SoVote

Jun/8/23 7:12:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is the most frustrating thing about these bills. We try to divide them. We try to pick a side. At the end of the day, it is families and kids who are going to be harmed the most by this. When we create a bill like this and do not listen to the industry and do not look after the people who actually need the service, there is a problem. That is what I am discussing. That was what my whole speech was about. There are huge holes in this bill and hopefully the Senate can fix it. Right now, we are debating this. Maybe he will have a change of heart when he goes home tonight. Maybe there will be some changes that come up, but right now, this is where it is at.

138 words

Context: House Hansard - 209 - Jun/8/23

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC)

Jun/8/23 7:31:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Mr. Speaker, I will note at the outset that I am sorry to disappoint the member for Timmins—James Bay, but I am not an old white guy. I am a Conservative, but I am not an old white guy. I would also like to point out that the NDP and Liberals have once again used the draconian tool of closure to shut down debate on the bill we are debating tonight, Bill C-35. It is unfortunate that they lack the courage to have an unfettered debate on child care. They fear that parents will choose the Conservative approach, which emphasizes choice and freedom. They must fear that their one-size-fits-all, Ottawa-knows-best approach will be rejected once again. I spoke on this bill at second reading in January before it went to the human resources committee for study. At that time I laid out four key principles that I thought the committee should use to strengthen the bill. First, the legislation should find solutions that help parents in the modern economy, not just those working in nine-to-five industries; second, the bill should empower parents to make whatever child care choices best suit their needs; third, the legislation should refrain from dictating to provincial governments about how to deliver their child care services; and fourth, the committee should make recommendations to give families more financial freedom to support any child care choice they make. The government could have started by cancelling the carbon tax and reining in inflationary spending that is driving high interest rates, with another hike yesterday's, and inflation. With that, I supported sending the bill to committee, where Conservatives brought forward several amendments to enshrine some of these concepts into legislation, but the NDP and the Liberals, as they usually do, used their coalition to shut down common-sense Conservative proposals. Those two parties ignored the call of parents who have to hope for a day care space to open up on a lengthy wait-list. They silenced shift workers, who need child care beyond the hours of operation of regulated day cares. They turned a blind eye to parents who prefer to rely on family members for child care, including many new Canadians. They forgot that indigenous parents often prefer alternatives to state-run child care institutions, given their family and historic experiences with residential schools. They ignored parents in rural and remote communities, where regulated child care is often not available. It is true that the NDP-Liberal child care plan has helped some parents, but it is also true that the plan is leaving far too many people behind. Thankfully, there is one party in this House that represents the common sense of the common people. Only the Conservative Party supports a child care plan that is parent-driven and child-focused. The Conservative vision flows from our belief in small government and big citizens. We respect the right of parents to make child care decisions that meet their individual needs. That begins by ensuring families have the financial flexibility they need to create the life they dream of for themselves and for their children. To do that, we have to make life more affordable with lower taxes, lower interest rates and more powerful paycheques. I was part of the previous Conservative government that promoted income splitting for families and implemented a child care tax credit and the universal child care benefit, and we did so with a balanced budget. Do members remember those? The benefit was universal and supported the needs of every child in Canada. Unfortunately, the vision of the NDP-Liberal government fails to meet that standard. Its legislation reflects the core belief of left-wing politicians that government is the best solution to societal problems. That is why this bill gives more power to the government to decide who gets child care support and who will provide those services. That is why the government is encroaching on provincial jurisdiction, forcing provinces to give the federal government more control. For example, the child care agreement with B.C. will direct $3.2 billion into the child care system with one key condition, that those dollars only be allocated to run regulated day cares. I expected a more inclusive and modern child care approach from the Prime Minister, because it is 2023. His Deputy Prime Minister promised better, when she introduced this child care plan in her budget. She said: This is women’s liberation. It will mean more women no longer need to choose between motherhood and a career. This is feminist economic policy in action. This is so typical of the Liberal government: big promises, no follow-through. Instead, the Liberal government implemented a program straight out of the 1970s, when women were generally limited to typical nine-to-five office jobs. Listen to the words of Melissa, an Ontario mother of three, an entrepreneur, who is at her wits' end trying to find day care: “I have had my son on a wait-list for three different day care spots since before he was born, so I can return to work, but I have had no success.... My husband and I both work shifts, and I have a goal of starting up my own foot care business. I would like to have full-time child care so that I can pursue that goal, but at this point, I am looking for any care that I can get. For now, I will have to work around my husband's shifts, which is fine but it makes our budget much tighter with the constantly increasing cost of living.” If Canada really had a feminist economic policy, then striving entrepreneurs like Melissa would be able to find child care that meets their needs. Speaking as a woman who raised a family amid a career in law and politics, I can say that this program is not modern feminist economic policy. I do not know where the Liberals have been for the past 50 years, while women have been breaking the glass ceiling of every industry and every realm of life. Women are leaders in the military, policing, medicine, aerospace, engineering, mining and resource extraction. They are on the cutting edge of research and development. They are bolstering our food supply chains as agricultural producers. They are manufacturing the cars we drive and designing the transit systems we rely on. Many women are taking up jobs in the skilled trades, helping to construct the homes and highways that we need to build up our great country. Women are thriving in industries that were once male-dominated, and they need flexible child care options that meet their needs. Instead, the Liberals and the NDP implemented recycled Liberal election promises from the 1980s, which fail women working in today's economy. To make matters worse, the program fails to live up to the standard set by the courts. In 2010, as an administrative law judge with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, I presided over the Johnstone case. Fiona Johnstone worked shifts as a border services officer. Her child care preference was to rely on family, only available three days a week. She sought accommodation from her employer, requesting that she work full time with extended shifts. Her employer refused. After hearing testimony from child care experts, I made a precedent-setting decision that found the CBSA discriminated against Fiona Johnstone by failing to accommodate her child care choices and needs. My decision, later upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal, protected child care choice as a right for working parents on the ground of family status in the Canadian Human Rights Act. A modern national child care program should reflect the court ruling by supporting the child care choices of all Canadian parents. This a half-hearted effort. Most of it is inconsequential. The one thing it does is establish an advisory council. Conservatives sought to strengthen this section by including private child care service providers on the council. We also tried to include mandatory reporting on labour shortages in the child care sector to Parliament. Both of these common-sense amendments were rejected by the coalition partners. I look forward to a day when a Conservative government will better align child care strategy in a way that respects the choices of all Canadian parents.

1401 words

Context: House Hansard - 209 - Jun/8/23

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Jun/8/23 9:51:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the very beginning of when the member started speaking, whenever that was. The member for Winnipeg North, I believe, made a novel argument that I have not heard in the House before when he spoke about the previous bill debated. We were providing critiques of the bill, and he said that we were prolonging debate unnecessarily. Since we agreed with the substance of the bill, we should stop debating. On this particular bill, when we are rising in the House to provide our perspectives from our ridings, and we oppose the bill, we should also not be debating the bill. I do not have a question. I just wanted to provide this as commentary. It is a novel argument that the opposition should simply cease to function, because we either oppose or like a bill; therefore, we should not debate it in the House, but just send everything to committee automatically. The government and the member seem to think that our role here is not to provide the views of our constituents in this chamber. However, that is the whole purpose of Parliament. I thought it was a novel argument. I just wanted to highlight that in the chamber.

207 words