Debates of June 14th, 2005

National Defence

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the specific facts of the case. As the hon. member knows, members of our forces are in the province of Ontario. When they go to a hospital or seek care outside of the facilities which we provide within the medical care of the forces, the forces pay the Ontario government for those very services. That is the way it is done and that is the way it is managed.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ever since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence told the soldiers to expect to be reimbursed for the Ontario health premium through their post living differential, they have been asking, “Where is the money?”

Why are soldiers still waiting to be compensated for a tax which even the minister himself told the House is unfair?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree that the tax is unfair. I have raised it with the minister of health for the province of Ontario. The fact of the matter is we are also advised that the tax is perfectly legal and the province of Ontario has the right to levy it. We are not going to tell our officers and our soldiers not to obey the law of Ontario. They have to pay taxes in the province of Ontario.

What we are seeking to do is work with the province of Ontario to make sure we get the best health coverage for our armed forces at an appropriate price and it is not fair for them to be taxed twice when we pay for it. I agree with that, but it is still legal and we have to deal with that situation.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite my speech on June 7 in this House, the Minister of National Defence continues to make reassuring statements about the water contamination in the town of Shannon. Yet, a troubling rate of cancer around the military base is being reported. This situation is reminiscent of the way the government handled the agent orange issue in the 1960s.

How can the Minister of National Defence claim that he is working with the community of Shannon, when he refuses to release the preliminary report that the Department of National Defence has had since February?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I have answered questions about Shannon many times. We have transferred millions of dollars to the town of Shannon. We have provided homes with safe drinking water. We are working together with the community to determine the source of the contamination. Some of it is coming from our base, but some of it is also coming from industrial sites in the region.

We are working closely with the community. First we have to determine the facts in order to establish responsibility. Nonetheless, we are being responsible. We have already provided funding and have taken action. We are continuing to act together with the community.

Canadian Heritage

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

During her visit to the annual Banff Television Festival in Alberta, the minister said that the Canadian Television Fund would again be given a $100 million envelope over the next year. She announced her intention to merge the Canadian Television Fund and Telefilm Canada boards of directors.

Can the minister tell us how these initiatives will revitalize Canadian television production and can she explain what direction she intends to give the Canadian Television Fund?

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday in Banff, we announced $100 million in funding for 2006-07. This funding will allow all the creators and producers to plan and have greater stability.

As far as the Canadian Television Fund governance is concerned, we also announced that we want to have one board of directors instead of two, with Telefilm as an administrative arm. Telefilm would be mandated by the board of directors on a contractual basis with the television board.

[The Speaker]

That concludes question period for today, but the Chair has notice of a point of order arising from question period from the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.

Points of Order

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during question period the right hon. Prime Minister cited directly from a document which he described as a letter. I would ask that the Prime Minister table that document.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the letter the hon. Prime Minister was quoting from is in just one official language. We would like to translate it into the other official language in order to table that letter in this House, as the hon. member has requested.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to accept the document in the one official language.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

I am afraid the hon. member is going to have to exhibit his usual patience.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will take whatever measures are necessary to make sure that it loses nothing in the translation.

[The Speaker]

I am sure the hon. member appreciates the fact that the Chair normally has little to do with translation; rulings, yes, but not translation.

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the points of order raised by the hon. member for Mississauga South concerning remarks made during the question periods of Friday, June 3, 2005, and Monday, June 6, 2005, by the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton about the awarding of government contracts involving a member of the other place.

I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this matter. I also wish to thank the hon. Minister for Public Works and Government Services, the hon. deputy leader of the government in the House, the hon. House leader of the official opposition, the hon. deputy House leader of the official opposition, and the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton for their comments.

In his initial intervention, the hon. member for Mississauga South stated that, in the preamble of a question posed by the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton during question period on June 3, 2005, the member had discredited the reputation of a member of the other place, made allegations of wrongdoing and attributed incorrect statements to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

The hon. member for Mississauga South suggested that the member's questions should have been ruled out of order. He also asked that the Deputy Speaker look at the evidence from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates of June 2, 2005, which he claimed showed that the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton was fully aware that the statements he made in his preambles were incorrect.

In commenting on this point of order, the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton stated that the remarks in his preambles had been based on the testimony of the hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services before the standing committee where, he claimed, the minister had admitted that section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act had been contravened by a member of the other place.

The Deputy Speaker stated that in his opinion the first question had been in order. However, he expressed concern about the hon. member's supplementary question in that it may have impugned the motives or questioned the integrity of members of this House or members of the other place. He undertook to review the supplementary question and return to the House if necessary.

On June 6, 2005, the hon. member for Mississauga South rose on a point of order following question period to protest that the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton had again asked questions which directly or indirectly attacked a member of the other place. He requested once again that I look at the transcripts of the proceedings of the standing committee.

Following interventions by the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton and the hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services, I informed the House that I did not think the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton had contravened any Standing Order in his question. I also urged the members to meet and discuss the matter and I asked all hon. members to show restraint in phrasing questions and answers. Nonetheless, I also undertook to look into the matter and report back to the House. I am now ready to deal with both complaints.

In examining these points of order, I have reviewed the questions that were asked during both question periods and I have reviewed the transcripts of the June 2, 2005 meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

The hon. member for Mississauga South argued that the questions posed by the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton contradicted the evidence given in the committee and that the member deliberately continued to impugn the motives of a member of the other place. The Chair has, of course, now looked at the Debates and at the committee evidence in dispute.

As your Speaker, I am mindful that it is a wise and longstanding practice of my predecessors not to be drawn into debate. It appears that a dispute over interpretation of events is indeed what we have here, and that is a matter of debate. I suggested when this objection was raised with me that “if the members got together and looked at the transcript and figured out what language was used, it might temper the questions and the answers in future which would make it easier for all hon. members, not just the Speaker”.

Having now had an opportunity to review all the evidence, I realize this suggestion can only be helpful when members' exchanges are made in good faith, in the interests of bringing the facts of the situation to light. The suggestion falls on deaf ears when such exchanges are instead a continual and arguably disingenuous repetition of selected quotations. This sort of exchange does little to raise the level of debate or enlighten the House.

In the circumstances, then, as I have noted in the past, when the House is faced with two different interpretations of events, it is not up to the Speaker to determine which is correct.

However, I have also reviewed the supplementary question put by the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton on June 3. His suggestion that the contract in question was “a dirty deal” impugns motives and is indeed out of order.

I also want to take this opportunity to remind all hon. members that Standing Order 18 prohibits disrespectful reflections on members of this place as well as on members of the other place. As is stated at page 522 of Marleau and Montpetit:

References to Senate debates and proceedings are discouraged and it is out of order to question a Senator's integrity, honesty or character. This “prevents fruitless arguments between Members of two distinct bodies who are unable to reply to each other, and guards against recrimination and offensive language in the absence of the other party.”

In addition, the House will note that while the remarks on June 6 may not have contravened the Standing Orders, they did lead to disorder in the House. That is unacceptable under our practice.

In conclusion, I would like to comment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton, who indicated in his intervention on the point of order that he had prior consultations with the Clerk of the House about his questions. I would like to caution the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton, and indeed all hon. members, to refrain from referring to private consultations they may have had with the Chair or the Table.

Ultimately, such consultations are intended to assist members, not to prejudge a future situation. For example, in judging the language that an hon. member might use, the Chair must be guided not just by vocabulary. A myriad of factors must be considered: context and tone, circumstances and the reaction of the House. The very same words that will be intended and heard as a witticism in one instance may be seen as a grave insult in other circumstances. The Chair and the Table try to be helpful to all hon. members, but an atmosphere of trust and confidentiality works both ways.

Finally, let me just say that the right of members to seek information from the government and the right to hold the ministry accountable are recognized as two of the fundamental principles of parliamentary government, principally exercised through the asking of questions in the House. The importance of question period in our system is undeniable. However, all hon. members must walk a fine line between holding the government and its members to account and attacks on the conduct of individuals, including those who are members of the other place.

Canadians will judge all of us and the House of Commons as a whole on what they see of us on television and how they see us working. I would urge all hon. members to remember that in all their exchanges in the House but especially in question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to respond to the Conservative Party motion, which reads as follows:

That the government recognize that its current child care proposals create a two-tier child care system because: (a) the government ignores the fact that each province is unique and faces different challenges with regard to assisting families in finding and providing child care; and (b) the federal government is discriminating against families who choose to stay at home or find care outside of a publicly funded system or work shift-work, or who are on a low income.

What the Conservative Party is proposing today is to not establish a public child care system. This is a very dangerous direction to take. The Conservative Party is also criticizing the national child care program that the new Minister of Social Development wants to implement.

We are opposed to the political line of the Conservative Party because it overlooks a number of realities. A Conservative member did attempt this morning to set out her party's vision of the support that should be provided to child care centres. The Conservative Party wants us to recognize the needs of low income families and to give them some elbow room.

Does the Conservative Party think that it is being realistic? Without a structured child care system, many parents will have no alternative. That is why Quebec has put in place a structured day care system, with professional educators. This system was established back in 1997 in Quebec and very rapidly generated enthusiasm for a system capable of meeting diverse needs.

Granted, this system does not meet every need, but we have to recognize that Quebec has nearly 179,000 day care spaces. There are therefore many spaces available for the children of working parents. There is much talk of to responding to this century's new reality. More often than not, this reality includes two working parents. Many parents who cannot afford to spend $25 a day on day care cannot enter the labour force. This was the reality in Quebec. Parents did not waste any time registering their children to ensure they would have a space. The 200,000-space target has not yet been achieved, but hopefully it will be achieved by 2006.

As for the families with children aged 0 to 5, Quebec proceeded by making choices. The youngest, those under 1 year of age, will be the last ones accepted by the early child care centres. Our approach was by age group, so as to allow the greatest number of children to have access, since we could not offer all these spaces.

The Liberal government has set itself too big a task. The Bloc Québécois might make this criticism: this money does not take into consideration the needs presented by all provinces nor the related conditions. We know that the federal government has a tendency to be extremely centralist and to impose blanket conditions on all provinces. Our fear is that the realities of the different provinces will not be taken into consideration.

Quebec has therefore asked that there be no strings attached. I would also like to raise another possible criticism. Since 1997, when families take advantage of $5 child care, they no longer have access to tax credits. As a result, there has been $1 billion in the federal government coffers since 1997.

So it is obvious that the great gift we are being offered by the federal government is its desire to impose conditions on Quebec. That does not hold water. Quebec has in fact bought most of its gift with its own money, by not getting tax credits back from the federal government. At the same time, the federal government wants to impose its criteria and conditions on the Government of Quebec. Besides, we ought to have been paid for having provided the federal government with this application of a child care system.

Beginning in 1997, it was a very ambitious project. The minister responsible for this file for the Government of Quebec was Ms. Marois under the leadership of Mr. Bouchard, who was the premier at the time. An economic summit had been held in Quebec and all the social and economic stakeholders contributed to the thought process resulting in this policy to introduce a day care system. Families were also asked to contribute—actually they sit on many boards—so that they could be asked for advice and recommendations on what a day care system should be in the CPEs, or early years centres.

We do not agree at all with the path that the Conservative Party is indicating to us today. It would be a mess insofar as support for families is concerned, for mothers and fathers who want to return to the work force or keep their job after having children.

The Government of Quebec's objective was to help women return to the work force. The provinces will be able to decide what they want to do in order to receive the money from the federal government. Insofar as Quebec is concerned, there is no doubt that the day care system, the CPEs and family day care are meeting a real need.

If we were to opt for what the Conservative Party is offering today, it would be tremendously expensive for all taxpayers. Economists have made criticisms to this effect in the Toronto Star. For the guidance of the Conservative party, I would like to remind them of this.

They mentioned some surveys to the effect that all families would prefer to have contributions so that they could stay at home and take care of their children rather than joining the work force. The families were supposedly not really given a choice. Instituting a policy like this to help families that want to stay home and take care of their children would be less expensive.

I have contrary opinions from two critics who argued against the Conservative Party's vision. Gordon Cleveland and Michael Krashinsky, who are economists at the University of Toronto, sounded their warnings about this view of things.

They say that the Conservative Party's new policy plank on child care is likely to be confused, facing all directions at once. The authors show why the Conservative Party's proposal would not work and would even be more costly than a public day care system. They have reservations, therefore, about this day care policy of the Conservative Party of Canada.

They say the Conservative Party has never found it easy to come up with a policy on child care. They say as well that the Conservative party's new policy would go off in all directions.

So, subsidizing stay at home parents is not the solution, according to the two authors. The cost would be far too high. They even talk of costly losses for the economy. Some $83 billion a year would be given to parents staying home full time during their children's preschool years. It would cost billions of dollars.

If this option were chosen, what would happen to the other parents, who want to return to the labour market and keep their jobs? There would be no solution for them.

Should one parent want to stay home for a while, but return to the job market later, and there are no spots in the day care system, then what happens? The system is very costly. In Quebec it has already cost $1.7 billion to set it up. What will happen to the other provinces that do not seem to be in a hurry to implement this child care system?

It has to be said: setting up a child care system is the responsibility of the provinces. That will be the issue for all the provinces. Will they decide to put a day care system in place with minimal support from the federal government? There will be a lot of pressure for the provinces to contribute more than the federal government is offering.

It is offering $5 billion over five years, at best. In the case of Quebec, then, it means some $100 million. Very little—over five years—compared with Quebec's investment of some $1.7 billion for the current fiscal year.

It would mean significant losses for the economy. If the Conservative Party proposal of parents remaining at home full time during their children's preschool years, the cost would be far greater than a system comparable to what exists in Quebec. This one is high quality.

There was also the issue of the objectives regarding the set up of child care system supervised by trained personnel. It would enable children from disadvantaged situations to mix with children from elsewhere in different surroundings in order to prepare them for school and improve their performance. Thus, these children could be stimulated through the environment created in a child care facility.

That is what the Conservative Party rejected. It is unrealistic to think that a supervised child care system can be maintained in a family setting or in early childhood centres at the same time that parents are enabled to stay home to care for their children.

Quebec has adopted an integrated policy. Not only does it have $7 child care, it has other policies to help families, such as the parental leave program, too. The Quebec government designed and implemented this initiative. Maternity leave is among the many other initiatives that the Quebec government wants to implement in order to help families.

As a result, we can offer other, realistic solutions to parents who want to work. This does not mean that the system cannot be improved or that other benefits should not be included. For example, some parents have atypical jobs and work in the evening. The previous Quebec government wanted to provide services to more people. We started by providing services for older children, and then we opened them to children aged 0 to 1 year. That way, more children could be served.

The Quebec government wanted to structure its low-cost child care services in such a way as to help the people eligible for these services, instead of leaving them no choice but to pay $25 per child per day.

The Conservative Party has criticized the adoption of this system. It would prefer to help women who want to stay at home get paid for taking care of their children. However, adopting such an initiative would deprive the public of all other programs. The provincial governments would no longer have any funds to contribute to other programs that could help families facing different realities.

Another criticism is that this system is designed for urban centres and not rural regions, and that the Quebec model leaves a number of families hanging. In Quebec, we are trying to consider all these realities. That is why we are also offering home-based child care, which is more flexible. This kind of child care can be organized anywhere, since it is more flexible, and puts more importance on proximity to the child care centre.

Is the program the Conservative party is offering today inclusive? In my view and in the view of a number of observers, it is false to claim that this would be a more inclusive system. It would be better, of course, to recognize the needs of all families, but on the other hand, there would not be a day care system for the other families. It is said that the money would go into the parents' pockets. But the objective of the $7 day care program—which actually cost $5 at the time of the Parti Québécois government but was increased by $2 under the Liberal Party of Quebec—was also to provide a stimulating environment for children, a more proactive arrangement based on preschool learning. That cannot be forgotten. That is one of the objectives of the early childhood centres and family centres. The teachers are trained to provide this environment for children. We must therefore keep this objective in mind and not lose sight of it. The Quebec model can certainly be improved, although it has tried to respond to all the various realities.

If we meet the Conservative Party's objective of some level of universality, how could we offer a universal program when all the money for the program would just go into the parents' pockets? In addition, how could the system be quantified or described? I am not saying that it would be impossible to do so for the families that want it. But it is much easier to follow the measurable changes in the children in an early childhood centre.

Five billion dollars is not enough. The Liberal Party may have a laudable objective, but they will not be able to achieve it. Pressure will also be put on the provinces. In the meantime, they will not be dealing with the fiscal imbalance.

The new Minister of Social Development is practising infringement on provincial jurisdictions by imposing rigid conditions that fail to take the differing realities of the provinces into account. Instead of talking about provincial jurisdictions, the government talks about the uniqiueness of each province. Maybe it is less appealing.

Just today I asked the Minister of Social Development to answer the same question that was asked of three ministers in his government during the election campaign. In response to a question asked by a journalist or in an interview, they said that there would not be any conditions attached to this new program. The minister, for his part, answered that there would not be any penalties and the particularities of the provinces would be respected. Well, the Bloc Québécois demands more than that from the Liberal government. It wants an answer to the following question: Will there be conditions attached to this new program from the Liberal Party of Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. I have had the pleasure and the honour of working with her on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I know we share the same opinions on creation of a system, but not where the national level is concerned. That is understandable, however. I come from the province of Quebec, where we already have a system in place, and I think she made it clear what that system was and what its benefits were for Quebec families and children.

I would like her to give a bit more detail on two points. First of all, since we are a national government, we have a national vision. She does not share that opinion, but it is nevertheless our responsibility to sit down and negotiate with the provinces. We are in the process of negotiating with Quebec and I feel that these negotiations must be respected and must continue.

Second, I would like to know whether she shares the opinion of our Conservative colleagues who presented this motion: that this is a terrible hodge-podge. Before there was just a subsidy for families, but now it is more than that. They want to respect the agreements we have already signed and perhaps also to introduce some funding for families. But I do not think that it is for families like the families in need that I know, for example the single women who need to work in order to lift their families out of poverty. They need an efficient child care system and that is precisely what is available in Quebec. Quebec makes available a system that is relatively inexpensive, one that can provide children with learning and give parents the means of lifting their families out of poverty.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. In effect, the committee monitors two departments.

I will begin with the first question. Of course, negotiations can be allowed to continue. However, we have been waiting seven months. During the election campaign, we were told there would be no conditions attached to money for day care services. So, there is cause for concern.

Why is the government taking so long, when they know that five agreements have been signed outside Quebec? Perhaps the provinces agreed to the federal government's conditions.

During the election campaign, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the former Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Prime Minister told us there would be no conditions. In addition, on the eve of the election, in response to a question from a CBC journalist, the Prime Minister said there were absolutely no conditions attached to child care services. However, when they won the elections, it was a different kettle of fish.

The request is simply for there to be no conditions. That is not so hard. They should be able to sign the agreement with Quebec, without conditions. I am sure that this is the stumbling block in the negotiations with the federal government. Our role as the opposition is to remind the government of its commitments to Quebec.

As regards the second question, we cannot support the Conservative Party today, because it makes no provision for supervised and stimulating child care services. However, I have no criticism of women who want to stay home to care for their children or those who do not qualify. That is not what we are saying. That is not what I said. However, there is a need for a child care service to supervise children lacking a family setting where they can be cared for while their parents work.

Those were very creditable objectives. The Liberal government in office is drawing on Quebec's day care policy, which the OECD has praised. Without this structure in the provinces, there would be no choices to offer families.

We know that this is a very expensive plan, an $83 billion one. This does not come from me, but from economists who reviewed the proposal put forward by the Conservative Party and sharply criticized the implementation of such a policy. Indeed, it would not suit every family in Canada, in the absence of other alternatives.

There is already a shortfall. Other provinces are sadly lagging behind in providing this service to parents who are both working, as this is often the reality in many families. This service is not provided to single parents, men or women. And yet, they should be able to say, “I am going to work feeling that my child is in a safe environment, because I have decided to join the labour force”. Or should they say, “I have no one around me who can take over and offer to take care of my children”?

As I said, I am not labelling the person who might decide to stay at home to look after her children, if she can do it. As parents, we are well aware that we should ensure that our children behave properly. What we are talking about today is something different. I do not believe this solution would be fair to many parents who are in the labour force or would like to go back to school. A $7 a day system is not expensive, considering that $25 a day is too expensive for those who want to join the labour force. That was no incentive to re-entering the labour force. Moreover, in Quebec, services are provided free to underprivileged families.

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

Mr. Speaker, the child care program in Quebec is certainly the one that everyone is focused on at the moment. As she said, it is quite expensive, but if we are going to have good child care there is a cost. As many economists have said recently, for every $1 invested in early childhood development, we get $2 in return later on down the road.

I want to raise an issue that is at the forefront in Quebec at the moment and ask her what thoughts she might have on it. It concerns the program in Quebec that is delivering care to 186,000 children at $7 a day. The province has now cut $40 million from that budget. Those of us who have been looking at child care and understand the research know that quality in child care comes with paying our workers well. There is the issue of pay equity and it is causing some labour strife in Quebec.

I am wondering what comments the member might have about that and how that plays out in terms of the high quality of child care that now exists in that province.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer this question without criticizing the choices made by the current government. There are political players in Quebec who can take care of that.

This brings us back to another debate, the one on the fiscal imbalance. There is certainly pressure on the provinces to provide social programs to various clients. We know full well that less and less funding is available to the provinces. The Government of Quebec is even starting to accumulate debt. Ontario is having the same problem.

In spite of all that, the government does not want to address the fiscal imbalance. Yet, we are going to end up in this type of situation precisely because the provinces do not have enough money to contribute to social programs. I respect what has happened, but a $40 million cut to a system that is praised by a number of international observers, including OECD, is disastrous. This system brings many families out of poverty. With lower child care fees, they are able to put their children in care and find work outside the home.

As long as we do not address the fiscal imbalance, we will come up short and not have enough money, as is the case with health. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot worked on the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance. In reality, a number of policies could be implemented by the federal government to better support the provinces and prevent them from having to make these types of cuts.

We are politicians with a deep social awareness. We are rooted in our communities. The federal government's attitude leaves something to be desired. It is accumulating surpluses that will reach as high as $166 billion by 2010, because of the EI fund in particular. This money could have been used to support the provinces. Unfortunately, the federal government has missed the mark many times.

I am responding, in part, to my colleague's questions. Nevertheless, I cannot say that these cuts will result in better pay equity or better structure for child care providers. Again, just look at who is failing to support the Government of Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the opportunity today to put a few thoughts again on the record with regard to a national child care program and to say at the outset that we in the New Democratic Party disagree profoundly with the motion put forward today by the Conservatives.

We have been clear from the very beginning that we need a national child care program that is worth its salt and that actually will deliver on the principles that so many people have worked on based on research from many jurisdictions in the world. We need a national child care program that will provide a quality product for which we can all be proud and one we will speak to in the same tone as we speak today as Canadians to our health care system and our education system.

However we need to dissect the very simple approach offered by the Conservative Party in the previous federal election and over the last year, and in fact coming to the House for the second time in a matter of a month for debate.

The Conservatives' program of tax deductions for parents and their suggestion that it would somehow provide choice is actually the opposite of what would happen. Their program would not produce choice. It would limit choice. All of the experts, if we believe the experts, the research and the experience in Quebec, say that simply giving tax deductions to families does not create one new child care space. If we do not produce child care spaces, then the families in rural parts of the country, in small communities and in remote parts of the country, have no possibility of experiencing quality child care and quality early development for their children.

What the Conservatives are proposing today by way of this motion is to actually pay parents to stay home. We know that parents are already making choices and they want the government to support them in their choices. They want the opportunity to put their children in quality, safe, developmental child care spaces so they can be secure in the fact that they are taking advantage of every possibility to have their children grow, develop and become contributing citizens.

The motion today is a scheme to pay parents to stay at home but it will not create choice.

The program put forward by the government in consultation with provincial premiers goes a lot further to actually achieving a national child care program than what we are addressing here today but it does have some serious flaws. We question the government's commitment to really putting in place a program that lives up to its definition of national.

For the moment I want to focus for a second on the offering of the Conservatives. They have asked the government to cost out its program, and I agree with that. The government should be willing to tell us what it will cost and where the money will come from and it should be willing to put in place a mechanism of accountability on this. However the Conservatives did not do any analysis at all of their own proposal.

I know the figures I put forward here this afternoon will be a bit out there in terms of the extreme case scenario if what the Conservatives propose actually happens, but nevertheless we have to think about that and we have to understand how that might play out.

The idea of paying stay at home parents, at the centre of the Conservative child care policy, was recently trashed by two reputable University of Toronto economists, Gordon Cleveland and Michael Krashinsky.