44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 14, 2024 02:00PM
- Feb/14/24 4:59:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as we moved forward in building this nationwide system, undoubtedly every province and territory came to the table and recognized our core vision and principles around inclusivity and access to high-quality and affordable child care.
As we move forward and as we are now about two years into our commitments with most of the provinces and territories, we see new spots being created across the country. Having said that, undoubtedly there is a lot of work to be done to ensure that new spaces are created where they are needed, and those conversations are ongoing with the provinces and territories. We are currently at the table with many of them, working on their action plans, which include those conversations and providing those details to make sure that early learning and child care is accessible throughout this country, regardless of where one lives.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today, while we are discussing the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, I would like to emphasize to my colleagues and, of course, to all Canadians that this bill is a significant and truly historic piece of legislation.
It follows through on the federal government's commitment to families across the country. It is a legislative measure that will enshrine in law all of the work that is being done to implement a Canada-wide early learning and child care system, a system that is affordable, accessible, inclusive and high quality, a system in which families across Canada, regardless of where they live, have access to affordable, inclusive, high-quality programs and services.
We did not get to where we are today by sheer coincidence. Over 50 years ago, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada tabled its report in Parliament. At that time, the report was already calling for affordable and accessible child care services for those who need them.
It took the advocacy of two generations of women and allies to help make these recommendations a reality. Thanks to the resilience of families and experts in the field, history has been made, and I am not just talking about child care.
We are seized with a Senate amendment that also touches on the issue of official language minority communities. This brings me back to the history of Canada's linguistic duality, as enshrined in the Official Languages Act, which is the product of the work of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.
Language rights were enshrined in the Canadian Constitution in 1982, owing to efforts to raise awareness and additional demands. We have an even stronger bill before us thanks to the efforts of our hon. colleagues in the Senate. I would like to thank the hon. senator from New Brunswick, who proposed this amendment, as well as all our other colleagues in the other place for studying this important piece of legislation and trying to strengthen it.
The amendment before us today concerns clause 8, the funding clause. This clause provides for the following: “The Government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples” and, as amended, “for official language minority communities”.
Next, the clause recognizes that funding will continue to be provided primarily through “agreements with the provincial governments and Indigenous governing bodies and other Indigenous entities that represent the interests of an Indigenous group and its members”.
This amendment acknowledges the work already under way with our provincial, territorial and indigenous partners to build a high-quality, culturally appropriate early learning and child care system that is accessible to all children in Canada. We have reached agreements with every province and territory as part of the implementation of a Canada-wide system. This also includes Quebec, although it has an asymmetrical agreement, since it already introduced an affordable child care system a long time ago.
In each agreement, each government, with the exception of Quebec, undertakes to consider the needs of official language minority committees. Here are some examples of what that actually looks like.
In the action plan under the agreement with British Columbia, the province agrees to continue partnering with B.C. Francophone Affairs and with representatives of the francophone community. Together, they have to meet the needs of young children from B.C.'s francophone families. They also have to ensure that workforce supports take the needs of francophone educators into account.
In the agreement with New Brunswick, the province underscores that francophone early childhood learning centres must follow the province's guidelines for language acquisition and cultural identity. The goal is to help protect and promote the francophone and Acadian language and culture.
In Yukon, the action plan prioritizes $1 million over the first two years for the creation of spaces for first nations, French-language non-profit child care and other non-profit programs. The action plan also highlights Yukon's three French first-language programs, as well as its commitment to supporting the expansion of minority language child care spaces.
In a national child care system, culturally appropriate child care services are paramount. Children from all walks of life need to have access to these services. For indigenous communities, this can take many forms. For example, it may involve passing on traditional knowledge and teachings or preserving indigenous languages. It must be based on indigenous priorities.
Early learning and child care contribute to long-lasting and far-reaching positive outcomes throughout a person's life. This is especially true for indigenous children and families, whose access to indigenous-led and culturally relevant early learning and child care services is crucial to laying the foundation for a child's cultural identity, sense of worth and future success. For official language minority communities, it is about ensuring that children have access to child care in the official language of their choice. This promotes language transmission and identity building.
Now, I would be remiss if I did not mention that beyond the agreements, when it comes to early learning and child care, the Government of Canada is making significant investments in official languages. The action plan for official languages 2023-28 brings our total investment in official languages to $4.1 billion over five years. This is the largest investment in official languages ever made by a Canadian government in the history of Canada. Again, this is historic.
The current action plan builds on past successes from the support for early childhood development program. This plan lays out new investments in early learning and child care. First, $50 million is being invested to create a network of early childhood stakeholders that will support cross-sectoral coordination in the implementation of specific initiatives for francophone minority communities across Canada. Second, $14.2 million is being invested to continue the development of ongoing and specialized training programs to address challenges facing the early childhood sector in official language minority communities and strengthen the skills of educators while supporting access to quality child care for children and their families in these communities.
I also want to point out that implementing this system will be no easy task. That is why the national advisory council on early learning and child care, which the bill will enshrine as a statutory body, is important. It will serve as a forum to hear from stakeholders in the sector, and its members will provide the expert advice needed for continuous improvement. Bill C‑35 would make the council a statutory body, much like the National Advisory Council on Poverty and the National Housing Council. The council will reflect the diversity of Canadian society, including Canada's linguistic duality.
The Government of Canada is clearly working hard to support all communities and bilingualism in Canada. I think it is also very clear that Bill C‑35 is crucial. I look forward to celebrating when this historic bill receives royal assent.
1191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and speak on behalf of the beautiful riding of Peterborough—Kawartha. Happy Valentine's Day to everybody watching. I hope everyone has someone in their life that they love, whether it be their parents, kids or somebody special.
I am the critic on this file. It is my job to really hone in on what is not being done. Today, we are talking about Bill C-35, which people at home may know as the infamous $10-a-day child care bill. The Liberals have run a very big marketing campaign on it, promising the moon, the stars and the sun; unfortunately, they have not delivered any of that.
I listened to my colleague across the way, who is the minister for this file, and I want to start by reiterating that the purpose of this bill was to sell a real pipe dream to Canadians. As a mom, it is an easy pipe dream to buy: access to affordable, inclusive, quality child care.
However, what I am going to outline clearly today in this speech, and when we talk about the amendments that were sent back from the Senate, is what we actually have in reality.
I would request unanimous consent to share my time with the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.
225 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/24 5:22:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I look forward to my colleague's speech about this. I will get into that with the amendments.
Going back to what we have seen now that this program has been delivered, the Liberals love to say it is transformational. That is absolutely true. The numbers on child care wait-lists under this program have skyrocketed. Child care centres cannot grow to meet the demand. Child care centres cannot afford to operate. There is a bias against entrepreneur-run child care centres and an open call to phase them out, which would decrease access even more. The people who need affordable child care the most are not getting it. This program is not equitable. The child is not the priority of this agreement. Instead, it is the ideology.
Parents do not have a choice. Children with special needs, the numbers of which are going up as we see more neurodivergence, are not getting the support they need with this agreement. Access to child care has decreased, which means that, instead of empowering more women, it has taken away their choice and, yes, I have the statistics to back all of this up. This is setting the provinces up to take the blame when they were coerced into signing a flawed federal contract.
Let us break this all down. It is quite easy to break down because, really, what we need to do is pick up the phone and answer the calls that have been, I am sure, flooding into constituency offices across the country. We can start with just a few quick statistics of what has happened.
We know that 77% of high-income parents access child care versus 41% of low-income families. That is the statistic right now. How equitable is that? Should we not want to provide service where the people who need it the most can access it?
The labour force participation rate for women was 61.5% in September 2023 compared to a high of 61.7% in 2015. The number of women in the workforce is going down, not up. The employment rate of female youth is on a strong downward trend since February 2023, with a cumulative decline of 4.2% over that period. This is the lowest since May 2000, excluding the pandemic.
The number of children under the age of five in child care fell by 118,000 between 2019 and 2023, which is a decrease of 8.5% nationally. In 2023, 46.4% of parents reported difficulty finding child care, which is up from 36.4%. In Ontario, the proportion of children in child care was 48% in 2023 compared to 54% in 2019. Child care deserts are affecting nearly 50% of young children in Canada.
It goes on and on, and the numbers are there. The numbers are real, but when we start to listen to the stories, that is where we really have to pay attention. As I have said multiple times in the House, there are true human consequences to the incompetence and wasteful spending of the government.
We recently heard from Andrea Hannen. She oversees ADCO, which is the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario. She represents independent licensed child care centres, both commercial and not-for-profit. We are doing a study on economic empowerment for women in the status of women committee, where she said, “we have a sector of the economy that was largely created by women. It's essential to women's equality in the workforce. It's one of the only economic sectors in the country where women are fairly represented as owners and managers, and it's being not only undervalued by government but targeted for replacement by a government-run system.”
What is even more disturbing about that testimony is that not one of the Liberal members in the committee disputed this. In fact, by their line of questioning, it was clear the Liberals were quite comfortable with the idea of arbitrarily eliminating small businesses. It seems now that this was their plan for child care. That is the reality of what we are talking about, and that is why this is an ideology-based system. They had the option multiple times to help these female-operated small business owners who are sitting at home and want to go back to work but who cannot leave their kid.
They think they are going to do two things: start their own business to be an entrepreneur and help the other women in their lives and the families they know. They are going to invite children into their homes, care for them and provide quality care. What I have heard repeatedly across the country is that these women-owned day care centres are being targeted, bleeding money and shutting down.
A woman wrote to me from Simcoe. I want to tell members that she told me that she, right now, is personally funding $20,000 to $30,000 per month just to pay bills so child care is available. She said that they are committing to helping their parents by being in this program. The program is called CWELCC, for the people at home, and it is an acronym for Canada-wide early learning and child care. She also told me that the reality is, by staying in the program, they will be bankrupt and they will lose 250 child care spaces. As well, 45 dedicated staff will be unemployed. This program will close the business that she worked so long and hard to build.
That is the reality of what this program is doing. Members need not just take my word for it. I am sure that people are sitting at home, saying that I am a critic who has nothing nice to say about the Liberals. I do not because they have a record of repeatedly showing us that they cannot manage taxpayer money. All week, the news has been about an arrive scam app that should have cost $80,000, but $60 million is the total we know of right now, and it is probably more. They spent $1.36 billion on homelessness, and I do not know if anyone has been outside lately, but there seems to be a lot more tents.
The government is famous for making people dependent upon it and then taking away what they are dependent upon and destroying them. The government did it with the media, and it has done it with so many other industries. It is doing it now with our post-secondary education and immigration for students. The government has turned off the tap. Now these universities do not know what they are going to do.
1122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/24 5:29:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am just wondering what this has to do with child care right now. The member seems to be straying pretty far from what we were debating.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/24 5:33:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I work with the hon. member on the status of women committee, and we have gotten some things done in that committee. I appreciate that very much.
My colleague mentioned Andrea Hannen, who I know has been very critical of the national child care program, but here is the thing: Provincial licensing requirements are a floor, not a ceiling.
We know that the research consensus is that non-profit and public child care delivers high-quality care and better outcomes for children than for-profit care. We know that through research. We also know that for-profit care centres, historically, have exploited workers more so than public and not-for-profit child care centres.
We know that one of the reasons why the national child care strategy is not getting off the ground is that the Liberal government did not put in place a worker strategy with livable wages, benefits and pensions. People are not wanting to join the field.
I have worked a lot with my hon. colleague. We have differences, though, on this. I am wondering why she thinks that public money should go toward centres that are not public and not not-for-profit. Why should we use public money for that?
207 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/24 5:35:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do work very well with my colleague across the way. We, as Conservatives, supported her amendment in committee to support indigenous people, for children and parents to have that right under UNDRIP, and the Liberals did not.
I think it is really insulting to these women-operated child care centres. Why are they not included? That there is research that they do not provide the quality has been said to me repeatedly. I have been to these centres. The quality of child care is deeply diminishing under this care because they do not have the money. They cannot charge more money. Their hands are tied. The quality in these not-for-profit centres is also dropping. Kids do not have access to food. Parents are getting nickelled and dimed.
To say that they do not have the quality of care, in a small, independent, female-owned-and-operated child care centre, is not fair. I encourage members to go to see them.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. She is a very direct and honest person, and I enjoy her humour as well.
My question for her would be in regard to Bill C-35 and the $10-a-day child care put forward by the Liberals and NDP. Does she think it makes sense for the federal government to intervene in provincial jurisdiction?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/24 6:18:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there will be agreements with the provinces. Now, there is Bill C‑35. Some say that the provinces will not get there. It may not have been their choice. Child care services are $10 a day. In Quebec, they cost less than $10 a day.
When we brought in early childhood education services, the idea was to have a reduced contribution for parents. It was $5. Now, I have lost track, it may be around $9.
My colleague says it is $9, $10. It is the principle of indexing. It is the principle of a single rate, because no matter the parents' income, it is accessible for children. It is a public program. It is a public network of early childhood education services. Federal interference in provincial programs is not what will make this happen. It is going to take the will, at the provincial level, to push for and implement social policies.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
