Olivia Chow

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member has chosen to use this issue, which is really, at the end of the day, about children and working families, and tries to blame the NDP. It was not the NDP that voted down the government. Canadians who were tired of empty promises and tired of corruption made that decision.

After all, it was the former prime minister who said that he wanted the election to be on the Gomery commission. It was perhaps two months later but I think the judgment of Canadians would be the same. Whether it was two months before or two months later, I do not see any difference.

However, let us get back to the question of $1,200. Unfortunately, because the $1,200 is taxable and because the child supplement of $250 is being eliminated, at the end of the day this $1,200 is not universal. At best, it is less than $1,000 and after taxes, whether provincial taxes or federal income taxes, there may not be a whole lot left.

Children need regulated, non-profit, high quality child care and that is not available through babysitters because most of them are not early childhood educators who have been trained in colleges for many years.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sault Ste. Marie.

Last week in Trinity--Spadina, I was at a wonderful event with many happy children and parents. It was the unveiling of Kensington Kids, a wonderful, new, community based, not for profit child care and early learning centre. Parents and children across Canada need affordable, accessible, quality centres like Kensington Kids. When the children entered the centre, I watched as they immediately started to laugh and play. Both the kids and the parents had beautiful smiles on their faces.

These parents have been waiting for child care for a long time. Kensington Kids child care centre is their choice. In fact, those parents helped create this child care centre. Because it is community based and is set in a public school, it is the parents who are on the board of directors. One of the parents, Lynne Woolcott, is the chairperson.

It is parents who want the best for their kids. These parents created the kind of child care centre they want for their children. It is their choice. They dreamed about this centre for a long time. It is based in a community school. The kindergarten teacher, Sandy Banting, explained to us the importance of early learning and child care. She said that kids who go to this centre enter kindergarten ready to learn and have a much better academic performance in grades 1 and 2 as a result.

A really cute little boy named Ryan asked me to give a message to the Prime Minister of Canada and to this House of Commons. He said he wants his little brother to be able to join him next year. That was his dream. I said “was”, but that is his dream and maybe that dream will not be fulfilled.

Parents and kids in my riding as well as those all around Toronto and right across Canada have been disappointed time and time again when we have tried to create new child care spaces. We have had 12 years of empty promises from the Liberals since the first time they promised a national child care program back in 1993. Finally last year, with the minority government, we saw some action and some federal funding. With that action, Toronto was able to give the green light to Kensington Kids, with the best start funding, to create badly needed new child care spaces.

Unfortunately, the child care agreements were not enshrined in legislation by the Liberals, so Kensington Kids did not secure multi-year funding. That means it will have no funding after this year. These happy, smiling children may be booted out by this government. They may be out in the cold. These children cannot wait another 12 years. They deserve better and so do their parents. Their dreams and their parents' choices have been crushed by this callous budget.

These parents and kids and early learning and child care experts face the real impact of the government's bogus $1,200 choice in child care scheme. As we have shown time and time again, this scheme provides no choice and no child care. It does not even provide the full $1,200. The government has dropped some of the clawbacks, but it has failed to protect the allowance in the child tax benefit, so it is still taxable.

As well, the government plans to take away the young child benefit. This young child supplement is $250. The government is reducing this allowance for the working families that need it most. This government is delivering more to the stay at home spouses of wealthy Canadians, not the working families who need child care, and certainly not to the kids. It is certainly not delivering to Kensington Kids. They had no reason to smile yesterday and they have no reason to smile today.

It is the same old story. This is another government that gives with one hand and takes with the other. With this budget, most working families will see only a couple of dollars a day at best. That is barely enough for diapers, let alone child care. It certainly is not enough to fund a quality centre like Kensington Kids.

This scheme is a cruel joke. Maybe we can call it a choice of diapers plan because at least diapers are available in shops but child care spaces are not. Thousands of kids are on waiting lists. This country can do better. We have waited too long and have had too many disappointments, and closing down a new and badly needed child care centre would be the cruelest joke of all.

For the sake of children, for Kensington kids and the parents, families and communities in my riding and all across Canada, New Democrats have been working on a three point plan: multi-year funding to create and sustain new child care spaces; the full $1,200 to families through the child tax benefit so it is not taxed back; and entrenching quality, accessible, affordable, not for profit child care in legislation, with the option, of course, for Quebec to opt out.

The Liberal opposition motion that we are debating today is well-meaning but it is vague and flawed. It is designed to let the government off the hook. It has a lot of bluster but not enough teeth. The Liberals may be distracted by the leadership race, I do not know. They seem to be more interested in blaming the NDP. They cannot get over the fact that it is Canadians who are tired of empty promises and corrupt government.

The motion today opens the door for the funding of corporate, big box child care rather than the public, not for profit, community based child care programs. The NDP would support a motion that specified not for profit child care. No taxpayer money should go to big box profiteers. We would also support a motion that required government accountability on child care.

Therefore, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, that the motion be amended by inserting “not for profit” before the word “facilities” in the last part of the motion and adding to the last part of the motion a new section, which would read as follows, “That the House urge the government to ensure that funds designated for early learning and child care are spent to deliver high quality, universally accessible, affordable and not for profit child care spaces, and that this House ask the government to report to Parliament in order to provide for transparency and accountability on how funds designated for child care have been spent by the end of the 2006 fiscal year”.

I urge all members of the House to do the best we can for the children of this country. We have the power to make children smile. Let us use that power wisely.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the budget that was just unveiled rips $806 million out of Quebec, money that could have been used for child care. That is about half of what the Quebec government spent in 2003 and 2004 for child care services. In Ontario, $449 million, in just one year alone in 2007, will be eliminated for child care. That totals $1.3 billion being taken away from child care services and being replaced by about one-fifth of that $1.3 billion.

Will the new government use part of the $250 million in 2007 to continue funding child care centres that have just been established this year? These are much needed services for children.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, once upon a time there was a famous Liberal red book. It first unveiled itself in 1993. It promised to create thousands of child care spaces. Children across the land rejoiced and their parents celebrated and waited for the service for their children to descend upon them. Their children grew bigger by the day and working parents, desperate for support, waited. The Liberal minister said that child care spaces would be available only if the growth rate was 3%. When the parents checked, they noticed that the growth rate was 3%, and they pointed that out. Various Liberal ministers said that creating child care spaces was a very serious business and told the parents to wait until 1997.

The Liberals made more promises in the 1997 election. Children grew older and no longer needed child care, but then their younger brothers and sisters came upon the earth and they needed it. The parents were told they had to wait until the 2000 election. In that election campaign another promise was made.

What did the hon. member do in 1993, 1994 all the way to 2004, when children and working families across the land waited in vain for child care? Their dreams and hopes for child care were completely dashed. What has she been doing?

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have seen that program, several times in fact. The program also mentioned that a lot of the beauty products in Europe, for example, are labelled with what is in the products and that some of the products we use on ourselves cause cancer.

We need to have that information. Some of those chemicals should be banned. I think we all have a role in preventing cancer rate increases, especially among young people. Taking those steps would be extremely important. We need labelling so the public knows. Also, we know that some products cause cancer. Some of them should be banned.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of saying that the federal government should take charge of these programs. Absolutely not. I do not believe it should take charge of these programs. The federal government has the responsibility to look at the health results. Also, the federal government has the responsibility to have the funding available so that the Quebec government can then, through transfers to the health agencies or the community organizations, provide this kind of support. Quebec already has very good programs that are community based. The last thing we need is the federal government meddling in them.

However, I know that a lot of those agencies are struggling for funding. I know that they do a lot of fundraising with the private sector, which is good too, because it brings the community together, but they are struggling for funds. That is what I am talking about. I am not talking about jurisdiction or a top-down solution, because we have seen it messing up programs that work very well. A top-down solution does not work because it is not the closest level of government.

This does not mean that the federal government should not have the responsibility of public health. It does not mean that it should not provide funding for the Quebec government to provide the kind of funding that is working quite well in Quebec and hopefully in many other parts of the country outside of Quebec.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have seen food programs in schools in very depressed neighbourhoods where there is a lot of food insecurity and low academic performance. With a small investment at the local level and from the businesses in the neighbourhood through fundraising efforts, but also from the government, a CAPC program was initiated, which again is a federal program, and I have seen the academic performance of children rise dramatically.

Do not take my word for it. Take the word of principals, teachers and parents. As the parents come together to cook and provide a decent hot breakfast for their kids, they learn life skills. As the kids learn to eat proper food, rather than all the junk food they see on television, and which is more expensive by the way, they are able to have much higher productivity in life.

As a result, the families do a lot better. I know that in some of the aboriginal communities there is a lot of depression and a teenage suicide problem. I cannot help but wonder whether a program that is run by the elders working together and financially supported by the government would have dramatic results.

I certainly have seen it in some communities. I know that it is not a top down solution. It should be done by the people themselves. We only have to present a general guideline and leave it alone, and allow the communities to come up with the program because every community is different. It should come from the grassroots up and should be organized by the people themselves. I have seen dramatic improvements in the health of children and the health of the entire community, including their families.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, one of the goals that is identified in Bill C-5 is very clear and it is in writing. It says that the Chief Public Health Officer will “identify and reduce public health risk factors”.

There have been many reports that connect environmental depredation with a higher risk of cancer, whether it is asbestos, pollutants, airborne pollutants or substances that are in the food or water. Those really have health risks.

It is critically important that we label our food. Many European countries do that, but Canada does not. We do not know what is in some of our health care products or beauty products that we use. I know there are other products that kids are exposed to that have chemical ingredients that are a cancer risk.

I certainly hope that this Public Health Officer would have the power to say to the government that we know this is a risk and that is why we must take action.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the act to establish a Public Health Agency of Canada is a good first step. Health promotion, disease and injury prevention, and public health emergency preparedness response is a federal responsibility and a Public Health Agency is long overdue.

This agency would collect data, issue reports and coordinate various efforts. One of the goals of the Chief Public Health Officer is to identify and reduce public health risk factors.

We know that when children are overweight, they are likely to develop more health problems and illnesses. We know that when children grow up not knowing drownproofing, they could be in trouble if they are near water. We know that there is a public health risk when the environment is polluted. We know that there are ways to prevent and reduce the risks of cancer.

After collecting data, after consulting everyone, and after reports, annual reports and various reports, a Canada Public Health Agency must have the mandate to act. After knowing what the health risks are, the new Public Health Agency must also have spending power. Let me give an example. Children need good health and we know that it comes from food, for example. Right now there is a CAPC program that delivers some kind of food program to kids across Canada, but it is very much underfunded, not well understood and not well appreciated. Canada is one of the very few countries that does not have a national food policy.

Some 72,000 children in Toronto have nutritious snacks, hot breakfasts or lunches in community centres, schools and church programs. The federal government used to be a small partner with the Department of Health, but throughout the years the percentage of contribution has declined. There is absolutely no reason why a child in Montreal or Vancouver or Halifax should also not enjoy such a program.

We see that preliminary research, primarily from the United States, has found associations between households classified as food insecure and the health of young children in those homes. These associations included poor health child status; lack of iron; more frequent hospitalizations, which by the way costs taxpayers money; stomach aches; headaches; lower physical functions, including problems--now this is for children--with walking, running, doing chores; low energy levels, and we are talking about low energy levels in young kids; impaired social interaction skills; and emotional status.

A study of 21,000 U.S. children found that if there was food insecurity among kindergarten children, even if the kids were not from poor families, it hurt their academic performance in reading and math for boys and girls and there was a decline in social skills among boys when followed to grade 3. Those of us who are worried about bullying and safety, all of those issues, we must first think about the public health risk when kids do not have the right food to eat.

The study also looked at older children from 6 to 12 years of age and noticed that there was anxiety, aggression, psychological dysfunction, and difficulty getting along with other children. The parents had poor physical health, feelings of anxiety, loss of control, family dysfunction and psychological impairment, regardless of income status. A feeling of shame or embarrassment about not being able to feed oneself or one's children can also promote social exclusion, a feeling of isolation from neighbours and the community at large.

The British House of Commons, through the public health agency's promotion, is debating a children's food bill, as we speak, which would legislate a number of changes to optimize a child's diet, nutrition and health. It has widespread support and the endorsement of 150 national organizations in England.

A Canadian child's food bill, coming from the recommendation of the Public Health Agency, could support and implement visions proclaimed by many federal charters and conventions that we have declared in the past.

I notice that the former Minister of Health has joined us. We talked about a national plan that would see all children in grade 3 learning drownproofing. The same principle of public health applies. After all, Canada is surrounded by water. We have tragic drownings of Canadian children and young people. That can be prevented if they knew how to swim or, as a bare minimum, knew drownproofing.

After all the studies, reports and gathering of data, a national government has the responsibility to establish a general plan with standards and provide funding, so local community organizations and municipalities or provinces could cooperate and deliver programs. No, we should not be delivering programs, but certainly community agencies from the grassroots up should be provided the kind of support, so they can take the data from the Public Health Agency and do something with the annual reports.

Approximately 68,000 people in Canada will die this year from cancer. It is estimated that one in three will be diagnosed with the disease during their lifetime. We know that some cancers are caused by pollution and environment depredation. Sarnia, Ontario residents, for example, have higher rates of cancer. That is because of the local activities of petrochemical companies. My colleague from Windsor tells me that local residents have a high rate of thyroid disease and cancer, which occurs because of environmental depredation.

Environmental health activists point to the fact that about 500 new chemicals are being used in commercial processes each year, on which no or minimal information is available to consumers. As our ecosystem becomes more permeated with chemicals from agriculture, industrial and residential uses, so do our human systems, especially that of our children. I hope the Public Health Agency would disclose information on products and the contents in food to consumers, so that we can regulate food safety.

At the turn of the century, a public health agency noticed that polluted water leads to bad health. As a result, purification systems were set up. It was also a public health agency which noted that kids grow up with bad teeth if they do not lead very productive lives. As a result, in my city of Toronto, there are dental clinics for kids and seniors who cannot afford to have their teeth fixed privately.

It is very important that as we set up this Public Health Agency, with a Chief Medical Officer, that the agency be given the responsibility to act.

Lastly, I want to echo what my colleague said earlier, that the SARS crisis illustrated that we must have a clear protocol and a place where all the data can be stored. Information available in Vancouver should also be available in Toronto or Montreal. We must expand the mandate of the agency, so it would cover airports and rail lines because we live in a global environment and the transportation corridors are extremely important. It is very important that the Public Health Agency have a mandate over airports and rail lines.

I look forward to working with the Public Health Officer and hope that some of the areas that we already know about could be prevented and that the bad health of Canadians can be acted upon. If not, setting up the agency will really be just a paper exercise. We will have many reports and a lot of coordination, but no real action.

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, we know that peace talks have failed seven times since August 2004. While all this talking is going on, people are dying in Sudan. People are being tortured by vicious warfare and women and girls are being raped. This cannot continue.

I was quite encouraged when I heard today that there would be a small investment of $10 million. However, last year's investment was $20 million for food aid and it was cut back to $5 million. It is now back up to $10 million, which is surely not enough.

Should we not immediately enforce the arms embargo in the Security Council resolution 1591, support targeted sanctions against government leaders? If we are not able to persuade China to cooperate in the Security Council so that we can have UN peacekeeping troops there, which is ideally the situation, should we join the African Union in Darfur given that there are not enough troops as they do not have enough funds to take appropriate action?

If the UN Security Council is unable to act, is there not a precedent to act outside the UN, such as in 1990 with Bosnia and Kosovo when we were able to save thousands of lives? Is that a direction the hon. member of Parliament would be interested in taking?