44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to once again be able to rise in the House on behalf of the great people of southwest Saskatchewan.
As I kick off my speech tonight, there is a core principle I really want to get at, and that is about trust. When I speak in this House, I like to ask how much trust the government has built with Canadians and whether Canadians can actually trust what the government is doing.
Before I get into the meat of it, I would really like to talk about the actual cost. We hear a lot from the Liberals about how this is $10-a-day day care. I recognize there is a benefit to people who are currently in the system, who will be paying less up front because of the program. I am not going to deny that and I am not going to say it is not a benefit to people who are in the program and are already benefiting from it. That is great for those people.
However, a lot of people email my office and routinely ask how much this program is actually going to cost. What we do know is that over five years the Liberals have set aside $30 billion to implement this program, so that is the cost we are aware of. We heard others, through many speeches tonight in this place, about the additional costs that are starting to already creep into the system. This is the cost of meals on top of the fees people are going to be paying up front. We are already hearing of extra costs that will be burdened onto the system.
That does not even get into the fact this system we are talking about here tonight is not going to build much in the way of new spaces. It is not going to provide new access to people, which, being from Saskatchewan, and particularly being from rural Saskatchewan, to me is the crux of the debate when we talk about day care.
We know day care is a universal need. It does not matter if one is from urban or rural Canada, from Saskatchewan or Ontario, from Toronto, Swift Current, Frontier, Leader or Maple Creek, one needs access to day care. There are many different ways people realize this. There are a lot of different programs out there. Some of them are private, some of them are run through co-operatives and some of them are just in-home systems. There might be a person who has chosen to be a stay-at-home parent, and other people looking for child care might bring their child to that person and have that person provide the service to them.
A lot of what we are finding out is that this bill would not do anything for those people who are in those situations. In fact, in Saskatchewan, only 10% of kids from the age of zero to 12, whether they are full-time or part-time, currently have access to day care. From zero to six, which is what the agreement signed between the Province of Saskatchewan and the federal government covers, right now that access number I believe is a bit under 18%.
Saskatchewan is a bit of a unique case. I would be willing to say we are the most rural province in this country. I think that is a fair thing for me to say. We have so many small towns. We are a very spread out province, so the needs of people are vastly different in rural versus urban. The access to spaces is different as is access to workers. One of the fundamental issues we have is the access to workers to be able to fill these positions. That is one of the key points we have.
I did a town hall probably about a year and a half ago or maybe two years ago in the town of Maple Creek. A lot of the business owners came together and arranged this. They wanted to have me out to talk to them about what is affecting their businesses. Part of it had to do with the pandemic at the time with the programs and different things, but we also talked about things that were outside of the pandemic.
One of those issues was day care. Multiple business owners have told me they cannot hire the workers they need. In fact, there are many people who came to Maple Creek, interviewed for the job and really wanted to move to Maple Creek, but because there was actually no day care available to them, these people passed on that job and passed on moving to Maple Creek.
To me, Maple Creek is one of the greatest towns in this country. It is a phenomenal place. It does economic development really well. On the cost of living, one can get affordable housing there. There is a great school there and it is close to Cypress Hills. It is close to some of the bigger centres both in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is not terribly far away, so it is a great location and a great place to raise kids, but there are people who have a young family who are choosing to not move to Maple Creek simply because they cannot find day care.
When I talk about trust, repeatedly we do not see the government working to build trust with rural Canadians. To me, that is a problem and is again where this bill misses the mark.
I talked earlier about the agreement between Saskatchewan and the federal government. Part of the agreement that they signed only provides the subsidy for kids aged zero to six. I have a had a mother reach out, talking about both her and her husband and the hours they work. They need day care before and after school, and the agreement actually does not cover people in that situation. Therefore, those people are being left out of the picture here, yet in a community like Swift Current, that is actually a big chunk of people who are trying to utilize day care spots.
I also want to talk a bit about my own story. My wife and I have three kids, and they are fantastic. They are 12, 10 and eight years old. When my wife and I had our first child, we had a great conversation, talking about what our goals as parents were. One of our goals was something that we even talked about when we were first married; it was that my wife wanted to be a stay-at-home mom. This meant that we had to plan out a few things. We had to figure out how we were going to make that work and what that was going to look like. We had to make some big decisions, such as where we were going to live, where we could afford to live and what kind of vehicle we were going to drive.
We had to make a lot of sacrifices. For example, a lot of our friends would go on these big, elaborate trips, and we never did that. For us, a trip was driving from Swift Current to Saskatoon. That was our summer vacation, but that was because it was all we could afford with the goal of having my wife be a stay-at-home mom raising our kids. That just meant that disposable income was not necessarily there. Those were some of the sacrifices we had to make. However, the bill before us would not have any provisions for people who are choosing to stay at home and raise their own kids.
As we added more kids to the mix, it definitely changed that dynamic. My wife was a stay-at-home mom from 2011 all the way up until about 2019. Then, she was first able to go back to work, because our kids were old enough. All three of them were in school at that point in time, and she was able to find some part-time work where she could work during the school day but be home when school was over, so she could be there for the kids when they got home.
I recognize that this reality is not available for everybody, but there is a lot of sacrifice that is required to do that. Therefore, I think it is really important that we talk about the government respecting families that have made that decision. I have listened to Liberal speeches at report stage here and also at second reading, and to paraphrase them, what I heard repeatedly from that side and from some of the other opposition parties was that women are only of value if they are working; they are not of value if they are staying at home. I think that is completely bonkers. That is absolutely ridiculous.
Being a mother is a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week job. There is no break from it. As husbands, we come in and try to do what we can, but there is no replacing a mom in the house. My wife and many other moms we have talked to talk about the commitment it takes, how much work and effort go into it, and how it is more tiring and more gruelling being a stay-at-home mother and being with the kids compared with going to work. However, it is also more rewarding.
I recognize that some people are dedicated to their profession, and they have chosen that professional life, which is awesome. It is fantastic that they are doing that, and we want them to be able to do that. They should have that choice and the ability to do that, but the signalling we are getting the government is that a woman who decides to stay at home has no inherent value, because she is not working. That is the vibe we get from the government. That is the message it is signalling, and that is wrong. The value a stay-at-home parent has, even if the father does stay at home with the kids, is extremely valuable. Society, the kids we raise and the system generally, at large, all benefit from that.
1720 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this bill that seeks to create some permanence around the progress that has been made in respect of funding child care in Canada. I want to talk first about the policy, and then I want to talk a little bit about the politics of it.
We have heard a lot of stories here in the chamber tonight. I could add personal anecdotes about the challenges of child care. I will not, because I think we have heard many, and I think we all know that these experiences are common enough that Canadians can appreciate just how stressful it is for families, both in terms of financial stress and just the stress of having child care fall through. We had our kids in home day cares and then we had our kids in centre day cares. Especially when they were in home day cares, if the child care provider at home got sick, that would often mean scrambling the night before, or the morning of, to try to find replacement care. I think that one of the advantages of investing in not-for-profit centre spaces is that they do provide a degree of reliability that one cannot always get when it is one person in their home trying to provide care. It is still a valuable service, and I was grateful to be able to avail myself of that as a parent, and my wife was grateful, but we have also really appreciated the reliability that has come with transitioning to centre-based care.
Why is it that we need public investment in child care? Again, I think we have personalized the issue well enough. The fact of the matter is that, for a lot of parents, what they earn when they go to work is not enough to be able to pay a child care rate that is sufficient to pay people what they need in order to be able to make a living as an early child care educator. It is a classic case of market failure. If it were not, then at some point over the last 40, 50 or 60 years, we would have seen very successful businesses crop up to meet demand, but demand is not being met. It has been chronically unmet because there is a structural problem in the child care market, which is that too many parents cannot make enough money going to work to be able to pay fees that provide enough salary to attract, train and retain qualified early child care educators. That is really why it has been so important for so long for government to get involved.
Of course, provincial governments across the country have gotten involved in various ways. Quebec is, I think, the best example of organized publicly funded care. It is still not perfect, but it is certainly the best that is available in Canada. I come from a province, Manitoba, that has had a lot of investment over the years by NDP governments, frankly, in child care, and we enjoy the second-lowest child care rates in the country. We are one of very few provinces to have a pension plan available for early childhood educators. That was true even before this latest round of bilateral deals, which is not, by any stretch, to say that Manitoba is some kind of child care paradise. It is hard to find a space. It is still a big expense for families. It is hard to attract and retain workers in the field. All those problems still persist, despite being in a province that, on the numbers, is functioning relatively better than some other places in the country in terms of affordability and accessibility.
We need public investment in child care because the market is not satisfying persistent, long-standing demand. Not only that, but that demand for child care comes with a number of other problems for the larger economy, and that is why I heard some members earlier tonight reference studies that have been done. I have read similar studies. They show the economic activity generated by allowing those parents who want to go into the workforce to do so, by governments investing in child care, making more spaces available and making them more accessible by making them more affordable. Women, predominantly, without any kind of government subsidy for the rate they pay, cannot make enough at work to justify paying child care costs and still have something left over at the end of the day.
The amount of extra economic activity that generates would more than pay for the program. It is an important part of satisfying the demands we constantly hear from employers who are saying they need access to more workers. This is how we do it.
One of the ways we do it is by ensuring that the parents who do want to work can go ahead, get a job and know they will be able to get a spot at a rate that empowers them to go to work, take home enough of their paycheque after child care fees, and know it is worthwhile for them to do that.
It is not that these recent deals are a panacea. They do not fix all the problems. It is just a good start to something the government should have been doing decades ago.
I remember when I first ran for office in 2015. I was very proud to run on the idea of a national child care strategy. I watched as Conservatives dismissed the idea out of hand. They said it was not the business of government to be supporting child care or funding child care. Liberals, frankly, ran against it too. They said the provinces would never agree. It was just a pipe dream, it was silly NDP thinking. I am glad to see the thinking around that has changed.
I know we are debating this particular legislation and not just resting on our laurels with the bilateral deals that were signed because of the supply and confidence agreement that the NDP has with the government. It is a CASA item. There is a reason it is there.
It is because we did not want this to be a five-year experiment that would get truncated. We wanted this to be the first five years of an ongoing commitment to building up a child care system that adequately provides for the Canadian workforce so everyone who wants to go out, get a job and provide for their family, but needs child care to be able to do it, will be able to access a space. We are not there yet. We are not even close to there yet.
I know Conservatives would like to say that somehow the New Democrats are pretending that everybody has a spot now. It could not be further from the truth. We are very aware of the problems. Incidentally, I do not know how Conservatives could be blaming this legislation for the current state of affairs. It has not even passed yet. The bilateral deals were only signed about 12 months ago.
The idea that somehow this approach is to blame for the shortage of child care spaces is just a farce for anyone who is paying attention. This approach has not got off the ground yet. I do not want to just see this get off the ground as some kind of five-year trial period, and then the federal government wipes its hands and walks away.
What I want, and why this legislation is so important, is to see this as the first five years of an indefinite program that continues to deliver spaces for Canadian workers on an ongoing basis, not just for the workers' sake, but also for the employers' sake and for the sake of their families.
Yes, there is still a shortage of space. There will continue to be a shortage of spaces for a long time because we cannot just snap our fingers and create a child care system overnight, just as we cannot snap our fingers and create enough housing overnight to meet the demand that is out there.
It is why it is so important that we not waste time debating the value of having a strategy at all and jump full on into talking about what kind of strategy we should have. It is fair game for the Conservatives to disagree with certain elements of the strategy.
For my part, I think it is really important to emphasize non-profit care. Why is that? It is because what I do not want to take hold is the corporate model of child care. There are a few reasons for that.
One is that I think we will get better value for money if we are not already starting out from the point of view that 10% or more of the public dollars that we spend on child care are going to have to go to paying corporate profits. When we look at the corporate track record in long-term care and we compare it to non-profit long-term care, what we see is an appreciable difference in the nature of the care provided. We get better care at non-profit, long-term care centres.
I believe that the same incentive structure that is there for for-profit, long-term care centres to cut corners will also exist for for-profit child care centres to cut corners, and that is why it is important that we put an emphasis on not-for-profit care.
I have more to say, but unfortunately my time is up. Hopefully I will get to more of this in the question and comment portion.
1635 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/23 12:24:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about something that I care very deeply about, and that is affordable housing in Canada.
Before I get to the substantive question, I note that in an earlier debate this evening, we were talking about child care. Since we are talking about home finances, I think it prudent to put down that there is a calculator on the federal government's website where we can calculate benefits. It was suggested by members of the Conservative Party that there is no benefit for stay-at-home mothers and that somebody on this side of the House suggested at some point, fallaciously I would add, that single parents or mothers who stay home are less valued by this government. I would challenge that assertion. The Canada child benefit is an example of something that does support parents who choose to stay home if they earn less.
I ran a scenario through the website. I used a scenario where there is a $70,000 earner and a $45,000 earner in a household with two children eligible for child care. When the $45,000 earner stays home, they receive $250 extra a month. That is $3,000 a year, which actually meets that family halfway on the child care subsidy they would receive otherwise. Given that child care would be available to the family if they are paying more tax, the program pays for a lot of itself, and I think it is quite prudent.
On the substantive question regarding housing, while the member opposite was speaking, he talked about how housing was so much more expensive on his side of the river than on the other side. I found some classifieds on both sides, from Malone, New York, and Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, and I found that apartments were actually a very similar price. Sometimes Conservatives just throw out prices and say that a one-bedroom apartment is now $2,500. The veracity of those claims should be analyzed by people listening. I found apartments in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry anywhere from $400 for a single room explicitly for a female student to $1,200, $1,500 and $1,600 for a three-bedroom apartment. At the same time, I found two-bedroom apartments for $1,320, or $900 U.S., in Malone, New York, just across the way.
The reality is that Canada needs more homes, and any member of this House who is serious about the issue would agree that we need to focus on getting more housing built, including affordable housing and purpose-built rentals. While some in this House, like the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, say that the federal government has to do less and pull back from investing in housing, we fundamentally disagree. I think most Canadians would disagree as well. Quite frankly, we know we need to do more.
Since 2015, this government has invested more than $36 billion to support, create and repair half a million homes across this country and help nearly two million individuals and families get the housing they need. I am a co-op housing kid. I grew up in a co-op, and I am proud that this government has also invested $1.5 billion in a restart to the federal co-op strategy.
We have made housing affordability a central pillar of recent budgets. For example, budget 2022 pledged billions to boost supply and put housing within reach of everyone in this country, and our most recent budget has provisions to build on that momentum, particularly for indigenous housing, with over $3 billion invested in recent budgets. There is also the housing accelerator fund, a $4-billion fund that intends to yield over 100,000 net new housing units over five years.
I can talk about the leadership demonstrated by the minister, who was in Milton, Oakville and London meeting with the mayors of those communities. He talked about the importance of the housing accelerator fund and how municipalities across this country can step up, find solutions and cut some of the red tape that the member opposite has referenced this evening. Since the member opposite has served in a municipal capacity, he would know that much of that red tape is, in fact, municipal. I would love to hear some solutions rather than just slogans and criticisms of things that have not worked. He is an expert on municipal affairs, and he could probably provide this House with some recommendations on how to cut municipal red tape in the housing sector.
769 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
