House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2006, with 46% of the vote.
Petitions February 17th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to introduce three petitions.
The first two petitions are from citizens in my riding stating that because the majority of Canadians support the current legal definition of marriage as a voluntary union of a single, that is unmarried, male and a single, that is unmarried, female, it is the duty of Parliament to ensure that marriage is defined as Canadians wish it to be defined.
Child Care February 16th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal child care plan would only increase the number of regulated subsidized child care spaces from 7% to 10%. A program that only helps one in ten children, only helps some parents and only some provinces is not a national program.
When will this minister admit his plan will not meet the needs of shift workers, part time parents and rural parents?
Child Care February 16th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Social Development made a shocking statement. He said that parents only said they wanted to stay at home with their children because they felt guilty about having others care for their kids.
Will the minister apologize and admit his child care scheme does not include stay-at-home options for parents?
Pay Equity February 16th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, a lack of pay equity is still a major problem for women across Canada, but its impacts are felt by all generations and both genders.
Women earn just 71% of what men do for the same job. A woman from a minority group is even worse off. The effects are long lasting. Pension benefits are just 58% of what men get. I have spoken up and demanded better and it is time others did too.
This situation is unacceptable. It has a negative effect on our children, our health and education systems, and our economy. We in the House need to put a stop to this systemic inequality and demand a level playing field for all Canadians. We will all be better off as a result.
Questions on the Order Paper February 15th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what I can say to that but I think in my speech I mentioned that the funding would go to the provinces but that we also need support for families and the families need to make the choices on that. I understand the Quebec system and have looked at it extensively but not all provinces have a system like Quebec. We believe all Canadian parents should have choices.
Questions on the Order Paper February 15th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, as a woman, a mother and a grandmother who has raised my children and who is watching my three children raise their children through various choices, I have to wonder where the hon. member is coming from. No one in my party has said that we have a problem with licensed day care. I want the member to listen when I say that I do not have a problem with it. However licensed day care is not available all across the country and therefore parents need choices. Women who are working need choices. Men who stay at home and look after the children need choices.
I have a wonderful daughter who is in the workforce but she cannot use licensed day care because she is a shift worker. Families need to have all kinds of services. I find it slightly offensive when you say that I do not understand what you are saying.
Questions on the Order Paper February 15th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, we will allow the provinces to do their work in a proper and timely manner.
Questions on the Order Paper February 15th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to an issue that affects Canadians in every area of this country. Raising children can be a challenge but changing demographics have only served to highlight these situations.
With new challenges come new problems and new opportunities.
Today, families can be blended, both parents usually work, families are separated from support systems by distances unseen just 25 years ago and many only have one parent.
No party in the House has a monopoly on care and love for children. No person in the House, no matter what party they come from, can be accused of not wanting the best for our children.
These matters are not up for debate. What is up for debate is the path we, as a government, can and should take to achieve what we believe is best for Canadian children.
Let me state what the biggest difference is between the Conservatives and other parties in the House on this matter.
The Conservative Party of Canada recognizes that parents are in the best position to determine the care needs of their children, not the federal government. Parents should be able to do so in an environment that encourages as many options as possible. The government should not be limiting options, but encouraging options. Any child care strategy must be achieved in a manner that does not discriminate against those who opt to raise their children in family, social, linguistic and religious environments. Parents must be given the freedom to choose what is best for their children, their families and their priorities.
Very importantly, we also recognize that the delivery of education and social services are provincial responsibilities under the Constitution. We intend to not only support the provinces, but to encourage the provinces to implement services that best serve their own citizens.
We believe that support should go to parents and families raising children, especially to lower and middle income parents. It is completely unfair for those needing assistance to hear that resources are limited, especially if they need help and see it going to those who do not need it.
All existing levels of support will be maintained and improved, if necessary. We would not reduce spending in this regard. This is very important. This is an important enough issue for all Canadians that we should all have a say, not just the Liberals.
Much of what we hear from the NDP and the Liberals today is very different from what we heard in the past in the Liberal minority report on child care. The current members of Elmwood—Transcona and Niagara Falls sat on the committee. Back then, the Liberals called their report, “Choices for Childcare: Now and the Future”.
At that time, the Conservatives and the Liberals both believed in parental choice. The Liberals said:
...there is high support for a number of locations for child care, including school facilities, child care places, licensed private homes, the child's home and the workplace.
The Liberals said:
A choice as to the location and setting of child care is extremely important in meeting the individual family's needs. The key factors are quality, parental involvement and convenience of location.
On flexibility, the Liberals said:
...services must be sensitive to this need, as it varies from community to community.
At that time, the Liberals saw the need to prioritize low and moderate income families and to offer employer incentives to stimulate workplace day care.
In fact, the Conservatives at that time recommended a 100% tax write-off for such facilities. The Liberals said that was good but that the write-off should exceed 100 percent.
At the same time, the Liberals said:
Good parenting requires time to spend with children. We must also provide for better recognition and services for the full-time parent.
The Liberals went on to say:
Quality child care must be designed as a support to good parenting, not a substitute for it. As such, it should provide for strong, positive parental involvement....
The Liberals at that time also commented on the delivery of day care by saying, “such a system undoubtedly would be a mix of profit and non-profit centres”.
Why? The Liberals said that it was because:
...the federal government must be mindful of varying provincial fiscal capacities; varying letters of existing service and programs to expand child care; geographic or culturally based differences....
Then the Liberals demanded that:
...any new federal spending arrangement must be properly accountable to Parliament; that is, should receive authorization through an act.
Those were their words, but not the actions we see today.
The Liberals said:
The system must be accountable, on an ongoing basis, to parents and taxpayers. As the...system expands, adequate measures will be required for ensuring that parents, taxpayers and employers receive value for money. As well, parents must have mechanisms to ensure quality and to call the system to account in cases where the child's best interests have not been served.
The Liberals call for regular reporting, a system of indicators for regular long term measurement and continual parental involvement.
The Liberals insisted services be available to all families.
The Liberals recognized choice and said “...there must be first a system of quality choices from which families can choose” and that provides , “quality, accessible and affordable child care that does not vary unreasonably across Canada”.
Why have I so heavily quoted the Liberal minority report? I have done so to point out that the Liberals have lost their focus on this issue.
Often my own kids would make the right decisions, head down the right path and have a focused goal. Then, all of a sudden for no reason, when it came time to do the task, they would head in the opposite direction. As a parent I would turn to them and ask them what they were thinking and I would think a lot of other things. Seeing the Liberals' new direction I cannot help but ask the same thing.
The Liberals used to value parental choice, governmental accountability, quality care, parental involvement and the flexibility of delivery. Why not now?
The Conservative Party is very supportive of measures that will actually assist parents to provide a quality upbringing for their children. This is an important issue that must be handled properly. We cannot afford to throw good money into a bad plan.
A child care solution that only helps some children, some parents or some provinces is not much of a solution. Conservatives want a program that takes care of all children because nobody should be left behind.
The Conservative Party of Canada recognizes that parents are in the best position to determine how to care for and educate their children, not the federal Liberal government.
There is no one size fits all system of child care that could possibly be created by the Liberals to meet the needs of all Canadian families and children. This is a matter of provincial jurisdiction and they need the proper tools and resources to meet their unique needs.
Access to quality learning programs and child care are critical to the future of Canada's economy and social well-being.
The Conservative Party recognizes that these programs can be delivered through a number of ways, including through direct tax payments to parents through tax deductions and other policy matters. The current plan is a failure. Alberta is opting out. Quebec is expected to opt out and New Brunswick has requested autonomy for their system.
With the advancing systems in Ontario and Manitoba, it is obvious that the Liberal program does not meet the needs of Canadian parents or the provinces.
The Liberals have been promising Canadians a national child care program for over 10 years. However it is clear that once again they have put forward a plan that is not workable.
The Minister of Social Development has been attempting, without much success, to create a large government program at taxpayer expense. For the sake of our children and the Canadian taxpayer let us get a good plan before we rush ahead. He has failed so far, not because we, or the provinces, or average Canadians do not care about children, but because the plan is not sound.
Will the Liberal government now work with the rest of the House and the provinces to properly build a sound, sustainable child care strategy?
Child Care February 14th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister fails to remember his promise to allow parents a choice in child care. In his 2000 budget speech he said, “Let there be no doubt: assisting families is not only the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do”.
Poll after poll shows that most parents prefer to have direct assistance which would allow them to raise their own children. These parents want the freedom to choose the child care environment that is best for their family, be it linguistic, religious, cultural or social.
The Prime Minister's government proposes absolutely nothing for these parents in the Liberal child care plan. Why will the government not provide parents with choices when it comes to child care?
When the Prime Minister and the Minister of Social Development had a choice, they raised their own children at home. Why not let the rest of Canadians have the same choice?
Supply February 3rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that we need to do in the CAIS program. It has to be spelled out for farm families exactly what the Liberal government is planning for them. We hear stories about environmental programs, but we have no concept of what they are. Farmers are scared that there will be more paperwork and more time spent on accounting and filling out forms than being able to farm the way they should.
The minister has to understand that there is a severe frustration out there. The secretary was recently in Saskatoon at a closed-door meeting. Members of Parliament were not even allowed to go to that meeting. We did not know who attended. It is beneficial to work together to solve the problems in agriculture in Canada by having all members of Parliament in attendance. We did not need to sit at the table with them, but it could have been an open forum so we could have sat back and listened to what the farmers had to say and to verify what we heard from our constituents.
I have files and files in my Saskatoon office from farm families who are devastated. We have acres of wonderful, productive land but no one to buy it. It will sit there until someone comes along and farms it . We heard it before today, it will not be the small family farm. It will be large corporate farms that will not care about the environment, that will not care about the rural communities and that will not care about the small businesses that are being devastated by a bad program and financial support from the government.