44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 14, 2023 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, just to be clear, in building a Canada-wide, early childhood, high-quality, affordable system, we are not simply doing what the Conservatives did in cutting cheques to every family across the country.
An hon. member: You cancelled that.
Ms. Ya'ara Saks: We cancelled that. That is right. We cancelled it because we know we need to invest in families over time, and investing in that way means investing in their children through an evidence-based, high-quality system that works for every family.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in reference to the child care workforce, the member said we have to have the best people in place to raise our children.
Does she want to elaborate on what she meant by that?
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, time and again science shows us the evidence that placing children in publicly funded, high-quality, licensed child care gives them the best start in life for good social skills and good developmental skills and helps us raise the kind of children we want in Canada, a country that is diverse, open and inclusive for everyone.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Midnapore.
It is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents of King—Vaughan. It allows me the opportunity to speak about Bill C-35, which is labelled an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.
The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development said that the bill would create more spaces. Conservatives support affordable, quality day care; it is crucial. However, if we cannot access it, it does not exist, and Bill C-35 would do nothing to address accessibility. The bill is good for families who already have a child care space, but it would do nothing to address the thousands of families on child care wait-lists or operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces.
James and Leah in my riding are a young married couple who just had their first child. As new parents, they were excited and anxious about welcoming their new arrival. They tried to do their due diligence to ensure that everything was in place and were ready to go back to work once they could locate a child care spot. Their friends and family advised them to start looking, because there are not a lot of spaces available. So, when Leah was just a few months pregnant, they began the search. They quickly realized that there was, on average, a two-year wait-list. Maternity leave is not that long. However, they continued to look and hoped that something would become available for them before Leah's maternity leave was over and she needed to get back to work.
The bill would do nothing to address labour shortages. The bill would increase demand, but do nothing to solve the problem of frontline burnout or staff shortages. There are not enough spaces in the system to help run the facilities; they are at full capacity. The government itself projects that, by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early childhood workers. The minister stated that she plans to build 250,000 new spaces. Accordingly, 40,000 new child care workers would be required in order to accommodate.
Over the next 10 years, it is reported that more than 60% of the workforce already employed will need to be replaced, meaning that around 181,000 will need to be replaced. Once we add those two figures, we will need over 200,000 workers. Currently, 27% of child care centres in British Columbia are forced to turn away children due to a lack of staff.
A news article quoted a child care provider who stated that “In the past two years, we've had to close programs temporarily, whether it was for a day or two, or shorten hours for the week in order to meet the licensing regulations....”
The Conservative Party supports affordable child care and recognizes quality care in many forms, unlike the bill before us. Who better to nurture our children than their grandparents? I cannot think of a better solution to kill two birds with one stone.
Seniors are struggling to make ends meet due to the big rise in inflation the government has created over the last eight years. What a wonderful opportunity this could be to provide an income to struggling seniors while reducing the wait-lists and nurturing our children in a healthy environment.
I was one of the luckiest children in the world. I had the benefit of a loving and caring environment, provided to me by my grandparents. I was taught not only the facts of life and the value of hard work, but also that it does not matter where people come from; Canada is the land of opportunity for everyone. I consider myself to be a really good cook. My grandmother not only taught me the facts of life, not only taught me about math, and not only taught me about history; she also taught me how to live from the land. I would come home from school, and she would turn her garden into a playground for us. She explained the benefits of, and how to grow, fresh vegetables, and how to nurture one's children with one's own hands. She also taught me the importance of volunteering. If we had neighbours in our area who were ill and needed our assistance, my grandmother would take our hand, walk us down to the neighbour's home, and we were there to help each other.
That is what community building is like. That is what children need to learn. They need to learn that at a young age, so that when they develop into grown-ups, adults, they can teach their children to help, the way I was taught to help. My grandparents instilled that in me and ensured that I would grow up to be a responsible adult. We are not going to get that from anyone else. They taught me all the things I needed to do and all the things I needed to be, and that is the woman I am today.
As a young widow with two small children, I found day care very challenging, given my work schedule. I was fortunate that I had a job that could support my children. However, when my husband passed away and two incomes were reduced to one, there was no choice but to find affordable child care. I did not have a nine-to-five job. I did not have the luxury to have day care and to make sure I got there on time to pick up my children.
My question for the Liberal-NDP government would be, why can we not implement the beauty of allowing the flexibility for parents to choose their child care, so that their children can have the same opportunities I did? We could have our parents nurture our children, and reduce the wait times, because right now, there are no wait times because there are no places to put children. Let us look at some of the amendments our party put forward, and let us try to implement them, amending Bill C-35 so it could accommodate more children.
Marni Flaherty of the Canadian Child Care Federation testified at committee. She said, “We would like to see strong language in the bill that promotes sustained investment in a national strategy for the recruitment, education and retention of the early childhood educators workforce.” This led my colleagues to put forward such an amendment. However, it was voted down by the Liberal-NDP coalition. As I said in my opening remarks, Conservatives recognize that affordable, quality child care is critical, but if it is not available, it does not exist. This bill would do nothing to help James and Leah find affordable, accessible day care when the time comes for Leah to return to work. This is not a child care strategy; it is a headline marketing plan.
1176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad that, when the member was growing up, she had the opportunity to be cared for by her grandparents, but we know that for many people in Canada, that is just not an option. They do not necessarily have family nearby or a family that is able to do that, so having access to affordable child care is really a lifeline for most parents in Canada.
When the member opposite talks about this bill not creating spaces, she is absolutely wrong in that. We would create 250,000 additional spaces. Already, 56,000 spaces have been created, over 30,000 in Ontario. That number is set to grow in Ontario, to 86,000. She talks about the fact that there needs to be consistent, sustainable funding in this legislation. This legislation says that there would be consistent, sustainable funding from the federal government to provinces and territories.
I hope that the member will support this legislation, because it would help thousands of parents and families in her community. I also hope she recognizes that, at third reading, there are no more amendments. I hope we can count on her support.
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I spoke today to a constituent in my riding, and maybe the minister could help me understand how I can explain to this single mom who has been on the wait-list for a year. She has to get back to work. If she does not get back to work, she will lose her job. If she loses her job, she has to go on employment insurance. The minister said there were more spots created in Ontario. I live in a very populated community, yet this woman cannot find child care.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, notwithstanding some provincial efforts in subsidies, and I think Quebec stands out as a particular exception, we have largely had a market-driven child care system in Canada for as long as anyone can remember. We have had non-profit operators operate in that space and we have had for-profit operators operate in that space, yet, despite consistent demand over decades, the market has not provided the number of spaces needed in order for families that want child care to get it.
We have largely had a market approach to child care for a long time, and we have seen an incredible and persistent market failure. How does the member make sense of that market failure, and what does she think are the causes of that market failure?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would say that everybody jumped on the bandwagon for $10-a-day day care, but here is the problem: Everybody jumped on it. There are no spaces, so people are waiting and waiting. Why not make it flexible and allow parents to choose who will raise their children? It would avoid the need for a lot of those spaces.
There are seniors in my community who are still healthy enough, but, unfortunately, due to age discrimination, cannot go back to work. Why not allow them to work for their children and nurture their grandchildren, which would reduce the wait time for everyone else?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what the member for King—Vaughan brings up is exactly why we brought in the universal child care benefit. It was to respect parents. Some are professionals but chose to have the husband or wife stay at home to take care of the kids. It was a career decision. Nevertheless, we supported both. We supported everybody in their decisions.
Can the member speak to the amendments we brought forward, when we tried to offer child care benefits to both types of families?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we proposed amendments to ensure that the child care opportunities were available for everyone. The Liberal-NDP coalition turned them down.
I do not normally talk about this, but I was a foster child, and I babysat so I could save money to go back to school. I was not registered, but I was a damn good caregiver for children.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak, especially to a bill as critical as Bill C-35, which would truly play a big role in determining the future of our nation.
I just want to take a moment to recognize the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, who I think has done an incredible job of giving a voice to so many mothers, fathers, parents and entrepreneurs, many of them women and many of them new Canadians, who needed their voices heard here in the House of Commons. I congratulate her and her team, who are ensuring that we can get the best bill possible, not only for women and families, but also for all Canadians.
I am going to go through three things in my speech. I am going to provide an overview of some of the points many of my colleagues have laid out. After that, I am going to give some testimony from the many Canadians we have heard from across this country. I will then conclude with perhaps the most challenging and disappointing aspect of this bill, at least for me, as a woman and as a parliamentarian.
I will just review some of the points my team has outlined. Affordable, quality child care is critical, but if someone cannot access it, it does not exist. We have said this time and time again. Frankly, the number of spaces that currently exist, or that are forecasted to exist, just does not meet the demand. Even though there are many Canadian families that want this service, this solution, as provided currently by the government, would not address the issue.
Bill C-35 is not a child care strategy; it is a headline marketing plan. Again, we see the Liberals promising what they cannot deliver; $10-a-day day care does not address the labour shortage and the lack of spaces. I alluded to that in my last comment. We have seen the government, time and time again, promise the sun, the moon and the stars, but it consistently falls short. Unfortunately, we are very concerned that would happen with day care spaces under Bill C-35 and that this would continue to happen.
Conservatives recognize that Canadian families should have access to affordable and quality child care, and should be able to choose child care providers that best suit their family's needs. We have heard from many Canadians that this one-size-fits-all approach does not necessarily suit many Canadians and the needs of many Canadian families. I just want to reiterate that.
Bill C-35 is good for families that already have a child care space, but it does not help the thousands of families on child care wait-lists, or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces. I certainly recall that, as a mother, I was very grateful when my husband the foresight to put our name on a list. I think it was probably two years ahead of our son's requiring that space. This is a very tangible problem, and we will see it exacerbated as we see this program implemented throughout time. Bill C-35 would increase demand for child care but would not solve the problem of frontline burnout, staff shortage or access to more spaces. I think this is a very critical consideration, given the labour shortage we have seen since the pandemic, and we truly need to consider this as we consider implementing Bill C-35. There are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone to staff new spaces.
Bill C-35 would discriminate against women. The majority of child care operators are women. The language and intent of the bill would prevent any growth or opportunity for private female operators. How does the Liberal government expect more women to be able to go to work when there are no child care spots available? Wait-lists, as I mentioned, are years long. Ontario's Financial Accountability Office projects that, by 2026, there will be 602,000 children under six whose families will want $10-a-day day care, and the provinces will be able to accommodate only 375,000 of them. That leaves 227,000, or 38%, without access.
Government estimates also suggest that by 2026 there could be a shortage of 8,500 early child care workers. That is an astounding number. In British Columbia, 27% of child care centres turn away children due to lack of staff. I know my colleagues from B.C. have certainly been very adamant in expressing this shortage. One child care director, who oversees 13 child care programs with 350 spaces, said, “In the past two years, we've had to close programs temporarily, whether it is for a day or two, or shorten hours for the week in order to meet the licensing regulations...”
We also talk about the child care deserts that exist across this country and that is very much a problem. I have here, as I said I would, some commentary from Canadians who have written in, expressing some of these problems which I have outlined. Katie writes, “Finding people who start at 6 a.m. or end at 11 p.m. is impossible. More flexible hours for people who work shift work. Adequate child care is a huge barrier within health care.”
Cheryl writes, “Something that many of my co-workers and I have talked about many times is how beneficial a day care that had extended hours or was nearer the hospital would be. So many health care workers struggle to find child care that is available for the shifts we work. I have been raising my granddaughter for 14 months now and have spent so much time and energy finding child care that will work for us. It has been incredibly stressful and I am so grateful for the care provider we have now who has worked in the health care field and takes Ava at 6:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. for me.”
Both of these individuals writing in to us indicated that this one-size-fits-all approach does not work for them and that day care solutions and solutions for families do not come in a box; they have to be flexible. Therefore, in bringing forward amendments for this bill, we were trying to improve the bill.
Let us see who else. Shannon writes, “I'm going back to work full-time in July. I put my daughter on six day care lists and have heard it takes years to get into a licensed day care. I think start times are an issue as well. At most day cares, the earliest start time is 7:30 to 8 a.m.”, which is a challenge I remember, as a mother. Shannon continues, “...and I start work at 6:30 so I need something earlier than that.”
Again, the government is looking at a one-size-fits-all approach.
Laura writes, “Before- or after-school care.... The reduced fees have been welcome for my 20-month-old, but the cost for my six-year-olds' before- and after-school care are now more expensive than full day care and this comes with a reduction of the CCB, so my family is now spending more on care as my children get older and my children attend school.”
There we see some Canadians who have written in saying that this one-size-fits-all day care does not work for them. As members can see, I have outlined many challenges with this legislation.
I will get into what is the most problematic thing about this bill, which I do not even think is necessarily addressed through the policy within this House. I believe that this bill is a tool that has been used as a divider. I believe that this bill has been used to divide rural versus urban. I believe that this bill has been used to divide those mothers who want to stay at home versus those mothers who want to go to work. I have seen on social media, very unfortunately, women judging other women. Why would the government put forward a piece of legislation where women are put in a place to judge other women?
That is where Canada is at today. It is broken. Household debt is at a record level. Inflation is at a record level. Interest rates are at a record level. This country is in crisis and the current government really thought it had us with this bill in dividing us further. However, the good news is that when the leader of the official opposition becomes the Prime Minister of Canada, this hateful division would end and Canadians would once again be united. It starts with our supporting this bill and improving this bill.
1506 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech because in it she points out all the reasons why Bill C-35 is important. As my colleague in the NDP had said in his last question, when we had a market-driven system these issues existed before, and they are only going to be fixed with intention and with purpose. Therefore, I am glad to know that the Conservatives are supporting Bill C-35. It is funny to me that the member is calling this a divisive bill when this has passed every stage so far unanimously. There actually seems to be much more agreement than my hon. colleague is letting on.
There is, in fact, nothing in this bill that is looking to divide Canadians, or divide women for that matter. In fact, there is nothing that would limit choice in this legislation. I am glad to hear that the member is supporting this bill. I am glad to hear that Conservatives support child care. I hope that we can count on the member's support at third reading as well.
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, all the government has left now is to divide, whether it is by pitting region against region or sector against sector; maybe it is gender or religion. One need only look at the social media on the bill to see that it has stoked division, unfortunately, and Conservatives are here to unify.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as a proud representative of a rural riding, I beg to differ. When I first ran in 2015, child care was a huge topic in that election. I can remember knocking on doors throughout communities in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I have heard Conservatives talking about choice; there was no choice. I frequently met parents who were desperately wishing that they could afford to get a second job, but all the money from that income would have just gone to the extremely high child care space costs.
I would just like to ask my hon. colleague to reflect upon that. There was no choice in the beginning. This is an attempt to resolve that, to enshrine these funding agreements in place. I am just not sure where she is getting the division from. I see this bill as a positive step to addressing a long-standing problem; this has been called for by child care advocates for more than 50 years now.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I actually think that the member and I agree in that, here on this side of the House, we are looking to make this program as inclusive as possible. In this way, it can fit families of all shapes and sizes, and all providers will have the opportunity to participate. Right now, that is not the case.
We have said that we will honour the provincial agreements, but we want to improve upon them. We just want to allow as many families and female entrepreneurs as possible to participate in this program.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario has spoken about how female entrepreneurs are cut out of this program. What is my colleague's analysis of why that might be the case and, perhaps, how changing that could actually make this program more accessible and readily available?
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to serve on the executive of the IMF-World Bank parliamentary network with my colleague. As he can imagine, the economy is always on our minds, whether locally, domestically or globally; I am glad he is thinking like that. I think that the government and the minister should think like that as well. We should be thinking about everyone prospering within Canada, not just a subset that works for the government in this program.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to say right off the top that I will be splitting my time with the member for Lethbridge.
I note that this has been a long debate and that we are here late at night. I want to note that as well.
I think that this bill is one in which the issues that we are discussing today are being framed in the wrong way. The issues are being framed as what the government is proposing. This is the prerogative of the government, and this is often the challenge that we find ourselves with as the opposition. The government frames the issue, and we as the opposition must then respond. We end up with an issue that is already framed and we end up debating inside that issue.
The government is identifying a problem, and I would generally say that it is narrowcasting the issue. The issue is that Canadian families are struggling, and they are struggling in a whole host of ways, but then that also is borne out in the fact that they cannot afford child care.
That is a narrowcast. One of the band-aid solutions that the government comes up with is to just say that it will pay for the child care situation directly. It will just hand out money to child care operators, and that will reduce the cost of the child care.
That is a solution, but it does not bear on the broader issues that we are seeing in Canadian society. We are seeing that everything in Canada feels broken and that Canadians cannot afford to live their lives right here in Canada.
That is one of the things. The other thing is around the whole idea of family policy. In doing some research on this, I ran across an organization called Cardus and a gentleman named Peter Jon Mitchell, who has written a lot about this idea.
I would like to quote extensively from an article that he wrote called “Canada Needs a Family-Formation Policy Framework”.
He had some very interesting things to say about this. He says:
The promotion of $10-a-day child care as economic policy illustrates the problem with Canadian family policy, which is that we don’t have one. Yes, we have substantial direct cash benefits to parents, generous parental leave, and plenty of funded services. Yet we still lack any coherent strategy for encouraging strong, stable family life. As University of Windsor political scientist Lydia Miljan writes:
“Generally speaking, family policy in Canada may be characterized as an uncoordinated hodgepodge of policies, based on assumptions that are not always clearly recognized or even consistent, and delivered by an assortment of institutions including not only agencies of all three levels of government but also privately-run organizations like provincial Children’s Aid Societies, Big Brothers Big Sisters, family planning clinics, and so on.”
A new Cardus report, Envisioning a Federal Family-Formation Policy Framework for Canada, argues for a clear-eyed vision for Canadian family policy. Canadians value family life, but for complex reasons are partnering and marrying later and having fewer children than they say they would like. While all stages of family life are important, Canada needs to pay [particular] attention to the transition into partnership and marriage, and to having children.
These are Peter's words, not mine.
The federal government is only one actor among state and civil society institutions that can help families. Even as one of the most distant actors from daily family life, by reforming current programs and pursuing innovative policy options, the federal government can increase opportunity for family formation by removing barriers.
The hodgepodge collection of policies affecting families are often directed toward individual family members rather than respecting that families make decisions as a unit. For example, an expressed intent behind national child care is to increase the number of mothers in the workforce, while paternity leave in Quebec is intended to nudge fathers toward a larger share of caregiving. These may be laudable policy objectives, but families make these decisions as a unit, not as individuals. Families are social institutions that form their members, and they act in the collective interest of those members. Individuals negotiate their interests within families, but do so with consideration for the family as a unit.
Individuals negotiate their interests within families, but do so with consideration for the family as a unit.
The tension around the role of the state in intra-family decision-making is most noticeable in how the state directs public policy towards children. Political scientist Jane Jenson and her co-author Caroline Beauvais describe two paradigms for Canadian public policy. The family responsibility paradigm identifies families as the primary authority in determining the well-being of children. Policy approaches under this paradigm maximize flexibility for family decision-making. Direct government involvement is reserved for situations where children’s well-being is in danger. The second model is the investing in children paradigm, focused on early intervention through services that come around children and their families. Parents are important, but the paradigm emphasizes the expertise of state and civil-society actors.
The preferred approach [for most Conservatives] is to empower families as the primary caregiving community around children, with the authority and obligation to ensure the well-being of children. Institutions can best help children by working in partnership with children’s caregivers. In most cases, public policy should maximize flexibility that allows families to make decisions best suited for the family.
That is an extensive quote from this article by Peter Jon Mitchell. It lays out what are probably the major discussion points or the differences that we see between what the Conservatives and everybody else in this place really feels, that the family model is what we need to note.
Even the CBC is noticing this as an issue across the country. A CBC headline coming out of British Columbia, posted in March of last year was, “Young B.C. families are having fewer children, opting out of parenthood as cost of living skyrockets.”
Once again, the bill we are debating today is only tackling one of the many issues that Canadian families are having. This is also having an effect on family formation. Again, what Peter Jon Mitchell was calling for in his article was a strategic and thoughtful family policy rather than a social policy or an economic policy.
It was very interesting to me when the member for Winnipeg North was up on his feet, talking about this bill. He noted that this also happened to be good tax policy in the fact that if we had more people participating in the workforce, there would be more taxes for the government.
This is what we have seen from the Liberal government, over and over again. It comes forward with a policy proposal that it says is one thing, and in reality it is another thing. On his part, the member for Winnipeg North actually said that quiet part out loud when he said that this is actually tax policy, that the government wants Canadians to be able to pay more taxes. It is precisely the opposite of what Conservatives are about.
Conservatives are about making sure that Canadians pay the least amount of taxes possible. Conservatives, particularly on tax policy, say that we have a country to run, what are the things we need to pay for in order to run the country? When we have the list of things we need to pay for, we ask how we are going to pay for them and how are we going to collect taxes.
The Liberals have a completely opposite theory or policy around taxation. Their policy is, how much tax money can we wring out of Canadians, and then where can we spend all this cool tax money that we have collected. That is the fundamental difference between Conservatives and Liberals. I think the member for Winnipeg North kind of said the quiet part out loud when he said that this policy would increase the tax revenue to the federal government.
That seems to me to be the focus of everything that the Liberal government does, it is to increase the tax revenue to the federal government. They also have a carbon tax, which does the same thing. It does not affect the environment at all, but it creates tax revenue for the federal government.
With that, I would like to thank folks for listening tonight, and look forward to questions and comments.
1437 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on the tax revenue part, I think that is actually secondary.
The member skipped a step, because in order to get that increased tax revenue, there would actually have to be an increase in income. That is why we have seen groups like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and its provincial affiliations all throughout Canada, strongly support this kind of a policy, as well as labour. I do not think there are many policies out there where we see both business and labour onside. They recognize that a policy like this allows more women, more parents to enter the workforce to increase their family's income and to actually provide a better life for their family.
This is about giving choice, about giving freedom of choice for those parents to make more income if they wish. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the fundamental point of the first part of my speech was about Canadian families struggling, and because they are struggling, they are choosing to have fewer children than they wish they could have.
People are getting married later and having fewer children than they thought they would when they were younger. This has been well documented. Even the CBC recognizes this in the article I referenced.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
