SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/29/24 4:47:49 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member is trying to conclude on a point that was raised before, and he has some leeway in what he says in the time for his speech. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

37 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/29/24 4:47:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Madam Speaker, it certainly is relevant when I am referencing back to actual debate that took place in the House less than 10 minutes ago. My point is that the Canada child benefit is means-tested, and people only get it when they meet certain thresholds. The program that the former Stephen Harper government had, which was basically to give everybody the exact same amount of money regardless of one's income just based on whether they had a child, was not means-tested. In fact, it was a program geared toward giving cheques to millionaires, which was exactly what happened. I am happy to talk about this particular legislation today. First, I just want to briefly say that it is with extreme sorrow that I learned today of the passing of Grace Eves. Grace was an incredible member of my community in Kingston and the Islands. She was extremely supportive of me throughout the years. Even in my early days of running for city council, Grace was my treasurer and helped with my campaigns. It was really hard for me to learn today, even though I had visited her in palliative care last week, that she had passed away. My deepest condolences go out to her husband, William, and to her family. Bill C-35, and there has been criticism I have heard from Conservatives, is about entrenching this framework. I think it is important to entrench this into law because I feel that if a future government, whenever that may be, might make the decision to change course with respect to a policy like this, it is going to have to go through a legislative process in order to undo it. I think that is really important, and we have been talking about in this country for decades, talking about bringing in child care that could be a benefit to Canadians as a whole. I think those benefits are extremely important. This is not just about investing in children, although it is extremely important to have early education and early learning opportunities for children. It is not just about empowering more people and, in particular, more women to get into the workforce, those who want to but are being held back because they are making conscious decisions about the cost of child care versus the additional income. This is also about growing our economy. We know that a successful economy is one that is continually growing. We know that we have problems, like a lot of developed countries do, with labour shortages. This would provide an opportunity to empower people who want to get into the workforce to be able to do that, because they would not be burdened by the significant offset of child care. It would also grow our economy, and we would see economic growth through participation in the labour force, in particular, by filling those spots that quite often need to be filled. It was brought up by a parliamentary secretary earlier that all one has to do, without even getting into the historical context of Quebec and the success it has seen, is to look at the United States, where 77% of women participate in the labour market. In Canada, that number is 86%. The parliamentary secretary said that earlier today. I think that this is already showing the results and the positive impacts of this program. One of the concerns that have come up within the last several minutes here that I am hearing from my Conservative colleagues and, indeed a Bloc member was saying this too, is why this is important. Why do we need to do this? We already have signed deals. We need to make this law and make this legislative, in terms of entrenching it into the laws in our country, to ensure that this is formalized. Why is that important? I think the general public should know, especially those enjoying the benefits of the child care agreements out there, that every Conservative MP who ran in the last election and, in fact, every Conservative candidate who ran in the last election, ran on getting rid of this program. Erin O'Toole made it very clear that if he was elected, he would scrap those agreements that were made with the provinces. The current leader of the Conservatives, in the past, bragged about the fact that Conservatives got rid of child care programs that the Liberals brought forward. It happened nearly 20 years ago, and we talked about this earlier. Ken Dryden was literally at the door with the agreements and was ready to work with provinces, but due to the unfortunate scenario where the NDP sided with the Conservatives to take down the Liberal government at the time, which resulted in a Conservative government being elected, Stephen Harper did exactly that. He got rid of those programs. This is something that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, has bragged about. I think that Canadians are right to be concerned about the intentions of the Conservative Party, which is why entrenching this into legislation, by making this law, is so critically important. It would ensure that these agreements, this relationship and the collaboration between the federal government and the provincial governments, are sustained. If a future government decides it would like to do away with it, it would have to go through a lengthy process to do that, which would include debates in the House, votes and so on. I do not think we have to worry about that. I do not think that the Conservatives are against it, despite their rhetoric, and they will point this out, as the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound pointed out earlier. That is good to hear. However, it is unfortunate that every time they stand up to talk about it, it as though it is one of the worst pieces of legislation that could have ever existed. This is the scenario that the Conservatives routinely find themselves in, whether it on this legislation or whether it is on scab-worker legislation. Routinely, they will speak out against something, talk very negatively about it, challenge all the work that has been done it and when it comes time to vote, they vote in favour of it. I do not even think that Conservatives, because I think they know where the majority of Canadians are on this and how they feel about it, would ever consider touching this. Nonetheless, I would certainly feel much more confident, as I am sure my colleagues would and Canadians would, to know that this would be entrenched in legislation. That is why this measure is important. When the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound asks the question, or when the member from the Bloc asks why we are even talking about this when we have these agreements in place, that is the reason. We need to do this to ensure that there is longevity to this and that, in order to dismantle this program, it would require a number of steps in the future. If we want to look at the success of this program, and I have said this many times here, all we need to do is to look to the Quebec model, which happened several decades ago. I have stood up in the House many times as a proud Ontario member of Parliament, whether it is on this issue, on the environment or on other socially progressive issues, Quebec certainly led the way. We can learn from what Quebec did a number of decades ago with child care. We can see the results. We see that, in Quebec, more women are in the workforce. We knew we would be successful in encouraging more people to get into the workforce if we brought forward these agreements and worked with provinces in this manner. We can learn a lot, and indeed we did learn a lot. It is important to recognize that there are always growing pains with new programs. I listened to the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound speak about how Quebec got it right. I am curious to know, if he went back and looked at its implementation several decades ago, if it was as squeaky clean and worked as effectively from day one as he suggests. I think that maybe it was not that great when it was rolled out because there are growing pains to these learning processes. I understand if the Conservative angle right now is to try to highlight these growing pains as the challenges that would end the entire program. However, I have a lot more faith in our ability to deliver on this and a lot more faith in Canadians' abilities to ensure that this program lasts in perpetuity because of what we have seen in Quebec and because we have seen the success in Quebec, notwithstanding the fact that it may have had growing pains as well in the beginning. I find that so critical to look at the success of Quebec and other jurisdictions throughout the world that have taken on similar challenges. I go back to a point I made earlier, specifically with respect to $10-a-day child care and the issue of whether child care should be means tested, as was suggested by Conservatives. We have a program in place to means-test, in terms of helping families to raise their children, and that is the Canada child benefit. That is a payment program to families with children, which is based on income. I do not receive it, and the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound does not receive it, as he indicated, nor would we if we tried to apply. It is something that we would just not get, given our level of income. However, it is important that rather than the Conservative plan of the universal child care benefit, which just gave the same amount to every single family based on the number of children, this is a program that means-tests. The lower the income, the more a family would get from society, through the government, to help raise their children. As a Liberal, we see a value in that and in society playing a role in helping to raise children. We see a benefit to collectively coming together to make that happen and, in particular, to support those who need it the most. That is where the means testing part comes in, with respect to the Canada child benefit. This particular program and $10-a-day child care is about making a universal standard across the entire country that absolutely everybody could benefit from. I started in my speech and will perhaps conclude with this, it is not just about providing child care for children and not just about making things cheaper. This is about providing opportunities. As has been demonstrated through Quebec, and as we can see already in Canada when compared to the United States, this is about empowering more women to get into the workforce, which is exactly what we are seeing as a result of this. Most importantly, from my perspective, it is about growing our economy and helping to fill some gaps that exist within the labour force and the shortage of labour that we might have in this country. I am really excited to see that this has finally come to fruition. I accept the amendment that has been put forward by the Senate. I think we should pass this. This is a bill that would do great things for Canadians, just like the pharmacare bill that was introduced today. I want to take the opportunity, as I have done before, to thank my colleagues in the NDP for working collectively and constructively on behalf of Canadians to provide programs that would genuinely impact and change the lives of Canadians. It is so incredibly important. I would be the first to say that, because of the NDP, we have really been pushed forward in terms of our social and progressive agendas. Its members should take a lot of the credit for this, as I know they like to do and are doing. They deserve credit for being among the adults working in this room on behalf of Canadians.

2058 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

Feb/29/24 5:03:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to the member opposite, the member for Kingston and the Islands, I will say that I think one of the key pieces of this discussion, in solving the problems that exist, is listening to constituents. Today a constituent of his was here in Ottawa. Kerri Kehoe was a victim. She was viciously sexually assaulted as a child. Her attacker is in minimum security. He had a parole hearing last year. He was recommended for escorted day passes, but the parole board declined him. A victim advocate determined that Kerri's rights were violated. She sought help from her MP, the member for Kingston and the Islands, and he refused to meet with her. Why would we believe anything that he has to say, that he would even listen to the constituents who have genuine concerns about this program, when he refuses to meet with people about something as serious as this?

153 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/29/24 5:04:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Kerri Kehoe is an individual whom I know very well. My wife is very close to her. As a matter of fact, my wife was at that parole board hearing. Kerri will always receive support from me and my family. Ms. Michelle Ferreri: That's untrue, and she wrote this. She wrote this, and you know it.

59 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/29/24 5:04:34 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member will stop. The hon. member knows she cannot use that language in the House. The hon. member for Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

31 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Feb/29/24 5:04:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Kingston and the Islands on his speech. I think that we just witnessed something historic. I have never heard my colleague say the word “Quebec” so many times before. This is hypocritical. My colleague is saying that the government is following Quebec's example because it is a leader in the area of child care, but when it comes time to negotiate other programs that fall under Quebec's jurisdiction, Quebec is suddenly no longer a leader. I am thinking, for example, of the dental insurance and pharmacare programs that the member just bragged about implementing. The government is telling Quebec what to do and imposing conditions on us. It wants Quebec to grovel for the money. However, the reality is that the more freedom Quebec has, the better it does. Quebec did not wait for the federal government to implement its child care system. I would like my colleague to answer a simple question. What can a Canadian do that a Quebecker cannot?

173 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/29/24 5:05:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have said many times in my speeches, especially when it relates to progressive issues or the environment, that I am not here to say that Ottawa knows best. As a matter of fact, putting the program together required the minister to go out and have discussions with each jurisdiction, with each province. This is why I got a kick out of hearing the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound talking about it being one system imposed by the federal government. On the contrary, there are a number of systems across the country that have been negotiated with and are being delivered by provinces. I know that the member knows that. I take great pride in learning from the success of Quebec and seeing how we can put that into the rest of the country. If he ever has opportunity to share with me what we should be doing better in Ontario when it comes to issues like this or the environment, I will happily sit down with him and listen, because we have a lot to learn from what Quebec has done over the years.

190 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Feb/29/24 5:06:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government's approach to programs like this one has been to offer federal funding in exchange for the provinces' committing to certain standards as part of agreements. There has been a lot of discussion about the early childhood education workforce and how poorly paid it is. Could not one of the conditions of the child care agreements be around the compensation of the professionals who are instructing and caring for our children at the most important point in their development?

83 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/29/24 5:07:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely. I appreciate the suggestion by my colleague. I am always open to listening to what the other options are. At the end of the day, it is important to remember, as I indicated in my last answer, that we work with provinces. The provinces are the ultimate delivery vehicle for this program. They are going to roll it out in ways that work within their provinces and, presumably, across different ways within the jurisdiction that they represent.

80 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Feb/29/24 5:08:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to present some details on the universal child care benefit that was brought in during the Harper years. I was not here in the House, but I did go door to door later on and learned a significant amount about it. I think the means test issue here is backwards, because the reason the funding went out to everyone in Canada was that it was the most efficient way to do it. When I went door to door, there were people who would say that they did not get to keep the funding and that this was not fair. I asked them whether they owned their home and how many cars they had. I would say, “If you take that money and pop it in a savings account, you are going to have to give it back in taxes.” However, here was the kicker: If all of a sudden someone shut down the oil field, jobs were lost and all of a sudden someone had to somehow make up that money, it was already there for that family. Now, however, with the way it is done, people have to wait a whole tax cycle to find out whether they will qualify. When the means test needs to be presented is when there are people who are low-income and need those spaces, and they are not prioritized. That is what should be happening here. One of the things we are saying could better the program is to make a means test the entry into it.

262 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/29/24 5:09:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, is the member saying that Conservatives would want to change that back? If I understood her correctly, she is saying that if a family got the money, they were basically taxed on it, so they might need to give it back. In that case, would she not apply the exact same logic to the price on pollution and the carbon rebate? That is not means-tested. That is giving the exact same amount to everybody, so if her logic is correct about the universal child care benefit, she has to apply the same logic to the carbon rebate.

100 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/29/24 5:10:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether the deputy House leader would be able to give his perspective on where the Conservative Party is on the child care issue. I know in the last federal election, there were members who were saying they would rip up the agreements we were putting into place, and then they kind of waffled. They were really critical inside the chamber. I think at one point they might even have voted in favour. I have no idea where they actually are on the issue of Bill C-35.

92 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/29/24 5:10:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if he does not know, it is because he is probably confused by the fact that the Conservatives are always doing that on so many issues. They did it on scab legislation. They were extremely critical of that, but then when it came time to vote for it, just quietly they all stood up in favour. We were actually really surprised. It is the exact same thing with this particular piece of legislation. We hear the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, who keeps standing up and criticizing the government, routinely hammering away at the fact that this is a horrible program. Every Conservative who gets up does the exact same thing, but then when it comes time to vote, they vote in favour of it. I will just recap that. They ran on a platform to get rid of the child care program. The Conservative leader has bragged about the fact that they have killed child care agreements in the past, and then the Conservatives get in here and are extremely critical about it, which would all lead to suggest they are against it. Then at the last moment, they vote in favour of it. I think Canadians can reflect on that and understand and appreciate what the Conservatives would actually do if they were in government.

219 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Feb/29/24 5:11:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just to clarify, if people have been listening to the debates, they will know that Conservatives have consistently said that we support child care, and our leader is on the record as saying he is going to honour the agreements with provinces and territories, so I do not appreciate the efforts of the members opposite to spread misinformation and disinformation. My question for the member is this: One out of 10 people is actually being served by the $10-a-day day care program that exists now, and there is a huge need, so does the government recognize that this is the tip of the iceberg and that so much more is needed if we are really going to solve the problem of affordable day care in Canada?

130 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/29/24 5:12:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is not misinformation and disinformation. The Conservatives ran on getting rid of the child care program. The Leader of the Opposition has bragged about the fact that they got rid of these programs in the past, but why should Canadians not be skeptical of it, when the Conservatives also ran on a price on pollution and now are suddenly against it?

64 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Feb/29/24 5:13:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak once more to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, with respect to the amendments that were provided by the Senate. First, let me reiterate the Conservative Party's support for child care and for supporting women entering or re-entering the workforce as they balance their family lives. We want to see Canadians have equal access to child care in the forms that fit their families. This goes far beyond the Liberals' $10-a-day day care spots to include traditional day care centres; centres with extended, part-time or overnight care; nurseries; flexible and drop-in care; before- and after-school care; pre-schools and co-op child care; faith-based care; unique programming to support children with disabilities; home-based care; nannies and shared nannies; au pairs; stay-at-home parents; guardians who raise their own children; and family members, friends or neighbours who provide care. This is what it means to make up and support community, and our children and our grandchildren are some of the most vulnerable members in our communities. They all deserve high-quality care in the chosen style of their caretakers. However, my Liberal colleagues have been clear that they do not want to amend the bill overall to include choice for parents. This is unhelpful for a variety of reasons. So many Canadian parents are not in a position to send their children to traditional day care during conventional work hours. First responders, medical personnel, military members, truck drivers and a whole host of others must work through the nights, weekends and holidays, when many traditional day care centres are closed, and they thus require specialized care. Do they not deserve flexible options that suit their needs, especially when so many of their jobs are community focused? Anyone working unconventional shifts to provide for themselves and their families is just as deserving of high-quality affordable child care as those who work Monday to Friday, nine to five. I have personal experience in this realm. I raised my two daughters while travelling extensively for work as a chemical engineer. I have previously in the House discussed the challenges of securing child care for them while working around my busy travel schedule, especially when factoring in the realities of travel, which include delays, changed timelines and flights cancelled altogether. Families absolutely need options that work for their individual needs. When Conservatives form government, we would honour the provincial and territorial agreements and ensure parents have the choice and flexibility they deserve to remove the Liberal ideological shackles, if they so desire. With regard to the Senate amendment of Bill C-35, the bill already contained references to the official language minority communities, or OLMCs, when it was sent to the Senate. However, the bill did not originally include any reference to them until the Conservative amendments were made during the clause-by-clause review done at HUMA and we introduced these safeguards. The references to the OLMCs in the bill now include a provision that federal investments related to programs and services for the education and care of young children should be guided by the commitments outlined in the Official Languages Act, and the inclusion of OLMCs and indigenous peoples in the composition of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care. We are grateful to the hon. senator from Acadia who proposed an amendment to include a reference in clause 8 to eliminate any ambiguity before the courts, and we continue to support his amendment today. The amendment would 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 would divide clause 8 into two paragraphs. The first paragraph would then outline the government's financial commitment, while the second would specify the mechanisms through which the federal government would provide funding. To allay any remaining hesitancy, under no circumstances is it the intention to create a new direct-negotiation mechanism between the federal government and the OLMCs. The amendment text is very clear on this matter. Furthermore, adding a mention of OLMCs after the word “including” would not in any way diminish the rights of any other minority or indigenous peoples. Clause 3 of the bill explicitly states that it would not infringe upon the rights of indigenous peoples as “recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”. The amendment is simply to clarify the intent to ensure the consideration of OLMCs as stipulated in clauses 7 and 11. There has been much study done on early childhood as a critical period for language development and the identity development of children. Access to French language early childhood services is often a necessary condition for the transmission of language and culture in French communities. These services help young children acquire the language skills they need to prepare for education, especially for children who will enter French language or immersion schools across the country. This is all upholding the right to education enshrined in section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Critically, and to assuage fears from across the aisle, this amendment does not introduce any new funding mechanism and merely aims to clarify financial commitments. Especially with Sarnia—Lambton recently receiving the official Francophone designation and with French language use in danger throughout the country, it is more critical than ever to establish and protect these services for our official language minority communities. This amendment was adopted by a large majority of senators, who clearly understand and appreciate both the need to increase child care spaces and access to them and the need to deliver services across the board in both of our official Canadian languages. It is clear now more than ever just how important and critical child care is, in terms of both obtaining an early child care space and maintaining it if one is lucky enough to have one, for recruiting and retaining women in the workforce. The employment rate for young women has been on a strong downward trend since last February, with a cumulative decline of 4.2% over that period. This is the lowest since May 2020, excluding the pandemic. More than 46% of parents reported difficulty finding child care in 2023, which is up from 36.4% in 2019, so more parents are having trouble finding child care now, in the era of the Liberals' $10-a-day child care, than before. A column in the Financial Post last week alleges that the Liberals' national child care plan is proving to be “an expensive shambles, creating widespread shortages and destroying private child care businesses”. This problem spans the country, with issues from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia. This week there has been a slate of news reports across the country, with headlines despairing over the lack of access to child care, including the Liberals' $10-a-day program. Day care operators, including the owner of Little Heroes Daycare Centre here in Ottawa, say they cannot turn a profit and are not even breaking even since opting in to the $10-a-day program, which they did out of their desire to assist their families, to their own detriment. To further illustrate, as part of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women's current study of women's economic empowerment, the executive director of the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario, which represents independent licensed child care centres, said, “[W]e 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.” The Liberals are undercutting their own economy once again and pushing costs onto taxpayers while denying Canadians the freedom to choose what works best for their families. What is more is that one of the main goals of the $10-a-day plan was to enable women to join the workforce in greater numbers, but a recent Fraser Institute report looking at that issue indicates there is “little evidence” whether the Liberal program is reaching its stated goals. It reads, “There is also little evidence that the federal government is achieving [the second] goal of boosting the labour force participation of women with children.” As the StatsCan data I quoted earlier shows, the employment rate for young women is on a downward trend. It is another example of the problem of the Prime Minister's fake feminism. I will be generous and allow that the pandemic exacerbated the issues of child care, and many well-meaning parents changed their plans and their lives to accommodate for a more precarious world, either changing work hours to watch children, changing jobs or leaving the workforce altogether. However, the Liberals owe Canadian parents and families that much more for letting them down in the first place. Conservatives, when we form government, will put Canadians first and prioritize freedom of choice and family life, empowering parents to make the decisions that best serve their child care needs and not just what the government prescribes. If I look over the history of my own journey with child care, I will say that it is very difficult when only one in 10 families are covered by the existing program. That is nine out of 10 families that are not. I have people calling my office asking if I can help them find child care. It is almost impossible. I had some very wonderful child care providers and some not-so-wonderful child care providers. Ms. Betty was a school teacher who was off with her own kids. She was probably a better mother than I will ever be, so that was great. She was flexible, because I could drop the kids off at 5:30 in the morning if I had to catch a flight at six o'clock. If a flight was cancelled, late, or the kids had to stay late, she had flexibility. That is really important for a lot of workers today. Similarly, I had Joanne, who was wonderful. She was a stay-at-home mom with her kids. Once again, she was flexible and gave excellent care. However, she moved and I was left in a cycle of trying to find child care. It started with Sarah, who was a mom at the preschool that my kids went to, but once my kids were eating cat food on her stairs, I had to find another one. Then there was the student who was smoking weed and hanging out with her boyfriend. That one went away. Then there was Karen. I should have known maybe just by the name, but she was watching soaps when I came home and found out she has let my kids go swimming with a male neighbour some place up the road. That was not so great. There was a happy occasion with Generations Day Care in Petrolia, which was a wonderful experience. It was certainly expensive, but worth it. The pinnacle was Andrea, an ECE worker who became my nanny. She was able to stay overnight if I needed, make meals if I was travelling, and do anything that was needed. When my kids got older and went to high school, she opened her own day care and they ended up working there, so that was fantastic. There is a lot of need. We need more care and in order to get more care we have to build on the $10-a-day child care and we have to allow parents to have choices. We have to figure out how we are going to help with those, because I think that is fair. We also need to consider that, with the inflation we are seeing, the cost of food and heating is going up, and the interest rates are going up. All of these pressures are really affecting the cost of providing child care. I know when we studied this issue at the status of women committee we looked at the Quebec model. At the time, Quebec was charging less than $10 a day for day care and the actual cost was more like $47 or $48, which would have hugely increased now. However, the comment was that there were still long wait-lists. Therefore, I do not think it is good to have $10-a-day day care if there are no spaces. We need to provide more spaces. We need to be creative in figuring out how we help people get child care and broaden their freedom of choice so that people who work weird hours can get coverage, and people who have special needs children can get the care they need. All of these things I think will be important. I know all of the provincial and territorial agreements have been signed. I always hear the Liberals whining about Conservatives wasting the time of the House on concurrence motions, but here we are debating something where the agreements have already been signed. Why do we have everyone state on the public record that we support this program when that is the case? We should move on. Finally, I want to reiterate some of the things that have been implied. The members opposite have implied that Conservatives do not support this program. That is not true. We do support child care. Anyone can go to openparliament.ca and see that we all voted yes on Bill C-35. I think there is more work to be done in this area. I certainly would like to see the government come forward with something that would not only address an increase in spaces but also help those who are less fortunate. We see that 71% of people who are taking advantage of the $10-a-day day care are higher-income people, whereas only 41% are lower-income ones. That does not seem right to me. I think there needs to be a means test. There needs to be something that favours those who need the help the most, because obviously we do not have enough spaces, so we have to prioritize. If we could work with the provinces and territories to create some flexibility, I think that would help the private day cares. We need more spaces. We cannot afford to lose the ones we have, and that is what is happening. I am hearing from day care providers that are not eligible for this program that they are struggling, and many of them are even going out of business. I have heard from the ones that are in the program that they are having issues with cash flow because of the way the remuneration works. I think there is more work to be done on this, but certainly we need to move in this direction. We want to see more women in the workforce. I certainly experienced the highs and the lows of child care, and would rather head in the direction of highs.

2576 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Feb/29/24 5:30:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Bay of Quinte for his private member's bill, in particular, on the topic of open banking. We know that open banking is becoming more and more commonplace, or at least the demand for it is, given the changes that are occurring in the banking sector. It is clear that Canadians deserve a secure and stable financial sector that is globally competitive, promotes consumer choice and contributes to economic growth. As the financial sector becomes increasingly digitized, standards must be used to modernize, ensuring that Canada continues to enjoy a strong, stable and innovative financial sector. At the same time, Canadians must continue to have the confidence that the financial sector operates with the highest regard for privacy and security. I will be honest. Before the bill was introduced, I did not really understand the details of open banking, how it would work or exactly what the benefit would be to consumers and clients of banking institutions. For those who do not know, and I would appreciate being corrected if my layman's understanding of it is incorrect, open banking pretty much gives the authority to a bank to share information with a third party in the event that somebody wants to share that information for one reason or another. For example, as was explained to me, open banking might be utilized when somebody applies for a mortgage and wants to prove some of the data in their banking information, such as paying rent. Having the bank share that data with a mortgage lender that someone is applying to would obviously be of benefit in being able to provide credibility and information. It also relates to stability in terms of their ability to pay. The concept is very good, and I see it as being important. The way our banking system is going, and the manner in which it is being digitized, is something that all parliamentarians should be seized with in terms of properly empowering banks to do this. What I understand from reading the private member's bill that has been tabled by the member for Bay of Quinte is that it would ask the minister to develop a plan within six months to stipulate exactly how open banking would work and ensure that it takes place. However, at the same time, during debate on the fall economic statement in the latter part of 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance had signalled that the framework for open banking specifically is coming forward. One problem with the private member's bill is that it specifically stipulates a six-month period for the minister to table this. I hope we will see that happen faster as a result of the fact that the finance minister had already indicated she is working on this and that it comes at an expedited pace because we need to have those securities in place for Canadians who are sharing that information. Most importantly, the one thing that seems to be lacking in the bill is any detail. Details are important in terms of making sure the proper measures are put in place to protect data and Canadians' information, and that is what I am expecting to see in the legislation that will come as a result of what was indicated during debate on the fall economic statement. The government has been working on this since around 2019. This has been on its radar. It is something that the government is seized with. Whether it comes through this private member's bill or government legislation, at the end of the day, I think there will be unanimous support from all members in terms of ensuring that open banking becomes trusted and secure and that Canadians can use it with confidence. The specific framework that the government will be putting forward would enable consumers to securely and confidently access their financial data and, in turn, safely use services that can help them improve their financial outcomes. However, the private member's bill before us is a plan that would see the government move slower on open banking than our current timeline is projecting, and the bill puts forward, as I indicated, no or very little detail on the implementation of a consumer-driven banking regime. We plan to continue to engage with Canadians, industry leaders and stakeholders on this and to establish this consumer-driven banking framework in a manner that respects the collaborative process. I certainly want to congratulate the member on the introduction of the bill. It is a timely issue and a subject that is certainly something the government has been working on. It is something that we plan to bring forward, and due to the fact that the bill before us lacks detail on how the implementation would occur and how those safeguards would look, I think it would more prudent for the House to wait until that legislation comes forward, which would have the proper scrutiny in the House rather than just two hours of debate. It would go to committee, have the proper scrutiny there, come back here and once again have the level of discussion and discourse that is required for something as important as this.

877 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Feb/29/24 5:37:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-365

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Bay of Quinte for introducing Bill C-365. As surprising as it may be, this is the first time we have had the opportunity to debate open finance in the House. Even the Standing Committee on Finance has never addressed this issue. So far, the discussion has been largely left to the experts and industry representatives. All the fine people at the Department of Finance, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada are currently examining the issue. The Autorité des marchés financiers, or AMF, and Quebec's ministry of finance are also looking into it. It is important to remember that the technology companies that would interface with customers in an open financial system are not banks. They do not necessarily fall under federal jurisdiction, just as not all financial institutions fall under federal jurisdiction. I have been closely following the work of the Advisory Committee on Open Banking, which is referenced extensively in the preamble of the bill. This work is very enlightening. The committee heard from a wide range of stakeholders, including banks, credit unions, insurance companies, trusts, brokers and technology companies. However, no consumer advocacy groups, privacy advocates or provincial regulators were consulted. It is past time to broaden the conversation. For that reason alone, the member is making a huge contribution and I sincerely thank him for it. Implementing an open financial system would be a huge change with many implications. In the long term, we can envisage a system in which financial institutions would essentially manufacture financial products. Customer relations would be handled by technology companies that would not offer the financial products themselves but would act as intermediaries and data aggregators. That is quite a change. The bill's preamble lists the benefits of such an open financial system. I will not repeat them here, as the sponsor did a fine job outlining them. I support them. They are real. I would even say that moving toward an open system is probably inevitable. Since this is the first time we are discussing this subject, I will use my time today to broaden the debate a bit. It is our job as legislators to talk about the benefits, but also the challenges and risks, since we are working toward the common good. Our financial system's greatest asset is its stability and the confidence that comes with that stability. It is stable because it is subject to strict legal obligations. Ultimately, if something goes wrong, for example if there is fraud, data theft, failure to report a suspicious transaction that would assist in tracking money laundering or terrorist financing, then the financial institution is the one that is legally and financially responsible. Financial institutions are subject to strict prudential obligations so as to ensure they have the means of dealing with the risks in question. Since the financial institutions are ultimately responsible, they guard their members' and customers' personal and financial information very jealously. However, this is where the system's greatest asset, its stability, also becomes a weakness, because it can lead to compartmentalization and a lack of flexibility. The world has changed. The development of information technologies has given rise to the data economy, which can only grow if data circulates freely. It is unclear whether our financial architecture is adapted to this new environment. A financial institution cannot be expected to take responsibility for the use of data it no longer has custody of. Prudential standards and regulations will have to be adapted. It is far from certain that a technology company has the wherewithal to take on those financial risks. A financial start-up can be born and die in no time at all. If that happens, there will be no one left to shoulder the consequences of fraud, data leakage, incorrect information or poor financial choices. We need to be cautious. Does that mean we should do nothing? Far from it. People want the flexibility of an open financial system. They want aggregators that put all their information in one place, facilitate transactions and give individuals an accurate picture of their financial situation. That is invaluable when money is tight at the end of the month. People also have a hard time understanding why they are not being allowed to do this. After all, our personal information belongs to us. That is why fintech companies have already started coming on line despite the legal limbo. They are responding to an obvious demand. At this point, however, because they are not officially part of a cohesive financial system, they exist in a grey area and find alternative ways to evolve. Users currently provide their personal information themselves, and when the app gets into an account, it extracts data from the screen and stores it. Financial institutions' secure networks get regular visits from actors outside the financial sector, and that makes them vulnerable. The more advanced these strategies get, the greater the risk. As I was saying, the status quo is not sustainable. It would be pointless for legislators to bury their heads in the sand. There is no going back to 1990. In some cases, the risks are minimal. An aggregator that scans public data to show us mortgage rates at all financial institutions in one click is convenient and low-risk. When it collects our personal data to give us a detailed picture of our financial situation, that is also convenient, but carries more risk. Financial information is very sensitive, so it is vital to protect it. If the app can be used to perform transactions, which implies that it places orders, that opens up a whole new level of risk, the risk of fraud. What about the principle of needing to know the customer? That principle is the foundation of our anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing laws. How can a financial institution apply this principle when it is communicating via an app? Lastly, an important part of risk is the financial capacity to take on risk. Without that, the consumer could lose everything. Fintechs currently operate in a grey area, which is a problem. What we need is a clear framework with clear obligations and responsibilities, as well as oversight mechanisms and institutions to enforce compliance. The Advisory Committee on Open Banking recognized all of these difficulties, but it felt that it was important to move quickly so that Canada would not be lagging behind and so as not to hamper the sector's development. Companies continue to operate in a grey area, which is not serving anyone well. That is why the advisory committee recommended giving clear direction but introduce minimal regulations so that things can move faster. Then, industry stakeholders can determine for themselves how to operationalize that and resolve technical issues. In short, the committee is recommending a sort of self-regulation. The committee recognized that the financial soundness of technology companies is an issue, but it did not propose any institutional mechanism for dealing with it. There would not be any equivalent for deposit insurance, at least not in the beginning. At best, the committee mentions getting their own insurance. The committee also recognized the constitutional issue, but it proposed circumventing it. It proposes integrating the federal financial institutions. As for the others, they can join if they want to, but as second‑class institutions. I am a Quebecker whose main financial institution is a co‑operative, not a bank. Understandably, a two‑tier financial system leaves much to be desired. Barring a constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot regulate them. Also, in order for the financial system to be truly open, governments will have to coordinate. I really like the first clause of Bill C‑365. It requires the government to present directions and an action plan in a timely manner so that the public can take ownership of it and we can debate it. That is good. I am not so sure about the second clause. Setting a deadline for introducing legislation without ensuring that we are ready and that any potential problems have been resolved seems a bit rash to me. As we consider the implementation of open banking, let us heed the Emperor Augustus and make haste slowly. That is essentially the message I am getting from the Speaker, who wants me to wrap up. Let us get to work right away because the status quo is no longer tenable, but let us take the time to do things right, because the stakes are high.

1445 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/29/24 5:46:36 p.m.
Watch

I would like to thank the hon. member for sharing yet another wonderful expression.

14 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Feb/29/24 5:47:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the capacity crowd that is here tonight on this riveting PMB. This is indeed a very important moment in Canadian history. This is a full-circle moment for me, because it allows me the opportunity to revisit the first time my words ever entered into Hansard, which would have been September 27, 2016. Also, when I was a city councillor, I provided testimony to OGGO, which had a special committee on postal banking. The reason I bring that up is because the hon. member for Bay of Quinte, whom I rather enjoy, does a phenomenal job of talking about all of the certitudes of capitalism, all the symptoms, ills and all the ways in which regulatory capture in cartels and monopolies shape our Canadian economy, and yet sometimes, well most of the time, in fact, all of the time, Conservatives just really seem to miss the target. While it is true we will likely be supporting this, I do not think that it actually speaks to the issue of the way in which the cartel banking system has captured the Canadian economy, and I will tell members why. I come to my politics through observation. Back in 2014 when I was running to be a city councillor in Hamilton, my campaign office was right across the street from a payday loan company. At the end of every month, about a week to go in a month, I watched people start to enter payday loan centres. It was at that time I got to understand that most of the people who were entering those predatory, economically violent and, dare I say, extortionary businesses were already on a fixed income, many were already on social assistance, and many were hard-working people who just did not have enough money due to their legislated poverty to make it to the end of the month, and so they would visit these predatory loan companies. In the process of trying to better understand the fullness of this economic violence on people, I came to understand that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers had presented what I thought was a very sound and fair banking policy: postal banking. The reason I bring this up on this PMB debate is because, yes, it is obvious that every consumer should have the right to have data sovereignty over their own information and that it should not be held hostage or be under some kind of extortionary measure by a cartel bank preventing them from transitioning seamlessly to another. That is a basic tenet of a fair economy and one that I think everybody should support, but it does not speak to the heart of the matter. If we are going to talk about open banking, what we need to talk about is decommodified banking for the most vulnerable among us. For example, a person receiving a social assistance cheque or ODSP who does not have the ability to actually have a bank account would then see that meagre $720 or $1,200, in Ontario, have fees added onto it. When we talk about predatory violence, I look to the work of ACORN, which does incredible work on this and on fair banking. It has identified, quite rightly, the way easyfinancial, Money Mart and Cash Money charge interest on loans. For example, on a loan of less than $1,500 that is supposed to be paid back in two weeks, and we know that if a person on a fixed income does not have the money at the end of the month then that person would probably not have it in the months to come, the annual interest rates actually compound to somewhere between 400% and 600%. However, federally, we legislate extortion or loan sharking at 60% plus interest and other charges. So, when we see loans in this predatory sector go up 300% between 2016 and 2020, ACORN did the right thing and launched a campaign on this. I am proud to say that another full-circle moment for me in this conversation was as a city councillor when I was responsible for moving a motion that actually created the first municipality in Ontario to regulate payday loans in our municipalities. I am a proud Hamiltonian from Hamilton Centre, which is the birthplace of Tim Hortons. At its peak, there were more payday lenders in Hamilton Centre than there were Tim Hortons. Do members know who the president of the Payday Loan Association was at that time? Many members on the government's side will know this person well. It was Stan Keyes, a former Liberal member of Parliament who was basically shilling for the predatory and extortionary payday loan sector. What happened? By the time we were done with him, we had run him out of Hamilton. They had to change the name of that association. Why do I bring it back to that? It is because the most vulnerable Canadians among us do not have to worry about whether or not they can move their information from bank to bank. They cannot even get into a bank. How can we enter into a conversation about open banking when not every Canadian has access to a bank? I want to go back to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. The Conservatives did the cut and gut on it and tried to privatize Canada Post. Then the Liberals, of course, followed suit shortly thereafter. They looked at ending door-to-door service and all the other things Canadians rely on. We took them to task, and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers came forward with a beautiful program called Delivering Community Power. Part of that plan was postal banking. Members may or may not know this, but within the charter of Canada Post is the ability to offer postal banking. We cannot have a conversation about open banking unless we are providing banking for everybody in this digital economy. At a time when everybody relies on the ability to transfer monies to and from, it is not just about their information, but also about the freedom to have a decommodified banking sector. When I say decommodified, I am referring to the cartels that we have allowed to be created in this country. This is where I will give credit to the member for Bay of Quinte because he understands the point, as I have heard him talk about it. The cartel here has created a scenario in an economy where we pay the highest interest rates on credit cards. We pay the highest amounts on service fees. When I was a small business owner, I went in to do a cash deposit. I saw a $5 fee that said “CD Fee”. I asked them, “What the heck is this?” It was a cash deposit fee. A bank was charging me a $5-a-month fee to simply deposit cash into a bank account. That is preposterous. We need to rein this in, which is why this is a positive first step. However, any step, absent taking control of our banking sector from the regulatory capture of the five major bank cartels in this country, falls short. We have an opportunity within the charter of Canada Post. We have infrastructure. I referred to Tim Hortons and how ubiquitous that is in Canada. Guess what? Across the country, dotting the country, there are small postal offices ready to deliver postal banking. For example, they are in the north, near indigenous, first nations, Métis and Inuit communities. They are already there, and all we have to do is give them the opportunity. We just have to give them the opportunity to provide basic banking services to people. This is so that, if someone is on a fixed income and receiving their monthly social assistance, whether it is Ontario Works or ODSP, rather than being extorted by the payday loan sector, they could go into their local post office, take that money out and try to keep up in an economy that is leaving far too many behind. It is laudable what my friend from Bay of Quinte is doing, who I consider to be a learned member of Parliament and somebody who understands the harms caused by capitalism. I would challenge him to go further than just tinker around the edges of an open banking system and let us go all the way. Let us go all the way and open up banking for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, regardless of how much money they have and regardless of where they live.

1443 words