Debates of May 4th, 2006

Opposition Motion--Child care

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

That is a very good question. Where is the minister in what is an incredibly important debate?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard is familiar with the Standing Orders. We do not make reference to attendance or absence from the House.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

You are right, Mr. Speaker. I am a little rusty.

The fact is that when we took office we had a $42 billion deficit, unlike the current Minister of Finance, who when he took office had an ever rising surplus. As a result of that, we had to deal with it.

We did deal with it. As a result of that, we were able to bring in the child tax benefit of $10 billion today. We brought in the child care expense deduction. We brought in the improvement in the child disability tax credit. We brought in a comprehensive plan for parental leave, and now for child care. We did it as we can afford it.

The issue before the House is this. What is the ideological reason that the minister opposes early learning? Why does he oppose child care? That is the fundamental issue before the House.

Rather than go back into the position of opposition critic, that is the government. Why does it not act on behalf of Canadian children and support--

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to inform the House that the minister has an important appointment with her specialist today.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I appreciate that clarification. Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell.

I am proud to say that this government is acting on behalf of Canadian children, every Canadian child and every Canadian family, because that is our commitment and that is what we are doing.

We all recognize that the most important investment we can make as a country is to help families raise their children. This is the most important work that parents do. Strong families ensure a bright and strong future for our country.

Equally though, the government understands, while the previous government never did, that no two Canadian families are alike. We also understand that parents with young children balance their work and their family lives in different ways and for different reasons. It is for that reason that we believe parents must be able to choose what type of child care is best for them and for their children.

I am proud that our government offers parents options through Canada's universal child care plan. Central to this plan is the universal child care benefit that places money in the hands of parents so they can make decisions regarding the needs of their families. Government should not be making these decisions. Bureaucrats should not be making these decisions. Parents should be making these decisions, and that is what we are supporting.

Effective July 1, Canadian families will receive $100 per month for each child under the age of six. Our plan is a balanced approach. It recognizes that parents are best placed to choose the type of child care that suits them. It is a plan to meet the needs of families, regardless of where they live, their hours of work and the choices they believe are best for their children. This plan supports parents and their freedom of choice.

A one-size-fits-all approach to child care simply does not work. It does not meet the needs of Canada's diversity. A Statistics Canada report, released on April 5 and entitled “Child Care in Canada”, shows that the choices families make in caring for their young children are manifold. There is a wide range of choices that parents make. Despite the increase in the number of mothers working outside the home, it is striking that almost half of parents still care for their children inside the home. For those parents who choose alternative forms of child care, most turn to family members, friends or community facilities. That is why, as part of Canada's universal child care plan, we are committed to introducing new measures that will help employers and communities build new spaces, where they are needed most, to help working families.

We have introduced a child care spaces initiative. We will create up to 25,000 new spaces per year. We are doing this with a concrete plan, not just throwing money out and crossing our fingers and closing our eyes. These spaces will be designed, created and delivered in the communities where parents work, live and raise their children.

It is important that these spaces not be designed by a government that believes it can tell parents what works best. These spaces will be designed by parents who know their children and who know what works best for them. These new child care spaces will be flexible and responsive to the needs of working families.

Our approach is to ensure that these measures work, not just for businesses but also for non-profit and community organizations, because we are going to provide them with incentives that will be translated into workplace based child care centres in big cities and rural areas, and for parents whose work hours do not fit a 9 to 5 model. We are not going to rush into an ill thought out, government imposed approach to creating child care spaces, because we are establishing an advisory committee of parents, businesses, non-profit employers and community organizations, as well as the provinces and territories. In the weeks and months ahead, we will be working with this broad-based advisory committee and drawing on its experience to promote the creation of new child care spaces.

These groups will be able to work together under our plan. They can form partnerships and we believe they will in many cases, with businesses and non-profit organizations partnering with the community to establish day care spaces.

In rural areas that do not have the quantity of resources available in the urban centres, employers could partner with parents and with community and farm organizations, such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, to create child care spaces in a multi-purpose child care centre offering child care and learning resources and family centred meeting places. These are some of the options that are already coming forward. These are just a few ideas, because this work is just beginning.

Canadians have already proven that they have the skill and the imagination to do this, and when it comes to finding the best care for their children, we trust parents and we trust the communities where these children live. I am confident that, through Canada's universal child care plan, new avenues to explore will come forward, avenues that lead to innovation and quality care that meet the individual needs of children, families and parents.

We know that Canadian parents support our plan. We have heard this from parents across the country. They have told us that our plan provides just the kind of flexible, responsive approach they are seeking.

Now, through the work that we will be doing, we will be hearing Canadians' ideas about how to make the plan work. We know that flexibility is a key because our goal is to meet the needs of all parents and all children regardless of their individual circumstances.

I am pleased to say that the premiers of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Alberta have all endorsed this plan. The New Brunswick premier said, “I stated very clearly that I support the approach of the federal government to provide more choices to parents”.

Groups with an interest in child care have also voiced their support for our plan. Here are just a few: Advocates for Childcare Choice, Kids First Parent Association of Canada and Prairie Advocates for Childcare Choices.

I think the representatives of Advocates for Childcare Choice summed up exactly what we are trying to achieve through our plan when they said, “The proposal is going to give parents more flexibility, which is what they need”. They say, and we all know this:

Different families have different requirements: home-based business, shift work nurses who work 12-hour shifts...all kinds of people don't work 9 to 5...The greatest thing about [the plan] is the principle and philosophy that says each person, each parent, is in charge of their own child.

We trust parents, says the group. They are the ones who have the legal and moral duty and responsibility, and the right and privilege, to care for our children. That means they deserve flexibility to carry out those responsibilities.

Our universal child care plan is about flexibility. Our role as a government is to ensure flexibility. We are here to support families, to ensure they have choices and to respect their choices. That is what we deliver with our plan, Canada's universal child care plan.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have several comments and questions for the member opposite.

The first one is about the question of partnerships with the private sector and with not for profit organizations producing up to 125,000 child care spaces. Has the hon. member actually spoken with three of her colleagues, that is to say, the Minister of Health, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance, who were in a government that tried this very strategy and failed abysmally?

Second, the fact is that there will now be $4.6 billion less over a five year period for the provinces, money they were counting on. Does that get added to the sum of the fiscal imbalance? Does that not increase the fiscal imbalance over a five year period by $4.6 billion?

My third observation and question for the member would go something like this. Using the logic of putting so much emphasis on individual choice, why does the hon. member not suggest abolishing the public school system? The public school system also is a system that is designed to help all parents with children in similar situations. I do not understand why one simply would not extend this to almost any social system.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon. member's last question is that there is choice in the public school system. In my province of Alberta, we have any number of charter schools where children can be trained and educated as their parents wish. There are charter schools that emphasize sports. There are charter schools that emphasize the arts. There are charter schools that are faith based. There are charter schools that have an emphasis on learning about Canada, such as the Juno Beach Academy.

There is a wide variety of public schools available to parents, at least in my province, and that is exactly what we are delivering with our choice in child care. Parents are so approving and so appreciative of the kinds of choices that are delivered in my province--I do not know about others--in the public school system. That is what we will have with this system as well.

With respect to the question about how the provinces were counting on this money, that is not true. Only three of the provinces and territories had even signed a firm agreement with the federal government, and those agreements had a one year opt-out clause on the part of either party, either the federal government or the provinces.

The provinces were under no illusion during the election campaign that voters were choosing to move in a different direction to support all parents with our benefit, so there was no surprise on anybody's part, least of all parents, who are the happiest with this arrangement.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always entertaining, amusing and a little sad to watch the Liberal Party, which could not create any child care spaces in 13 years, argue with the Conservative Party, which has a plan that will not create any child care spaces whatsoever.

My question is a specific one. I have not heard it in the debate in this House. I come from one of the rural ridings the parliamentary secretary mentioned, where apparently there are not enough child care spaces. That would then lead me to this question: why not put some actual serious funding toward creating such spaces?

A single parent came to me the other day and said that she was going to be so-called given this $1,200, which will be taxed, and which also will include a $250 removal of support that she gets for her child right now. She said that she has to work, which she does. She said she was looking through this plan and trying to understand what incentive or possibility this plan is making available for single parents in this country who are forced to go back into the workplace to support their families and children.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that this parent will be better off because money will come into this parent's hands every month. There will be no clawbacks from the federal government. It will not reduce any other benefit to this parent. Also, many of the provinces already have promised no clawback, so it is additional support for parents like this.

As for rural communities, this is part of the discussion that will be taking place under our plan. People from rural communities, community groups that work and operate mostly in rural Canada, will be bringing forward their proposals to assist in child care.

Let us be clear. This benefit benefits every single parent. That is what we campaigned on. That is what Canadians asked for. That is what we are delivering with our budget.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am dividing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

I appreciate this opportunity to participate in today's debate to discuss a matter that is of vital importance both to Canada's parents and to all Canadians.

I am sure most Canadians can agree on one thing: our children must come first. Few issues matter more than ensuring our children get off to a good start in life.

I would like us all to take a minute this afternoon to reflect on what is happening in Canada. More than half of young Canadians under six years of age are cared for by someone other than their parents, often in arrangements that differ from one family to the next. Institutional day care does not necessarily suit all these families.

In fact, a recent Statistics Canada report found that only about 15% of preschool children are in formal day care centres. The biggest proportion, well over half of all children under the age of six, are actually cared for at home by mom, dad, a close relative or a neighbour. The report clearly shows the wide diversity of child care choices Canadian families make.

As the father of five children, I am well aware that there is no one size fits all solution to child care, and so too is this government. There was a time when four of my children were under the age of six. I can tell members that the Liberal government did nothing to help me or other families like mine.

What it did do was increase taxes and then insult parents by stating that the Liberals knew better than parents how best to raise their children. What arrogance. Earlier this week, we had a Liberal member implying that without the Liberal day care program crime would go up. It is unbelievable.

Canadian parents are the real experts on child care. They do not need to be told how to raise their children, least of all by government. Parents know best when it comes to raising their children and preparing them for future successes.

That being said, this Conservative government recognizes that parents could use a little financial help. That is why we want to provide parents with real choice in child care: so they can choose the best form of child care to meet their unique needs.

During the election campaign, we defended the right of families to choose for themselves the kind of care that suits their children. We want to give parents the right to decide what best meets their needs.

For this reason, one of the first actions that the government takes will be to give all parents of pre-school children a universal child care benefit. Beginning in July, Canadian families will receive $1,200 a year for every child under age six.

All parents will receive the universal child care benefit, regardless of the type of care that they choose. Whether they care for their children at home or have them cared for by a neighbour or family member, whether they send them to a day care or opt for something else, they will get the benefit.

We know that there are as many ways to raise a child as there are children. We understand that no two Canadian families are exactly alike. What works for one may not work for the other. Parents must be able to choose the child care that best suits their family. That is why parents could use this benefit as they see fit to pay for child care. It might be public or private child care, provided by a neighbour or a relative, or whatever works best.

Today many parents work evenings, weekends or night shifts to make ends meet. Other parents have seasonal work or run a small business from home. These parents need child care options to fit their families' unique schedules and needs.

The day care systems that work well in Canadian cities do not necessarily work well in rural areas, and vice versa. For example, in my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, the Liberals’ institutionalized day care system would not work. There would not be any day care spaces in such small towns as Embrun, L'Orignal or Vankleek Hill.

Canadians want a system that suits all children and their parents, whether they live in a large urban centre or in a small town or on a family farm.

Quite simply, Canada's universal child care plan is about putting the choice for child care back into the hands of parents. We want to give Canada's parents the freedom to choose the best care for their own children. The universal child care benefit will help Canadian families in a very real and tangible way.

After 13 years of being told about grand designs for day care by the former government, Canadian parents were left with nothing more than empty promises. That is why Canadians voted for a new government that is making child care one of its top five priorities. This government honours its commitments and will follow through with child care.

We know that the right investments work wonders today and for decades to come. Strong families ensure a bright future for Canada. One of the most important investments we can make as a country is in our children. We are offering something real to all Canadian parents, something that will make life easier and help parents with their child care choices.

If we work together and get this budget passed, parents will receive their first cheques in July. Why would anyone want to deny parents this money? This allowance is in addition to the $13 billion that the Government of Canada already invests each year in Canadian families and children, including the Canada child tax benefit, the national child benefit supplement, the child care expense deduction and the Canada learning bond.

Some families will choose to send their child to a day care centre. However, as most Canadians know only too well, there are simply not enough spaces in day cares for the families that need them. This lack of spaces only aggravates the stress that the families of today already feel. That is where the second part of the government’s new child care system comes into play.

We are going to introduce new measures to help businesses and non-profit organizations create child care spaces where they are needed most. To that end, our plan will invest $250 million per year to create 25,000 more child care spaces per year across Canada beginning in 2007. These are spaces that will be designed, created and delivered in the communities where parents live, work and raise their children. They will be flexible and responsive to the needs of working families.

Our solution is to help employers and community organizations to create new child care spaces that make sense for the way Canadian families live and work in their communities today. We will be working with provinces and territories, businesses, communities and non-profit organizations to make sure we get this initiative right.

Unlike the previous government's record, which is one of neglect and inaction, this government has a real plan to support Canadian families. Simply put, Canada's new government is going to the wall on the issues that matter most to Canadian families and children.

The lives of our children are very dear to us.

During the last election campaign, we made a firm promise to protect Canadian families.

Protecting Canadian families means protecting all kinds of families—whether they are urban or rural, whether they consist of two parents or one, whether the parents are in the labour force or stay at home.

For too long, the people in power have been dismissing the difficulties that hard-working parents face.

Let us give hard-working Canadian families the choices they need to raise their children as they see fit. Let us give Canadian parents a break. Let us give Canadian families a real choice in child care with Canada's universal child care plan.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member will be familiar with the report of the Caledon Institute, which lays out different scenarios. For a family that has an income of $20,000 this $1,200 transfer is actually only going to benefit it by $200. For someone making $40,000 it is going to be about $700. For someone making $100,000 the benefit would be $1,100. It has to do with the tax implications, as well as the reduction in benefits that otherwise would be receivable.

I am a little concerned that the issue of transparency to Canadians has not been demonstrated in this regard. This is a taxable benefit. I am very concerned that when those families file their income tax returns, they are going to be faced with a substantial tax liability, many of whom will not have the cash to pay.

I wonder if the member believes that transparency is important and a significant element of accountability and that in fact the way it has been presented by the government is neither transparent nor accountable.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, regarding transparency, I can only say that this government is very transparent, unlike the previous government.

In terms of the tax, the child care benefit, the child care plan that we are putting together is accessible to all families in Canada. It is a universal program for all families and it will be taxed in the hands of the lowest income earner.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments the member made.

The Caledon Institute specifically said that the choice in child care allowance will do little, if anything, to address the lack of affordable quality child care, nor will the added money do much to help families pay for child care since it will only offset a small fraction of child care costs.

We want to talk about truth in advertising. This is not a child care plan. How does the plan actually address the creation of quality, affordable child care spaces in Canada?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is a universal plan that will apply to all families. It will be taxed in the hands of the lowest income earner.

There are numbers flying around the House in terms of what one family will earn and what another family will earn, but what this government is doing for Canadian families is giving them money to assist them with the raising of their children, which the previous government never did.

Canadian parents are ahead with the Conservative government. It is plain and it is simple.

We will work with the provincial governments, with industry and with private non-profit organizations to put in place the child care spaces across Canada. It will not just be a big city plan. This will also apply in small rural communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have proven ourselves to be a pro-family party through some of our tax measures and the GST reduction. Does he think this will also benefit families?

Families will not just benefit from our universal child care, but we will continue to support families with young children so that at six and seven years old, we are still supporting them.

I want the member to tell the House how important young families are to us as a whole through our other tax measures.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we saw in the budget that the Conservative government is working for Canadians and for Canadian families.

The universal child care program will give money directly to parents to assist them in raising their children. This is something they never had before. It is new for Canadian families.

I have spoken to people in my riding about the benefit of this particular program and they speak very highly of it. They do not have access to the institutionalized day care spaces that the Liberals wanted to implement. People want financial assistance to help them with raising their children.

We have other measures in our budget to assist families, such as the reduction in the GST, a tax credit for sports programs and other such initiatives.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga—Erindale.

Truthiness: something that is spoken as if true that one wants others to believe is true, that said often enough with enough voices orchestrated in behind it, might even sound true, but is not true.

Truthiness: $1,200 a year before taxes for every child under the age of six. The words say it is for child care but of course the money can be spent on anything: a brace for a child with a disability; for parents who work hard and never get a break, a night out; gas for the car. All good things, maybe necessary things, but still anything.

This is not a voucher and yet it is called the universal child care benefit. It could be called a universal transportation benefit, an affordable housing benefit. We could call it anything we want. And theatrical indignation and political outrage do not make it any different.

Truthiness: The word “universal”; we think of universal in terms of education or health care, something that is for everyone, but something that also meets basically all our needs in education or health.

Here, $1,200 before taxes. After taxes, for a family with an average income, less than half, less than $2 a day.

The average cost of child care in this country is $8,000 a year. Even your neighbour down the street who takes in two or three other kids costs more than $5,000 a year.

Here, $1,200 a year before taxes; after taxes, for a family with an average income, it amounts to less than $2 a day. The average cost of child care is $8,000 a year. It even costs the neighbour down the street, who takes in two or three other kids, more than $5,000 a year. However, the government says it is for everyone so it is universal. If we were to give 10¢ to everyone that would also be universal.

Truthiness: choice. Let us take the full $1,200 a year and imagine that every penny of it will go for child care, to give every benefit of the doubt. Let us pretend that truthfulness is actually truth. Will that $1,200 a year enable a family to afford to choose child care when otherwise it could not? Will it enable it to afford truly better child care? Will it put enough more money into child care as a whole to enable notoriously poorly paid child care educators to get paid better, to encourage the right people into the field and to keep them there, to offer the safe, interesting, exciting learning place parents want for their kids? No, no and no.

Will it enable a family to make a different choice? For one parent, usually a woman, to leave the outside workplace where she earns an average salary of $25,000, perhaps $17,000 or $18,000 after taxes, because now she has $1,200 or less in her pocket; $17,000 or $1,200. Let us see. Choice. Providing a broader inability to do just about everything. Choice? No.

Truthiness: the national system of early learning and child care we were creating with the provinces, the Conservatives called it “institutionalized child care”, “socialist style child care”. “Just governments putting money into each other's pockets”.

We have no federal child care centres and no provincial child care centres. What we do have are some municipal child care centres. They know that. The biggest child care provider in the country is the YMCA. The great majority are Bunny Bear Day Care and Tiny Tots Day Care. They know. They are in their ridings. Do Canadians talk about kindergarten and elementary school as institutionalized education? I do not think so. Why here?

“The only experts are mom and dad”, the Conservatives like to say. Moms and dads are experts. They have to be. However, what do moms and dads say about their daughter's grade two teacher? Is it possible that here and there parents might be looking for a little help to help them be even better parents?

Truthiness: Why say things that they know are wrong? Why do they not want the public to understand? What are they trying to do here and for what purpose?

The $250 million a year to build child care spaces is for bricks and mortar. We have a shortage of spaces and we have wait lists. If we encourage businesses and community groups to build these spaces, the logic goes that they will come. Who will come? Who can afford $8,000 a year. That is more than it is for university. We must remember that there is no other money here for subsidies. Who will come and who will not come and, if they do not come, who will build it?

Truthiness: The $1,200, let us call it what it is. It is a family allowance. If that is what makes the government proud then it should be proud of it. It should be proud of the truth but it is the truthfulness that is wrong, obscene and offensive.

It is the same throughout this budget for low and middle income Canadians, for aboriginal peoples, for students and for the environment. The government offers some programs because Canadians have said that each matters and matters a lot. It uses words that suggest more, deliver less.

Truthiness:

It is veneer. It is about now. It is about me. It is about illusion. We all want more money in our pockets, but Canadians also want more money in other people's pockets too. We want it now but for the future as well. To many people, this budget appeals to the least in us. We are so much more. This country is so much more.

It is veneer. It is about now. It is about me. It is about illusion. We all want more money in our pockets but Canadians also want more money in other people's pockets too. We all want now but we all want for the future as well. This budget appeals to the least in us. We are so much more. This country is so much more: not a vision but a blink.

What are the words we hear most often about the Conservatives' campaign platform in the last election and about this budget? It is clever. It is smart politically. All that is said with a sense of admiration for pulling it off, for its truthiness, and all the time in a rush to the next election wanting to move so fast our heads cannot stop spinning long enough for us to discover what truthiness really means. But in order for them to win the next election, who has to lose?

Black is black and white is white except if we need black to be white and then we call it white. We do it again and again, louder and longer, until black seems white. However, it is not and it will not be. In the Conservatives' early learning and child care and the rest, the more we look the less is there. Truthiness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I admire the work that the member has done in this area. I would like him to come to where we are at with our plan.

We are at the grassroots in my constituency. I have not gone into day cares to ask if they want day care. I have gone to mothers and to rural communities because the provinces deliver day care. I have been talking to working parents and to parents who choose to stay at home and I have been asking them what they want. They have told me that they want our plan. They think there are some real possibilities with it and some uniqueness, something this House has not seen for a long time. Early childhood development is excellent. We are being asked to provide parents with a universal plan because they all want to be treated equally.

How many parents has my colleague asked? There are 2.1 million children in preschool. How many of those children does he really think will benefit from the Liberal plan?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal plan for a national system of early learning and child care, the understanding was that it was for early learning. It was to build a system and a sense of what a system is, like an education system or an elementary system. It would be there for everybody. It would be there for parents and kids in big cities and those in small towns.

One of the great advantages of the steps that we were able to take over one year was the fact that the provinces had about 48% more money to meet the needs of underrepresented areas like rural areas and underrepresented needs like people with special needs. This is exactly what creating a system means. This is not truthiness. This was a real system of early learning. This was a real system that would be there for every kid and kids with parents in lots of different circumstances and with lots of different needs. There are very few parents who, when they decide to stay at home, also do not want their kids having different experiences in somewhat different circumstances in the course of a week. This was not an all or nothing thing. It was not five days a week or no days a week. It was for a day a week, or two afternoons a week--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I apologize to the hon. member for York Centre but I must allow another question or two here. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

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

Mr. Speaker, we take the same view as the hon. member because we want equitable, universal, accessible child care.

However, since child care and family policies come under provincial jurisdiction, could the hon. member explain to me why his party refuses to recognize Quebec's right to opt out of the child care plan unconditionally, with full compensation?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we signed an agreement with the Government of Quebec. In the nature of the agreement, the Government of Quebec received its share as other provinces would. At the same time, the understanding was that the money would go for the benefit and well-being, of families and children. That was an agreement that we signed.

It was an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec for the benefit of families and children.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to express my disappointment with the recent budget announcement. As a newly elected MP, who has been entrusted by the voters of Mississauga—Erindale, I came to the House with a sense of great responsibility and a determination to protect the interests of Canadians. Above all, I am committed to working positively with the members of the House for the collective good of our nation.

I will be honest. I was looking for reasons to celebrate the budget. It contains some reasonable proposals. We all welcome the idea of reducing taxes. The more I studied the budget, the more concerned I became. I felt like someone who has just been told that they won a fancy car, but after the excitement had faded and after reading the terms and conditions, I realized that I had to keep up the hefty monthly payments, which I cannot afford.

The Conservative government had the benefit of inheriting one of the strongest fiscal conditions in recent history. Instead of building on the best track record of the G-7 nations, it opted for a one-dimensional, short-sighted approach. If we believe that the federal government has a role to play in investing in the prosperity and unity of our country, we will find that the budget misses the mark. The Conservative budget will weaken our federal government, as it shows a disregard for its responsibilities to the public.

The budget has serious shortfalls. Raising income tax less than seven months after it had been reduced by the previous government is unacceptable. Reducing the GST should not be at the expense of increasing income taxes on the lowest income tax bracket. If the government truly believed that the GST cut would balance out this increase, why did it not opt to raise income tax on the highest bracket instead of the lowest?

Also of concern, the Conservative government is breaking a major election campaign promise. It committed to help new Canadians in accrediting their foreign credentials. The Conservatives committed no money and outlined no plan to deliver this promise. Taking steps toward the creation of an agency does not fulfill their promise, and it is just not good enough. I know I have the unfortunate task of breaking this news to thousands of new Canadians who live in my riding.

However, even more disheartening, is that early learning and childhood programs have been neglected and hundreds of thousands of child care spaces across Canada are at risk. Working families have been advocating for more choice in affordable and high quality child care. The government is ignoring their call and cancelling the agreements that were struck with the provinces. Despite what the government claims, this will take away the choice for most working families and set our country back more than 30 years.

In the Peel Region alone, the previous Liberal plan, which had already been negotiated and agreed upon with the province of Ontario, would have created about 2,100 new child care spaces. Now it is all gone because of a government that wants to take the choice away from working parents.

The hopes of many parents have been devastating and the plans of many child care facilities have been destroyed. There are 1,100 children on a waiting list right now for child care spaces in the city of Mississauga alone. Those families were not forced by the Liberal government to sign up for that waiting list. Now these children and their parents have to fend for themselves because the Conservative government does not care about them.

The proposed taxable $1,200 is a great child bonus that will be helpful to any family, but will it actually cover the cost of child care? The average cost of day care in Mississauga is about $800 to $900 a month. With that calculation, a parent requires $9,600 a year to cover child care expenses. That is far more than what the government is paying a family for the whole year under its plan and that is only if the parents are able to find a quality space for their children.

What is next? Will the government end funding public education and give parents money and say the choice is theirs?

In my riding there is a great disappointment that funding has been reduced and will come to an end. Waiting lists for fee subsidies and special needs resourcing exist now and are growing, but the Conservative plan will do nothing to help the situation. The notion that its proposal offers a choice is outrageous and must be exposed. It takes away their choice. Parents who work hard and contribute to our economy and prosperity will soon realize that they cannot afford nor find quality spaces for their children. This takes away any choice they have and may require one parent, who is often the mother, to stay at home with the child.

I would like to draw attention to a recent study conducted in Alberta. The study showed that given the lack of quality, affordable child care spaces in Alberta, the participation of women in the workforce has declined to one of the lowest in our country after being one of the highest. A government sponsored early childhood learning program not only ensures quality and accessible spaces, but it provides parents with a real choice. A parent can choose to stay at home with their child and possibly receive the child tax benefit, which could amount to thousands of dollars per year, or they could choose to use a high quality day care program and maintain a career of their choosing. It is a shame that the government does not realize that.

If one believes the government does not carry the burden of ensuring the collective good of its citizens and can afford to fend for themselves, then one would cheer the budget. However, like the majority of Canadians, I feel the government has the responsibility to invest in its citizens, in its future generations and to build for the prosperity of our nation.

I point out that the budget failed miserably to address the environment, education, multiculturalism, immigration, resource and development and aboriginal needs. We in Ontario have seen what a simplistic, short-sighted ideological government can do. Premier Mike Harris, who was here on Tuesday cheering on the architect of the horrendous financial and social failures in Ontario during the nineties, and who also happens to be the current spokesperson for this budget, has left deep wounds in Ontario from which we are still trying to recover.

If I did not care and if I were a cynic, I would have chosen to stand by the sideline and watch with interest how the government is digging a hole for itself and let it expose its incompetence on its own. However, my concern is the government will not damage its credibility, but irreversibly damage the fiscal and social foundation of our country.

The government has chosen to mortgage the future of our country and hide the fine print from Canadians. It has no plan and no vision.

On behalf of children, students, aboriginals, farmers, immigrants, environment, working families and all Canadians, I ask the government not to allow ideology to dictate its action. I ask them not to do it for me, not to do it for the people who voted for me, but do it for the people who voted for them expecting that they would treat them with respect.