44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 16, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/16/24 10:41:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one thing the families in Nepean are overwhelmingly in support of is this program, because they see the benefit it brings to their family. It allows them the funds required to help children undertake some sports activities. It has helped families, especially mothers, free themselves up so they can go back into the workforce. Some of the mothers I know are using the program to help them get better educated for better-quality jobs.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 10:43:56 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly share the importance of the $10-a-day child care for many families in my riding, but the problem of course still exists that there is not enough child care available.
I wonder whether the member would agree with me that one of the things we also have to do is make sure that those who work in the child care sector, primarily women and quite often those who are new Canadians, are properly compensated for their skills and for the hard work they do each and every day.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 10:56:42 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, like that of the hon. member, my riding is rapidly growing with lots of young families. What people are finding, whether they are talking about setting up a new public sector child care centre or a non-profit, even as new entrepreneurs, is that they lack the workers.
What is the government going to do to make sure that we increase the compensation that would help attract more people into this important field?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 11:55:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, who deny that climate change exists, and who want to take money away from Canadians, what we are doing with the rebate is putting money back in their pockets. That is $1,100 to Ontario families, $1,800 to Alberta families and $1,200 to Manitoba families. The list goes on.
I would just like to ask the opposition whether it makes common sense to deny climate change and to cut benefits for Canadian families, including the carbon rebates.
84 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 12:39:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about his family at length. From what I understand, this worked for how they saw things in his family.
However, I have looked at the statistics, and in Saskatchewan, more than 27% of families are single-parent families. We know that single-parent families have lower incomes. It is much more difficult for these families.
In Quebec, the introduction of early childhood centres helped in combatting poverty, especially among single-parent families. I would like my colleague to tell me what he thinks of that. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to provide child care services to the entire population. Those who make other choices can go ahead and do that, but this is a good way of reducing poverty.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:42:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I love how my colleague speaks about his wife and his children. Knowing him on a personal level, I know how valuable his children and family life are to him.
Going back to what he was talking about with the single moms, we have the stats here right now coming out of the child care program. I will reiterate what he was saying; 77% of high-income parents access child care, versus 41% of low-income families. Does he think we should be prioritizing those people who are most vulnerable and who need this most but who are not getting access to it fairly?
It is proven through the stats that the $10-a-day child care program by the Liberals and NDP is not equitable. What does the member have to say about that?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:58:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, certainly it is all about what is best for families. Every family will be different, whatever its choice is going to be and whatever its situation is.
I know there have been a lot of references to Quebec's system being the model. In fact Quebec has a different system than other provinces have, but I do recall hearing testimony at committee that said there are still a lot of children on wait-lists, even in Quebec. Therefore we need to work toward having the maximum amount of availability and flexibility, not only within the child care system but also for families.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:58:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her work on this file. I have a couple of questions regarding contradictions I have heard coming from the other side on the topic of child care.
The Conservatives will acknowledge a worker shortage and will acknowledge the need for choice, but they will skip over, gloss over or perhaps just not acknowledge the fact that the program is directly responsible for a couple of things: It is filling the gap for a lot of sectors that were looking for workers, and it has also led to the highest-ever female participation in the economy, which is something worth celebrating because it is all about choice and affordability for families.
Therefore, will the member opposite not acknowledge that our changes to the Canada child benefit have benefited families greatly from an affordability perspective, and that the early learning and child care program right across the country, which was negotiated with each province for individual differences, has led to great affordability changes for families right across this country?
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:59:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, what the member is referencing is not factually correct. Statistics Canada actually shows that female participation is down, so I am not sure what old statistics he might be looking at.
We just have to look at the headlines over the last month. What we have seen is that the child care system is in crisis and that the policies the government has put together have not made a substantial difference. In many ways, when we look at the numbers, we see they are actually worse.
I will also note that I just find it incredibly interesting that the spokesperson whom the government has speaking to this very important child care bill today, which basically affects families and especially women in the workforce, is someone who does not have children himself.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we are rising today to talk about amendments to Bill C-35. All 338 of us value child care and the tremendous work of moms, dads, grandparents and other individuals who love and take care of children from coast to coast to coast.
Before I even commence my speech, I would just like to thank all the parents and child care providers from coast to coast, whether they are a grandma at the end of the street, a dad staying home to make sure their kid gets the love they want or a provider at a licensed child care centre working an extra half-hour or 45 minutes to wait for parents who are held up at work. Really, there is no more critical work than helping our children develop and become that next great generation.
I want to talk a bit about statistics, because they were mentioned earlier in the debate. When it comes to child care, the current stats from the Fraser Institute's report published on February 6 are that 77% of high-income parents report that they have access to child care, whereas 41% of low-income families have access to child care. It really strikes me that this legislation does not have any particular dedicated support for those who are most vulnerable.
Those children are not only fighting the challenges that all children are fighting, whether that is bullying or the challenges of growing up; they are also fighting poverty, and this legislation has no support for those children who are having to brave those incredibly difficult challenges that poverty brings with it. While we are giving 77% of high-income parents access to child care, we are only giving it to 41%, which is less than half, of those children who are fighting through all the additional struggles in addition to the challenges of poverty.
Also mentioned before was the labour participation of women. According to the same report, in September 2023, it was at 61.5%. Compare that to 2015 under Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives, it was at 61.7%, so the participation of women in the labour market has declined. Those are the numbers on that, so hopefully that ends the debate right there.
On top of that, according to another Fraser Institute study published on February 6, the employment rate of female youth is on a strong downward trend since February 2023. The cumulative decline of 4.2% over the period is a huge number. That is hundreds and thousands of young women who are not getting into the labour force. This is the lowest it has been since May 2000, excluding the pandemic, according to the labour force survey of January 2024.
This program is, of course, predicated on the fact that it would enable parents, both men and women, but if we call a spade a spade it is predominantly women, get back into the workforce, if they so choose, and the numbers just do not bear that out.
Some more numbers for members are 47% of infants younger than one year and not in child care were on a wait list, increasing from 38% in 2022—
533 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
