BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

ALERT

NATIONAL DAY CARE PLAN

A crucial debate is now erupting in Canada that will have long-range implications for our country. This debate is centred around the issue of establishing a national day care plan. If established, this will cost taxpayers many billions of dollars. During the most recent federal election, Prime Minister Paul Martin projected the cost of this programme at $5 billion over the next five years. This is ludicrous. In 1986, a federal government's study of a proposed national day care plan indicated that such a programme will cost a minimum of $11.3 billion annually.

If this programme is implemented, Canada will turn into a truly socialist country in that the state will be raising our children rather than parents. Parents must make the decision as to how their children should be raised. A national day care programme denies parents any choice on the matter, as the increase in taxation that is absolutely inevitable, will result in more and more women having to enter the paid workforce in order for the family to survive financially.

The decision for child care is a decision for the parents only. They should decide whether the child should be raised at home by a parent or other family member, in private day care, or government-operated day care. These options will be denied parents if the national day care plan is implemented.

It is essential that child care legislation in Canada support a flexible system which can be achieved by paying child care funds directly to the parents to allow them to choose the kind of care for their children, according to the child's needs and the family's values. Equal child care tax credits should be paid to parents regardless of which type of care they choose - whether home care or substitute care.

The Hon. Ken Dryden, Minister of Social Development, is meeting his provincial counterparts in Toronto on November 1 in order to begin the establishment of such a programme. This programme must not happen.

Below is a copy of the debate on this issue which took place on October 19, 2004, between Jason Kenney, (Calgary Southeast, AB, CPC) and Maria Minna, (Beaches-East York, ON, Lib). This exchange captures exactly the Liberal/feminist mentality and the pro-family position on this issue.

We must take action immediately to prevent this proposed national day care programme from being established. Please write to:

The Right Hon. Paul Martin, PC, MP
Prime Minister of Canada
Langevin Building
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
Tel: (613) 992-4211
Fax: (613) 941-6900
E-mail: Martin.P@parl.gc.ca

The Hon. Ken Dryden, PC, MP
Social Development
Tower B, 20th Floor 355 North River Road
Ottawa, ON K1A 0L1
Tel: (613) 941-0766
Fax: (613) 941-0889
E-mail: Dryden.K@parl.gc.ca

Your MP
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Please also write to your provincial premier, letting him know that a federally-operated child care system is not acceptable. Child care falls within provincial jurisdiction, and the provinces have the ultimate say on the matter.

Hansard, October 19, 2004

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC):

I can tell members that I have been a member of Parliament for seven years and before that was involved in public life. I stand to be corrected, but in that time I do not recall hearing from a single constituent or Canadian voter pleading for the federal government to establish a national child care program. But in that time I have heard from literally thousands of constituents and other Canadians asking for tax relief, particularly tax relief for families with children, families that are struggling under a crushing tax burden to do what is best by their kids and to make the right choices to raise their children.

It disturbs me deeply when I hear the new Minister of Social Development refer to the choice made by millions of Canadian parents to raise young children at home as an obsolete model of custodial child care that is 50 years old.

I find deeply disturbing that kind of dismissive approach toward at-home parenting, which laces the throne speech, and I can tell hon. members that my constituents do as well. It is of course true that the vast majority of couples with children, even young children, have both parents in the workforce today. It is equally true that the vast majority of those families would choose to have a full time dad or mom at home if they could make it work financially, if they had the economic freedom to make the choice they believe is best for their children.

However, this government, reflecting a political philosophy which has become dominant in much of western civilization, has decided that it knows better than parents how to make economic choices and child-rearing choices for children. That is why, for instance, the government opposes the policy recommended by my party to allow for a $3,000 per child tax deduction, which exists in other developed western democracies.

It would be a tax deduction that would say to parents they could use the $3,000 per child economic break to decide whether to pay for third-party day care out of the home or give up a secondary income and have one of the parents stay at home. That is what I mean by economic liberty, which builds a stronger nation by allowing people to make choices that are best for them. But this government thinks it knows better than parents, which is why it chooses to create a multi-billion dollar program that will be funded in part from the taxes that come from the second parents in those homes with young children, parents who are in the workforce, away from their kids, in order to pay the tax bill.

In 1962 the average Canadian family paid a total tax bill of roughly 28% of its income. That is now up to 46%. In other words, the second parent in many of the homes that I represent is now working to pay for the incremental tax burden, which families were not facing 40 years ago. That, I think, is a profound violation of economic freedom and the right of parents to choose. That is a fundamental issue for me.

Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches-East York, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the issue of child care is not child minding. It is about early development, early education and early learning. Surely the hon. member is not suggesting that elementary school is no longer acceptable and that we should now shut down the public school system?

All of the research shows that education must start early if we want to give children an equal opportunity in this country, all kids at all times. Early education is very fundamental to the development of the child.

We are the only western country that starts as late as we do. We call it early learning and care. It is combined. It deals with two things: first, the issue of early learning which is fundamental to the children of this country; and, second, it addresses the issue of parents who are working.

The hon. member says that we should give families tax cuts and a choice. With respect, a $1,000 tax cut for someone who is making a modest to medium income will not make one bit of difference.

My constituents of Beaches-East York made it very clear to me that they want early learning child care assistance. Many of them are paying $1,500 a month per child. That is tantamount to a large mortgage or more. There is a tremendous amount of stress on families. Many children have no access to child care and the parents are obliged to work.

Tax cuts provide no choice at all. First, they do not provide child care for the children who need it. Second, they provide no developmental early learning programs for all children, regardless of whether the parent is at home looking after the child or not. Early learning is fundamental for all children.

As I said, we are starting late as it is with elementary school. We should start earlier. In most western countries, three years of age is when children start early education programs full time. We are really sticking our heads in the sand. We are not addressing the real fundamental issues of early learning and care for children in our society, both in terms of assisting parents and in ensuring that every child has the best possible start in life.

I would like the hon. member to respond to that because his solution does not do it.

Mr. Jason Kenney:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's honesty in allowing her radical ideology to show. Essentially what she is saying is that the state must intervene to take kids out of the home as early as possible to teach them in a way that parents cannot do themselves. She said that it should be at age three. Why not age two? How early does she want to go?

What I hear in that comment is the shrill ideology of a radical point of view which says that the state and the institutions of the state know better how to educate children than parents themselves. I, and I believe the vast majority of Canadian parents, believe that the first and best school is at home and that the first and best teachers are parents and not the state.

She said that $1,000 was not enough. We proposed a $3,000 tax credit per child per family. For a family with three young children, that would mean $9,000 per year. That is considerable.
However I agree with her on one point. That is not enough. That is why we need to restrain things like this multibillion dollar child care boondoggle, which will simply increase the tax burden on families that are trying to raise their kids at home or who would like to have the choice to do so.

I find it profoundly offensive that the member is anti-choice. She is not willing to allow parents to make the right choices for their families, for their kids and for their values. I believe in parents having the right to choose what is best by their kids. If parents want to pay for out of family day care so they can be raised in the early childhood learning out of home environment that the member loves, then they should have the right to do that. I fully honour and respect that right. However if parents think they can do a better job raising young kids at home, then, by golly, we should give them that choice. It is called freedom.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS