SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 282 - Feb/14/24

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Feb/14/24 5:19:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am happy to see this bill come back with reasonable Senate amendments and to see it move forward. I want to acknowledge the incredible work of my colleague, the MP for Winnipeg Centre, for all her work to get this moving forward. The question I have is around the lack of a workforce strategy. Despite the ask of unions and workers across the country to address the shortage of workers and ensure they have the pensions, wages and benefits required to deliver child care in an effective way across the country, there was no follow-through. Could the member share why this was the case?

108 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière

Feb/14/24 5:19:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for this important question Of course, a day care system like this cannot work if we do not have a qualified, professional workforce to provide the services. We know that these people work extremely hard. I was in Edmonton recently, where I was able to meet people who work in the field and it was clear to us that this is a major challenge. We have agreements with all the provinces and territories to implement the system. We expect everyone to do their part to achieve very positive results.

95 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

Feb/14/24 5:20:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/14/24 5:22:10 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. The hon. member no longer has unlimited time, as she is sharing her time. It is a 10-minute speech with five minutes for questions and comments.

34 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

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

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

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

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/24 5:30:03 p.m.
Watch

I know that this is part of debate, but I want to make sure everyone stays on the topic of the bill that is before us.

26 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

Feb/14/24 5:30:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the Liberal members have to stand up to ask what this has to do with child care because it has everything to do with child care. That is the reality. I will read the headlines to members. These are just from the last month: “As the Liberals' universal daycare policy unravels, Conservatives could go on the offensive”; “Burlington child care centre leaves parents struggling with one week closing [time]”; “Daycares navigate financial struggles as province aims for $10-a-day child care”; “Rolling closures highlight need for emergency actions to keep $10 a day childcare viable”; “9,200 children waiting for child care in Waterloo Region”; “Alberta daycares brace for losses as [the Prime Minister's] deal kicks in”; and “Parents have yet to get the child care they deserve”. To the member opposite, this has everything to do with day care. People cannot go to work. That is what is happening. I will continue to list the headlines: “$10 a day daycare is a great idea, but in Yellowknife it’s hard to find a spot”; and “'My son’s daycare can’t afford to stay in the $10-a-day program. Now, we’ll have to pay an extra $800 a month'”. Liberal-paid media is telling us this: “As a London daycare's waitlist quadruples, a desperate parent opens her own dayhome instead”; and “Child-care spaces remain tight on P.E.I. despite government initiatives”. Shall I keep going? That is the reality of this failed program. That is what—

287 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/24 5:31:55 p.m.
Watch

It is time for questions and comments.

7 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Feb/14/24 5:32:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member is clearly very well informed about this program. I would say one thing: Yes, there is some ideology behind the program. We believe that women should have the choice to go back to their careers if they want to and be able to afford that, so in that respect, I agree with the member. However, with all of the criticism you have of the program, I am curious as to why you voted for it. Could you please explain that?

84 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/24 5:32:38 p.m.
Watch

I will remind members to run their questions through the Chair. It is not about how I voted.

18 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

Feb/14/24 5:32:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what is ironic about the member's question is that women do not have the choice to go to work. The stats are in. That is the reality of this program. I talked to one day care operator and somebody had asked her why she did not opt out and why she opted into this program. She said to me that she absolutely wants to provide affordable, quality child care for people who need it, but this program was rigged from day one. She thought she was doing the right thing, but she was coerced into signing this agreement and they are taking money from her and taking away the choice for families. That is what we wanted. We wanted to provide families with choice. We put forward the amendments in committee and the Liberals and the NDP voted down every single one.

145 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

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

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

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

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Feb/14/24 5:36:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I think we can see the Conservative Party of Canada ideology behind it. Now, she talked about the work done in committee. As part of that work, the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments, including one that would have given Quebec the opportunity to opt out completely from any federal program with financial compensation. I know that all the other parties voted against that amendment. I am a little surprised by the Conservatives' position because they are always telling us that they respect the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Why did they not stand with the Bloc Québécois in this case?

120 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

Feb/14/24 5:37:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do feel that we were allies with the Bloc, and we are allies in what has happened. The Bloc got this right from day one. Keep it in the province. Why did the feds wade into this water? Why did they do this?

46 words

Mr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC)

Feb/14/24 5:37:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35 Bill C-13

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Peterborough—Kawartha, who does excellent work on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It was a pleasure for me to work with her on the official languages section on this bill. It is always a pleasure for me to rise in the House to debate important issues that affect Canadians. People who know me know that I am a staunch defender of the French fact, so I am particularly enthusiastic about speaking on official languages, obviously in French. That is a valid question. Why are official languages mentioned in the Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act? The answer is quite simple. The current Liberal government has once again forgotten francophone minority communities. That comes as no surprise. However, as we have already seen when modernizing the Official Languages Act, the Liberal government claims to be the champion of official languages, but lacks courage when it comes time to take meaningful action. That is what the Liberals are: all talk and no action. Because of the Liberal government's lack of vision and ambition, the elephant gave birth to a mouse, as I like to say when describing Bill C‑13. It aims to modernize the Official Languages Act. It was the first official languages review process in over 30 years. The government turned a deaf ear to stakeholders across the country. This is yet another missed opportunity. That has often been our experience with this Liberal government, which has been in power for eight years. There is no obligation to count the rights holders. The federal authorities' powers are diluted. There is no central agency. There is no accountability. That is how it is with the Liberals. No one is ever accountable. What about the Commissioner of Official Languages, who is still awaiting the order in council granting him his powers? It is written in the act, but who is going to table that order before the government? Is it the President of the Treasury Board? Is it the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is one of the two ministers named in the legislation, but will not even appear before the Standing Committee on Official Languages? Is it the Minister of Official Languages? Is this the Minister of Justice? Who is it? No one knows and, in the meantime, the commissioner is waiting to take action. I would like to remind the House that French is in decline across Canada. The Liberals' approach to official languages is not serious, and it shows how little interest they have in this country's bilingualism. Bill C‑35 passed unanimously here in the House last June. Today, however, we are debating a Senate amendment put forward by Senator Cormier, an Acadian, who stood up for francophones. He wants to add the words “official language minority communities” to the first sentence of clause 8, after “including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples”; and he divides clause 8 into two paragraphs. It is not complicated. However, we are still debating that today. Wow. The first paragraph sets out the government's financial commitment. The second paragraph outlines the mechanisms that the federal government will use to provide the funding. Adding the words “official language minority communities” after the word “including” does not detract from any rights of any other minority or of indigenous peoples, but seeks to eliminate any ambiguity before the courts. The Liberals did a sloppy job, the Senate raised a red flag and made the necessary corrections. The Liberals always fly by the seat of their pants and leave things to the last minute. There is no discipline. We are well aware of how much work and resources official language minority communities must put into defending their language rights. Let us talk about that. Even though the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique in its case against Employment and Social Development Canada, the federation still has to fight with the Minister of Official Languages to have that ruling enforced. It is unbelievable. What a waste of time and money. However, as we saw again today, the Liberals think that money grows on trees. Early childhood is a critical period for children when it comes to learning language skills and developing their identity. All too often, access to early childhood services in French is essential for francophone minority communities to pass on their language and culture. These services are vectors for French learning, ensuring that children acquire the language skills they need to prepare them for an education in their own language, and facilitating their integration into francophone schools across Canada. This contributes to the implementation of the right to education, as enshrined in section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We believe that this amendment is relevant and necessary. I would also like to point out that the references to official language minority communities already found in clause 7 and clause 11 are thanks to the Conservative Party of Canada. I was the one who introduced them. I had the support of the Bloc Québécois, but the NDP and the Liberals voted against some of the amendments we proposed. However, we were able to get some of them through. Unfortunately, some others were rejected, and we had to go through the Senate. The Conservative Party of Canada made sure that francophones across Canada were included in the bilateral agreements for early childhood services. I would also like to take a moment to thank the folks at the Commission nationale des parents francophones and at the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada for their hard work on this file. The Liberals are not in favour of this amendment because they had to go through the Senate. Even the Speaker of the Senate, the government representative, clearly indicated that he would not support Senator Cormier's amendment. That was the stance the Liberal government was taking. Again, the Liberals flip-flopped. Francophones are the ones who took a stand. As I said, the Liberals were not in favour of this amendment. The government's position was that this amendment was not necessary or appropriate. However, today, out of the blue, the Liberals are saying that they are in favour of the amendment. What is the reason for that? Every individual should have access to early child care services in the official language of their choice, and that is non-negotiable as long as our country, Canada, is a bilingual country. I want to emphasize the concept of French and English bilingualism, because it is important to remember that this government appointed a governor general who is bilingual, but who does not speak French. I would also like to add that only one province in Canada is bilingual. This government appointed a unilingual lieutenant governor who, obviously, does not speak French, because the Liberals are inconsistent. Their intentions and desires may go beyond what is set out in the laws, but, unfortunately, the Liberal government does not walk the talk. The Liberals realized that they would lose support in francophone regions and decided to adopt the Conservative Party of Canada's common-sense position. Yes, it is common sense. As long as we are a bilingual country, we should be consistent and protect both official languages. We saw the Liberals use this same tactic with the pause on the carbon tax in Atlantic Canada. It is so odd. The Liberals reacted blindly, in panic mode. They punished all other Canadians outside the Atlantic provinces by denying them heat pumps. That was a problem. They were just reacting. Then the Liberals changed their minds and said that Albertans and British Columbians might be able to use the credit. Again, they were improvising. It is unfortunate. This government is a disaster. It is shameful to try to score political points off our country's bilingual identity. In closing, my message for francophones across the country is simple: Here in the House of Commons, the Conservative Party of Canada is the only party that can truly protect their interests. We will continue to take concrete action and stop the decline of French, which is a fact across Canada. We will also protect and promote our two official languages. We will not pit French against English. We intend to protect both official languages, French and English.

1446 words

Mr. Darrell Samson (Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, Lib.)

Feb/14/24 5:47:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-13

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague for his speech and, more importantly, for his hard work on Bill C‑13. All parties in the House worked together to support francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec, and it was a great victory. I always appreciate my colleague's work. However, I must point out that what he says and what his party says are two different things. The ideology of the party—

80 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/24 5:48:12 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member is not wearing a tie. Now that he is wearing his tie, the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook has the floor again.

28 words

Mr. Darrell Samson

Feb/14/24 5:48:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain that it was during the nine years of the Harper government that we saw major cuts to the Translation Bureau. Court challenges that we brought—

33 words