44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 16, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/16/24 12:07:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate the hon. member calls the summit that was held last week a photo op. I and my colleagues were there and actually heard from stakeholders. We heard from insurance companies, and I spoke to one of the chiefs of police who said that not only is this important but that we need to do this more often and formalize these kinds of dialogues. The only way we will solve the problem of auto theft is by working together, by working with insurance companies and working with border services, and making the kinds of investments like $120 million to Ontario through the initiative to take action against guns and violence, which the minister just introduced recently, and $28 million to support the work of the CBSA.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:09:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and consistent with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled, “Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005)” adopted at Geneva on May 28, 2022.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:09:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the mighty OGGO, in relation to the motion adopted on Wednesday, February 14, regarding a request to the Auditor General of Canada to conduct a performance audit on the contracts awarded to GC Strategies.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:10:31 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents.
I rise, for the 32nd time, on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The community of Swan River is consumed with unprecedented levels of crime because of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime laws, like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Bill C-5 allows criminals to serve their sentences from home, and Bill C-75 allows violent offenders to be in jail in the morning and back on the streets in the evening.
The people of Swan River are calling for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders. The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that directly threaten their livelihoods and their community.
I support the good people of Swan River.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:11:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today I rise to table a petition on behalf of correctional officers in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon and surrounding areas, who are concerned about the prison needle exchange program currently being operated by Correctional Services Canada.
Drugs and drug paraphernalia are considered contraband in prisons, yet the Liberal government is forcing our correctional officers to simply turn a blind eye and allow dangerous drugs to be used inside of prisons.
These correctional officers are calling on the government to immediately cancel the prison needle exchange program, stop permitting the use of illicit drugs in Canadian prisons, and focus efforts on helping inmates recover from their addictions.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am bringing forward two petitions today.
The first petition is in regard to the fact that all of us in this House know that the level of domestic violence and violent crime across Canada has risen significantly under the Liberal government.
It is also well established in this House and across Canada that the risk of violence against pregnant women is greater, and yet the government fails to bring in any legislation that impacts our Criminal Code in this regard.
The petitioners, upset that the government has turned a blind eye to Bill C-311, are calling on the Liberal government to legislate the abuse of a pregnant woman and the infliction of harm on a preborn child as aggravating circumstances at the sentencing point, within our Criminal Code.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the second petition is in regard to sexually explicit and demeaning information depicting sexual violence online that is absolutely available to young people.
It is made available for commercial purposes and is not protected by any effective age verification methods. Apparently, the Parliament recognizes that the harmful effects of increasing accessibility of sexually explicit materials online for young persons is an important public health and public safety concern.
Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the House to adopt Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise in this House to present a petition signed by 75 members of the Canadian-Ukrainian community in the Waterloo Region. They are calling on all parliamentarians to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to Ukraine by supporting Bill C-57, the updated Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, which was requested by Ukraine. This will assist Ukraine in its rebuilding efforts after the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin.
I am pleased to report to the community that the bill was, in fact, passed last week with the support of all members of Parliament, save and except for members of the Conservative Party.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:14:45 p.m.
- Watch
I just want to remind members that they are to give a summary of the petitions and not give additional information such as their points of view, or use it as an S. O. 31.
Presenting petitions, the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:15:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by 75 people in my community to draw Parliament's attention to the plight of Pakistani Christians, who were persecuted for their faith, who did not receive protection from their government and who have fled to Thailand, where they continue to face persecution while they wait for their Canadian visa applications to proceed.
They are calling upon the House of Commons to create a special status for Pakistani asylum seekers, who continue to suffer mistreatment in Thailand. They ask for the renewal, with increased urgency, of the Government of Canada's 2016 recommendation, made in Thailand, on the need for asylum seekers to have access to legal status.
A number of people who signed this application are themselves refugees from Pakistan via Thailand. In these circumstances they are very happy to have Canada as their new home, but they remain concerned for those left behind.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:16:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to table today.
The first petition is from residents in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country and the surrounding area. It refers to natural health products, NHPs, as being basic, everyday products. The changes Health Canada is looking at making will cause consumer prices to rise significantly and consumer choice to decline drastically when inflation is at an all-time high and access to health care is at an all-time low. Health Canada recently proposed new and significant fees to import, manufacture and sell NHPs at the same time as it is implementing new labelling laws.
The petitioners are calling on the Minister of Health to work with the industry on adjusting Health Canada's proposed cost-recovery rates to accurately reflect the size and scope of the industry. They say that the new regulatory changes should be considered only once the self-care framework is adjusted and backlogs are cleared, operations are running efficiently, and there are policies and procedures in place to ensure the stable operation and selection of natural health product choices to continue for Canadians.
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:18:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the second petition that I have today is with respect to the carbon tax. The petitioners talk about the combination of carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2, which means that Canadians will pay an extra 61¢ for each litre of gas. This is making life more expensive for Canadians in a cost-of-living crisis, so the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to have the House recognize the failure of carbon tax 1 and to immediately cancel the clean fuel regulations.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents who are firefighters and in industries related to firefighting. They are very concerned about the very poor provisions for volunteer firefighters and the very low tax credit, which they believe is not large enough to support volunteer firefighters. They are particularly needed in rural communities, which do not necessarily have the fiscal capacity to support a full-time firefighter force.
The petitioners are asking the government to implement changes to support volunteer firefighters, and they are also calling on the House to pass Bill C-310 to raise the tax credit for volunteer firefighters.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:19:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:19:16 p.m.
- Watch
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House, and it is great to be able to speak to such an important issue as what we are talking about here today, which is child care and, in particular, the Senate amendments.
I guess the fact that we are back here today goes to show, and I am sure my colleagues would agree, that there is always room for improvement when we are looking at any piece of legislation, but it is especially true when we are dealing with an NDP-Liberal government, such as we are now. That is what we tried to tell its members during the regular process of debate the first time through.
If the Liberal government decides it wants to involve itself in something, it really needs to make sure it gets things right and does not create a mess of things. As usual, it chose not to take its responsibility seriously. Instead it tried to blame us and play political games at the expense of Canadian families. It claimed we were delaying the bill, when we were simply doing our job as the official opposition.
Our Parliament is set up in certain ways for a reason. We have to consider and review what the government does carefully, or else there is trouble. Look at what happens when we do not. Was it a delay when a few months went by for senators to go through the bill and add this amendment? As a result, we are having another round of debate and a vote in the House.
In this case, that is probably a good thing. Many people from each party agree that the bill will be better for it. If we consider that it is dealing with child care, which is a complex and important issue, I think it is fair to say there are other things we also need to consider. We do not have to worry about a delay so much as the Liberal government making big announcements and rushing through legislation so it can try to look good and feel good about itself.
Canadians living in the real world have a lot of problems to face. They are counting on us to deliver solutions in the right way. Along with protecting official language minority communities, which is now reflected in Bill C-35, Conservatives proposed other amendments, which were rejected by the NDP-Liberals, including an amendment that would have basically done the exact same thing that we are debating here today with this Senate amendment, which was voted down previously by the NDP-Liberal government at committee.
The government's lack of respect for parents is quite apparent. In different ways, we have heard members of the Liberal-NDP government suggest that parents do not have the right to raise their own children. Recently, one of its members went so far as to say that there is no such thing as parental rights. There is a dangerous idea the far left has that seems to be gaining ground on that side. The Liberals think children should belong to the state and not to their parents.
528 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:22:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe we have quorum in the House.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:22:48 p.m.
- Watch
We will count the members.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie): We now have quorum.
Resuming debate. The hon. member can continue his speech. He has 15 minutes remaining in his time.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, now they all come running back in to hear this marvellous speech, despite the heckles from the NDP guys over here.
Thankfully we have not gotten to the point yet where they want to get us to, but when we hear people deny the primary role of parents to raise their own children, that is the line of thinking that will start to take us in a dangerous direction.
Our approach to child care must respect parents and their choices. We cannot expect the NDP-Liberal coalition to get things right if they do not have that solid foundation to begin with.
Child care is crucial. Canadian parents know it better than anyone. As Conservatives, we want to meet the needs of families and we understand how valuable and important it is to do so. It is common sense. Especially in today’s world, which moves at a rapid pace, we need to maintain and support the family unit.
Children are a gift. Those of us who are parents know how much they change our lives. They give us purpose and direction. They bring joy and pride as they grow up, despite some of the difficulties that we sometimes have to go through as parents with our kids. Not to sound too cliché, but our kids are the future of society. That is why it is so important that we provide the right support to parents as they raise the next generation.
There are people out there looking for options that are affordable and help to build the lifestyle they want for their family.
For many, it is a struggle. I have heard about it in my own riding, which is largely rural. Last month, at a town hall in Eastend, as I was talking about at the beginning, I was asked about the lack of access and spaces in our area. It confirmed for me that not much has changed since I was part of another town hall in Maple Creek a couple years ago, where one of the prominent issues was also child care.
I would say that, as the most rural province, Saskatchewan is in a unique situation. We have so many small towns that are so spread out. There is an especially stark contrast between urban and rural. Access to child care is linked to our access to workers. Business owners in the southwest are struggling to hire, but it was not because of a shortage of applicants; it was a shortage of day care facilities where potential hires could have their kids taken care of. Unfortunately, these interviewees moved on, got another job outside Maple Creek, and left these businesses still wanting.
What is sad is that Maple Creek is just a phenomenal town. Houses are still decently affordable, the school is great and it is not too far from the Cypress Hills. It is a quick drive to some major centres in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is just an all-around great place for a family, yet people are choosing to not raise their kids here, in part because they cannot find access to child care.
We wanted to see this bill include a wide range of child care options that should be available to parents. That is what the NDP-Liberals rejected.
One of the amendments that we had proposed was to make sure we included all types of providers, private providers, home-based providers, alongside public and not-for-profit providers, just to make sure that all types of home care options were eligible.
In fact, in Saskatchewan, there are over 87,574 children under age six in our province but the majority of them are not in licensed care and receive no benefit from the implementation of the government's child care strategy.
This government has a one-size-fits-all approach for parents. This bill says to Canadians, “It is okay. Do not worry about it. Let the government take care of your kids.” That is basically it. This bill overlooks many families who want to have some other options, including stay-at-home parents. Many Canadians do not want that approach from the government; they believe that what is best for their family is that they stay home with the kids and live off one income.
By no means is it easy. I am speaking from my own personal experience. It requires determination and sacrifice but for my family, and for thousands and thousands of Canadians, the right decision is to have a stay-at-home parent.
Last time I spoke on this bill, I shared my own family’s experience with stay-at-home parenting, and I would like to touch on that point once again.
Shortly after my wife and I were married, and while our first child was on the way, we sat down and discussed how we could it make it work for my wife to be a stay-at-home mom, because that was something that she truly wanted and was near and dear to her heart. We also thought that this is what would be best for the kids in the long run. The decision to live on one income was definitely an adjustment. We got by for nearly a decade, until she went back to work in 2019, when the kids were old enough.
I would suggest that we were better off for it. We had adventures driving our old minivan. We had to make decisions on buying older, well-used vehicles, to make sure that we could make ends meet. These were definitely part of the joy, and the struggle at times, of deciding to live on one income and have my wife be a stay-at-home parent.
Yes, Conservatives supported this bill because there are Canadians in different situations who make other choices, and they are looking for support, too. Not all Canadians can survive on one income. We know that and get that, especially with the cost of living crisis spiralling out of control because of the government. However, for those who are able and choose to do so, they are completely overlooked by the Liberal government. Instead of supporting Canadians who choose to live as independently of government as possible, the government continues to throw program after program at Canadians, as if they cannot run their own lives.
Last June, the member for Milton said to me, “When women go back to work, they tend to earn money and pay taxes, and that pays for programs like this. I would like the member to appreciate that.” However, I did not need him to tell me that. There are mothers who work and contribute to our economy. My point is that parents are more than just simply taxpayers. The family is the basis of society, not the government. Strong parents make stronger families and, all together, they make for a strong society. If a woman does not want to go back to work after she has kids, we should not just let her, we should help her.
For the member to consider that women are nothing more than a taxpayer is a frightening insinuation. Does the Liberal government just view Canadians, especially Canadian moms, as just a source of income? If so, that is really worrying. The state is not the be-all and end-all solution for everything. Parents do not get up in the morning and head out the door to their jobs while thinking with pride about the taxes that are going to be carved out of their paycheques, but rather about how to pay for the food that their children are going to eat or how to pay for the mortgage that puts a roof over their heads, how they are going to save enough money to hopefully go on a vacation or maybe to have their kids sign up to play hockey, to put their kids in gymnastics or to have their kids take music lessons. Those are some of the finer things we are able to do as Canadian citizens. We cannot put a dollar value on parenting, and it is certainly not $10 a day.
Parenting, for many of us, is something in our bones, what we were created for. The government is looking at Canadians and thinking about its return on investment, not bout how it can support Canadians living life the way they want to, including as a stay-at-home parent. A mother who chooses to leave the workforce is not an extra cost to society. She is not a burden or a strain or a negative, by any stretch of the imagination. Moms are not a commodity to be given a dollar value. People have tried to determine the hourly cost of motherhood, that a mom’s work is worth about $180,000 a year. The work of a mother is absolutely priceless. We cannot put a dollar value on it.
This line of thinking, with the government’s belief that women must get back to work to pay their taxes, inherently devalues that work, the sacrifice and the unconditional love that mothers give. While child care might be $10 a day with the rollout of this bill, there can never be a price put on being a mom, or a dad, for that matter. Our kids are our future, and their youngest years are the most important years of their lives. Do members not think that mom and dad should be with them as much as possible during that time frame? The role of the government is to act in the best interests of its citizens, so why are we not doing everything in our power to ensure our children have the strongest start possible?
As I said, this bill, Bill C-35, is narrow. It ignores and leaves behind other child care options. Back home, we know that many families share child care responsibilities. Family friends are all brought to someone’s house and a stay-at-home parent takes cares of them for the day. There is no government intervention, no subsidies, just community coming together to find a solution to their needs.
Canadians who rely on others for their child care, people from their church, their neighbours, their co-workers, should be encouraged to do just that. They should not be forced to put their kids into a government-sanctioned day care. For the private child care groups put together between friends, for the stay-at-home moms who choose to leave the workforce because they see the value in spending every day with their kids, the Liberal government leaves them wanting.
The government must do more to tackle affordability and to enable parents to spend time with their kids. Parents know their kids better than anyone and will love their kids more than anyone else ever will. The government should not encourage the separation of child and parent, but should be actively working toward a country in which parents can spend as much time with their kids as possible. The 53% of child care centres in the country that are unlicensed are, therefore, excluded from this legislation and so, too, are the 35% of parents whose children are not in child care as they would rather stay at home with them.
Whether one is from urban or rural Canada, Vancouver or Swift Current, Toronto or Shaunavon, child care is something all Canadians need. Whether it is private, at a co-op, maybe over at one's grandparent's house, it could be a stay-at-home parent or a group of parents who have agreed to a cycle of taking care of the kids. However it presents itself, we know that Bill C-35 before us overlooks nearly all those people, and that does not even consider the fact that this scheme does not do anything to create new spaces. It is not growing access, which for people in the southwest matters the most.
In Saskatchewan, only 10% of kids aged zero to 12 have access to day care, either full time or part time. For the ages between zero and six, the ages managed by the agreement between the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada, that is just under 18%. For example, there is one day care facility in Saskatoon that has 90 spots available in its day home. Its waiting list had 1,900 people on it, which is 1,900 kids and families who are being overlooked by the Liberal government. Sure, the government might be trying to make day care more affordable, but if Canadians cannot get their kids into the day care, where is the benefit?
Across the provinces, we see some different approaches when it comes to delivering access to education, for example. When I came here to Ontario, I heard something in the news about how the multiple school boards work. It sounds different from the arrangements we have made in Saskatchewan or from how education funding is delivered in Alberta. Each province is responsible for its own needs in that area. We need to see the same respect shown to provinces when it comes to early child care as well.
I also want to say something my Quebec colleagues might appreciate. I hope we can work together to find some common ground whenever possible. Our friends in Quebec already have their own child care system, which has been running for decades already. I have to admit that I am not completely familiar with all the details of child care in Quebec or with the discussions they are having about it in that part of the country, but they genuinely do seem to be happy with it. However, that was long before the government in Ottawa brought forward its version of a program for national child care at the federal level. The government should not take the credit for what Quebec is doing. It also should not assume that what works in one province will work exactly the same in other provinces. There are different histories, cultures and values to consider.
The choice of parents matters the most. We need to expand their choices and not limit them, including through an affordability crisis. At the end of the day, a lot of the problems they face come down to the fact that this is a country where people can barely afford to live at all. After all, 51% of Canadians are $200 away from bankruptcy. Most women in Canada are having fewer children than they want, and it is partly because they cannot deal with the economic burden that comes with parenthood. The root of the problem is not child care; it is affordability. It is the fact that Canadians are not earning enough money to raise a family. The current government should not be putting a band-aid on the problems created by the government with social programs. It needs to address the very real concerns faced by Canadians so that they can have the kids they want and that they can raise them however they want, without the government telling them exactly what it is that they are supposed to be doing.
2553 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:36:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to re-engage my friend and colleague in conversation about child care.
The member did quote one thing I said to him in this debate, I think at least six months ago. What we were talking about then was the fact that the Liberal government brought forth changes to the Canada child benefit, which allows parents the choice to go down to one income and to have their Canada child benefit fill in that gap quite dramatically. That then allows a parent to parent from home. They can take maternity or paternity leave, and they can rely on grandparent support, as my colleague pointed out. However, throughout his speech, my colleague from the Conservatives continually pointed to big government programs and subsidies, and I could not help but think he was talking about the Canada child benefit.
Now, the member talked about a time in his life when they made a decision as a family to go down to one income, and it was a bit more challenging than it would have been if both parents were working, and I acknowledge that. However, there are two things. Would it not have been great if there was a subsidized child care program available so that when it was time to do chores, shopping or anything like that, there was a little extra help of $10 a day? Would it not also have been good if, in his speech, he acknowledged the role that the Canada child benefit played in affordability?
255 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
