Debates of May 4th, 2006

Opposition Motion—Child Care

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when we the comments of the experts who looked at the old Liberal plan, most of them agreed a number of groups were missed in that plan. This is the plan that was never delivered. This is the plan that was announced just before an election. The Liberals tried to make it look as if they were going to finally delivery a universal child care program, after 13 years.

The former government could not give a universal child care program to rural Canada. It did not have the infrastructure. It did not have the people who would be able to put in place a plan that would affect small communities. I have towns, villages and hamlets in my constituency in which a couple of hundred people live. Every expert recognized that most of rural Canada would not benefit from the Liberal-NDP plan.

Most experts also recognized that the Liberal plan was a nine to five program. It would not have benefited the shift worker. It would not have benefited the single mother who was working odd shifts and needed a day care, or a grandmother, or an aunt, or someone to look after that child in the evenings while she was at work.

I referenced the Vanier Institute report. It made it very clear that in one-third of the families, a parent looked after the children, one-third of families used an outside relative or someone in a home and one-third used day care. I did not say those day care centres would close down. I simply said that some of those day cares may not qualify under that former government's program.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that contrary to what the hon. member said in his statement, 64% of Quebeckers and Canadians did not vote in favour of this program. Neither women nor families want this program. It is not fair to poor families. The allowance under this program is taxable. It is not normal that in wanting to help people we are making them poorer than they were before.

If the hon. member does not realize that political arrogance is very dangerous then I have news for him. It does not work. They absolutely have to realize that this is a bad program. They have to show a little humility and accept that 64% of Quebeckers and Canadians are opposed to it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The time is up. There was no question. It was a free statement. The hon. member for Beaches—East York on debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for West Nova.

The government keeps referring to the $1,200 allowance as universal child care and as giving choices to parents. Let us look at the facts and make a proper distinction between income support and child care. That $1,200 is a family allowance, not a child care plan and as a family allowance, it is fine.

Let me take a moment to put this in a historical context. In 1997 the Liberal government established the child tax credit with the child benefit supplement and young child supplement. The most effective weapon we have had to fight poverty in this country is the child tax benefit. Experts believe that the benefit has reduced child poverty by approximately 26%.

The research shows that the child tax credit should also be increased to about $4,900. As $1,200 is not a child care plan and gives no choice, it should be added to the child tax credit base as income support for families. All families would receive the $1,200 and that would make a great deal more sense. This would make a true family allowance to all families as well as stay at home moms and working mothers. But the Conservative government is so mean-spirited that it has actually decided to hurt low and modest income families. The Conservatives are cutting the young child supplement portion of the child tax benefit. This means that many families, most with low or modest income, will lose $249 right off the top, reducing the child care benefit to $951.

The child care allowance treats some families better than others even though they have the same net income and the same number and age of children. Because the benefit is taxable in the hands of the lowest income earner, single parents and two-earner families are going to lose out.

Two-earner couples will lose a significant portion of the benefit to income taxes, but still not as much as single parents. Single parents in the $30,000 to $40,000 income range will lose on average close to $400 of the benefit in taxes. If this is added to the $249 they will lose because of the elimination of the young child supplement, these families will be left with only about $550 of the $1,200 benefit, less than half of the benefit that some other families will be receiving. This is unacceptable.

What the government is basically doing is choosing which type of families it prefers and which type of families it does not. It is not giving choices at all to families and is penalizing choices that families are actually making about themselves.

[An hon. member]

That is what your plan did.

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

No, that is what you are doing.

Mr. Speaker, early education in child care is both a child development program and a child care program. We are talking about a quality developmental program. We are talking about well trained and well paid professionals who are respected. We are talking about an affordable program, a program that is accessible, that is inclusive of special needs children, autistic children and other children.

Even families which can well afford it and have a stay at home parent will have their child start in the Montessori program because they want to give their child the best start in life that they can. The early education and care program does that for all children. This is what we are talking about. We are not talking about some strange out of the way thing.

In addition to the national child care plan and the child tax credit which we started in this country, in 2000 we also started the early years program, the best start program. In my riding of Beaches—East York the stay at home parents have said to me many times that this is a wonderful program for their children and they use it quite often.

Again I go back to choices. I keep hearing from the opposite side about how the $1,200 gives choices. If there are no spaces to choose from, there is no choice whatsoever. The money that parents receive is not enough to pay the full amount that is charged in child care, and therefore, there are no choices. This program is not going to be delivered by the federal government. It is not an institution. It is delivered by communities. Most of the programs in my riding are community based and are delivered by not for profit organizations.

The program in rural Canada, again through the provinces and municipalities, would have given the choice to however small the community to develop its own program, whether it be for 3, 5, 10 or 15 children. It would have given every child in rural and urban Canada a best start. This is what this is about.

The Conservatives say that a measly $100 a month, which is also taxed, gives choices to families. It does not create spaces. It does not provide quality. It does not provide development. It is not an inclusive program for special needs kids. It really does not give choice.

The Conservatives keep saying that business will create the rest of the spaces in child care. Yet the Minister of Finance, who was the minister of finance in Ontario as a matter of fact, knows full well that it does not work. He was there. He knows. He knows that Harris tried it and it did not work. He knows that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has already said no because small and medium businesses cannot afford it and will not do it.

After listening to all of the people, businesses and others say it does not work, my conclusion is that the government is really not interested in child care and it is all rhetoric. If the government were interested, it would not go in the direction that it is going and it would apply the $1,200 as a family allowance and then create a proper child care program.

The city of Toronto will lose 6,000 spaces. This means that in Beaches—East York families will suffer. The United Way of Greater Toronto did a study of communities at risk called “Poverty by Postal Code”. In my riding of Beaches—East York there are two areas identified as communities at risk. These families will lose the young child supplement, pay increased taxes as a result of higher brackets, receive few benefits from the GST, and receive a small amount from the $1,200, as I have said, only about $500. And there is no child care on top of that. These families need assistance and they need it now. They need the full amount of $1,200 and proper child care. It is mean-spirited to take it away from them. These families need child care.

Will the government give the young child supplement back to the families of Beaches—East York? Will it amend the child tax credit? Will it make the $1,200 allowance exempt from income taxes? Will it add the $1,200 to the base benefit of the Canada child tax benefit? The result would be that everyone would receive a full $1,200, up to a net family income of $112,000, and it would then be indexed after that.

A fair way of dealing with it is to add it to the child tax credit. If the government would do that, it would actually help many families a great deal more. It would address the issue of child poverty, as well as the issue of child care by investing properly and respecting the agreement that was made by the Government of Canada with all the provinces and territories and putting in multi-year funding for child care.

I do not think we have a choice in this matter. It is important that children in this country have a proper, valuable best start in our society. It is about recognizing and respecting families and allowing them to make their own choices. By providing a family allowance that is not taxed and by providing a universal child care program that is accessible and affordable, it gives all parents, regardless of the type of family in which the children live, a proper choice.

I keep hearing comments from the members across the way who say that the Liberals were going to do something strange with the children, that we were going to put them in institutions. The children will be in community organizations and programs. The program was not going to be run by the Government of Canada. It was an agreement with all the provinces in partnership with municipalities, not for profit organizations and school boards. It would also address the issue of children over six. What do we do with children over six?

The Conservative plan is not a plan at all. It helps no one. What I find most offensive is that the government is pitting one family against another and that is totally unacceptable. All children in society, regardless of the type of family they live in, have the right to a proper start in life both in terms of income support as well as child care.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, all day I have been listening quite intently to some of the members across the way. The member was saying something which I found to be very confusing and very hypocritical. She said that our government is picking and choosing which kids should have a benefit.

I come from Oshawa. Oshawa is a very urban area. I am sure in Toronto there are shift workers. I am sure there are commuters. I am sure there are stay at home parents.

I think of one of my constituents who came up to me during the last election, a single dad named Chris who decided to work midnights because he wanted to see his kids. In talking about child care, he was very offended that his hard-earned tax dollars would be used to pay for a plan such as the one the Liberals proposed but he would get absolutely no benefit. Here is a gentleman who is working hard, doing his best to spend time with his kids whom he loves and cares for, and he would be paying for a program from which he would receive no benefits.

When the member says how hypocritical we are, what would she say to people like Chris in my community who would like to stay at home and spend the most time possible with their kids?

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

Mr. Speaker, I come from a family where my parents were working class people and they both would like to have stayed at home. I was nine years old when I was looking after my baby sisters, so I know what it is like, with all due respect. I do not need any lessons from the member opposite and I quite object to the language he is using.

I will tell him that the plan we had would have given that family income support, which his government is not doing. It is clawing back money and taxing the benefit so it does not really buy very much. At the same time, the program was to be designed and delivered by communities. It was not going to be the Government of Canada.

Nurses are shift workers. They also need assistance, absolutely. The program was designed for that as well. Otherwise, how do we deal with communities in this country? The design of the program was that it could have been at the workplace or it could have been somewhere else. It would have been done by the community. What the member was talking about, the program did not in any way eliminate that opportunity.

What the member is saying is that by giving that individual less than $100 a month, because by the time it is taxed it is a lot less, he is not able to pay anything at all and has absolutely no choice whatsoever, whereas under our program, once it was fully developed, he would have had a great many choices.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it comes as no surprise to this member to hear the government member speak about parents who would like to stay at home with their young children. I agree. That may surprise the member.

However, in the real world of work today, in most cases both parents have to work. They need affordable, licensed, not for profit child care. I think the member would agree that the government is totally out of touch with the needs of the working people of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member. As I was saying earlier, in my own riding, in the areas which have been identified by the United Way as areas at risk, one of the major needs of those families is child care so that the women can go to work. They want to go to work, and they are. However, many of them are leaving children in places that are not regulated and are not necessarily developmentally stimulative. It is not very effective and many of them are struggling terribly. They are at risk and they need assistance. They need services, but they also need child care.

I meet with the women on a regular basis. I will be meeting with them a week from this Saturday to discuss services. Child care will be on the table again as one of their requests.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for the third time today I have heard someone from that side shamelessly suggest that the Liberal program has something to do with helping parents who have kids with autism. I have a 10 year old child with autism. I have no idea how the program that the Liberals had in place was going to help parents with the $50,000 they need for ABA, for autism funding. It obviously is a provincial jurisdiction, but how does the Liberal program help kids with autism?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think I said earlier that this program was designed for what is called inclusivity of children with special needs. Some child care centres in the country do have children who are autistic and they do help. Part of the design of the program and part of the negotiations with the provinces was to ensure there were child care programs that did have those kinds of services. What I am talking about is the inclusivity of the special needs of children.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having this opportunity to address such an important issue for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and everywhere in between: preserving, safeguarding, educating and maintaining early childhood, and preparing our young children for their future as Canadians.

If there is one issue that should prompt us to set aside all partisan interests in order to properly discuss and find solutions, it is this very issue.

I would hope: that we could have a real debate on this matter; that all sides could bend a bit and perhaps compromise; that we could start by looking at the principles and then agree on what we can agree; that none of us hold the absolute mantle of being the saviours of childhood; that none of us have 100% of the answer; that none of the programs that we had as government or the programs that the current government proposes are the perfect programs, the one solution, the one and only true light that would bring us and our children to a good future in this country.

However, if we know what principles we want to achieve and if we all agree on those principles and work from there, then there is a way forward. What are the principles? Let us look at what the Conservatives are saying. They want a plan that assists families so they can choose the best course for their children. I have no qualms with that. I have no arguments with that. That is a good point.

What did we say in our plan that we negotiated with the provinces? We said that we should have a system across this country that gives parents an opportunity to have early childhood education and early childhood care for their children. I have no problem with that either and I do not think any member opposite would have any problem with that.

There are weaknesses and problems with both of those. The plans are very costly. To make them universal is very difficult. We have to negotiate with the provinces and the provinces have to work with their communities. Non-profit organizations are involved. There are problems with what the government is proposing because it does not help everybody equally. The rich get more disproportionately than the people with the highest need.

I would like to see the government change or modify its plan a bit. I would suggest, and I think everybody would agree, that the government has the right to implement the plan it ran its election campaign on. I would say that the government even has the responsibility to do that. However it should bear in mind that it did not get an absolute majority. The majority of the people who voted in this country voted for parties that had another view. They did not vote just on one issue but on a multitude of issues.

I would like to see that transfer to families done in a way that would benefit those who need it the most. I would suggest that the child tax credit would be a good way and others have made that suggestion.

What is more important to me is that the government maintain the basis of the agreement that we have reached with the provinces because it was a difficult agreement to reach. We had budgeted $5 billion toward it. The government has other priorities and maybe that $5 billion is not achievable at this time. We also said in our campaign platform that we would put another $6 billion in for the subsequent five years. Perhaps it is too early for the government to talk about that.

However if the government would look into its heart and have a true debate, we could maintain a base. In Nova Scotia it was $137 million. Maybe it has to be less. Maybe it could be $2.5 billion over five years. What it would maintain is the basis for negotiation, the basis for a program across this country that could be increased later.

The transfer to the parents could be changed later on. It could be increased or modified. It could be non-taxable if the government chooses to do that in future years. The government has that option. While it might not be perfect, it is a basis. It is a basis for looking at a way to do transfers to parents so parents can make their own choices.

Choices means options. In many parts of Canada there are no options and where there are options they are very difficult. I will give the House an example of the area where I live.

I went to villages, such as Berwick, Digby, Middleton, Yarmouth, Church Point, Meteghan, Pubnico, areas where they are developing child care. They have day care but they also have preschool education and provide assistance to families. Non-profit groups do it and they do it by going to every federal, provincial, municipal program they can getting a nickel here, a dime there, somebody to donate a building or a church group to sponsor them. They do this however they can. They have developed these places. They saw the deal that was signed between Nova Scotia and the federal government as a recognition of what they were doing and an opportunity for them to grow.

The people who work there are salaried people. Management spends more time raising money than developing programs and working with children, which is a shame. However they truly believe in what they are doing, they love what they are doing and they understand how important it is for the community.

I think it would be reasonable for us to make an investment as a society into a level of salary for those people that would be more reasonable. My mother and father started teaching school in my community under the old system of the school trustees, where the secretary of the small trustee group for the little school had to go door to door and collect the money to pay the teachers. Sometimes the teachers were paid in the spring, sometimes in the fall and sometimes 18 or 19 months of back pay would have to be paid.

At one point a decision was made in Nova Scotia that education was important so we created the consolidated school system. We tried to have the same level of education for everyone in our province. It has not been 100% successful that everyone receives the same education but it is a lot better than what we had. It goes toward the same direction. I think that is what we have to do with early childhood education and early childhood care.

I would ask the government to consider that. It has a little time. Interim agreements were signed with the provinces. The government could send a signal now that it is willing to negotiate with the provinces. I do not think that would be a retreat or anything the government should be ashamed of. I think that would be a positive step. It would mean that the Government of Canada is working, that it is listening to Canadians and that the House of Commons is doing what it should.

I know I have received many calls from constituents, as I am sure members on the government side have received calls from their constituents, saying that they want to see assistance in that area. Granted, some people do not want to use anything outside of their home and assistance to them is good.

However, where is the magic in age six? I do not understand that. Why does it stop costing money to raise a child because he or she has reached the age of six ? If we do another calculation and it is done under the child tax credit we can get by that. We can have the children or the families with the greatest need receiving more than a family with a higher income, as the current proposal has.

Again, I come back to my opening comments that our plan was not perfect, the government's plan is not perfect but if we use the proper principles and know what we want to achieve at the end and we work toward those in cooperation, I think that can be achieved.

When I look at the entire budget and look at what is being proposed and where it is going, I have fear. I see a lot of abandoning of what we believe in. If we look at the native communities, what we see in this budget for the native communities is atrocious. This is similar to early childhood education workers. They saw a better tomorrow, saw the potential for making investments and saw a partnership with their provinces and the federal government and they are now seeing it all scrapped.

I know about the problems in rural Nova Scotia and in my immediate community, the francophone community, so I can only imagine what it must be like on isolated reserves in northern communities and how difficult it must be to maintain their languages and culture and to raise their children in their culture.

We pay a premium. I attend fundraisers at day cares and preschools in my community to raise the money that they need to exist and try to preserve the language. The rate of assimilation is incredible in the Acadian community, particularly in Nova Scotia.

I have seen the work these people do and I am aware of the potential they saw in the Canada-Nova Scotia agreement. Not only was Ottawa negotiating with the provinces, but the federal and provincial governments agreed that a special allowance was needed for official language minority communities. This meant that the difficulties and additional costs facing these communities would finally be recognized.

I therefore encourage all political parties to bend a little, to recognize the strength of all the arguments, the weaknesses of all the programs, and to come up with a solution in the best interest of our country's children.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today all questions necessary to dispose of the business of supply are deemed put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Monday, May 8, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With the indulgence of the House, I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister to act on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, explicitly created to prevent another Oka from happening.

I asked because the people of the Six Nations of the Grand River Territory found it necessary to take action due to the failure of the federal government to deal with its well researched claim to land near Caledonia.

I asked because the federal government has failed to take action on the recommendations of the royal commission. It still has not responded a decade later.

The government has not devoted enough resources to assessing, negotiating and settling claims. There was not a penny in the budget to indicate that any claims will be settled in the coming year. What is the Conservative government going to do to accelerate the settlement of claims and resolve the backlog?

The uncertainty felt by many first nations across this country is directly linked to outstanding land claims. The Six Nations is only one example, but a telling one. They have watched as surrounding communities have continued to grow right up to the boundaries of their reserve while the government drags out negotiations on Six Nations' claims.

Where are the principles the federal government uses to ensure that the honour of the Crown is upheld in all land dealings with first nations? Or is the mantra that “it is cheaper to negotiate than to settle land claims”?

Many claims take five years just to be given initial consideration. I have met with chiefs who were trained as children to negotiate land claims and they now realize they may die before there is resolution.

Testifying in front of the aboriginal affairs committee, the Indian Claims Commission said that a delay in giving a first nation a substantive answer of any kind is equal to denial of the claim. What is fair and reasonable about that?

Will the Conservatives agree to establish an independent claims tribunal that can impose settlement deadlines and/or rule on claims settlements where the federal government is unreasonably delaying negotiated settlement?

First nations and aboriginal peoples across this country are asking for something that is fair and reasonable. When will the government act?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

I intend to touch on all three topics raised in her question: the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Indian Claims Commission, and events near Caledonia, Ontario.

In the 10 years since the royal commission concluded, its report has inspired all of us who believe the federal government can do better in its efforts to support aboriginal Canadians. I cannot do justice to a five volume report in a four minute speech, but I can tell my hon. friend that I see common threads in the themes identified in the report and the priorities addressed in this week's budget.

The commissioners sought out women's perspectives and considered the needs of aboriginal youth. The hon. Minister of Finance announced $450 million in new money over two years for key priorities like aboriginal education, support for women, children and families, and on reserve housing and water.

As well, the commissioner's report specifically addressed the needs of aboriginal Canadians in urban communities and in the north. Likewise, we have also set aside $300 million for off reserve housing in the provinces and another $300 million for affordable housing in the three territories.

As for the Indian Claims Commission, the government believes that the independence of the commission is critical. We are open to new ideas that will help first nations resolve claims in a fair and efficient manner.

My hon. friend may be aware that the minister served on the commission for 10 years. He came into his new office with a clear understanding that this system is far from perfect. Our government will seek ways to improve the process and to ensure that settlements are reached on a faster basis.

Finally, we must address the events near Caledonia, Ontario. I know I can speak for each and every member of the House when I express my wish for a peaceful, honourable and long-lasting solution.

The minister has taken a number of important steps to enhance the dialogue between the Government of Ontario, Haldimand County and, of course, Six Nations members.

He appointed a fact-finder in March. He has been in constant contact with federal officials at the table, his provincial counterpart, the Hon. David Ramsay, and his cabinet colleague, the member for Haldimand--Norfolk. Yesterday, he appointed the Hon. Barbara McDougall to be the special federal representative in the talks.

Progress at the table has been promising. That progress builds on a long history of neighbourly relations between Haldimand County residents and Six Nations members. The many historic bonds between these two communities point the way toward a solution.

To bring these three separate topics together, the royal commission noted that the federal government has not always addressed aboriginal people in a just way. The Indian Claims Commission demonstrates that current systems are not always an effective expression of the government's best intentions.

However, relationships between communities, between individual Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, are strong, and that goodwill can carry us through the current challenges.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his response, but I have to say that we are looking at decade after decade of lack of action around land claims.

The litany goes on in communities across the country. There is Garden Hill, with outbreaks of tuberculosis, with 3,500 people and only 4% of the people actually having access to running water. There is Kasechewan, with another emergency crisis there, and where is the money for the funding for the housing? Now we have Caledonia, a nation of people who have waited decades for some justice in this country. Six Nations people are a peaceful people. They deserve to be recognized for the long-standing claims that they have brought to the table.

On another topic, what is the status of discussions on an alternative approach to Bill C-6, the 2003 specific claims resolution act? Is the federal government considering implementing Bill C-6 without the consent of first nations and is Parliament going to be informed of the discussions on this?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, our government is moving forward on all the issues that have been raised. We are doing so after moving through a period of 13 years of inaction. Our minister has taken the initiative in his first days in office and I am glad to be a part of the government as it is in fact moving forward on the responsibilities that have been left by the side by the previous government.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.)