- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Kelowna—Lake Country
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $131,412.70
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I will give one example. During one of our last constituency weeks about a month ago, someone from my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country met with me. She was taking about a family she is familiar with that wanted to immigrate to the area. Both parents are doctors. They have actually gone through the process and it is all working really well. However, they are having a tough time deciding whether they are going to come to Canada and come to my region, because they realize that they cannot access child care. Here we have two potential doctors who might come into my area in Canada, and they may chose not to come because they have realized there is no child care available for them.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, yes, and we supported that at committee. In addition to that, as I mentioned during my intervention, we put forth a motion that would have captured all different types of child care providers, but unfortunately that was not accepted. Part of that did include different cultural and indigenous-type providers, but unfortunately our motion was not accepted by the other members of the committee.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is exactly what we saw at committee. At committee, we had a lot of testimony but also a lot of written submissions, an extensive number of written submissions. They were not all by the large groups that are quite often represented. We heard from individual child care providers from across the country. We also heard from parents. We heard about very specific, real situations that are playing out in families' lives. That is the type of input we need when we are developing legislation so we can develop the best legislation possible, try to capture the different situations and maybe try to mitigate unintended consequences.
This is a gap that happened before the government signed all of these agreements. It went ahead and signed the agreements without all of this input from parliamentarians and the public.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are here tonight discussing Bill C-35. I would like to recognize the member of Parliament for Peterborough—Kawartha and her team for all their work on this bill, as well as for reaching out to parents and child care providers across the country.
I would like to thank the Conservative members of the HUMA committee for their work on this legislation, as well as all those who have spoken tonight at this very late hour. I would also like to thank all those who provide child care to our children for the very honourable work they do.
To be very clear, the government went ahead and signed agreements with the provinces before developing legislation. This is quite unusual, as legislation would most often be developed by government and go through all the parliamentary processes to ensure that it is as good as it can be. There would be committee testimony from those affected, industry experts and perhaps academia. Everyday Canadians could write in submissions to be considered. There may be amendments that receive full debate at committee; the legislation then goes back to the House of Commons for debate again, and the whole process is repeated at the Senate.
However, for this child care funding legislation we are discussing here today, the government has done it backward. There has been no parliamentary involvement, no oversight and no debate. We have not heard from those affected, from experts or from the general public. The government developed policies away from Parliament and signed provincial agreements, which have been implemented.
This is happening at a time when the government is pouring fuel on the inflationary fire, making it much tougher for families. Inflation is high, interest rates are high, housing has doubled, and taxes have increased and will continue to increase. There is carbon tax 2 coming soon to a family near us, all because of policies of the government that are squeezing families. One in five people is skipping meals, and food bank usage is up over 30% in my community. I know this is very consistent across the country. Affordable, quality child care is critical, but if people cannot access it, it does not exist.
Bill C-35 does nothing to address accessibility. It is not a child care strategy. In British Columbia, a 2019 survey found that, in the greater Vancouver area, there were only enough child care spaces for 18.6% of children in the metro Vancouver region. In many rural regions in Canada, large child care centres do not exist at all or may be very far apart. This bill offers rural parents, for those who need it, no flexibility; it really does not offer them anything. It chooses to ignore the simple fact that low-cost child care is not possible if child care resources are not accessible to begin with.
I spoke to many child care operators in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, who said that there have been unintended consequences. As a reminder, this legislation is coming after agreements have been signed by the provinces. We are not talking about hypotheticals here, but results that have already been implemented.
Yes, some families are being helped and have some form of child care now. However, I have been told by providers in my community that there are many scenarios playing out. One, in particular, is where high-income families are paying for spaces while pregnant, because it is so inexpensive to hold the space for their family. The lower-income and middle-class families who need the spaces are not getting them, and the whole format of waiting lists has changed. There is serious concern about the lack of focus on ensuring that child care spaces go to those most in need instead of creating advantages for the already well off.
Conservatives recognize that Canadian families should have access to affordable, quality child care, and they should be able to choose the child care providers best suiting their family's needs. The government's focus in the child care bill on not-for-profit and government spaces, which is how it is worded in the legislation. Let me lay this out in a very practical way, on a very small scale.
For example, how would a large child care facility add 200 child care spots very quickly? Many times, these are large not-for-profits that do really good work taking care of our children. No one is disputing that. However, they are not the only kind of child care provider. They would need physical space and to have parking. They may perhaps need to move or expand. If they move, they have to ensure the local bylaws are met before building a new building. It is not that easy. Smaller, independent organizations are much more nimble. If anything, this is where the focus should be, or it should be on par with governments and not-for-profit providers, at the minimum.
Once again, the Liberal government has not considered small businesses as a priority. This legislation lists what the government's priorities are.
Small, independent businesses are once again an afterthought of the government. They are not included in the national advisory council being created by the government.
It is really a shame that, as part of this child care legislation, small business owners have really been demonized. This is how many of them feel. We saw this at committee with the way the Liberals and NDP representatives spoke about small business child care providers. One local independent small business child care provider in my riding told me how awful they thought it was that the government was making it sound like they were printing money. Those are their words. She said that they would not have opened if they were not-for-profit. She considered this years ago, however, looking into it, banks would not provide a loan to get her started. She had to open a company.
Most of these small business child care providers are women. Most of them are looking after their own children while helping other families.
What quality child care is for a child should be defined by the parents, not by the government. As a working mom myself, I knew the importance of quality child care. As well, I know kids who have not done well in large child care settings. Their parents had to pull them out due to their child's personality, anxiety or special learning needs. It is not that larger facilities could not provide good care. The kids, just like adults, are all different. Many feel more comfortable in a smaller, intimate environment. There is no right or wrong.
Instead of giving parents freedom to determine what child care works best for their children and their work schedules and their lives, the government has opened the door for a two-tiered framework of child care. We heard testimony on this at committee.
This legislation does not treat all kinds of child care equally. Conservatives brought forth a motion at committee, which was not supported. It was voted down. It was to be truly inclusive and accessible and would have allowed parents to make the best decision for their family.
The amendment read, “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 day care 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".
As I said, it was not supported. It would have addressed the argument between licensed and unlicensed, because it refers to meeting standards of provincial governments or governing bodies, which is quality care.
Bill C-35 is good for families who already have child care space but it does not help the tens of thousands of families on child care wait-lists or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces.
Bill C-35 increases demand for child care but does not solve the problem of frontline burnout, staff shortages, staff training or access to more spaces. The Canadian Union of Public Employees currently reports, “in many communities there is only one child care space available for every three children who need it, and waitlists are long.”
In British Columbia, 27% of child care centres turn away children due to lack of staff. We have had centres in my community reduce spaces due to staffing. This child care legislation does not address staffing or training in this legislation to meet the 40,000 workers needed now.
It is unfortunate that the government signed provincial agreements without Parliament's involvement and without hearing from the public, as we did at committee, and was so close-minded when looking at amendments that would have provided better access to child care for families across Canada.
1578 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the government does not have any money. The government takes money from its citizens and then gives it back, and so the scenario is in fact playing out as the member has said. The government is hand-picking who it is giving the money back to. In fact that person maybe does not have access to a lot of child care facilities where they live in a rural area. Absolutely, because the government is hand-picking who it is going to be giving this money back to.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in Canada if we had not had hundreds of thousands of people laid off in the resource sector who had very good-paying jobs, if we did not have 40-year inflation where people can barely buy food and groceries, maybe it would not be such an issue that they would not be able to afford their basic necessities and not be able to afford child care.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member finally came back to referring to what the legislation is. The member mentioned universal child care. This is not universal child care. The government is hand-picking the types of organizations that are applicable for this. That was the whole premise of my speech, and I would ask the member to go back and listen to my intervention again.
66 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, sure, there have been results, but the reality is that in Quebec the program has existed for over 20 years. As of right now, there are over 50,000 children on waiting lists to get into child care.
It has seen some results, but there is still a lot of work that it obviously needs to do because it does not have complete universal child care, and not everyone who needs a child care space has it in Quebec.
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, absolutely, there are some people who are able to access this, but it is not universal, and the government is hand-picking the exact types of formats that will work for this. There are many families who do not fit within that traditional format of putting their children in a not-for-profit or government-run facility. There are many people who have their children in smaller locations, such as in families' homes, and all of this is left out. Therefore, it really does not allow for flexibility and freedom, and it is actually likely going to gridlock the current systems that exist right now in the not-for-profit and government systems.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country.
Just as a reminder, I am splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.
I will lay out some of the issues with the Liberal child care bill, Bill C-35, that will need to be addressed.
I thank those who work in the child care system and who look after our children.
To be clear, this is not a child care strategy. In my province of British Columbia, a 2019 survey found that the greater Vancouver area, represented by several cabinet ministers in the Liberal government, had only enough child care spaces for 18.6% of children in the metro region. That is bad enough in urban areas of our country, but in many rural regions of Canada large child care centres do not exist at all. This bill offers rural parents or those who need flexibility nothing. Again, it chooses to ignore the simple fact that low-cost child care is not possible if child care resources are not accessible to begin with.
However, the rural-urban divide is not the only issue with this legislation. There is a serious concern about the complete lack of focus on ensuring that child care spaces go to those most in need instead of creating advantages for the already well off. After all, affordable child care should be prioritized for those who otherwise cannot afford it.
There is no means test. Under the current Liberal proposal, someone who works on Bay Street with children already in day care will get access to $10-a-day child care the same as a lower-income family. People who do not need to work have the same access as a family who needs to work.
There is no flexibility for families who are not working the weekday office job hours and who currently have different types of child care options that work for their shift work or their schedules. That is because this legislation dogmatically preferences not-for-profit and government child care over operators working and running child care centres in the private sector. These are people, most often women, who work in their homes, who have small businesses and who often have young children.
When my son was a baby I found someone to come into my home part time. That was back when maternity leave was only six months, and it was hard to work with such a young baby. Having someone come in was expensive, and I was not making a lot at the time. However, it was the only option I had at the time as few child care centres took infants that young or would allow me flexibility with part-time needs and hours. Christina became like family.
Anyone who has this type of scenario would not be applicable in this legislation. When my son was a toddler he was in the home of a wonderful woman, Pauline, who had a group of kids. Because I needed flexibility in child care due to the type of contract work I was doing at the time, the larger, structured child care centres did not work for what I needed.
The scenario of in-home small business child care does not meet the priorities of the government's legislation. Instead of giving parents freedom to determine what child care works best for their children and their lives, the government has opened the door for a two-tiered framework of child care. Under the government's plan, only not-for-profit and government child care spaces have open access for parents to utilize the Liberals' program as the legislation states is the priority. That is not universal access and the legislation does not include strategies to address spaces or labour.
We know there are labour shortages. About a year ago, in Kelowna, it was announced by one centre that they had to say goodbye to about 24 children, because they could not find the staff to meet the government licensing requirements. That left families scrambling with little ability to find a new location with waiting lists being long.
A Vancouver operator of 300 spaces said, “In the past two years, we've had to close programs temporarily, whether it's for a day or two, or shorten hours for a week”. A report on child care recruitment published in January 2023 found that in British Columbia, 45% of child care centres are losing more staff than they can hire, and 27% of child care employers turned away children because of a lack of qualified staff.
To adequately staff the Liberals' proposed plan in British Columbia, they found that 12,000 new child care employees were required. Still, current recruitment and retention programs are failing with several thousand employees behind target.
When the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development put this bill forward, she said its purpose was to enshrine the Liberals' record on children and family into law. However, their record on this file is something that they are not strong champions of. Canada was once ranked 10th among the OECD for the well-being of children, but under the present government, Canada has fallen sharply to 30th place.
We will work on this side of the House to try to make this legislation better and more accessible to parents who want and deserve the freedom to decide what kind of child care works for their family. Looking beyond this, a future Conservative government will work hard on ways to increase child care workers and spaces and to ensure there are stable, good-paying jobs for families to keep more of the money they earn in their pockets.
962 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.
I want to start today by thanking child care workers for the important work they do.
In reading the government's new legislation, Bill C-35, I have to say that I am disappointed. Once again, we are seeing the Liberal government choosing to put forward buzzwords and campaign slogans rather than crafting the substantive solutions parents in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country are asking for when it comes to serving their child care needs.
To be clear, this is not a national child care strategy and not a national child care program. It is strictly to subsidize, through the provinces, some families already in the child care system using certain types of child care deemed a priority by the Liberals. It is not universal. This bill in its current form is another missed opportunity for Parliament to work toward creating and staffing actual child care spaces where families could place their children. This bill does not seek to shorten long waiting lists.
What is particularly disappointing is that it is hand-picking the types of child care that are acceptable to the government. While I am disappointed, unfortunately I cannot say that I am surprised. The promise of universal child care has long been an over-promised and never-delivered commitment of the Liberal Party. How do we know? It is because it has promised it since most members of this House were children themselves.
In 1984, the former Liberal prime minister John Turner ordered a national task force to study and implement a federal child care program. It was never created. In 1993, the then future Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien promised in the Liberal red book a national child care program, and no program was ever delivered.
In 2004, after 10 years of doing nothing on child care, the then new Liberal prime minister Paul Martin promised to spend $5 billion on a national child care program in a last-ditch effort to save his government. Despite winning the 2004 election, no program was ever created.
Canadians are not fooled by the Liberals' over-promised yet under-delivered way they manage. We will continue to hear from the government that it has lowered the cost of child care in Canada, and it has for some, but there needs to be a number of updates made to this legislation to make child care accessible and inclusive, allow parents the freedom to do what works for their family, and to actually make a difference for many. The Conservatives will be working on these.
Just as the Liberals have allowed Canada's once ample supply of children's cold and cough medicine to dwindle to levels so low that parents must now make supply runs to American pharmacies, so too have they allowed a chronic shortage of child care spaces across Canada over the past eight years of their time in government.
The Canadian Union of Public Employees studied the shortage and found that, “in many communities there is only one child care space available for every three children who need it, and waitlists are long.”
The Quebec child care system, the model from their provincial cousins that the federal Liberals have long said they wish to copy, at last count had a wait-list of 51,000 spaces. We know, listening to those operating private child care centres, that many have the resources and space to take more children, but they are continually hampered by the same labour shortage issues repeatedly ignored by the current government in many sectors of our economy and social support networks. Looking again at British Columbia, we see stories of day cares of all structures reducing their hours and turning away new children because of staff shortages.
646 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member opposite was using a tone that was unparliamentary. We can hear him quite fine. He does not need to yell. Therefore, I would like to make sure that he carries on with the decorum of this place.
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
