SoVote

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

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall

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

Yes, it does good research.

5 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall

Jun/8/23 8:29:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on access, quality levels remain low compared to the rest of Canada, with lower-income children in lower-quality day cares rather than in higher-quality settings. This is something I see, and I know that if this carries on, we are already seeing that circumstance where it is the elite people who—

56 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/8/23 8:29:57 p.m.
Watch

Please allow the hon. member to finish.

7 words

Finish
Allow

Mr. Matthew Green

Jun/8/23 8:29:57 p.m.
Watch

Did you send the research—

6 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Jun/8/23 8:30:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when I hear the Conservatives say that everything is broken, I think that, in their world, I believe them, because they are the ones trying to tear everything down. We have a member who has spoken at length about all the problems with the system. This is enabling legislation. One would think that a party that purports to support entrepreneurialism would see an opportunity for a government-funded program, a national program, to inject money into a sector to allow new child care to open up: new child care in the north, rural communities and in her particular riding, for instance. With all these stats that the member purports from these so-called research organizations, like Cardus, she has never once said how she would go about addressing the issue. My question for the hon. member is this: Will she finally, clearly and definitively state how she would address this particular issue to grow the amount of child care—

162 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/8/23 8:30:27 p.m.
Watch

I will give the member for Hamilton Centre a chance to ask a question.

14 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/8/23 8:31:11 p.m.
Watch

I have to give the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville 10 to 15 seconds to answer.

17 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/8/23 8:31:11 p.m.
Watch

It being 8:30 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 6, 2023, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House. The question is on Motion No. 1. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

87 words

Interrupt

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall

Jun/8/23 8:31:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was a fine question, but the truth of the matter is that it is not either-or; it is both-and. We are in favour of continuing on with the commitment, and it is time the member realizes there is a role in this country for small business, and women are really good at it. In our rural scenarios, it is a very good way to provide care, which this program would not do.

77 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/8/23 8:31:16 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 12, 2023, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

27 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray

Jun/8/23 8:31:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/8/23 8:31:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I seek the consent of the House to share my time with the intrepid member for Jonquière.

21 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

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

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to share his time? Some hon. members: Agreed.

19 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Jun/8/23 8:32:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-33

Madam Speaker, the intrepid member for Jonquière just joked that I should have said no myself. I am going to run out of time for my speech. On July 6, 2013, 47 people died as a result of a train derailment involving 72 tank cars carrying crude oil. This tragic event reminds us of the significant risks associated with this activity. The industry needs to be better regulated. With regard to this tragedy, I would like to refer to the work of Anne-Marie Saint-Cerny, author of the book Mégantic: une tragédie annoncée, published by Écosociété. Ms. Saint-Cerny began her investigation by looking at the journey of William Ackman, the owner of Canadian Pacific, or CP, at the time. Mr. Ackman took over the railway company on May 17, 2012, as shareholders were outraged at their total return of 19%, while competitors got a return of 56% to 117%. Ackman hired Hunter Harrison, a former CEO of CN, Canadian National. To increase profits, Harrison presented a four-point plan: increase the convoy, increase the speed, reduce maintenance and reduce the number of employees. Convoys would be five times heavier and longer, with a length far exceeding one kilometre. They would be 15% faster and 4,500 positions would be eliminated within six months. Saint-Cerny tells us that Harrison profited from the phenomenal increase in the transportation of petroleum products, which increased from 500 tank cars to 140,000 in 2013, with the use of block trains, that is long convoys of black oil tankers, the famous DOT-111 tank cars, which were obsolete and condemned by all safety agencies in the U.S. and in Canada. Block trains reduce travel time by going directly from their point of origin to the destination, without stopping to load or unload cargo for various clients. To increase profitability, CP subcontracts its convoys to Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway, or MMA, whose network represents the shortest line between Montreal and the Irving refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick. Ackman and Harrison do not care that MMA has the worst accident record in North America. On the contrary, they have nothing but admiration for its owner, Edward Burkhardt, who privatized railroads in New Zealand and Estonia. They admire him above all because he is the man behind the notorious one-person crew practice, which was a determining factor in the Mégantic disaster. Harrison can brag that he really delivered the goods. As Saint-Cerny reports, 10 months after he started working for CP and two months before the tragedy, the company announced its largest profits in its 132-year history. Of the 25 largest listed companies in Canada, CP posted the best return to shareholders in 10 months, with a return of 26%. In 2016, Harrison was the highest-paid CEO in Canada. Anne-Marie Saint-Cerny's other target is the federal government. She quotes the mission statement of the department responsible for railways, which says, “Transport Canada develops safety regulations and standards, or in the case of railways, it facilitates the development of rules by the rail industry”. She also pointed out that Transport Canada recognized, at the time, that the primary responsibility for safe operations rests with the industry. The quoted report then states that Transport Canada “can order the development of a rule or the amendment of an existing rule”. The real issue is when it says that the Railway Association of Canada, “in consultation with its member railways, would then draft the rule.” In addition to writing its own rules, the company self-monitors and has its own policy for protecting assets the company administers or owns. The Conservative transportation minister at the time, John Baird, who was responsible for this delegation of power, ensured Transport Canada's discretion by rendering the organization useless. While there were once 7,000 people overseeing transport safety in Canada, there were only 43 inspection positions at the time of the tragedy. The title of Saint-Cerny's book, which can be translated as “Mégantic: a tragedy foretold”, says it all. The risk of such a tragedy happening was very high, both because of corporate greed and Ottawa's complacency. This summer will mark 10 years since the tragedy. It will be 10 years since 47 people lost their lives for bigger profits. It will be 10 years since hundreds of lives were changed forever because of Ottawa's lax attitude. It will be 10 years since the downtown core of this community was razed to the ground. In 10 years, have things really changed? I would say that things evolve very slowly in Ottawa. Ten years later, we have Bill C‑33. It does not solve everything, but it is another step in the right direction. Obviously, we will vote in favour of the principle of the bill. Furthermore, the Auditor General's recent audits, the Railway Safety Act review of 2018 and the studies done by the Standing Committee on Transport describe safety concerns with freight transportation. The bill responds to several recommendations of these reports, and we believe that many measures it contains will help improve railway safety. In fact, during the 2017-18 review of the Railway Safety Act, I submitted a brief that pointed out some shortcomings. For example, I pointed out the following: Gone are the days when trains essentially transported minerals, logs, grain or containers. This must be acknowledged....the current legal and regulatory framework is not suited to the sharp increase in the transportation of dangerous goods. During its investigation of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, the Transportation Safety Board revealed a number of serious deficiencies, both at the railway company and at Transport Canada: worn-out rail lines; fragile cars that were not suitable for carrying crude oil and that should have been decommissioned a long time ago; inadequate information on the content of the cars, making it very difficult for emergency services to do their work; a lack of coordination with local authorities; too few inspections; a lack of inspectors; a lack of follow-up; and too much confidence in the railway company's ability to police itself. At the heart of the problem is the very architecture of the act and the self-regulatory regime it provides for. Protecting the public is the primary responsibility of the state. It cannot be passed down to a private company, which finds itself in a conflict of interest because lowering its costs means more profits. It is not up to a private company to propose the security procedures it should be subject to or to verify whether it is in compliance. The act must be overhauled to ensure that the government fulfills the responsibilities it should never have delegated. Here is another suggestion I made: Rather than a simple update, your committee should recommend that the government propose, within the next two years, a complete overhaul of the Railway Safety Act, so as to put an end to the system of self-regulation by companies, and ensure that the government itself is responsible for establishing safety plans, ensuring compliance with them, and providing the internal human resources needed to fulfill these responsibilities. This overhaul of the act should include a review of certain aspects of the Canada Transportation Act, even though the government committee's 2016 report did not propose any measures in that regard. That was five years ago, but I am glad the government is finally moving in this direction. I also stressed the importance of better informing local authorities, in real time, of the arrival on their territory of rail convoys carrying hazardous materials. Some efforts have been made to that effect. Another point I raised was the need to reduce train speeds in densely populated areas, regardless of the size of the town, and to provide better support to municipalities in their emergency response. On April 29 in Lac-Mégantic, there was a screening of the four-part documentary series Lac‑Mégantic. At that event, Gilbert Carette and Robert Bellefleur, members of the Coalition des citoyens et organismes engagés pour la sécurité ferroviaire de Lac‑Mégantic, recalled that years before July 6, 2013, residents spoke out against the industry, which was letting longer and heavier poorly maintained convoys carrying more crude oil, propane and other chemicals travel on worn rails. They said it was a conflict of interest that the safety inspections were being carried out by the companies themselves and approved by their own authorities. Mr. Carette and Mr. Bellefleur are still calling for a public inquiry. While waiting for some light to be shed on this incident, while waiting for major changes to be made and for these problems to be corrected, we have here tonight Bill C‑33, which is a step in the right direction to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again.

1534 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 209