Olivia Chow

[May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of children and working families of Canada, I am thankful for this opportunity to try to hold the government accountable for its promises of child care.

Ten days ago, in my riding of Trinity--Spadina, I went to the opening of Kensington Kids, a wonderful, new, community based, not for profit child care and early learning centre. Parents helped create this non-profit child care centre, which is set in a public school, and it is parents who are on the board. It is their choice and they have waited a long time.

We have had 12 years of empty promises from the Liberals since they promised national child care back in 1993. Finally, last year with the minority government, we saw some action and federal funding. With that action, Kensington Kids was launched, but unfortunately the Liberals did not secure multi-year funding in legislation. Without multi-year funding, those new spaces will disappear. Kensington Kids will be very short-lived. Those happy, smiling children may be booted out by this government. They may be out in the cold.

Just before the throne speech, the Prime Minister said he was hopeful that new child care spaces would be created. Hope and empty promises do not create child care spaces. Hope is not a strategy. Hope is not child care. Hope is not a plan. It takes more than hope to create and sustain quality, affordable child care spaces and early learning programs. It takes knowledge and planning, and commitment and money, and it takes time.

Now we are told through this budget that there is no money. The funding is being ripped away by this government. We can see there is no plan. Kensington Kids is running of time.

One month ago, I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development if there was a plan to make good on the Prime Minister's hope of creating real child care spaces. The minister responded that she is proud of the Conservative plan to create 125,000 new child care spaces across the country. This is just hope and empty promises faced by Canadian families, and that was an empty answer from the minister, and false pride.

Where is the plan? What is the timetable? What aspect of the government's so-called child care program will save Kensington Kids? Where is the funding?

Canadians deserve honest answers, not gimmicks like the $1,200 so-called child care allowance. That does not provide choice or create child care. It will not even begin to amount to $1,200 after taxes. It is a cynical, dishonest and shameful removal of the young child supplement that the government has tried to cover up. Most working families would be left with a couple of dollars a day at best, barely enough for diapers, and of course many wealthy families would get a lot more.

For Kensington Kids there is nothing. For sustaining these new child care spaces, there is nothing. For creating new spaces: nothing and no plan. The minister has nothing to be proud of.

I ask the minister to answer my question clearly, distinctly and honestly. Will the minister allow new child care centres that are opening up this year to continue to receive part of the $250 million so they can continue to operate and not boot kids out in the cold?

Will the minister take the best practices from Quebec and Manitoba and flow the money to provinces that already are providing high quality, affordable, accessible non-profit child care services, so that we can allow them to create more spaces and reduce the waiting lists of working families who have been desperately waiting for child care for many, many years?

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, post-secondary students have seen their tuition more than double after 13 years of Liberal government. They are graduating with an average debt of $20,000.

The former prime minister said on national TV that he would invest billions of dollars. That was in 2004. We all know that in the 2005 Liberal budget there was not one new dollar for post-secondary education.

It took the NDP with Bill C-48 to finally get $1.6 billion in the budget for post-secondary education to lower students' tuition fees. However, in this budget, instead of $1.6 billion we have noticed there is only $1 billion and that money, instead of lowering tuition fees, is going to deal with infrastructure. That is a big problem.

I want to find out from the hon. member what happened between June of last year, when this House approved the $4.5 billion in Bill C-48 and now? Why did not a penny of that money go to the students who desperately need it so that they do not have huge debts when they graduate from university?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may remember that it was the former Conservative government in the early 1990s that eliminated the truly universal baby bonus. That baby bonus or mother's allowance was actually not taxable. It went to every family. It was not clawed back, deducted or taxed.

Now we have a new $1,200 allowance, which is actually not $1,200 but really $950 because the young child supplement is being eliminated, but it will be taxed.

How can this be called a child care allowance given that it used to be called the baby bonus or mother's allowance? What kind of giant flip-flop is this when the Conservatives cancelled a program and now are introducing a much more inferior program?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, research shows that every dollar invested in high quality child care generates $2 in return for socio-economic benefits to children, parents and society. Research also shows a cost saving of seven times the original investment in quality child care for at risk children in terms of social responsibility, crime reduction, success at school and success in employment. Research also shows that access to quality child care enhances children's development in every way, intellectually, physically, emotionally and linguistically.

We know that parents want child care. We know that workers want child care. We know that businesses want child care. Why did it take the Liberals so long to introduce child care? Liberal Tom Axworthy gave us a line and said that it was a deathbed repentance. Why did it take so long for child care to be finally introduced last year just before the election was called?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I moved a motion to amend the Liberal motion. The amendment clearly said that we needed to ensure that the money that is still flowing in 2005-06, a total of $1.3 billion, should be accounted for and that taxpayers should see at the end of fiscal year 2006 how that money has been spent.

My amendment was very clear. It asked the House to urge the new government to ensure that all the money would be spent on child care, that the money would be accounted for and a report sent back to the House by the end of fiscal year 2006 on how that money had been spent.

Why did the Liberal Party, the member's team, decide to vote against this very good amendment?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on December 5 last year, the Prime Minister had a press conference, and I have the press release right in front of me. The Conservatives announced a new choice in child care allowance. In fact, the press release was very cute. The Prime Minister was holding a cute baby. In the announcement, if we read the fine print, it said very clearly that there would be a rollback of the $250 young child supplement, which means the $1,200 is not real; it is actually $950.

I believe the Conservative Party knows full well about this. It is right in its press release, that it will roll in the current $20.25 per month supplement. That is the young child supplement.

Is it not dishonest to tell Canadians there is a universal $1,200 when the minister knows full well that it is not $1,200, but really $950, because the young child supplement is being rolled back? Should she not come clean on that?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I moved an amendment to deal with the whole notion of non-profit child care. The hon. member understands that big box child care is basically allowing large multinational companies to make a profit on the backs of children. Using government money to make a profit is unconscionable.

Why would the member and her party not accept an amendment saying that the child care spaces being created in new facilities with 2005 and 2006 dollars should be not for profit child care centres?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has the best child care program in Canada. It is the envy of a lot of parents outside Quebec. However, thousands of parents in Quebec are desperately waiting for child care. There is a long waiting list.

In the budget $800 million will be cut from Quebec, funding that Quebec parents desperately want as the member said. Also, in the Conservative budget $7 billion will go to corporate tax cuts. I am not sure that there will be any money left to deal with the fiscal imbalance. On top of that, the cheques that are going to Quebec, the $80 a month cheque, will not be from the Quebec government. It will be from the federal government.

Given all that, how can the hon. member and her party support this new Conservative budget, especially for all the kids in Quebec?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member comes from Ontario. In the year 2007, Ontario will lose close to a billion dollars in child care funding. Then it will lose another half a billion dollars in 2008 and the same amount in 2009. It is a tremendous amount of money.

When the Liberal government was in power, why did not enshrine a national child care act in legislation so it would be protected for future generations of children?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have visited many parts of rural Ontario and I have talked with many farmers.

During the seeding period and harvest period, I am sure Vicki would welcome some kind of support so she too can help her partner in the fields. I do not know what kind of farm they have but I know all hands are on deck during those periods of time.

Rural child care could be in a different style. We are not talking about one size fits all. We are talking about flexible community based child care.

There is home based child care. Vicki would then not need to drive all the way to another child care centre. A group of parents can come together and operate a child care centre. However, the child care centre should be licensed and of high quality so our kids are taken care of properly. We are talking about flexible community based child care and not the kind that is envisioned by the Conservative government.