Debates of May 4th, 2006

Opposition Motion--Child care

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

The safe and well chosen care of our very youngest citizens is an issue of paramount importance for governments and, indeed, for millions of Canadians. It is therefore only proper that we debate this issue in Parliament. However, I would respectfully disagree with the basic tenet of today's motion.

The role of government is not to tell Canadians how and where to raise their children. It is to ensure a range of child care options is available to them and to help them take advantage of these broadened choices. That is the underlying premise of Canada's universal child care plan, one of the new government's five key priorities.

The cornerstone of the plan is a direct benefit to parents of $1,200 a year for every child under the age of six. Combined with numerous federal supports already available to Canadian families, this universal allowance would help parents afford the child care they choose. At the same time, the plan also recognizes that many parents find their choices are constrained by the acute shortage of good day care spaces, which is why, beginning in 2007, our plan will also invest $250 million annually in the creation of 25,000 new flexible child care spaces per year.

When it comes to child care, every family in Canada has its particular needs. Nine-to-five care in a regulated day care facility is used by the families of about 15% of preschool-aged children. Over half of all the families look after the children at home by themselves, or with the help of a close relative like a grandparent. There are many other alternatives, from nursery schools to informal care at neighbours' homes.

The unfortunate truth is that many Canadians do not have a real choice in child care because there simply are not enough options available. Some families cannot afford to let one parent stay home to care for the children. Others cannot find a suitable caregiver or a day care centre without a mile-long waiting list. Indeed, statistics do tell us that there are only sufficient formal day care spaces for one in every four children up to the age of five. That is where our government and its universal child care plan will make a real and tangible difference.

Beginning in July, the parents of each of Canada's 1.2 million preschoolers will be eligible to receive $1,200 per year to offset the costs of raising a young child. The money is there for the child who stays at home to be raised by mom or dad, or for the child cared for by someone else at home or perhaps a neighbour down the street, or for the child who does attend a day care. Whether the funds are used for books, musical instruments, enrolment fees at a nursery school or to boost a child's registered education savings plan, the choice would be made by the experts: the parents themselves.

I also want to underline that the universal child care benefit comes on top of the $13 billion a year that the government already invests in other supports for children and families. These include the Canada child tax benefit, the child disability benefit, the national child benefit supplement, the child care expense deduction, extended parental leave provisions and the Canada learning bond.

All that said, we also recognize that some people's options are limited by factors beyond their control. The shortage of day care spaces, for instance, is a legitimate concern. It restricts the choices of people living in big cities, as well as those in rural and remote parts of Canada. It is another concern that our universal child care plan seeks to address.

Beginning in 2007, in collaboration with provinces and territories, employers, community groups and non-governmental agencies, our objective will be to create 25,000 flexible community-based spaces per year.

We know better than to put forward a one size fits all program. We understand that not all Canadians can be served by the same uniform network of child care centres. I want to emphasize that the goal of the government is flexibility.

Once again we are vesting control in the real experts, the parents. The parents, along with co-ops, community organizations and non- governmental enterprises recognize the local need and they have a compelling reason to address it.

Here is how our proposal would work. Let us say an aboriginal community, a small town or big city neighbourhood suffered from a serious shortage of child care spaces. In conjunction with local businesses, provincial and territorial governments, non-profit institutions, such as hospitals and colleges, or other interested parties, the community would determine what kind of service was needed, regular nine to five facility perhaps, or maybe not. Perhaps it would something else more suited to shift workers or more suitable to seasonal employees.

For example, in Weyburn, Saskatchewan the Souris Valley Child Care Corporation is open from 6 a.m. to midnight Monday to Saturday helping to meet the needs of the health care workers at the Souris Valley Extended Care Centre.

The point is that the arrangement must be flexible to accommodate the needs of local parents. In rural Canada, parents and community organizations might unite to create a child care centre in some kind of multi-purpose establishment offering a range of services, including learning resources, a community centre, and outreach support for families with unique needs, for example, farmers, cultural communities or fishermen. In a town or small city, a group of employers might band together to offer child care for employees working shifts that run late into the night or on weekends.

An initiative as ambitious as this will obviously take careful planning. We will take the time to get it right. We will also be appointing an advisory committee to assist us in our efforts. Over the coming months we will be talking with provincial and territorial governments and drawing on the knowledge of employers and community groups and people who have had experience in developing innovative approaches to child care across Canada.

Most important, we will talk to the experts. We will talk to the parents. We will find out their needs and their priorities for child care.

Canada's universal child care plan has been designed with two things in mind: the well-being of the children and the freedom that parents gain through real and meaningful child care options.

We know this is the right way to go because parents have told us so, including many in my riding. Parents like Kim Krett of Saskatoon wrote in support of our plan because, “It gives parents the confidence that they can choose what is best for the child and that they are capable of making the right decision for their child”. Misty Cey, as a professional dietitian and the mother of two, also of Saskatoon, supports our plan because it shows parents that we value their choice.

Kim and Misty made it clear that they know how to raise their own children. They do not need us to tell them how to do it, but what they do need from us is a bit of help. That is what Canada's universal child care plan provides.

In addition to a practical and direct financial benefit for all parents of preschoolers, our plan will promote the creation of a substantial number of flexible child care spaces by the people who truly understand the particular needs of local communities.

I call on all hon. members to reject the motion before us because it is not flexible and it is not universal, and to support the speedy adoption of this government's important initiative by supporting the budget.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has laid out some ideas for Canadians to think about.

I am very concerned that there has not been full transparency in terms of the impact of the $1,200. For instance, a $20,000 income earner getting the $1,200 actually on a net basis will only benefit about $200 because $1,000 of the $1,200 will be either clawed back or charged as additional income taxes. Consider someone earning $40,000. It increases to $700, but when filing his or her tax return the person will still have to pay $500 because the $1,200 is taxable. Someone who makes $100,000 actually gets a benefit of $1,100 out of the $1,200 that is being paid for the year. That person's increased taxes are only $100. These facts are from the Caledon Institute, and the member well knows that.

I wonder if the member would agree that maybe we should be very careful to alert parents of children under age six that the amount is taxable and that other benefits may be clawed back or income taxes will increase. Because there is no withholding when the payments are made, they will have to pay some money back when they file their income tax returns.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is taxed on the lowest income earner. Most of all I want to say to the member that it is not about money. It is about child care. It is about people who want to raise their children and want a choice.

The parents who have come to us are not asking for a handout. They are not asking for money. They are just asking for the same choices that other parents have of sending their children to an institution or keeping them at home. They do not want others to choose what their taxpayer dollars go toward. As they are staying home and taking care of their own children, they want to have the flexibility to choose whomever they want to take care of their children, whether it be a grandparent or someone else.

The member is probably as old as I am and would know that the child allowance was very well received in the days when our parents raised us. It may not have been much then. It was a significantly smaller amount than today. If he remembers, as I do, parents welcomed that payment.

It is not about the money as much as it is about child care. We want to give an option to parents who want to stay at home, those who home school their children or perhaps want to have a little extra money to put their children into child care of their choice.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. member.

First of all, family policies of course fall under provincial jurisdiction and, in our case, under that of Quebec.

Day care centres in Quebec are unlike any others in the world. From their inception, they became places for early detection, infant stimulation, socialization and education.

Our child care network works in partnership with CLSCs, private homes, youth centres, a system of agencies that support the child care networks and that provide excellent services adapted to young children.

The Conservative Party's current policy indicates that it is willing to respect the areas of provincial jurisdiction and to resolve the fiscal imbalance, in keeping with the themes of its election campaign.

Why does it not agree with a refundable tax credit, which is something that could help families and that would certainly be more fair for families? This is a tax measure that would respect provincial jurisdictions, including Quebec's, and that would support parents as well, but in a more fair manner. Furthermore, Quebec's jurisdictions would be respected.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we respect provincial jurisdictions and that is why we are offering the program that we are today. I ask the member to encourage the other opposition parties to vote for it, because we are talking about a universal day care plan that will not be interfering in the provincial jurisdictions. We will be working with all of the stakeholders, parents, businesses and co-ops.

We want to create universal child care for parents in all provinces across Canada. We want to make this a truly universal child benefit.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the opposition day motion on child care.

This motion implies that the government is not keeping the promise it made to Canadians during the election campaign.

It suggests that Canadians were not aware of the two components of the universal child care plan: providing parents with an annual benefit of $1,200 for each child under the age of six years and creating 25,000 day care spaces a year starting in 2007.

This plan will honour the bilateral child care agreements made by the previous government for one year.

When our Prime Minister said publicly during the election campaign that we were going to create our own child care plan—not the previous government’s plan—he was not joking.

Canadians then took action and elected the Conservatives. We are respecting the democratic will.

The provinces and territories will receive full funding in 2006 and 2007, the transition period during which we will gradually terminate the child care agreements that were made.

During that year, Quebec will receive $152.8 million. It will have the latitude it needs to invest its share of the federal funding in child care and the well-being of families.

I would note that only three provinces had signed funding agreements, and each of those agreements included a provision permitting either party to terminate the agreement on 12 months’ notice.

I would also note that it is up to the provinces and territories to decide what child care strategy reflects the consensus of their populations.

As far as possible, the Government of Canada will respect the right of parents to choose what is best for their children and their families. We will respect the great diversity of this country, from one province to another and from one family to another.

The universal child care benefit amounts to $1,200 paid directly to parents every year, so that they can make choices that meet the needs of their families. This benefit helps parents during a time when expenses are high and income is lower.

No two families are the same. Every family is unique in itself. They live on farms, in small municipalities, on reserves, on the coast, in the urban core and in the suburbs. As a government, our role is to help parents raise their children in the best possible way.

By supporting parents in the formidable job of raising children, a job that contributes to the development of the nation, we are encouraging them to do even better.

Starting in July, parents will receive $100 a month for each child under the age of six years. That money will be taxable in the hands of the spouse with the lower income.

Parents may use the universal child care benefit in different ways. Parents may want to invest in a registered education savings plan for their children. Some parents may use it to enrol their children in a nursery school or junior kindergarten. Others may use it to pay for swimming lessons or to enrol in a sports league. Or this benefit may help a working parent to pay a family member or neighbour for child care. The benefit can also be applied to the child care expenses of a parent who works nights and weekends and who does not have access to daytime services.

I would like to remind the House that the universal child care benefit will complement a range of federal benefits offered to Canadian families: the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit supplement, tax-free monthly payments to help families assume the costs of their children’s education; the child care expense deduction, which allows parents to deduct the cost of child care when they are working or studying; and extended parental leave, which provides parents with income support for a maximum of one year when they decide to stay at home to care for a newborn or a child they have just adopted.

It is a real feat for certain parents to earn their living while trying to provide their children with the best possible care. Not all parents can entrust their children to established day care centres: sometimes that option is impossible because of their hours of work or the fact that they live in a rural community.

Statistics Canada recently released a report on child care in Canada. It mentions the wide spectrum of choices that families make in the area of child care. It also indicates that in spite of the increased number of mothers working outside the home, nearly half of parents decide to care for their children themselves in the home.

For those who cannot manage this, the report says that a growing number of parents turn to family members to act as caregivers for their children, and others to friends and neighbours as well. In fact, only 15% of preschool children are enrolled in established day care centres.

We know that, of all the provinces and territories, it is Quebec that has the highest proportion of preschool children in day care, at nearly 52%. That tells us that the cost is very reasonable: seven dollars per day per child. There seems to be a consensus among the people of Quebec that this solution is right for them, and the province is willing to support it.

The Government of Canada recognizes this diversity among families and within our federation itself. Each province is developing a child care strategy that suits its culture and its social policy.

That is why we are offering another solution which will be based on and enhance the nine-to-five child care service model. Starting next year, we are resolved to join with employers, communities and the other governments to create up to 25,000 new child care spaces every year all across Canada.

The plan is simple: we want to offer choices in terms of the design and establishment of child care services. No government can impose a national child care system that is strict and closed to change.

In the months ahead, the Government of Canada will be speaking with employers, small and large businesses, community organizations, the provinces and territories, and people knowledgeable about innovative child care strategies. We will talk to parents to find out their needs and priorities in this regard. Above all, we want to support Canadians and Quebeckers in their important role of parent.

To close, I will mention that Canadians have voted for a government for which children are one of its five major priorities. Our objective is not to impose a solution, but to recognize the diversity of our country and the great ingenuity to be found in each of our communities.

Canadian parents are the real experts on child care. Let us support their choices.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two concerns this morning. The first is that I am wondering why we are discussing this motion since this is an area of provincial jurisdiction.

I heard what my Liberal colleague, among others, had to say. The inference is that provincial governments, with the exception of Quebec's, which has its own child care system, do not have the ability or the intelligence to set up such a day care system.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the involvement of the federal government in this area of provincial jurisdiction.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with one portion of my colleague's speech. Truly, it is impossible for a government to impose a solution, as the previous government wished to do.

For its part, the current government wants to propose a flexible approach that takes into account the needs of parents. In this regard, the government made a clear commitment in the election campaign and already it has put in place a program and undertaken, together with the provinces, to create additional child care spaces.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget that was just unveiled rips $806 million out of Quebec, money that could have been used for child care. That is about half of what the Quebec government spent in 2003 and 2004 for child care services. In Ontario, $449 million, in just one year alone in 2007, will be eliminated for child care. That totals $1.3 billion being taken away from child care services and being replaced by about one-fifth of that $1.3 billion.

Will the new government use part of the $250 million in 2007 to continue funding child care centres that have just been established this year? These are much needed services for children.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the current government's plan is very clear. The government will allocate $250 million to create additional spaces and address the actual situation parents face. It is all well and good to make speeches and toss around figures, saying that a given province is being deprived of this or that. We took an approach that will give real, immediate results for parents.

I myself have three young children. I come from a rural area. I can say that the flexible, concrete, practical measures that the government has proposed will help families that are not necessarily covered by so-called omnibus programs.

It is also important to mention that according to a recent Environics poll, many Quebeckers are satisfied with this program. Hon. members should stop tossing around figures and let us present a flexible approach. That will allow us to implement this program, which will address the situation and create day care spaces.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member recognizes that as part of the government he has to represent all of Canada and not just rural Quebec.

Francophones outside Quebec who live in rural areas rely heavily on this plan in order to create spaces, pay people reasonable salaries and have the flexibility to enter into negotiations with the provinces.

A centre is currently being built in my riding in Baie Sainte-Marie, Nova Scotia. However, the money for operations and salaries has been withdrawn, in order to keep talking about these issues. If we want to give parents a real choice, as the hon. member and the minister say, then we must also give them options so that there is a choice to make. The option of creating spaces in rural areas by using tax credits has been dropped.

There are no major companies here and there that will create these centres. The centres have to be created by the community. The responsibility of the federal government is to work in cooperation with the provinces to help these communities build, operate and run these early childhood education centres.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite raised an important point and I agree with what he said.

Indeed, consultations will have to be held in the communities. The current government is not claiming that it will sit down only with the provinces and territories. The areas concerned, as well as the not for profit agencies and small and medium businesses, will be consulted, as will the experts on this matter, parents.

Consultations will be held. The government has a real desire to do so. If we allow the government to go ahead with its policy then I think the problems will be resolved because real people will be consulted.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak today about respect and what is needed to provide equitable child care services for all families. Among other things, we must speak about respect: respect for how Quebec is different, for our jurisdictions and powers, for Quebec’s financial needs for its day care system, and most importantly, respect for families. We also need to provide more support for families so that they can realize their desire to have children.

Quebec has given a lot of thought to this issue; it has found its solutions and wants its differences to be respected.

Family policy does not fall within the competence of the federal Parliament. Today’s debate strikes us as surreal: the Liberals want to convince us that their family policy is the best, the Conservatives want to convince us that their family policy is better than the Liberals’, and the New Democrats want to convince us that their family policy is better than that of the Liberals or the Conservatives. But what the three federalist parties need to understand is that family policy does not fall within the competence of this Parliament but rather of Quebec and the provinces. For us in the Bloc Québécois, the best family policy is the family policy that Quebeckers will decide upon on their own; in short, the policy that they themselves will choose.

It is very important for us, therefore, to respect our areas of jurisdiction. We have a day care system that is really in the vanguard of all that is done in North America. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said the following, “There are, however, positive developments that are important to underline: The extraordinary advance made by Quebec, which has launched one of the most ambitious and interesting early education and care policies in North America. ... none of these provinces showed the same clarity of vision as Quebec in addressing the needs of young children and families”.

In order to have this day care system, of course, Quebec really needs a lot of funding. What we should talk about, therefore, is how to deal with this problem by settling the issue of the fiscal imbalance.

We have established our child care system and it is also a national early learning and child care system.

This Liberal motion says that we need proactive intergovernmental activity to create a child care system, but in our view this is wrong. Quebeckers have never asked Canadians for permission to develop a child care system. In our view, there is no question of that changing.

It is no accident that family policy is an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. We just need to remember that it is closely connected to a society’s intrinsic culture and values.

All of that seems quite striking to me. This family allowance the Conservatives want to give, the $1,200 they say is equivalent to child care services, will never, in our opinion, amount to one. At best, it is a family allowance. They are forgetting the whole socialization and education component of a child care service. It must be seen as an integrated unit which prepares our children for school and their future. Quebec's day care network is integrated with a child care network in an educational setting and provides for socialization. Many studies have shown that our children will thus be prevented from dropping out of school and will avoid a number of learning problems.

So, clearly, Quebeckers will not accept the thrust of the motion, which is to have the federal government substantially increase its activities in this regard and provide Quebec families with preschool education programs. We can look after that ourselves, and education, like family policy, is a provincial matter. It is an integrated whole, and day care centres come under Quebec family policy, which includes parental leave and family support, where child care services come in. Separating child care services from family policy is a serious mistake.

We have no doubt that the Government of Quebec, the government closest to the people, can best understand the needs and determine the values and priorities of its society.

I quote the OECD once more:

As the experience of Quebec has shown, a rapid increase in expenditure is not enough—

Increasing spending alone is not enough to create day care spaces.

—building administrative capacity is a key issue. Detailed strategizing and planning are necessary to expand a large system efficiently and coherently.

Citing the example of the recent budget tabled by the Conservatives, it provides for $175 million for day care. That really falls short. We do not think it is up to businesses or non-profit organizations completely separate from a network to create an effective day care system. This sort of thing was tried in Ontario and elsewhere, and it seems obvious to us that businesses lack the administrative capability. It is just not their job to establish day care services.

A system like Quebec's, which is managed by social economy enterprises and a board made up of parents, can truly meet needs and monitor changes in those needs. If a pan-Canadian system were put in place, we can imagine how complicated it would be to try to solve problems that have to do with people's day-to-day lives.

We reject federal standards in areas that do not come under federal jurisdiction. The motion mentions federal criteria for the quality and universality of child care and even the educational content, because the government wants child care facilities to promote child development. At least that is what they say. In our view, this federal approach is totally unrealistic and runs counter to our values and priorities. A Canada-wide network of child care facilities could not work. For the Bloc Québécois, it is out of the question.

Regarding the Canada child tax benefit, Quebec already rejected a federal family policy. The motion applauds the Liberals' income support programs, totalling more than $10 billion per year for families with children---that is, the Canada child tax benefit. I would like to remind this House that Quebec refused to implement the federal benefit and piggyback it onto its own programs.

I would remind this House of Quebec's position:

[Quebec] is opposed to implementing any pan-Canadian social program, such as the “national” child benefit, as this would mean that Quebec would not have full authority in this area.... The Government of Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction over social policies...and...intends to exercise full authority over this area in Quebec. Quebec therefore called on the federal government to transfer tax points or funding equivalent to federal expenditures for the child benefit in Quebec and any funding allocated to meet the goals of its family policy....

The motion says nothing about Quebec's opposition, even though Quebec's refusal was made clear in 1997 at the federal-provincial conference of ministers of social services in Toronto.

Are the supporters of this motion not aware that Quebec rejected the federal social program? The federal government created this program despite the division of powers. We cannot accept this motion as it is worded.

On the issue of child care, all Quebec wants is a new unconditional transfer and the possibility to opt out of any pan-Canadian program.

Certainly, the Conservatives' rejection of the agreement between Quebec and the federal government has increased the fiscal imbalance.

This has also reduced the Government of Quebec’s ability to fulfill its responsibilities, which include family policy.

It is imperative for the Bloc Québécois that Quebec recover the $807 million shortfall. There could be a new federal funding program for child care. There could be a specific agreement with Quebec. It could be part of fixing the fiscal imbalance. The Bloc could not support a motion that eliminates these three avenues right away. At least this agreement did not impose any conditions and did allow Quebec to pursue its development.

As for the $1,200 payment to parents, the Bloc Québécois is not opposed to the principle of this family allowance. Families certainly need funds, money and support. Direct payment to parents, however, is a form of interference in our fields of jurisdiction, although the Conservatives have promised to respect Quebec’s fields of jurisdiction. This allowance is taxable and is more to the advantage of well-off families than low-income families.

We are very disappointed that the government has not accepted the suggestion by the Bloc Québécois to have a refundable income tax credit. That kind of tax measure did not interfere and enabled us to grant a larger amount to disadvantaged families. In our opinion, this was a much more equitable solution, because it made it possible to help families in need.

While the hon. member was talking about flexibility, it is a shame that her government did not display any in this case. The only shortcoming the government agreed to correct concerns the reduction of benefits that the program would have entailed, including the Canada child tax benefit and the GST refund, which will be amended so that the $1,200 allowance does not penalize those most in need. Still, at the end of the year, when families have to declare this income, calculate the tax on it and then repay the government, they will realize the extent of the damage. This money will already be spent and long gone but the corresponding income tax will still have to be paid.

Quebec has always refused to let its family policy be decided by Ottawa. With these initiatives, the problem remains unsolved. Will Quebec agree to amend its laws and adapt its social programs to compensate for federal interference? We do not know. We do know, however, that the Government of Quebec said that the $1,200 will be taxable. That will again create new disputes, new tugs-of-war between Quebec and Ottawa. All this arises from this Conservative initiative, which is inconsistent with all our demands and wishes not to have our fields of jurisdiction invaded.

In Quebec, the huge coalition to maintain the child care network in Quebec, which represents over 200,000 members, is asking that the Conservative measure to be replaced with a refundable tax credit, a solution similar to the one proposed by the Bloc. The Conservative initiative has been widely criticized throughout Canada. It is too bad that the government is stubbornly refusing to amend it and correct its shortcomings. It is time to realize that, where issues like this are concerned, Quebec and Canada are working at cross purposes.

Quebeckers treasure their early childhood centres. As a woman and a mother, I had the privilege of knowing that my children were benefiting from quality services that were accessible at a reasonable price. I was able to witness, first hand, all the benefits for working mothers, who do not have to worry when they leave their children at a day care centre that provides quality services and opportunities for children to socialize and learn.

For Quebeckers, the obstacle to the development of the network is financial and, until sovereignty is achieved, it hinges on resolving the fiscal imbalance. Obviously, we will revisit this issue. Based on the text of this motion, the development of the child care network would fall under a federal child care program.

We understand that, for Canadians outside of Quebec, this may be logical and acceptable. For us, however, this is unacceptable. We already have such a network that works very well. We are at the forefront in this area. This whole child care issue once again illustrates the difference between Quebec and Canada.

In conclusion, as long as Quebec is part of Canada, it will prevent Canada from developing the coherence desired by the rest of the Canadian public, and Canada will prevent Quebec from developing at its own pace. It would be better for us to be good neighbours than a bad couple. Our relations could only be better.

In addition, I would like to put forward an amendment to this motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Montcalm, "That the motion be amended by adding after the word 'deserve' the following expression: 'by giving Quebec the unconditional right to opt out with full compensation'".

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

It is my duty to inform the House and the member that, pursuant to Standing Order 85, such an amendment must first receive the consent of the sponsor of the motion. I would therefore ask the member for St. Paul's if she consents to the introduction of this amendment.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

No, Mr. Speaker. There has been no consultation. The answer is therefore no, absolutely not.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment is not acceptable.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since the member wanted to deal with the issues as they relate to child care in Quebec, the member probably will be in a position to comment on the situation that will occur should the government proceed with its proposal to provide $250 million in tax credits, $10,000 to each company that is prepared to take it up, which it is estimated would create some 25,000 spaces in a year.

The member has told the House, and we have heard it many times, that the Government of Canada does not have jurisdiction over child care and that the money should simply go to the provinces. It does raise an interesting question. Because the federal government does not have jurisdiction over child care it means it cannot set standards for child care spaces.

I am wondering whether the member would care to comment. If we give tax credits to corporations to set up child care spaces, what guarantee will we have that those child care spaces will not be just glorified babysitting as opposed to early learning and childhood care facilities?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in the creation of 125,000 daycare spaces.

First, experience has shown, especially in Ontario, that not all of these spaces will be created. I believe there is very little control over the quality of these daycare services.

According to the agreement negotiated between the former government and Quebec, which included an unconditional transfer of funds, the province could create its own daycare network according to its own priorities. By closely monitoring the development of these daycares, the province could ensure that they were located in suitable areas, served the population appropriately, and offered quality services.

It also made the universality of daycare services possible. In Quebec, there are daycares that cost $7 per day. Among other things, this enables women to enter the workplace who would be unable to do so with $30, $35 or $40 daycares. They will make a major economic contribution to society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member from the Bloc. I visited Quebec last year during my tour to hear from people across the country on a national child care program. We all know that Quebec has one of the best programs going. It is very comprehensive in that it includes parents in every aspect of the delivery of that program.

We hear the government suggest that its approach will provide more choice, so I would like to hear from the member. Will $100 a month per child for children under six and the approach to tax credits to build more spaces actually provide more choice?

The government splits hairs on the experts that we are so-called listening to. It seems to me that in Quebec the experts are parents themselves, who rose up initially demanding a provincial child care program and who have now taken ownership of that program by sitting on various boards and commissions to govern those programs. Could the member tell us about the involvement of parents, how many are involved and in what way, in the wonderful and successful child care program in Quebec?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when parents sit on the board of the child care network they can control everything to do with child care. They control the food children eat and the education program they receive. Child care is not a parking lot for children. It is not a question of leaving your child with someone who goes on with their daily activities. It is a place where children are taken in hand and introduced to the basics of reading and writing.

The child care boards develop their child care programs according to their environment. In some low-income areas, where parents have a lower level of education, the contribution of child care is very important. Child care allows children to learn things they might not learn at home.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a desire in the House to meet the needs of our children and families. I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member across the way.

My wife and I raised five children, who are grown now, and we have two grandchildren and a half. Families are very important to me and to all Canadians. I recognize the passion expressed by the member that universal child care is very important to her, as it is to everyone in the House.

The question before us, though, is whether what is being proposed in the budget is good. It will provide Canadian families with $1,200 for each child under six. We had five children, so this would have been a huge help for our family. There are families, whether they live in cities or rural areas, that need help and need choice. We cannot create something for only a small segment of Canadians.

Canadians need a choice. The needs in child care are diverse. I am sure the hon. member would recognize that. Recognizing how unique and diverse each situation is, would she not recognize that all families need to have a choice in types of support and child care spaces?

What we have proposed is an opportunity for everyone who has children and needs help to receive it. Every Canadian family will be receiving help. Does she not support providing families with choice?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to offer families a choice, but the choice has to be real. It seems to us that giving a $1,200 taxable allowance does not help provide child care service. A family allowance is being offered as support for a family in which the mother or father stays at home. This small amount of money certainly does not allow that family to use a child care service.

In Quebec, the average daily fee for child care for one child is roughly $28. What is more, most of the families in Quebec who use child care are single parent families. They are the poorest in our society. They are the ones who need support and child care services the most.

I agree that we must be flexible, but let us really be flexible. Let us create child care spaces and offer a choice of high quality spaces for families. Nothing can replace an integrated network of child care.

That is the conclusion we came to in Quebec. That is why we implemented this child care network. It allows women to get off welfare since they have access to $7 a day child care and can become active members of society again. Our formula does not deprive stay-at-home mothers of anything. We have the necessary flexibility. That is the Quebec formula. We respond to women's desire to be part of the labour market. We have to stick closely to meeting the needs of our people.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sault Ste. Marie.

Last week in Trinity--Spadina, I was at a wonderful event with many happy children and parents. It was the unveiling of Kensington Kids, a wonderful, new, community based, not for profit child care and early learning centre. Parents and children across Canada need affordable, accessible, quality centres like Kensington Kids. When the children entered the centre, I watched as they immediately started to laugh and play. Both the kids and the parents had beautiful smiles on their faces.

These parents have been waiting for child care for a long time. Kensington Kids child care centre is their choice. In fact, those parents helped create this child care centre. Because it is community based and is set in a public school, it is the parents who are on the board of directors. One of the parents, Lynne Woolcott, is the chairperson.

It is parents who want the best for their kids. These parents created the kind of child care centre they want for their children. It is their choice. They dreamed about this centre for a long time. It is based in a community school. The kindergarten teacher, Sandy Banting, explained to us the importance of early learning and child care. She said that kids who go to this centre enter kindergarten ready to learn and have a much better academic performance in grades 1 and 2 as a result.

A really cute little boy named Ryan asked me to give a message to the Prime Minister of Canada and to this House of Commons. He said he wants his little brother to be able to join him next year. That was his dream. I said “was”, but that is his dream and maybe that dream will not be fulfilled.

Parents and kids in my riding as well as those all around Toronto and right across Canada have been disappointed time and time again when we have tried to create new child care spaces. We have had 12 years of empty promises from the Liberals since the first time they promised a national child care program back in 1993. Finally last year, with the minority government, we saw some action and some federal funding. With that action, Toronto was able to give the green light to Kensington Kids, with the best start funding, to create badly needed new child care spaces.

Unfortunately, the child care agreements were not enshrined in legislation by the Liberals, so Kensington Kids did not secure multi-year funding. That means it will have no funding after this year. These happy, smiling children may be booted out by this government. They may be out in the cold. These children cannot wait another 12 years. They deserve better and so do their parents. Their dreams and their parents' choices have been crushed by this callous budget.

These parents and kids and early learning and child care experts face the real impact of the government's bogus $1,200 choice in child care scheme. As we have shown time and time again, this scheme provides no choice and no child care. It does not even provide the full $1,200. The government has dropped some of the clawbacks, but it has failed to protect the allowance in the child tax benefit, so it is still taxable.

As well, the government plans to take away the young child benefit. This young child supplement is $250. The government is reducing this allowance for the working families that need it most. This government is delivering more to the stay at home spouses of wealthy Canadians, not the working families who need child care, and certainly not to the kids. It is certainly not delivering to Kensington Kids. They had no reason to smile yesterday and they have no reason to smile today.

It is the same old story. This is another government that gives with one hand and takes with the other. With this budget, most working families will see only a couple of dollars a day at best. That is barely enough for diapers, let alone child care. It certainly is not enough to fund a quality centre like Kensington Kids.

This scheme is a cruel joke. Maybe we can call it a choice of diapers plan because at least diapers are available in shops but child care spaces are not. Thousands of kids are on waiting lists. This country can do better. We have waited too long and have had too many disappointments, and closing down a new and badly needed child care centre would be the cruelest joke of all.

For the sake of children, for Kensington kids and the parents, families and communities in my riding and all across Canada, New Democrats have been working on a three point plan: multi-year funding to create and sustain new child care spaces; the full $1,200 to families through the child tax benefit so it is not taxed back; and entrenching quality, accessible, affordable, not for profit child care in legislation, with the option, of course, for Quebec to opt out.

The Liberal opposition motion that we are debating today is well-meaning but it is vague and flawed. It is designed to let the government off the hook. It has a lot of bluster but not enough teeth. The Liberals may be distracted by the leadership race, I do not know. They seem to be more interested in blaming the NDP. They cannot get over the fact that it is Canadians who are tired of empty promises and corrupt government.

The motion today opens the door for the funding of corporate, big box child care rather than the public, not for profit, community based child care programs. The NDP would support a motion that specified not for profit child care. No taxpayer money should go to big box profiteers. We would also support a motion that required government accountability on child care.

Therefore, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, that the motion be amended by inserting “not for profit” before the word “facilities” in the last part of the motion and adding to the last part of the motion a new section, which would read as follows, “That the House urge the government to ensure that funds designated for early learning and child care are spent to deliver high quality, universally accessible, affordable and not for profit child care spaces, and that this House ask the government to report to Parliament in order to provide for transparency and accountability on how funds designated for child care have been spent by the end of the 2006 fiscal year”.

I urge all members of the House to do the best we can for the children of this country. We have the power to make children smile. Let us use that power wisely.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

As I did with respect to the previous suggested Bloc amendment, it is my duty to inform the House that in order to properly move any amendment on opposition days, the amendment must have the consent of the mover of the motion.

Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, I would ask the mover of the motion, the member for St. Paul's, whether she gives consent for this amendment to be put.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

No.