Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion from the Conservative Party which reads:
That the House call upon the government to address the issue of child care by fulfilling its commitment to reduce taxes for low and modest income families in the upcoming budget, and, so as to respect provincial jurisdiction, ensure additional funds for child care are provided directly to parents.
The first point I want to make is that the motion is not about child care. It does not address the issue of child care as it purports and as it suggests.
The second point is that tax cuts do not pay for child care. In looking at the motion, it is so typical of what the Conservative Party is trying to do. It is trying to give hardworking families the illusion that its motion is providing choices to families. I have to say that is so misrepresented in terms of what the motion is about.
The motion is nothing more than a variation of its mantra on tax cuts, which is that tax cuts will solve all the problems in our society. The Conservatives do not specify what those tax cuts would be, but even if they were massive tax reductions, they would not produce the kind of savings that would be needed for parents to invest in the costs that are required for adequate, quality and accessible child care. Tax cuts do not pay for child care.
The motion talks about a few dollars in somebody's pocket, which I am sure they would like to see, but it would not produce the choice that is required to actually produce an accessible quality system. Let us be clear. The motion is not about choice for parents or about choice for families. It is about the perpetuation of a myth that tax cuts will solve everything in the country.
I can say that in poll after poll and in discussion group after discussion group people have said that they want real investment in social programs that are targeted toward the development and the health and well-being of children. That is what Canadian parents are telling us.
Anybody who knows anything about a child care system knows that it is a proposition that takes a real investment. Most parents are paying hundreds of dollars every month in terms of ensuring their kids are enrolled in a licensed, regulated, high quality, accessible not for profit program. They are paying $600 and $800 a month.
What really galls me with the motion is that the Conservative Party, for kind of a political spin, is trying to give Canadians the illusion that it is providing people with a choice.
The motion today will not create the system that we need. There is absolutely no question that it is critical that we have a major investment in a national child care program. However it will not take a few tax cuts here and there to do that. It will take a major investment and it is something that will benefit all of society, our children today as well as into the future. I will not go into all of the arguments about why early childhood development and learning is a positive, beneficial thing because I do not think those members on the other side get it.
Even the Liberal plan that has been put forward of $5 billion over five years will not even come close to what is required if we are truly offering parents a choice about what needs to happen. Quebec alone spends $1.3 billion a year on its child care system and that system has most often been held up as the working model, something that is actually working in the country, that is affordable, accessible and is based on a not for profit delivery system. That is a $7 a day model. That is $1.3 billion a year in one province and yet we have the Liberal government that is talking about $5 billion over five years, or $1 billion a year, which will not do it.
I want to go back to the question on use of the word “choice”. We heard earlier that parents must be able to choose. I agree that parents need to have a choice but the way the motion is crafted it takes out of the equation the most important element of what that choice should be, and that is a system that can be created by the federal government through a system of social investment.
I was at the meeting in Vancouver talking with child care advocates across the country who had gathered to hear whatever the announcement was going to be or not from the federal, provincial and territorial ministers who were meeting on Friday on the child care agreement. There was huge disappointment that at this point a deal had not been reached. That is partly because the provinces understand that there is not an adequate federal investment at this point to make the system work.
We in the NDP have been very clear on this issue from day one. I want to pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, who has done an incredible job of travelling across the country since he became elected as a member of Parliament last year. He met with people on the ground, with child care advocates, with provincial representatives and with government officials in various provinces. He has done more than anyone in this place to actually put together the kind of program and objectives that need to be established to ensure there are choices for parents.
I guess it is pretty clear by now, from the speeches that we have heard today, that the NDP cannot in any way support the motion that has been put forward by the Conservative Party. The reason we cannot support the motion is that it is the antithesis of what actually needs to be done to create choices and to create a child care system in this country.
In 1967, 17% of mothers were working. Today that figure is at 70%. In most families both parents are working and yet we know that there is only a capacity of 15% of licensed spaces and 40% of that 15% is actually in the province of Quebec.
If we were to ask working parents what their best choice or best model would be, I know some parents would say that they would rather be at home. However for many families that is not an economic choice. Some families might say that they want an in-home licensed day care program in their neighbourhood. Some families do make that choice but, by far, the vast majority of parents want to have the assurance that there is a quality program that is licensed, regulated and driven by objectives that are based on not creating a profit for some operator. For example, a corporation in Australia now has a 20% market share. It sees child care as a business and as market opportunity.
We have to do everything we can to ensure that we do not go down that road because we are talking about the health and well-being of children. We are talking about early childhood development. We are talking about having qualified and committed individuals working in that system where the bottom line is not how low the wages can be made. As it is today, child care workers are paid less than zookeepers. That is how much we value our kids.
All of this tells us that we are crying out for a system that is based on public policy objectives and on what is best for children, not the private operators, not for racing to the bottom line and not for paying the lowest wages possible. We need a system that will provide child care centres in locations that are accessible to parents, that involve parents and that are community based.
I find the motion from the Conservative Party to be off base. I feel those members do not get it. The fact that they brought the motion forward today shows that they realize there is a great groundswell of public opinion and eagerness out there for this kind of major investment. In some ways, those members are trying to jump on the bandwagon but they are doing it with a very narrow perspective. It is all about tax cuts.
For all of those reasons the motion is not worth the paper it is written on. It would not establish the kind of child care system that we need in Canada.
However, since we are having this debate today in the House about the child care system, let us send a clear message to the federal government as well. It has had 13 budgets to get this right. We have heard many promises from the Liberal government, going back to the 1993 Liberal red book. The finance minister has failed many times to deliver on the promise of a national child care program.
We are a week away from another budget and it is truly disappointing to see that we have not moved very far at all. The Liberal government is leaving the door wide open for profit operators. It will be a patchwork system right across the country.
When the ministers came out of their meeting in Vancouver on Friday, they made it very clear that they expected to see something different in every province. This goes against the grain of what Canadians want to see in terms of an accessible, affordable, quality model that is inclusive and based on universality.
The Liberals themselves have a lot to answer for in the way they have handled this issue. I feel a sense of frustration and disillusionment because we are now a week before the budget and we still do not know whether we will have a child care system that will be sustainable. We have no sense of whether a child care system will be developed where the principles of quality, universality, accessibility and educational development will be enshrined in a legislative framework. Is that not the most important thing we could do?
Many times Liberal budgets have thrown billions of dollars at something without creating the public policy objectives and principles. It is unfortunate that we are now at this point where a lot of promises and commitments have been made but we still do not have the system that we need.
I remember the days when I took my son to the day care centre. I think what is important to most working families is being able to rely on a quality day care centre where their kids will be safe and their needs will be met. We expect that in our educational system because our education system benefits all society. When a child goes to kindergarten or grade one or grade five or whatever, we know there will be a basic standard of quality. With a system of early childhood development, the principles should be no different, and that is what we need to focus on.
I challenge the members of the Conservative Party to answer this question. How will the motion before us today create the reliable, on the ground system that is so desperately needed? The motion is nothing more than a further reiteration of what we already know. The Conservatives want to see a massive system of tax cuts where people who are the most vulnerable, families on the lowest income with the least amount of choices and the least amount of resources, will not be able to provide their children with a quality education.
NDP members will not be supporting this motion. We will be continuing with our proposal to ensure there is legislation and provincial accountability for that system. We will be continuing with our proposal, which I think is advocated by most organizations across the country that have been involved in this field, that it be based on a not for profit system that is focused on the needs and well-being of children.
That is what we will continue to push. We will not be voting for this motion. We will continue to hold the Liberal government to account, to follow through on its commitments to produce such a system. It has to be more than $5 billion, and it has to be something that can be sustained over the long term.
