Carol Skelton

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-48 on behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

My constituents have consistently opposed the Liberal approach of spending without an adequate plan which is evident in Bill C-48.

It is surprising that the Prime Minister was willing to put his fiscal reputation into jeopardy with this budgetary process. Obviously his desire to hold on to his fragile grip to power has driven him to pursue paths undreamed of 18 months ago when he could do no wrong. It is because of this obsession to hold on to power at all costs that I feel this budget does not have the proper priorities at hand. It is more of a feel good budget than a do good budget. It looks fairly good today, but watch out for the consequences tomorrow.

The Liberal approach is cruel not only to taxpayers, but more important, to those who depend on the promised services. I must draw to the attention of my colleagues what I believe is the biggest deficiency of this budget document.

Over the last few years there have been thousands of stories in the media and hundreds of speeches and questions in the House of Commons on agricultural prices in Canada. Imagine the shock and disappointment my constituents and I felt when the bill did not even mention their dilemma. There was not a word. Just when they felt that perhaps their call for help had been heard in Ottawa, they discovered they were being officially ignored by the Liberal government. This only became worse when the NDP got involved and did not secure an ounce of help for them either. Only the Conservative Party is advocating for our farm families and rural communities.

Farmers have been promised programs in the past, but the government has not delivered. The programs are ineffective, burdened by paperwork and delays. They have failed those who need the help so badly.

The Auditor General has raised serious concerns about the ability of other departments to deliver programs effectively. These are departments to which the Liberals want to give more money in Bill C-48, including Indian and northern affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency.

In addition, the Auditor General's office is currently conducting an audit of the Government of Canada's climate change expenditures, which will be released next year. One can only imagine what negative effects that could have on all our citizens.

The Conservative Party wants to ensure that the social needs of Canadians are met. We recognize that many Canadians are not receiving the level of assistance that they deserve from the Liberal government. This is a direct result of the Liberal government's approach to all problems, throwing money without an adequate plan. The Liberals just throw money at the problem until it goes away, or at least their critics do.

This philosophy has cost Canada in the past and it will cost us even more down the road. Reckless spending has never led to long term stability and national prosperity. It is irresponsible and cruel to needy Canadians to throw money at government programs that are not meeting their objectives. Besides being a disservice and raising false hope, it is a waste.

The responsible approach would be for the government to first ensure that existing money is spent effectively, to improve programs and services to ensure that no one is left behind.

Committee stage is an important part of the legislative process. It is supposed to be an opportunity to improve the quality of legislation with expert testimony and the experience of all members. At committee stage the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition rejected Conservative efforts to restore prudent fiscal management.

The Conservative Party attempted to include real solutions for Canadians, such as matrimonial property rights for aboriginal women and to ensure accountability and transparency.

I was involved in the process through the aboriginal committee. The committee spent months in efforts to isolate the problems, identify the solutions and to put forward the recommendations. As with too much committee work, we feel our efforts have fallen on deaf ears.

As MPs we will not suffer. It will be our constituents, our fellow Canadians that will pay the price with a wasted opportunity.

Also, at report stage the Conservative Party tried to move amendments to make the spending in Bill C-48 more accountable to Canadians and to reflect a more prudent fiscal approach. There was a genuine effort to avoid a repeat of the waste, the mismanagement and the boondoggles that have dogged the Liberal government for years. Taxpayers have demanded better accountability and we have tried to deliver it, but the Liberals and NDP have restricted us at every step.

One amendment proposed was to raise the amount of surplus that would be set aside for debt repayment. The interest saved could prevent future cuts to social programs as a result of the upcoming demographic changes. Another amendment would force the government to table a plan by the end of each year, outlining how it would intend to spend money in this bill.

The Conservative amendment to clause 3 would ensure that important accountability and transparency mechanisms would be in place for corporations wholly owned by the federal government. These include crown corporations like the Mint, Canada Post and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Accountability and transparency should be paramount to any government, especially in this case, considering Bill C-48 advocates spending an additional $4.5 billion of taxpayer money.

The Conservative Party will continue to hold the Liberals and the NDP to account where spending is unfocused and wasteful. As the social development critic, I was deeply concerned by the format the government chose to use for child care funding.

The $700 million allocated for spending this year was put into a trust account. These trust accounts have been criticized by the Auditor General as their activities fall outside of the purview of Parliament and the Access to Information Act. This is no way to introduce accountability to a program that we know will cost billions of dollars. It is quite likely that we are witnessing the beginnings of the next billion dollar boondoggle. If the minister is so proud of his work, why is he not willing to be transparent with us? Why is he opening himself up to the scandal and mismanagement?

It is also worth pointing out that those trust accounts are a convenient way to say it has spent the money without actually spending it. In fact, only $351 million of the $700 million has been allocated to the provinces so far for child care. That means basically half remains unallocated and unspent. Unfortunately, if this trust account is like the others, such as the millennium fund, this money is lost unless spent. It cannot be returned to general revenues.

I sincerely wish the Liberal and NDP governments would have accepted the genuine efforts of the Conservative Party to improve the bill. Even more so, I wish our farm families, rural communities and seniors had not been forgotten. There have been lots of lost opportunities in this budget but the real damage will not be evident until long after it is passed.

[Supply, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to go back and read from Hansard the statement by our leader on the first supply day motion we had on child care, when he spoke about how he and his wife chose child care for their two children, how they used it and how beneficial they found it.

I would like to talk about raising my own children and about my own family situation.

My daughter needed child care and had to find a young woman who could come and live with her, because she was a shift worker. She could not get child care or a day care program for her daughters at that time. I also look at my son, who is disabled and who is looking after their two daughters. He and his family cannot afford to use day care where they live. They do not have any help to get child care. I have another son whose wife stayed home to look after their daughter until she went to school. I have watched them struggle. I was very fortunate in being able to stay home to look after my children.

I see wonderful child care facilities and fantastic workers, and I have visited them and talked with them, but I look at our diverse country of Canada and I do not see anything but a one size fits all program coming from the Government of Canada at this moment.

[Supply, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, for the parliamentary secretary and the government sitting over there, as the member said earlier, we will respect the agreements that she and the Liberals have signed with the provinces. When the time comes, Canadians will see our policies, how they will be costed out and how we will prove the economists' words and what they say about it.

There are a lot of assumptions from the other parties about what our policies are, but the whole issue is what the government is doing and how the Minister of Social Development is accounting for all that he has done.

[Supply, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

On the issue of daycare, [hon. Minister of Social Development], it is time to see the ideas coming from the opposition team and let at least the daycare ones through.

The frustration in these letters is evident. As I said before, there are numerous letters just like this. The minister knows this. Most of the letters were addressed to him and simply copied to me.

If the minister did read them, why is he ignoring them? In the responses that I have seen, if they used the word “taxes” once, he refers them off to the Minister of Finance. Is he too scared to answer or does he simply not have the answers? The minister should be willing to defend his program while at the same time be willing to change it. This is a delicate balance we have not seen from him since he arrived here last year.

Canadians have overwhelmingly said they do not want a two tier day care program like the Liberals are proposing. Parents have said they want to choose a child care arrangement that works best for their families. They have diverse needs and want diverse choices. One size fits all policies are not the solution. They never have been and never will be. Provinces have consistently said they need the freedom to make arrangements to address their specific needs.

Canadians do not want to abandon rural residents like the Liberals do. Canadians want to respect shift workers, part time workers and low income workers. It is time for the minister to open his mind to constructive and innovative solutions that will benefit all Canadian families.

[Supply, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook. It is a pleasure to speak today to the motion brought forward by my colleague from Edmonton and the Conservative Party critic on child care.

This motion, along with the Conservative Party policy on child care, demonstrates that a forward looking and inclusive universal plan is possible. Unfortunately, the Minister of Social Development is not willing to accept that improvements can be made to his day care scheme. Unfortunately, he has attempted to close debate on this issue in favour of his top down institutional scheme.

The Conservative Party has listened to Canadians and has brought forward a policy that leaves no one behind. It respects provincial jurisdiction, encourages choice in types of child care parents can accept, and freely allows for cultural, linguistic, religious and social input. The Conservative policy is not a close minded, one size fits all ministerial order.

Today's media has reported what we have known on this side of the House for a long time. The Minister of Social Development is determined to institute his two tier day care scheme at all costs.

He refuses to meet with informed experts who may have constructive improvements to his policy. He refuses to explain what the 9 out of 10 children who cannot access this program can do instead. Where will they go? He refuses to explain how his plan would not fall victim to the problems of the Quebec model he plans to emulate.

He refuses to explain how low income families with part time workers would benefit. He refuses to explain how self-employed or contract employees would benefit. He refuses to explain how universal access would work for rural families. He refuses to explain how shift workers would have a choice under his rules.

He refuses to explain how parents who want to raise their children in minority, social, linguistic, cultural and religious environments would be accommodated fairly. He refuses to discuss the tens of billions of dollars his program would end up costing. Even worse, he refuses to back up what he does say with facts, research and evidence.

I have received numerous letters on this issue, mainly from people feeling frustrated that the minister is not listening to them.

Here is a letter the minister received today from Paul Holmes in Victoria, and I was copied on it. Once the minister notices that the letter is not singing praises about his policy, he probably will not read the whole thing. So, I will read it instead:

You were a hero of mine when I was growing up! I still have at least a dozen (of your) hockey cards in my collection. If I knew back then that you would one day be the man responsible for ruining 7 years of planning for my wife and I, I would have felt differently.

As a father-to-be (in about 7 weeks), I am experiencing all the usual anxiety. But on top of this, I am one part alarmed and two parts saddened by the proposed National Daycare Program.

My wife and I both run our own small business, and, although business is stable, our combined household income definitely falls somewhere toward the low end of middle-class.

Because we are both self-employed, we receive no EI benefits for maternity or paternity care--we must survive this time on our own savings.

We made the decision long ago to delay having any children until we could afford to have one of us care for our child at home during the early years. We are now both in our 30s, and decided the time has finally arrived.

I respect those who choose to put their children into daycare (or those who have no choice), but we diligently planned and knew the sacrifices we would have to make to take care of our child at home. Or, at least we thought we knew the sacrifices we would have to make!

We make no qualms about paying our fair share of taxes on our soon-to-be reduced household income, and we have accepted that we will be losing an entire income for the sake of caring for our child. But now, thanks to your proposal, we must pay for other people's child care, too!

When the costs skyrocket for this program, which you admitted is inevitable in a television interview, our taxes must also go up.

And when our taxes go up, we will be on such a thin edge already, that we will almost certainly be forced to enter our child in daycare. All this, despite our years of planning to care for our child at home! I hope you can empathize with me on some level. Do you understand just how totally disheartening this is?

The facts are simple: if you do not introduce this program, we will have a choice for our child care; if you proceed, you will almost certainly take our choice away. If you are keen on helping parents, as you claim your proposal is intended to do, why not simply reduce taxes for all parents? This would certainly help us, and it would help parents who have their children in daycare, too.

At the very least, if you must do something, please do something that has a neutral effect on us and other parents who choose to care for their children at home! Is it too much to ask for the government to not hurt our new family by destroying everything we have planned for?

The second letter came from Jean Howell in Victoria and it states:

Dear Minister,

I was privileged to receive a copy of Paul Holmes' fine letter. I wish to add two very important points from the point of view of a retired lady who took five years out of her teaching career to raise four children to school entering age and who paid for her own mother's helpers once they were all duly enrolled.

My current pensions are reduced by over $500 per month in terms of 2004 dollars which is when I retired. They would have been reduced even further had I not purchased some of the time with more of my taxable income. This purchase resulted in a reduction of joint family income over a second five year period. In total, our family decision to have four children resulted in 10 years of productive losses with absolutely no tax relief other than the fact that I had no taxable income for five of the years while my husband was sole support.

I am also pleased to see that copies of these letters are going to [Ms. Carol Skelton]. I believe that her caucus members have put together a very comprehensive plan for taxpayers and parents that would give much greater freedom to parents to choose a way in which their children's future is planned.

I strongly urge you, Minister Dryden, to look at the ideas in these two letters and to listen to the ideas coming from the critic in the Conservative caucus. I know that your hockey training was to watch for the puck and stop the puck. I believe this is a time for you to let in some of the pucks.

On the issue of daycare, Minister Dryden, it is time to see--

[Child Care, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has an obligation to consider all options before spending billions of dollars but he refuses. He has an obligation to discuss policy options with all Canadians but he refuses. He has an obligation to consider the true cost of his day care scheme but he refuses. He talks about opening the minds of children and exposing them to all the world has to offer.

Why is he not following his own advice?

[Child Care, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Development is not willing to listen to constructive criticism of his day care scheme. He is refusing to meet with Kids First and other groups that are in favour of choice in child care. He will not even take a phone call. He refuses to consider families who are left out of his plan. He refuses to hear about innovative alternatives to institutional day care.

Why does the minister believe he knows better than everyone else?

[Child Care, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has admitted that he is willing to gamble $5 billion. Parents do not want expensive social experiments. They want choice. They want to be able to choose the child care arrangement that best meets their own family's needs, not one made by the minister.

Why will the minister not simply transfer direct assistance to parents so that they can make the best decisions for their children?

[Child Care, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Development has admitted he has no idea what he is doing or where he is going. He has finally admitted his child care plan will not be universal, costs are not calculated and children will be funded differently based on where they live.

Why is the minister abandoning low income families, shift workers and rural Canadians while misleading them with stories of inclusion?

[Firefighters, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support a long overdue piece of legislation in the name of all firefighters across Canada, past and present. Motion No. 153, when amended, will provide important recognition, both symbolic and substantive.

As children, many of us dream of growing up to be many different things. I wanted to be a cowboy when I was little. Today young men and women want to be firefighters. The possibility of having this job that gives one the opportunity to help so many people is attractive to people of all ages.

Unfortunately, the reality is that a career in firefighting carries great risk. Hundreds of Canadians have died in the line of duty. They have died while trying to save life and property for people they usually do not know.

Today I am honoured to be able to recognize and remember the firefighters of Canada who have fallen in the line of duty. I will focus on courageous men who paid the ultimate price for our safety and security in my province of Saskatchewan.

While the national list is tragically long, we in Saskatchewan have been relatively fortunate to have lost only a few dedicated firefighters that we know of. It is a testament to their attention and detail, their professionalism and their teamwork.

Saskatchewan has lost six men in the line of duty.

In April 1944, Local 80 member Lawrence Woodhead was killed. He died overseas while serving during the second world war as part of the Corps of Canadian Fire Fighters, the civilian corps. He was an important part of the effort to save London from the nightly fires. The citizens of London took shelter below ground while brave individuals such as Lawrence Woodhead worked to have their homes and businesses saved above ground.

It is one thing to serve one's community, but it is even more inspiring to know that we have had fellow citizens willing to travel to distant shores to provide safety and protection whenever and wherever needed.

Just following the war, on March 6, 1946, Charles Martin McGinnis lost his life in his line of duty. Mr. McGinnis was initially hospitalized for severe frostbite to both feet. This was the direct result of his lengthy effort to bring a fire at J.I. Case under control. Several days later he succumbed to a heart attack in hospital. It was interesting to hear my colleagues speak about someone else who died because of a heart attack.

No firefighter in Saskatchewan was lost in the line of duty for another impressive 34 years.

For many of us, the events of 25 years ago seem like a lifetime, but I shall always remember that day as a young mother who listened to the radio and heard of the loss of our brave men in Saskatoon. For their families, I am sure it seems like yesterday.

On May 31, 1980, when the Queen's Hotel on First Avenue South caught fire at 10:50 a.m., two pumpers, an aerial unit, a power unit and 15 men responded. At 11:05 and 11:15, another 35 firefighters and their vehicles arrived on the scene. All men raced into the building to battle a stubborn basement fire. Suddenly, chaos broke out as a backdraft occurred.

In the pitch-black dark, men scrambled to locate two of their own, but it was too late. Both later succumbed to smoke inhalation. On that May day, Saskatoon lost two firefighters. Both died in the line of duty.

Victor James Budz was 47 years old at the time. He had been with the department for 17 years. He was survived by his wife Marion. In addition, four children lost their father. Debra was 24, Wanda, 22, Mark, 19, and Darrin was 15.

Dennis Aron Guenter was just 29 and had served his community as a firefighter for only two short years. When he died he left behind Lezlie, a brave young mother. She was left to raise four year old Graham and their eight month old daughter Sarah. Lezlie said last week that from time to time memories still come flooding back, and whenever a fire truck roars by, her first thought is for the firefighters and their families.

In part, because of the six children who lost their fathers that day, local 80 of the International Association of Fire Fighters established an educational scholarship in their memory.

Another firefighter was not lost again in the line of duty for 13 years in Saskatoon. On December 6, 1993, Saskatchewan lost Bill Bergan. He succumbed to injuries suffered years earlier at a fire at the Outlaws nightclub. Mr. Bergan's death was an eerie foreshadow of the dangers of modern firefighting and the deaths to come.

Modern plastics, chemicals and toxins serve as a silent, invisible, long term killer. Now, firefighters in Saskatchewan who die from brain cancer, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are considered to have died in the line of duty. These conditions are a direct result of their service.

A number of firefighters have died in the past from these conditions but it was not recognized. Just this year, Dave Williams of Saskatoon died from bladder cancer caused by his job. He died in the line of duty as well. As those before him, he was forced to leave a family behind. This time it was his wife Dorothy and their children Dwayne and Cheryl. His recent death on February 28 is still a fresh memory for the close firefighting community of Saskatchewan. He, like the rest, will be missed but not forgotten.

To ensure that others are not forgotten, the Conservative Party of Canada will be pleased to support the creation of a national monument in the nation's capital. A monument located in a prominent place in the nation's capital will demonstrate our determination to remember those who have fallen in the line of duty. It would serve as a special place of reflection for thousands of firefighters who have lost comrades, friends and often family. It can be a glorious meeting place for remembrance, celebration and recognition.

In Saskatoon, beside Fire Hall No. 6 on Taylor Street is the Saskatoon firefighting memorial grounds. This location has held a lot of importance for our firefighters. It has been an important place for them to reflect and remember.

This is what I envision for a national monument in Ottawa. It will be a memorial for the more than 800 who have died in the line of duty. A monument is long overdue and our efforts today should make it happen sooner than later. We owe it to those who put themselves in danger for our safety and protection. We owe it to their families and we owe it to their communities.

It is with a great deal of pleasure that, on behalf of my constituents of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar and the Conservative Party of Canada, I inform the House that we will be supporting Motion No. 153, as amended. I would also like to thank my colleagues for their support.

On a final note, I would like to pay a special tribute to a Regina firefighter, Brian Desjarlais, who is the firefighter of the year for Saskatchewan. Mr. Desjarlais executed an off duty rescue during a house fire, placing himself at risk in doing so. It is this attitude that exemplifies all first responders. They may not always be on the job, but they are always on duty.

On behalf of those they serve and protect, I wish to thank all firefighters, past and present. It was indeed an honour today to recognize those firefighters of ours that we have lost in the city of Saskatoon.