44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 14, 2023 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I had a conversation yesterday with an intended mother who was telling me about the difficulties when it comes to surrogacy and the lack of time that surrogate mothers and fathers have with their children after the baby is born. She also talked about how this difficulty is compounded because they have a shorter amount of time to access child care, as they only get nine months of leave.
I am sure the minister knows that I have a private member's bill, Bill C-318, that would address this issue for adoptive and intended parents. My question, through you, Madam Speaker, is this: Is the minister willing to lobby at the cabinet table for a royal recommendation for it so that intended and adoptive parents do not have to wait to have time with their children? In essence, we know there are still wait-lists when it comes to child care, and this bill would give them that extra time. Is the minister willing to assist with the royal recommendation for Bill C-318?
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as Conservatives, we did move an amendment at committee.
It was to amend the function of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, which would include supporting the recruitment and the retention of a well-qualified workforce, conduct regular regular engagement and specific mandate to call out to maintaining and understanding the available child care spaces, the numbers on wait-lists and the progress made to reduce wait-lists for families.
I am wondering if my colleague could elaborate on why the NDP and the Liberals voted against having this workforce strategy, and an accountability of the federal government and council, so people would be identifying the gaps, and making plans to fill those gaps, to have an adequate workforce for our child care.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to get up twice. I really appreciate that.
I want to follow up again on the labour discussion we were having. Conservatives moved an amendment at committee regarding the reporting clause of the bill to include the Minister of Labour in the annual reporting, and to say that the annual reporting must include a national labour strategy to recruit and retain a qualified early childhood education workforce. This was voted down by the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Bloc, and I just do not understand why, especially when the NDP members keep getting up and saying that we need a workforce strategy and a labour strategy.
I am just wondering if my colleague could maybe elaborate on why those parties voted against having this put in the bill, to make sure there is an accountability measure, when it comes to the labour force and workforce.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at committee, and even in the House, we have heard the minister and the parliamentary secretary bragging about the pillars of this legislation: equality, affordability, availability, accessibility and inclusiveness. I think we would all agree in the House that those are very important measures that should be taken into consideration, especially when this is a piece of legislation that is supposed to include all children in the country.
What is very interesting is that at committee the parliamentary secretary intended to remove two of those pillars from one of the clauses in the bill. They were affordability and accessibility. Would the member not agree that it would be absurd to remove accessibility and affordability when we have a lack of spaces and the majority of children in this country are on wait-lists?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I just want to note I will be splitting my time this evening with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.
We know, and there is no doubt, that child care is an important conversation to be had. We know it is a conversation that parents are also having on a regular basis across this country. Child care needs can look different, not just from one region to another, but also from family to family.
Public policy and the development of a national program should respect and take into consideration those differences. It has been very disappointing that, throughout the deliberations of this bill, whether in the chamber or in committee, the approach of the NDP-Liberal coalition has been narrow and exclusionary. The Liberal government has sought to divide and disparage child care solutions outside of their own prescribed form. This is even more disappointing given many reports would suggest in some regions, such as Saskatchewan, most families do not have access to child care.
The demand for child care remains far greater than the available spaces. Child care providers, in all streams right across the country, have long wait-lists. Access remains a main concern when it comes to child care, but it is not solved by the existing agreements, nor is it resolved in Bill C-35.
We have heard accusations from members opposite that Conservatives have tried to obstruct this legislation. In reality, Conservatives have been working to elevate the voices of parents who are raising serious concerns with the government's child care program.
We have articulated those concerns from child care providers. It is completely disingenuous to suggest that this, in any way, is hindering the delivery of the Liberals' program. The facts are that the child care agreements are already signed with the provinces, and the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care is already formed.
If anything, this should be an opportune time to examine the delivery of the program so that we can understand its shortcomings and take stock of its limitations and its potential reach. However, that was never the goal for the Liberal government. It put forward this legislation to pat itself on the back.
However, the bill, like many of the policies put forward by the Liberal-NDP government, creates winners and losers. The Liberals' self praise is an insult. It is an insult to the moms and the dads who are left out. They are left out in the cold and find themselves on the outside looking in with no spaces for their children in child care facilities.
Let me highlight some of the testimony and voices the government seems very eager to ignore. This includes voices of child care providers who find themselves excluded from the program and the Liberal government's vision for child care in Canada.
Amélie Lainé, representing indigenous friendship centres in Quebec, told the HUMA committee, “funding is only administered through indigenous political institutions, and it does not give service organizations like the indigenous friendship centres in Canada access to funds to develop early childhood and family services.”
Krystal Churcher from the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs told the committee, “Bill C-35 does not sufficiently recognize that Canada's current child care system still very much depends upon thousands of private operators despite directional preference for the non-profit business model.”
With wait-lists surging across the country, it is only logical that we use every tool at our disposal to meet the needs across this country from coast to coast to coast, and that we not purposely shut out child care providers who are providing quality care currently. In fact, in the study of this bill, the HUMA committee heard about how the exclusionary structure of the program could actually be to the detriment of the quality of care. We heard about a parent who felt that she now had to choose between the quality of care for her daughter and more affordable costs. It is a decision that she was faced with because her preferred care provider falls outside of the current agreements and would not be captured by the vision laid out in this bill.
The rollout of this program has not even provided much of a choice for many families and more often even less of a choice for lower-income families. We heard in committee that more often lower-income families that cannot afford child care costs are wait-listed because they do not have children enrolled. Excluding child care providers is in the exact opposite spirit of achieving accessible, affordable, inclusive and high-quality child care for all children.
To really tackle child care in Canada, our approach should be comprehensive. The passage of my private member's bill, Bill C-318, would support that goal. Allowing adoptive and intended parents equal access to EI leave to care for their new child would give those parents more time to bond with their child and more time to find a child care solution. It could also help to alleviate some pressure on the child care system. I would hope that, if not the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development would herself see the merits of her government's keeping its promise to these parents and offering the royal recommendation that is needed for Bill C-318.
It is also clear that any hopes of making real progress toward accessible, affordable, inclusive and high-quality child care for all will require a labour force strategy. There is a clear crisis in the childhood educator workforce. There needs to be a plan to recruit and retain labour. The success of a national child care program will depend on this. We cannot flick a switch to create more spaces if there is not a workforce to handle it.
That is why it is particularly frustrating that the NDP-Liberal coalition rejected amendments put forward by Conservatives in committee to address these particular shortcomings. They rejected an amendment that would have explicitly directed the national advisory council to support the recruitment but also the retention of a well-qualified workforce. It would have given the council the mandate to track availability, wait-lists and the progress made in improving access, which is one of the pillars of this bill. It is not clear why the NDP-Liberal coalition would oppose this being a core function of the council. Similarly, the NDP-Liberal coalition rejected an amendment that would have explicitly required the minister to report annually on a national labour strategy.
The rejection of these amendments tells parents and those in the child care sector that the Liberals are not taking this workforce crisis seriously. It certainly does not give them confidence that the recruitment, education and retention of early childhood educators are a priority for them. Just as the recommitment to their exclusionary vision for child care does not give parents on wait-lists hope that universal access is within reach, the rejection of these amendments to include all types of child care providers in the program and to have a more fulsome representation at the table ensures that there will continue to be winners and losers. The reality is that there will be parents who receive no support and there will be qualified and quality child care providers who will continue to be vilified because of their business model by the NDP-Liberal government.
1258 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for respecting me on this side.
This whole process has been very frustrating for me. I am the mother of four children. I have a 10-year-old, a seven-year-old, a three-year-old and a one-year-old. I have had two of those children while elected to office. I know the real struggles of trying to find child care. My husband and I have really had to balance, and we know that it literally takes a village.
It is so frustrating to me that when we have parents and child care providers coming to committee explaining and pouring their heart out about the real struggles that parents are dealing with, we have partisan games.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Then vote against it.
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk: Madam Speaker, honestly, we should just listen to the parents whom this model does not work for. It does not work for them, and it is unfortunate that the Liberals just want to play partisan games instead of actually making it inclusive for everyone.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is a five-year limit with the agreements, so this is not forever. That is one thing to make note of.
Bill C-35 does not create new spaces. Sure, there are parents who already have their kids in a child care centre or use whatever model is accepted by their province and works for them. However, if they are not already in there, too bad, so sad; they are still on a wait-list.
The Conservatives moved a motion at committee to recognize labour, as we need a labour strategy. The NDP voted against it, so I would ask the member why his party voted against the labour force strategy for child care educators.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is funny that the member asked me that question. I got involved in politics because the current Prime Minister's 2015 platform negatively harmed my family in how we wanted to raise our children.
Absolutely the Conservatives care about families. We care about children and we care about parental choice.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
