program of $5 billion over five years on the way to the creation of a system is something that is of higher quality than the kind of day care that is offered in general now. There are a lot of good places, but in general the intent is to raise the level of that system and raise the level of the experience of those children.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, let us be honest. What the minister is talking about is a $10 billion to $12 billion day care bureaucracy, which will mean higher taxes for families and few choices for parents.

The minister is not being honest about the full cost of his program. In fact, all the groups that support this day care bureaucracy say that it will cost in the neighbourhood of $10 billion to $12 billion.

The New Democratic Party has said in this House of Commons, and this is the party that wrote the latest budget, that it will cost at least $10 billion.

The major groups that have researched and support the minister's day care bureaucracy say it will cost $10 billion to $12 billion.

Yet he is trying to convince the Canadian people that it will only cost $1 billion per year. Why is the minister hiding approximately $10 billion in real costs to taxpayers for his program?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, what I have said consistently from the beginning is that the promise made in the campaign last year was for $5 billion over five years in order to help build an early learning and child care system. It was never expected that $5 billion over five years would end up being able to create an early learning and child care system.

As I have said repeatedly, as the hon. member would know, in terms of the way in which a health care system is created or an education system is created, at any particular moment when those are in their formative stages we do not know what our ambitions, desires and hopes are going to be for that education or health care system.

Nobody would have guessed a hundred years ago that our education system would be something wherein it is understood that high school graduation is basically for everybody, or that there would be colleges or universities of the numbers and dimensions that exist. Forty years ago, nobody would have believed us about a health care system with the kind of ambition that we have.

What happened over time is that people decided for themselves what was important and what was not. In the future, people will decide how important early learning and child care is for them.