Karen Redman

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals in the House will be voting for the motion.

[Business of the House, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and I believe you will find consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the member for St. Paul's, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to the end of government orders on Monday, May 8, 2006.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between all parties and I believe you will find consent for the following motion: That at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the member for St. Paul's, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to the end of government orders on Monday, May 8, 2006.

[Affordable Housing, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to join me in extending congratulations to Kitchener Centre's Mary Bales who was honoured by the Governor General with a Meritorious Service Decoration for her outstanding achievements.

As a successful realtor, Mary became aware of the lack of affordable housing in Kitchener. Always first to take affirmative action, Mary launched a campaign to create Heartwood Place to provide safe, affordable and adequate housing as well as transform old commercial buildings in our downtown core. In 2003, Heartwood Place unveiled its inaugural project, an industrial site renovated into a 33 unit apartment facility for low income families in Kitchener.

It is through Mary's generosity and commitment that we are able to provide citizens with improved access to housing, and also instill a sense of hope and confidence in tenants.

I invite hon. members to join me in offering heartfelt congratulations to Mary Bales, a true leader in our community.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I take my colleague's point. However, what I would like to continue saying is that the government has provided bus fare, not child care. The reality is that anyone who has had children in the child care system or anyone who has raised a child realizes that $1,200 does not go very far. In order to provide parents with true options, it has to be a comprehensive plan.

I would also point out to my friend across the way that provinces provide the child care. It was in partnership with provinces, in recognition of the proper, appropriate role of provinces and territories, which is why the minister of the day in the Liberal government went across Canada signing undertakings and agreements that reflected the needs articulated by provinces and communities. It was not a one size fits all approach, because, as we all know, Quebec has some wonderful examples that the rest of Canada can learn from.

It was a whole list, a comprehensive approach to early learning and nurturing of young children, not just child care, that we as a Liberal government were undertaking. It saddens me to hear my colleague across the way talk about being proud to cancel something that could have been so meaningful to so many members of the community.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I really do appreciate the sentiments of my young colleague across the floor, and I would have to say that had the government provided substantial money instead of what really amounts to bus fare, because anyone who has had a child in child care realizes that this amount of money--

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as the mother of four children and as somebody who was president of seven child care centres when I was a public school trustee, I know this area intimately.

The money was to be used by existing structures to give parents choice. What we have to recognize is that the Liberal government used the child tax benefit to flow money to families.

If the Conservative government feels that it is very wise to give $1,200 to families with children under six, I say go ahead but call it what it is. Call it a family benefit and then invest in child care for the existing structure, such as in my riding in Waterloo region where it is used for capacity building. A single nurse who works on night shift should be able to take her child to an in-home child care provider who is regulated by the region and receive the same kind of flexibility that a working parent needs. A parent staying home should be able to send his or her child to a best start program so the child can have the kind of interaction with other children in the playgroup.

We looked at Manitoba where it is capacity building and raising the kind of salaries that ECE people get who do this very important job. It was a very broad range of a smorgasbord that parents, no matter how they were choosing to raise their child, would have choice.

The people in my riding who are familiar with child care have said to me, quite simply, that the Liberal government had it right. We were putting the money where it needed to go and we were providing good options for parents. It is something I absolutely do not see in the Conservative government's plan.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Yukon.

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to rise in the House and highlight some of the concerns that I have with the government's agenda outlined in the Speech from the Throne, called “Turning a New Leaf”.

I appreciate the opportunity to continue in this House as a representative for the constituents of Kitchener Centre. I would like to thank the citizens of Kitchener for the confidence they have placed in me and for their continued support.

One would think that after 13 years in opposition the new government would have made constructive use of that time and would be in a position to articulate a clear, comprehensive vision for the future of Canada. Unfortunately, in the government's blueprint for the future, we see no evidence of the appreciation for the complex and wide-ranging issues that face Canada.

The government has the opportunity, indeed the privilege, to lead a nation that is economically sound and in the best fiscal position of any country in the G-7. This is a time to share economic success with Canadians and provide meaningful investments in important Canadian priorities. The government's agenda falls short in many respects and it is causing concern right across Canada.

The Speech from the Throne echoes five priorities. These are the priorities that formed the cornerstone of the Conservative election campaign. They seem to be a single focus for the government.

The GST cut is a priority, despite constant criticism from economists right across the country that it presents benefits for higher income families while offering relatively little tax relief to low income Canadians.

The plan also includes a commitment to crack down on crime, with stiffer penalties, contrary to the research that shows crime prevention programs, not stiffer penalties, are what bring crime rates down.

A wait time guarantee alone is not a cure-all for health care. We must work in cooperation and consultation with health care partners to restore confidence in our universal public health care system.

The principles of the Prime Minister's accountability act were also outlined in the throne speech. We all learned very important lessons on accountability from the report of the Gomery commission. It is not enough simply to talk about transparency, talk about openness and talk about accountability if our actions demonstrate the opposite. The public takes politics seriously and they have high expectations of their elected officials. They deserve nothing less.

The last item on the government's agenda includes cancelling the child care funding agreements with the provinces and providing a small baby bonus for families with young children. As the parent of any busy young child will tell us, this is not child care. This is not providing opportunity.

The holes in this agenda are massive and they are shocking. As a representative of Kitchener Centre, a diverse and multi-faceted urban centre, I am very disappointed that cities and communities are ignored in the government as it takes its vision forward. We depend upon strong communities and strong cities for our prosperity. The link between healthy cities, productivity and competitiveness is well established.

I am proud of Kitchener. It is a great city to live in and a terrific place to do business. It is an inclusive community. Kitchener has become an attractive destination for new Canadians. Over the years, Kitchener has grown and it has diversified to meet the challenging and evolving needs of a modern society. The federal government needs to be a partner in supporting and inspiring the kind of growth that we have seen in Kitchener and, as a matter of fact, the kind of growth that we see right across Canada. Cities need federal support and partnership to ensure continued growth.

Good policy is good policy, regardless of the partisan stripes under which it is conceived. I encourage the government to engage municipalities in collaborative activities such as those initiated by the Liberal government in its new deal for cities. Our cities need updated infrastructure, effective public transit and affordable housing. Homelessness continues to be a tremendous challenge in communities such as mine, right across Canada.

The supporting communities partnership initiative program, as part of the national homelessness initiative, has supported local initiatives that address local housing needs in urban centres. We cannot simply abandon the progress that has been made on this important federal issue. I believe everyone in this House believes that all Canadians should have access to affordable housing. Let us ensure that our future policies reflect that belief.

When I look at my own city, I am amazed at the various opportunities there are to enjoy Canada's art and culture. Our nation is home to a wealth of talent, enabling us to share and celebrate our culture through music, arts and theatre. In our museums, we discover and share the heritage that has provided the foundation for our continued growth. The Canadian identity is rich in its diversity and continues to evolve with our changing cultural landscape. Continued funding for the arts, the support of the CBC and museums is absolutely essential in preserving and sharing our culture and our identity.

I believe our nation is only as good as the air we breathe. Canadians know that our health and the health of our children, the quality of our communities, and our continued economic prosperity depend on a healthy environment.

The problem of climate change is creating new health and environmental risks. We cannot look into the future without a solid commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the challenge of climate change. For the health of this generation and for those who come after us, the government must define an environmental strategy.

There is no doubt that Canadians chose change on January 23. We respect that. I look forward to working in opposition to hold the government to account for the commitments it has made.

However, I have to say that my greater concern lies in what is missing from the Speech from the Throne. We live in a complex, demanding, diverse nation. We must govern for today, tomorrow and beyond. We must be both responsible and ambitious, focused and flexible, to ensure that Canada continues to prosper through the leadership in this 39th Parliament.

[Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, November 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.

[Points of Order, November 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the parliamentary secretary to the House leader was very sincere when he said “in due course”. It will not be this party that is voting to end Parliament prematurely.