44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 31, 2023 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, we know that child care is a principal concern for moms and dads across the country. Bill C-35 would establish an aspirational vision for a national child care program in Canada. Unfortunately, that vision is narrow. Child care solutions are not universal for all families. We know that parents rely on diverse forms of care to meet their own family's unique needs, just as all families should have access to child care solutions. It is also important that parental rights and choice remain at the core of our debates and the development of policy in this area.
The rejection of amendments that would have established a vision that was more inclusive and realistic of the child care landscape in our country confirms that this legislation is a marketing tool. It does not bring forward solutions to meet the existing gaps in the system. In fact, the Liberal government intentionally designed the bill to exclude and discriminate against certain child care providers. It would single out public and not-for-profit child care providers, disregarding and devaluing licensed home care providers and small business entrepreneurs. Many of them are women. It would do this despite the reality that these child care providers are critical to achieving universal access. My colleague, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, brought forward an amendment to the committee that would have included all types of child care. It was a change that would have better ensured access to child care and that would have better supported parental choice. Unfortunately, the Liberal-NDP coalition struck it down. It really is a shame.
The reality is that, while affordable and quality child care is great in principle, if a parent cannot access it, then it simply does not exist for them. If access is really a core principle, then limiting already limited resources does not make sense. Across the country, we know there are shortages of child care spaces. As members of the HUMA committee, we repeatedly heard from witnesses about the need for child care spaces across the country. We heard about the long and growing wait-lists to access the existing spaces. The director of Pebble Lane Early Learning, Jennifer Ratcliffe, told the committee, “Wait-lists across the country are growing by the thousands each month, and families are left with no one to help them. Parents need to work and if they don't have care, their only option is social assistance....Affordable child care is an empty promise to parents if it is not accessible.” Maggie Moser, director of the Ontario Association of Independent Childcare Centres, told the committee that her child care centre had 147 spaces and 24 half-time spaces. That centre was at full capacity and had 600 names on the wait-list. Sheila Olan-MacLean, CEO of Compass Early Learning and Care, told the committee that each of its centres had about 300 families on its wait-list. Those are just a few examples we heard at committee. The demand far outweighs the need across the country, but we know that in some areas, like those deemed child care deserts, it is even greater. With the existing resources beyond capacity, it defies common sense to limit the program and then create an uneven market that will then only create greater demand at the child care centres captured by the child care agreements.
It is also difficult to understand why the government is so intent on punishing child care providers that fall outside the public and not-for-profit sectors. Entrepreneurs and small businesses are the backbone of our economy and our communities. I again quote Maggie Moser at HUMA committee, who said, “Our...members are mostly women who took a risk and opened up a child care centre. They took out loans and mortgages on their houses. It's very expensive. We're talking hundreds of thousands, going into the millions, to open a centre.” Maggie Moser then went on to say, “Realistically, child care has been needed and it has been provided by these women entrepreneurs who took the risk and stepped up.” Not only does the NDP-Liberal coalition want to ensure these entrepreneurial women are excluded from the development of a national child care program, but it also wants to ensure they do not have a voice at the table.
Another amendment put forward by my Conservative colleague, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, would have ensured that the national child care council included representatives from private and home-based providers, alongside public and not-for-profit providers. This was a very reasonable amendment. It acknowledged the important role all child care providers have played and will continue to play in the development and provision of child care in Canada. The national child care council should be representative of Canada's child care landscape. The refusal to have fulsome representation at the table undermines the work and legitimacy of the council, but the NDP-Liberal coalition again struck down this reasonable amendment.
We also saw the rejection of an amendment that would have directed the national child care council to support the recruitment and retention of a well-qualified workforce, and another that would have required an annual report on a national labour strategy. We heard from witnesses just how dire the labour crisis is in this sector. Labour shortages remain a major obstacle in achieving access to affordable child care spaces. Witnesses were clear that there is a need for a specific workforce strategy and a need for better data and tracking of recruitment and retention efforts. In the rejection of these amendments, it is further made clear that this legislation is not designed to provide tangible child care solutions. The bill would do nothing to address the fact that the current programs are not targeted to supporting lower-income families; in many cases it is lower-income families that are on the outside looking in. Families who already had a child care space in public or not-for-profit care are now getting subsidized care, but everyone else is on a wait-list. If this bill passes, they would still be on a wait-list. This bill would not address the labour shortages in the child care sector. It would not direct the minister or the national advisory council to develop a plan to strengthen the workforce, and it would not present a viable path to creating the necessary child care spaces to create universally accessible and affordable child care spaces.
Like most of the policies and bills we see come forward from the government, Bill C-35 would have winners, but it would also have losers. Some moms and dads would get a boost, and others would get nothing. It is truly disappointing that the government is so unwilling and is resistant to trying to address those inequities. In fact, with the agreements already in place with the provinces, the national advisory council is already formed. What about the refusal to ensure more equitable access? This bill would really only be serving to reinforce the Liberal government's narrow vision for a national child care program and to create divisions. It is disingenuous for the Liberal government to pat itself on the back for creating accessible and affordable child care, when that is not the reality for most Canadian families and there is not a clear pathway to that becoming a reality.
1248 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will note what I felt was missing from my colleague's speech today when she talked about what was missing from the legislation. She did not seem to mention that licensed private child care providers are actually grandfathered into the agreements in terms of accessibility. In addition, what she admitted when she talked about all child care providers was that they proposed faith-based care, au pairs, nannies and unlicensed home child care. The MP for Battlefords—Lloydminster asked why we could not consider au pairs from Europe. Are Canadians really okay with public dollars going to faith-based care? With all the complaints, my colleague has not really offered a plan. We do have a plan and we are implementing it. Will the Conservatives support Bill C-35?
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I guess the parliamentary secretary missed the point that these agreements are already signed and in place. They are already being used. The importance of parents needing to have choice was reinforced at committee with our NDP member, with free, prior and informed consent, when we passed this. I will mention that only one Liberal voted for it and the rest voted against it, but it would not have passed if that one member had not voted for it. We believe that parental choice is important, and narrowing that option for choice is doing a disservice not only to the workforce but also to the children who then do not have access to spaces.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Once again, I thank all my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for this bill.
I have a question for my colleague. We know that this bill does not provide full compensation for Quebec. However, outside Quebec, Ottawa is seen as a force for social progress.
Is my colleague concerned about the trend towards centralization when, in Quebec, we reject all forms of interference?
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I definitely believe that provincial jurisdiction is something that should be respected.
I am on record saying in this place that the government does not have a good track record when we look at carbon tax 1.0, and now carbon tax 2.0 coming in. Government members do not care what jurisdiction it is; it is their way or the highway, and if we do not agree with them, we hate everything and are opposed to everything, which is just blatantly untrue. However, the government needs to do a better job at respecting jurisdictions, specifically those of the provinces.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed working with my colleague on the HUMA committee, as a visitor.
I agree that we have a child care desert, but I have been asking the same question over and over again tonight. We have what the CCPA called a worker shortage, caused by poor wages, no benefits and no pension plan. We are not going to have a national child care strategy if we do not have a worker strategy that ensures dignified working conditions for early childhood educators.
I wonder if my colleague would agree with me that, in order to have this system work and to see this plan succeed, early childhood educators must be paid livable wages, must be given benefits and must be given a retirement plan.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I also enjoyed working with the member on that committee. I thought we worked well together, especially as opposition.
There was an amendment brought forward that would have directed the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care to support the recruitment and retention of a well-qualified workforce. Again, that was struck down. The NDP voted against it.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to come here to this House of Commons and speak on behalf of the people of Calgary Midnapore.
Of course, I am very proud to say that I am a proud hockey mom in the riding of Calgary Midnapore, and I certainly like to have conversations with the other mothers at the hockey rink. We do that. We wait for our kids to get on the ice or wait for the practice to end, and we have conversations, and certainly we have conversations about child care. There is no doubt about it. A lot of families require child care. A lot of families are not so fortunate as to have a parent stay at home, as two incomes are required, but we also have conversations about why that is so, and we have conversations about the cost of living.
My truth, and the truth of the hockey moms I talk to, is that the words from the government about making life affordable for Canadian families are a lie, and day care is just a part of that lie. It is a cycle that the government has created.
First of all, there is inflationary spending. We have seen that excessively. We have seen excessive taxation, so there is inflationary spending and excessive taxation. This drives up the cost of living for Canadian families as well as costs for Canadian businesses. I have mentioned often in this House that I come from a small business family, so taxes on small business are very important to me and to my family.
As a result of the cost of living being driven up, Canadian families are driven into poverty. Businesses have to close and lay off workers, and Canadian families cannot afford to eat, cannot afford rent and certainly cannot afford child care.
What the government does after it has created this nation of poverty is throw little scraps out to the Canadian public, and this day care program is just a marketing plan. It is just one of those scraps.
The government threw out the rent subsidy. They said, “Here is $500 this month; I don't know what you're going to do next month, but here is $500.” The grocery rebate was $234, even though groceries are going to cost an additional $1,000 for a family of four.
The government makes life unaffordable for Canadians, and day care is just another example of what it is doing. It is creating a cycle of continuous poverty for Canadians, whereby Canadians are reliant upon the government instead of on themselves and the common sense of the common people, as we talk about. This day care scheme is just another example.
I talked about inflationary spending. We saw in budget 2023 an additional $69.7 billion that is going to be spent. This will cost each Canadian household an additional $4,200. I just came from the operations committee, where we had the president of the Treasury Board, who just added another $1.3 billion to the tab of Canadians for the recently negotiated agreements, which the Treasury Board failed to do two years previously. In a hurry to get things done, it has now finally completed these agreements. I thank goodness, because services were suffering for Canadians, but it is for the price tag of $1.3 billion.
The government has to bring down inflationary spending and excessive taxation so Canadians can have a chance. We see an escalator tax on beer, wine and spirits of 2%. Let me say that the hockey moms and I sometimes could use a nice glass of wine at the end of the day, but it is 2% more now, as a result of the government and its creation of a life that is not affordable for Canadians.
We see an increase of 40% in the cost of food with high inflationary spending, with 1.5 million Canadians visiting food banks in a single month. We have talked about these numbers a lot in this House. One in five Canadians are skipping meals, and as I mentioned, the grocery rebate is just $234, but groceries are going to cost an additional $1,065.
Day care is a part of this lie of affordability that the Liberals say they are creating for Canadians, when really they are just making everything more expensive.
The cost of shelter has doubled. Mortgages have doubled from $1,400 in 2015 to $3,100 in 2023. Rents have doubled from $973 to $1,760, and that is for a single bedroom. Life is not affordable. Again, it is a result of what the Liberal government is doing. It is taking all this money and handing out little bits, little scraps, like this fake day care plan.
The housing minister could not say what rent was in Kelowna when the member for Kelowna—Lake Country asked last week. That is an example of how out of touch the government is.
The government is raising payroll taxes on workers in small businesses. A worker who is making above $66,000 will now need to pay an extra $255 to CPP and an extra $50 to EI, and of course we have the carbon tax. The carbon tax went up 14¢ a litre on April 1. We know that the carbon tax is driving up the cost of gas and groceries, as I indicated. Those groceries have to get to the supermarket somehow. They go through vehicles, which use gas, so there is a double taxation there.
Then there is home heating, something that all Canadians need, yet the government has called Canadians “polluters” in the past. It called grannies in the Maritimes “polluters” when really Liberals are creating the cycle of poverty to make people dependent on them. An average family will spend between $402 and $847 a year more on the carbon tax.
I have talked about all of these other things. I have talked about how the government needs to reduce inflationary spending because the cycle that it is creating drives up the cost of living for Canadians and drives them down into poverty, and then Canadians are forced to accept these scraps, like this $10-a-day child care.
This $10 day care is an illusion, because if it cannot be accessed, it does not exist. It does not help thousands of families and children on the wait-lists or the operators who do not have the staff or the infrastructure. It has been said that in the future there will only be one space for every three children who need it and that a shortage of 8,500 child care workers will exist in this country by 2026. Perhaps the government could use a pink seal program, something very similar to the blue seal program that our leader has put forward for the trades. In B.C., 27% of child care centres turn away children due to a lack of staff. In Ontario, by 2026, 38% of kids will not have a space.
The thing about this is that the Liberal government has the audacity to think that it can do things better than the common people, better than Canadians. Where have we seen the failure of this? We have seen it with passports, from the very minister who is responsible for this program, and with the immigration backlog, and with the inability to negotiate a public service deal over two years.
Also, what does this say about mothers? So many moms would rather just stay home with their children, but they cannot. They cannot because the Liberal government has made us into a country of two-paycheque families. Two paycheques are needed to keep a family functioning, to keep a roof over their heads and to keep them fed.
As well, what does it say about the women who operate these day cares? They are closing them down, taking away income from families, and often it is new Canadian families.
In conclusion, the Liberal government's talk about making life affordable for Canadians is a lie. Inflationary spending and taxation drive up the cost of living for Canadians and for businesses. It drives Canadians into poverty. They cannot eat, they cannot afford rent, and businesses close. I will not even get into the natural resources sector.
The government throws scraps at Canadians. This day care program is one of the scraps. “Making life affordable for Canadians” is a lie. This day care program is one of them.
1435 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I hope Canadian women heard that speech, because the hon. member basically said that $6,000 a year in their pocket is scraps. She said that women want to stay home with their children. If they want to, that is their choice, but there are actually a lot of women who also want to have a career. I am sorry she has such an archaic vision of women in this country. I find that incredibly disappointing.
The Conservatives have gone from calling child care a “slush fund” to now calling it a “marketing tool”. I do not know if the member has spoken to the families who are benefiting from this, who are saving thousands of dollars a year, who have called this “life-changing”. The Alberta government has now created 5,500 new spaces since we signed the agreement.
Everything the member opposite said is simply false, but what I really want to know and what I think Canadian families want to know is whether the member is going to support Bill C-35? Will the Conservatives support Bill C-35 and work with us to deliver affordable, high-quality, accessible, inclusive child care for Canadians?
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what this minister failed to mention is that from my meeting with Albertan operators, I know that 67% of them cannot use this program. It is absolutely true.
This is what the Liberals do: They perpetuate this false narrative. They tax us to death. They increase inflationary spending. They drive families into the ground. People cannot get homes. People cannot get day care. As I said, people have to work because they need two incomes. That is why a lot of families have to work.
If women want to work, that is fantastic. I am a poster child for that. I had an incredible career before I got here. I am happy to be here and be a mom and do both, but families cannot do that. What this minister is doing is perpetuating that lie.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I appreciated the member's animated intervention. I am a bit confused about what is going on with the debate, because we all know how important child care is and how much poverty there is in our communities, yet at this point we are debating a minor procedural matter.
I wonder if the member can explain why we are debating this minor procedural matter when we could be debating other more important ways to address poverty and ensure that children are getting the care that they need.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is the whole point. We should be debating ways to find efficiencies within the government to lower taxes and to lower spending. Instead, we are wasting our time here in this House, creating programs to make the government look good and to pretend to Canadians that it is doing something.
I absolutely agree with the member that we should be doing things that actually benefit Canadians, like decreasing inflationary spending and decreasing taxation so that Canadians can buy whatever they want in the grocery store, so that Canadians can actually purchase a home, and so that Canadians can make the choice for a parent to stay at home if they want.
The Liberals are perpetuating their lie. That is what they are doing, and Canadians are catching on to it.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's passion. As a mom, I know that she knows this. What is interesting is we have heard so much tonight in the chamber, and the reality is—and we have the testimony—that this bill would actually hurt the most vulnerable, the most marginalized and the poor, which the member for Nunavut mentioned.
However, one of the things that came out of the CCPA child care deserts report, the report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, is that it is most often rural areas that are more likely to have child care deserts in comparison to urban areas with a population of over 100,000 people. It really speaks to the question of whether this is purely a political tool. Because of where all of the seats are that the Liberals win, they continue to just disregard rural areas of Canadians and not treat them fairly. I would like to know what the member thinks of that.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what really comes to my mind is the tag line we saw from the Liberal government in the first years that the Liberals were in power: the middle class and those hoping to join it. Frankly, I have seen lots of people from my riding go from the upper middle class to the middle class and even the lower middle class, so congratulations. The Liberals are doing a great job of having people join the middle class. That is what I would say about that.
Again, it is this cycle that I am talking about. They spend too much. They tax too much. They create poverty for Canadians. People get unemployed, cannot buy houses, cannot buy food and are driven into poverty. The Liberals come along as the saviours with these scraps to save them, so hurray for them. Good job.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying something from my heart, something I think we all agree on in this place: Canadians deserve and need access to affordable, quality child care. This is important for so many reasons, particularly for gender equality. While our country has made gains in various measures of gender equality, we know that women still bear the disproportionate labour costs of child care. Providing access to quality child care, and, more importantly, valuing the labour of child care are what we need to do as a society to move towards true gender equity.
The other principle that we need to understand in achieving gender equity and quality child care in the context of Canadian pluralism, and not just Canadian pluralism but also a regionally diverse country, is that we have to respect and value the labour of child care when it happens in multiple different modalities.
What I mean by that is that while it is very important to ensure that there are quality child care spaces that are affordable and available to Canadians, we also need to understand that some people may want to access child care in a private home. They may want to raise their children in a nanny share, or they may want to raise their children by bringing in parents and grandparents who perhaps currently reside in other parts of the country. Perhaps they are sharing child care duties within their own family, which is unpaid labour, because they are on shift work or because they have chosen to do things that way. The reality is that child care is not homogenous in our country, because we are not a homogenous country. We have so many different ways of raising children, and I think that is part of the beauty of our country.
Our child care policy has to be reflective of that in order for it to be equitable in our country. This bill creates a certain type of child care space. I know that there was a lot of committee testimony that said it is a step in the right direction. The concern that I have with the bill in the current format and with us having a very dogmatic debate on this issue is that we are missing that heterogeneity, that variety of child care that we see in our country, that Canadians want and need in order to raise their children in a way that both makes sense for them and also reflects their living reality.
Some of my colleagues have raised the issue of rural child care. I think this is really important. This bill does not adequately reference rural child care. I also think that it perhaps does not speak to, and the government should find ways to speak to, valuing other forms of child care, particularly unpaid labour within extended families or within a nuclear family itself.
I also think that we need to realize the fact that sometimes, in communities, there is a day home, a private day home on a street. That is not addressed in this bill.
I would just implore the minister and the government to say that perhaps more needs to be done, that while this is a step in the right direction, the concerns that have been raised in this place need to be addressed by the government.
The other reason I think it is so important to get this right, beyond gender equity, which is so important, and beyond looking at child care policy that reflects the wonderful diversity of our country, is a fact that I want to raise because it is such an important issue and I do not think it has really been raised in Parliament: Our country is facing a fertility issue.
Many other countries around the world are as well. This is such a sensitive topic to talk about, because it raises a lot of questions about the cost and benefits of bearing children, in both a societal context and in very personal contexts. It is something that we as legislators have to be seized with. The reality is that around the world, not just in Canada, the global fertility rate is dipping almost to the point of being below replacement levels. That is across the world.
In Canada, we do not replace our population. We rely on immigration to do that, but at some point in the future, based on current trends, immigration is not going to replace our population in Canada, and that has very broad impacts, both on the economy and on social policy.
One might think that people are not having children out of choice, but there have been studies done internationally that show, particularly in the G7 context, that people want to have kids, but are choosing not to because they are not attaining certain life goals. That is where the concept of overall affordability comes into child care.
When people are choosing not to have children for the express reason that they feel they cannot afford to have children, that is a deeply personal societal problem that we all as legislators have a duty to talk about in a respectful way and come up with public policy for. We also have to ensure, though, that the legislation in front of the House right now reflects this fact, as well as reflecting the fact that it is not just people who are choosing not to have children, but people who have children now and cannot afford to make ends meet. It is not just about child care in general.
I have a very diverse riding in north central Calgary. There are a lot of new Canadians. I think about women who cannot get language acquisition classes because they cannot afford or access child care. While this bill is a step in the right direction, it does not address some of the issues that my colleagues have been talking about, like the labour gap, actually getting enough people to fill the jobs, like shift work, like trying to bring parents and grandparents into the country, like valuing the labour of a broader family.
I think about my own situation. I have a stepdaughter who has a son. She had my grandson at a very young age, and raising him has been an effort of extended family, but that labour has not been valued. That is really where we get to the heart of gender equity.
I hope that the minister and the government are not so dogmatically entrenched in just what is in this bill that they keep being reluctant to acknowledge some of these issues, which I think are being brought forward in good faith and out of compassion for Canadian families, and the need to recognize that the labour of child care looks very different in many different contexts in this country. One homogenous solution, sure, might be a check in the box and a step in the right direction, but we are not there yet, and this bill does not get us there.
Solutions I would like to see proposed include a lot more emphasis on fixing immigration wait times to ensure that people who want to bring parents and grandparents to this country on things like super visas can do so a lot more quickly. I would like to see really innovative policies on how we value the unpaid labour of extended families, be it through tax breaks or other programs. That is something we should be debating here. I would like to see the government recognize that in rural Canada it is really hard to get child care, and that might mean private homes or nanny shares. Even in urban Canada, we know that happens. The government should be acknowledging that and trying to address it. The other thing I would like the government to do that it has not done with this bill is have a specific strategy to address the labour shortage in child care.
My fear is that if we do not do these things, in 10 years' time we are going to be facing such a fertility gap in this country that everybody is going to be in competition for immigration to replacing aging populations. If we have not addressed this broader suite of services, particularly ones that are related to labour shortages, we are going to be in a big societal crisis in this country, because we all know what happens when there are issues around women producing children. It is not a pretty place to be.
If the government can get ahead of these issues, acknowledge that they are problematic and deserve solutions, and perhaps add to what is being done here, I think we would have a lot more consensus and also acknowledge that our diverse, beautiful country deserves a diverse, beautiful child care solution. That is what I would like to see. All ideas should be on the table, and all issues should be acknowledged.
1500 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her thoughtful speech. She put a lot of thought into it.
I want to correct the record on a couple of things, though. The first is with respect to what child care is included in this legislation, as well as the agreements. There seems to be a misconception on the part of the Conservatives that for-profit or home day care is not included. In fact, it is, as long as it is licensed, and that is important to note.
The other part that my hon. colleague brought up that I think is important to clarify is with regard to rural child care. Manitoba and Saskatchewan are doing some really amazing work at announcing new spaces, particularly in rural communities, and we know that child care is not just an urban issue but an issue for families right across this country. I agree with my hon. colleague that this is something that needs to happen, and in fact it is.
Given her support for child care and saying that this is a step in the right direction, I would like to know if she will be supporting Bill C-35.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first of all, with regard to the for-profit licensed child care spaces, the bill does not recognize the fact that there might be a grandma, a retired person or an aunt who stays at home specifically to care for children and who takes in other children in the neighbourhood. They may not have the means to go through the licensing process, but they are providing quality child care. It is discriminatory to value the labour of licensed people as opposed to people who are providing a valuable resource to society in these other situations. I hope the minister acknowledges that. This bill does not acknowledge that situation. That is why I find it inequitable.
The second component is this. The reality is that rural communities in Canada have a hard time retaining population and attracting labour and newcomers writ large. This bill does not address the reality of child care deserts.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments, but I still have questions. I think there is a reality that she describes well: the issue of home-based child care services.
When the public early childhood education services network was implemented in Quebec, both home-based and institutional child care services were accredited, for those who wanted that, in order to participate in the same mission, the same regulations of early childhood education services.
I do not understand how a program could support child care centres without a permit if we agree that the objective is early childhood education and not just the child care services that many people can offer.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this bill will not meet all child care needs. What we should be looking at when it comes to child care is valuing the labour of child care no matter how it occurs, because if we do not use that as a principle, we are not as a Parliament respecting the diversity of our country, nor are we creating equity in how we value child care. That is the wrong message to send to Canadians.
I understand there will be different preferences and different scenarios, and this is one piece of the pie for sure, but if we cannot figure out how to value child care in all of its forms in a regionally, ethnically and culturally diverse country, we will not achieve gender equality, or universality in child care, or quality child care.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, to whom I always listen attentively, as she speaks so eloquently and makes a real contribution in the House of Commons.
I understand the point she is making, but what she has not really addressed is the fact that, ultimately, this bill provides more accessibility to child care, which is fundamentally important. I note that, in terms of child care accessibility in this country, Alberta ranks last. That is something, as I know the member is aware, that played out in the Alberta elections this week, when the New Democrats swept Edmonton and won most of the ridings in Calgary, in part because of the lack of accessibility to services.
The member has been eloquent in making her points, but will she admit that this is an important step in the progress that is so important for families in Edmonton, Calgary and right across the country?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
