- Member of Parliament
- Member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
- Conservative
- Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $91,173.06
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I was cut off during my last speech on Bill C-20, which was my first time debating the bill. It now, unfortunately, has been time allocated. I am a big believer that all members of Parliament should at least have the opportunity to debate one stage of a bill, as it goes through the parliamentary process, to represent our constituents and express any concerns or support for said bill.
As was pointed out in the time allocation motion debate a little while ago, this is, unfortunately, the third attempt to pass this bill. It was Bill C-98 in the 42nd Parliament, which died on the Order Paper when that Parliament ceased to exist. In the 43rd Parliament, it was Bill C-3, but it died when the Prime Minister called the unnecessary election, which he called despite having voted a couple of months before the election against doing that.
Ultimately, Bill C-20 has been kicking around for almost two years now. It came out of committee last fall and was only brought forward here last month. My last comment in the first two minutes of my speech was that I was looking forward to finishing this speech when it became a priority for the government again. Lo and behold, it only took it a month this time to make it a priority and now the government has decided to time allocate it.
What is this bill about? There are two fundamental things. It is renaming the existing review body, which already exists for the RCMP, but now it would be expanded to cover the Canada Border Services Agency, too. This is important because currently the CBSA is the only public safety agency in Canada without an independent oversight body for public complaints. Establishing this independent review body would foster and enhance public trust and confidence in Canada's law enforcement and border services institutions, something we can agree is desperately needed. It is just disappointing that it has taken this long.
The first of the concerns I heard, and I know this was brought up when it was being studied at committee, was a lack of consultation. There is also the concern over the qualifications or experience required for these Governor in Council appointed commissions, which is an oversight. The third concern is the potential lack of independence for access to the information, and the final concern I have heard is with the lack of a mandated review period. I am only going to have time to address part of this in my remaining few minutes. I really want to focus on the lack of consultation because it is clear that these crucial conversations did not take place.
Various stakeholders, including indigenous chiefs and the National Police Federation, which represents the RCMP, flagged various problems with the bill. Most importantly, they felt the current framework, which relies on the RCMP to investigate itself, is insufficient and does not inspire public trust in the process. Bill C-20 does not fully address this as the new complaints commission would still rely heavily on RCMP resources, meaning that it would not be truly independent. Conservatives tried to move various amendments to increase the independence at the committee stage, but it was clear that there was no will from the other parties.
Another issue, raised by the CBSA union, was the need for remuneration for back pay for officers who had been suspended when an investigation ultimately deems them innocent. This is a major oversight in the bill, which common-sense Conservatives advocated for. Particularly in the midst of this cost of living crisis created by the Prime Minister, it seems especially cruel to punish these officers. As one stakeholder said, “When the allegations are not founded and it's found that there was no wrongdoing, we're told to file a grievance to recuperate the lost salary. It's devastating to people. You're right—I really don't know anyone who could go a year with no pay.” Once again, it is sad that it was not the will of the public safety committee to adopt this common-sense amendment.
I want to draw a bit of a parallel to something that was tabled last November by the NSICOP committee on a study of the mandate of the RCMP for federal policing. There are two recommendations I would like to share. The first recommendation states:
The Minister of Public Safety provide clear and regular direction to the RCMP to strengthen Federal Policing, including in areas of governance; financial controls; human resources, recruiting and training; and information management. In each of these areas, this direction should include the Minister’s expectations, clear interim and final objectives, and clear performance measures.
The second recommendation is that “The Government recognize that Federal Policing resources are insufficient to fulfil its various mandates and put in place measures to ensure Federal resources are appropriated fully to Federal priorities.” The reason I am bringing up those two recommendations from that report is that it is crystal clear from reading that report, which is completely unredacted, with the exception of two sentences in the whole report, that it talks about the strain and pressure that the RCMP is already under to fulfill its federal mandate, yet here we have another example of additional resources still being pulled, though for an important reason, from within the RCMP and not outside it.
The last thing I want to bring up is that the CBSA, which, if I heard the news correctly today, is potentially only a couple of days away from taking strike action, needs this additional support and oversight, because it would help protect not only those workers, but the whole mandate of what the CBSA is there to do, which is to ultimately protect Canadians. We need that, because our CBSA officers are phenomenal. They help keep us safe and keep our borders safe. We have heard from umpteen debates in this House, when it comes to justice issues, about the lack of support that the CBSA has and the lack of necessary resources coming from the government to deal with so many crimes, such as the illegal trafficking of firearms across our border.
In conclusion, I really want to highlight that this is an important bill. It is a bill that I intend to support. However, it is frustrating and disappointing that it took the government this long to make it a priority for debate in this House.
1092 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot answer a question on a bill that has yet to be fully debated or analyzed, on pharmacare. I did speak to Bill C-35 and the child care program in Quebec, and I complimented Quebec because it was able to implement something. The majority of this does fall within provincial jurisdiction.
I made the comment when I spoke to this last year that I do not even understand why legislation is being brought in on this. The agreements have been signed. There are many other things we could be addressing versus debating something that has already been signed with the provinces and territories.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise here to represent the great people of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and speak to a very important bill.
My first question is this: Why are we debating this today? I remind all MPs that funding agreements are already in place and have been signed by all provinces and territories. The money is already flowing, and I would argue, there is a multitude of other higher priority issues around affordability that we could be debating that have yet to be addressed by the current Liberal government. Further, I would point out that Bill C-35 is not a child care strategy. It is a headline marketing plan.
Again, we see the Liberals promising what they cannot deliver. Ten dollars-a-day day care does not address the labour shortage and the lack of spaces. I will guarantee today that, if and when this strategy fails and has not delivered affordable child care for all those in need across Canada in all jurisdictions, the Liberal government will blame the provinces and territories for that failure.
I point out that back in January, during question period, the government House leader had the audacity to call these current agreements universal, as have other Liberal members of Parliament. How can these Liberal MPs say this program is truly universal when the current child care space shortfall is in the hundreds of thousands. It is not universal if hundreds of thousands of Canadians do not have access to it.
We have seen over the past number of years how increasingly difficult it is for parents to obtain child care at all, let alone affordable child care. Therefore, I can appreciate the efforts behind the bill and the idea of actually forwarding or advancing an affordable child care plan. However, if the spaces are not there, it is still not going to work. I further note that this impacts so many families across my riding, but it disproportionately impacts women. The current reality in Canada, which has been exacerbated by the current government's inflammatory and inflationary spending, is that the cost of living has skyrocketed, making all of life's necessities unattainable by many families, as it appears now. In most cases, two parents are required to work just to scrape by.
I am going to focus on three key areas of the bill, based on feedback that I received from over 20 different day cares and child care centres across my riding. The first one, as was already mentioned, centres around the issue of accessing the programs, especially in rural Canada. Number two is the labour shortages, which is an issue that is prevalent across many sectors. Finally, there is the rising cost.
I know I may get a question from the government members about amendments. I would note that our Conservative colleagues, specifically the shadow minister, put forward many great amendments during debate at committee and at report stage and, unfortunately, every single one of them was defeated.
Let us get back to my first point around the issue of access, especially as it pertains to rural communities like Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I am not going to use my words. I am going to use the words of those from the child care centres in my riding when they were talking about this program.
They said that the demand for child care has seen huge increases. Every family wants access to a $10-per-day child care space. However, they are confident in saying that they have children on their waiting list who will age out of their programs before a space becomes available. They continued that families cannot go to work if they do not have access to child care. Their local communities are suffering, and having no child care has a far-reaching impact on all rural communities.
Therefore, as I noted, the primary issue around this program is that, while the government can artificially lower some of the costs through its funding arrangements with the provinces, the demand is so great that many families will not be able to achieve or get access to those subsidized rates.
I will give one example about the limitations around this program. My brother and his wife both work for a living. One works for Bruce Power. My sister-in-law works in the health care system. They have to commute 30, 40 or 50 kilometres one way. They have two young kids, who are now in elementary school, but playing sports and trying to go everywhere. They did not have access to a program. They depended upon family members or local privatized child care opportunities to get the necessary support they needed.
The second point I want to address is labour shortages. For quite some time, all the child care centres in my riding have been raising the alarm over the issue of labour shortages. While the lower cost of child care would definitely help the families who are able to access the program, increasing the program itself is becoming out of reach due to staffing shortages. One centre in my riding offered that expansion is impossible without qualified staff. Early childhood educators are in very short supply. This child care program is very administration heavy. As well as the extra work needed in centres, there are numerous government employees being employed to monitor and manage the plan.
This program is hindered not only by labour shortages of child care educators, but also the bureaucratic burden that is being put on the program itself through the additional administration required to meet the compliance and ensure the standards.
Here is another key issue and one that I can relate to personally. It is the shrinking of the before and after school programs. What I got from my local YMCA is that workforce shortages have reduced the number of school-age programs operators can deliver, resulting in a lack of enrolment fees in school-age child care, i.e. before and after school care, and in addition to workforce shortages for this age group, there have also been program reductions as a result of ongoing school closures, the pivot to online learning and a greater population of parents working from home and managing before and after school care differently.
This is something that, as a single parent, I am concerned about. As this program develops, access to the before and after care for many single parents across my riding is going to be an issue because, again, of the lack of labour.
Another issue is the nature of the jobs themselves, which makes life much more difficult for the current employees when there is already a labour shortage. Another child care centre said that, not to mention, it is a very selfless and exhausting job, often without breaks. The burnout rate is high. It is a woman-dominated field, and the paradox is that is an essential service for parents to be able to re-enter the workforce with a young family.
My final key point is around the rising operating costs. Many of these child care centres confirmed to me that the funding set out by the current child care program does not cover expenses, with many organizations in my riding stating that the funding afforded for the program does not cover current expenses. Their utilities, food and insurance have increased by double digit percentages, and every other cost has increased. Their compensation to cover these increases was under 3%, but the math does not add up. Funding rural and urban centres equally is not equitable. They are operating with huge deficits every month, and it cannot continue.
As I mentioned earlier, Conservatives have put forward common sense amendments at the committee to ensure program flexibility, so that the families and child care centres are not punished for adhering to an “Ottawa knows best” approach. Families in my riding are increasingly demanding better access to quality child care services that fit their schedules, and it appears as if the Liberals do not understand that they cannot simply lower the price of a service that does not exist.
In conclusion, affordable quality child care is critical, but if people cannot access it, it does not exist. Bill C-35 does nothing to address accessibility. All Canadian families should have access to affordable and quality child care, and should be able to choose child care providers that best suit their family needs. This is especially pertinent in rural Canada. Bill C-35 is good for families that already have a child care space, but it does not help the thousands of families on child care wait lists or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces.
Finally, again, we see the Liberals promising what they cannot deliver. The $10-a-day day care does not address the labour shortages and the lack of spaces.
1500 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
