SoVote

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)

Jun/8/23 7:56:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I quite enjoyed hearing my colleague's speech, especially when she touched upon her personal experience. We have been hearing a lot about the Conservatives and why they feel that no plan is a good plan, why they would throw out a plan that helps many. It may not help everyone who wants to stay at home or have families take care of their children, but for many, that is not a possibility. Those women need a sustainable centre where they can send their children. What does the hon. member think the plan will mean for women in her riding?

102 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

Jun/8/23 7:57:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wanted to point out during my speech that, when Rachel Notley was elected as the premier of Alberta in 2015, she put in a pilot project for $25-a-day child care. That contributed to cutting child poverty in half in the province of Alberta during the time she was the premier. It was a pilot, and I think $10 a day is a much more reasonable cost. We heard from chambers of commerce and the Royal Bank. Even after COVID, we heard that the best thing we could do for economic recovery in this country was provide child care to families. For Edmonton Strathcona, for Alberta and for places across this country, it is fundamental in how it will change people's lives.

127 words

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

Jun/8/23 7:58:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is the puzzling thing. I have a question for the NDP. It is supposed to be for the working people. It does not matter if they are male or female. When I think of the NDP, working families is its history, but it seems to have forgotten about that. My speech was all about the holes. It was all about the things we tried to bring forward as Conservatives that were not addressed by the NDP or the Liberals. I do not understand that. Right now, there is a system where a doctor or a nurse making six figures will get the subsidy as long as they have a day care spot. However, the parents working out there on the farms or in the trucking industry do not get it at all. How can the NDP square that off?

142 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

Jun/8/23 7:58:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, boy, that is quite a question. I spoke about the importance of protecting the workers who work within our child care centres. I talked about how this is fundamental for allowing women to go back to work or letting them go back to work. When the member brings up a question like this, what he is really trying to ask is why there is not money for the for-profit centres. He is asking why money is not being given to the Conservatives' friends for the for-profit centres. I am not interested in answering that. He knows the answer. It is because better-quality child care comes when it is not for profit. Non-profit child care is of better quality. I want it for my family, my children and every child in this country. It is not a very realistic question.

145 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/8/23 8:00:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, economist Pierre Fortin studied Quebec's early learning centres. He found that subsidized child care centres were self-funding in the sense that they resulted in more women remaining in the workforce, earning income and paying income tax. Their income tax exceeded the cost associated with this measure. What does my hon. colleague think about that?

58 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

Jun/8/23 8:00:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an excellent point. It made me a little sad after COVID, after we were recovering from COVID economically, and that was when people were paying attention to child care. People have been saying for decades that child care is a vital piece of our economy. The fact that it took a global pandemic for people to say that this is what will restart our economy was a little sad, but it is 100% accurate. When women can contribute, when they can be in the workforce, that is an economic driver that cannot be overestimated. It is a fantastic opportunity for our economy, and any attempt to stifle that is a grave economic mistake.

117 words

Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC)

Jun/8/23 8:01:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Madam Speaker, it is an honour once again to rise in this House today as representative of the amazing people from the riding of North Okanagan—Shuswap. I rise today to speak to report stage on Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, or as the Liberals love to call it, the universal child care plan. I will be speaking to some extent about how it is not really a universal child care plan; instead, it is a plan that would benefit those in areas with access to day care, especially those who already have children in day care. However, it leaves out the 50% children living in what have been called “child care deserts”. I support anything we can do to make life better for young parents, or even grandparents or guardians, who are raising children anywhere. However, I am not sure the Liberal-NDP government does. It is a number of years since my wife of 44 years and I required child care. As I go back to those wonderful years, and all those 44 years have been truly wonderful thanks to her, I recall that there was a time when we were coming out of the recessionary times caused by a former Liberal government that had a spending problem. It caused massive inflation and skyrocketing interest rates. During those wonderful years, we struggled to afford our home, to put food on the table and to provide the best for our daughter. We were only able to do that because we had family help. We had family members only minutes away who were able to provide child care so that my wife could return to work to help pay the bills. The bills at that time were so inflated that we thought we were doing well when we got our first mortgage at 9.5% and a second mortgage at 12.5%. Friends had bought a few years prior at mortgage rates of 19% to 21%. That was all caused by a former Liberal government's overspending, which caused incredible inflation. We have now come to a point where we are grandparents to a beautiful granddaughter, who has made our hearts grow more than one size bigger. I believe she is at home watching with her parents, so Grampy says hi to Ava. We are blessed, as she and her parents are, that they have access to good day care for her, because they live in a larger city. While this bill is touted to be about universal child care, it is very clear that it will not be universal. With 50% of children in Canada living in child care deserts, it simply cannot be called “universal”. In fact, my colleagues have proposed that the short title of the bill be changed from the current title of “Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act”. With 50% of children living in areas without government-approved day care, Conservatives have been the only ones raising the alarm bells that parents have been ringing, and that the government, in its usual fashion, has failed to listen to or understand. This is much as it failed to listen to the warnings it was given about massive deficits causing life to be unaffordable, especially for young families. I mentioned that we had family close by. We had a caring grandmother who gave us a choice, so my wife could return to work. We had the choice of what we thought was the best day care possible for our daughter. This bill would not give parents the choice of how they want to provide day care for their children. They will not benefit from this bill if they live outside of urban centres or if they choose to have a family member or friend provide child care. Universal child care needs to be truly universal. It needs to be universal to those in the urban centres, and it needs to be universal to those who choose to provide non-government supported child care. It needs to be universal to low-income families that do not have transportation or some of the other amenities and benefits available those with higher incomes. It needs to be universal to those living in rural areas, such as those in my riding in areas like Falkland, Cherryville, Anglemont, Adams Lake or Malakwa, all areas that could be a 30-minute to an hour-long drive to a community with child care covered by this program. Young parents living in these communities would face long drives, fuel costs and time in dangerous winter or summer traffic conditions just to get their children to child care, instead of having access closer to home on a more equitable basis, where they may be able to carry on a home-based business or work at a local small business. They cannot do that under this program. Witnesses testified at committee about the problems with the shortage of spaces and how it is not a universal, equitable plan. Ms. Maggie Moser, director of the board of directors of the Ontario Association of Independent Child Care Centres said: The CWELCC program has not delivered good value for taxpayers and does not meet Canadian standards of equity. The implementation provides undue benefits to higher-income families, who are sailing their yachts on the tides of the program, while those who need it most are left drowning. Lower-income families were excluded from obtaining access to the CWELCC child care spots. Families who could already afford the fees of their centre were the ones who benefited from the rebates and discounts, while the rest were left behind on a long wait-list. She also talked about the association she works with, stating: We have 147 spaces as well as 24 half-time spaces, going all the way from infant up to kindergarten. Our centre is 100% full. There is not one empty space in our centre. At the moment, we have around 600 names on our wait-list. They are for spots in the next year and a half. It is a current list, in that we ask our families to contact us every six months to maintain their registration. If they haven't done that, we take them off the list so that we can maintain a list only of families who are now looking for the next 18 months. I am disappointed that the Liberal-NDP coalition continues to mislead Canadians in so many ways. For them to be labelling this as a universal child care bill and program is absolutely false. It is disgusting they are misleading Canadians by failing to recognize the 50% of children in Canada will not benefit from this program, especially those in rural communities and those who are not in a program already.

1147 words

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)

Jun/8/23 8:10:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have heard many speeches tonight, especially from the Conservative members, that this plan is not universal because there are those who would not like to use a day care centre or those who perhaps cannot use a day care centre. What I am curious about is in the last several platforms of the Conservative Party of Canada, I did not see any solutions as to how they would spend money to try to help families care for their children. We do have a Canada child benefit, which is very generous and goes to many families, many rural families, to help them with child care needs. That is still going to go on. I would like to know from the member what his plan would be. I would like to see what the proposal would be in their next platform and how the Conservatives would provide child care spaces in rural Canada.

154 words

Mr. Mel Arnold

Jun/8/23 8:11:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the ways we would provide better access to child care would be to provide choices to Canadians, but we would also make sure that Canadians were not burdened with the heavy costs of inflation and high interest rates. They cannot afford a home to live in, so they cannot even afford day care because of the costs the government is piling on, not just with one carbon tax, but now a second carbon tax. People in outlying communities have no choice of transportation or public transit. Those are the people who are being hurt the most by the government, and the government is doing nothing to help those people with child care.

116 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/8/23 8:12:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. Here is what I understand from his speech and the beginning of his last answer. He does not approve of a government urging people to make greater use of child care services rather than looking to other options, such as keeping children at home with a family member. Is he saying that, if a government provides some kind of support, it should be neutral in terms of choice and there should be just as great an incentive to keep children at home as there is to send them to child care?

101 words

Mr. Mel Arnold

Jun/8/23 8:13:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe that parents should have the choice of where they send their children for child care or day care, whether that be in their own home with nannies or other people, even family members, coming in to provide child care in the parents' and child's own home, or through the other process. That needs to be more universal, which this program is not even close to providing.

71 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Jun/8/23 8:14:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, these debates always provide an opportunity to try to find common ground, even with my Conservative friends and colleagues. In this particular case, what I am noting is the way in which the hon. member quite rightly and aptly describes how capitalism does not value the care economy and does not value a lot of the gendered work that happens in homes and in our communities. I heard the member talk about a need for incentive, for people to be compensated for the care economy, and that reminds me of the guaranteed basic livable income. The member spoke at length about universality, and I happen to believe he is quite right. Would the hon. member care to reflect on a universal basic income, or a guaranteed basic livable income, for caregivers, be they gendered as the mothers of the household, or the grandparents or any family members, that would allow them to take care of their children in their communities, such as the rural communities he listed in his speech?

172 words

Mr. Mel Arnold

Jun/8/23 8:15:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the way to be able to afford that and to pay those day care and child care workers to be in the homes is to have young families being able to take home stronger paycheques and more of their paycheques than the current government is allowing them to take home. The government is taxing them more and more, making it less affordable. We have seen the inflation, the high cost of groceries and the high cost of home heating, so they cannot afford to pay the bills and they cannot afford to pay—

96 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/8/23 8:15:57 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville has the floor.

12 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Jun/8/23 8:16:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to share in the discussion of Bill C-35, or the universal child care plan, as messaged by the Liberal government. Although long-term funding to establish and maintain a predetermined, narrow-scope national early learning and child care program through provincial agreements has already been implemented, and a National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care has already been established, with members of that council already having been announced on November 24, 2022, I will be speaking to the report put forth by HUMA, the committee that studied this legislation, which has already been implemented. Conservatives are here to ensure that all voices, all perspectives and all needs of parents are heard, to improve and build out on the limited options Bill C-35 would provide. In addition to establishing and maintaining the needed access to child care this bill purports to provide, we have heard from those parents and providers of care who are not recognized, included or guaranteed in any way the same level of support from their federal government in caring for and educating our children. The Liberal government has exclusively indicated that its focus is on establishing and maintaining public and not-for-profit entities. It indicates as a sidebar that private programs would be eligible for funding. However, they do not and would not have the same priority for ongoing federal investments. When the Liberal government indicates that Bill C-35 would further the progressive realization of the right to benefit from child care services, as recognized in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is also indirectly demeaning the rights and responsibilities of mothers and fathers to ensure that their children are cared for and educated according to their priorities and not necessarily according to the priorities of any particular ruling government in a democracy, or a non-democratic authoritarian body, such as an advisory council that is not accountable to anyone. Liberals indicate that their universal program would contribute to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I know there is apprehension to some degree in the indigenous communities that prefer to care for their children according to their ways, not under the supervision of a national day care strategy that includes some, dismisses others and chooses winners and losers based on its intentions for reducing the role of parents, extended family, elders and self-determination within their own communities. The Liberal-NDP government loves to tell Canadians that it is feminist. In fact, the preamble of the bill specifically says “gender equality, on the rights of women and their economic participation and prosperity”. Melissa's story needs to be told. She says, “I have 3 kids. Thankfully 2 of them are school age. I'm currently on Mat leave with my third and I have had him on a wait-list for 3 different day care spots since before he was born, and I have been actively looking for day care for my return to work, which was to be in July but I have had no success. “Thankfully I have holidays that were not paid out and stat and bank OT that my employer is allowing me to use to extend my time off until August, which only allows me more time to look for care. “My husband and I both work shift work. He works 12 hour continental shifts and I work 8 hour shifts and I have a goal of starting up my own foot care business, so I would like to have full time care so that I can pursue that goal but at this point I am looking for any care that I can get and still no success. “So I have now had to drop my full time posting at work and I am going to have to work casually so that I can work around my husband's continental shifts. “Which is fine but it makes our budget so much tighter especially with us having just moved into a bigger house to accommodate our family of 5, and the constantly increasing costs of living. “My husband joked telling me to open my own day care, but I am actually considering it as it would help my family out and maybe others but that is not actually the ideal career choice for me. “It's too bad the situation that parents are facing with the day care shortage and the cost of living that is affecting everyone.” Melissa's story is the opposite of feminism. She has no choice, and her story is one of thousands across this country. Conservatives recognize that Canadian families should have access to affordable and quality child care and should be able to choose child care providers who best suit their family's needs. Some examples of those whom we would include are those who are proud of their ethnic heritage and want their children to grow up learning within their culture, which is not an option, and those who want their children to be trained up within their faith, including Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or other faiths, to ensure that their family and faith values are respected and followed when their children are being cared for by others. There are those who want their children to be cared for by a friend or a family member who commits to being their primary caregiver when child care is needed and, of course, needs compensation. There are single parents who want to be able to both work and be the primary caregiver for their children, so they choose part-time or off-hour work to earn a living. They do not qualify. Many families want their children cared for in their home and/or home schooled. Bill C-35 discriminates against women. Truth be told, the majority of child care operators are women. I am disgusted that the attitude toward these women, the language and intent of the bill, prevents any growth in opportunities for private female operators, many of whom operate home day cares as a means of being with their children while providing a service to other women in the workforce. They have value. They are far more accessible to part-time or shift workers and those who simply need some after-school care. None of these circumstances many women face meet the criteria for a spot in Bill C-35's “universal” program. Affordable quality child care is critical, but if one cannot access it, it does not exist. Bill C-35 does nothing to address accessibility for these people. The $10-a-day day care does not address the labour shortage or the lack of spaces. Bill C-35 is good for families who already have a child care space, but it does not help the thousands of families across this nation on child care wait-lists, most of whom live in rural Canada, or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces. There are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone to staff new spaces. Therefore, one has to ask what the rationale is for not championing women operators who run day cares and early learning care as small businesses. Wait-lists are years long, and we need to do more to broaden out the scope of this service. It is very disappointing as it stands right now. As a matter of fact, Conservatives tabled amendments to better this bill. We sought the inclusion of all types of child care, but did not get the support. We did not want it to reflect political ideology but to reflect the choice of parents. We sought to have representatives from private, home-based providers alongside public and not-for-profit providers. It was voted down. We sought to amend the function of the national advisory council to include supporting the recruitment and retention of a well-qualified workforce, having an understanding of available spaces, and progress in reducing wait-lists via an annual progress report. That was voted down. We sought to amend the reporting clause in the bill to include the Minister of Labour in the annual reporting, which would have to include a national labour strategy. Again, that was voted down. This Liberal child care bill prioritizes elitism over compassion. It does not enable families of varying incomes to benefit. The government should be supporting families that need child care most, based on their income. It should not be subsidizing the child care of wealthy families who can afford it with what they are making. It smacks of elitism and is anything but in line with the government's social justice rhetoric. As in the Matthew effect, increasing public provision ends up advantaging higher-income rather than lower-income groups. Even in the Quebec model, despite the gains in access, quality levels remain low compared to the rest of Canada, with lower-income children in lower-quality rather than higher-quality settings. Of course, there is the labour shortage. There are not enough qualified staff to keep even the existing centres open, let alone staff new spaces. The middle class, and those working hard to join it, a phrase we have heard before, should be the focus of this “universal” program at this point in time. Stakeholders have indicated all kinds of shortcomings in this universal program. When we form government, Conservatives will ensure that all voices, all perspectives and all needs of parents are heard, and that all means of providing the needed care and early learning are options available to improve and build out on the limited options Bill C-35 provides.

1643 words

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)

Jun/8/23 8:24:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am hearing a lot of sad stories about those who are not able access day care spaces, but what I am not hearing are any solutions. From what I am hearing, it seems we should do away with the spaces we are creating and the help we are providing, so that everyone ends up with a sad story and nobody has child care. The member can correct me if I am wrong. I would love to hear what her party's solution would be and how it would back that solution. Would it be paying for a system that provides day care for all Canadians, and how would it do it?

114 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall

Jun/8/23 8:25:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, this program would not be providing that. We need to be really clear about that. It would not be universal, and it should be. We had a program in place and we would expound on this. Would we take away the money from the provincial governments? Let us get real; of course we would not, because it is needed and is providing growth in care for women's children. However, it is sorely lacking, especially when we get out of the big cities and go anywhere beyond them to rural Canada. There is an incredible shortage of help. I have young mothers and fathers, both working shift work at the mine, who are having to drive their kids to Esterhazy, which is 30 miles away, before they go to work another 10 miles away, at 5:30 in the morning. Those little kids are not getting home until 9:30 at night because that is how far they have to go to hold on to their spaces. Rural Canada is the backbone of this country. It is where our GDP is created. We need to do a far better job of also providing child care through small businesses that women run incredibly well, and because they care for children. That is the route that we would go.

222 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Jun/8/23 8:26:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I listened to my colleague's speech, I wondered where she was getting her information. In another life, I taught at a university. In a course on social policy, we took a close look at the role of child care and the child care system in Quebec. Several analysts said that the transformative impact on society was unimaginable. Women returned to the workforce, single mothers managed to find a job, children arrived at school without language delays. To hear my colleague, there could be nothing worse than having a public child care system. I wonder if the thing that bothers her is the fact that this promotes a model other than the traditional family where the mother stays at home and takes care of the children. I wonder.

131 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall

Jun/8/23 8:27:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a fairly good understanding and grasp of what is going on in Quebec, and there are good things going on; there is no question. How it is being funded is interesting as well, because Quebec is depending on a lot of transfer of funds. That being said, there are still 80,000 children on wait-lists. When I came here in 2015 and we studied that system as this was first brought up in the House, the truth of the matter is that there were children who aged out before they ever got that care, because there were not enough spaces. Perhaps it is better now; I have not taken a look lately, but the truth of the matter is that it is a real challenge. According to the information I have from Cardus—

139 words

Mr. Matthew Green

Jun/8/23 8:29:51 p.m.
Watch

Cardus.

1 words

Cardus

SoVote

House Hansard - 209