Debates of May 4th, 2006

The Budget

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this week's budget has been accepted by Canadians for being incredibly family friendly. Hard-working, law-abiding Canadians, who have struggled under an oppressive Liberal tax regime for 13 years, also like it.

Unfortunately, the former government, now in opposition where it belongs, continues to fearmonger and spread misinformation.

Would the Minister of Finance tell the House the true facts on the many benefits low income Canadians will see in this week's budget?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we have delivered on our promise of our commitment to reduce taxes for all Canadians, including lower income Canadians.

On the personal income side, we have the Canada employment credit and the increase in the BPA, which means people will be able to earn almost $10,000 in 2007, without paying federal income tax.

We have also removed about 655,000 low income Canadians totally from the federal tax roll.

On the GST, I heard the member opposite, who is the finance critic, say that a cut in the GST would, “fritter away all taxpayers' money”. It is not frittering away for the one-third--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

It being Thursday, I believe the hon. member for Wascana, the opposition House leader, has a question.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, aside from House business, I would also be interested in the views of the Minister of Finance about the theories of Herb Grubel with respect to tax policy in our country.

More particular, could the House leader inform us of his plans for business in the House for the rest of this week and next week? Could he tell us when the expedited legislation to distribute at least $2 billion to Canadian farmers this spring will be introduced?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member, as a former finance minister, has nothing but admiration and respect for the wonderful job done by the Minister of Finance and the budget he delivered this week. All Canadians should support and thank him.

In response to the second part of his question, we will continue with the opposition motion today.

Tomorrow there is an agreement to adopt the motion on notice regarding the address of the Prime Minister of Australia to be delivered in the House at 3 p.m. on May 18. We also hope to conclude the second reading debate on Bill C-5, the public health agency, and begin the second reading debate on Bill C-6, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act.

Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week will be taken up with the final three days of the budget date.

Finally, I designate Thursday, May 11 as the second allotted day in this period.

Oral Question Period

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During oral question period, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine attacked the integrity of the Minister of the Environment by saying that she was not an honest woman.

This is contrary to the rules of the House.

I am wondering if the Speaker could examine the rules to discover whether the hon. member should immediately offer an apology to this House.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, if you decide to follow up on the parliamentary secretary's suggestion and look into this, I hope that your reflection on this matter would be enriched and inspired by the number of times you had to warn that exact member in the last Parliament not to use unparliamentary language. Maybe you will find his new found sanctimony amusing.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the record of the proceedings in Hansard will indicate clearly that I said, “—if the minister were an honest woman—”.

I did not say she was dishonest. I did not say she was a liar. I did not say she was honest.

I said that “if” she were an honest woman, she would admit there was no real plan for protecting our environment, that she had no weight in cabinet and that she had no interest in protecting the future of Canadians.

And I am still waiting for her to admit it.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The point of order raised by the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton indicates the difficulty the House has when members make personal comments about one another. This is the third time in as many days that this expression has been used in the House. It was raised on the first occasion, I believe, by the hon. member for Welland in respect of an answer given by a minister at the time, and exactly the same expression was used. This is the third time it has been used.

As I indicated then, my initial reaction was that it was not out of order because it did not say that any member was, as the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has just said, dishonest. She said “if she were honest”. This is not to say that she is not, or he is not, or whoever is not. That is the point. I will look into the matter further. I have taken the previous point of order under advisement.

However, I caution hon. members that continual reference to individuals on a personal basis and, indeed, references to the wild beasts, which frequently come up in the course of question period, are not particularly helpful. We have had a lot of talk of weasels and ferrets and various difficulties about that in the last few days. Frankly, the Chair would prefer that these matters not be raised in the House and that we stick with talking about ministers and members. I urge all hon. members to bear that in mind in future, including the members who have raised the points of order today.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Child Care

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 26, 1995, 850 women put on their shoes and marched on Quebec City with nine demands. They wanted changes from the Quebec government that would improve their economic situation. For 10 days, the marchers received massive support from the people. On June 4, 1995, after walking 200 km, they were welcomed to Quebec City by nearly 20, 000 people who supported their demands. The Bread and Roses March caught the imagination of Quebeckers to such an extent that the Government of Quebec in power at the time, the Parti Québécois, decided not only to support some of their demands but also to offer them a day care system that would facilitate their entry or re-entry into the work force.

On International Women’s Day, women throughout the world celebrate their achievements and their commitment to continuing the struggle for full equity. For female workers, child care is a matter of equality and fairness. It has to do with their equal right to work, their ability to find and keep a good job, and their right to go to work without having to worry about their children.

Two women in three with children under three years of age work outside the home, as do three mothers in four who have children between three and five years of age.

Women need and deserve safe, affordable, accessible, quality day care for their children while they contribute to our country’s economy and the well-being of their families.

But instead of supporting quality day care, the Conservative government is offering parents $1,200 a year for each child under six, even though more and more studies show that a child’s experiences between zero and six years of age determine in many ways the kind of adult that he or she will become and even though other studies indicate that investments in child care and early childhood learning are eminently beneficial to society.

One after another, these studies show that access to a quality early learning system increases the chances that children will become productive adults capable of making an effective contribution to society. Quality early learning and child care services help children develop well and achieve their full potential, in addition to keeping them safe and in good health.

Child care services must support the emotional, social, intellectual and physical well-being of children. Most of all, quality child care is not babysitting.

Educational child care services stimulate harmonious childhood development and support families by reducing poverty, promoting equality for women, reinforcing social integration, and building a knowledge-based economy.

Experts agree that all children benefit from access to a high-quality educational child care system, and that their development is compromised when they receive poor-quality services.

Quality child care services can provide children with an excellent learning environment that helps them reach their full physical, cognitive, cultural, social and emotional development potential. These services also support families, complement parental responsibilities, and promote the integration of children with disabilities.

Nowadays, it is widely acknowledged that learning starts at birth and that early learning has a significant impact on lifelong development and adult well-being. Quality child care services enable families to balance their professional and family responsibilities while providing their children with stimulating learning environments that are adapted to their development.

Stimulating, child-focused daycare services encourage children to become lifelong learners and productive members of society.

I see that my Liberal colleagues are looking pretty smug because they think I support their motion. I do not. I have described a good daycare system just like the one in Quebec.

Quebec and the other provinces do not need a pan-Canadian program. They need money to develop their own child care system, one that reflects their values.

To be effective, a family policy has to contain various elements, as Quebec's family policy does. It has to be integrated and implemented by only one level of government. Only Quebec can do this for Quebeckers.

The Bloc Québécois is not against the Conservative Party's plan to give money to parents, but it is against how the government is going about it.

The Harper government did not support our idea of a refundable tax credit instead of the $1,200 allowance, a proposal that received broad support.

The child care allowance remains taxable, even by the federal government, and is unfair to the families that need it most. With a little humility, this problem could have been corrected quite easily. Instead, to pay for the universal child care benefit, the government will eliminate a supplement in the Canada child tax benefit for parents with children under the age of 7. This will save $390 million.

Eliminating the child supplement will penalize families with children under age 7 who were receiving the benefit and do not have any child care expenses.

The Bloc Québécois proposed to replace the taxable $1,200 allowance announced by the Conservatives with a refundable tax credit.

The Coalition pour le maintien du réseau des services de garde, a huge coalition of 15 organizations that represents more than one million Quebeckers, is also calling for a refundable tax credit instead of the Conservative allowance. The formula and scale that the coalition is proposing are very similar to the Bloc Québécois proposal.

This proposal has several advantages. Because a tax credit is not income, it would not reduce any government benefit and would not penalize low income earners. Because it is a tax measure, the federal government is not interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction, and the credit has no impact on Quebec's social programs. Because the credit is refundable, even the poorest parents who pay no tax would be entitled to it. Because it is based on household income, it is much more equitable and benefits those who need it most. What is more, because the credit is based on family income, it helps the neediest households the most, unlike the Conservative proposal, which is based on a couple's lower income, whether or not the household income is high. Most allowances of this sort are based on family income.

There are other credits paid in advance based on the previous year's income. The government could very well do the same thing for the tax credit for parents and pay an advance starting next summer, or send monthly cheques if it prefers.

Thus, all families with family income under $35,000 would receive a $1,200 refundable tax credit per child. The amount of the tax credit would gradually be reduced until it reached a universal minimum of $700.

Family policy is closely intertwined with the transfer of values and culture in a society, and even the survival of this society. Respect for the jurisdiction and full autonomy of Quebec and the provinces is vital to its success.

The Bloc Québécois, in the interests of Quebeckers and the well-being of their children, opposes any national family policy and calls for the $807 million promised by the previous government to be part of the solution to the fiscal imbalance.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Caledon Institute did a report on the $1,200 child care allowance, which it described as “a flawed scheme”. The institute said, “For example, an Ontario two-earner couple with net family income of $30,000 would end up with just $199, while a $200,000 one-earner couple would get a net benefit of $1,076”. Clearly this is inequitable between families.

The member will also know that we have a Canada child tax benefit program that delivers benefits to families with children. It is income tested and makes sure that it targets those most in need. Would the member agree that it might be more plausible and maybe more equitable if this increase in a child care allowance were in fact simply used to enhance the current Canada child tax benefit and therefore also eliminate the administrative cost of trying to distribute cheques every month?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the position of the Bloc Québécois is very clear and very simple: the $1,200 allowance should be changed to a tax credit. This would allow all parents to benefit from this measure and poor parents even more so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her intervention. She has long been an advocate for the rights of women and children in this country.

There is a specific point I want to address. The feminist alliance group FAFIA has been in Geneva this week, talking about the record surpluses over eight years and how the number of programs and services have been cut in Canada.

The member spoke specifically about fiscal imbalance. I would like her to address what this current Conservative plan for child care, or lack of plan, would do to existing child care spaces in Canada.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. However, I can only speak to Quebec's position on the number of spaces that would be lost or gained because of this program.

I know that the $1,200 allowance will not create more spaces in Quebec. What would create more spaces is the $807 million we are asking for as part of correcting the fiscal imbalance.

I am aware that the fiscal imbalance affects all of the provinces, and that the large deficit prevents them from establishing effective child care and daycare programs.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the other element of the child care policy is the tax credit for corporations, the $10,000 a year to create child care spaces. The federal level of government has no jurisdiction over child care. My concern is this: even if these corporations could establish child care positions, how are they going to be regulated? Who in fact would provide the standards to ensure that the spaces created do not simply become glorified babysitting?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I told my hon. colleague earlier, Quebec worked within its prerogative to establish a very effective child care system that takes into account children's and parents' needs.

I wish that all provinces could do the same, were willing to do the same, and could get money to do it. We are certainly aware that it improves the quality of our children's lives.

Yes, there are ways to regulate the child care system, but it is a provincial responsibility. The provinces must implement various processes to monitor and develop various child care services.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion that is before the House. I should say at the outset that my greatest disappointment so far in this 39th Parliament has been this particular issue. I think it is an issue that affects us as Canadians, and it is certainly going to affect our future as a society.

In the long run, we as a society are only as good as our educational system. A primary determinant of our future economic prosperity and growth is our education system. It is a determinant of health, social skills, cognitive skills, well-being and subsequent success in the workplace.

I am talking about education in its broadest sense. Of course, everyone knows that it starts in the home and that mom and dad are certainly the most important components of it. That is why I, like most other people in the House, am proud of the parental care provisions that the House adopted several years ago. This extends to the extended family, the nuclear family, the community, the churches and what is offered by the religious organizations, the primary education system, the post-secondary education system, skills training and lifelong learning. And a very important component of that is our system of early childhood education.

As indicated by all the literature quoted in the House by other speakers more familiar and more knowledgeable on this topic than I, one of the primary determinants of how well a child does in the primary school system is how ready that child is when he starts school. That depends on a lot of factors. It depends on the environment he comes from. It depends on the health of the child and the health of his parents. Every family is different. It depends, in a lot of cases, on the formal early childhood programs to which the child was exposed.

In a situation like this, I like to quote David Dodge, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who says that early learning is the single most important investment a society can make for its own future. I would like everyone to consider that when we vote on the motion.

How ready that particular child is when he or she starts grade 1 sets in motion a whole trajectory of other factors. It determines how well he or she does in the primary system. It affects his or her health. It affects whether or not that child will in the future be involved in the criminal justice system. It is a determinant of how well that child eventually does in the workplace. Of course, it affects the intergenerational transfer to his or her children at a later date. I am not saying that the formal early childhood system that this country adopts is the sole determining factor, but it is a very, very important one.

There are many children who are at risk. There are many children who need help. The answer this House is giving them in the legislation and in the budget is that mom and dad are there and we are not going to go any further than mom and dad. That is not a very satisfactory answer. That does not reflect the reality of Canadian life as we know it.

A lot of the time there is no mom and dad. There is only a mom. In a lot of cases that mom has to work. That mom has a lot of other pressures.That mom needs help. It is my submission that the Government of Canada should be there to help that particular mom.

A lot of the time that mom has not been dealt a great hand in this whole card game of life, but the mom has to play the cards she is dealt. This is not poker where we get a three card draw. She has to play the cards she is dealt.

But that mom has dreams. She dreams that when her child goes to school he or she will be ready for school. She dreams that the child will have the cognitive and social skills to develop as a child, that he or she will be well adjusted, that he or she will be a participant in the workforce, and that mom may become a grandparent someday. That is her dream.

What is the House telling her by the budget? The House is telling her to dream on. That is what we are telling her.

I am not going to stand here today and suggest for one minute that the Liberal plan was a perfect plan. It was not. It was a $5 billion plan over five years. There were 10 agreements signed. There was a lot of work done by the Minister of Social Development. It was a tremendous step in the right direction. It is a development that should be built upon, not torn down, not gutted. It is not a distinction between what the left wing and the right wing should do. It is a difference between right and wrong. It is very disappointing that the intention is to gut it.

The $1,200 that is being proposed will be welcome in most families, but how possibly could it be equated with a formal early childhood development plan? Nothing that has been suggested, stated or written to me will answer that question. It is income support.

The previous Liberal government, with the assistance of the opposition parties, adopted about 10 years ago the child tax benefit. It is probably one of the most progressive social acts by the House in the last generation. That provides families with income support. That was enhanced over the years.

Right now the lowest income family gets approximately $3,000 per annum for the first child. It is income support. Every month that is very welcome. If that is increased by $1,200 and if it is means tested, that would be good, but I really have a difficulty in giving parents out there who are making over $100,000 a cheque for $1,200. If the payment, which is income support pure and simple, were given to families who need it, let me be the first member of the House to support that, but please, let nobody in the House call it child care, because it is not child care.

If we wanted to take the argument to the extreme sense, why would we stop at early childhood development? Why would we not go to grade one? Let us leave it to moms and dads. Give parents real choice in grade one. Instead of offering grade one, give them a $1,200 payment. Just think of the money the federal and provincial governments of Canada could save. That is how ridiculous the argument could get. Why stop at early childhood development? Go right to grades one, two and three.

That is why eight premiers in Canada and all opposition parties, representing 64% of the people who live in this great country, support the plan that is in existence now. I am disappointed that the budget has turned its back on families. I am disappointed that the budget has turned its back on children and on all Canadians.

In closing, again the $1,200 is welcome, but how possibly could it increase a child's ability to go to school on the first day?

I am supporting the motion and I will be interested in the rest of the debate. I hope that members agree with me that the plan in the budget is foolhardy and that we should develop the existing plan that we all supported before.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last year in the House when the former minister of social development was before a committee of the whole, he said, “The central developmental relationship is a parent to its child”. That is not a child to a child care worker or a child to an ECE teacher. That is a child to his or her parent or parents. Yet the member opposite promotes a system of child care that encourages the separation of parents from their children, from that central developmental relationship.

Is the true best start for children not with their parents, or does the member believe the best start for children is to replace parents with government day care?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I addressed that in my remarks. Again, please do not let anyone think that I am trying in any way to replace the role of the parents, mom and dad. That is the primary function right there. As I said in my speech, and I thought I explained it very carefully, there are a lot of parents out there, single parents, low income parents, parents with health problems, parents who just do not have the capacity and they need help. I stated that the government ought to be there to help those particular parents.

What governments have to offer in the whole field of formal early childhood development is one aspect of it, but it is a very important aspect. If we tear it down, we do so at our own peril.

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

Mr. Speaker, it appears to me at least that the members of the government just do not seem to understand life in the urban cities. Some 60% of the citizens of this country voted against the party of this particular government. It seems to me that they were the people from the urban areas. That probably accounts for the lack of connection they feel.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. It seems that a lot of the rhetoric we are hearing is a lack of understanding. I am not going to say it is urban-rural because I do not agree. It is a reality of what is going on in families across Canada.

It seems to me there are members of this House who think that the typical family in Canada is a mom and a dad, and the dad works, the mom stays home, the family has a van and a little black dog and 2.86 kids. That is not the reality. The programs and initiatives as we go forward here have to reflect that reality.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. In fact, I thought that he had a lot of good things to say. Unfortunately he lost all credibility when he mentioned that the budget does not help any Canadians. I think that is the rhetoric he was referring to just a moment ago.

My first question is on the issue of child care. He certainly does not want us to refer to it as child care, but indeed we are helping parents who ultimately provide child care. I wonder if he would correct his terminology. What the Liberals are now claiming is essential but failed to do leads me to ask the question, if this was so important, why did they not just do it? But on the issue of the terminology of child care and abandoning this rhetoric, would he not admit that what they are providing is a limited day care program, not child care?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with that. I am not going to stand here and say the program is perfect. It is a step in the right direction. It is not one program. It is 10 programs. We have to appreciate the jurisdiction of the issue. That is why the previous minister had 10 separate agreements signed by the 10 provinces. Each family is unique and each province is unique with its own objectives.

I want to clarify a point that the hon. member did make. I did not suggest that there was nothing in the budget for Canadian families. That is not the case at all. We are talking about child care here. This is a continuum of what the previous government started. Perhaps one of the most important starts in this continuum was the one year of parental leave. That is very important for Canadian working families. It was continued with the early childhood development agreement that provided limited funds to provinces for child care. It continued with the child tax benefit and that was enhanced over the last 10 years.

This is what I find most curious in this debate. We are all very familiar with the child tax benefit and the child tax supplement. It does provide about $3,000 per annum for the lowest income families. I have never heard one person, whether it is an academic, a member of Parliament, an advocacy group, I have never heard any Canadian of any stripe or size refer to that as child care money. Why are we referring to this $1,200 as child care money? Please, will somebody answer that question?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Don Valley East, I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the future of child care in Canada. It is a future that is in jeopardy because of the plans of the government to tear up the early learning and child care agreements that the former Liberal government brought into fruition prior to the last election.

Before the Conservatives were elected, all 10 provinces and the territories had finally reached a comprehensive agreement with the federal government to enhance programs and services for children under six in four key areas: promoting healthy pregnancy, birth and infancy; improving parenting and family supports; strengthening early childhood development, learning and care; and strengthening community supports.

With these agreements in place the federal government started to transfer the first $5 billion worth of payments to the provinces and territories. In Ontario, with the cooperation of the municipalities, the plan created 14,000 newly licensed child care spaces and an additional 4,000 subsidized child care spaces in the 2004-05 fiscal year alone. By 2007 the Liberal plan would have created 25,000 new spaces for children and parents to access regardless of the individual's economic or social circumstances. Sadly, these future spaces will never be created because the Conservative government has terminated the early learning and child care strategy, a historical agreement that took so much time and effort to create.

Today the Government of Ontario has announced that as a result of the federal Conservative promise to terminate this agreement, the province will no longer be able to enhance child care programs. This is devastating news for children and parents living in my riding of Don Valley East and in fact all across Canada.

In place of the early learning and child care strategy, the Conservatives have rehashed the old family allowance that promises to give parents $1,200 a year for each child under the age of six. On the surface, the so-called universal care benefit sounds like a good deal, but scratch the surface only slightly and the benefits quickly fade away.

First of all, the child care allowance is a taxable benefit that will increase a family's federal and provincial annual tax bill. For low and modest income families this is disappointing news. The Tory plan is to hand out monthly cheques and then tax it back at the end of the year. How many licensed and subsidized child care spaces will this create? Not one single, solitary space.

The Caledon Institute of Social Policy recently released a study on the new child care allowance that states, “The allowance will do little to ease the often heavy financial burden of child care expense for the large majority of families with low or middle incomes that do not have access to subsidized child care, get little or nothing from the child care expense deduction and that often cannot find affordable, good quality care”.

The fact is most Canadian families need and use child care outside the home so that both parents can participate in the workforce. For single parents, especially women, that need is even greater.

We should view the so-called universal child care benefit for what it is. It is a form of income support, but in no way does it resemble a child care plan. There is no way of telling how much money will be spent. There is no means of measuring the actual quality of child care if no one knows where the money goes.

According to recent polls, 90% of Canadians believe high quality child care is important to help ensure Canada's social and economic well-being. Eighty-one per cent think governments should develop a plan to improve child care. Seventy-six per cent of Canadians believe child care should be available to all families with costs to be shared by government. In fact, 65% of Canadians are willing to pay more taxes to ensure that all children have access to quality child care facilities.

The Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care notes that there is growing evidence that investments into government subsidized child care programs return considerably more value than the original investment. It also notes that children who enter elementary school with ready to learn skills are far less at risk of having difficulties in school, leaving before high school graduation, becoming involved in criminal behaviour or becoming addicted to tobacco, alcohol or drugs.

In 1994 the National Forum on Crime reported that early childhood experience in literacy skills and completion of high school are major determinants in the prevention of youth crime and recommended that early childhood development programs be expanded.

It is also estimated that the cost to Canadian businesses due to absence for family reasons is estimated to be $2.7 billion annually. Furthermore, costs to the education system for remedial education due to poor early learning environments are estimated to be $2.5 billion annually.

It is a fact that 74% of mothers whose youngest child is between three and five years old is in fact a working mom. This means that most moms require child care in order to make ends meet.

Why are the Conservatives taking such a mean-spirited approach to low and middle income families? Why are they so hostile to single parents, especially working women? What do the Conservatives have against families where both parents work?

In order for Canadian families to prepare for the demands of the new economy, the federal Conservatives must admit their mistaken promises to eliminate the early child learning strategy because the future of our children is at stake. There is no need for ideology but there is need for creative solutions.