Debates of Feb. 15th, 2007

Opposition Motion—Government Policies

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made an excellent speech. She laid out some of the difficulties women face in Canada, especially in dealing with some of the harsh cuts that have been made by the so-called new government. My question deals with remote and rural parts of Canada where services are somewhat limited in any extent.

An office in Thunder Bay was closed as part of the cuts to the Status of Women organization. While that office was quite removed from my riding, it provided service to many communities, such as, Sioux Lookout, Red Lake and Kenora. People in those areas needed the services of this office. It was actually an anchor for them to know that in some way the government was reaching out to them and was going to be involved in some of the difficult issues the member mentioned. I wanted to bring that to the attention of the House and the member.

Although the challenges are great for women in many parts of the country and the urban areas have difficulties, imagine the difficulty for people in small remote sites all across northern Ontario. Women needed and relied on the resources that were provided through these offices. Those services need to come back. Those who live in some of the remote sites feel a sense of desperation and face a challenge. They relied on these services.

I would like to know if the member is aware of some of those situations.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. As I said earlier, we heard from women from all regions of Canada. Yesterday, we had a woman from Yukon who travelled for a whole day to get to the committee meeting.

Whether from New Brunswick, Yukon, Alberta or British Columbia, women from all regions have told us the same thing: in many cases, cutting these programs will force their organizations to shut down. If that happens, women will no longer have access to services that were vital to ensuring that they obtain the rights and other services they are entitled to.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. She spoke with her trademark sense of conviction. As she said, deliberate cuts have been made to women's programs.

The other issue we are all very concerned about is the Conservative government's cuts to the summer career placement program. The Conservative government made dramatic—and I do mean dramatic—cuts to these programs.

What are my colleague's thoughts on this? It will have a terribly negative impact on an entire segment of the population: the next generation, the future. Obviously, I am talking about our young students.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

What I find really appalling and distressing is that the government does not see fit to hold consultations before making decisions. All of the programs they cut were useful and produced very good results.

All of the young people who went through these programs are now working for companies. Thanks to the summer career placement program, these young people provided services to society through the community organizations they worked for. The experience opened their eyes to other perspectives and realities. It helped them to understand that work is important and that it can be rewarding and stimulating.

Now the government wants to pull the rug out from under them by cutting the summer career placement program. Young people need this program so they can integrate into society and learn that work means more than earning a living; it also means getting involved in their society and their world.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk about the part of this motion concerning the Conservative government's misconception that Canadians are not in favour of increasing the number of child care spaces on a national basis.

Let us not forget that supporting families is essential. In Quebec, three family support initiatives are the pillars of our program to help families. These three initiatives are financial support for families, increased number of child care spaces and the implementation of the Quebec Parental Insurance Plan.

This support is intended to promote equality between men and women, so that equality will no longer be a right, as it is today, but a fact.

All governments must truly commit to supporting families. Need I remind this house that 74% of women who have children under the age of six are in the work force? Need I remind this House that women are the heads of single parent families, the poorest families in our society? They need this support.

This support is necessary and part of it is the balance between work and family life. This work and family balance can only be achieved if the child care network is effective, financially accessible and available—in other words, it needs to be a top-notch child care network. When all these conditions are met, parents can satisfy their desire to have children.

The Canada-Quebec agreement on child care services and early learning was signed on October 28, 2005. This is a good agreement. The Bloc Québécois asked for it for years. We finally got it after a tough fight.

Unfortunately, one of the first things the Conservative government did when it came into power was to end this agreement and dig in its heels to oppose this way of doing things that was so appreciated by the majority of parents in Quebec. No one was complaining about this agreement. It truly gave the Government of Quebec the latitude to focus on its own jurisdiction and provide top-notch child care services.

The government responded with its new policy. Its right-wing vision—which we are seeing more frequently—does not meet the expectations of most Quebeckers; it only satisfies a small minority of people.

When the Canada-Quebec child care agreement ends, there will be a shortfall of $269 million a year for Quebec. This will further accentuate the fiscal imbalance. Our needs still exist in Quebec and the money still remains here in Ottawa.

After being elected, the Conservative government announced an annual allowance of $1,200. This allowance does not equal child care, and it is taxable. When the time comes to fill out their next tax return, Canadians will let us know that this amount is taxable.

For parents who are less well off, this diminishes the chances of receiving help from other levels of government. This amount is therefore further reduced.

The Bloc Québécois proposed that this $1,200 be given in the form of a refundable tax credit. This would have cost the government no more money and would have helped families that are less well off. The government ignored this proposal, which upset many taxpayers. More right-wing bills!

However, the Conservative government must acknowledge that it made a big mistake in cancelling this agreement. Quebec's family support program—although not perfect and constantly evolving—is valued by Quebeckers. It has even been recognized by the OECD. As I already mentioned, Quebec families are supported through comprehensive, harmonized measures, policies and programs.

I would like to remind the members that it is up to Quebec to set its own standards. We must respect the its jurisdiction and allow Quebec to retain complete control over education and child care issues.

It is clear that Quebec is satisfying expectations. Thanks to these measures and according to the latest statistics, the number of births rose gradually between 2003 and 2005 from just under 74,000 to just over 76,000. The rate of increase accelerated in 2006; the most recent estimates indicate that there were 82,500 births in 2006, the most recorded in Quebec since 1997.

It appears that when we support women and families and provide a fair and accessible child care system, we can increase the number of children, who are certainly our greatest treasure.

In 2003, Quebec's goal was to create 200,000 more child care spaces. The province met that goal.

The Bloc Québécois will support today's motion because the Conservative government is imposing an ideological agenda that is too socially conservative, pigheaded, and not in line with what the people want. Child care services are a right, not a privilege. The women of Quebec and Canada are clamouring for it, and they expect their governments to support them. To ensure our children's future, we must provide quality child care services as part of an education system that is worthy of a developed country like Canada.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that has seized the House in the last couple of days has to do with the appointment of persons to committees to recommend the appointment of judges. Indeed, yesterday there was an admission by the Prime Minister that his ultimate intent is to appoint judges who are sympathetic to his particular view of the world.

Does the member think that this intrusion on the judiciary and the imposition of the executive in terms of affecting the character and makeup of the judiciary is an inappropriate approach to the criminal justice system?

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

Mr. Speaker, this approach is definitely inappropriate. We must realize, and this pertains particularly to my comments regarding child care, that this right-wing government is concentrating on law and order. It is intent above all on imposing the will of a more right-wing and centralist state.

I believe that this desire to appoint judges who will endorse the government philosophy is truly unacceptable meddling in a political system that has a clear separation of legislative, judicial and executive powers.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on another issue, with regard to the Kyoto protocol, yesterday the House passed Bill C-288. The bill basically commits to meet our undertakings under an international agreement to which we are a party.

The Conservative government eliminated every reference to Kyoto from its websites. It has constantly indicated that it does not support the protocol and that it is not interested at all in trying to meet the targets under that protocol.

Quebec has shown some leadership in terms of climate change initiatives. I wonder if the member would care to comment on why it is important for Canada to make commitments as outlined in the Kyoto protocol in the best interests of the future generations of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the environment file is definitely complex. We managed to reach a consensus on a protocol such as Kyoto, a major global agreement, and then Canada reneges on its commitment. It seems to me that this is something that should never happen.

I believe that Quebec is doing the right thing by attempting to reduce greenhouse gases. With hydro electricity, Quebec has developed a truly clean energy resulting in a great deal less pollution and damage. The Conservative government should consider this in the set of measures it adopts.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians who may be watching this debate must be very frustrated listening to members of each party criticizing members of other parties. We have a blame game going on. I think the experience of life for many Canadians is one of a deterioration of their standard of living and a nervousness about their future and their children's future.

However, I do not want anyone to get me wrong. There is certainly lots of blame to go around and much of that has been put on the table this morning.

Canadians have real concerns about their day to day lives that they want to see their government address. I want to touch on a few of the issues that have been brought to me by my constituents in Parkdale—High Park in Toronto.

The first concern is on the issue of child care. I have been campaigning for a national child care program since before my children were born. My youngest son is 21 years old and we still do not have a national child care program. However, during that time we have seen a generational change where in the 1970s only about one-third of mothers with children under the age of five were in the paid workforce and now we see almost three-quarters of mothers with children under five in the paid workforce. We have seen a massive social change during this period.

Successive federal governments have failed to address this change. Canada is one of the few developed, industrialized democracies that does not have a national early learning and development program for its children.

I have campaigned for many years in my community on the need for a national, not for profit, good quality child care program that puts the needs of our kids front and centre. It would not replace the role of parents. It would embrace the role that parents play and try to help them in every way possible.

Unfortunately, governments after governments have squandered the opportunity. Even when we had successive balanced budgets and successive majority governments, especially by the previous Liberal government, there was too little too late. There was a kind of deathbed conversion to the issue of child care that, unfortunately, squandered the opportunity.

To now see the current government roll back the baby steps taken by the previous government in terms of provincial agreements on early childhood development is, quite frankly, shocking. For the government to replace that with a kind of taxable baby bonus and to tie that up in a bow and pretend it is child care, people do not buy it.

Mr. Speaker, I neglected to say that I will be splitting my time with my colleague here.

For the government to pretend that what is being offered to parents is a baby bonus, is quite a dissimilation. We need to recognize that the majority of parents are facing a difficult reality today. I know that in my riding the child care fees go anywhere from $800 up to $1,400 for a child and yet the waiting lists are long. In some child care centres hundreds of kids are on the waiting lists. Parents are at their wits end trying to deal with the situation.

Child care is an urgent crisis and I do not think Canadians care which party deals with it, they just want it dealt with. They want the blame game to stop and they want parties to get on with representing them here in the House of Commons and make progress on the things that affect their daily lives.

In my community there has been a real deterioration and a growing poverty. Studies have called it the growing gap. We see people who increasingly are working for very low wages. Housing costs are skyrocketing. The average cost of renting an apartment in my riding is about $1,000. People simply cannot afford this. Transit costs a lot. People need to travel great distances to get to work.

We know that in the 1990s there were massive cuts to social spending and most of that money was never restored. Welfare rates were cut, the national housing strategy was cut and people with disabilities and mental illness were left to fend for themselves.

Many university students in my riding have massive student loans and incredible debt that weighs on their shoulders when they finish university. Many graduates start out really terrified because many of them cannot get a job. Even after they graduate, it could take a number of years to find a job with a sufficient income to pay down their incredible debt.

Our cities, where 80% of the Canadian population lives, are stretched to the limit. The cost of services are being downloaded onto our cities. They have a $60 billion infrastructure deficit. They lack a national urban transit strategy, which is something for which I have been calling for some time. They are struggling to pay for things through property taxes, things that ought to be paid for through our income taxes. This has had the inevitable impact of a deterioration in our quality of life, especially our environment with the growing smog in our urban centres, and the deterioration of our water systems. My riding borders on Lake Ontario.

I think what Canadians need to judge all representatives by, especially governments now and past, is not what they say, especially when they are in opposition, but what they do when they are in power.

The challenge for the current government is to use this opportunity today to make, what I think has been a deteriorating situation in our country, it better, certainly not to make it worse.

One of the very bad decisions being made by the government is around politicizing judicial appointments. This is very dangerous. We have seen south of the border what happens when judicial appointments are politicized and how very dangerous that situation can be.

Last night, I joined a number of members from this House to celebrate the successful outcome of the Maher Arar and Monia Mazigh situations, who, unfortunately, were the victims of a climate of fear created after the September 11 attacks and the casting of a net so wide that it began to undermine our democratic rights and freedoms. It was, in part, because of a courageous judge who spoke the truth and cleared Mr. Arar's name, that ultimately led to his exoneration and finally to a public apology by the Prime Minister. Hopefully, the family will now be able to get their lives back on track.

However, that case hit home once again the importance of an independent judiciary and the importance of having our fundamental human rights and our democratic rights protected at all costs.

We also have great concern with the government cancelling the court challenges program. It is a very small amount of money in a multi-billion dollar government. It is only $5 million to ensure that those whose rights are supposed to be protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually have access to the necessary legal processes to have those rights defended.

When a francophone, a woman, a lesbian, a gay, a bisexual or a transgendered person, a person with a disability, a first nations person, whoever a person is, does not have access to the halls of power, to have the court challenges program as a safety measure to ensure their rights are protected is fundamental. I see no justification for the complete elimination of this program. I find that very troubling. Because so many disadvantaged people have had to seek their rights through the courts, I believe this is a provision that must be enshrined.

I have spoken out many times against the cuts to women's programs and literacy programs. It is important that these programs be restored and that opposition voices be guaranteed in our country. It is a sign of maturity and security on the part of a government when it not only allows opposition voices but in fact encourages and fosters opposition voices. That is a sign of a healthy democracy.

As Canadians listen to these debates, they expect us all, whatever party we are in, to do better and to act on behalf of the good of all Canadians.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member a very simple question. Why is her party supporting the government when it was the Conservative government that cut 125,000 spaces? It promised 125,000 child care spaces over a period of a year and none were created. It cut the Kelowna accord. It promised to put money in the hands of Canadians, saying that they would receive $1,200, when in reality the money is taxed and they will only receive a fraction of it. It also cut funding for students.

Why on earth is the NDP supporting a government whose policies are diametrically opposed to the roots of where the NDP has come from and what the NDP is supposed to stand for?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I need to ask the hon. member what he means by supporting the government. On every confidence vote in the House, the NDP has voted against the government. I personally took on the Prime Minister and challenged his choice of a representative to head up the appointments commission and led the motion to have that appointment defeated.

Certainly I and my caucus have been challenging the government. What is the matter with your party?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I would caution the hon. member. The proper language would have been to ask what the matter is with his party, unless you are referring to my party, which I did not think you were.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member began her speech talking about blame. She seems to have a problem with that.

With regard to her principal point on child care, the fact is that $3.5 billion of funding was cancelled by the Conservative government. It was an agreement negotiated with the provinces that came up with $100 a month per child under six, which is taxable, but that just puts money into the hands of persons who may not even need it. It is not even based on the ability to pay or the need. It creates no new spaces, therefore it creates no choices, and the whole issue was about creating choices. If there are no new spaces, there are no choices.

The government also promised to give tax credits to businesses to create child care spaces in business and industry. We have heard nothing from the Conservative government about whether it has done anything or whether there is any interest and yet it was going to provide spaces.

On that issue alone, the Conservative government deserves to be blamed for breaking promises. It said that things were going to happen and that spaces would be created. The member must admit that here today and condemn and blame the Conservative government for breaking a promise to Canadians with regard to creating child care spaces so that our children can have a good head start.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the government introduced its program, I stood in the House and predicted that no child care spaces would be created. We had the experience in Ontario with a Conservative premier who promised a very similar program and the result was that not one child care space was created.

I absolutely do condemn the government on that, just as I am highly critical of the previous government, which had majority after majority, surplus budgets and had the money to bring in a sound, national early learning and child care program but wasted the opportunity.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the environmental issue, I ask the member, how can her party get into bed with the government whose plan is actually going to do very little or nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Why does she not work with the Liberal Party and support us in our endeavours and plans to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the short term?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that under the previous government it was unfortunate and terrible that there was a missed opportunity, because after signing the Kyoto agreement, in fact our environmental record deteriorated. Our record is now worse than that of the United States. It was a phenomenal embarrassment and a betrayal of the confidence of Canadians.

Everyone is concerned about the environment. All political parties say they want to take action. The challenge for us as elected members of Parliament is to see how we can come together and take advantage of the opportunity of a minority government to finally get some concrete measures in place to deal with the environmental challenges that we are facing.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Before I call for resumption of debate, the hon. member for Parkdale--High Park did indicate that she was going to be sharing her time with her colleague. She never actually said who the colleague was. I am going to assume that it is the member for Surrey North and recognize the member for Surrey North on resumption of debate.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share the member's time.

When I talk to people in the constituency of Surrey North, which I have the privilege of representing, they talk to me about the things that matter in their weekly lives which is really what matters to most of us. People talk to me about being concerned about affordability, about being able to afford things for their children for school. Many of them despair of ever being able to afford to send their sons and daughters to anything past high school, the trades, apprenticeship, college, university. They know there is a growing gap between what they have and what other people have. They see that growing gap and it frustrates them and they do not understand it. They expect their elected representatives to do the job we were elected to do which is to represent them.

As I look at today's motion put forward by the Liberals, there are some comments I would like to make.

I am very concerned about child care and child care choice. I have spent most of my paid and unpaid adult working life, which is longer than I might even want to say, looking for child care opportunities for families, not just child care during regular workday hours, but child care that is within the reach of everyone, regardless of what they do for a living. I still do not see that.

I was very disappointed. I worked with the Liberal government in the early 1990s, from 1991 to 1996, looking at universal child care and a national child care initiative. If that had worked and had been in place, we would not be standing here now saying that the lack of child care is the crisis that it is, because it would have happened. It would have had roots and would have been in place. It would not have been something that could have been so easily cancelled by the current Conservative government.

When the Conservative government cancelled the national child care strategy, it also sent a message to provinces about the lack of importance of child care. What the Conservatives did was not child care choice. One hundred dollars a month before taxes is not child care choice. No one would deny that parents could use an extra $100 a month, or whatever it is after taxes, to provide support for their sons and daughters, although they must be under six years old. After a child reaches six years of age, what does the child care choice become? It does nothing for child care. It creates no spaces. It trains no child care providers. It speaks not at all to the needs of a child over the age of five. I would hope that the Conservative government is not suggesting that children who are six, seven and eight would provide their own care. This really has created a crisis across this country.

I was very interested in the cancelling of the Status of Women offices. One of the best pieces of research I have ever seen done by that office was about how to get more women into government. From looking at the Conservative caucus, I would have thought that the Conservatives would want that research to continue. Surely the Conservative Party more than any other party in this House could use that research about how to have more women elected as part of that party. That was very puzzling. I hope it does not mean that the Conservatives do not want more women as part of their caucus. That was the research that was going on and they certainly could use that assistance, I would suggest.

People in Surrey North are very concerned about the affordability of housing. The amount of CMHC money going into Surrey North this year is $48,000 for the entire constituency. That will do some rent subsidy I am sure, but it is not going to get housing for the homeless and it is not going to help with affordable housing for people in any significant way. If people do not have a safe home, they cannot raise their children in safety.

Speaking of safety and the cutting of child care, the Conservatives talk a lot about crime but they do not talk very much about the prevention of crime. Anybody knows that child care and good early childhood initiatives and interventions would make an enormous difference in preventing children from getting into crime and making those very bad choices that lead them down that road. The Conservatives are at the other end around punishment, but they have cut off the avenues of preventing the crime in the first place by cancelling the child care initiatives. In many ways that is a travesty.

I have noticed the Conservative government reaching out into the ethnic community. Every time I turn around there are Conservative members at events in my riding. I know the Prime Minister has been there. But on truly embracing cultural diversity, where are the centres on credentialing? Where are the centres where physicians, nurses, teachers, engineers and accountants can have their credentials from other countries assessed? We welcomed those people to Canada to address skills shortages because they had those degrees.

I have a motion on the notice paper, but I do not know how quickly it will come forward. The motion talks about seniors from other countries, in particular, India, who cannot collect the seniors pension even if they are citizens in this country. They live in poverty. They cannot collect a pension because we do not have a signed treaty with that one country. Many people from India have contributed to our country, but they cannot have a seniors pension for 10 years, even though they are working, contributing and volunteering in their communities, because India is not one of the, I do not know, 112 countries that have signed a treaty. That has been raised with the government on a number of occasions and there has been no action on it.

I agree with my colleague who just spoke, that people who elect us to come here judge us by what we say and what we stand for. People will judge governments in power by their actions, not by what they say they are going to do, not by what they say they care about, but by what they do.

I do not see the kind of action that will make a difference for the people I have the privilege to know and to work with in Surrey North. A post-secondary education is no closer for the children of those people who cannot afford the still very large tuition fees. Many people want their sons and daughters--many daughters, I hope--to go into apprenticeships and work in the trades because they can make a good living. We have a huge skills shortage in British Columbia because of the building boom. Their sons and daughters cannot take advantage of that opportunity because it is too expensive and there has not been enough money put into the post-secondary education envelope and student loans for those people to afford it.

People just want their lives to be a bit better. They want to have a bit of hope for the future, just like all of us do. They want to know they are doing the best they can for their children. They do not expect miracles. They do not expect to be rich. They do not expect special privileges. They just expect to live safely in their communities with access to the kind of resources that their families might need. That is not what they are seeing. That is how the government will be judged.

There are some missed opportunities, as I said, with child care. The child care initiative could have had deep roots if the Liberal government had moved on it when it was first discussed. I do not know when it was first discussed, but when I first started discussing it with the federal government was in 1991. It would have had deep, deep roots in the community by now and would have created more spaces.

The issue around protecting and promoting linguistic and cultural diversity that is in the Liberal opposition motion is an important one. We cannot just go into communities that have contributed to this country at the last minute, whether they are Asian, South Asian or whatever the country of origin is, and try to make friends without addressing the things that those people have said are important: the seniors pension for people in the South Asian community; credentialling for people from every community.

People ask what we do for foreign trained physicians in Vancouver, British Columbia. Mostly we just let them drive taxi cabs because we do not have a way that they can be credentialled, even though the federal government encouraged them to come. It said we needed physicians. It said we needed accountants. It said we needed engineers. But there they are, driving taxi cabs. There is nothing wrong with driving a taxi cab, but they want to use the skills in the profession for which they were trained.

There have been many missed opportunities by the previous government and there have certainly been choices made by the Conservative government that will not give more hope, a better life, and a little bit of hope for the future to the constituents of Surrey North. It will simply reinforce for them that there is indeed a growing gap, that they are at the bottom of that growing gap, and that they are not going to be able to provide the kind of future that they want to see.

My constituents do not care who we are here. They do not care what colour hats we wear. They just want us to do our jobs, make their families safer, and let them provide good lives for themselves and their families.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to my hon. colleague and I know that she has a sincere interest in all of the topics that she covered. However, I listened to her speak about the investment that our party, the Liberal government, had made in child care, and her question was why we did not do it sooner.

I would point out to her that we had a $42 billion debt that we had to deal with when we became government. Then we had a deficit that we needed to pay down, and that happened with the help and on the backs of Canadians right across this great country.

Make no mistake. There was pain and there were worthwhile social programs that could not be invested in until we got our fiscal house in order. Once we did, our government brought in agreements with every province and territory. We had a pan-Canadian child care system that was going to go ahead, that offered real choices to Canadians, not just working families, because we were investing in programs in the community that at-home parents were also able to access. It was a far more comprehensive program than what the government has offered, which is a taxable amount of $100 a month per child up until the age of six.

My hon. colleague also talked about the need for social housing. I know that in Kitchener Centre and the Waterloo region, we have invested at the local level in ensuring that social housing is being built. The supporting community programs initiative that was brought in under our Liberal government was investing in partnership with agencies at the community level to ensure that we were addressing those needs.

My question to my hon. colleague is this. Why, when all of these important things were in place, when we had the Kelowna agreement signed, and I would underscore her comments that we are judged by our actions not just our words, did the NDP decide to pull the plug on all these progressive social investments, these programs--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. The hon. member has had a couple of minutes to ask her question. The hon. member for Surrey North.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member about the debt that the Liberals inherited. Having been the health minister and held several other portfolios in the province of British Columbia, I know that there was a debt. I know that there was a great deal of pain paying off that debt because we felt that pain in British Columbia as we watched our health care transfer dollars go down as we picked up the deficit that was created, and we were not able to spend money in other areas as a result of that. I do appreciate that the debt needed to be paid off.

I have 10 babies a day born at Surrey Memorial Hospital. That is almost 4,000 babies a year and they do not understand about debt. All those babies who, during that time, missed out on having early support, early intervention, and support for their moms at home or child care choice do not understand that. It should always be a choice and we should support parents regardless of what that choice is.

We have a whole generation of children who missed out on that kind of support, for which we will probably be paying $125,000 a year in the prison system while that debt was being paid down. I would suggest that while the debt needed to be paid down, it did not need to be completely done on the backs of the health care system and all of those children who missed out on opportunities during that time.

I watched our health care system for two years as health minister and two years as the minister for children and families, and watched those tremendous missed opportunities for a whole generation really of children for whom we will pay that price.

I agree that the debt had to be paid down, and the member can blame whomever for that debt, but during that time, we had a whole generation of children who missed out on opportunities. People missed out on having good opportunities for health care, and health care under medicare, a publicly funded, maintained, accessible, and universal system which the Liberal government found itself seemingly unable to address at the time.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to split my time with my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

I welcome the opportunity to speak today on the motion presented by our distinguished colleague, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Today we are debating a motion that goes to the heart of what I think troubles Canadians very much. We are discovering what I think people knew or at least had an inclination, but are now finding confirmed, that the party that forms government in Canada across the aisle is a narrow-minded, meanspirited, ideological-driven government whose primary objective is to emasculate the role of the federal government, and in doing so cause Canadians to be disconnected from their national government and I would say from each other.

It occurs to me that the government loves power but hates government, especially good government. There was a time in Canada when we had two major parties in the House of Commons, the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, with varying philosophies but in general recognized and continued the social infrastructure of Canada of which Canadians are proud.

There was a time we could count on reasonable and fair government, whether it was our party or the Progressive Conservative Party. Ours was better, but at least we knew that Canada would not be dismantled while the PCs were in power.

Canadians knew they could count on a moderate government, one that acted in the national interest and that despite our differences would attempt to do what was right.

A few years ago the member for Central Nova killed the Progressive Conservative Party shortly after saying that he would not. The current Conservative Party is obviously not progressive. I suspect most of my colleagues on the other side would be offended to be called progressive. In fact, they are regressive in every sense of the word.

I would like to speak to this motion today specifically on the issue of skills development and education and to a part of Canada that I think the government forgets and that is the people of Canada and in particular, the most vulnerable people in Canada.

I asked a question this week of the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development on why he and his government slashed $55 million from the summer career placement program or as many of us know as the summer grants program. Since its inception in the mid-1990s it has employed hundreds of thousands of students across Canada. It was also a program that helped many worthwhile community organizations, not for profits, to obtain a little extra help from students who brought their energy and talent to organizations that in most cases actually related to their field of study. To many students these summer jobs represented the only chance they had to earn some money and to help pay their way through university or community college.

The response we got was no response. Instead, we got non-answers while students and community groups are left to wonder what will happen. There is still no information available on the HRSD website, directing students or community groups as to what will happen with what is left of that funding. It is a disgrace.

There is no legitimate reason why this important program would be slashed except in the case that the government does not believe in helping students or that the government does not believe in continuing Liberal programs, even Liberal programs that most of its members would concede work.

We know that students were not the only Canadians who were victims of the government. Last year in my community of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour the recipients of grants from the student summer career placement programs were the East Dartmouth Boys and Girls Club, the Cole Harbour Boys and Girls Club, Dartmouth Public Housing, the MS Society of Canada, Regal Road United Baptist Church, Big Brothers and Big Sisters and Dartmouth Day Care.

Every single grant in my riding went to a not for profit organization. There are no Exxons here, there is no GE, and there are no large companies benefiting from this program. That was one of the reasons that was used when the program was virtually dismantled in the fall.

Study after study has suggested that one of the great challenges facing Canada is the shortage of skilled labour to meet the demand of the labour market. Yet sadly, at least nine million Canadians suffer from lack of literacy, unable to obtain the necessary training and skills needed to compete for those jobs.

It is shameful that those who are illiterate, the vast majority of whom happen to be poor, have been singled out, targeted by the government with millions and millions of dollars taken away from literacy funding.

The money allocated by the previous government did not go to pay big salaries. It did not go to pay for huge administrative costs. The money for literacy went to help ordinary Canadians who could not read or write. The funding was beginning to make a difference where individuals were obtaining the reading and writing skills necessary to get a decent job and in doing so, providing for their families and making a contribution to their communities.

The Movement for Canadian Literacy could be days away from closing down permanently. Ann Marie Downie, who runs Literacy Nova Scotia, has told me that her organization and the other 30 community organizations that work with her to provide training to learners will probably have to close their doors maybe within months, but certainly within the next year. Why then would the government cut funding to literacy?

Next up on the chopping block is the $5 million cut to the Status of Women. For some reason the $1,000 a day limo minister of heritage decided that cutting support for women's organizations was in the best interest of government.

The history of the women's movement in Canada is one of hard work and dedication to equal rights, the inclusion of women and their equality in the charter. This work continues to seek greater equity in Canadian society for women and yet the funding was cut. It makes no sense. Again, I would suggest the Conservative government loves power but hates government.

While the Conservatives have slashed social programs that are valued by Canadians, they have undertaken what can only be called a massive orgy of pork-barrelling. Since they have come into power they have hired friends, party hacks, and major contributors to their right wing party. In Atlantic Canada, it seems every new senior official appointed to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has been a Conservative, and yet they have the temerity to lecture others about accountability.

Their blatant stacking of the judicial committees threatens not only the independence of the justice system, but it is an attempt to go after the charter, a document that has always made elements of that party uncomfortable, including its leader, the Prime Minister. The Conservatives have stacked the judicial committees for no other reason than to appoint right wing judges that will render the charter hollow. That is their goal. There can be no doubt.

Today in James Travers' column in the Toronto Star, and he is certainly far from being a card carrying Liberal, he suggests that:

Woven through its declared willingness to ride roughshod over Parliament is the same single-minded determination that is driving its attempts to add partisanship and ideology to the appointment of judges. Both are risky steps in the wrong direction...Reversing the trend away from a politicized appointment process by loading the screening committee is as damaging as what it's doing to Parliament. Along with raising the U.S. spectre of mixing personal beliefs with legal competence, it erodes public confidence in an independent judiciary.

There are a lot of comparisons between the Conservative government and the government in the United States right now under President George Bush. Canadians are beginning to realize that the current government in many ways is in lockstep with the right wing values of its republican friends to the south.

Whether it is cuts to students, women's groups, literacy, court challenges program, or the assault on the charter, we now know that in May 2005 the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was replaced by a narrow, right wing party that seeks to eradicate the role of the Canadian government and unravel what Canadians feel brings them together.

I would say that generations of Canadian governments, Progressive Conservative and Liberal, have focused on building a stronger, united Canada. Today's government is focused on creating a reduced and divided Canada, a Canada where the federal government abdicates and off-loads its responsibilities to the most vulnerable, and those members do not want to talk about it.

Canadians do want to talk about it. They want a generous nation, a big nation, a strong nation, a nation that knows that we are stronger when we take care of the most vulnerable, and make them part of the success and the future prosperity of Canada. That is what the Liberal Party believes as well.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a particular issue that is at the forefront of many Canadians' concerns and that is the environment. I would like my colleague to clarify something.

We get criticized for the rise in greenhouse gas emissions under our watch by 27%. That is true. We could have done a better job. What is not known is that our economy grew by 47% over the same period of time as a result of wise management. This drove our unemployment levels to the lowest levels in more than 30 years. Yes, our greenhouse gas emissions did go up, but not nearly as much as the increase in our economy.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would elaborate on the fact that we implemented a number of programs under the previous prime minister, including a very large sum of money for alternative energies, and also the EnerGuide program, which was an outstanding program that enabled homes to be built better thereby dramatically reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.

I wonder if he could shed some light on the fact that those programs were implemented by us, but the Conservative government has taken those programs, watered them down, renamed them, and suddenly claimed to be green.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very apparent to Canadians, certainly the people who watch the debates in House of Commons, that the commitment Canada has to the Kyoto protocol clearly is absent in the government.

The initiatives that the Liberals took while in government, in particular the Montreal conference for which our now leader was responsible, showed that Canada was a leader in the world's environment.

I will take one program about which I have some knowledge from a previous life. It is the EnerGuide for houses program and specifically the part of the program that went to the lowest income families. It was gutted by the government last year. The Conservatives have reintroduced some of these programs and they re-gifted them as new Conservative initiatives. However, the EnerGuide for low income houses was a program in which I was involved when I worked at Nova Scotia Power. In fact, we were the delivery agent for that program.

Nova Scotia Power provided that program free of charge to Nova Scotians. Those who spent a lot of money on fuel and polluted the environment would have the corporation go in, do an assessment and make recommendations to them. These people were the lowest income Canadians, the people who could least afford $2,000 or $3,000 to renovate their homes in order to save money and help the environment. The program helped those people the most.

When it gutted the program, that was an example of the kind of narrow social exclusionary practices of the government. It was not helpful to individual Canadians. Nor was it helpful to the collective of Canada or to the entire world, as we went about the job of trying to ensure we had an environment that was sustainable for generations to come.