Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):

Mr. Speaker, truth comes in strange ways and at strange moments. I think my colleague across the way just laid a little truth on the table. I think he said that they are against the Bill because it does nothing for child care workers. Does he mean all child care workers? Does he mean babysitters, the teenagers who sit for other people's children, the friends and neighbours? Are these child care workers? Are mothers child care workers?

I suspect that the NDP definition of a child care worker is someone who works in an institution and belongs to some kind of association which verges on being a union. Whether it is free

Canada Child Care Act

trade or child care, the NDP represents a leadership element in Canadian society. It represents people with pretty big salaries, union leaders, who drive pretty big cars and travel to pretty good hotels. The behaviour of Members across the way is conditioned on behalf of those people, the union leaders who belong to their political Party. It is time for them to join the rest of us in speaking out on behalf of all Canadians, not just a small portion of Canadians who happen to be in that fortunate position but on behalf of all Canadians.

The child care policy of this Government is a policy on behalf of all children, children who are cared for in their homes by their mothers or fathers. We are offering some help for them to raise their children. This legislation deals with the provisions of child care services in a more formal sense. The basic philosophy of this piece of legislation is that Parliament will provide money to the provinces to set up the services which the provinces need for the people who live in those provinces.

Living in Tuktoyaktuk is not the same as living in downtown Toronto. Living in Barrhead, Alberta, is not the same as living in the City of Calgary. What the NDP and Liberal Members are asking for when they talk about national standards is some kind of minimum qualification for the workers in the system, not for the good of the children. Children are well cared for by parents, no formal schooling required. They give love, care and attention. Children are well cared for by teenagers. Children are well cared for by relatives, by friends, by neighbours

Ms. Mitchell:

Not always, they aren't.

Mr. Hawkes:

"Not always", she shouts across. They are not always well cared for by licensed, accredited child care workers or teachers or university professors. She knows that and I know that. We belong to that profession, and some of our colleagues go wrong. Some of them do terrible things. Some of them end up in jail. There is nothing legislation can do to ensure the quality of people, but we can tell the parents of Canada that they must accept some responsibility for determining whether the care their children are about to receive is the kind of care that they value. Is it consistent with your personal attitude and philosophy? This Bill encourages that kind of choice. This Bill says that we will enter into an agreement with the provinces to provide money to meet the child care needs in those provinces. This will be done in a way that fits.

What the NDP is saying is, let us let the population centres of the country decide, the areas with the most MPs, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, places with high density apartment buildings, lots of jobs in manufacturing, and a certain kind of lifestyle. They produce the most MPs because most people live in those kinds of centres, and the bulk of those MPs shall decide on a standard for the rest of the nation; for a fishing village in Newfoundland; a prairie agricultural community; a northern mining town. Let us have a standard that fits the cities. It may not fit the children but it fits workers because

August 23, 1988

Canada Child Care Act

you can control the supply and raise the wages of those who are lucky enough to be inside the system.

That is what the NDP represents. NDP Members would have you believe that they can produce a day care program which meets the same goals of this program for less money in virtually half the time. That proposition is an absolute joke. First, because the federal Government has no business in the day care business. It has no jurisdiction under Canadian law and the Canadian Constitution to run a day care system. In the same way it has no jurisdiction to run the public education system. Our forefathers gave that jurisdiction to the provinces so the politicians would be closer to the people when dealing with human and health services.

As a federal Government we can contribute. We can recognize a need and provide money. How can the NDP propose to do, for less money in a shorter period of time, more than what is proposed in this legislation? Have they had a single consultation with a single province? Have they been out there discussing with the provinces their needs, their priorities, their capacity? The NDP intends to provide all the money because this Bill does not provide all the money. The people of a province put up some of the money and the federal Government puts up some of the money. It is a partnership so that the program remains sensitive to the needs of the people in the province.

That is a long, slow process. We lived through 17 years of government where the Parliament of Canada thought it could intrude on provincial jurisdiction and do what it liked. We brought a different spirit to this land. We said we will come to office in a spirit of co-operation. Let the federal Government be the helpmate of the provinces. Let us discuss, let us work it out, let us avoid duplication, let us save taxpayers' dollars by co-operating and building together.

If the results of all those consultations and this legislation is to produce 200,000 new day care spaces for this dollar amount over a period of seven years, it does so because the consultation process has produced information from the provinces about their capacity, their needs and their willingness to proceed. Without that consultation with respect to doing something in an area of provincial jurisdiction you are simply saying to the Canadian people: "I have an idea. It is a pie in the sky idea but hopefully some of it will stick. It is not based on facts. It is not based on reality. Hopefully Canadians will believe me".

I think Canadians have their feet on the ground. I think Canadians know how much time and effort it takes to set up a new organization, a collection of parents, to create a new day care centre with a good board, good constitution, good facilities and adequate staff. Those things take months. You cannot stand in Parliament, decree it to happen and expect it to be there the next day. These are community endeavours of some complexity requiring participation on a voluntary basis by a lot of people.

The organizations that exist today to help are provincial Governments and the departments of those provincial Governments. They have the staff on a daily basis working with these kinds of groups. They know how long it takes. They know how expensive it is. I say to Canadians: When it comes to child care you really have a choice. In the next election you can vote for the Party who cares about their child care workers and their union bosses, or you can vote for the Party who cares about children and parental choice.

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have a chance to speak on Bill C-144, the Canada Child Care Act. There is no question that this is a very important subject to literally millions of young couples who have children of school age or pre-school children. We learn as we look across the statistics that 44 per cent of families have two careers. Some 63 per cent of all mothers who work today, two million women, have children under 16 years of age. Almost half of all the women with pre-school children require day care.

What we need is an accessible, high quality, affordable day care system. Although we have some 250,000 licensed day care spaces today, the actual need approaches some two million across the country. There are lots of problems with the present system under CAP which is operated through the provinces. It is not very satisfactory for those in the middle income group because it is a welfare system. If you are above a certain level of income you cannot utilize it. Of course, other private day care systems are just too expensive for those middle income families.

The whole system today is not adequate to deal with the situation as we see it in rural Canada. Farming communities and resource areas certainly do not have an adequate day care system. The shortages are growing worse every year.

The plan before us today is an interesting one because when it was announced last December it was $1 billion less. There was a famous cabinet Minister who said: "What's a million"? In this case the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who has probably at his disposal more computers, more technical back up, than any other Department of government, erred by $1 billion. He announced a program of $5.3 billion. He discovered four or five months later that he was $1 billion short. The interesting part of that is that if we read the article written just a couple days ago in The Ottawa Citizen by Marjorie Nichols, the program put forward by the Government, involving some $4 billion for actual day care service itself, if you extrapolate it out over the seven year period, actually amounts to $570,000 per year above what is being paid out by the Government now under the Canada Assistance Plan. That takes into account inflation over the seven years. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, how much less it was before he added the $1 billion.

So we really have a proposal before us which probably will not do anything different from what we have under the present system. Of course, provinces that opt into this new proposal

August 23, 1988

will have to opt out of the Canada Assistance Program permanently. So we have a very questionable system which has already proven it is $1 billion short. The whole proposal is based on the provinces picking up this $4 billion. If the provinces do not have their share, then, of course, the $4 billion will not be spent.

There are a lot of problems with this proposal. First, there is no proposal to have national standards. So even if one has a rinky-dink system, one still receives the money because there are no national standards established by this program. There is very little help for the mother who stays at home. In fact, in this fiscal year, as I understand the proposal, they receive exactly a SI00 refundable tax credit. Next year it will be $200. The Hon. Member opposite, who is shaking his head and who raves every day about the socialists, may think $200 is enough to allow a homemaker to stay at home and take care of the children, but anyone who stops to think about it can see it is obviously not enough. That is why our distinguished critic, who served on the committee, proposed refundable spousal deduction. It is not only a tax credit but it is a refundable tax credit. If the deduction for a spouse is now, say, $4,000, and the tax credit basis is at 30 per cent or 40 per cent, they would receive that as a refundable tax credit in their own hands. If the spouse is not working or does not have any other income, she still receives the income. So there is an incentive there for homemakers and mothers to stay at home and raise their children, especially during the pre-school years.

The present system, which is going through the tax reform now in the Bill before the House, increases the exemption from $2,000 to $4,000 per year. Of course, it is a very regressive system. It is much more advantageous if one is in a high-income bracket. The New Democratic Party wants to cut that out. The NDP thinks it should only be maintained at the $2,000 limit. That is even more regressive because it does not provide the assistance for those who want to stay home.

What is more important, the proposal before the House does not carry enough new spaces. We need at least a million spaces. This proposal only creates 200,000 new spaces over a period of seven years. The system does not equitably share the burden. There should be more assistance for those low-income families.

We believe that this proposal, although it may have some useful features to it, it is not adequate. It simply does not meet the need. It is regressive. It is unfair and, most of all, it does not really provide a great deal of new money. According to Marjorie Nichols, who writes a column for The Citizen, over the life of the seven year program only $570,000 per year of new money is added. I think we have a very inadequate proposal before us tonight. It may be $570,000 better per year than the present system, but surely that is not a massive new national day care program. We know it is not. It does not provide much extra money and it does not provide any national standards. It is simply inadequate to deal with the massive responsibility which is before the country. It just does not adequately meet the needs of young families who cannot

Canada Child Care Act

afford proper day care when, because of economic necessity, both members of the family, both parents, have to work outside the home.

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Speaker, the question of providing an adequate day care system is of crucial importance to the people of Canada. The fact is that 60 per cent of the mothers of children under the age of three are now in the workforce. Most of these mothers are not just single parent mothers, but mothers in families with a joint income where both the husband and wife are working and mothers in families where both mother and father are middle-income earners who are working.

Why is that happening, Mr. Speaker? Well, to a large extent it is because it is almost impossible for a young couple to buy their own home and meet the mortgage payments with only one member of the family working. This is true even in the City of Winnipeg where the price of a home is probably just one-half of what it is in Ottawa, or a third of the cost of a home in Vancouver and probably a quarter of the cost of a home in Toronto. In the newer parts of my constituency the people who live there are almost entirely young couples between the ages of 25 and 40 years. One could shoot off a cannon during the middle of the day and there would not be a single person come out of the house to see what was happening because there is no one home. Both husband and wife are out working so they can meet the mortgage payments.

So Members of Parliament or people out in the community who believe and talk about really having a choice should realize that the choice for most parents is some system of day care or home care. They just do not realize what is happening. The choice is no longer between day care, public or private, adequate or inadequate, and home care, because home care is no longer a viable, possible choice. The alternative to day care is some kind of arrangement, leaving the child with a neighbour or getting some high school student in to look after the children or getting someone from the Philippines or some other country to come and look after the child, and these parents have no knowledge at all about the adequacy or ability of that person to give careful care and supervision of the children.

These are the facts. What are the needs? Health and Welfare Canada, which is not a preserve of wild-eyed radicals by any stretch of the imagination, states that the number of children with parents working more than 20 hours a week is over two million. According to Health and Welfare Canada, there are presently only 250,000 child care spaces. That means there are 1.75 million children of working parents for whom there are no child care spaces.

I find it amazing that Conservative Members of Parliament who talk so glibly and often about the family and how much they care about the family are prepared to ignore the problem or bring forth a proposal to deal with the problem that is

August 23, 1988

Canada Child Care Act

completely inadequate. It simply does not meet the needs of the people.

If one listens to the Parliamentary Secretary who spoke a few moments ago, one would think that the proposals put forward by members of the NDP are impractical, unaffordable and were somehow pulled out of thin air.

I want to put on the record the principles of a national day care policy as enunciated, not by the New Democratic Party, but by the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association. They say about universality:

All children should have access to high quality child care services regardless of family income or parent's employment status. Parents should determine the nature and extent of their children's participation.

They say about quality:

To ensure high quality, child care services should be licensed and regulated, reflecting the best current knowledge about early childhood development as well as the varied cultural and linguistic backgrounds of Canadian families.

One need only drive through the core areas of the major cities in Canada to see that the days when the population of the cities was 95 per cent white are long gone. In some of the core areas in the City of Winnipeg, for example, 95 per cent of the children attending elementary school are either immigrant children from Caribbean countries and South America or native children. They must have a care system that meets their needs, not one that is dictated to them by a government from Ottawa. They need a system that is developed in consultation with the local community and parents.

The Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association discusses affordability. It states:

Cost should not be a barrier to access for any family. User fees should diminish over a realistic time frame, with a small parent fee to remain. Assistance with this fee should be provided to low-income families.

We know that there are many low income families in the cities. Unfortunately, there is an increasing number of low income families in rural areas.

The Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association says about working conditions:

Child care staff should receive salaries and benefits commensurate with the value of their work and educational qualifications.

Let us deal with the question of cost and how we will pay for it.

We believe the federal Conservative Government has rejected the principles of organizations such as the one I just referred to, and has rejected the very fundamental principles it advocated when it urged Canadians to support the Meech Lake Accord.

Let us consider how these programs will be financed. Of the almost S5.5 billion being committed by the federal Government to the program, almost S2.5 billion will be spent through the tax system. Day care advocates and the former Manitoba Government estimated that if this had been committed to

creating new services, another 170,000 spaces could have been created for day care.

A large percentage of the almost $5.5 billion that the Government says it proposes to allocate to day care facilities is not new money. The federal Government presently spends $170 million every year through the child care expense deduction. Thus this would come to approximately $1 billion in new money.

Furthermore, the larger percentage of the money being proposed by the Government is going into a doubling of the child tax deduction. The Government's program already gives the greatest benefit to well-to-do families and gives nothing to low income families. That should be of no surprise because since day one, after its election, the Government has demonstrated quite clearly that it believes in the trickle-down theory of economics, that if you only give enough to people at the top through large salaries and tax breaks on investments or capital gains, the money spent by those with high income will somehow trickle down to those in the lower income brackets. That has not worked before and it will not work now.

Less well-off families will be given an increase of $100 for the first year for the child tax credit and a further $100 in the second year for baby-sitting or parents at home. A $200 increase is absolutely meaningless in terms of giving women real choices. If they are wealthy, $200 means nothing. Those who are in the lower income bracket need a great deal more than $200.

We have made it very clear that the Government's proposals are simply inadequate. We have proposed an alternative that meets the criteria and principles enunciated by organizations such as the one I have mentioned and by people who work in the existing day care centres who know the needs of the children who are in their care.

I, along with my colleagues, intend to oppose this legislation and do everything I can to see a much better system in place that will meet the needs of Canadian children.

[ Translation]

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to take part in this debate and to try to convince my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party that we should reject the Government's Bill and draft one that will be better and fairer for all Canadian families.

Mr. Speaker, the day care system has existed in Canada since about the Second World War, when then-Prime Minister Mackenzie King decided to establish a system of "day nurseries", as they were called at the time, to encourage women to find work, because there was a labour shortage, particularly during the Second World War.

When thing returned to "normal" after the war, or at least after the Armistice, when people resumed their more traditional roles, the day nurseries were closed because it was then

August 23, 1988

believed that there was less need for them; the day nurseries were closed. But gradually, as women entered the labour force in much larger numbers, the need for day care arose again. And again, the Liberal Party, which was in power, helped set up a system, in co-operation with the provinces, to encourage the development of day care facilities. That is the system which exists to this day.

Mr. Speaker, these days, in 1988, in 44 per cent of families, both parents work outside the home; I am informed that 63.8 per cent of women with children under 16 have a job, which means that two million women with children work outside the home.

Those two million people who are working outside the home require day care spaces for their children. In the large majority of those cases both parents work outside the home. That is actually the case wherever there is a traditional family with both spouses in the home type of unit.

In the cases of sole support parents the decision there is even more crucial. The mother has to work in order to be gainfully employed. As we know, apart from everything else, the cost of living is very high. The traditional system of obtaining funding from the parent who has left in the case of a sole support parent is not functioning. Maintenance orders are not being enforced as they should be enforced. Thus mothers are left without income.

We have a situation in which most women in the country who have children work, either by choice or where there is no choice. Whether it is a case of choice or not, whether they need to work outside the home or not, it is their decision. That is one thing. It is time that we accepted as a society that if a woman wants to work outside the home, or any one of the two parents, they should be able to do so with an established system of offering child care for their children. In the 1850s in Canada under the leadership of Edgerton Ryerson a school system for children aged six and older was established. Society took care of the children for a portion of the day. The children were taught the necessary academic knowledge they required from that age on. In the few years afterwards the system became compulsory. No one questions today whether or not we need a publicly-funded established educational system.

In the case of day care the debate, unfortunately, is still raging on. It deals with whether or not we need day care. I think the answer is fairly obvious with just the statistics that I gave moments ago. We do need a day care system.

But we need a day care system quite different from our educational system. It must be very flexible in order to accommodate the largest number of Canadian families possible. I totally disagree with those who think for one minute that the only way to have a day care system is to have a system in which the state runs it totally from one end of the spectrum to the other similar to our school system. I think it should be

Canada Child Care Act

funded in a way that permits as many families as possible to participate. But it should be flexible to accommodate a large number of Canadians. I would like to elaborate on that.

A day care system should be able to accommodate families in rural settings. That would not necessarily be the same system as one designed to accommodate civil servants who always work the same specified hours of the day. The Liberal Party has recognized that by the tremendous leadership and initiative demonstrated by my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Outremont, (Mrs. Pepin), who proposed to us the establishment of a foundation which would oversee the establishment of day care centres in the various regions of our country and which would take into consideration local needs.

I was describing a while ago a potential day care kind of situation in the civil service setting, say in the west end of my constituency where a large number of my electors work here in the city. Perhaps they would require a day care system which would be structured in such a way as to bring their children there at 7.30 or 8 a.m. in the morning and pick them up at 4.30 in the afternoon. In the case of my rural constituents in the farming community that system could be totally different.

First, the traditional farm family cannot be stereotyped the way we are able to do with some families. Sometimes one of the two parents works full time on the farm. Sometimes the other parent works either in the village, town or elsewhere. However, even in the cases in which both parents work on the farm their role on the farm is far different from what it was a number of years ago, with the women often participating directly in the operation of the farm machinery, the actual management of the farm and so on, and not always available in the home as they would have been at some point in the past.

In the agricultural community the system must be able to accommodate the seasonal needs when both parents sometimes work very long hours during a certain period of the year, whether it is at seeding time or harvest time, and then the system would accommodate the fact that during certain periods of the year the need for day care would be less because it would be required for fewer hours.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, just in the examples I have given, a totally structured system designed to be the same for everyone would not be appropriate. Let me give Hon. Members another instance in the constituency which I represent. In the eastern end of my riding there are a number of textile mills. Some of those mills operate in the daytime. Some operate evening shifts. I also have a steel mill in my riding in L'Orignal. It works 24 hours a day with three shifts. Therefore we can see that the child care needs have to be structured in such a way as to accommodate the needs of the various kinds of communities that I have described.

Our caucus has disagreed through our spokesperson on this issue with the proposal of the Government simply because the Government's program fails in many respects. First, we have to remember that the Government is not re-inventing the wheel, it has not discovered the universe. It has not discovered

August 23, 1988

Canada Child Care Act

brand new way of providing child care. What the Government has done is to package an announcement, make a Bill around it and do so in a manner that is not totally filled with substance. As a matter of fact, I would say that it is largely devoid of substance. Then it decided that it would make this announcement, pretending that all the funding that it would provide toward day care is something brand new that did not exist in the past.

As my colleague from Outremont, I am sure, would want me to say, that is not the case. The Canada Assistance Plan assists now. It has no capping in terms of maximum funding. Whatever funding the province gives is matched at the present time by the federal Government under this program. What the Conservative program, apart from everything else, fails to do is to provide adequacy in terms of funding. Because of the caps that have been provided, my own Province of Ontario will be losing 12,000 child care spaces. That is far from being an adequate program. Who would think from reading the Government's literature, junk mail and everything else that it produces, that we would end up with fewer child care spaces? The Government does not brag about that.

Unfortunately, the time accorded to me has expired. I want to tell my colleagues in the Elouse that we need more child care spaces. The program must be flexible, but it must be meaningful, and not an empty announcement such as the one we have had.

Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening on Bill C-144, the Canada Child Care Act. The debate this evening is certainly a hallmark in history when Members of Parliament rise to see who can outdo whom, and who loves children and mothers the most. Surely this must be great news to many children and many mothers and fathers who are seeking child care, and who seem to be the people I meet in my constituency with many concerns.

I rise this evening to speak against the Canada Child Care Act proposed by the Government. Despite the fact that we have heard from other Hon. Members that opposing this Bill seems to be against motherhood, against children, and against choice, I seem to be in very good company. The Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association, which represents day care associations across Canada, and I am proud to say also from the Yukon, has raised very serious concerns about this Bill, which they have relayed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney).

This association, many of whom are women, but who are a cross-section of people, have stated that this Bill ignores the child care needs of Canadian families, and does not encourage the development of a national child care system. They also acknowledge that child care is an issue of national importance and deserves the full public scrutiny available through the legislative process. Organizations that have joined in this letter to the Prime Minister include the National Action Committee

on the Status of Women, the National Anti-Poverty Organization, the Ontario Coalition for Better Childcare, the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the National Federation of Nurses Union, and others.

As I reflected on the comments that I would like to make on this issue, having been involved in the child care issue for many years, first with my own children, now with my grandchildren, and certainly as a community advocate, the debate in a sense reminded me of something that Groucho Marx once said. He stated: "This would be a better world for children if parents had to eat the spinach".

I would suggest that if the Prime Minister and his colleagues had to utilize low-quality child care, deal with constantly revolving child caregivers, inadequate child care spaces and facilities, and be forced to pay high child care costs, we may have a very different child care Act before us, and indeed a better world for children.

Other speakers today have stated that, in their constituency, 85 per cent of their constituents are happy with the choices which they have to utilize the child care of their choice. Obviously, we live in very different worlds. It is true that there can be a range of options: Home care, family assistance, neighbours, family day homes, and child care centres. Every one is a possibility, but not all of them are real choices.

I do not need to reiterate that there is a child care crisis in Canada today. The very fact that the Government has brought forth this Bill acknowledges that there is a crisis. I do not think it is very fruitful to debate who cares most about whom, but rather to look at the Bill and see if it will address this crisis. In reviewing how far this Bill will take us in addressing the real crisis, I have to say that in sum this Bill is simply an articulate voice of the past.

Approximately one year ago I had an occasion to read a history of the development of public education in Canada. Many of the arguments put forth tonight about child care in general were arguments that were raised in those debates about public education. As the previous speaker so aptly said, we are not exactly saying that child care will be analogous to the public education system, but there are certain principles which are being advocated, just as were done in the public education system. Those are principles of national standards in order that Canadians and their children from coast to coast will have affordable, accessible child care.

Situations do indeed vary in communities. However, under this Bill there will be 12 different agreements. Again, that is not in and of itself a bad focus, because situations do differ between rural, urban, and appropriate cultural situations. However, covering those separate agreements there must be some type of national focus and standards, as we have very appropriately in other areas, which does not necessarily spell out every factor that will appear in those agreements, but will at least give a framework for a national objective in child care.

August 23, 1988

Situations do vary in communities. For example, in my own constituency of the Yukon, 12 per cent of Yukon families are single parents; 16 per cent of the families in the Yukon operate on the traditional male breadwinner with the female at home full-time model. This is not to denigrate in any way that model. Again, it is the choice that people make, or that they choose to make. It is a valid choice.

However, the problem is that the tax breaks offered in this Bill for a homemaker who stays at home, whether it is a man or a woman, will not benefit those with lower incomes. Obviously, it will be of greater benefit to those with a higher income. Those with a middle income will not benefit nearly as much, as other speakers have pointed out, from this particular tax concession. A tax credit would make more sense if we are to equalize the benefit.

The Bill illustrates that support for the family under this Bill means that there will be no substantive national standards, and that there will be a cap on federal spending. It is important to point out that, in this particular Bill, under the Canada Assistance Plan, as it presently is, jurisdictions must opt out of the Canada Assistance Plan if they are to participate in this Bill. For some jurisdictions this will mean that they have less ability to provide child care rather than more ability.

There is one very important area I would like to bring to the attention of the Government, and I hope it will be discussed thoroughly in committee. It is the provision for native services for individual Indian bands. In an analysis prepared by the legislative library several important concerns are pointed out in that area. That is an area that must be very closely examined and analysed when the Bill is in committee.

This Bill has many inadequacies which have been reiterated many times tonight. It must not be supported in its present form. It must have very full and adequate amendments that will be discussed in committee. Therefore, I cannot support this Bill, as my Party does not, and request that the Government listen to those people in the field who have called this totally unacceptable in meeting child care needs in Canada today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), who always likes to wind up the debate, has the floor.

Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):

I listened with great interest to all the speeches, since I make a habit of listening very carefully, when we are considering an important matter, to what Members on both sides of the House have to say.

You wanted to wind up the debate.

Mr. Prud'homme:

Of course, I could . . . No, I am not going to wind up the debate. But I could of course quote all the

Canada Child Care Act

figures that were given. Some people say: Too much, while others say: Not enough. The statistics... I wonder, considering the little time we have left, whether we should not reflect together on the important subject of day care today.

Instead of dwelling on statistics, on the number of children attending day care centres and how many parents work, I would rather draw the attention of the population and Quebecers who are listening, and of course of Canadians, to the importance of this new phenomenon. Day-care is a new phenomenon. It is a whole new philosophy of life, because Canada is changing. Society changes and we must be prepared to meet the needs of the people. Perhaps I may give you an example. I see my colleague from Quebec who is listening carefully, as usual... Only a few years ago here in the House of Commons, a disabled person could not visit Parliament. Why not? Because we didn't realize that the disabled also had the right to visit Parliament and to have complete access. Why? Because there were stairs all over the place, because there was no way .. .

It was impossible to attend as so many people did tonight. We were not against the handicapped. We did not think of it. We were not prepared for a changing society. Who would have thought that big builders must now provide easy access to buildings? We did not think of it. We were not against people having easy access to any federal, provincial, or municipal building. It did not come to mind that a group of people could not do that. Now people who build must be prepared to provide easy access. In Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, and every other city there are sidewalks. Why did we not have easy sidewalk access for people with wheelchairs? We were not against it; we just did not think of it. That was not part of our society then. It was not part of life not to have someone to assist those who were not easily mobile.

Society is changing, Mr. Speaker. I am not against what is being put to the House, but I am not for it. It does not provide for easy access to those who need it. They have a right to expect services from their Government.

So I wonder why this debate is dragging on. It is just because some people still refuse to realize that society has changed. It isn't what it used to be. I come from a family of twelve children. At that time, in my family, we were raised by our parents. And there were people in our family to look after the kids. My father was very busy. He was a doctor. He delivered over 9,000 babies. He was busy, and my mother was involved in all kinds of activities, but there were always people to take care of us at home. Things are different today. Things have changed. Society is different. This means that the federal Government has a duty to provide equal services to all Canadians.

Canada is not made up only of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Canada is made up of Foam Lake, Saskatchewan;

August 23, 1988

Canada Child Care Act

North Kapuskasing, Ontario; Thompson, Manitoba; and, my God, name me places that I love to visit in my country. People should expect equal access to services if they are to be comfortable and happy to call themselves Canadians. Otherwise we will hear them say that others are better treated. When people feel that another group is better treated, they start thinking that Canada is not what it should be and it is not equal in all parts of the country. This is a philosophical debate. I know that many Members of this House do not yet have the openness to express what they feel, but that does not mean they are not good Members. They are not yet ready to accept that the good old society to which they were accustomed is not the society that exists today. We must have a program that gives easy and equal access to people and treats those who need it most better than those who can afford certain projects or programs.

People talk about natural resources. Is there a greater resource than our young people? We must be ready to invest in the future of this country. What is better than to invest in our children? They will make this country better known in the world. It will be more open and more generous. Many are not ready to accept that the country is changing. Many are not yet ready, we know here in the House, to accept that more people from other countries will come to this country. The best way to integrate them into Canadian society will be to help them. They should understand that you can have black skin, yellow skin, come from a different culture or follow a different religion. You usually cannot do that when you are past 50. You have to start when you are very young. That is why it is capital-

We must realize that soon we will have to invest a lot of money in what we prize most in our society, our young people.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I hope this debate will soon come to an end, so that we can take this important Bill and consider the details in committee.

We must not have a closed mind. We must be prepared to change, if necessary, in committee. I will conclude because I know my time has expired, but if I may I will just take the 30 seconds left to say that I hope for once that all Members of Parliament start accepting that committee work is not an exercise in frustration. You do not arrive with a Bill, discuss it for three months, and come back to the House with the same Bill. I love doing committee work. I love to listen to my colleagues in every Party who can come up with better proposals than the ones I put forward. If democracy is to listen to people, it is also not to have a closed mind. One must be ready when this project goes to committee to change it.

I see an hon. friend, Mr. Stevens-I like to call Members by their names. We were together on the foreign affairs and national defence committee. We were always ready to listen to good ideas coming from other Members. It seems now that

people have closed minds. They are not ready to go to committee and give up on an old idea by saying that this one is better and therefore that is what I recommend to the House of Commons so that at report stage and third reading there will be a better Bill.

I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to put forward these thoughts, thoughts that are connected with the Bill but that do not deal with exactly how many dollars are involved. God knows you have listened to that for quite some time, and I think you will listen to some more.

Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-144. It would be appropriate for me to observe at this hour on a Tuesday night that it appears it is only members of the opposition Parties who are joining in the debate. The Tories have given up on it. It is rather a shame, because if they wanted to do something that would be significant, the best thing they could do is to continue making speeches on the importance of child care.

The Bill that is before us does not deserve to be passed if Conservative Members take the principles and the fine words of their speeches seriously. If they want the people of Canada to know how committed they are to all these fine principles of support for the family, they should keep on making speeches. If they continued to make speeches, this Bill, that is designed to damage child care rather than expand it as it needs to be expanded, would be talked out, as it deserves to be. I would encourage all of my Conservative colleagues to get back into the debate, keep it going and talk the Bill out so that it dies the death it so well deserves.

We in the New Democratic Party are profoundly opposed to Bill C-144 and will do all we can to prevent it from becoming law. We are opposed to it because we recognize the very great need for good quality child care that exists and we are convinced that the proposals the Government has put forward in its so-called national strategy on child care will actually produce fewer spaces over the next five or seven years than we will have if we continue with the Canada Assistance Plan arrangements.

The experience of the last four years has shown a growth, on average, of 15 per cent in the number of child care spaces created year by year. The proposal of the Government will limit that to 10 per cent. Surely any plan that purports to meet the needs of families but limits the growth to a lower rate than we have known over the past four years and caps it at that rate is not a plan nor is it a national strategy for child care.

The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has claimed, as the press has informed us, that he is determined to put this into effect. This indicates to me that this is a Minister with very limited concerns for the children of Canada. He is more concerned about saving the federal Government money. He is quite prepared to write off the

August 23, 1988

enormous need that exists for child care spaces, over and above the limited additions the plan will make. He is more concerned about providing some additional tax breaks, though those are very limited, to middle-class families who manage by one means or another to find some kind of care for their children.

Again, this Minister speaks fine words about the family. However, when it comes to the crunch, it is his responsibility to provide the arrangements that are needed in every province, city, town, and rural area. For all of this talk about $6 billion plus over seven years, that need will not be met. The tragedy of this is surely the enormous need that has developed for child care.

A dozen years ago, perhaps 30 per cent of families with children under three had both parents at work. It is conventional, and I suppose acceptable, to put this in more sexist terms; that is to say, a dozen years ago, only 30 per cent of the mothers and families with children under three were in the workforce. What do we find a dozen years later? We find a doubling of that figure to 60 per cent of mothers who are getting back into the workforce very soon after the births of their children and are looking for care for babies, never mind for children who are two, three, four or are in kindergarten. There are also needs beyond those ages when children are in school. Children who go home from school at 3.30 are alone for an hour or two hours before their parents arrive. This need runs to hundreds of thousands of children.

Let us consider the statistics. There are perhaps 240,000 spaces and 1.6 million children who are under the age of 13. I recognize here that the older children, those who are 10, 11, or 12, should not be left on their own. One worries about them when they are left by themselves for lengthy periods of time.

One can make all the fine speeches in the world about the desirability of mothers being home with their children, and Tories are past masters at making those speeches. However, they have done absolutely nothing positive to encourage or to enable mothers to do that. In fact, the tax increases of SI,000 per year per family of four that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has laid on Canadian families in the three and a half years plus that he has been responsible for the finances of this country, is surely an additional economic pressure that keeps both spouses working. Now a tax break will be added to the existing arrangements of a maximum of $200 per child. How far does $200 per child go toward covering that $1,000 in additional taxation that has been laid on families?

All the fine speeches that Conservatives make have done nothing to assist mothers who wish to stay with their children, to say it in that gender-oriented way again. That is an enormous social tragedy, but the Tories have done nothing about it except to make speeches. Then, when they bring a strategy forward that is designed to deal with it, they produce a plan that over seven years envisions another 200,000 spaces. If the Canada Assistance Plan arrangements continue over that period of time, without the Government's strategy, we

Canada Child Care Act

might actually have over 300,000 spaces brought into existence. The existing arrangements could produce more than 50 per cent more than the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been boasting about as being his strategy for child care.

Those are the reasons why we in the NDP, recognizing what all concerned about the child care have said, oppose the Bill. One needs a real strategy for providing relief of various sorts just to meet those objectives that Conservatives like to talk about so often but which they have done nothing about. Obviously we need a plan that uses money far more carefully, does not squander it in tax expenditures but creates the spaces. We New Democrats think it should be possible to add 50,000 spaces a year to achieve in only four years what the Minister is going to be proud of doing over a seven year period. That is what the people of Canada have to contemplate, a program that will really meet the need and do it in a far more imaginative and creative way than the Minister has laid before this country.

Ms. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the second time on this legislation because of my conviction this is one of the most important pieces of legislation, Bill C-144, and also because the majority of Canadian and Quebec families feel this is one of the most significant pieces of legislation that is now before us.

Of course, the more I look at it, the more its flaws stand out. One of the most apparent flaws in the Bill has been the perception that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) in July added $1 billion because people thought the Minister was adding more money in order to get still more child care spaces. And when we know that in fact, he was adding that kind of money to make the program he tabled in December complete because there had been an error-the original additions were wrong.

So at the start, the expectations were very high and if you look at the legislation, you realize as the majority of people do, and we have been hearing this for a number of days, that over one million children have no child care places. Currently, the Government is offering to create only 200,000 spaces over seven years.

In 1988, we currently have 240,000 licensed day care or unlicensed home care spaces. That the Government is adding 200,000 new spaces over seven years will not help solve the problem in my view, because after seven years we will end up with twice as big a gap as before. And above all, those new spaces will not be created with low- and middle-income family children as a priority.

As we know-and this has been substantiated by a number of studies-a child from a low-income, less educated family that is put into a good day care centre will be motivated, will go to school without being side-tracked, and probably will also

August 23, 1988

Canada Child Care Act

be taken off the social welfare ghetto. Therefore, child care is also preventive care.

Currently, the priority that used to be with low- and middle-income families is removed by the legislation. Of course, once that priority is removed it will be a matter of first come, first served.

My concern is that a number of companies intend to set up commercial child care centres, and what can come out of that? We will end up with child care chains, as we have McDonald chains-commercial child care centre chains. We know that currently, proposals to that effect have been submitted to provincial Governments.

And when we know, looking at the legislation, that no quality standards are required from provinces, I am somewhat amazed because when we set up health care, objectives were established. In this case no objectives exist, although this is an important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Looking at senior citizens, we realize that currently, according to their financial means, they either have good senior homes or they have homes where they are ill-treated, where the food is bad and where our senior citizens lead a very sad life.

With such a Bill which does not set any standards, we run the risk of having two kinds of day care centres, one for the children of affluent families, and one of poor quality for the children of have-not families. Because no priority is given to low and middle income families, we will be faced again with the same situation as with our senior citizens. As for standards, I insist again that they should be written in the Bill, in the agreement between the Federal and Provincial Governments, because the quality of services may vary from one day care centre to the next in the very same province. I suggest that the Bill should provide for standards because of the money the federal Government is investing in this day care project.

However, glances at this new Bill realizes its significant lack of flexibility. The Government has stated that it wants to create 200,000 spaces over the next seven years. Yet, if you read this Bill carefully, you will realize that part of the money which was not spent on any given year cannot be spent the following year. I choose a number arbitrarily. Suppose, for instance, that a province which had agreed to create 200 day care spaces the first year, could create only 150 and told the federal Government: "Next year, I am going to create 250, because the program will operate better ... ", They will not be able to use us the second year that part of the money which was not spent during the first year, with the result that at the end of seven years, the objective of 200,000 day care spaces might very well not be met. I suggest, therefore, that the federal Government should demonstrate more flexibility, consistent with the provinces' wishes.

I wish to emphasize the fact that this Bill is quite silent about latchkey children. I was here when the Prime Minister told us how important it was to have programs to fight drug abuse and deliquency which start, when the children are left unattended, right between the ages of 6 and 14. In fact, 57 per

cent of all children are left alone and without supervision after school hours. The Province of Quebec was the only province which allowed school principals to keep their facilities open after school hours to offer these children shelter. In fact, clause 2 of this Bill clearly states that there will be cutbacks in education funding, wich means that in a given province, there will be simply 30,000 spaces which will no longer be operational. When I heard the Prime Minister's statement, I felt that the first thing we had to do, as a preventive measure, was to look after these kids, and I just do not see why we could not do it. All the studies and task force reports initiated by both Liberal and Conservative Governments over the years have come up with similar recommendations.

I was a member of the special committee on day care services where representatives of the three political Parties made significant recommendations which the Government did not even consider. Its Bill reflects none of our recommendations. On the contrary, our children are deprived of what they have. After that, what will happen to them? Putting a delinquent child in a foster home costs $40,000 a year. Since the Government realizes that it is a lot of money, we feel that an ounce of prevention would go a long way. It would cost a lot less if we had programs to supervise these children until the age of 14. And it would cost the Government a lot less.

And further on we can see that parental leave has been recommended by a number of commissions. Not a word of this, nothing at all about parental leave. People are being urged to have more children, but the Bill does not even mention parental leave. Like the Rosalie Abella Commission, the Katie Cooke Commission, and the commission made up of Members from all three Parties, we all recommended the same leave extension from 17 to 26 weeks. Instead of maternity leave this would be parental leave so that either parent can remain with the child for 26 weeks after birth. Unfortunately the Government did not see this as a priority and did not even mention it.

Others who have been left out are native children. Indeed, native people made a number of representations when the committee was travelling. They asked for day care centres where, particularly in the case of pre-school children, their culture would not be ignored. Of course, we know they have very particular problems, and there was a time when native children would be taken from their families to be looked after by white non-native people, with the result that they were completely cut off from their own cultural environment.

Mr. Speaker, nor has there been a word about day care centres in the workplace, yet we know the absenteeism rate would be reduced to a minimum and both parents would be able to look after the child. We know that in some provinces, particularly in certain cities in Nova Scotia where the fishing industry is a major employer, both parents have to work during the summer and some of them came to tell the committee that their 11-year-old child had to look after a 2-year-old infant

August 23, 1988

because there is no day care centre. They cannot even get someone to look after them at home. Nothing was said about that either. I am sure you have heard of companies-Lavalin, Bell Canada, Canadian National Bank, to name a few- providing day care centres at work. Why did the federal Government not think of allowing tax deductions for day care facilities in the workplace? I think that is another very important aspect which the new Bill has missed completely.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):

I regret to advise the Hon. Member that her time has expired.

Mrs. Pepin:

Two minutes then. I simply want to say that when I ran in 1984 my platform was day care centres and the environment. I will just have to run on the same platform at the next election because I feel that the Conservative Government simply fails to meet the needs of Canadian families with this Bill.

Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):

It

may seem odd to you, Mr. Speaker, and to other Members of this House that 1 should have appeared this evening to speak to Bill C-144, but I simply could not resist the temptation. It is well known that I have had major objections to the constitutional proposal, and the Meech Lake Accord, which Members of this House have supported in vast numbers and which is designed to limit the federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It seems to me that I should get into this debate about child care. The federal Government, through its taxing and spending power, has the opportunity to establish effective standards and criteria to ensure that child care becomes a reality and responds to the needs to which so many Members of this House have spoken.

I have heard people like my colleague from Saint-Denis and others who would not be expected normally to be involved in these issues recognize the significance of child care, as we all do.

However, some Members are indulging in what I would call intellectual schizophrenia. On the one hand, they support the Meech Lake Accord which tells us that the federal Government will no longer have a role to play in establishing national standards attached to the spending power. On the other hand, they say that we should be telling the provinces that they should be applying standards which meet the demand of Canadian families. Sadly, we cannot have it both ways.

It is perfectly clear to me, as 1 look at Bill C-144 and at the position taken by the Conservatives, that this is very much in the spirit of Meech Lake. I thought I might have to wait many years to turn to Members of this House with whom 1 have had many arguments and be able to say: "Obviously, I was right".

Canada Child Care Act

I did not realize it would be handed to me immediately with Bill C-144.

Bill C-144 is totally in keeping with the spirit of Meech Lake. The federal Government is to tax. The federal Government is to state broad objectives. The federal Government is going to leave it to the provinces to meet the needs of Canadians. It may be different in every province. There will be no national vision. There is a total absence of a national will, about which our former Prime Minister spoke both before the joint committee of the two Houses and the Senate. There is a total absence of a national will to establish effective criteria from coast to coast to ensure that the obvious child care needs of Canadian families are met. This is the spirit of Meech Lake.

I raise this because Meech Lake is not yet a reality. A Senator from the other place said: "This is a seamless web and, if one pulls on one of the strands, the whole thing will unravel". That may be his view, but it should not be the view of Canadians who witness this debate and see for the first time that the federal power, the right in fact of Members of this House of Commons to discuss the social needs of Canadians, is going to become totally academic. Almost no aspect of Canadian life which touches individuals on a daily basis is not within the exclusive jurisdiction under the existing Constitution and by virtue of the judicial interpretation that has been given to that Constitution over many, many years.

Education is totally within provincial jurisdiction. Child care is totally within provincial jurisdiction. The granting councils of which we are so proud that do matching grants with the provinces are totally within provincial jurisdiction. It is only the spending power of the federal Government which has permitted the Government of Canada to establish standards and to provide funds that have protected Canadians, that have helped Canadians, that have reached down to Canadian individuals and provided that balance which is so essential in a federation. However, all of a sudden we are looking at a child care Bill, and we are all concerned. We are transferring billions of dollars to the provinces and as long as it meets some vaguely defined national objectives, agreements yet to be established, we will be satisfied. Well, I am not satisfied, and from the debate in this House I do not think Members are satisfied, either.

I know that Canadians would not be satisfied if they realized the extent to which our capacity as a Government, a federal Government, and this place, to reach into the households of Canadians to help them where they need help with some kind of national standards, is being gutted and destroyed by the constitutional amendment which is moving like a Juggernaut through the process at the present time.

I think it is fortunate that this debate has arisen because we should recognize that we cannot have it both ways. We are going to have a country where we will tax and they will spend, where we will make suggestions but they will decide what the national objectives are to be and what standards are to be applied, and I should say apropos that:

August 23, 1988

Canada Child Care Act

In the speech he made at the National Assembly, Mr. Robert Bourassa, the Premier of Quebec, said without hesitation that national objectives will be set in consultation with the provinces.

He made it perfectly clear. He hid nothing.

Why are we deluding ourselves? Mr. Bourassa believes that national objectives will not be established in this place. The program will be established by the Parliament of Canada out of the provisions of the Meech Lake Accord, after the provinces have decided what those national objectives are to be. That is the way of the future. Let us not fool ourselves. I think it is wrong.

Many here may think it is right, and I know many who do. That is a legitimate decision and I accept that. If Canadians from coast to coast want the provinces to assume entire exclusive jurisdiction in all matters that affect the daily lives of Canadians in terms of education, research, health, unemployment insurance which never would have been under federal jurisdiction had Meech Lake been in effect in 1940, then they are entitled to it if they want that. However, my concern is that they are unaware of the implications of the constitutional amendment.

This particular legislation with which we are dealing underlines those implications. There are many others. Those who wish to challenge my interpretation of Meech Lake on this subject are perfectly free to do so. However, I can assure you that there are many authorities who would support me, including the Premier of the Province of Quebec himself, according to his words, and others with whom I have had conversations at the provincial level regarding Meech Lake.

Let us go into this with our eyes open. Either we accept that this is the way of the future or, for those who say I am wrong, let us urge the Government once again to make a reference to the Supreme Court to find out what the full implications of the limitations on the federal spending power are-

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):

I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.

Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate. While my children are well beyond the stage when we might be using child care facilities, I have grandchildren on the way.

I have listened to members of the opposition Parties criticize the Government's proposal. It is a proposal that will increase the amount of spending for child care from some $170 million a year to $800 million a year. That is a significant increase in spending in this particular area.

The New Democratic Party suggests a program that would be almost like another school system, providing a place for

every child up to the age of 14, including latchkey children. While I agree that it is a major problem, it appears from their approach that New Democrats do not want parents to make their own decisions about how their children are handled. Perhaps they believe that every child must attend in order to be properly developed.

I have great confidence in the ability of parents to decide. I do not want a Government that implements a system in the belief that every child should go to day care and should not stay in a home environment.

Our Party has already done a great deal in the area of child care. For instance, we have increased the refundable child tax credit to parents. This is paid before Christmas, an important time of the year.

Another benefit is the great economic turn-around we have achieved since we became the Government in September, 1984. I am sure the Opposition will want to be reminded that 1.25 million jobs have been created in that time. I remind them that some 800,000 less people are on the poverty list. I remind them of the great confidence Canadians have in Canada, and their willingness to invest and proceed to plan for a strong future. This Bill caps off what we have accomplished in those four years.

One Member suggested that we should push standards on the provinces and that there should not be any services that do not have national standards.

I am a graduate of a university on which Governments have spent moneys for its support. No federal standards were applied to my education, nor to that of doctors or of nurses. There are no standards in the Canada Health Act under which we spend a lot of money. This legislation is no change. It is an example of programs that have been put into our system for many years.

The Liberal Party has proposed alternatives to the Bill but has not really suggested how it would derive the funds or encourage the provinces to co-operate. It has not said how much money it they would have to pay the provinces to produce more of these day care spaces.

I am sure that my colleagues in the Opposition are very eager to have this Bill go to committee where it can be studied properly. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 9, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon):

That this House continue to sit beyond the normal hour of adjournment for

the purpose of completion of second reading stage of Bill C-144.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

The Chair must rule the motion out of order. The reason is that the mover of the motion said at the end of the motion: "for the purpose of completion of second reading". That is what the Chair finds out of order. He may propose the continuation but not the completion.

August 23, 1988

Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.