Debates of May 31st, 2023

Motion in Amendment

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

It doesn't say not not-for-profit; no, it doesn't.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

The minister is shaking her head and saying that it does not.

We will grant unanimous consent right now. If she wants to withdraw this part of this bill, we will agree this second.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members they are not to have cross-debates.

On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to allow the minister to respond to that last comment.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is no unanimous consent.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, just to clarify, the invitation was to amend the flawed bill that contradicts what the minister just said. The minister has already had lots of time—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. This is debate and not a point of order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I am always a bit concerned about is the fact that the Conservative Party members seem to believe, on the things we are all trying to fight for for Canadians, these are things they are entitled to but that Canadians are not entitled to. I have to say it is on the public record the Conservative Party of Canada actually paid for this member to send his children to a private school with a tuition of $18,000, and yet he is in this House saying that single moms and Canadians across this country, Canadians who are struggling with the cost of living, should not have access to even child care for their children while he is able to send his children to private school. How does he square that circle? It seems extraordinary to me that he thinks that is reasonable.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is making a massive confusion. Not only is it comparing apples to oranges but it is talking about what allows Canadians to have access.

The point I am making in my speech is about when the government does more and more and defines how support is going to be given out. It has created a child care program that is so exclusionary. What I am fighting for is more access, more Canadians to be able to access affordable child care. This myth that if government does not do it that it does not get done is just false. The entire course of human history in terms of innovation and a higher quality of life comes from free market competition, other kinds of non-government solutions. That is the point that was being made.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I love hearing stories about my hon. colleague's children and the great comedian Jim Gaffigan.

When we are looking at the Matthew effect, this is one of the criticisms that has been made of Bill C-35. For those people who do not know, the Matthew effect is where increasing public provision ends up advantaging higher-income rather than lower-income groups. That is what we have seen with the way this legislation is currently written. What does the member have to say about that?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is a great point, and I want to congratulate my colleague, who has really quarterbacked the bill for the official opposition. She has done a phenomenal job doing research and getting witnesses together to tell the story about all the flaws that are in the bill.

The member is absolutely right. There are many parts of the country where Canadians are forced to live because of low income; they are in areas where there is just not that type of access. People who live in a fancy part of Toronto or Vancouver, where there are a lot of government day care spots, may be a big winner from this, because they have the ability to live in those parts of our country. However, there are many Canadians, the vast majority of Canadians, who are going to get absolutely nothing.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to start out my speech tonight by talking about something that is related, although perhaps not directly on point, if I could have the indulgence of the House.

An incredibly sad story came out of my riding in recent days. Vienna Rose Irwin, age two, was discovered in an open well outside of a day care in my riding. She had obviously passed away. I just want to take this moment to pass on my greatest sympathies to the family and to all the people who knew her. To quote, “She was the most beautiful and sweetest little girl and in her short time here on Earth touched so many.” While not directly on point, I appreciate the indulgence to send that sympathy to her parents. She passed away just outside of a day care some days ago. I send my deepest sympathies and regards, and I am sure those of all members, to her parents and all those who knew and loved her.

We will start there. I am sorry for choking up a little. I think of my own kids. I have a seven-year-old and a nine-year-old. I heard the official opposition House leader talk about having five kids. I have only two; I am not as ambitious as the Conservative House leader. I can say that certainly even with two, some days it feels like we are drowning. I love this job. I love being here, and it is certainly my choice. However, the hardest days are always on Sunday nights or Monday mornings, when I have to leave them, knowing that I will not see them for four or five days. I am very pleased to serve the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South.

Child care is a challenge in our family, just as it is for millions across Canada. The Conservatives have raised some concerns and objections, and I think we have done it in quite a constructive way. Of course, Conservatives recognize the challenges of raising children in today's society. In fact, in a lot of ways, those concerns have been heightened over the past eight years, with the cost of inflation driving up the cost of housing and food. Food bank usage has doubled or even tripled. What is scary is that we are in fact seeing more and more employed parents having to use food banks. We recently heard testimony that it used to be that about 15% of folks using food banks would identify themselves as employed. That number is now 30%, and a lot of them are parents.

I just want to go through some numbers. In 2011, the average full-time day care cost for a child aged four or younger in Ontario was $677 a month. Even at $677 for child care, I am sure that that is not easy for many parents. Today, for parents living in Toronto, it costs more than $1,000 a month to have an infant in day care. This is an increase of 67%.

Child care costs in Ontario are among the highest in the country, and I would venture to say, some of the highest in the world. In Toronto, a full-time spot for a toddler costs around $1,600 a month, or $19,000 a year. This is just one of the costs that have risen for parents; no doubt, it is an extremely challenging one.

There are also many other issues with respect to the expenses for child care. I just want to talk a little bit about the marginal effective tax rate and participation rate for parents. I know that, in the past, when I have raised this and stated the numbers, Liberals have sighed or rolled their eyes in disbelief. However, these numbers are all cited. These numbers have all come from the C.D. Howe Institute, a respected think tank and institution, and all their math is here too. If anybody wishes to challenge it, I cannot raise the report, because then it would be a prop, but I am more than willing to table it.

One of the numbers they talk about is the participation tax rate. I will just read this to make sure that we have it correctly on the record:

[It] is the cumulative effect of all income taxes, other contributions, payroll deductions and loss of tax benefits on the entire prospective earnings from work.

For a stay-at-home parent, it represents a financial penalty that must be paid out of total derived income.

I just want to give a scenario in which we have a mom who earns $30,000 a year. The total family income is $30,000. The mother will pay federal income taxes and CPP and EI contributions, with no Alberta income tax, for a total of $1,985. The dad is now considering going back to work. He has been at home with the kids, and he is deciding to return to the workforce.

By the way, I have not heard anyone in this House say it, but I have heard it said from time to time in the community. I hate it when they say that “stay-at-home parents are going back to work.” Members can trust me: It is a vacation doing this job compared with taking care of my kids. I am first and foremost my kids' dad before I am the member of Parliament for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

We have this situation. We have a mom who is working and earning $30,000 a year. The dad wants to go back to paid work. We would think that $30,000 more in income should increase the family's disposable income by $30,000, especially as a low-income earner. Do members know how much their income would actually increase? The family's disposable income would increase by $13,350. That is all. Their participation tax rate for the dad's return to work is 56%. It is in here. I am happy to table the report.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the hon. member not to point to the report.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I know.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

If he knows, then he should not be doing it.

The hon. member.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Can I have unanimous consent to table this after my speech?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Exactly.

Madam Speaker, I just want to walk members through a couple of the actual numbers. Let us say that we have a parent who is earning $45,000 and a second parent who wants to go back and earn $20,000. Their participation tax rate, as I outlined it earlier, if they live in Newfoundland and have one kid, is 38%. I have a lot of these, but I am just going to go through and pick a couple of them. In Ontario, their participation tax rate, if they had two kids, would be 54%. If they had three kids, and they were in the beautiful province of Quebec, their participation tax rate would be 66%.

If the government wants to enable parents to return to the workforce, it just simply has to stop taking their money. It is tens of thousands of dollars through the participation tax rate. I can show members the numbers, and I am happy to walk them through the numbers. That money would do a lot more than the Liberals' child care program ever would, and the parents would have the ability to spend that money how they want to.

I heard laughter when one of our members talked about grandparents raising people's kids. I have great respect for grandparents, and if it is their decision to watch their grandchildren, then God bless them. I think that is a great decision. The government should not be getting away from grandparents spending time with their grandkids. The government should be supporting grandparents.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I would like to join my voice to my colleague's in sending condolences to the Irwin family and to the member's entire community. I cannot imagine the pain they are going through right now.

The member ended by talking about grandparents taking care of grandkids. There is nothing in this legislation that would prevent a family from making their own child care choices. There is absolutely nothing that would change that. However, what I can say is that some of the people whom I have spoken to who are most excited about this legislation are grandparents. They love their grandchildren, but it is a lot to ask them in their golden hour to take care of little kids. When I travelled around this country, not only were parents excited, but grandparents were absolutely also excited about the affordable child care initiative.

I am still not sure. I have asked every Conservative member who has spoken tonight. We are just debating a spurious amendment right now. Will the Conservatives be supporting Bill C-35?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member, first off, for extending her sympathies. I appreciate that, and I appreciate a lot of the member's response, but I just want to address a couple of points.

One is that we want to enable and empower grandparents, and there is nothing in the legislation, to be clear, that would stop them from looking after kids, but if we were able to reduce the cost of living; reduce the marginal effective tax rates, which for seniors collecting GIS is always over 50%; and reduce the participation tax rate, we would empower and enable seniors to make their own decisions. Certainly we do not want to be forcing anyone who does not want to extend child care, but we also want to empower and enable those who do.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would also like to send my condolences to the family in the member's riding.

I really appreciated the member's intervention, because he seems to be taking Bill C-35 seriously and not talking only about the motion about the short title.

The bill is especially important for Nunavummiut. I do not know if members have read the Auditor General's report published on May 30 about Inuit children's and youth's rights being infringed. There are many children and youth who are in care, but who also who do not need to be in care. Preferably, Bill C-35 would help make sure that families are able to get the supports they need to use day care, rather than having their children stolen by governments.

What I do appreciate about the bill as well, and I thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for her great work, is that it includes the importance of upholding indigenous rights, because of the inclusion of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the implementation of UNDRIP. I wonder if the member agrees that it is absolutely necessary that we pass Bill C-35 so indigenous children's rights can be upheld.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that was a fantastic and fair question, and that is why we supported the amendment put forward by the NDP. We will continue to support that. Obviously, the residential schools and the stealing of indigenous children are absolutely beyond the pale, so inclusive of that or exclusive of that, Conservatives believe entirely that children should be raised as their parents and their culture want. I have had many discussions with the great chiefs of the Hiawatha First Nation and the Alderville First Nation, whose nations are located within the boundaries of the riding of Northumberland—Peterborough South, and every single indigenous child deserves to be raised with an indigenous upbringing and culture. Parents in general deserve the ability and the right to raise their children as they see fit, not how the government sees fit, through the residential schools or otherwise.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the amendments we brought forward on the Canada-wide early learning and child care system.

I addressed this many times going door to door in Calgary Centre. When we speak to people who are trying to access day care in Canada, we get an illustration of exactly what the myriad problems are that we encounter, as a society, in making sure we have this service available for Canadians. It is important that we have this service available for Canadians. I remember meeting somebody who had a three-year-old child, and she was also pregnant with her second child. She was looking at the options. She looked at how the various political parties were assessing what the solution would be. She also had friends who had day care operations in the neighbourhood, and they had different input than what she was getting from various political parties. Depending on where someone is, and the input they get on this subject, they have various degrees of understanding. They have various degrees of how they are going to access this system, how they are going to pay for the system and, effectively, how it is going to work.

One of the things in this bill that I was quite curious about was something the minister said when introducing it in December 2022. When introducing this bill, she said, and this struck me as odd, that the government must protect what we have built and make it harder for any future federal government to cancel or cut child care and undo all that we have achieved for children and families. That is interesting, because we live in a democracy, and every one of these policies we put forward in Parliament, which we hope to sustain, has to prove to be effective. At the end of the day, we are getting toward more effective policies. We try to get better with each iteration. To be stuck on something that might be difficult to amend, move forward with and progress in our society is not where we want to be. I was surprised by the minister's comments on that.

Going back to the woman I met who was assessing the child care, she also said that we need to make sure we adapt and continue to adapt, as a society, to the needs of the people who require child care.

I also looked at the issue of women's participation in society. This is the nub to me, because I belong to a generation of Canadians in which women traditionally took some seven years off, or sometimes it was nine years, as it was with my wife, to raise a family before going back into the workforce. This held them back in their career. These people are in the prime earning years of their lives and advancing their careers, and we can think about the choices they have to make because of the child care choices they have. Effectively, we see more executives at senior levels who are males because of the limitation on the years of experience women get when they choose to take that time off because of the limited options they have for child care. An effective child care system is going to advance a lot of social progress by making sure we have a balance of men and women at senior levels in both our private sector and our public sector organizations going forward. I think it is laudable goal. I think we need to achieve it.

One of the things I have always noticed about the government's bills is that they are long on narrative. We can put a big stamp in the window that says “free $10 day care”, yet, at the end of the day, we have to execute that plan. That means boots on the ground. That means understanding where the bottlenecks are and where the hurdles are that we have to get over in order to get that done. One of the big bottlenecks in the child care system, of course, is the access to labour. That continues to be one of the main problems we have in terms of accessing day care in Canada. Where is the labour going to come from? Right now, that labour does not exist. CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, actually came up with a stat that said there is one space for every three children who need it. That is not because of physical space, like the rooms and buildings, but that is because of the access to workers. The workers are the bottleneck. We must make sure we have enough workers in place and a sustainable system that allows those workers to deliver the services that society requires of them at an optimal level.

Those are not there, because, frankly, the financial incentives are not there to make that system work better and draw more people, more entrepreneurs, into a system that provides a great service for Canadians, one that is going to achieve these laudable goals I spoke about earlier in my speech: access to child care for everybody and access for women to re-enter the workforce and participate fully in executive ranks as they progress their careers, as their husbands have done for the last generation. This needs to be fixed. Making sure that bottleneck of the labour shortage gets addressed is key in addressing this. That is what I talk about when I say that execution is different from narrative.

Accessibility is, of course, number one. I have met many people through my career who were not as advantaged, financially, as many people in society. I recall the accessibility of day care. They would actually take public transit from one end of the city to the other in order to drop off their kids. They would take public transit back downtown, and this is in Calgary, where there is a good public transit system. That, in effect, is an hour at the beginning of their day and an hour at the end of their day, in order for them to take their kid somewhere safe and then get them at the end of the day and take them home. That is a big chunk of time out of one's day. That is because of what, I have learned in this process, are called day care deserts. There is no accessibility in certain areas where these people actually need this service, close to their work or close to their home. They have to go a long way out of their way in order to get the service they require.

We have to revisit this and think about who is most affected by this. It is not people of means; it is people without means. The people who are looking for those spaces are in the more marginalized sectors of society, the more marginalized economic sectors.

The ability to access this, of course, if one is of means, is going to be better than if one is not of means. We continue to have deserts of day care. We continue to have an accessibility problem all the way through. The sister of a very good friend of mine was in the same boat. She was a day care provider and she took public transit from south Edmonton to north Edmonton every day in order to deliver the service, again, because of the day care desert. There was no day care available in the very south end of Edmonton where she lived. She was one of the day care providers, and her skills were supportable only in the north part of Edmonton at that point in time. That, again, is a one-hour commute, half an hour at each end of the day. That is a long time to add on to what one is putting in every day.

There is an issue about inclusivity. We have to make sure that this inclusivity is not just for the public and non-profit sector but also includes those people who are putting together day care spaces in our communities and getting rid of the so-called day care deserts so that we can actually have publicly funded $10-a-day day care available in the communities where it is needed, set up by the entrepreneurs who are actually willing to train the people, get the funding and get the system up and running so they can serve the clientele that lives close to where they want to provide the services. These are all types of child care we are talking about here. This is backed up, of course, through the testimony at committee, by the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario.

I think most Canadians are trying to access this day care, which is a benefit. This is going to be a low cost. We want to make sure we get this into people's hands but it is not going to be available. This is an accessibility problem. It has to be addressed first and foremost in this bill. We have to get the boots in the ground and make sure we have the ability to get people into positions before we start pretending we are delivering a service, or say we are delivering service, and not being able to execute.

Having something in the store window and being able to deliver to people are two entirely different things. That is the issue here. We have to make sure we have a system that works for the people we intend to serve via that new system.