44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is 11:30 at night, and it has been a long week here so far, but I am proud to join the discussion and debate tonight on child care affordability in our country.
One of the most difficult things we do at times is humanize ourselves and, more importantly, humanize the debates we are having here about improvements, and helping Canadians and families. I do not have any children. Tonight, as we have this conversation about Bill C-35, I am thinking of my nieces and nephews Kane, Johnny, Hailey and little Evy. The best part is the title that I have is “Unckie Dunkie”. I am going to have to tell the Table here how to spell that for Hansard afterward for the record. I have the best job in the world. If we go to a family function or event, I feed the kids candy and Coca-Cola, or whatever they want. I fire them up on sugar and I get to leave at the end of the night, and my sisters, stepsisters and siblings have to put up with getting them to sleep. Therefore, I have to say I am a bit biased. I have a very good role as “Unckie Dunkie”.
I want to contribute to what has been talked a lot about here tonight, and over the course of the past few weeks, when it comes to the Liberal and NDP plan on child care.
One of the things I have said many times, on many pieces of legislation, is that the Liberals are the best in the communications business when it comes to making flashy announcements. I have always said they get an A for announcement and an F for follow-through on the realization of what they are talking about. This conversation on child care is another perfect illustration of that. Here is the problem. If we were to listen to Liberal and NDP speakers, they would make it seem that the framework for this legislation and the money allocated to it is available to every single parent and child in this country when that is not the case.
We can look at a recent headline across the country on CTV News within the last month, entitled, “New report finds child-care spots available for only 29 per cent of those who need it”. The CBC highlighted, through that same report, another important angle, that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador only has enough registered spaces for 14% of children.
We, as Conservatives, have been highlighting that this is not the be-all and end-all solution to child care affordability, because the number of families that are going to be able to tap into this program is very limited. The desert of child care spaces available in this country is very large and is frankly growing. Many advocates are saying that the problem, under the Liberals over the course of the last eight years, is getting worse, not better, when it comes to spaces and affordability for far too many families.
The other thing I want to contribute, which is a regular thing when it comes to Liberal legislation we see in the House, is that I would call this a bit of a Seinfeld bill. The issue and title of the bill are perhaps worthwhile, but not its content. The Liberals and NDP would make us think that if it did not pass immediately without debate, if we pass it no further, if we do take the time at committee and in the House to share our stories and perspectives, that the financial deals with the provinces are somehow in jeopardy. That is not the case whatsoever. Those deals were signed separately.
Bill C-35 is a vague framework, and like many pieces of legislation, it does not get into the details, but rather kicks things over to the minister in charge of the file to make decisions outside the House, and through regulation afterward.
The interesting thing is this. I have to commend my colleague, who is over my shoulder right now, which is perfect, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, who has been a fantastic voice for our caucus and our party on this. I want to talk about some of the things we tried to do to strengthen the quality, accountability and transparency of the bill to get the true record of what the Liberals and NDP claim they will be doing in the coming years.
We tried to pass amendments on two things, the wait-lists, and the labour rates and number of staffing in child care across the country. If this is going to address spaces, and not create major wait-lists to tap into the program, the government should table a report every year with respect to what the wait-lists are. It refused. The Liberals and the NDP voted that down.
When we said there should be an annual report on the labour force around child care, getting people into those jobs, into those positions, into those new spaces being created to see if the Liberals are following through with what they said they would do, they voted that down as well. That tells us everything we need to know about what this legislation and the plan will do for the overwhelming majority of Canadian families, who are not eligible or able to tap into this.
If there was not going to be a wait-list, if the wait-list was going to be decreasing and solving all the problems, if there was going to be a massive change and surge in labour to address those challenges, one would think the Liberals and NDP would be confident, saying they would absolutely love a report every year. This would show how they are doing better and making improvements. The fact that they voted it down, the fact that they denied that accountability and transparency, tells Canadians everything they need to know about what this plan would do.
I have to say, along the lines of the NDP, what will happen. I was a member of the public accounts committee, a great committee that reads through Auditor General reports. Time and time again, Liberal and NDP members are trying to explain that “A” for announcement, this amazing announcement they have about spending record amounts of money, adding to the deficit, adding more spending. Every time someone criticizes a program, they say not to worry, they have x number of dollars more. The Auditor General is concluding from her independent office that time and time again, the announcement and the follow-through are two completely different things.
As Conservatives, we will continue to fight for Canadians and families to address the root causes, doing more than what is being done here. The principle of affordable child care has been mentioned a few times here tonight. I believe it is a reasonable principle that everybody in this House shares. What Conservatives are fighting for and speaking about is that, in this legislation, in this framework and in the plan that the Liberals and NDP have, there is a lack of flexibility and choice.
I talked about personalizing this debate. I have talked about my nieces and nephews, and my nephew Kane. My sister Jill and her husband, Cody, were very blessed. As Kane grew up and was going into child care before starting school, there was Cassandra Tibben, a neighbour of Jill and Cody's just north of Iroquois, who did an incredible job in her few years with Kane. She was a home care provider just a couple of hundred feet from their place. Jill is a nurse, and Cody works in construction. Cassandra offered that service close to home with flexible hours, and it was a connection in a small town like Iroquois, like in South Dundas and like in eastern Ontario. Under the framework and program that the Liberals have put the funding envelope in, that type of home care is not eligible.
I am thinking tonight of some communities in northern Ontario. I am thinking of Blind River, Wawa, Kapuskasing and Hearst, where there would be some not-for-profit spaces. However, for a shift worker who is 45 minutes out of those towns and looking for home care, the framework that the Liberals and NDP are proposing is very rigid. It leaves out many providers and the finances of many providers, even getting assistance through this, and it leaves a lot of families with no option and no hope through this existing framework.
I am very proud of the work the Conservative caucus has been doing in talking not only about affordability but also choice for parents. Parents need that flexibility. Shift workers, people in rural areas and parents with children with disabilities need more flexibility than what is being offered. We will continue to fight in this House, in committee and across the country to let families know that every single time, these big, flashy Liberal announcements do not follow through with results. Conservatives are results-oriented, and we will keep holding the government to account for its continued failures. Child care, I am sure, through the Auditor General and through the public accounts process, will be the same; it will be another part where the rhetoric does not match the reality.
1571 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Teddy is an example of where somebody is tapping into the program. If they have access to it, if they already have a space, they are able and they are eligible for it, but for every one Teddy, there are probably two or three more, right in Milton, who are not able to go into that program, who are not realizing those savings, who are not seeing those spaces, who are not seeing that increase.
Again, what the member, the Liberals and NDP fail to realize is that for every Teddy, there are multiple other Teddys who are not able to tap into this program. Their child care fees are not being reduced, and instead their taxes are going up, their financial situation, if it is their house price, their mortgage, their rent or trying to save for a down payment on a home, that has all doubled. There are many families being left behind.
It is nowhere near as universal as the Liberals and NDP claim and want us to believe.
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the choice is to do the right thing and provide the flexibility for parents to do what it is best in their family situation.
That would mean expanding the opportunity and the eligibility for assistance beyond not-for-profit and public centres, offering home care as an option that is in people's homes, a couple of blocks away, in their neighbourhood. It means providing the choice and that funding to go towards people who are shift workers in health care and factories, in rural and urban areas alike.
The problem, time and time again, and I agree with the NDP that doing something is one thing, but they are not doing enough. They are not providing the flexibility or the choice for parents to actually make a difference, using those tools and those options that work for best for their choice, not what the Liberals and NDP tell them are the best.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would be happy to. I want to add, in the name of personalization, one of my best friends, Emily Strader, a childhood friend is actually an ECE, working in Ottawa, in child care, and enjoys what she does.
I had many conversations with her and her colleagues at work about the day to day, trying to do what they can to address the massive wait-lists that they have and the frustration they have in this program.
Time and time again, they do not see the announcement, and the flashiness of what is being said, and the actual follow-through. Time and time again, it comes up short. We are seeing way too many women and men working in child care leave, because there is a broken system.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/23 12:20:35 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are in a housing crisis in this country, plain and simple, and the key figures demonstrate exactly that. Housing prices in this country have doubled to over $700,000; mortgages have doubled to over $3,000 a month; rent has doubled to over $2,000 a month; and the amount needed for a down payment has doubled to over $40,000. The problem is that, because rent has gone up so much, people cannot save for a down payment that has doubled. It is an absolute vicious circle, when it comes to the eight-year record of the Liberals in Ottawa.
This is a uniquely Canadian problem. The Liberals would have us believe it is a global challenge, but the perfect example we have in eastern Ontario, when it comes to housing affordability and housing supply, is looking at us across the St. Laurence River. There was a report recently done that talked about the contrast from one side to the other. The median asking price for a home in Watertown, New York right now is $217,000 Canadian. Meanwhile, in Kingston, just a 40-minute drive north here in Canada, the median asking price is $602,000. It is nearly triple the price of a home, between Canada and the United States, from one side of the river to the other.
That is despite Canada having more land on which to build houses and the United States having 10 times the population and demand to keep up with new homes.
The Liberals have created this housing crisis in this country and, while housing prices have increased around the world, none have to the degree of what we have seen these past few years. It is inflationary spending and it is the printing of new money that has gone in and bloated the prices and bloated the real estate market and that has seen this doubling in the past couple of years.
I am zoning my questions in on the federal agency and the federal minister who is responsible for housing. The CMHC continues to get very negative reviews. Members should not take just Conservatives' word for it; I know members from all parties have major frustrations on the performance and operation of this agency that literally has a mandate to make housing more affordable in this country. I have just outlined how the absolute opposite has happened and continues to happen.
We have a housing minister who shows zero leadership and zero ability to change the performance and quality of work at the CMHC. Every time we ask a Liberal a question about what they are doing for housing, they say they are spending a record amount of money: $90 billion. They have never spent so much money to make a problem so much worse.
Members should not take my word for it. As well, the Auditor General of Canada has come out and said many negative things about the performance of the CMHC. In their recent report last year, they said that the CMHC was the lead for the national housing strategy, that $90 billion the government tries to take credit for, in saying houses were often unaffordable for low-income households, when it came to investments in rental housing units, the report said that the CMHC is not directly accountable for any of its actions and it was not working in any coordinated way.
The performance standard of the CMHC is terrible. At a time when we need the private sector to increase building houses and getting more shovels in the ground, according to the CMHC's report, they are actually seeing a decrease.
My follow-up question is this: What performance measures are Liberals using to determine success at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
632 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/23 12:28:40 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a great solution to start: Let us tie performance bonusing to actual performance results. Call me crazy, but at the federal, provincial or municipal level, whatever the level is, far too often we have groups and organizations, like the CMHC, and the federal housing minister making a great big announcement promising more money and more results and the opposite happens. It is like this line: We are here from the government and we are here to help. Canadians do not buy it, and $90 billion later, the problem has never been worse.
Regarding the referencing back and forth, rent prices have doubled in Cornwall, in eastern Ontario and in this country. One-third of income is what an average family should budget to spend on housing, but it is now over 60%. The more the Liberals spend, the worse it gets. They do not tie the rhetoric and the announcements to actual performance results. It is not unreasonable to ask that performance results be based on performance.
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
