Debates of May 31st, 2023

Motion in Amendment

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. We still have debate going back and forth, and it is not the time for that. I only recognized one individual, not two or three.

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

Why give it in the first place?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary knows better. He should be setting an example in the House.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I must say that I am immensely enjoying this. I wonder if there is unanimous consent to extend my questions and comments for another five minutes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

The hon. parliamentary secretary has a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, the rules of the House do not allow, after six o'clock, I believe, for you to accept unanimous consent motions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is right, so the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has 12 seconds.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the members opposite may want to quibble about the proportions, but the point is that in 2015, when the Liberals formed government, their policy was to rename and adjust the proportions on a universal direct-to-parents subsidy. They took our policy because it was so popular.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate this evening on Bill C-35, the Canada early learning and child care act. I believe this issue is non-partisan because it concerns the most important element of our country: its children. I want to begin with a quick level set just so that we are all working from the same fact base.

This bill sets out the vision for a Canada-wide early learning and child care system and its commitment to ongoing collaborations with the provinces and indigenous peoples. The bill also delineates principles where public and not-for-profit entities are exclusively called out for a focus that guides the ongoing federal investments established by the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, as announced by members of the council on November 24, 2022. Additionally, the bill notes a realization of the right to benefit from child care services, as recognized in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and it contributes to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Canadian parents have long hoped for the availability of affordable, safe and stable child care. To that effect, the government brought in a national child care program that proposed to cut day care fees by an average of 50% by the end of 2022 and down to an average of $10 per day by 2026. Earlier this year, the minister stated, per the National Post, that Bill C-35 would “enshrine the principles that provinces and territories agreed to in funding agreements with Ottawa, including the pledge to cut parent fees and create more spaces.”

The government had promised to introduce the legislation by the end of 2022 in its supply and confidence agreement with the New Democratic Party. While I wholeheartedly agree that affordable quality child care is critical, it becomes moot if people cannot access it or it simply does not exist. I am concerned that Bill C-35 does not address accessibility, and I am concerned that the government is embarking on a promise that it will not be able to deliver on. Moreover, I am concerned that $10-a-day child care does little to address the serious, real child care labour shortages and the lack of child care spaces.

I suggest that Bill C-35 would be good for families who already have a child care space, but it would not help the thousands of families on child care wait-lists or the operators who do not have the staff or the infrastructure to offer more spaces. Additionally, the bill would increase the demand for child care but would not solve the problem of frontline burnout, staff shortages or access to more child care spaces. Simply put, there are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone operating new spaces. The Canadian Union of Public Employees has reported that “in many communities there is only one child care space available for every three children who need it, and waitlists are long.” That is a very sobering statistic.

Bill C-35 is also discriminatory. The majority of child care operators are women, yet the language and intent of this bill would prevent any growth in opportunities for privately run female child care operators. Also, how does the government expect more women to be able to go to work when there are no child care spots available and with wait-lists being years long?

The Financial Accountability Office of Ontario projects that by 2026, there will be 602,000 children under six whose families will want $10-a-day child care. However, the province will only be able to accommodate 375,000, leaving 227,000 children, or almost 40%, without access. That is two in five families that will be unable to access a spot. Government estimates also suggest that by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early childhood workers. This is another staggering statistic.

In British Columbia, 27% of child care centres turn away children due to lack of staff. One child care director, who oversees 13 child care programs with 350 spaces, stated, “In the past two years, we've had to close programs temporarily, whether it's for a day or two, or shorten hours for the week...in order to meet the licensing regulations”.

What then are worthy policy options to consider? I have three that I hope the government will seriously think about.

First, we must enable families of varying incomes to benefit. Based on the guiding principles of the child care framework, the government should support families that need child care most, based on their income, which in many cases is outlined within the individual provincial agreements. As well, the government should not be subsidizing child care of wealthy families that can already afford it.

Second, we should address the so-called “Matthew effect”. This is the increasing of the public provision that actually ends up advantaging higher-income families rather than lower-income groups. Even in the Quebec model, despite the gains in access, quality levels remain low when compared to the rest of Canada, with lower-income children in lower, rather than higher, quality settings.

Third, we should resolve the labour shortage. There are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone operate new spaces. I think that is a point that is important to reiterate. The reality is that we cannot create new child care spaces without staff. Not enough students enter the ECE programs across Canada to support any growth, and it remains difficult to retain staff without the financial incentive to work in the field. The reality is that in British Columbia in 2022, 45% of employers reported losing more staff than they could hire, and 27% reported turning away children because of a lack of staff.

The lack of child care spaces across our country is considerable. In Ontario, the percentage of zero to 12-year-olds for whom full-day or part-time day care space was available was 25%. For children zero to five years, it was 21.3%. There are also so-called “child care deserts”. This is where there is a lack of, or inequitable distribution of, child care spaces or an FSA, or postal code region, with a coverage rate of less than one third of the child population. According to a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report that was published in May 2023, 48% of children live in child care deserts, and the percentage of children living in child care deserts in Ontario is a considerable 53%.

What are the financial implications?

The 2021 budget pledged $30 billion over five years on a national child care system with an additional $9.2 billion annually coming after that period. The bill before us is about children, the future of our country, and we owe them a duty to ensure that we are getting the best value possible for them when it comes to our hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

In terms of stakeholder considerations, the major comments coming from child care providers suggest that Bill C-35, while a step in the right direction, is however too generic. The bill does not go into specifics. Additionally the private sector is cut out of the equation. There are also significant major labour shortages, with the majority of those who are working being overworked and understaffed. Bill C-35 would be good for families that already have a space but not for workers. The bill also would do nothing to address the long wait-lists for care across the country.

There are ways that Bill C-35 can be improved. In my province, the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario suggested the following four amendments. First was to make the bill more inclusive by deleting the reference to public and not-for-profit child care providers. Second was to consider an addition that provides some guidance to advisory council members about avoiding potential conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety arising from their involvement on the council. Third was that advisory council members may also require guidance about avoiding any paid consulting or volunteer work related to political parties or candidates during their term on the council. Finally, fourth was to add additional specificity surrounding the composition of the advisory council with respect to regional representation as well as representation by female entrepreneurs and those involved in the direct delivery of licensed child care services.

In conclusion, I hope that Canadian families needing reliable, safe and affordable child care are able to access a national system that provides a viable program for generations to come.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member and his critique of the bill.

I am wondering whether he is supportive of the bill or whether he will be voting against it. We know the Conservatives are very critical of it, but they will end up voting for it at the end of the day because they kind of have to and they know that. I am just curious whether this member would follow suit and still vote for it, despite his critique, or whether he will actually vote against the bill.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the focus of the question is not on how we can make the bill better and on the very many constructive recommendations we have heard this evening from Conservatives, NDP members and many individuals who spoke, but instead focuses on what is, unfortunately, so partisan.

This is about an issue that is about our future, which is children. I wish it were not a partisan line of attack that the member is trying to take here.

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

Madam Speaker, we have heard so much in the House this evening, and the member brought up so many great points. I know he could probably share some stories, and he did, about his own riding.

I have four reports here from the last few weeks about people ringing the bells, alarm bells, on this disaster. This is one from Matthew Lau, and it says, “Government-funded media details governed-funded child-care disaster”. He goes on to say, “Canada’s child care sector continues to go poorly. This should not surprise anyone familiar with Canada’s government-run health-care system (which is a shambles), Canada’s governmental management of agricultural output (which deliberately creates scarcity) or the track record of government economic control in general."

My question to the member would be, how can he trust the Liberals to manage child care when they cannot manage housing prices, affordability and public safety?

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleague for her question. She does raise valid points.

I want to use this opportunity to actually discuss the previous point of the member who had spoken before me, with regard to the council. I think one of the best indications of one's future actions is how they have conducted themselves in the past. I think about the housing council, which was immediately dismissed, along with recommendations by the housing minister, when it was no longer politically convenient and in alignment with what the government wanted.

That is a point of concern. I am worried about whether or not the Liberal government would truly listen to experts and their advice, and I think that is something many Canadians are worried about.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned, several times in his speech, the critical shortage of staff as one of the reasons people cannot access child care in Canada.

When I talk to child care advocates in my riding and elsewhere, what comes up again and again is that staff need to be properly paid, with decent wages. Many of these staff workers are well-trained early childhood educators, yet they are not paid wages that reflect that and they are not allowed time for professional development.

Would the member not say that this is something that should be part of this agreement: that staff must be properly paid in order to retain them and grow the industry?

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. I think one of the big gaps right now is the lack of a labour workforce strategy to ensure not only that there are staff to take care of the children, but also that they are compensated appropriately for the important work they do.

That is why one of the comments I focused on, in terms of my remarks, was that, given the labour shortage, the government should not cut out the private sector. I ask the government to please look again at section 7(1)(a) of Bill C-35 and ensure that it is inclusive of the private sector and the many female entrepreneurs operating in the child care sector.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

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.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things my colleague mentioned in her speech tonight was about the lack of discussion and the lack of dialogue that the government had with the public or with others, even the provinces, which were only given one choice when they were forced to basically sign on to this type of program.

I would like to give my colleague an opportunity to expand on her thoughts on that whole idea of the lack of choice and the lack of discussion that the federal government had on this important issue.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

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.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, there are a couple things that I really appreciate about Bill C-35: the inclusion of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as requiring informed consent, as accorded in UNDRIP. Those two provisions, in and of themselves, are very important to supporting Bill C-35, and I wonder if the member agrees with my statement.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

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.

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

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?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

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.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Democratic Institutions

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about the Trudeau Foundation. It is timely that this question has come up because Canada has been rocked by this foreign interference scandal. The Trudeau Foundation has been at the centre of it, and the public accounts committee, of which I am a member, has been trying to get to the bottom of what happened, but has been repeatedly stonewalled by the Liberals and their friends at the foundation.

To set the stage a little bit, as Canada has been rocked by this foreign interference scandal, a foreign government interfering repeatedly in Canadian democratic elections, Liberals have repeatedly tried to cover this up by turning to so-called independent people to investigate this, such as people from the Trudeau Foundation, not just once but twice. The government asked people from the Trudeau Foundation to investigate the problem of foreign interference, even though the Trudeau Foundation itself had been subject to foreign interference.

The Trudeau Foundation received a massive donation from a CCP-affiliated individual, who we know about, and it said that it had returned the money, even when they had not returned the money. Conservatives on the public accounts committee said that we needed to get to the bottom of what happened to the Trudeau Foundation, the foreign interference that it had been subject to, even while the government asked people from the Trudeau Foundation to investigate.

The call for an investigation from the public accounts committee responded to particular problems created by the structure of the Trudeau Foundation, which is a Frankenstein hybrid between public and private. It is a public institution in many respects. It is tied in with the Trudeau family. The Prime Minister remains a member of the foundation. At the same time, it is organized in a sense as a private organization. It is both public and private, and this creates big problems for holding it accountable. The Auditor General has said that she cannot study private donations that go to the Trudeau Foundation, as it is not part of her mandate. The CRA was asked to investigate, but it cannot talk about any of this.

Liberals opposed our motion initially in the public accounts committee to investigate it. Eventually, they agreed to allow two meetings on this, but the public accounts committee continues to be stonewalled. We have had virtually no witnesses agree to testify. Conservatives have tried to summon witnesses who will not appear, and that includes David Johnston, but Liberals have tried to block that. We have tried to request additional documents from the CRA that would allow us to do our work, but Liberals have been, for an extended period of time, filibustering our request for documents.

At the core of this is the fact that David Johnston will not testify. David Johnston, the Prime Minister's good friend and ski buddy, has been named the so-called special rapporteur for foreign interference and is affiliated with the Trudeau Foundation. He has written a report on foreign interference that, surprise, surprise, makes no mention of the Trudeau Foundation. Supposedly, he is looking into foreign interference, but there is no mention of the Trudeau Foundation, of which David Johnston was a part. He should testify, and he should explain that.

We have a situation today where David Johnston, the Prime Minister's special rapporteur, who refused a request by a majority of the House of Commons to resign, is refusing to appear before the public accounts committee. The reality is that David Johnston has shown a dangerous disdain for our institution. When Parliament asks a person to resign from a public position, the least they could do is show up to testify about what their activities have been. The Trudeau Foundation has been involved in foreign interference, and it has been subject to foreign interference, but it is not mentioned in his report.