- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Peterborough—Kawartha
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $106,196.43
- Government Page
- May/6/24 7:59:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the member brought up child care, because what chaos has been delivered by the Liberal-NDP government. I would strongly encourage her to reach out. There is a call right now by child care operators and families across this country. They are in dire straits from coast to coast to coast. They cannot access child care. Women cannot go to work because they cannot access child care. Children have nowhere to go. Operators who have built their entire lives on this are losing their business. There are 77% of high-income people accessing this program. That is on the Liberals' watch.
It is another failure, and it is exactly what this pharmacare bill will be.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 7:37:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour, as always, to stand in the House of Commons to represent the incredible people of Peterborough—Kawartha.
Tonight on the docket, what do we have here in Ottawa, in the House of Commons? We have a bill that was put forward by the Liberal—NDP coalition and it is called pharmacare.
I just want to give some context for folks at home of the summary. This is the official summary:
This enactment sets out the principles that the Minister of Health is to consider when working towards the implementation of national universal pharmacare and provides the Minister with the power to make payments, in certain circumstances, in relation to the coverage of certain prescription drugs and related products. It also sets out certain powers and obligations of the Minister—including in relation to the preparation of a list to inform the development of a national formulary and in relation to the development of a national bulk purchasing strategy—and requires the Minister to publish a pan-Canadian strategy regarding the appropriate use of prescription drugs and related products. Finally, it provides for the establishment of a committee of experts to make certain recommendations.
One can tell, with the word salad here, which we often see put forward by the government, that it just leaves a lot of loopholes to say that they are not going to over-commit and that they are not going to do anything, so they can then skirt out of it when it fails.
What is the bill? It is really the crux of the supply and demand agreement. It is simply a bill to keep the Prime Minister in power. The leader of the NDP sold his soul for this bill, and it is sad because he has also sold out Canadians. It is frustrating. It is infuriating. It is exhausting for everyone at home.
After nine years of the Prime Minister, here is what we have. I actually have to read it off of paper because there is so much that has happened.
There has been doubled housing costs, the highest food bank usage in history and a steady decline in the Canadian economy, meaning that Canadians are now poorer by $4,200 per person. This is Canada's worst decade for real economic growth since the 1930s. There are Facebook groups called “dumpster divers” because people cannot afford food.
Crime and chaos are at all-time highs. There are criminals running free and terrorizing neighbourhoods because of the Prime Minister's soft-on-crime policies. Domestic violence has increased. Compared to 2014, intimate partner sexual assault is 163% higher. Online child predators are up 300%.
Recruitment and retention in the armed forces is the lowest in history. Young people believe that they will never own a home. People have no motivation to go to work because 46% of their paycheque goes to taxes.
I had one gentleman message me. He said, “You know, Michelle, we work so hard. I'm almost embarrassed to say this because I make $100,000 a year. That sounds like so much money, but our interest rates have increased. Our mortgage costs have doubled. ” He said, “I decided I'll go take some overtime because we really can't make ends meet. We really have no money left at the end of the month. We can't afford to feed the kids. We're having to cut their sports. It's taking a toll on my marriage. It's taking a toll on our life.”
He goes and works 30,000 dollars' worth of overtime and he was taxed $22,000 out of that $30,000. That was time away from his family, time away from his kids, time away from everything, to go to work, to do the right thing. Work does not pay.
Why are people going to work? Why would one go to work? What a devastation to the soul, because people love to work. It is purpose. It is structure. We work for two things: because we have a purpose in this world and to collect a paycheque to provide for our families. The Liberal government has taken away both of those things.
Our birth rate is the lowest in history. Has anyone noticed a trend here? These are historic numbers that have never been seen before. People cannot afford to have a baby. They are saying they cannot afford a home and cannot afford to have kids. They are terrified. There are headlines like that of a Global News article, which says, “B.C. mother says lack of child care could leave her homeless”. Guess what? The Liberal-NDP government promised that it would make affordable, accessible child care, that it would save everybody, and that everything would be great. What has been delivered? Absolute chaos.
Women entrepreneurs have given their life; they have sacrificed everything to care for kids in their home, and they are losing their businesses because the Liberal-NDP government is so ideological that it does not offer flexibility and choice. It has to be the government's way always. It wants control, and that is what has happened.
I visited a child care facility in Manitoba this past weekend. It was absolutely incredible. It was able to build 22 child care spots in 18 months. It is remarkable what it has been able to do. A woman who spoke to me said that the CWELCC program, or the $10-a-day child care program, is actually a risk to children because moms and parents are having to choose between feeding their kids and putting their kids in safe child care. That is the reality of what has happened under the Liberal government.
Every day there are viral videos of Canadians who say they are moving because Canada is broken and no longer recognizable. We have a Liberal Prime Minister with historic records of corruption and scandals. Every single day is another scandal or another corruption. There is zero trust with the Canadian people. A guy came up to me on the street and said he just wanted me to know that people are exhausted. He is a restaurant owner and he said he was exhausted. He said that he cannot believe we have a Prime Minister who has destroyed our country in the way that he has, and that people are so tired. The NDP leader keeps him there with the bill before us that would deliver nothing, again.
There are 22 people a day dying from overdoses. Drugs have flooded our streets, and addiction has taken thousands of families hostage. I want to tell members a story because I think it is critical. Right now, the Conservatives are the only party saying “enough with the wacko drug policy, safe supply”. How does it work? I want to explain it because I think it is really important. Safe supply is, ultimately, the idea that somebody dealing with or battling with addiction walks in and is given a supply of Dilaudid. On the street, they are called “dillies”. It is a highly addictive opioid. Someone is given 30 of them, Dilaudid or dillies, then they go out, maybe want to do the right thing, and take them and try to level out.
However, it does not work, and they need something stronger, so they sell the Dilaudid. This is called diversion. They sell them on the street, and it brings down the value of the drug. Then they seek something stronger. Then there are all of these “safe” drugs; that is how the drug dealers sell it to high school kids. They go around and say, “Hey, this is safe. It is only a buck. Your parents can take it.” The kids buy it and now get addicted to opioids. There is a whole new generation addicted to opioids.
What happens is that the addict progresses, takes fentanyl, a street drug, and dies of a fentanyl overdose. That is why we have people, especially in the NDP, who say that people are not dying of safe supply and of diversion. However, they are dying as a direct result of the failed experiment of safe supply. That is a true story. The number one cause of death for children in British Columbia between the ages 10 and 18 is opioids. It is unbelievable. There is an outreach worker in Ottawa who tells the story of what is happening on the streets of Ottawa, outside pharmacies, of dillies being diverted to teenagers.
There was an arrest just outside my community, of a 14-year-old with safe-supply fentanyl. This is the reality of what has happened after nine years of the current Prime Minister. There are record applications for MAID, including from those who simply cannot afford to live so they are applying for medical assistance in dying.
What a time to be Canadian. I have just read historic stats to members. Never before in my lifetime have I ever seen Canada like this. Certainly why many of us chose to run for politics was to correct the course we are on. It is not a fluke, and it is not random, why we are here. It is all a lack of leadership. That is the reality of what we are dealing with in this country. When we have a leader whose sole mission is power and control, we can guess who loses; it is Canadians.
There are consequences to actions and consequences to policies, and Canadians are feeling the misery and suffering after nine years of the Prime Minister. How does this impact pharmacare? The Prime Minister knew he was tanking in the polls. He had to think up a plan, and he had to think it up quick, just like the good old Grinch. He said, “I know who I can exploit. I am going to go to the leader of the NDP. He will never be in power, so I will make him an offer, make him think he has power, and that is what I will have to keep myself in power. In case an election is called, this is how I will do it.”
Every single day, I get calls asking why there is not an election. We are done. Every single thing has an expiration date. The Prime Minister is long overdue his, but he is in power, and the pharmacare bill is a big piece of it. The leader of the NDP signed a coalition agreement, and maybe he had good intentions. Maybe he thought he was actually going to help Canadians, and maybe he thinks he is going to get something out of this.
I thought at the beginning of my term, and now I know, that power and control are what the Liberals want. That is the driving force for the leaders of the NDP and the Liberals in the House. The pharmacare bill is yet another marketing slogan. It sounds wonderful, but as with everything the Liberals announce, they promise us one thing and deliver another. In so many instances, they actually deliver nothing.
I want to tell a story that is really sad. The Liberals often hurt the most vulnerable because they set an expectation, saying, “We are going to promise the moon, the stars, the sun and $10-a-day day care for everyone, except that one person does not get it, and another and another do not get it. One does get it, that guy right there, but everybody else is a loser. There is one winner.” There are winners and losers. That is what the Liberal-NDP government does.
The government set out the Canada disability benefit. The minister of, at the time, disabilities and inclusion came to testify at the human resources committee in October of last year. We were waiting. We had witnesses. We were studying the bill, and we asked what the benefit would do. The minister said that the benefit “will lift...people out of poverty, big time.”
Along came budget 2024. The Liberals were so proud. They came out and said, “Here is our disability benefit: six dollars a day.” Rachel and Jason came to my office. They are with the Council for Persons with Disabilities in Peterborough. I said, “Tell me how you feel about the disability benefit.” They said, “Well, you know, we are grateful”, because this is what the Prime Minister does. He shames people. They cannot speak out, because they just have to be grateful for the scraps the government gives them. It takes everything away from people, and then it gives them little scraps. It belittles them and make them feel small and worthless.
Rachel and Jason said that it is basically like this: Members know that old game of trust, the trust and fall exercise we used to play as kids. We would close ours eyes and fall backwards, and the person behind was supposed to catch us. Jason and Rachel said to me that it is as if the person who catches is the Liberals, but not only do they not catch someone but they got out of the way and did not tell them.
That is the reality of the bill before us, and the Liberals make it seem like the Conservatives do not care about this. No, it is that we do not believe them. We do not trust them and we do not believe them, because they have not delivered anything they said they would. We are the only ones standing in here fighting for the Canadians who are genuinely struggling to survive. That is the problem with the bill. Not once have Liberals proven to us that they will deliver what they said they will.
There are historic highs of food bank usage in this country. Housing costs have doubled, and young people believe they will never own a home. However, the Liberals get up and say, “We have done a great job. We are such good people and Canadians should be grateful. We are really good. We are great.” Guess what? Canadians have caught on. They know so much; they see right through it. The bill is just another distraction of “We will give you this.”
Let us break down the facts. Currently we are spending more on serving the Prime Minister's out-of-control debt than we are on health care transfers. This is a true story. It is going to get worse and worse because he keeps spending and spending like a maniac. It is basic economics. Anybody who has ever had to balance a household budget knows this.
If someone makes $100 a month but spends $150, what happens? The person has to borrow the money. Then the next month, if that person makes $100 and again spends $150, they need to borrow more and are now at $200. They had to use their credit card to do that and are now paying credit card interest, so they are just putting money toward the interest and not even paying down their debt. Their credit score goes down and they go further and further into debt. They cannot spend time with their family and are stressed out of their mind.
This is Mental Health Week. The number one thing a good leader would do is make life affordable. That is the greatest gift we can give our kids. They do not need money and things; they need us. They need connection and they need time. Parents cannot give that because they are too busy working trying to pay for food and housing they cannot afford because of the Liberal Prime Minister.
There are six million Canadians without a family doctor, and wait times have never been longer. Where is the bill on that? I do not see it. The wait time from seeing a family doctor to getting specialist treatment is crazy. Listen to this. Something is wrong with a person, and they need to see the family doctor. The wait time has increased incredibly. The person does not have a family doctor, so there is problem number one. Number two is that the family doctor then has to recommend the person to the specialist.
The wait time to get to the specialist has increased 195%. This is the longest it has been in three decades. People are literally dying while waiting to see specialists and to get surgery. We have the longest wait times in the world, at 25 months, for new life-saving therapies. I do not see any money in the budget for that.
Who writes prescriptions? Doctors do, so if someone does not have a doctor, how are they going to get the prescription from the magical pharmacare bill? The Canadian Life & Health Insurance Association has stated that the bill would spend billions of dollars unnecessarily on drugs for people who already have coverage. Who cares about monetary policy, right? What possible consequences could come from not wanting to balance a budget? There are 27 million Canadians who rely on workplace plans and who would be placed at risk by the legislation. It would create the Canadian—
An hon. member: Monetary policy is not fiscal policy.
Ms. Michelle Ferreri: I love how the Liberals across the way are defending the Prime Minister, who said to the reporter, “Glen, we took on debt so you don't have to”.
An hon. member: No, you just don't know the difference between monetary policy and fiscal policy. They are two different things—
2975 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 4:45:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his intervention today. I really loved what he did in his speech today: He provided honest, real feedback from both operators and families from his riding, and their recommendations. One was meaningful consultation, which the Liberal-NDP government has failed to do. We have seen that repeatedly today in the House. It is giving preference only to public and not-for-profit child care centres.
I would love to hear from him again on the feedback and recommendations that people on the ground and frontline families and operators are asking for.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 4:12:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that access to child care is the number one issue in supporting mothers getting back to work or choosing to work outside of the home.
There are a couple of things I want to correct on the record. This bill is already in effect. It is already happening. These agreements have already been signed. What we are arguing and debating today in the House are two amendments that were put through the Senate that Conservatives supported but the Liberals did not, and now we are here.
My question to the member opposite is this. If one cannot access child care, then what is it? What we do know is what has come out of Stats Canada. Under this $10-a-day child care, 77% of high-income parents are accessing it under this Liberal program, versus 41% of low-income families. Does he support that?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 12:18:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot today from the minister, and it is unfortunate that, after our pointing out the hardships and chaos that has ensued, she wants to just look at the toxic positivity or gaslight the operators and families that are truly suffering.
People are benefiting from this program, but there are more people not benefiting. It is interesting that the minister says Rome was not built in a day, but the reality is based on the sustainability of the $10-a-day child care that has been set up by the Liberals. This will be destroyed within five years because the sustainability is not in place. Infant care programs are shutting down, and centres are robbing Peter to pay Paul because they cannot afford it. Their fees have been capped for people at home. Any business owner knows this. Their fees have been capped, and now they cannot increase their fees, but the costs have gone up.
When is the funding coming to fund this? Every province and territory says they need more money. Where are they going to get that money from?
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 5:13:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, just to reiterate to the hon. member opposite speaking about child care, that is already in place. There does not need—
29 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
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. She is a very direct and honest person, and I enjoy her humour as well.
My question for her would be in regard to Bill C-35 and the $10-a-day child care put forward by the Liberals and NDP. Does she think it makes sense for the federal government to intervene in provincial jurisdiction?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/24 5:35:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do work very well with my colleague across the way. We, as Conservatives, supported her amendment in committee to support indigenous people, for children and parents to have that right under UNDRIP, and the Liberals did not.
I think it is really insulting to these women-operated child care centres. Why are they not included? That there is research that they do not provide the quality has been said to me repeatedly. I have been to these centres. The quality of child care is deeply diminishing under this care because they do not have the money. They cannot charge more money. Their hands are tied. The quality in these not-for-profit centres is also dropping. Kids do not have access to food. Parents are getting nickelled and dimed.
To say that they do not have the quality of care, in a small, independent, female-owned-and-operated child care centre, is not fair. I encourage members to go to see them.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/24 5:30:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the Liberal members have to stand up to ask what this has to do with child care because it has everything to do with child care. That is the reality.
I will read the headlines to members. These are just from the last month: “As the Liberals' universal daycare policy unravels, Conservatives could go on the offensive”; “Burlington child care centre leaves parents struggling with one week closing [time]”; “Daycares navigate financial struggles as province aims for $10-a-day child care”; “Rolling closures highlight need for emergency actions to keep $10 a day childcare viable”; “9,200 children waiting for child care in Waterloo Region”; “Alberta daycares brace for losses as [the Prime Minister's] deal kicks in”; and “Parents have yet to get the child care they deserve”.
To the member opposite, this has everything to do with day care. People cannot go to work. That is what is happening. I will continue to list the headlines: “$10 a day daycare is a great idea, but in Yellowknife it’s hard to find a spot”; and “'My son’s daycare can’t afford to stay in the $10-a-day program. Now, we’ll have to pay an extra $800 a month'”.
Liberal-paid media is telling us this: “As a London daycare's waitlist quadruples, a desperate parent opens her own dayhome instead”; and “Child-care spaces remain tight on P.E.I. despite government initiatives”.
Shall I keep going? That is the reality of this failed program. That is what—
287 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/24 5:22:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I look forward to my colleague's speech about this. I will get into that with the amendments.
Going back to what we have seen now that this program has been delivered, the Liberals love to say it is transformational. That is absolutely true. The numbers on child care wait-lists under this program have skyrocketed. Child care centres cannot grow to meet the demand. Child care centres cannot afford to operate. There is a bias against entrepreneur-run child care centres and an open call to phase them out, which would decrease access even more. The people who need affordable child care the most are not getting it. This program is not equitable. The child is not the priority of this agreement. Instead, it is the ideology.
Parents do not have a choice. Children with special needs, the numbers of which are going up as we see more neurodivergence, are not getting the support they need with this agreement. Access to child care has decreased, which means that, instead of empowering more women, it has taken away their choice and, yes, I have the statistics to back all of this up. This is setting the provinces up to take the blame when they were coerced into signing a flawed federal contract.
Let us break this all down. It is quite easy to break down because, really, what we need to do is pick up the phone and answer the calls that have been, I am sure, flooding into constituency offices across the country. We can start with just a few quick statistics of what has happened.
We know that 77% of high-income parents access child care versus 41% of low-income families. That is the statistic right now. How equitable is that? Should we not want to provide service where the people who need it the most can access it?
The labour force participation rate for women was 61.5% in September 2023 compared to a high of 61.7% in 2015. The number of women in the workforce is going down, not up. The employment rate of female youth is on a strong downward trend since February 2023, with a cumulative decline of 4.2% over that period. This is the lowest since May 2000, excluding the pandemic.
The number of children under the age of five in child care fell by 118,000 between 2019 and 2023, which is a decrease of 8.5% nationally. In 2023, 46.4% of parents reported difficulty finding child care, which is up from 36.4%. In Ontario, the proportion of children in child care was 48% in 2023 compared to 54% in 2019. Child care deserts are affecting nearly 50% of young children in Canada.
It goes on and on, and the numbers are there. The numbers are real, but when we start to listen to the stories, that is where we really have to pay attention. As I have said multiple times in the House, there are true human consequences to the incompetence and wasteful spending of the government.
We recently heard from Andrea Hannen. She oversees ADCO, which is the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario. She represents independent licensed child care centres, both commercial and not-for-profit. We are doing a study on economic empowerment for women in the status of women committee, where she said, “we have a sector of the economy that was largely created by women. It's essential to women's equality in the workforce. It's one of the only economic sectors in the country where women are fairly represented as owners and managers, and it's being not only undervalued by government but targeted for replacement by a government-run system.”
What is even more disturbing about that testimony is that not one of the Liberal members in the committee disputed this. In fact, by their line of questioning, it was clear the Liberals were quite comfortable with the idea of arbitrarily eliminating small businesses. It seems now that this was their plan for child care. That is the reality of what we are talking about, and that is why this is an ideology-based system. They had the option multiple times to help these female-operated small business owners who are sitting at home and want to go back to work but who cannot leave their kid.
They think they are going to do two things: start their own business to be an entrepreneur and help the other women in their lives and the families they know. They are going to invite children into their homes, care for them and provide quality care. What I have heard repeatedly across the country is that these women-owned day care centres are being targeted, bleeding money and shutting down.
A woman wrote to me from Simcoe. I want to tell members that she told me that she, right now, is personally funding $20,000 to $30,000 per month just to pay bills so child care is available. She said that they are committing to helping their parents by being in this program. The program is called CWELCC, for the people at home, and it is an acronym for Canada-wide early learning and child care. She also told me that the reality is, by staying in the program, they will be bankrupt and they will lose 250 child care spaces. As well, 45 dedicated staff will be unemployed. This program will close the business that she worked so long and hard to build.
That is the reality of what this program is doing. Members need not just take my word for it. I am sure that people are sitting at home, saying that I am a critic who has nothing nice to say about the Liberals. I do not because they have a record of repeatedly showing us that they cannot manage taxpayer money. All week, the news has been about an arrive scam app that should have cost $80,000, but $60 million is the total we know of right now, and it is probably more. They spent $1.36 billion on homelessness, and I do not know if anyone has been outside lately, but there seems to be a lot more tents.
The government is famous for making people dependent upon it and then taking away what they are dependent upon and destroying them. The government did it with the media, and it has done it with so many other industries. It is doing it now with our post-secondary education and immigration for students. The government has turned off the tap. Now these universities do not know what they are going to do.
1122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and speak on behalf of the beautiful riding of Peterborough—Kawartha. Happy Valentine's Day to everybody watching. I hope everyone has someone in their life that they love, whether it be their parents, kids or somebody special.
I am the critic on this file. It is my job to really hone in on what is not being done. Today, we are talking about Bill C-35, which people at home may know as the infamous $10-a-day child care bill. The Liberals have run a very big marketing campaign on it, promising the moon, the stars and the sun; unfortunately, they have not delivered any of that.
I listened to my colleague across the way, who is the minister for this file, and I want to start by reiterating that the purpose of this bill was to sell a real pipe dream to Canadians. As a mom, it is an easy pipe dream to buy: access to affordable, inclusive, quality child care.
However, what I am going to outline clearly today in this speech, and when we talk about the amendments that were sent back from the Senate, is what we actually have in reality.
I would request unanimous consent to share my time with the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.
225 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a real privilege to speak to child care in this country and to be the critic for families, children and social development. It is obviously a great honour to rise and represent my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha.
Tonight, we are in what is called the third reading of Bill C-35. For people at home, this means that after this reading, we will vote on it and see what happens. There has been a lot of study and a lot of debate on this bill. There has been a lot of opportunity to meet with stakeholders and operators and to listen to parents and colleagues across the way in committee.
The reality is that the Liberal government loves to promise the moon and the stars but not deliver. Therefore, it is not very surprising that this universal child care bill is no different; it is not universal. As critic to this file, I am here to elevate the alarm bells of parents and operators who are being silenced about the shortcomings of this bill. Do members know the ratio of private versus publicly funded child care in Newfoundland? It is 70%. Seventy per cent of Newfoundland relies on the private sector. Therefore, why would the Liberals purposely leave them out of Bill C-35?
Here is the exact language of the bill. Under “Guiding principles”, paragraph 7(1)(a) says:
(a) support the provision of, and facilitate equitable access to, high-quality early learning and child care programs and services—in particular those that are provided by public and not for profit child care providers....
Therefore, Conservatives put forth an amendment in committee, which read as follows:
(a) facilitate access to all types of early learning and child care programs and services regardless of the provider—such as those that are provided through traditional daycare centres, centres with extended, part-time or overnight care, nurseries, flexible and drop-in care, before- and after-school care, preschools and co-op child care, faith-based care, unique programming to support children with disabilities, home-based child care, nannies and shared nannies, au pairs, stay-at-home parents or guardians who raise their own children, or family members, friends or neighbours who provide care—that meet or exceed standards set by provincial governments or Indigenous governing bodies and respond to the varying needs of children and families while respecting the jurisdiction and unique needs of the provinces and Indigenous peoples....
That is a pretty well-rounded amendment, and it really speaks to what Conservatives have been saying from the beginning: The bill should deliver choice and flexibility and include everyone. The Liberals and NDP voted “no”. Why did they vote “no” to that amendment? This is where the politics and ideology really come into play. They have an agenda, and it does not include everyone. They really believe in public and not-for-profit; they really believe that they can decide what is best for people's children. That is just the opposite of what Conservatives believe.
They think they know what is best for people's children. However, in reality, this bill would actually exclude 50% of children. Fifty per cent of children in Canada are living in a child care desert. The Liberals are quite talented, actually, at coming up with marketing slogans. What sounds better than a $10-a-day day care? It sounds wonderful. The out-of-control cost of living created by the Liberals, with their inflationary spending, has made life unbearable for most Canadians. However, what they love to do is come in from the side, bring a distraction and say, “Do not look at that; we are going to make life more affordable for people. Here is $10-a-day child care.” They give faulty solutions to the big problems they have created.
Therefore, it is really important to break down this $10-a-day day care plan. Let us break down the fine print and the very important details that the Liberals conveniently forgot to mention. They will tell people we are negative. We would like to tell them that we elevate the voices of the people who speak to us, because that is what we were elected to do.
This marketing campaign instantly and drastically increased demand. Of course it would do that. As a mom, I know that affordable child care is critical. However, if people cannot access it, it does not exist. The reality is that there are no systems or infrastructure in place to meet the demand. The children and the parents are then the ones who suffer. The quality of child care is being compromised because of this poorly thought-out and poorly executed bill. One operator told me that Bill C-35 is like putting a Band-Aid on a sinking ship.
How many people are familiar with budget airline service? This is the concept where the customer pays a lower fee but is nickel-and-dimed for all the basics. For example, one pays $200 for a flight but then one also has to pay maybe 50 bucks for a seat, another 50 bucks for luggage, more money for food and so on. Members get the idea. By the time all is said and done, there is really not a deal, because the money has to come from somewhere. That is what is happening with this child care bill. Centres are being forced to charge parents extra fees to cover food, administrative costs and more. One operator told me they are 15 months into their provincial agreement, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel; this means that they do not know how they are going to manage the extra costs.
Erin Cullen is an engineer with a beautiful new daughter. She lives in Newfoundland and Labrador, and she cannot access child care. I think she really summarized it best when she compared the Liberal child care program to the government telling Canadians they are getting free groceries: “Everybody's getting free groceries. You get free groceries, and you get free groceries.” The problem is that when we get to the grocery store, there is no food on the shelves.
I think the worst part about this bill and the story the Liberals want to sell is the promotion of gender equity. How is not having a choice equitable? Erin is one of many who has no choice. There is no choice because she, like many health care workers, shift workers and other workers, cannot go to work because there are no child care spaces available. Erin has said they have to leave the province. They have to leave her home. How is that equitable?
Jennifer Ratcliffe is the director of Pebble Lane Early Learning. She testified at the HUMA committee when we studied this bill. I want to read into the record what she said, because I think it is really important. For those watching, I note that CWELCC means Canada-wide early learning and child care. Many children require additional support right now. They are still reeling from COVID. There are so many special needs kids out there.
Ms. Ratcliffe testified:
Currently, the CWELCC excludes disbursement funding that is used to hire support staff. Without this funding available, we have to turn away children who require additional support in our programs. This must also change, so that we can meet the needs of all children.
She went on to say:
The pressure to implement this program so quickly has resulted in overpayments to providers, families double-dipping, and funding methods being overlapped. Parents are stressed and providers feel like they have no help. It is clear that the provinces are scrambling as they try to prove they can do this, but they are ultimately failing. You cannot simply throw money at a problem and expect it to change.
Wait-lists across the country are growing by the thousands each month, and families are left with no one to help them. Parents need to work and if they don't have care, their only option is social assistance. This doesn't seem right. Affordable child care is an empty promise to parents if it is not accessible.
Providers are doing everything they can to accept as many families as possible, but there are simply not enough spaces. Demand is increasing at a level that we have not seen in years. New spaces must be created in order to meet demand. Private operators need to be able to expand, but being excluded from funding for new spaces means they cannot afford to. The fee caps mean we are restricted when negotiating leases and working out operating expenses.
I really want the NDP members to listen to the testimony of this next woman who testified. This is what the NDP fight for, quite frankly, and I think it is important. Maggie Moser is the director of the board of directors, Ontario Association of Independent Childcare Centres. She said:
The CWELCC program has not delivered good value for taxpayers and does not meet Canadian standards of equity. The implementation provides undue benefits to higher-income families, who are sailing their yachts on the tides of the program, while those who need it most are left drowning.
Lower-income families were excluded from obtaining access to the CWELCC child care spots. Families who could already afford the fees of their centre were the ones who benefited from the rebates and discounts, while the rest were left behind on a long wait-list.
That is the reality of this bill, because if people already have a spot, they are going to take it up. Then there are people who need maybe a part-time spot, but they cannot access it; people are holding their own spots because they are so scarce. It is the people who have the lowest incomes, the most vulnerable, who are most negatively impacted by this.
I asked Maggie about her current wait-list, how many child care centres she oversees and how many spaces there are. Maggie responded:
We have 147 spaces as well as 24 half-time spaces, going all the way from infant up to kindergarten. Our centre is 100% full. There is not one empty space in our centre.
At the moment, we have around 600 names on our wait-list. They are for spots in the next year and a half.
That is the sad part. By the time some of these people are able to access this spot, their child has aged out of it. We have people who are thinking about having kids and putting their names on a wait-list.
I want to acknowledge to the minister and to everybody that, yes, for the people who were lucky enough to get a spot, this is helping them. I will not dismiss that at all. However, it is like winning the lottery. This plan is saving them money, if they are lucky enough to win the child care lottery. That is what this is. However, the money is also being taken in other spaces, such as food, gas and mortgages. I just think it is really important that we recognize where all of the gaps are.
One problem is all the women who have messaged me, because they cannot choose to go back to work. Kathryn Babowal, who operates Les Petite Soleils Inc., made a written submission to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I want to read it into the record: “From what I can see happening today as a result of the CWELCC program, and what will inevitably continue to happen through Bill C-35, many private child care centres will not survive this transition and the investments made by private, tax paying citizens, will be instead replaced by not-for-profit child care centres that will be funded through hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money in subsidies and supports.” Kathryn says, “There are private childcare operators ready and willing to make the investments in their communities to create childcare spaces with no cost to taxpayers, but they are unable to access a free market and thus the families that choose these private centres are unable to receive the affordability support of the CWELCC Program. There are also substantial administrative costs being incurred by taxpayers to offer incentive grants to not-for-profits and to staff government positions to manage the use of funds, claims and audits. As a Canadian, as a tax paying citizen, and as a child care entrepreneur who has invested thousands of dollars and hours into building the best child care program I possibly could to support the parents and children in the community...[I find] this...extremely disheartening.” Her voice matters too.
This email is pretty powerful: “My name is Rebecca and I am [a] lawyer practising in St John's Newfoundland and Labrador. I have an 11 month old and I am currently on leave from my position.” Rebecca says, “The federal government brought in a subsidy so that parents could avail of $10 a day daycare. Daycares collect 10 dollars a day from parents and collect the rest from the federal government, however the federal government only pays on a quarterly basis and often late. As such daycares end up operating at a loss with...minimal cash flow and many have had to shut down as a result.” This part is so important: “The intention of the 10 dollar a day daycare was to allow women to access affordable childcare but it has had the very absurd result that women are being forced out of the workforce entirely with no income at all because they made the choice to have a child.”
Many of these people, when they phone me, say, “Michelle, I am a Liberal” or “I am an NDP supporter.” When we talk about partisanship, the child should be at the crux of this discussion, but it is not, because it is political. This is part of the supply agreement that the Liberals and the NDP signed together, and they checked it off. When we look at the political implications of this, at where the child care deserts are the highest, with Saskatchewan at 92%, how many Liberal seats are in that province? There are zero.
They know that. They have created a bill to try to divide us and, unfortunately, pit women against each other. I am not buying into that. I am here to elevate the voices of parents and operators.
It is urban versus rural. That is what this bill has done. It has left more people out. The reality is that so many people in rural ridings cannot access a centre. That is not how it works. One has to rely on one's friends, family, neighbours or grandma. It is not in this bill. If they really cared, they would have added that amendment. They would have said, “Yes, we will put that amendment in.”
This is a political game, because they are failing as a government in all areas, including housing and the cost of living. This is a distraction. They say, “We are giving out $10-a-day day care.”
This place is so upsetting. I really think that everyone in here came with the intention to help people. I believe that, and it is the biggest question we get asked, but this is the reality of what we are dealing with. It is just upsetting because one thinks that people come here to make a difference and to listen, but one gets sucked into these political games.
When the Conservatives asked the Liberal government in a written Order Paper question how it could back up its claim that Ontario had 92% of licenced child care providers sign on to the CWELCC program, and that almost all of them had reduced fees by 50%, it responded, “The specific implementation of these ELCC [or Early Learning and Child Care] agreements falls within the legislative authorities of the provinces and territories, in accordance with their own unique ELCC systems.” This is the proof I am talking about.
The Liberals are setting it up so that, when this fails, it will be on the provinces' backs. They are going to be the fall guys for all of these shortcomings, which everyone is ringing alarm bells about. It is not just Conservatives. Members can Google child care, and every single day there is an article about this.
The minister, in effect, will say, “Oh, the Conservatives say to do nothing”. That is not what we are saying. We are asking the government to include everybody. We are asking the government to offer choice. That is what we are saying here, and I would ask for collaboration on this.
Conservatives put forth concrete amendments to the bill for the national advisory council to track data on the implementation of the child care program, including the availability of child care services, the number of families on wait-lists for child care places and any progress made in reducing the number of families on wait-lists. It is accountability and tracking. How do we measure success if we are not tracking it? Do members know what happened to this amendment? It was voted down. How are we going to track success if we are not measuring it?
I want to put into the record, because I think it is pretty powerful, something from Christine Pasmore. She wrote that she had a family share with her that they had to send their children back to a third-world country to live with their grandparents as they could not find any child care options in Grand Prairie. She said that families are being discouraged from moving there on Facebook because of the lack of child care in the area, and families are moving out of Alberta.
She also wrote of how they had two YMCA after-school care locations announce that they will be closing permanently as of July 1, 2023, as they are unable to staff them. This will be a loss of a 127 after-school care spaces there. Parents are not enrolling their children into the education system for kindergarten because of the lack of child care options. Instead, they are leaving them in day care full time. She said that this is the first time in the 17 years she has been in child care that she is seeing this happen.
I will speak to another letter that was really important. We do talk about moms a lot, but I had this one dad write to me, so I want to give a shout-out to the dad, Curt. He said that he was writing in reference to a post and that he does not usually speak up, but affordable child care does not exist for most. He is a father of two children, ages six and eight and, unfortunately, they have been in day care since they were babies because both he and his wife have full-time jobs.
He says that they have been very fortunate to have always been able to find work and, until a few years ago, they have not struggled financially. Because of their jobs, they have to have their children in after-school programs. He describes how now, with the new rules for affordable child care, to recover costs for younger children, because the real cost of care does not go down simply because someone wants to, the fees for school-aged is going up. To add to the frustration, the amount of tax credits for child care for school-aged children is also decreasing. For Curt, it is getting to the point, like it is for so many other families, where the cost of child care is so great that one of them will have to quit their job. He said that he had no questions, and he knows it is the reality and there is nothing I can do, but he just wanted to make sure that I was aware of these unfortunate facts. He said that, like all the other things the current government is doing, it seems designed to break this once great country.
The reality is, we will honour the agreements that are signed by the provinces and territories, but I want it loud and clear and on the record where all the gaps are.
Conservatives will continue to fight for choice and freedom. We believe that parents are the best people to make the right choices for their children, and we believe that there should be access to all forms of child care. We believe in freedom, choice and flexibility, and we will fight to remove the ideological shackles from the bill.
3526 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate how my colleague is advocating for the people who do have access to these spaces, but what the alarm bells are, and what we are really trying to get across here tonight, are those who do not have access. There are reports coming out that say that child care spots are available for only 29% of those who need them. That is from the Childcare Resource and Research Unit.
Particular to the member's riding, in British Columbia, 64% of children are in a child care desert. That means three children are competing for one spot. Has the member reached out to these families? Has he listened to these families? What is his solution for increasing access?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague is always very thoughtful, and I appreciate learning from her.
She did make a comment that I would like to correct on the record. I think it says it best about the difference between prioritizing and eliminating. I am going to read her a comment that Ms. Maggie Moser, director of the board of directors of the Ontario Association of Independent Childcare Centres, made at committee. She said:
Lower-income families were excluded from obtaining access to the CWELCC child care spots. Families who could already afford the fees of their centre were the ones who benefited from the rebates and discounts, while the rest were left behind on a long wait-list.
Does she recognize that the way the bill is currently written is actually hurting lower-income families?
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it was great working with my colleague on the HUMA committee and listening to so much testimony.
I think the take-home message tonight is that Canadians are seeing, realizing and speaking up, and it is being covered in the media. This bill is promising something the Liberals cannot deliver. We have seen it time and time again. It is not just us saying that. Everybody is now coming forward.
I would like to know my hon. colleague's position on this in terms of her own riding. Does she have a story she can share about how people cannot access child care?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
She said: Madam Speaker, I am going to start by reading what Melissa wrote to me: “I'm a healthcare worker who works long hours, currently have been trying to find childcare since I found out I was pregnant with no such luck. My son is 12 months July 1st, and I am set to return work July 4th, but no luck with childcare so not sure if I'm going to be able to return.” This is the reality of thousands of emails and messages I have read about Canadians struggling to access child care.
Tonight, we are here to discuss Bill C-35, or the universal child care plan, as the Liberals love to call it. In particular, we are speaking to the report put forth by the HUMA committee that studied this legislation. Conservatives are here, in particular, to ensure the voices of parents are heard.
This Liberal-NDP government loves to tell Canadians that it is feminist. In fact, the preamble of the bill specifically says “gender equality, on the rights of women and their economic participation and prosperity”. How does that help Melissa, the health care worker, in improving her rights, economic participation and prosperity when the choice to go to work is taken from her?
Erin Cullen, who speaks on behalf of ECEs and ABCs in Newfoundland and Labrador, said that there is no choice for families when it comes to child care because there is none available. Erin compared the $10-a-day child care slogan to the government telling people that they get free groceries, but when they go to the grocery store, there is nothing on the shelves.
The numbers tell the story. A report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, or CCPA, highlights the child care crisis. Of nearly two million kids under the age of six eligible for the program, 950,000 are living in child care deserts. That means that there are at least three children competing for one spot. Ninety-two per cent of families in Saskatchewan are living in a child care desert. Seventy-nine per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador are living in a child care desert. Seventy-six per cent in Manitoba do not have access to child care. It is 64% in British Columbia. The numbers do not lie, and the reality is that these numbers are, in fact, real people, real families and real children who are being left behind.
There is nothing more stressful for a parent than finding quality, reliable, safe child care for their child. Affordability is important, but the reality is that this Liberal-NDP government is failing in all areas to deliver.
I will read some of the testimony we heard in committee about the outrageous wait lists. I asked Sheila Olan-MacLean:
Sheila, could you clarify those numbers you said earlier? I asked about wait-lists. You said that there were 300 per program, but there are 40 programs. That's 12,000. That seems outrageous when you only have 3,300 spaces.
Am I doing the math wrong?
Ms. Olan-MacLean replied, “When you think of a program that may have possibly 100 spaces, or less than 100 spaces, and it has 300 to 400 people—some have 600 people—on the wait-list, yes, that's probably pretty accurate.”
This is the reality of what families are experiencing, and it is destroying their mental health. The reality is that parents can expect years on wait-lists, and there is nothing in the bill to correct it.
The Conservatives put forth multiple amendments calling for choice, inclusivity, access, data and accountability, and members of the Liberal-NDP coalition voted them down. They say they care about access and inclusivity, but their actions speak louder on what they really care about, which is pushing an ideology that will decide what is best for people's children. They believe that the government should decide how people's children are cared for.
Members can listen to this story from Alberta, which was shared by Krystal Churcher, chair of the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs, in committee. She said:
I have one child care operator in a rural, under-serviced area of Alberta who has proudly operated a high-quality day care centre for 17 years. She has invested in creating 194 child care spaces for her community. When [she was] asked how she felt [about the program, which is called] CWELCC...she said that she was excited for families to finally have access to more affordable child care and optimistic that it would bring relief to families sitting on wait-lists.
Yesterday she sent a letter to all of her 194 families in her centre, plus 563 families on her wait-list, to notify them that she was closing her centre. After 17 years of successful operation, the viability of her business is gone. With high inflation, fee caps and expansion restrictions on private centres, her centre is financially [blocked]. She has had to make the heartbreaking decision to close a business that she built, because she can't take the financial risk of signing a new lease or investing further into expanding her centre with the unknown of a cost control framework looming. She writes that she is worried that the $10-a-day goal will be at the cost of quality care for children.
These are the decisions facing operators on the ground right now, who are deciding to walk away from something they have proudly created because they can no longer carry the financial burden or because they simply can't agree with the reduced quality of care to bring the costs down.
Where is the gender parity in this story?
Krystal went on to say:
The bill was introduced without adequate consultation with all industry stakeholders and without respecting how the child care sector has evolved in provincial jurisdictions across the country. What we're seeing is a program that has created a demand without the infrastructure to support it, which is causing wait-lists, a two-tiered system and undue stress to families and operators. Women entrepreneurs are facing bankruptcy and closure of businesses that have now lost all their value. The system is, frankly, not equitably accessible and is failing to meet the promises to parents and families. Operators are asking what the real cost is of meeting this $10-a-day goal. Parents are losing choice; the quality of programming is at risk; educators are burned out; and women are losing their businesses.
The Liberal government is the first to tell us that it does not support two-tiered systems, yet this bill would do exactly that.
Ms. Maureen Farris, director of Strath-MacLean Child Care Centre, testified in committee and said:
As I've mentioned, there are so many children who sit on the wait-list and do not have a space, and there are operators who have chosen not to opt into CWELCC and can therefore provide or offer spaces to those families. Yes, that would absolutely create a two-tiered system. Families who could afford to pay for more expensive care would be able to do so, and families who can't may get substandard care, unfortunately.
Nothing addresses the labour shortage, frontline staff burnout and mass exodus from this profession. Again the Conservatives put forth an amendment to fix this, which stated that annual reporting must include “a national labour strategy to recruit and retain a qualified early childhood education workforce”, but, surprise, surprise, it was turned down by the coalition.
This bill is supposed to be composed of five pillars: quality, availability, affordability, accessibility and inclusiveness. However, yet again we have proof that the Liberals want to score political points and are more concerned with marketing a sellable plan than actually offering what it is they are selling. The Liberals moved a subamendment in committee that removed the words “availability” and “accessibility”, which are the biggest issues in child care in this country. Why? Why would they do this? The reality is that Bill C-35 is about as likely to help the child care crisis as it is to win the lottery, because that is exactly what the child care system in Canada is like. Getting a spot is like winning the lottery.
The heartbreaking messages shared in Facebook groups, in the media and to us as parliamentarians need to be heard and they need to be addressed. The Liberal government needs to stop promising what it cannot deliver. It has put the cart before the horse, and the reality is it has failed at affordability, the highest use of food banks. It has failed in accessing housing. Nobody can afford a house. It has also failed in public safety. Therefore, why would Canadians trust it with their children?
Conservatives will continue to fight for those left behind and will not stop fighting for freedom and choice for families to choose what is best for their children.
1517 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I love the personal component of my colleague's sharing her day care stories. We all have them. As parents, we all have those day cares, or babysitters, but we do not like to use that word. We are looking for quality child care, and I thought she did a great job in her speech and intervention.
What I love the most about my colleague is her ability to see the pragmatic, numbers side of this. She has put forth a few solutions that could strengthen this bill. What would she suggest with respect to that cost analysis? How do we make this sustainable?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I just got called an hon. minister, so I thank the minister for that.
The reality is there is nothing in the bill that shows any solutions. Yes, we are addressing the problems; that is what my whole speech was dedicated to doing. However, how is the government going to create 250,000 spaces when many of these day care locations physically do not have the space? How is it going to increase the labour force? There is no national strategy in this bill. Why is private day care not represented? Why is there no private representation on the national council? Yes, affordable quality child care is critical, but if it cannot be accessed, it does not exist. This bill does not cover it.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as always, it is in an honour and privilege to speak on behalf of Canadians and the people of my community, Peterborough—Kawartha.
Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to recognize the life and service of Hazel “Hurricane” McCallion. She was what all of us inside of the House should aspire to be, which is fierce, fair and for the people.
“Rest in peace, Ms. McCallion. You made Canada better.”
Today, we are debating Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. As a mom and as the shadow minister for families, children and social development, I cannot understate the importance and value of affordable, quality child care. However, affordable, quality child care does not exist if one cannot access it.
As a shadow minister and critic, it is my job to speak up for all Canadians and point out what is wrong with the bill. It is my job to listen to the frontline staff and parents who are directly impacted by the bill and speak on their behalf.
I do not think we will find a Canadian who does not want what is best for their children. However, we must acknowledge that it is not the government’s job to decide what is best for one's child. Rather, it is the parent, the caregiver.
Every Canadian deserves to choose what works best for their family when it comes to child care. Every family dynamic is different, and our diversity and our culture are what make Canada Canada. What works for one family may not work for another. We all have different situations, circumstances and needs.
Bill C-35 would not offer choice for families. In fact, it would exclude many Canadians from accessing quality, affordable child care. This bill speaks exclusively to those who already have a child care space with a public or not-for-profit child care operator. It does not offer anything to families who have been on wait-lists for years. It does not offer anything for families who choose to raise their children at home, use a grandparent or access a private or home-run day care.
There is no freedom to choose in this bill, and there is absolutely no mention of how to manage the frontline burnout and labour shortage of child care providers.
Bill C-35 would not solve the problem of the staff shortages and the out-of-control wait-lists to access child care across this country. In fact, the bill would do exactly the opposite. It would increase the demand for affordable child care and leave parents with no access. This bill would subsidize the wealthy instead of prioritizing our most vulnerable families who need child care.
The bill specifically says, “enable families of varying incomes to benefit from affordable early learning and child care programs and services”. In a cost-of-living crisis, why is the Liberal government subsidizing the most wealthy?
This message is from Morgan, who sent it to me. She says, “I think my story is pretty common among new parents right now. I have three children, one in school and I have to go back to work in February from my latest maternity leave. I’ve been on the waitlist since I was 8 weeks pregnant and still won’t have any care for at least another year likely.” She asks whether she is just supposed to give up her career, her income, her pension and her benefits. She continues, saying, “I’m not sure how I am supposed to provide for my family with no income. Many daycares I have reached out to say they have had to shut down some of their rooms, meaning even less child care spots.”
Here is another story from an operator in Peterborough, Ontario. She says that they have a child in their preschool program who is eligible for the Canada-wide early learning and child care program, or, as many call it, the CWELCC, and who has a sibling in the senior before and after school program who is not eligible for CWELCC because of their age. Program eligibility, for those who do not know, is only for children under six.
The day care operator says that the parent fee for the preschool child is $19.85 a day, for up to 10 hours of care. The day care is open 7:30 to 5:30. This fee includes a hot lunch prepared by their cook, as well as two snacks each day, also prepared by the cook. For the senior before and after school child, the fee is $24 a day for a maximum of three hours and 45 minutes. This includes one snack per day.
She asks where the equity is in this. Families who have children over six are not entitled to CWELCC program fee reductions and therefore are paying more for under four hours of care than families who are entitled to a full day of care with a hot lunch and two snacks.
This example points out many of the flaws in the bill. What about parents who work shift work, are entrepreneurs or who work weekends? Where can they take their kids for child care?
Second, how would the bill create more spaces when the child care operator who has written this letter is located in a school, and there are physically no more spaces to put in the school?
Furthermore, how would this bill help with the labour shortage? There is no labour strategy in this bill.
Matthew Lau’s synopsis of this bill and the Liberals' failed attempt at child care is spot-on. He writes that the challenges are the same across the board and there are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone staff new spaces.
Bill C-35 has nothing in it to fix these problems.
Andrea Hannen, the Executive Director of the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario, or ADCO, gives many examples of what we can expect with this Liberal flawed bill. She says, for example, that taxpayers and the families who use the program will wind up paying more and more for it, while all children will wind up getting less and less.
This bill, like most Liberal policy, says a lot of really nice things but gives zero details on how any of these nice things will be delivered or how they will be achieved. The Liberals love to promise unrealistic expectations, and then act shocked when they cannot achieve them. They also love to tell taxpayers to just trust them.
After eight years of this Prime Minister and seeing how badly Canadians are suffering, we do not trust them. The Financial Accountability Office of Ontario says there is a committed shortfall of $1.2 billion in 2026-27 based on the minimum federal and provincial commitment. We have barely started, and we can already see there is no sustainability plan here.
Susan Cake, chair of Child Care Now Alberta, an advocacy organization, says that there has been a giant frustration in Alberta about the lack of communication, that everybody does not know what is going on, does not know where funding is coming from and does not know where they are going to get money.
I want to take a minute right now. This is very important to listen to, because as members may have heard earlier, the minister talked about how this is such an advancement for feminism. This bill would do exactly the opposite.
Feedback from the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs said that the majority of private child care in Alberta is operated by women, with a large number being immigrant women, and that the impact of this agreement and the intention of the federal government to prioritize the business model of child care rather than the affordability, accessibility or quality of care is having the opposite effect on women. It notes that we are seeing a women-led industry targeted and pushed out of business, and that women across our province are facing bankruptcy and losing their homes because they signed on to this agreement because they wanted and advocated for affordable child care.
The association also notes the creation of a two-tiered child care system. For example, one of its directors has a centre in Grand Prairie. She had a wait-list of over 400 families, so she decided to expand even though she understood the new spaces would not have access to the affordability program. Now in her centre she has her original 120 spaces with families paying an average of $13 a day, and 86 new spaces with families paying an average of $65 a day for the same care in the same centre. This is an unintended consequence of this child care program.
The written feedback also says that there are new centres sitting empty. They are fully operational and licensed, but because of their choice to be private operators, they cannot access subsidies for families. There are centres with wait-lists of 100 families but only four children attending, because the other families need the subsidy and cannot access it in that centre. These women who have invested their savings and taken the initiative to open centres and meet the needs of their communities are going bankrupt. They likely have signed 10- to 20-year leases with personal guarantees of their families' homes and assets, but the federal government is restricting them from having access to a fair market to operate their businesses. The message this sends is that the choice of these parents does not matter and that these women are collateral damage to meeting this Liberal campaign promise in an NDP coalition.
As the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs has pointed out, we must have private child care along with public and not-for-profit centres to meet the demand and to offer the choice to fit what is best for families. However, the language and intention of this bill clearly leave private child care operators in the cold. The exact language from the bill reads that it is to “facilitate access to early learning and child care programs and services — in particular those that are provided by public and not for profit child care providers”.
How can we expect to meet the demand without private operators? We cannot. We need them, yet this bill clearly leaves out any representation from private operators on the national council. What does that say? It says the same thing the Liberals always say, namely that they will decide what is best. They will decide how to spend our money. They will decide who the representatives are at the table. They do not believe in the fair market or having freedom of choice. It is not right. It is not good leadership, and it is not a good long-term strategy for our country.
Ontario’s Financial Accountability Office projects that by 2026, there will be 602,000 children under the age of six whose families will want $10-a-day day care, but the province will only be able to accommodate 37,000 of them. That will leave 38% of children without access. Government estimates also suggest that by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early childhood workers.
In British Columbia, 27% of child care centres turn away children because of a lack of staff. One director, who oversees 13 child care programs that comprise 350 spaces, said that in the past two years, they have had to close programs temporarily, whether by closing for a day or two or shortening hours for the week.
In Peterborough, we have 4,200 licensed child care spaces in our city and county. There are 3,500 children on the wait-list. Frontline burnout is hurting our entire economy and contributing to our mental health crisis, as is not being able to access quality child care.
When the minister says that more women will be able to go to work, she is misleading Canadians. One cannot go to work if one lacks access to child care. One cannot help address our labour shortage without available day care spots. They will say they are going to create more spaces but give zero details of a plan for achieving that.
Bill C-35 does not solve these problems. It is not a child care strategy. It is a headline marketing plan.
Women are rethinking having children because of the cost-of-living crisis and because there is just no access to child care. I know many women who put their name on a wait-list before they were pregnant; now they have toddlers but no indication if they will ever get a child care spot. Accessing quality child care is one of life’s greatest stressors. Any mom or parent watching this knows that leaving their child with somebody is the ultimate stressor in life. Parents need choice about who to leave their children with. It is an indescribable stress.
Parents deserve access to quality child care; more importantly, our children deserve access to quality care. If we are not invested in our children's welfare, then what is our future? Children are our future. They are our most precious resource, and this bill does not put children first. It is a marketing plan.
The following is Meredith's story:
“I have been on a wait list for my 21 month old son since the day he was born, I have never come off of it nor have I received notice that I am coming to the top of any list, let alone some of the choices I feel would best suit our families needs. I’m now pregnant with my second and have already registered this baby on the list in hopes of having more success next time. I have spent countless hours on Facebook groups, asking friends, on paid service websites trying to find adequate care. It’s sad to me because I thought I would be choosing the center/provider that best suited our needs as a family, but it would appear that we are being forced to just accept whatever we get. I have also heard from friends who applied strictly for part time care who gave gotten calls from centres that only accept full time spots. This makes me question how many people are taking up spots on a list for full time when in reality they only require part time care? This seems like a simple issue to fix in the application process. In Facebook groups I see posts every single day of mothers and fathers desperately seeking care as their time on leave has run out and they still don’t have a reliable option. I consider myself lucky, I decided to leave my job after maternity leave and start my own business because I don’t feel I will ever be comfortable leaving my children wherever I get to the top of the list first. This has presented its own challenges as a full time parent & a full time entrepreneur, but at least I am not desperately seeking care left between feeding my family & staying home to care for my children”.
She goes on to state, “This entire thing breaks my heart as I also think that while there are certainly many dads highly involved in the search for care, it ultimately seems to fall on women who are now being forced to leave their careers and remain home with their children despite wanting to return to the workplace”.
It is really unfortunate that someone cannot be present with their children because they are so stressed out about whether they will be able to find child care and go back to work. They do not have a choice; they have to go back to work to pay for food because of inflation and the cost-of-living crisis.
In terms of poor planning, alongside not providing clear communication or details on this ideologically driven bill, we have reports coming from child care centres explaining that parents are being charged an extra fee because, as everyone watching knows, the cost of food has skyrocketed after eight years under the current Prime Minister.
As reported by The Globe and Mail, “Governments' daycare budgets didn't account for inflation, and it's affecting how kids are fed”.
Ashley Collins is co-chief executive officer of Compass Early Learning and Care, which operates 40 child care programs across Canada. She estimates that Compass has had to increase its food budget by up to 10%. She said, “There's so many multifaceted things like we need to do from an operational level – make sure that food can continue, but also our staff, being able to make sure we're still putting money into increasing wages”.
According to The Globe and Mail, “Compass programs will continue to look for sales on food and adjust menus accordingly rather than cut food offerings or add them as an extra fee”.
“How unfortunate would it be that centres are feeling like they have to add that extra fee at a time when fees are supposed to be going down,” Ashley Collins said.
There is so much wrong with this bill, and I cannot stress enough that Conservatives believe in freedom of choice for quality, affordable child care. Everybody wants that. However, this bill is flawed, and simply listening to parents, child care operators and frontline workers should have given the knowledge needed to fix it.
We just need to listen to the people who are impacted by this to know what not to do. Clearly, the Liberals believe that Ottawa knows best. Conservatives know that Canadians know best, not Ottawa bureaucrats. We are elected to serve the people, and service means listening and doing something that is better, not worse.
There are concrete policy decisions that can help families. Affordable and quality child care is critical, but if it cannot be accessed, it does not exist. It is great that we are having this conversation. It is great that we are recognizing how important affordable and quality child care is, but this bill falls very short on achieving results and details, as well as providing equal opportunities for families to access quality, affordable child care.
It is because we have listened to parents, frontline staff and operators across this country that Conservatives believe we can fix this. We do not want to leave Canadians without hope. We know how important hope is. We can offer the freedom for families to choose what is best for them.
The Conservatives will put forth strong amendments to address these glaring shortcomings in the legislation and ensure all Canadians can access affordable quality child care. Their children are important—
3197 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
