Lynne Yelich

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be brief. Our right hon. Prime Minister campaigned on the child care program. Our hon. finance minister announced the program. The right hon. member has held both of those positions and had 13 years to deliver it. He held both of those positions. Why was that child care plan never delivered if it was such a priority for the Liberal Party, as he has said?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we respect provincial jurisdictions and that is why we are offering the program that we are today. I ask the member to encourage the other opposition parties to vote for it, because we are talking about a universal day care plan that will not be interfering in the provincial jurisdictions. We will be working with all of the stakeholders, parents, businesses and co-ops.

We want to create universal child care for parents in all provinces across Canada. We want to make this a truly universal child benefit.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is taxed on the lowest income earner. Most of all I want to say to the member that it is not about money. It is about child care. It is about people who want to raise their children and want a choice.

The parents who have come to us are not asking for a handout. They are not asking for money. They are just asking for the same choices that other parents have of sending their children to an institution or keeping them at home. They do not want others to choose what their taxpayer dollars go toward. As they are staying home and taking care of their own children, they want to have the flexibility to choose whomever they want to take care of their children, whether it be a grandparent or someone else.

The member is probably as old as I am and would know that the child allowance was very well received in the days when our parents raised us. It may not have been much then. It was a significantly smaller amount than today. If he remembers, as I do, parents welcomed that payment.

It is not about the money as much as it is about child care. We want to give an option to parents who want to stay at home, those who home school their children or perhaps want to have a little extra money to put their children into child care of their choice.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

The safe and well chosen care of our very youngest citizens is an issue of paramount importance for governments and, indeed, for millions of Canadians. It is therefore only proper that we debate this issue in Parliament. However, I would respectfully disagree with the basic tenet of today's motion.

The role of government is not to tell Canadians how and where to raise their children. It is to ensure a range of child care options is available to them and to help them take advantage of these broadened choices. That is the underlying premise of Canada's universal child care plan, one of the new government's five key priorities.

The cornerstone of the plan is a direct benefit to parents of $1,200 a year for every child under the age of six. Combined with numerous federal supports already available to Canadian families, this universal allowance would help parents afford the child care they choose. At the same time, the plan also recognizes that many parents find their choices are constrained by the acute shortage of good day care spaces, which is why, beginning in 2007, our plan will also invest $250 million annually in the creation of 25,000 new flexible child care spaces per year.

When it comes to child care, every family in Canada has its particular needs. Nine-to-five care in a regulated day care facility is used by the families of about 15% of preschool-aged children. Over half of all the families look after the children at home by themselves, or with the help of a close relative like a grandparent. There are many other alternatives, from nursery schools to informal care at neighbours' homes.

The unfortunate truth is that many Canadians do not have a real choice in child care because there simply are not enough options available. Some families cannot afford to let one parent stay home to care for the children. Others cannot find a suitable caregiver or a day care centre without a mile-long waiting list. Indeed, statistics do tell us that there are only sufficient formal day care spaces for one in every four children up to the age of five. That is where our government and its universal child care plan will make a real and tangible difference.

Beginning in July, the parents of each of Canada's 1.2 million preschoolers will be eligible to receive $1,200 per year to offset the costs of raising a young child. The money is there for the child who stays at home to be raised by mom or dad, or for the child cared for by someone else at home or perhaps a neighbour down the street, or for the child who does attend a day care. Whether the funds are used for books, musical instruments, enrolment fees at a nursery school or to boost a child's registered education savings plan, the choice would be made by the experts: the parents themselves.

I also want to underline that the universal child care benefit comes on top of the $13 billion a year that the government already invests in other supports for children and families. These include the Canada child tax benefit, the child disability benefit, the national child benefit supplement, the child care expense deduction, extended parental leave provisions and the Canada learning bond.

All that said, we also recognize that some people's options are limited by factors beyond their control. The shortage of day care spaces, for instance, is a legitimate concern. It restricts the choices of people living in big cities, as well as those in rural and remote parts of Canada. It is another concern that our universal child care plan seeks to address.

Beginning in 2007, in collaboration with provinces and territories, employers, community groups and non-governmental agencies, our objective will be to create 25,000 flexible community-based spaces per year.

We know better than to put forward a one size fits all program. We understand that not all Canadians can be served by the same uniform network of child care centres. I want to emphasize that the goal of the government is flexibility.

Once again we are vesting control in the real experts, the parents. The parents, along with co-ops, community organizations and non- governmental enterprises recognize the local need and they have a compelling reason to address it.

Here is how our proposal would work. Let us say an aboriginal community, a small town or big city neighbourhood suffered from a serious shortage of child care spaces. In conjunction with local businesses, provincial and territorial governments, non-profit institutions, such as hospitals and colleges, or other interested parties, the community would determine what kind of service was needed, regular nine to five facility perhaps, or maybe not. Perhaps it would something else more suited to shift workers or more suitable to seasonal employees.

For example, in Weyburn, Saskatchewan the Souris Valley Child Care Corporation is open from 6 a.m. to midnight Monday to Saturday helping to meet the needs of the health care workers at the Souris Valley Extended Care Centre.

The point is that the arrangement must be flexible to accommodate the needs of local parents. In rural Canada, parents and community organizations might unite to create a child care centre in some kind of multi-purpose establishment offering a range of services, including learning resources, a community centre, and outreach support for families with unique needs, for example, farmers, cultural communities or fishermen. In a town or small city, a group of employers might band together to offer child care for employees working shifts that run late into the night or on weekends.

An initiative as ambitious as this will obviously take careful planning. We will take the time to get it right. We will also be appointing an advisory committee to assist us in our efforts. Over the coming months we will be talking with provincial and territorial governments and drawing on the knowledge of employers and community groups and people who have had experience in developing innovative approaches to child care across Canada.

Most important, we will talk to the experts. We will talk to the parents. We will find out their needs and their priorities for child care.

Canada's universal child care plan has been designed with two things in mind: the well-being of the children and the freedom that parents gain through real and meaningful child care options.

We know this is the right way to go because parents have told us so, including many in my riding. Parents like Kim Krett of Saskatoon wrote in support of our plan because, “It gives parents the confidence that they can choose what is best for the child and that they are capable of making the right decision for their child”. Misty Cey, as a professional dietitian and the mother of two, also of Saskatoon, supports our plan because it shows parents that we value their choice.

Kim and Misty made it clear that they know how to raise their own children. They do not need us to tell them how to do it, but what they do need from us is a bit of help. That is what Canada's universal child care plan provides.

In addition to a practical and direct financial benefit for all parents of preschoolers, our plan will promote the creation of a substantial number of flexible child care spaces by the people who truly understand the particular needs of local communities.

I call on all hon. members to reject the motion before us because it is not flexible and it is not universal, and to support the speedy adoption of this government's important initiative by supporting the budget.

[Agriculture, April 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, no one works harder than our agricultural producers. Today, these producers are rallying on Parliament Hill to demand action on the farm income situation. The government is listening.

Over the last six weeks the Minister of Agriculture has travelled across Canada to hear about the desperate financial situation facing farmers. That is why the first thing we did as a government was send out payments under the grains and oilseeds payment program. So far, more than 73,000 cheques totalling nearly $400 million have gone out to producers.

Additionally, we are committed to replacing CAIS with separate income stabilization and disaster relief programs that are simpler, more responsive and bankable. Until then, we will change CAIS to better suit the needs of producers. Plus, we have committed a further $2.5 billion in the next five years for our producers.

We will continue to show our commitment to farmers by creating an economic climate rewarding hard work and innovation. Farmers are our people and we are going to support them.

[Question No. 195, November 24th, 2005]

With regard to the federal funding of centennial celebrations in the province of Saskatchewan for 2004 and 2005: ( a ) which organizations and governments received funding; ( b ) how much did each organization and government receive; and ( c ) were there any pre-existing criteria determining which organizations and governments would be eligible to receive this funding, and, if so, what were they?

(Return tabled)

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government refuses to take action to protect the rights of aboriginal women. The government has failed to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, failed to pass matrimonial property rights legislation, and has delayed funding the Sisters in Spirit violence prevention initiative. That delay saw more aboriginal women like Melanie Geddes and Amber Redman disappear, forcing the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations to issue a warning about the potential risk of abduction.

This government's record of protecting aboriginal women is shameful. When will the Minister of Indian Affairs take responsibility for this?

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Minister responsible for Status of Women claimed that her government provided $12 million to a domestic violence prevention initiative run by the Native Women's Association of Canada. This is not true.

The only funding given to the Native Women's Association is $5 million spread over five years. Oddly enough, that funding did not start until last Thursday, over half a year after it was promised.

The minister's own department has confirmed in writing that no further funding has gone to the organization. There was no additional $7 million given from her department. Why did the minister say that there was?

[Human Resources, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the compassionate care program was supposed to assist the thousands who perform the physically and emotionally draining task of caring for a terminally ill loved one. However the program is riddled with fundamental flaws and its administration costs far outstrip the benefits.

The minister knows that already, just as her predecessors in the portfolio did for over two years. She said, when asked weeks ago in this House, that changes were “coming very soon”. When terminally ill, soon may not be soon enough.

As there is a failure to present any changes to cabinet, could the minister explain this failure to keep her word to caregivers?

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a problem in any legislation to define public interest. I think we can go into any department and any minister's portfolio and sometimes those who think they are protecting the public interest are being lax and there are those also who sometimes are perhaps going too far to protect the public interest.

It is definitely a difficult term to define. I do agree that we would have to be very careful in defining it to ensure we do not jeopardize, in particular, our soldiers as was mentioned. I think there are probably times that it has to be defined or exemptions perhaps have to be made, and this motion does give us some direction.

We do, first and foremost, need to have the public interest in mind and many times some of the decisions that are made are not in the best interest of the public. However, on military and CSIS decisions we should be able to determine what is in the public interest. At least we have an opportunity with this motion to know what is in the best public interest. In situations such as the spending, one of the areas where we were going with this motion, is that the public interest has not been taken into account.