House of Commons Hansard #105 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was care.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Chair, I trust the minister's next answer will be commensurate with the time it takes to ask the question. How much will it cost to fully implement his national day care bureaucracy? How much will it cost per year to fully implement that program?
Ken Dryden Liberal York Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, the answer is that no one can know, just as no one could know the cost of building a health care system, just as no one could know the cost of building an education system. Those are things that people in the future will decide for themselves, knowing all that they will know in the future, all of what their ambitions are. They will make that decision for themselves.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Chair, the truth is that the minister is hiding the true cost because he does not want to admit that this is going to cost $10 billion to $12 billion.
I will give him one last chance. He obviously has studied this issue. I imagine he has people working on it. How can we imagine that he would move in favour of a program of this enormity without having any knowledge of the entire costs to implement it?
The taxpayers of this country have a right to know what will be the cost to fully implement this massive new day care bureaucracy. I am giving him one last chance. His last answer was, “I don't know”. That is a $10 billion “I do not know”. I am giving him one more chance to come clean and be honest with the Canadian taxpayers. How much will it cost?
Ken Dryden Liberal York Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, the answer is the same no matter how many times the hon. member asks the question, just as 100 years ago no one would have known the cost of an education system, no one would have known the cost of a health care system. It is up to people to decide at any particular moment what their priorities are, what they are willing to spend. If they only want to spend $1 billion on early learning and child care five years from now, that is their choice. If they want to spend more, that is their choice.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Chair, we just extracted quite a stunning admission from the minister at this late hour. He has admitted that he has no idea of the full cost of implementing the program he sets out. It reminds us of the gun registry. It was supposed to cost a net $2 million. It cost a thousand times more than that, $2 billion to Canadian taxpayers. This program in its sheer enormity could have cost overruns that are far beyond the imagination considering that his department and his office have apparently not done the research to ascertain what it might cost three, four or five years down the road.
He said that he does not even know what it will cost. Taxpayers know that a $10 billion or $12 billion new bureaucracy will cost a lot to them. It will mean fewer dollars to make child care decisions in their homes. His program fails to provide new choices to stay at home parents or parents who use a family member or a neighbourhood based system of child care. Not only does his program fail to provide those choices, it actually takes more choices away by imposing new costs on taxpayers. Those costs will surely mean fewer dollars in the pockets of parents with which to make those choices. Not only is he failing to provide choices, he is taking choices away.
My question is very simple. This program is going to cost $10 billion to $12 billion. How will he pay for it? Will he cut health care? Will he increase taxes? Or will he run a deficit?
Ken Dryden Liberal York Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, clearly the hon. member has no sense of history at all, no sense of understanding of how a society works, no sense of understanding in terms of people's choices and what people are willing to do over time. He has no sense of history whatsoever. That is the reason one cannot answer that question, but at the same time, one does not need to answer that question because the choices will be made later.
The citizens can make their choice at any moment, three years from now or five years from now. They can decide. One has to trust the future. One has to trust people in the future. Those parents of the future might even know more than the parents of the present because they will have had five years more of learning and experience with it.
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Chair, at this late hour I am pleased to speak to this important series of estimates of a department that has significant responsibilities in the government.
It has been said that the true measure of a civilization rests upon how it cares for its vulnerable members and, by any measure, Canadians care deeply about the welfare of our fellow citizens. We understand that if we want to build strong communities, a healthy population, a dynamic economy and a more equitable society, we have to ensure Canadians have the tools and financial resources they need to achieve their full potential. We know that in supporting the disadvantaged and reducing poverty we strengthen society as a whole.
It would be hard to find a community within each of our jurisdictions that has not been touched by poverty. Poverty affects Canadians of all ages and from all parts of this country. Federal investments in people have improved and are improving standards of living. As a government, we continue to find new ways to support community driven efforts to address poverty.
For children, not being raised in poverty can mean better health, better educational opportunities, secure shelter and an overall better start to a life in which their potential at any next stage of their life can be more fully realized.
For seniors, an adequate income can contribute to a life not much different than that lived before they were seniors, a life of purpose and engagement, of contribution to family and community, and most important, one of dignity.
For people with disabilities, for aboriginal Canadians and for other vulnerable groups, escaping poverty can mean a fuller and more complete life lived.
As a result of the complex and often dynamic nature of poverty, we know that no one policy or program can respond to all the different circumstances of individuals, families and communities. We know, for example, that having a job does not necessarily mean a route out of poverty for indeed there is a significant population of working poor in Canada.
Addressing poverty requires that the federal government work with our partners, other governments, the business and voluntary sectors, communities and citizens through an integrated set of policies. This is the approach taken by the Government of Canada.
It rests on three main policy pillars: first, providing income support to families in need; second, supporting the labour market integration of working age individuals; and third, delivering benefits and services to address particular circumstances faced by some individuals, their families and their communities. Let me give the House a few examples.
A key element of our approach in tackling poverty among children is the national child benefit. A collaborative initiative between federal, provincial and territorial governments, the national child benefit, an important platform, provides income supports, programs and services for low income families with children regardless of whether the parents are in the workforce or on social assistance.
By 2007-08, the child benefits paid by the Government of Canada are projected to reach $10 billion a year. As a result, a low income family with two children will receive an annual maximum of $6,259 in child benefits.
For their part, provinces, territories and first nations reinvest a further $764.2 million in complementary benefits and services for low income families with children. These include child benefits and earned income supplements, child day care initiatives, early childhood services and children at risk services, youth initiatives and supplementary health benefits.
In April 2005, federal, provincial and territorial governments released their fifth progress report under the national child benefit showing that government investments for low income families continue to increase.
Further, the soon to be released joint evaluation of the national child benefit reinforces that it is making progress on all three of its goals: first, reducing the incidence and depth of poverty; second, promoting parents' labour force attachment by ensuring that families are better off as a result of working; and third, reducing administrative overlap.
In addition to income support, the government recognizes that other services are needed to support children from low income families. We know that good quality, affordable child care, which has certainly been the discussion of the evening, not only promotes healthy child development but is also a key factor and an important factor in a parent's ability to work.
To increase the quality of and access to child care for Canadian families, in budget 2005 the government committed $5 billion over five years to start building a system of early learning and child care in every province and territory. To date, signed agreements in principle with five provinces have been developed, the first one, I am proud to say, in the province of Manitoba.
Through the Understanding the Early Years initiative, the government supports work that helps communities understand how their young children are faring and how the provision of local services can help or hinder a child's progress. With UEY, funds are provided to support community learning and mobilization to help make children ready to learn when they enter the formal school system.
Moving from young people to the less young, Canada has a tradition of reducing poverty rates among seniors. A generation ago we introduced public pensions and old age security for our then most vulnerable citizens. Through the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, approximately $50 billion annually is paid out in direct income support to senior Canadians.
To further improve the situation of low income seniors who remain vulnerable, the 2005 budget announced increases to the guaranteed income supplement for low income seniors which will raise the GIS payments by $2.7 billion over five years.
In the last 25 years, the Government of Canada has also taken significant steps, particularly in the area of employment income and taxation, to help persons with disabilities overcome low income and other barriers to inclusion. One important example is the multilateral framework for labour market agreements for persons with disability through which the government invests $223 million annually in provincial and territorial programs to help those who are disabled. Another is the child disability benefit which helps low and modest income families with the additional costs they incur in raising a child with a disability.
Important for the city of Winnipeg, which where I am from, budget 2004 announced the doubling of funding for the urban aboriginal strategy to $50 million so that more communities can provide programs that address the challenges and priorities of aboriginal people living off the reserve, and to provide coherence and congruency so that departments speak to each other and jurisdictions cooperate.
Through the aboriginal human resource development agreements, which is another important initiative for my city, the Government of Canada provides funding of $1.6 billion over five years to enable aboriginal organizations to design and deliver employment programs and services.
Budget 2005 also announced $398 million over five years to help newcomers better integrate into Canada.
The government also delivers benefits and services to address the challenges faced by individuals and their families at the greatest risk of exclusion. The Government of Canada has committed $1.1 billion for the affordable housing initiative which works in partnership with provinces and territories. As well, the government has committed more than $500 million for housing renovation programs to help low income housing residents with critical repair needs.
The national homelessness initiative has received over $1 billion in funding to support community driven solutions to help alleviate homelessness.
In addition, community based efforts, such as those focused on Canada's social economy, are playing an important part.
Finally, we know that the key to any solution to poverty is an economy that creates jobs supported by a skilled workforce. Therefore as a government we are continuing to foster a climate of economic help that extends to all citizens.
How effective has this approach been? There can be no debate that measurable progress has indeed been made. Take the example of our seniors. In 1980, 21.3% of Canadian seniors were below Statistics Canada's after tax low income cut-off. By 2003 the number had fallen to 6.8%.
Experts have confirmed that this substantial drop can be largely attributed to the maturation of our public retirement income system.
Low income rates for Canada's children have also fallen from 18.6% in 1996 to 12.4% in 2003. The national child benefit has played a significant role in this trend. Rising federal investment levels mean the national child benefit will continue to help prevent and reduce child poverty. The $5 billion over five years committed by the Government of Canada for early learning and child care should also provide a substantial benefit in the development of our children.
Much has and is being done. However, in spite of all this, there is no question that much more remains to be done. Not all Canadians have benefited to the same extent and significant poverty related challenges remain.
Given the importance of this issue in supporting the social and economic inclusion of Canadians, I would like the Minister of Social Development Canada to give us his views on how the Government of Canada should move forward to further address the challenges faced by low income Canadians.
Ken Dryden Liberal York Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, as Canadians we have certain understandings about what it is to be Canadian, what we expect of and for ourselves and what we expect of and for others. We expect the opportunity of a full and rewarding life, but for some that does not happen easily. We can do more for families and children, for persons with disabilities and our most vulnerable seniors, for aboriginal Canadians and for recent immigrants.
Despite the economic gains we have made over the last decade, many of our fellow Canadians remain in need. Many, whether holding a full time job or never able to work at all, struggle to make ends meet every day, so where can we go from here?
Almost 10 years ago our nation came to an important consensus that helping families with children was a top priority, and from that consensus of government, citizens, communities and businesses alike was born the national child benefit, what has been described as the most important development in social policy since medicare.
Every year we provide income support to help 2.7 million Canadians and 1.5 million Canadian families, yet even with the NCB, even as we continue to put in place the conditions necessary to improve a child's standard of living and their readiness to learn and develop, to provide safe and strong communities, affordable housing, a sustainable and responsive health care system, and jobs and income supports for their parents, too many children live in low income circumstances.
This spring, federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for social services have released or will release three key documents with respect to the national child benefit. In April it was progress report 2003. In the coming days we will be releasing the summary report of the first evaluation of the national child benefit. In June we will release the latest NCB impact analysis. Together, these documents will provide a good indication of the progress we are making in addressing child poverty.
A recent UNICEF report, entitled “Child Poverty in Rich Countries”, pointed out that many European nations began their increased individual attention on poverty generally by building a consensus among citizens, communities, the business and voluntary sectors and politicians to determine just what poverty is and how it should be measured. Only then, they realized, could they set up understandable and accepted targets, and only with targets could they generate the necessary focus and will that might generate the right results.
In Canada we have a host of measures for low income that are used too selectively and often opportunistically by governments, advocacy groups and academics, depending on the message each wants to deliver. Collectively, these measures make relative success or failure less clear. They make accountability easier to avoid.
Social Development Canada is at the forefront of Canadian social policy. I want to generate a discussion with governments, communities, the business and voluntary sectors and with the public in general about poverty, about how it is best understood and measured, about what priorities we should have and about what targets we should set. I look forward to initiating this discussion in the near future.
Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Chair
It being 10:36 p.m. all votes are deemed reported pursuant to Standing Order 81(4).
(All Human Resources Development (Social Development) votes reported).
Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)
The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 10:37 p.m.)