SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

Rachael Thomas

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • Conservative
  • Lethbridge
  • Alberta
  • Voting Attendance: 65%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $131,565.29

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 213 - Jun/14/23
Mrs. Rachael Thomas
  • Jun/14/23 11:31:40 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
Madam Speaker, the point is that ultimately, at the end of the day, Canadians do desire choice, and unfortunately this bill just does not make that provision. I will point out another flaw that needs to be pointed out in this bill, and that is overall access. We know that already there are many individuals who, when they know they are expecting or oftentimes even before they know they are expecting, but perhaps anticipating, will put their family on a wait-list in hopes of being able to have a spot, but what we know with this legislation is that it actually favours those who already have a child in care. As such, rather than being able to provide for those who would be entering into the need for care or those who would be most vulnerable or most in need, this legislation favours those who already hold a spot. Who are those who are most likely to already hold a spot? It is often those who already have a bit of money or wealth behind their name, because they have already secured one or maybe even two spots for their kids ahead of time and now they have a spot for the next child as well. That is a problem, because it is actually those new parents or the most vulnerable who need to be able to access those spaces. That is what has been promised by this legislation, but it is structured in such a way that it is not what actually what ends up being delivered at the end of the day. I think it needs to be said that, certainly, making sure that a child is looked after in a caring, loving and kind way is top of mind for parents, and it is probably one of the things that stresses in particular moms to the greatest extent. It matters, but in order to be able to provide parents with that peace of mind and that security, one has to not only provide the accessibility, but also there has to be a provision of choice. A parent needs to be able to make that decision on their own, knowing that they are entrusting their child to the person or entity of their choice. Again, this is where this legislation simply falls short, because it does not provide for that. There is a lack of accessibility and a lack of choice. Right there, we have two fundamental problems or massive flaws with this legislation. One mom shared this: “I would love to see initiatives ... that support kids being raised in their own homes with their parents past maternity leave - it doesn't feel like much of a choice right now, the government is only focusing on 'one type' of parenting model. Not all parents want to place our kids in childcare or schools so young but with the lack of support, we can feel we have no [other] choice.” In other words, sometimes parents do want to pick an elder, a grandparent, a friend or a neighbour, but under this legislation, what this woman is expressing is that she does not feel she has that option. The question also needs to be asked: What about those who work shift work? Maybe a parent goes to work super early in the day, or maybe they work super late into the evening. Then, what are their options? Again, this legislation fails to address that. Further to that, many of those who are indigenous in my riding have come, talked to me and said they would like their children to be cared for by an entity that takes their culture into account. Again, this legislation does not actually provide for that. What about those who come from a religious background or a faith background, who want their children cared for according to their values or according to their ways of life? Again, this legislation falls short. Instead, it is a one-size-fits-all approach, and it just simply does not work. I could talk a bit more about the fact that there is this tremendous amount of burnout that takes place in this sector; I could talk about the fact that there is a massive labour shortage in this area as well; and I could talk about the fact that my colleagues at committee actually brought these concerns forward and asked for them to be addressed, and the government ignored them. Again, it is legislation with a whole lot of promise but no premise. It is an over-promise and an under-delivery. It is altogether disappointing. The fact of the matter is that we have seen this in many ways from the government. In eight years we have seen it blunder one budget after another and drive our economy into the ground. We have seen what it has done with health care; we have seen what it has done with folks who are dying from the opioid crisis; we see that consistent mismanagement across our country across different sectors. Why would child care be any different? It will be an abundant number of promises and an under-delivery of services. Canadians will be left in the cold. I should also highlight that it did not need to be this way. My colleagues offered several helpful amendments around protecting choice and making this accessible. My colleagues stood up for parents and for their needs. Unfortunately, the NDP and the Liberals voted against my colleagues, which is sad and is to their shame. When people say the Conservatives do not really support child care, that is not true. We support the principle. We just believe that it should be rolled out a whole lot better. When we form government, we look forward to doing this much more efficiently, much more effectively and in a much more parent-centric way than what it currently is.
986 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border