House of Commons Hansard #111 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was aboriginal.

Topics

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Are you going to ignore the plebiscite results?

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

--there is no longer a Conservative Party in this country. The Conservative Party was lost with the backroom deal of MacKay and the present Prime Minister.

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Order. The hon. member for Malpeque is being called to order. He has much experience in this House and knows that we do not refer to other members by their names but by their constituency or their title.

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, might I say the backroom deal by the current Minister of Foreign Affairs and the current Prime Minister?

If one is looking for the most dramatic example of the government's contempt for the common and acceptable practices of what governments are expected and obligated to do, one need only look at how the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and specifically his parliamentary secretary have conducted themselves with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board.

The Canadian Wheat Board is a Canadian institution, respected abroad as a reliable marketer of high quality wheat and barley and supported in Canada as a marketing agency that empowers farmers in the marketplace through single desk selling.

The government has attempted, through threats, intimidation, voter list manipulation, the firing of directors and the firing of the chief executive officer, to get the Prime Minister's ideological agenda across. He just does not like the Wheat Board because it markets collectively on behalf of farmers.

In terms of the CEO, he was doing his job. He was abiding by the wishes of the board of directors, who are elected farmers, farmers elected by farmers. In fact, the CEO had just recently had his mandate renewed. To put it simply, he was offered a choice by the Government of Canada. The choice was this: obey the law and lose his job or break the law and keep it. Some choice. It was the choice that Adrian Measner, our CEO, was offered.

Let me go back to Mr. Measner's statement of December 5:

I have been asked to pledge support for the government's policy of eliminating the single desk, barring which I will be removed from my job. It would seem to me that opposition to the single desk should be far better grounds for my dismissal than unwavering support for the laws of Canada.

Here we have direct manipulation by the Government of Canada, direct manipulation coming right out of the Prime Minister's--

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Order, please. I would like to suggest to the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt that he make notes of the questions he might want to ask, and then, at the time for questions and comments, he will be the first to be recognized. Meanwhile, I would like to listen to the hon. member for Malpeque.

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, it was direct manipulation out of the Prime Minister's office to fire a CEO who was respected around the world. As a result, Canadian farmers have been injured.

However, the impact on democracy is the fact that there were farmers electing directors to a board. They recognized the CEO. They re-implemented him as a CEO for a $6 billion corporation, but because of orders from the PMO, the man was fired. That is an affront to a democratic institution.

The government has flatly refused to respect the demands and wishes of western grain farmers, as expressed through their organizations and the elected process set up under legislation in 1998. Worst, it has undermined and manipulated the right to democratically decide the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is costing economically and it is costing us dearly.

I have talked in the House before about Standard & Poor's lowering the credit rating of the Canadian Wheat Board. In its two page document it names the new Government of Canada as responsible for that lowered credit rating not once, not twice but eleven times. It says:

Since then, the government has banned CWB from advocating on its own behalf--

The Government of Canada put a gag order on a democratically farmer elected board. It has terminated the employment of the Canadian Wheat Board's president and CEO.That is a terrible deed.

It goes on to say:

--Standard & Poor's expects that government support of Canadian Wheat Board will continue to deteriorate as long as the current government lasts.

We are seeing an ideologically driven Prime Minister forcing his will on a democratically elected farmer institution that has been in place for three-quarters of a century, that markets on behalf of farmers and that brings an increased economy of roughly $622 million annually, according to studies. We are seeing the Prime Minister imposing his will against that agency just because he does not like it. That is an affront to democracy.

Has the government demonstrated a contempt for western grain farmers in Canadian institutions? Absolutely.

In the course of the Wheat Board director elections this past fall, the minister decided that he should manipulate the election. First, he had the gag orders, then he changed the voter list, taking 16,000 farmers off of it after the election was underway. In spite of those threats and undemocratic interventions by the Government of Canada, farmers returned a majority of pro-board directors in the election. Four out of five of the elected producers were in fact strong supporters of single desk selling.

However, it gets worse. We in the House have been long calling for a clear vote on the future of the Wheat Board on barley and wheat. In fact, the farmers put forward what they believed should be a ballot with a question on it that was clear, concise, direct and not confusing. It passed the agriculture committee, was debated in the House and on December 12 of last year, in a vote of 165 to 121, the majority of members in the House voted that the government place before western grain farmers the question for which farmers had asked. What did the minister do? He ignored that. He showed contempt for the House. It goes on and on.

He now has put before farmers what I would call a fraudulent question. I will quote from a Winnipeg pollster that calls the plebiscite that the minister is holding now “bizarre”.

Scott McKay, president of Probe Research, said the language the Conservatives are using for the three options on the barley vote are not only inconsistent but also far from neutral...

“These people are extremely incompetent or they are diabolical”, McKay said of those who designed the ballot's wording.

There is no question that the ballot itself probably comes out of the Prime Minister's Office because he wants to manipulate that to get the answer he wants.

To sum up, the Canadian Wheat Board is a farmer run organization. It was set up in 1998 with a board of directors and five appointed directors. Farmers are supposed to be running that agency. The Government of Canada never intervened before with directives, but the current government almost, on a weekly basis, sends directives to that marketing institution.

There were five government appointed directors on that agency, appointed for their expertise in marketing and international business. What did the government do? The CEO was fired because he did not agree with the Prime Minister. He agreed with and supported the farmers. The other four have been fired. One vacancy was up, the rest were fired and ideological people, who do not like the Wheat Board, were put in their place. Is that called democracy? I certainly do not.

However, the Prime Minister seems to stop at nothing in terms of getting his way. We have seen gag orders, fired directors, appointed ideologues, a fired CEO, a propaganda campaign and now a question that is unclear. The government should get back to democratic principles and accept the will of the House and the question that it has directed toward the government.

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Mr. Speaker, first, a couple of comments for people watching and following Hansard, who may not be totally aware of the history of the Wheat Board. As I stated in the House the other day, I am a fourth generation Saskatchewanian. My family still owns the land my great grandfather started to farm and my dad is still cropping it this year.

People should know that when the monopoly power of the current Wheat Board was put into place, it was not voted in by farmers. It was put in during World War II by the government to lower the price of wheat, something the hon. member should have noted.

The other point the hon. member should also note and remember, particularly coming from a party that has been hostile to agriculture, its elimination of the Crow rate being one example of that, is that when farmers took the freedom to sell their own wheat what did the hon. member's former government do? It threw them in jail because they took the wheat they had grown and harvested, the wheat that they were unable to sell to the Wheat Board in some cases and tried to sell it to willing customers. That is the hon. member's agricultural policy, throwing farmers in jail.

If farmers are so strongly supportive of the hon. member's party, why has it been a complete disaster in the Prairies, election after election for the last 50 years? In my riding, in nine out of the last ten elections the Liberal Party has finished in third place. If the hon. member supports western farmers and is speaking for them, why is his party so soundly rejected by the Prairies?

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing about members on the government side, they never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

That party talks about law and order. I ask the former minister of justice this. Did the people who were jailed break the law of the day? Yes, they did. Conservatives talk about law and order. They are importing American justice into the country, not to deal with the cause of the problems, but because they think it is popular to do. Let us get some law and order and we will build a few more jails. Will that deal with crime? No, it will not. The fact is crime is a lot higher in the United States. The system the Conservatives are trying to import is not working.

In terms of the jail issue, those people broke the law. Farmers were supposed to market through a single desk selling agency, which study and study has shown benefits farmers in the amount of $622 million per year.

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am very conscious of the fact that the member for Malpeque has chosen to concentrate his speech on his concerns about the Canadian Wheat Board. That is fair enough. He has the perfect right to do that. My party shares many of those concerns.

It is not surprising to me that he has chosen to focus only on the very last line of the motion, which concerns the Canadian Wheat Board. Let me reiterate the serious the problems with the Canadian Wheat Board, problems that have been created by the government.

My question arises out of the gist of the motion in its entirety. As I read it, it could just as easily have been a motion about his government and its failure to deliver. Now that the Liberals are in opposition, in the penalty box, they are raising objections toward the current government. No wonder Canadians get a bit confused.

My specific question is around the whole issue of the manner in which the former Liberal government is now accusing the Conservative government of its mishandling of judicial matters, and it arises from the mishandling by his government of the whole post-9/11 security, civil liberties and human rights challenges in terms of an appropriate balance.

The member for Malpeque was a member of the cabinet and he was responsible for—

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Order, please. The question period for this segment has ended. However, I will allow the hon. member a short moment to respond.

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, if we look back at the history of the previous Liberal government in dealing with the tragedy of 9/11, somewhere close to $9 billion was spent on security matters. I really do believe that we did find the balance between civil liberties and public security and we did it in a democratic fashion by consulting with people, not in an ideologically driven way as the current government is doing.

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member who just spoke. He is probably the most knowledgeable member in the House on agricultural issues, so when he speaks, he speaks with a force of authority that very few members in this House can enjoy.

I want members to remember three numbers. The first is $25 billion. The second is $5 billion. The third is $0.5 billion. I know that by the end of my speech members will appreciate those three numbers.

The figure of $25 billion represents the biggest single loss to unit holders and shareholders on a Canadian stock exchange in one day. The figure of $5 billion represents the cost of a one per cent reduction in the GST. The figure of $0.5 billion represents the alleged tax leakage from income trusts. These three numbers represent the ultimate in incoherence and incompetence of any Canadian government, save except possibly the Mulroney era, but even the scandal plagued Mulroney government did not sink to that level of incompetence and incoherence.

The Conservative government has no plans. Whatever plans it has on the environment and on the economy and on social economy, it really is not sharing with anyone else in this chamber or in this country. Members of the government, frankly, would not know a plan if it kicked them in the backside and that is clearly demonstrated by those three numbers.

Regarding the $25 billion, members will recollect that during the election, the neo-conservatives said they would not tax trusts. At every whistle stop across the country, the Conservatives said that they would not tax trusts. On every occasion, the current Prime Minister and the then finance critic said exactly the same thing, in spite of the serious questions raised about tax leakage in the Department of Finance paper in 2005.

Instead of waiting for all of the evidence, he made this promise, and to the everlasting dismay of thousands of hard-working Canadians, they relied on that promise, to the detriment of their portfolios. Some even were telling me that they bought based upon the promise of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.

The current Prime Minister and the then finance critic made their promise in spite of being fully briefed by the Department of Finance prior to their making that promise, yet they made that rash and reckless promise in the face of very difficult evidence. The consequences were predictable and the consequences were devastating, and that $25 billion is irretrievably gone.

Having gotten themselves inside the doors of power, they are now faced with the discipline of power, but for the first while, they frankly ignored all of the advice the Department of Finance would give them on various issues. If the Department of Finance said that a GST cut was not a very good idea, they ignored that. If the department said that tax credits would result in an incoherence and an inconsistency in the income tax system, they decided to ignore that as well.

When the department said that the best thing to do was broad-base tax relief so that all Canadians received the same relief, that thresholds move up and rates move down, they instead raised the rates and then went on this propaganda campaign and said that they had lowered the rates. They demonstrated a unique technique, unique to the government, namely, take a lie, repeat it over and over until it takes on the force of truth.

Incoherence mounting on incoherence mounting on misinformation; plans are not part of the lexicon of the government. The budget is generally written by the last guy out the door of the finance minister's office. This is, frankly, retail politics run amok.

What do we have? We have a Prime Minister and a Minister of Finance who make reckless promises that cost hard-working Canadians $25 billion, compounded by a $5 billion GST cut, which absolutely no one noticed and which every thinking person says is absolutely stupid. This is further compounded by cheap tax credits that introduce an unparalleled level of incoherence into the system and leave everyone bewildered.

The only ones who are really happy about this level of incoherence in the system are tax accountants who have to sort out for ordinary Canadians what credits they can and cannot claim.

The Prime Minister and Minister of Finance are in serious need of adult supervision.

Having ignored his department for the greater part of the year, the finance minister , however, yields to the siren song of tax leakage. This is a minister who blew five billion bucks on GST in a heartbeat against the advice of every economist in the country, and now starts to go down the rocky road of income trusts.

This is a file where the evidence is highly theoretical, frequently ambiguous and often contradictory, just perfect for the bull in the china shop finance minister that we have. And boy, did he really take to it, destroying $25 billion in an afternoon. It would take a whole herd of bulls several years to be as devastating as that bull was in one afternoon.

He ignored the evidence of the so-called tax leakage and ignored the issue of whether it was from flawed modelling. Instead of isolating the leakage, which frankly is primarily with non-residents, he decided to take a sledgehammer to the sector regardless of the consequences.

He ignored the advice that an entity tax judiciously applied to the point of leakage would probably address the major part of the issue. For some bizarre reason he decided to exempt real estate trusts from his bull in a china shop treatment, but ignore other sectors that have legitimate claims to differential treatment.

What quickly became clear at the hearings is that the minister had done no market analysis. Nothing. He had no idea of the consequences of his action. He did no study. He phoned no one. He was completely surprised, like all other Canadians, that this was going to cost Canadians $25 billion. He had nothing.

Then when the committee asked for the basis for his analysis, he sent out blacked out documents so no one could make any kind of a reasoned analysis as to whether, in fact, he knew anything or if he did know something, on what basis he made his decision.

The finance minister was as surprised as everyone else that he blew $25 billion on the basis of an alleged $0.5 billion tax leakage. Does this make any sense? First, he has a questionable grasp on the truth. Second, he destroys. Third, he turns around and then he says he is sorry, he is really sorry that he destroyed all these hard-working Canadians' savings. It gets worse.

In order to help the Canadians devastated by this bull in the china shop, the Liberal Party offered up a solution this week, led by the hon. members for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville and Markham—Unionville and suggested a way in which two-thirds of the value could actually be restored to Canadians. The finance minister would have none of it. As he said this morning, he is not interested. He would rather devastate Canadians' savings than admit that he might have made a mistake.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance pride themselves on their image of decisiveness. Well, they made a decision and they got it wrong; they got it decisively wrong.

Remember, $25 billion, $5 billion, $0.5 billion. He blows $5 billion in a heartbeat, destroys $25 billion in an afternoon, and worries himself sick over $0.5 billion. It is incomprehensible, it is incoherent and it is idiotic.

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Langley B.C.

Conservative

Mark Warawa ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the motion which is being debated today. I find it interesting that there are 10 different topics in the motion. It refers to the judicial appointment process, Kyoto, regulations on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, child care spaces, aboriginal peoples, advocacy for women, vulnerable Canadians, budget surpluses, linguistic and cultural diversity, and the Canadian Wheat Board. There is nothing in there about income trusts.

Did the member's leader have difficulty in setting the priorities by having so many different topics in the motion? If he did have difficulty setting priorities and had 10, why was the member's issue of the income trusts not included as one of the 10? Why is this an 11th issue that is being discussed?

And is the member not aware that it is illegal to divulge insider trading information and the RCMP gets involved?

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, the beauty of the Conservative government is that it is so target rich in that there are so many things that it has done wrong in its short, nasty and brutish little life. The income trust file was one of the glaring big ones, the whopper of all whoppers. It is really hard to figure out what lie in Canadian history has cost Canadians $25 billion. It is hard to imagine anything bigger. I do not know economically if all the 10 that have been put together add up to the same amount of money that the finance minister and the Prime Minister destroyed in an afternoon.

It is a paramount example of incompetence, incoherence and idiotic public policy.

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this motion, and in particular to address my comments to the conduct of the Conservative government with regard to judicial appointments. I would like to give the House a bit of history.

In the last Parliament a subcommittee was set up under the justice committee to investigate the methodology used for judicial appointments, not Supreme Court of Canada appointments but all other federal court appointments. A motion was brought forward by the Bloc Québécois which was prompted by a comment by a federally appointed judge in the province of Quebec.

The judge made a statement saying that lawyers who were sovereignists should not be considered for appointment to a federal court bench. That, quite frankly, was scandalous, but it seems a pattern that the Conservative government is prepared to emulate.

As a result, fairly extensive investigations were carried out over a period of six to eight months. An interim report was issued and we were working on the final report when the election intervened.

Those investigations found that there was still an element of partisanship in the committees that screened judges for federal appointments. I have to say with no equivocation that there was no suggestion along the lines of the statement made by the judge in Quebec. The ideology was considered by those screening committees. It was found that partisanship was still intervening to some degree.

Debate has gone on in the House and around the country over the Conservative government's determination, and the Prime Minister's determination in particular, to politicize our courts. The Prime Minister is determined to make it a condition of appointment that one has to be “a strict constructionist” of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and of the Constitution and, and this is the most offensive part, that the candidate must support the initiatives of the government. That is as offensive as anything can be to the democratic process in this country.

We have pillars of democracy in Canada. The House is one of those pillars. Elected representatives are significant pillars, but so is an independent judiciary. It must be as pure as we can make it. The judiciary has to be absolutely independent.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that he is prepared to undermine that pillar. We are in a situation where we simply cannot tolerate that position. Every member in the House, including every member of the Conservative Party, should appreciate that. The government should alter its course in this regard.

We are at a very severe risk of politicizing the judiciary. It seems to be the clear intent of the government. There are some 13 screening committees across the country. As a result of the government's approach to appointments at the screening committees, we are also at a high risk of politicizing police officers and police associations across the country.

I am just being reminded and I apologize to the House for this, but I intend to share my time with the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, who will be addressing the House in her usual eloquent fashion but on a different topic.

Going back to the politicization of police forces, what is being seen by the general public is the Conservative government lining up police agencies across the country on its side by appointing them not only to the screening committees but by making their vote the determining vote.

What used to happen before, if there was a tie, the judge who was on the committee would be the one casting the deciding vote. The government has taken that vote away from the judges only in the situation where there is a tie. Before, they had a vote on all occasions. Because of the structure where there are four government appointments and three that come from other sources, the law society, the bar association and the judiciary, the balance is now swayed in favour of the government appointments and the police officer representative is the one who has the balance.

I am going to conclude with these comments. The Prime Minister and the government should be ashamed of themselves for doing this because we cannot afford as a democracy to have our independent judiciary undermined.

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Windsor—Tecumseh for sharing his time with me on this important matter. I too will be speaking in favour of this motion. I am going to address two parts of the motion. I want to talk specifically about budget spending cuts directed at aboriginal people and I also want to touch briefly on child care spaces.

With respect to budget cuts affecting aboriginal people I want to reference two documents. There has been much discussion about the appalling state of poverty for many first nations, Métis and Inuit people. In a document entitled “Federal Government Funding to First Nations: The Facts, the Myths and the Way Forward”, I want to highlight the fact that in this document it says that funding for core services such as education, economic and social development capital facilities and maintenance has decreased by almost 13% since 1999-2000.

This document was written in 2004 so it is not talking about the current fiscal situation. We are all very well of the fact that there has been a 2% cap on spending for first nations people. That cap remains in place despite the fact that this population is growing much faster than the national average in many first nations communities.

In addition, to highlight the situation around poverty for first nations communities, the Assembly of First Nations is currently conducting a Make Poverty History: The First Nations Plan for Creating Opportunity. I will not quote from all of this document, but it clearly outlines the challenges facing first nations communities.

It talks about the fact that one in four first nations children live in poverty compared to one in six Canadian children. About one in three first nations people consider their main drinking water supply unsafe to drink and 12% of first nations communities have to boil their drinking water. Mould contaminates almost half of all first nations households.

In terms of the overall health and well-being of the communities, applying the United Nations human development index would rank first nations communities 68th among 174 nations. Canada has dropped from first to eighth due in part to the housing and health conditions in first nations communities.

Those numbers are shocking. We have recently seen international organizations coming to Canada to highlight the desperate conditions on some of the reserves. I would argue that it is well past time for the House to come together and address in a meaningful way the conditions in many first nations communities.

I also want to speak about child care, specifically the lack of affordable quality child care spaces that have been created in this country. Many of us in the House know that there is currently a campaign called Code Blue for Child Care.

Certainly, in my province of British Columbia many child care activists have been writing, emailing, phoning and marching to raise awareness of both the federal and the provincial politicians about the state of child care in British Columbia. I know it is the same in other provinces, but because I am from British Columbia I specifically want to talk about it.

The Code Blue for Child Care campaign is a nationwide campaign which attempts to have federal-provincial-territorial and other local elected officials work with the child care community to ensure that child care plans are being developed that address the needs in our communities.

Code Blue for Child Care is campaigning for four key areas. It is looking at restored multi-year federal funding so that provinces and territories can put in place systems that work for their communities. It is looking for federal child care legislation that lays out the principles of a pan-Canadian strategy.

On that point, in the previous government after many years of not moving forward on the national child care strategy, finally there was some movement. However, under the Liberals we failed to enshrine that in legislation when we had the opportunity to do that. Under the Conservatives we saw whatever gains we had made being stripped away and replaced by a program that is not creating child care spaces.

In addition, Code Blue talks about effective income support for families, in addition to quality child care and dedicated capital transfers for community based child care services.

The Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada had some very harsh words for the current state of child care in this country. Its press release states:

The child allowance isn't child care and there is no plan. A plan would have to include standards, and goals and timelines for building and sustaining a range of flexible high quality early learning and child care services throughout Canada. It would include complementary and equitable family supports. The Conservatives have not put forward any plan, nor provided the right kind of support to families.

It goes on to say:

The Conservative government betrays its ignorance about early learning and child care services. The goal of a system of high quality services is to provide warm, stimulating and developmental environments for children through programs that are responsive and caring--a far cry from institutional care.

I want to read from an article that appeared on February 14 in the Lake Cowichan Gazette, which is in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, because I think these are the words of the parents who are relying on child care. It states:

Scheffer and other parents who use the Kaatza Day Care are concerned, though, about cuts in provincial funding by $2 per day per [child] aged three to five and $4 per day per child for children under three years old.

The reason that article is important is it is just as we feared. When the Conservatives brought in their $100 a month for parents, we feared that there would be a clawback in some of our provinces, which is exactly what has happened in British Columbia.

The article goes on to state:

The cuts are slated for the end of March in response to the loss of $455 million in federal government funding. Instead, the federal government is providing $100 a month per child under six years old.

Day cares and preschools are a stepping stone to elementary school, says mother Belinda Waller, as well as helping children feel comfortable when they are away from parents and family and make them realize there are safe places they can go to play and learn in a healthy environment.

“If the government proceeds with the proposed funding cuts we will lose our child resource centre that directs parents to these safe centres...,” said Waller. “To the leaders of our country and province, I say shame on you for attacking our most vulnerable members of society and our future, our children!”

That is a direct quote from a parent who has a child in a child care centre that provides that quality, affordable child care that is so important.

The article continues to state:

She added that children not only learn from their families, but also from their peers and “the wonderful trained child-care providers”.

Brenda Montgomery, who also uses the Kaatza Day Care Centre, agrees. She said that without licenced child care in Lake Cowichan, she would not have been able to move to the community.

“I did not know anyone when I moved here, so would not leave my child in unlicenced care,” she said. “I want my child in an early learning environment with qualified staff who understand the developmental needs of children and can apply it. As a single parent wanting to be a productive, taxpaying member of society I require affordable, quality child care for my daughter.”

Currently, the Kaatza Day Care Centre is licenced for 20 children three to five years old and eight spaces for children under three. There's a long waiting list for under three spaces, says Wendy Fetchko, head supervisor at day care centre, but an application with the provincial government has to go on a waiting list until local day care spaces close, at which time the government would consider funding new spaces at 2005 levels.

This is a community that I am talking about. These are people living, working and paying taxes in our community and they want regulated, licensed, quality, affordable child care for their children.

If we agree that children are one of our most valuable resources, surely we should be ensuring that we are providing the kind of services and quality day care spaces that are so important for those children's well-being.

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo B.C.

Conservative

Betty Hinton ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the concerns that were expressed by the member and I need an explanation on a couple of things or perhaps she could correct the information she just put forward.

The government has honoured the one year arrangement that the previous Liberal government put in place for child care. We honoured that up front and we gave one year's notice to be certain that no one would be unaware of it.

As to the other statement that she made, I happen to know it is completely incorrect. Having spoken to the MLAs in my area, there has been no clawback in B.C. funding. In terms of people in low income families, the B.C. government will not claw back again now. Therefore, it will not make any difference to low income Canadian families who are living in British Columbia.

Regardless of what the letter may say, the woman who wrote the letter has every right to express her opinion but if she is basing it on misinformation that could have been given to her by this particular member of Parliament, the member has an obligation to make certain that the lady who wrote to her understands that there was no clawback in B.C. and that the new program that will begin in March will be the perfect opportunity to create 25,000 new child care spaces every year for the next five years, for a total of 125,000 spaces.

I would urge the member opposite to encourage the people in her riding to spend the kind of time and energy in cooperating with businesses and corporations to create these new child care spaces, rather than doing the kinds of things that they are doing now, which is not helping children, parents or existing child care centres.

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, I was not quoting from a letter. I was quoting from a newspaper article that appeared in the Lake Cowichan Gazette on Wednesday, February 14, 2007. The newspaper reporter talked about the cuts in provincial funding by $2 per day per child aged three to five and $4 per day per child under three years old.

I have a couple of points around this. First, I wonder where the plan was to create child care spaces. We do not see a plan to create child care spaces. We do not see new child care spaces being created.

We know that the $100 a month is taxable. We know that, on average, parents will end up with $80 a month and many parents are in a position where that does not remotely cover the true cost of child care.

I would argue that what we have been asking for is a national child care program with concrete funds assigned to it, time lines attached to it and involvement from the child care community to ensure the plan is adequate. I would argue that is what we have always asked for and promoted and we will continue to advocate for it.

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we are spending a lot of time talking about the child care issue because it is extremely important, but a matter that the government just does not seem to get.

The member is quite right about the $100, especially when it is paid across the board but has no relevance to whether there is a need by someone. As a matter of fact, I suspect that this might be more successful a venture if the benefit were income tested or means tested. It would allow that pie to be paid to a smaller number of Canadians in need.

I wonder if the member agrees that this may be an ill-conceived plan that the Conservative government has put forward.

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I think we all would agree that giving people $100 a month will create affordable, licensed, quality child care spaces in this country is a bogus notion. I would argue that we need to continue to support a national child care act.

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Beauport—Limoilou Québec

Conservative

Sylvie Boucher ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss the Liberal motion and comment on the completely mistaken reference it contains regarding Canada’s linguistic duality.

I would like to reiterate the government’s very firm commitment to the Official Languages Act and our unfailing support for linguistic duality throughout Canada. I also wish to talk about the achievements and policy and program directions that the new government has and continues to put forward with a view to advancing the equal status of both official languages and enabling the country to take full advantage of the riches afforded by this linguistic duality.

There is a consensus on official languages, namely that the country’s linguistic duality is an essential component of the Canadian identity and an extraordinary asset for all of society. A recent CROP poll indicated that over 80% of Canadians share this opinion, which shows the great popularity of this Canadian value.

The government has taken a clear position in favour of the Official Languages Act. We are making sure that English and French have the same status regarding their use in all parliamentary and governmental institutions. We support the development of official language minority communities and we will help them to contribute fully to the prosperity of our country. We are promoting the full recognition of English and French throughout Canada.

We have demonstrated our support for linguistic duality on numerous occasions. Indeed I would remind the House that we contributed to the adoption on November 25, 2005, of the Act to Amend the Official Languages Act, which reinforced Part VII of the act. This part states the commitment of the Government of Canada to foster the development of official language minority communities and to promote the full recognition and use of both official languages. A collective resolution by the caucus brought about the passing of this bill.

May I recall that this act was passed in spite of the opposition of the Bloc Québécois, which claims to be the great defender of francophones but which refused to support this positive measure for francophones outside Quebec?

I would also like to mention the personal and complete commitment by the Prime Minister himself to official languages, particularly the French language, which he uses frequently.

The government’s support for linguistic duality as a foundation of Canadian society remains unequivocal. I wish to add that, for us, this support includes the recognition of the Quebec’s key and crucial role in the vitality of the French factor in this country.

Furthermore, we are committed, unlike the previous Liberal centralizing government, to practising an open federalism that recognizes the unique place of a strong and dynamic Quebec within a united Canada.

We have five priorities on our government's agenda that will enable us to come closer to our ultimate goal of building a stronger, more secure and better Canada. In my view, I cannot imagine a strong Canada without the contribution of our official language minority communities, big or small, located across Canada.

I now want to mention the policy and program directions that the minister has brought forward in carrying out her mandate and point out the many accomplishments over the last year.

We have many challenges to meet in maintaining and further enriching the impressive heritage bequeathed to us by former generations.

For instance, there is education, where we need to redouble our efforts in order to ensure that young francophones not only start their educational paths in French but complete them in French as well.

That is why we have signed bilateral education agreements with all the provinces and territories worth a total of $1 billion over four years. These agreements will enable young people from minority communities to go to school in their own language. In addition, they will help all young people in Canada to learn their other official language.

Thanks to these agreements, the official language minority communities are able to implement programs adapted to their realities. Young people receive an education in their own language and attend schools managed by their community. They flourish in their own language from a very young age while developing an even stronger sense of belonging to their community.

In partnership with the provincial and territorial governments, we also announced the construction and renovation of community spaces in New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories.

We count on immigration as well to ensure the demographic and economic growth of our communities and country.

In the last budget, our government announced an additional $307 million for immigrant settlement in Canada. We also brought forward measures to establish the Canadian agency for the assessment and recognition of foreign credentials. This will also help the French-language minority communities.

The issue of official languages requires the involvement of many different partners and that is why we have paved the way for open, respectful cooperation with all levels of government and organizations from all sectors.

I believe that this spirit of cooperation that the government is fostering among the various official language stakeholders was very present at the Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie, which was held last October and co-chaired by the Minister for La Francophonie and Official Languages. At this meeting, along with the ministers from the provinces and territories, we decided to focus our action on young people.

Young Canadians are open to linguistic duality and all its advantages. They are more and more bilingual, mobile and attuned to the new technologies. They represent our future, a future full of promise.

Our support for the communities could be seen as well in the creation of the Assemblée franco-ontarienne and our $660,000 grant to the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada to organize its 2007 summit of francophone and Acadian communities.

We have signed a cooperation agreement with the anglophone community sector in Quebec. We want to maintain an open and honest dialogue with this community which contributes significantly to Quebec's national and international reputation.

We must not forget that the needs and the challenges of anglophones in Quebec are different and varied. Moreover, members of this community are models of bilingualism. This is why we must continue to work together to highlight our linguistic duality across the country.

We have also signed important agreements totalling nearly $64 million over four years for minority language services. Together, these agreements will allow members of official language minority communities to strengthen their ties and ensure that their voices are heard, loud and clear.

This is what can be accomplished by cooperating, not only with federal partners, but also with other levels of government and with the private sector, and by developing ways to focus on the economic, cultural and social benefits of linguistic duality.

The new government's cooperative approach has also proven itself in other areas, particularly in health care. In this area, innovative partnerships have been created with minority francophone and anglophone communities, and this is producing tangible results.

In summary, the new Government of Canada intends to defend bilingualism with passion and heart. We want to work to increase equality between the two official languages in all federal institutions, to reinforce minority official language community vitality across the country, and to make sure that the two major linguistic communities in Canada understand and mutually enrich each other better.

Unlike the previous government—I am referring to the corrupt Liberal friends of the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore—and unlike the members of the Bloc who can do nothing and will never be able to do anything, we took action and we continue to take action to demonstrate, once and for all, the strength of Canada's linguistic duality.

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's presentation. Her rhetoric was very nice and she read the text well. Unfortunately, there is a disconnect between what she said and what is really going on.

First, one of the things this government did recently was cut the court challenges program for linguistic minorities in Canada. Basically, the government is telling minorities that if they think their language rights have been violated, they can just deal with it themselves because the government will not be giving them any money and will not help them defend their rights.

Second, we recently learned that senior army officers will no longer be required to be bilingual. I find that completely unacceptable. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. Does she think it makes sense that our senior military officers do not have to be bilingual?

Third, we have recently seen that the government cannot even offer services in French to parliamentarians here on the Hill. Many government ministers do not have a single person on staff who can answer our questions in French. Some of these departments are very important. People in our offices—members who have francophone staff here—have all experienced that. They cannot find a single staff member in a minister's office who can speak French.

Does the Conservative Party member agree that rather than trying to teach the Liberals a thing or two—we all know they did not do their job—her government should set an example? Should the government not require all senior military officers to be bilingual? Should it not reinstate the court challenges program for linguistic minorities? Should ministers not set an example in their own offices by offering services in French to those House colleagues who need them?

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, to hear a Bloc member defend la Francophonie to that extent will always fascinate me because we know full well that the Bloc voted against Bill S-3.

And to see to what extent they just talk and talk will always fascinate me. When it comes time to take action, to stand up and speak loud and clear for la Francophonie, they are simply never there. They voted against Bill S-3. They voted against francophone minorities outside Quebec. What can they add to this? They have never supported la Francophonie outside Quebec. Every time we had a vote on this, they voted against.

Opposition Motion--Government PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about linguistic duality, but a growing number of Canadians have neither English nor French as their first language.

When children are hungry, they cannot learn. Yesterday another report came out on child poverty, UNICEF report card number seven, “Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Well-being in Rich Countries”. Canada is doing very, very poorly. Canada ranks second last in all OECD countries.

A percentage of young people aged 13 to 15 reported being overweight. The new health commissioner said that today's overweight teenagers are tomorrow's heart attack victims. Partially it is because they are missing their breakfast and there is not a decent lunch program in schools.

Would the hon. member support a national health and nutrition program for every child under 18 in schools and community centres? This would be based on a flexible, made in Canada community development model, building on the existing knowledge base of local organizations and parent groups so kids would not be hungry and would have decent, healthy, nutritious meals in schools. Then they could learn properly, whether it is English, French or any other subject.