Debates of June 20th, 2005

Child Care

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we should have known that not passing the budget would not stop announcements but passing it will not guarantee any results.

At best, the minister's plan to give all the money to bureaucrats and advocates will benefit a tiny group of children. It will leave most parents behind, including, obviously, those who work shift work, and those who use non-institutional options.

Why not give at least some of the $5 billion to parents and children themselves, as New Brunswick proposes to do?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, Minister of Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I need to remind the hon. member that a year ago, at this particular stage, early learning and child care in this country was fairly static. During the election campaign, the government decided to make a campaign promise of $5 billion over five years.

The party on the other side of the House made a campaign commitment that would result in an increase of about $320 per child per low income family. That is the difference between these two parties.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the difference is that parents so far have not seen anything from the government and from this party they would have seen something by now.

Parents and the provinces want to be able to decide which child care system suits them best. With regard to the child care model that the minister wants to impose, Bernard Lord, the Premier of New Brunswick, said that he did not appreciate the federal government dictating what the province had to do.

Why is the minister continuing to ignore the provinces' demands for greater flexibility?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, Minister of Social Development]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the question.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are over 30,000 children waiting for child care in Quebec. It is clear that Canadian parents simply need more money in order to have choices.

A Conservative government would provide significant cash subsidies, directly, for each Canadian child, no matter how much their parents make. That way, the parents could have the child care services they choose.

When will the Prime Minister recognize that all parents want choice?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, Minister of Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, those of us on this side of the House very much welcome the comments that are being made from that side of the House.

The difference, however, is that we have not heard anything more than a suggestion that something will be forthcoming. However, nothing has been forthcoming and therefore it is not possible to comment on what is being suggested.

What we know is that this government has committed $5 billion over five years, a 48% commitment, which is an increase on what is currently being spent.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Montreal Gazette said that a Liberal one size fits all day care plan was unfair and discriminated against shift workers, people who live in rural areas and stay at home parents.

A Margaret Wente article in Reader's Digest said that the Liberal day care program would not help poor children. We have been arguing this for months. Instead of putting the money into a program that only benefits some, we would give money to every Canadian child.

When will the Prime Minister stop supporting a program that discriminates against so many families?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, Minister of Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I might remind the hon. member, in terms of the comments she made about rural and remote child care, that the province of Saskatchewan by the third year will have an increase of 95% on what it is that is currently available for child care within the province from governments; the province of Manitoba, 48%; Ontario a 69% increase; the province of New Brunswick, 132%; Nova Scotia, 90%, the province of Newfoundland, 130%

Broadcasting

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, radio in the 21st century is satellite radio. On June 16, the CRTC granted three subscription radio licences without requiring sufficient French content. The Quebec culture minister as well as the record industry have denounced this decision, describing it as a threat to Quebec culture.

Does this government intend to respond to the minister and ADISQ, who are calling for it to consult with stakeholders in order to get their opinion on how much French content would be appropriate on subscription radio?

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

Mr. Speaker, these decisions will have a significant impact on the broadcasting system. These decisions can also be appealed. We know that some groups intend to do so. Accordingly, I reserve comment until later on.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while the Broadcasting Act requires Canadian and French content proportionate to demographics, the CRTC has made a decision that disregards the very intent of the law. Not only is 10% Canadian content far from enough, but 2.5% French content is totally unacceptable.

My question is for the minister. Since she is an advocate for cultural diversity, could she not take leadership and express her opinion in order to help the groups feel more confident about their appeal?

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

Mr. Speaker, we cannot be both judge and jury. We know that some groups are going to appeal the decision. Accordingly, we are reserving judgment. In the meantime, we will consider the consequences of the ruling and hear the appeal if there is one.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, enough sophistry. The decisions made today will define the way subscription radio is regulated for decades to come. So it is fundamental and vital that the government take the time needed to make the right decision.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage, in all transparency, grant the request of Quebec's culture minister, Lyne Beauchamp? She wants the federal government to do whatever it takes to better protect French content on subscription radio.

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

Mr. Speaker, here is how it works. Various groups have said they intend to appeal the decision. They have 45 days in which to do so, and we have 45 days in which to respond. As usual, we will act in accordance with our responsibilities in this matter.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a golden opportunity in broadcasting, an outstanding opportunity to protect cultural diversity.

Will the minister admit that the 2.5% share for French language satellite radio is clearly insufficient? Will she do everything in her power to correct this situation?

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

Mr. Speaker, since I have been given an opportunity to say something about cultural diversity, I am pleased to point out that 128 countries have approved the preliminary text on cultural diversity and that, last week, 60 countries maintained their support for this convention, which should be signed in October 2005.

With regard to the CRTC decision, I will accept my responsibilities. The parties have 45 days to appeal, and we have 45 days in which to respond.

Civil Marriage Act

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

We now have a majority of MPs, a majority of citizens and most courts in Canada that support equality and yet it is still not here. In fact, there does not even appear to be an end in sight to this debate.

This morning the Prime Minister indicated that he felt that ensuring that the charter of human rights was put in place, enforced and strengthened was his responsibility.

After so many years of waiting for equality, how can we know that the Prime Minister takes it seriously? What are his specific steps to bring this new law into place?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are strong and unwavering in our commitment to see Bill C-38 pass but we want to ensure that all members have the opportunity to debate it. I must say that if the opposition would stop its filibustering and obstructionism, the fact is that we could see it passed.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what does it take for the Prime Minister to finally lead on the issue? He waited for the courts. He has the courts. We have two opposition parties willing to help bring this bill through. A majority of his own caucus supports the bill. What we need is the Prime Minister to show some leadership.

Will he propose the steps necessary in this House so that this law can become law this spring and we will wait no longer?

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

Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister and this government that brought this law to the House. It is this government that continues to fight to ensure equality of rights and protection of religious freedoms. It was this government and the justice minister that provided amendments in committee to provide greater certainty with respect to religious freedoms.

Finally, I would say to the hon. member that every necessary step to ensure passage of this legislation is taking place.

National Security

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in the mid-1990s, CSIS agents estimated that Canada was losing $1 billion a month due to espionage. In the United States, with an economy 10 times our size, it was losing $2 billion a month. The Americans brought in the economic espionage act in 1996. In Canada we can only use theft over $5,000 charges and have done nothing to modernize our laws to protect Canadian corporate interests.

With an estimated 1,000 Chinese spies operating in Canada, our companies are being targeted and our economies are being hurt. What has the Prime Minister done to protect Canada's interests since this shocking information was brought to his attention?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not quite correct. In our anti-terrorism legislation, passed in December 2001, we contained amendments to the Security of Information Act which did indeed create offences and penalties for economic espionage, another example of how we are working to protect all Canadians and their interests.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it has had no impact.

Michael Juneau-Katsuya, a former head of CSIS Asia-Pacific desk, says that other than terrorism the greatest national security threat is economic and industrial espionage.

As far back as 1999, Senator Kelly argued that a special Senate report on security and intelligence said that CSIS did not have a mandate to investigate corporate espionage; spying done against Canadian companies. He warned that our advanced industrial and technological sectors made us attractive and vulnerable to spying.

When will concrete action be taken to protect Canadians from corporate espionage?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated, concrete action has been taken, which is why we have new offences and new penalties in the Security of Information Act.

Today my colleague, the Minister of Industry, will be announcing changes to the Investment Canada Act which make national security a paramount concern in decision making around foreign investment in this country.

We continue and will continue to review our laws to determine that which is needed to ensure that we are protecting all interests, including economic, of Canadians.

Technology Partnerships Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, Technology Partnerships Canada is again under scrutiny for its misuse of taxpayer dollars.

According to The Canadian Press, Industry Canada has ordered a massive audit into $490 million in handouts to dozens of technology firms. The department has already uncovered four cases where a lobbyist received more than $2 million in forbidden commissions.

Is it not true that this audit is so damning that the industry minister has had to establish a full team of audit control specialists, a damage control team, to try to assuage this audit?