44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 31, 2023 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. I appreciated his economic, financial and, frankly, social analyses.
Both he and I represent urban ridings. One of the things I think we both face is—
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. I appreciated his economic and social analyses.
Both he and I represent urban ridings, and, like him, I have heard the challenges around the labour shortage. There is no point in affordable, high-quality child care if there are no spots available. I would appreciate if you could expand on the labour workforce strategy, or perhaps the lack thereof.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate this evening on Bill C-35, the Canada early learning and child care act. I believe this issue is non-partisan because it concerns the most important element of our country: its children. I want to begin with a quick level set just so that we are all working from the same fact base.
This bill sets out the vision for a Canada-wide early learning and child care system and its commitment to ongoing collaborations with the provinces and indigenous peoples. The bill also delineates principles where public and not-for-profit entities are exclusively called out for a focus that guides the ongoing federal investments established by the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, as announced by members of the council on November 24, 2022. Additionally, the bill notes a realization of the right to benefit from child care services, as recognized in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and it contributes to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Canadian parents have long hoped for the availability of affordable, safe and stable child care. To that effect, the government brought in a national child care program that proposed to cut day care fees by an average of 50% by the end of 2022 and down to an average of $10 per day by 2026. Earlier this year, the minister stated, per the National Post, that Bill C-35 would “enshrine the principles that provinces and territories agreed to in funding agreements with Ottawa, including the pledge to cut parent fees and create more spaces.”
The government had promised to introduce the legislation by the end of 2022 in its supply and confidence agreement with the New Democratic Party. While I wholeheartedly agree that affordable quality child care is critical, it becomes moot if people cannot access it or it simply does not exist. I am concerned that Bill C-35 does not address accessibility, and I am concerned that the government is embarking on a promise that it will not be able to deliver on. Moreover, I am concerned that $10-a-day child care does little to address the serious, real child care labour shortages and the lack of child care spaces.
I suggest that Bill C-35 would be good for families who already have a child care space, but it would not help the thousands of families on child care wait-lists or the operators who do not have the staff or the infrastructure to offer more spaces. Additionally, the bill would increase the demand for child care but would not solve the problem of frontline burnout, staff shortages or access to more child care spaces. Simply put, there are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone operating new spaces. The Canadian Union of Public Employees has reported that “in many communities there is only one child care space available for every three children who need it, and waitlists are long.” That is a very sobering statistic.
Bill C-35 is also discriminatory. The majority of child care operators are women, yet the language and intent of this bill would prevent any growth in opportunities for privately run female child care operators. Also, how does the government expect more women to be able to go to work when there are no child care spots available and with wait-lists being years long?
The Financial Accountability Office of Ontario projects that by 2026, there will be 602,000 children under six whose families will want $10-a-day child care. However, the province will only be able to accommodate 375,000, leaving 227,000 children, or almost 40%, without access. That is two in five families that will be unable to access a spot. Government estimates also suggest that by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early childhood workers. This is another staggering statistic.
In British Columbia, 27% of child care centres turn away children due to lack of staff. One child care director, who oversees 13 child care programs with 350 spaces, stated, “In the past two years, we've had to close programs temporarily, whether it's for a day or two, or shorten hours for the week...in order to meet the licensing regulations”.
What then are worthy policy options to consider? I have three that I hope the government will seriously think about.
First, we must enable families of varying incomes to benefit. Based on the guiding principles of the child care framework, the government should support families that need child care most, based on their income, which in many cases is outlined within the individual provincial agreements. As well, the government should not be subsidizing child care of wealthy families that can already afford it.
Second, we should address the so-called “Matthew effect”. This is the increasing of the public provision that actually ends up advantaging higher-income families rather than lower-income groups. Even in the Quebec model, despite the gains in access, quality levels remain low when compared to the rest of Canada, with lower-income children in lower, rather than higher, quality settings.
Third, we should resolve the labour shortage. There are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone operate new spaces. I think that is a point that is important to reiterate. The reality is that we cannot create new child care spaces without staff. Not enough students enter the ECE programs across Canada to support any growth, and it remains difficult to retain staff without the financial incentive to work in the field. The reality is that in British Columbia in 2022, 45% of employers reported losing more staff than they could hire, and 27% reported turning away children because of a lack of staff.
The lack of child care spaces across our country is considerable. In Ontario, the percentage of zero to 12-year-olds for whom full-day or part-time day care space was available was 25%. For children zero to five years, it was 21.3%. There are also so-called “child care deserts”. This is where there is a lack of, or inequitable distribution of, child care spaces or an FSA, or postal code region, with a coverage rate of less than one third of the child population. According to a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report that was published in May 2023, 48% of children live in child care deserts, and the percentage of children living in child care deserts in Ontario is a considerable 53%.
What are the financial implications?
The 2021 budget pledged $30 billion over five years on a national child care system with an additional $9.2 billion annually coming after that period. The bill before us is about children, the future of our country, and we owe them a duty to ensure that we are getting the best value possible for them when it comes to our hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
In terms of stakeholder considerations, the major comments coming from child care providers suggest that Bill C-35, while a step in the right direction, is however too generic. The bill does not go into specifics. Additionally the private sector is cut out of the equation. There are also significant major labour shortages, with the majority of those who are working being overworked and understaffed. Bill C-35 would be good for families that already have a space but not for workers. The bill also would do nothing to address the long wait-lists for care across the country.
There are ways that Bill C-35 can be improved. In my province, the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario suggested the following four amendments. First was to make the bill more inclusive by deleting the reference to public and not-for-profit child care providers. Second was to consider an addition that provides some guidance to advisory council members about avoiding potential conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety arising from their involvement on the council. Third was that advisory council members may also require guidance about avoiding any paid consulting or volunteer work related to political parties or candidates during their term on the council. Finally, fourth was to add additional specificity surrounding the composition of the advisory council with respect to regional representation as well as representation by female entrepreneurs and those involved in the direct delivery of licensed child care services.
In conclusion, I hope that Canadian families needing reliable, safe and affordable child care are able to access a national system that provides a viable program for generations to come.
1477 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the focus of the question is not on how we can make the bill better and on the very many constructive recommendations we have heard this evening from Conservatives, NDP members and many individuals who spoke, but instead focuses on what is, unfortunately, so partisan.
This is about an issue that is about our future, which is children. I wish it were not a partisan line of attack that the member is trying to take here.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleague for her question. She does raise valid points.
I want to use this opportunity to actually discuss the previous point of the member who had spoken before me, with regard to the council. I think one of the best indications of one's future actions is how they have conducted themselves in the past. I think about the housing council, which was immediately dismissed, along with recommendations by the housing minister, when it was no longer politically convenient and in alignment with what the government wanted.
That is a point of concern. I am worried about whether or not the Liberal government would truly listen to experts and their advice, and I think that is something many Canadians are worried about.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. I think one of the big gaps right now is the lack of a labour workforce strategy to ensure not only that there are staff to take care of the children, but also that they are compensated appropriately for the important work they do.
That is why one of the comments I focused on, in terms of my remarks, was that, given the labour shortage, the government should not cut out the private sector. I ask the government to please look again at section 7(1)(a) of Bill C-35 and ensure that it is inclusive of the private sector and the many female entrepreneurs operating in the child care sector.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:19:47 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are here this evening past midnight to debate a vitally important matter. We are here this evening again because we see the blissful ignorance of the government in permitting Chinese state-owned enterprises to acquire control over Canada's mining industry. It is more unconscionable when it is impossible for Canadian companies to acquire mining land claims or control over any Chinese company, especially involving critical minerals.
According to Guy Saint-Jacques, Canada's former ambassador to China, “There's no level playing field for foreign companies in China, and many sectors remain closed to them, or access is similarly limited.” When appearing before a parliamentary committee, he added, “China does not play by international trade rules.” No kidding. It is quick to complain about perceived injustices of other countries toward it, but not so quick to provide fair treatment to foreign companies trying to operate in China.
Like with foreign interference, Canada has again been reduced to being a doormat for China. Canada has given China free rein to do whatever it wants under pathetic oversight from Ottawa.
The Globe and Mail reported in August 2022 that three years ago, Sinomine Resource Group Co. bought the Tanco mine in Manitoba. Tanco was one of the world's few sources of the critical mineral cesium. The mine previously produced lithium, a battery metal used in electric cars. The government had the authority to block the acquisition on national security grounds, but instead of blocking it, Ottawa did nothing. Later, the Tanco mine was acquired by China and started producing lithium to ship back home.
Sinomine also secured an offtake agreement guaranteeing it all of the lithium, cesium and tantalum produced by Power Metals Corporation's Case Lake critical minerals property. Offtake agreements are just as good as ownership and do not create irritating media stories. The government also approved the sale of Canada's lithium development company Neo Lithium Corp. to a Chinese state-owned company, and in its infinite wisdom, the government decided not to order an advanced security screening of the deal.
Mr. Jeffrey Kucharski, a former assistant deputy minister of Alberta's Department of Energy, stated before a parliamentary committee, “How can Canada build a lithium supply chain, or any other critical mineral for that matter, when it allows the assets of Canadian companies to be acquired by a country that seeks to cement its dominance in this sector?” Beijing supports its state-owned enterprises by providing subsidies, access to cheap capital and tax breaks that are much greater than anything that a western government can offer. While Canada has welcomed legitimate Chinese investment, there is Iittle or no reciprocity, as I alluded to earlier with the comments of former ambassador Saint-Jacques.
China uses its dominant position in critical minerals to exert leverage over other countries. What has been Canada's response? It claims to want to scrutinize foreign takeovers. That is great. However, over the past five years, fewer than 1% were subjected to security reviews.
Canada should look to Australia for a road map. It has a tougher stand on proposed Chinese investments, and its government has rejected several transactions on national security grounds. Australia even strengthened its oversight by introducing a new “last resort” power, whereby it has the authority to review a previously approved transaction when national security risks emerge after the fact.
Canada may need China to bail out financially struggling mining companies, but that does not mean we have to give up complete control over our vital resources. Sadly, that is exactly what has been happening.
607 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:27:56 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is a vitally important issue for our country, and I am really troubled that the parliamentary secretary would say mining is a provincial jurisdiction, so I want to use this opportunity to remind him of legislation and frameworks that are federal and apply to mining. There is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canadian minerals and metals plan, the chemicals management plan, the Explosives Act, the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act, the Fisheries Act, the Impact Assessment Act, the Indian Act, Indian mining regulations, interprovincial movement of hazardous waste regulations, metal and diamond mining effluent regulations, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That is to name just a few.
The parliamentary secretary talked about the Investment Canada Act and national security reviews. I want to remind him that, over the past five years, fewer than 1% were subjected to security measures. This must be acted upon, and I implore him to please ensure the government acts to protect Canada's sovereignty and its industrial plan, which hinges on an integrated strategy and a supply chain with critical minerals.
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
