Mr. Gauthier:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been negotiations and discussions. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) would like to be recognized on debate. I understand the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) had the floor when we adjourned this debate last week. I have talked with him. He has generously and very nicely agreed to step down temporarily to give his place to the Leader of the Opposition, with the proviso that he maintain his position after this speech, that is, that he be recognized for the 18 remaining minutes of the speech which he was going to make this morning. I would like to thank him and all Members of the House. I hope there would be unanimous consent to allow the Leader of the Opposition to take the floor.

Mr. Speaker:

The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has indicated that there is an agreement in the House. I might say to all Hon. Members and to the public that this is an example of the courtesies that are extended in this place. I want to thank the Hon. Member for Halifax West.

I take it that there is consent. Is that agreed?

Agreed.

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, nothing is more important to us as Canadians than the future of our children. We want the very best for them. We want to give the next generation the very best we can give: good education, a good apprenticeship in life, opportunities for a meaningful job, a secure future. In terms of today's living, one of the most important priorities for the next generation for our children is affordable, accessible, high quality child care.

You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that society has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. Today only one in six Canadian families fits the traditional family pattern, the nuclear family: the wife at home with the children, the husband at work. Many families are headed by single parents, most of whom are young single mothers. More than half of all

women with pre-school children work outside the home, but only about one in five of these children is served by an adequate child care system.

Hon. Members know that there is a child care centre here on Parliament Hill because some time ago we recognized the needs of the people who work here and the needs of their children. The same need exists right across the country, but it is obvious from this legislation that the Government of Canada really does not have a deep understanding of this need. The legislation before Your Honour and before the House is nothing more than a cruel hoax on the children and parents of Canada.

f Translation]

Mr. Speaker, I could find at least a good dozen reasons for the importance of this debate. Today's debate will shape the future. It is a debate about justice and social balance. It concerns our children and grandchildren and the place they will have in our society.

What we are talking about today is of course not just a plan or a system to look after our children. What we are really talking about is the kind of society we want to build. Our policy will have a direct impact on social peace, family harmony, equality of opportunity, criminality and even the demographics of our country.

Families have to face very different challenges, responsibilities and objectives than our ancestors or even our parents did. By changing the family structure, the evolution of society has also changed the role and responsibilities of our governments.

We ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, how the Conservative Government has responded to that challenge. What is the Government's approach to the future of our children? First, it must be said that the Government has dragged its feet for the last four years. We have had study after study, delay after delay, and only now, on the eve of an election, has the Government suddenly discovered the importance of child care. The three-year-old who needed child care at the time the Government was sworn in is now seven years old and no longer eligible for the programs under this legislation. The single mother looking for affordable child care still does not have it under this legislation.

Worse than that, the Government has been playing politics with our children's future. After four years of delay and double talk the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is now trying to blame the Senate. Last week he posed on the steps just outside this House and declared to reporters that the women of Canada were not going to be denied child care by a bunch of elderly Senators. That is the kind of shallow cynicism we have come to expect from our Prime Minister. It is the kind of cynicism that I do not believe Canadians will tolerate any longer.

Let us begin with the facts. The Government hesitated,

delayed, and postponed for four years the bringing in of this

September 26, 1988

legislation. This Bill reached the floor of the House only on July 26. There were only two days of committee hearings. Before that committee there was almost unanimous condemnation of this legislation.

After four years of procrastination the Government had the arrogance to impose closure on a Bill of this magnitude and importance. When the Prime Minister blamed the Senate last week this Bill was still before the House of Commons; this Bill was still before the deliberation of Members of Parliament from all sides of the House. If the Prime Minister wants us to facilitate his timetable, his agenda for an election, he should tell us the date. He should let us know what he has on his mind.

Frankly, as a Canadian I would really like to know what the Prime Minister sincerely believes about this Bill. He slipped into the House of Commons early on the evening of August 11. He did not say much about child care. I have searched that speech and I cannot glean his views. I have no perception of what he really understands about the issue. The speech was nothing but a ritual bombast boasting about the flimsy record of the Government.

As I recall that evening, Mr. Speaker, even you were moved to accept the intervention of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), and point out to the Prime Minister that there are rules in this House that we have to speak to the subject, that we are bound by relevance. I suppose one really could not expect the Prime Minister to understand that, he so seldom participates in debates in this House.

In that speech the Prime Minister boasted that his program was better than that offered by Governor Dukakis or VicePresident Bush in their mutual quest for the presidency of the United States. The branch plant manager says that he is doing better than head office.

The last time 1 looked, I thought we were talking about Canadian children. I thought we were talking about improving Canadian social programs. To make a comparison with a country that has a completely different approach to social justice, to social equality, to fairness and opportunity, is both misleading and irrelevant.

When the Prime Minister spoke in the House on August 13 about trade, again his speech did not really deal with the issue. It was largely a list of citations from business people. It was a speech of paid endorsements. Surely in the speech to the House of Commons on this issue on August 11, he could have found at least one endorsement. We would have been presented with them if he had them. It is significant that he was unable to bring one shred of evidence from one recognized group in this country having any knowledge or appreciation of the problem facing the future of our children and Canadian families. There was not one citation. The reason was that he could not find any.

Canada Child Care Act

During these truncated, restricted hearings before the committee limited to two days by the Government, there was unanimous condemnation of the Bill. There were 40 witnesses, including the Canadian Teachers Federation, British Columbia Daycare Coalition, the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the National Union of Provincial Government Employees, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. They were limited to half an hour each, but unanimous in their condemnation of this legislation.

We are prompted to ask you, Mr. Speaker: Who then supports this legislation? Only a Conservative Government, only that Government.

Inadequate child care is a major barrier to providing equality for women at work. It is not just a woman's issue. It is not just an issue for parents. It is an issue for all of us. It is an issue for everyone in this country. It is an issue for parents, yes; women, certainly; Governments, of course; and employers. But fundamentally it is an issue that this country must face and with which every Canadian must come to grips.

We need a system that catches up to the demand. We also need a system that provides minimum national standards negotiated with the provinces. We need equality of treatment across the country. We need accessibility that is equally distributed across the country. The Conservative Bill does not even come close to meeting those criteria.

Mr. Speaker, there is a major flaw in the Tory system, and it is that child care should be aimed exclusively at children of pre-school age. This means leaving thousands of school children alone, without supervision, for several hours a day for a number of years.

These are the so-called latchkey children, usually wearing around their necks the key to their home or apartment. It worries me, every time I meet one of these children with a key around his neck. I am not only worried but downright apprehensive about what might happen to them.

I think it is absolutely essential to take a comprehensive approach to child care that must not be restricted to children of pre-school age. By excluding children between the ages of 6 and 13, we would certainly save money today, but we would also incur a disproportionately high social cost in the future. It is my firm belief that Canada must have a child care system that is designed to give Canadian families the widest possible range of options and, within that range, child care that is of high quality, accessible and affordable.

We also know that Canada now has approximately 240,000 accredited places either in day care centres or at home. The Conservatives want to add a maximum of 200,000 additional spaces in the next seven years. That would less than double the number of places by the year 1995.

September 26, 1988

Canada Child Care Act

Some of the evidence that was addressed in committee indicates that based on past trends and the current funding arrangements, the number of licensed places would have increased by about 300,000 over the next seven years without the Government's Bill. The Government is saying that over the next seven years we will get 200,000 additional places. That is why I said that this Bill is a hoax. If your child happens to be No. 200,001, tough luck, you are out.

Moreover, by trumpeting this totally inadequate program, the Government is trying to make Canadian parents believe that it offers a solution to the problem. The reality is that it is no solution at all. The fact is that 70 per cent of our children who require child care services will still not have access to this program after seven years. We find that totally unacceptable. Canadian parents know that. Canadian families understand that. That is why, universally, they are condemning the Government for putting forward a totally inadequate plan for child care in Canada.

Part of the Government's so-called strategy for children is to increase the tax deduction for child care expenses. Tax deductions give the highest priority to those families in the highest income brackets. Under this legislation the family that happens to be in the top tax bracket and has two pre-school children will receive a total deduction of $3,600 per year. A single mother will receive $200. That is the Prime Minister's idea of fairness.

It is the same lopsided idea of fairness that has motivated the entire tax policy of the Government during the last four years. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the total burden has been placed almost completely on the lower and middle income groups.

1 think it is shameful that the Government of Canada has taken so long to realize it has a responsibility to ensure that in the distribution of joint programs to Canadians, the basic principle of equity is observed, wherever they may happen to reside. Establishing national standards would give Parliament and Canadian families the assurance that across this country, federally-financed child care services will not fall below acceptable levels.

Our basic criticism of this Bill is that it does not contain national standards nor provide for national accessibility. There is nothing in this Bill!

The Government's Bill is also disturbing in other respects. In addition to setting a ridiculously low ceiling on development of the network, the Tory program makes no provision for transferring to subsequent years any unused budget surplus for a given fiscal period.

This means that if for some reason, a province is unable to invest all of its federal funding within the prescribed timeframe, it will not have a chance to catch up during the following year. Here again, it is Canadian families who will be deprived of a service they really and urgently need.

I clearly indicated my position at the beginning of what I had to say this morning. I firmly believe that we must provide Canadians with a child care system offering a wide range of services of the highest possible quality. After having read this Bill, it is clear that families and community groups will not receive the support they need to develop a high quality child care system in this country.

We in the Liberal Party have committed ourselves to establishing a national child care foundation. This organization will provide groups with the funds needed to create and build the facilities which would best serve their needs. These facilities would then be eligible for cost-sharing grants to cover operating costs.

We on this side of the House are convinced that child care services in our native communities must be compatible with and not in conflict with their culture and traditions. Money put aside for native child care in this Bill is not only inadequate. It is discretionary and left to the whim of the Cabinet as to how and when to spend it.

We in the Liberal Party believe that any child care system that merits our approval must be based on two principles-on sharing the burden and on providing choices. Our proposal is that parents, the private sector and Government, provincial and federal, share the costs of the program. It will be a mixed program with more facilities and help for those who do not have access to those facilities, particularly in rural areas. It will give all parents a choice.

The establishment of a national child care program is essential. We must allow everyone, particularly women, to participate in the economic, social, cultural and democratic future of our country.

We must relieve parents in Canada of the agonizing choice between the children they love and the jobs they must have. We must invest today in young Canadians who will build the future of Canada. Any system should provide adequate support for low and middle income families. A percentage of this child care support should come from the conversion of the child tax deduction into a refundable tax credit. This support should allow an average family to pay for 50 per cent of child care costs, while giving low income families freer access to child care.

We must also encourage business, our professions, and private companies to provide quality child care support for their employees. They will immediately benefit in terms of improved quality of work, in terms of improved peace of mind and, indeed, in terms of minimized absences for family reasons. To promote this type of program, I have proposed a capital cost deduction which exceeds 100 per cent over five years.

September 26, 1988

This child care legislation now before you, Mr. Speaker, and before the House is not a plan designed to protect and nurture our children. It is a plan designed to protect and nurture this Conservative Government at the end of its mandate. It is designed to deceive Canadian parents into believing that the Government was serious when it said that it would give our children an adequate child care plan. It is yet another reason in the upcoming election that Canadians are going to replace this Conservative Government with a Liberal Government.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):

It will be a Liberal Government which will give Canadian children and Canadian families a child care system of the highest quality, a system which is accessible, which is affordable, and which is available for every family in the country.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to continue the debate on Bill C-144, the Canada Child Care Act. I have particular reason to participate in the debate at this point, having just heard the best arguments of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) against Bill C-144.

I must say, and I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that while the Leader of the Opposition was eloquent in his remarks, he did not provide one cogent reason for delaying the passage of Bill C-144, never mind stopping its passage in this House or in the other place through his friends in the Senate. I urge him to instruct his colleagues and his friends in the New Democratic Party to get on with the business of passing this piece of legislation so we can start on the road to accomplishing some of the goals and aims that he outlined.

I have to say that the Leader of the Opposition is new to the matter of child care, and especially new to its priorities in the House of Commons. On March 20, 1987, he made it clear to The London Free Press and to the students at the University of Western Ontario that child care did not have a high priority with him or with the Liberal Party. In fact, he said that it would be done responsibly, that it had to be done within the financial capacity of the country to digest it. He said that there were greater needs in national defence, a guaranteed income plan, and tax reform, but that he had first to create a system in which business could flourish, and that that was his Party's greatest concern. The words sound a little hollow in the House of Commons today when they are compared with statements made in the past with respect to child care.

That is partly why I rose to participate in this debate. It was not because of the outlandish comments made by some of the members of the Opposition in the last day's debate wherein the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) made comments which I thought were simply not in accord with the facts relating to child care or the provisions of the legislation before this House of Commons. I also heard the

Canada Child Care Act

Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) denigrate this initiative in terms that simply are not supported by the facts and the provisions of the Bill.

What is the purpose of the Bill that we have before us? This is another step along the road to an evolutionary process that has had dramatic changes over the last three decades with respect to the care of children in Canada. I think that some of us in this House are old enough to remember the history of this evolution and the beginning of it.

One only has to go back to the late fifties and early sixties to remember the orphanages that were present across the city centres of Canada, and I speak particularly of the City of Halifax where, in the 1950s, we had organizations such as St. Joseph's Orphanage wherein children were hidden away from public view because their families could not support them or, indeed, they were unable to support them due to their economic problems or for other reasons. It was only in the late sixties, 1968 and on, that there was a dramatic change in this attitude and, in fact, in the City of Halifax-and I was very much proud to be a part of this transition-St. Joseph's Orphanage was phased out and a new kind of institution was created which became known as St. Joseph's Day Care Centre and which is now called St. Joseph's Child Care Centre. For all that period of two decades it has been leading in innovative care for children in Halifax and in other parts of the Province of Nova Scotia. As 1 say, this was part of an evolutionary process which is ongoing and which is present in Bill C-144.

In dealing with day care I have specific reason to recall 1970 because in that year Nova Scotia passed what I understand at the time to be the first day care legislation in Canada. I was a party to the creation of that Bill, and I am very proud to stand here today and make reference to it. That too was a milestone in the evolutionary history of child care in Canada. I think there were people who denigrated that initiative at the time. In 1970 people said that this was not, enough, that it was going in the wrong direction, or that should try something else.

Those who lead the way always have to take risks. In being innovative, they always have to put their ideas down on paper and present them to the legislatures, to the Parliaments, and to the public and accept the criticism from those who would delay their actions and divert them from their goals.

Does the Leader of the Opposition and do opposition Members realize that in this very day in Canada the only access to federal funds for child care is through the Canada Assistance Plan? Do they not realize that that plan contains a means test, which excludes most of our married couples from assistance for day care services? Is that what they want? Is that why they would delay and stop passage of this Bill, because they do not want the very medium income families mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition to have access to high standard day care with government assistance? Are they

September 26, 1988

Canada Child Care Act

against that? They simply say that we should take no action because they do not like the action that is proposed.

We heard mention of other features of this system, and nobody is arguing that the national strategy implemented by Bill C-144 is the be-all and end-all. As I said, it is part of that evolutionary process. It is part of going down the road to an ultimate solution to day care and child care in Canada.

Let us talk about the need for day care. I think that is what the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues are forgetting. We have in Canada at the moment a real need. Some would argue that people should be left to their own devices in order to provide for their children. Some would say that providing a system of child care is encouraging women to leave the home. While we understand and appreciate the views of all our people, I think, on balance, we recognize that women in the workforce, married women with children in the workforce, are part of our society in this day and age. I think every Member of this House and most of the public accept that.

I think it is important to note that this is in fact reflected in the statistics. We have 60 per cent of women who care for children under five years of age in the labour force today. If we were to create a situation in which those women could not remain in the labour force but had to return to the home to look after their children, we would dramatically increase the number of Canadian families below the poverty level.

I understand that with a statistic of 850,000 families below the poverty level that would increase that number of families by almost a half-million. I think that that is an argument in itself for prompting the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada to take immediate steps to assist the situation so that we will not have that reversal and we will proceed on the road to economic equality and not reverse our process.

One thing I have always noticed in my involvement with the social services field is that it becomes, in the words of a current TV advertisement, a "pay now or pay later" situation. If we do not provide the assistance required by Canadians, particularly young Canadians and indeed children, we will simply pay for it later in other kinds of social costs.

The ultimate cost is that of keeping a person in prison. That is the ultimate failure of society in providing social assistance to our citizens. We end up paying what we refuse to pay in child care and in other social services and benefits, in the cost of maintaining the person in a prison institution. That is really why we have to continue to look at our social services programs to determine whether they are adequate to keep all Canadians and all Canadian families moving in the direction of progress.

We just had an election in Nova Scotia, and we got used to listening to the hollow complaints of opponents, people who denigrate and criticize the system and so on. We have heard in Nova Scotia from the New Democratic Party, its view of a new world and its criticism of the existing world. What happened? It won two seats, down from its current holding of

three seats. Some 30 of 52 candidates lost their deposits in the Nova Scotia election. The Leader of the New Democratic Party, that paragon of virtue, won her seat by 26 votes, and that is currently under recount.

Members of the New Democratic Party have no monopoly on virtue. They have no right to preach to the people of Canada and to tell them what to do, because the people of Canada, particularly those taxpayers who are directly involved in government expenditures, know what kind of services they can afford. They are now squawking. They have come to life and they are worried. Nationally, they are saying the same things that their counterparts in Nova Scotia said, and it was rejected. They have dropped in popular vote. Their two winning candidates only had 36 per cent of the vote, the minimum required for victory. When we hear them talk and shout, we know that very few people are listening, and thank God for that.

With that in mind, I want to review briefly in the time remaining the provisions of Bill C-144. We have all heard that Bill C-144 sets out the national strategy for child care. That national strategy is to build on the existing system, to take advantage of 20 years of accumulated experience of people involved in institutions like St. Joseph's Children's Centre in Halifax. We should not throw that out and start again because of some ideological position taken by some political pundit in the New Democratic Party or by the back-benchers of the Liberal Party. We have to add to what has become an evolutionary and sensible system.

What is the Government of Canada going to do? It is going to pay 50 per cent of the cost of child care across Canada in all its aspects, up from 35 per cent. Who could possibly oppose that? The Government is going to spend $6.4 billion over seven years, and it is going to add 200,000 new subsidized child care spaces.

The Leader of the Opposition told us: "Oh, no, they are not going to do that, because there is going to be over 300,000 subsidized child care spaces created in the normal course". If the normal course creates 300,000 new spaces, then we will have 500,000 spaces in Canada because the goal and determination of the Government is to create 200,000 new subsidized spaces. Again we hear the Opposition saying: "This won't happen. Don't pass the Bill because that won't happen".

My advice to opposition Members on behalf of the people of Canada is: "Let it pass. See if it does not happen. If there is no new subsidized child care spaces, then you can come back and complain. You will not even need to do that, because the people of Canada will know what has happened. Do not stop the progress and the measure because you fear some evil resulting from it that might adversely affect the political interest of the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party. Let it go ahead in all its evilness, and see what difficulty transpires".

I know and I think that the members of the Opposition know-

September 26, 1988

Mr. Cassidy:

It is a lousy Bill to put into place.

Mr. Crosby:

-that their fears will not be realized, that that is not the purport of the Bill, and I will tell you why. It could not possibly be, because the Bill provides that national strategy will provide $100 million for a child care innovative fund. That means new directions for child care and that handicapped children who cannot be accommodated in current child care facilities will have an opportunity to have financial expenditures that will allow them to be accommodated. Are the members of the Opposition against that?

Ms. Mitchell:

We want child care to be accessible. That is no way to make it accessible.

Mr. Crosby:

If they are, stand up and say so. Stand up and say that you are against innovative action for handicapped children in our care system.

The other day I received a call from a woman-believe it or not-listening to the debates in the House of Commons. She explained the situation. She has three autistic children and she cannot find accommodation for them on a subsidized basis. This kind of innovation may resolve that problem.

Members of the Opposition say: "Stop the Bill. Get the Senate to stop the Bill. We do not want this". They are acting against the interests of Canadians when they say that. Then they say: "We want a national system. We want a national system right here. We in the House of Commons are going to establish a system for all Canadians, and we are not going to listen to anybody from the provinces when we do that". That is not a system of government in Canada.

We have a federal system, and each provincial Government plays a role in that system. I defy any Member to say differently. We all stood up and endorsed the Meech Lake Accord that assured each province participation beyond what they are now guaranteed in the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Cassidy:

What about national objectives? We have the right to do it. Do it.

Mr. Crosby:

Now they want us to go back and say: "No, no, no. National standards. Forget about the promises". Pay no attention to them. They do not know anything about child care.

I ask the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy): What does the federal Government know about child care?

Mr. Cassidy:

Nothing, according to this Bill. Nothing at all.

Mr. Crosby:

I have not seen the federal Government under the Liberals in the last 20 years establish any day care centres. 1 have not seen them change any orphanages to new, modern institutions. That has been done by the people of Canada in the provinces, and they are represented by their Government, just as they are represented in this Parliament of Canada.

Canada Child Care Act

What we need is co-operation: co-operative federalism. Do Hon. Members want to go back to the Trudeau days? Do Hon. Members want to tell the provinces to shove it, that we are not paying any attention? That is not what national reconciliation is all about. National reconciliation is getting together, recognizing the problem, and proceeding to resolve it. That is what the national strategy on child care is.

I want to mention one other aspect of child care, which is tax reform. I did not stand up here the other day like the Leader of the Opposition did when he changed his view from March, 1987, threw out his documented views expressed in March, 1987, and took a new tack on child care. I started my campaign in 1981, and I have the Debates in the House of Commons to prove it. In 1981 I asked the House of Commons to change the tax laws relating to child care. Finally, eight years later, after four years of refusal by a Liberal Government, the Progressive Conservative Government is finally changing the laws with respect to the tax treatment of child care expenses.

We propose a child tax credit that will increase to $760 in 1989, doubling the allowance for child care expenses from $2,000 to $4,000 and removing the limit of $8,000. That is exactly what we asked for in 1981. It has taken all that time because, first, the Liberals would take no action for four years. The New Democratic Party never will be in power, so it does not make any difference what its Members say about it. Now we have a Government that will look at the problems, will study the issue, and will recognize that we have to be financially responsible in implementing these matters. The Government had a parliamentary task force look at the whole situation, responded to the task force, and came up with a piece of legislation that creates a proper balance between the needs of people in the area of child care and the limits of the nation and each province within the nation to provide that type of child care.

We have achieved that balance. It is not the end; it is not the ultimate; it is not a panacea. Canadians will still have to be careful in their expenditures. They will still have to be prudent in how they provide for their families. They will not get a bonus beyond that which they have earned. What we are getting is a balanced system and a recognition by the national Government in 1988, and never before recognized, that there is a serious obligation to provide child care in Canada. It is a serious obligation to the women of Canada who should have the full opportunity to participate in the labour force. However, more important, it is in pursuance of an obligation to the children of Canada to see that each child receives the type of care that will allow them to be nourished and to flourish in our society. If we do not, we will pay a price down the line. What we save in child care and in other social benefits, we will expend in other ways.

Let me conclude my remarks by saying that we have a goal in child care and we have a national strategy to implement

September 26, 1988

Canada Child Care Act

that goal. It is a system that is responsible, respects the rights of women, respects the interests of children, and realizes that Canadians have to pay a price and that all Canadians should contribute to the payment of that price. It combines the national Government and provincial Governments, and the private and public sectors. That is what national reconciliation is all about. That is what co-operative federalism is. Jointly, as Canadians we can achieve that goal. All we need is not to be stopped or delayed en route to achievement of that goal by petty arguments in the House of Commons, by procedural delays, and by misuse of the process. Let us get on with the job.

Mr. Cassidy:

In view of the commitment of the Conservatives to national reconciliation and the talk that we heard three or four years ago about the commitment to women, why is it that the Government has chosen to ignore the comments of the people who know best about day care?

In fact, representatives of some 40 groups came before the legislative committee on Bill C-144. All witnesses stated that the Bill was inadequate, it should not go forward, it was a bad Bill, and it represented a failure to provide an adequate base for expansion of day care services across Canada.

Why did the Hon. Member not stand up and ensure that the Government at least listened to women or to families from eastern Canada? Is the Hon. Member not concerned about the fact that not a single group from his constituency, from his province, or from his region, came before the legislative committee to comment on Bill C-144? Is the Hon. Member not concerned that only two groups came from the Province of Quebec? From all of eastern Canada, east of the Ottawa River, only two groups were able to appear before the legislative committee. Does that not suggest that the Government was acting in undue haste because of the failure to act before?

The Hon. Member suggests that it is a bad Bill but that it is the Bill that is here, so let us go forward and do it. Is that not a ridiculous manner in which to treat families across Canada who have need of adequate child care services and who will not get it with Bill C-144?

Mr. Crosby:

If the Government of Canada did not want to listen to the people of Canada on the subject of child care, did not want to afford an opportunity to groups to make representations, why did it allow a parliamentary task force to be appointed? Why did it allow that task force to sit? Why did it allow the task force to send out invitations to all interested parties to come before the task force? Obviously, it was because the Government of Canada did want to consult with interested parties. Nobody ever made the commitment to take what was said in each case and inscribe it into a law. That would be ridiculous. That is not what the consultation process is about. It is about listening and then deciding, because it is the Government of Canada that is responsible for child care in Canada. It is not the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, although everybody wants to hear what its representatives have to say, and they said it. They said it in

spades. Hundreds of pages were reviewed. Therefore, what is the point that the Hon. Member makes?

Is the Hon. Member mad because every recommendation made to the committee was not written into the Bill? Let the Hon. Member look at the Bill. The Bill does not deal with those types of recommendations. The Bill states that the Government of Canada will agree with the provinces on a number of matters. That is the system.

If the Hon. Member wants to debate the system, I suggest that he rise under the constitutional heading and debate the system. Do not come into the House of Commons with blind nonsense and empty statements and complain about the system in relation to child care when the Hon. Member supports the system in all its other respects.