SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 282 - Feb/14/24

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/14/24 5:14:09 p.m.
Watch

Before we go to questions and comments, I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is rising on a point of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.

30 words

Mr. Ben Carr

Feb/14/24 5:14:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-273

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry to interrupt the current affairs of the chamber. I am back again, this time with a tie and jacket on as per House rules. I tried to tell you before, when I was not dressed appropriately, that I had a technical issue on the last vote being held today, which was on Bill C-273, and my intention is to vote in favour. Therefore, I am asking for unanimous consent from the House to register my vote in favour of Bill C-273, and I apologize for the delay that this has caused in House proceedings.

102 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/14/24 5:14:58 p.m.
Watch

Is there consent? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Questions and comments. The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

25 words

Mr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC)

Feb/14/24 5:15:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are redoing a debate we had last spring. On June 19, this bill was passed here in the House of Commons and sent to the other place. Today, the debate is on the amendment to add the language clause. I will quote the government representative in the Senate, the Hon. Marc Gold, who gave a statement following a speech by Senator Cormier. He said, “I have a prepared text that I am going to read. Let me begin by saying that what I will try to do is present the government's position. The government does not support this amendment”. I just want to know what happened on the Liberal side. Why the about-face? Why did they change their minds again? This government is apparently going to support the amendment. We are wasting time, and that is not good for official language minority communities.

150 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière

Feb/14/24 5:16:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is rather strange given the many years of experience he has as an MP. He is well aware that there can be many discussions between members of the House of Commons and senators during the amendment process. In this case, I think that the outcome has been very positive.

55 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Feb/14/24 5:17:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I commend the member for Sherbrooke for her speech. I know that she is concerned about social issues and that this is a cause that she cares a lot about. As the minister pointed out earlier, Quebec has served as a wonderful example when it comes to child care and the day care network. This is something that Quebeckers truly value. There is one woman who was really at the heart of this movement, which spread from Quebec to the rest of Canada. I am talking about Pauline Marois, who was the Quebec education minister at the time and who later became Quebec's first woman premier. In my colleague's opinion, what impact has this great Quebec woman had on the outcome that we are seeing here today, in other words the fact that the rest of Canada is following the example of what was done in Quebec when it comes to early childhood centres?

159 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière

Feb/14/24 5:18:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for his question. When Quebec implemented the day care program, it was a major societal change. I have three wonderful boys, and my children have benefited from these highly professional day care services that offer both incredible support and outstanding educational environments. This enables each child to start out on an equal footing, create friendships and take their first steps in learning. In Quebec, this has given women the opportunity to return to work or school and ensure that they are self-sufficient and independent. Today, we can see the positive results of this great change that was brought about by Pauline Marois.

110 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Feb/14/24 5:19:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am happy to see this bill come back with reasonable Senate amendments and to see it move forward. I want to acknowledge the incredible work of my colleague, the MP for Winnipeg Centre, for all her work to get this moving forward. The question I have is around the lack of a workforce strategy. Despite the ask of unions and workers across the country to address the shortage of workers and ensure they have the pensions, wages and benefits required to deliver child care in an effective way across the country, there was no follow-through. Could the member share why this was the case?

108 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière

Feb/14/24 5:19:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for this important question Of course, a day care system like this cannot work if we do not have a qualified, professional workforce to provide the services. We know that these people work extremely hard. I was in Edmonton recently, where I was able to meet people who work in the field and it was clear to us that this is a major challenge. We have agreements with all the provinces and territories to implement the system. We expect everyone to do their part to achieve very positive results.

95 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

Feb/14/24 5:20:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and speak on behalf of the beautiful riding of Peterborough—Kawartha. Happy Valentine's Day to everybody watching. I hope everyone has someone in their life that they love, whether it be their parents, kids or somebody special. I am the critic on this file. It is my job to really hone in on what is not being done. Today, we are talking about Bill C-35, which people at home may know as the infamous $10-a-day child care bill. The Liberals have run a very big marketing campaign on it, promising the moon, the stars and the sun; unfortunately, they have not delivered any of that. I listened to my colleague across the way, who is the minister for this file, and I want to start by reiterating that the purpose of this bill was to sell a real pipe dream to Canadians. As a mom, it is an easy pipe dream to buy: access to affordable, inclusive, quality child care. However, what I am going to outline clearly today in this speech, and when we talk about the amendments that were sent back from the Senate, is what we actually have in reality. I would request unanimous consent to share my time with the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

225 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/14/24 5:22:10 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. The hon. member no longer has unlimited time, as she is sharing her time. It is a 10-minute speech with five minutes for questions and comments.

34 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

Feb/14/24 5:22:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I look forward to my colleague's speech about this. I will get into that with the amendments. Going back to what we have seen now that this program has been delivered, the Liberals love to say it is transformational. That is absolutely true. The numbers on child care wait-lists under this program have skyrocketed. Child care centres cannot grow to meet the demand. Child care centres cannot afford to operate. There is a bias against entrepreneur-run child care centres and an open call to phase them out, which would decrease access even more. The people who need affordable child care the most are not getting it. This program is not equitable. The child is not the priority of this agreement. Instead, it is the ideology. Parents do not have a choice. Children with special needs, the numbers of which are going up as we see more neurodivergence, are not getting the support they need with this agreement. Access to child care has decreased, which means that, instead of empowering more women, it has taken away their choice and, yes, I have the statistics to back all of this up. This is setting the provinces up to take the blame when they were coerced into signing a flawed federal contract. Let us break this all down. It is quite easy to break down because, really, what we need to do is pick up the phone and answer the calls that have been, I am sure, flooding into constituency offices across the country. We can start with just a few quick statistics of what has happened. We know that 77% of high-income parents access child care versus 41% of low-income families. That is the statistic right now. How equitable is that? Should we not want to provide service where the people who need it the most can access it? The labour force participation rate for women was 61.5% in September 2023 compared to a high of 61.7% in 2015. The number of women in the workforce is going down, not up. The employment rate of female youth is on a strong downward trend since February 2023, with a cumulative decline of 4.2% over that period. This is the lowest since May 2000, excluding the pandemic. The number of children under the age of five in child care fell by 118,000 between 2019 and 2023, which is a decrease of 8.5% nationally. In 2023, 46.4% of parents reported difficulty finding child care, which is up from 36.4%. In Ontario, the proportion of children in child care was 48% in 2023 compared to 54% in 2019. Child care deserts are affecting nearly 50% of young children in Canada. It goes on and on, and the numbers are there. The numbers are real, but when we start to listen to the stories, that is where we really have to pay attention. As I have said multiple times in the House, there are true human consequences to the incompetence and wasteful spending of the government. We recently heard from Andrea Hannen. She oversees ADCO, which is the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario. She represents independent licensed child care centres, both commercial and not-for-profit. We are doing a study on economic empowerment for women in the status of women committee, where she said, “we have a sector of the economy that was largely created by women. It's essential to women's equality in the workforce. It's one of the only economic sectors in the country where women are fairly represented as owners and managers, and it's being not only undervalued by government but targeted for replacement by a government-run system.” What is even more disturbing about that testimony is that not one of the Liberal members in the committee disputed this. In fact, by their line of questioning, it was clear the Liberals were quite comfortable with the idea of arbitrarily eliminating small businesses. It seems now that this was their plan for child care. That is the reality of what we are talking about, and that is why this is an ideology-based system. They had the option multiple times to help these female-operated small business owners who are sitting at home and want to go back to work but who cannot leave their kid. They think they are going to do two things: start their own business to be an entrepreneur and help the other women in their lives and the families they know. They are going to invite children into their homes, care for them and provide quality care. What I have heard repeatedly across the country is that these women-owned day care centres are being targeted, bleeding money and shutting down. A woman wrote to me from Simcoe. I want to tell members that she told me that she, right now, is personally funding $20,000 to $30,000 per month just to pay bills so child care is available. She said that they are committing to helping their parents by being in this program. The program is called CWELCC, for the people at home, and it is an acronym for Canada-wide early learning and child care. She also told me that the reality is, by staying in the program, they will be bankrupt and they will lose 250 child care spaces. As well, 45 dedicated staff will be unemployed. This program will close the business that she worked so long and hard to build. That is the reality of what this program is doing. Members need not just take my word for it. I am sure that people are sitting at home, saying that I am a critic who has nothing nice to say about the Liberals. I do not because they have a record of repeatedly showing us that they cannot manage taxpayer money. All week, the news has been about an arrive scam app that should have cost $80,000, but $60 million is the total we know of right now, and it is probably more. They spent $1.36 billion on homelessness, and I do not know if anyone has been outside lately, but there seems to be a lot more tents. The government is famous for making people dependent upon it and then taking away what they are dependent upon and destroying them. The government did it with the media, and it has done it with so many other industries. It is doing it now with our post-secondary education and immigration for students. The government has turned off the tap. Now these universities do not know what they are going to do.

1122 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

Feb/14/24 5:29:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am just wondering what this has to do with child care right now. The member seems to be straying pretty far from what we were debating.

34 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/24 5:30:03 p.m.
Watch

I know that this is part of debate, but I want to make sure everyone stays on the topic of the bill that is before us.

26 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

Feb/14/24 5:30:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the Liberal members have to stand up to ask what this has to do with child care because it has everything to do with child care. That is the reality. I will read the headlines to members. These are just from the last month: “As the Liberals' universal daycare policy unravels, Conservatives could go on the offensive”; “Burlington child care centre leaves parents struggling with one week closing [time]”; “Daycares navigate financial struggles as province aims for $10-a-day child care”; “Rolling closures highlight need for emergency actions to keep $10 a day childcare viable”; “9,200 children waiting for child care in Waterloo Region”; “Alberta daycares brace for losses as [the Prime Minister's] deal kicks in”; and “Parents have yet to get the child care they deserve”. To the member opposite, this has everything to do with day care. People cannot go to work. That is what is happening. I will continue to list the headlines: “$10 a day daycare is a great idea, but in Yellowknife it’s hard to find a spot”; and “'My son’s daycare can’t afford to stay in the $10-a-day program. Now, we’ll have to pay an extra $800 a month'”. Liberal-paid media is telling us this: “As a London daycare's waitlist quadruples, a desperate parent opens her own dayhome instead”; and “Child-care spaces remain tight on P.E.I. despite government initiatives”. Shall I keep going? That is the reality of this failed program. That is what—

287 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/24 5:31:55 p.m.
Watch

It is time for questions and comments.

7 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Feb/14/24 5:32:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member is clearly very well informed about this program. I would say one thing: Yes, there is some ideology behind the program. We believe that women should have the choice to go back to their careers if they want to and be able to afford that, so in that respect, I agree with the member. However, with all of the criticism you have of the program, I am curious as to why you voted for it. Could you please explain that?

84 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/24 5:32:38 p.m.
Watch

I will remind members to run their questions through the Chair. It is not about how I voted.

18 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

Feb/14/24 5:32:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what is ironic about the member's question is that women do not have the choice to go to work. The stats are in. That is the reality of this program. I talked to one day care operator and somebody had asked her why she did not opt out and why she opted into this program. She said to me that she absolutely wants to provide affordable, quality child care for people who need it, but this program was rigged from day one. She thought she was doing the right thing, but she was coerced into signing this agreement and they are taking money from her and taking away the choice for families. That is what we wanted. We wanted to provide families with choice. We put forward the amendments in committee and the Liberals and the NDP voted down every single one.

145 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Feb/14/24 5:33:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I work with the hon. member on the status of women committee, and we have gotten some things done in that committee. I appreciate that very much. My colleague mentioned Andrea Hannen, who I know has been very critical of the national child care program, but here is the thing: Provincial licensing requirements are a floor, not a ceiling. We know that the research consensus is that non-profit and public child care delivers high-quality care and better outcomes for children than for-profit care. We know that through research. We also know that for-profit care centres, historically, have exploited workers more so than public and not-for-profit child care centres. We know that one of the reasons why the national child care strategy is not getting off the ground is that the Liberal government did not put in place a worker strategy with livable wages, benefits and pensions. People are not wanting to join the field. I have worked a lot with my hon. colleague. We have differences, though, on this. I am wondering why she thinks that public money should go toward centres that are not public and not not-for-profit. Why should we use public money for that?

207 words