Debates of June 6th, 2023

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do know what a dedicated father my hon. friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is. How would he reflect on the availability of early learning and child care on Vancouver Island, particularly in the kinds of areas where we both work and live?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I not only can reflect on my personal experiences before I became an elected member of Parliament, including that I had three years with my twin daughters, but I also have spoken with many members of my community. I referenced knocking on doors in 2015. Those conversations have not stopped since 2015. I have been proud to meet with many constituents in my time as their elected representative here in Ottawa. What those conversations have demonstrated to me is that there is a continued need. People need their members of Parliament to stay focused on this issue to force the government to follow through on those funding arrangements through legislative initiatives like Bill C-35.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise for my second speech tonight. It is democracy in action.

When I think about child care, I think of many stressful evenings with my wife trying to figure out where our kids are going to go and how we are going to pay for it. Child care has personally cost me a lot of money

In fact, when my son was born January 4, my eldest son Declyn, I remember joking with my wife at the time that it was going to cost an extra $15,000 in child care costs, and it did.

I was much happier when my second child Nicholas was born. He was born in November. I said it was great so I could make up some of those savings with my second child. Unfortunately, my third was born in January as well, so I will be at a loss once again.

I live in an area of Canada with one of the highest costs of living. We not only have a housing shortage, but we have a day care shortage as well. I am privileged to stand in this House. I can admit I am in the regulated system in British Columbia.

The day care facility I use, Koala Montessori in Abbotsford where my kids go, is now a regulated centre under the agreement signed with the Government of Canada. My fees went from approximately $950 for my second child down to $450.

That said, like all of us in this chamber, I am a high income-earning Canadian and I know there are monumental wait-lists to get into the facility where my second son goes. In fact, I was lucky. It was like winning the lottery, getting a spot in this wonderful day care facility.

There are so many early learning childhood educators who have had a positive impact on my children's lives. In fact, the other day, my son Declyn, who also went to Koala, and I were picking up his younger brother Nicholas. He said, “Dad, can I come in and see Ms. Elsie?” For my son to want to go in, see his old teacher and give her a great big hug is something that warms my heart; how could it not?

I am lucky that my children have access to wonderful early learning educators who have had an amazing impact on their lives. I think of some of the constituents in my riding who work there, like Ms. Krishmali and Ms. Maria. When my son Nicholas was a year old, they took him into their arms and loved him like their own child.

How could someone not love these women who devote their time and energy to these kids? They are away from their own children in many cases to do these jobs and help our young children grow into wonderful children so they are ready to go to school.

I want to say something about Koala Montessori. Sometimes I feel like my house is chaotic. I have three kids and two of them are boys. My two boys are running around and our place is a mess.

My middle child Nicholas is going to be bigger. He is going to be more than 250 pounds when he is older. He is definitely going to be over six-foot-five. When he goes down the hallway, he is smashing every door he finds. He is hitting all the walls. He is made to play football, rugby or basketball. It is just ingrained in him.

At the same time, he will go to his bedroom, he will take his T-shirt and he will fold it so nicely together. He will want to do the dishes with mom and dad. He works so carefully to clean a cup, or pour his own cup of milk or water when he is at the dinner table. That is the impact of the early learning educators who have had such a positive role in my children's lives.

My riding is a big one. It is 220,000 square kilometres of awesomeness, but not every family has what I have. There are 31 different bands in multiple indigenous nations in British Columbia.

Boston Bar First Nation, that is part of the Nlaka’pamux First Nations. I know for some of the St'át'imc bands in the Lillooet region, the positive impact that early learning educators have had on my children is not available to them.

I think about the community of Ashcroft, in my riding, which has seen a major expansion of the inland port where the CN and CP, now CPKC, rail lines meet. There are great jobs coming into the community. Canadian Tire is investing a lot of money in building a warehouse in this small community. There is a huge demand for housing. There is more need to build homes in this community than ever before. The workers there, though, do not have access to a day care facility or early learning educators, let alone nurses and a functioning hospital.

I see the positive intent in this bill and I have seen the positive impact it has had on a select number of Canadians in British Columbia, I being among them. Although I am one of those people who has benefited from this agreement, I worry about my constituents who have not. I worry about the parents in the Facebook community group Mission B.C. and Neighbours. It is a group for Mission, the second-largest community I represent. There are parents seeking a place for their kids to go. The parents are not able to go to work because they cannot have access to child care or are now kind of put into a horrible situation where they see that perhaps a relative or a neighbour got into a subsidized facility, yet they still have to pay the market rate with a private provider.

The private providers, many of whom are now public providers, were private providers before this deal. I know that many of the private providers not covered under this deal have that same commitment to quality education and nurturing care for our children that I receive at my now publicly funded facility. They do not have access to this program. A provider might be operating out of her home. She might be a new immigrant who is finding a way to support her children by running a day care facility inside her home to provide extra income, with the high cost of living we face in communities like Mission. Therefore, although I respect the intent of this bill, I am just wondering why some providers were not provided with the same access to participate that others were.

The second point I will raise is that, while the government was quick to make arrangements with existing facilities, none of the hard work in indigenous communities was done. I reference indigenous communities because, disproportionately, there are more children being born into indigenous communities. It is one of the fastest-growing demographics we have in Canada. That is a good thing, but those resources under this framework are not available at the same level that I can access in downtown Abbotsford.

I heard tonight that over 60% of my province is a day care desert; 60% of families do not have access to the quality of care that I have. That needs to change. We have to think in innovative ways to get over that hump. Recently, a group of plumbers and business owners came to Parliament to talk about the skills and labour shortage. These people are hard-working. They are small business owners and they are faced with an incredible labour shortage right now, one like we have never seen before. They cannot keep people and they cannot hire enough, no matter what they do. In fact, there is one company in Pitt Meadows. I think it is called Pitt Meadows Plumbing, and the owner of the business came to me. In fact, his company alone trains more people than the public trade schools in British Columbia combined. He has a massive impact on the number of skilled trade workers in British Columbia. He asked me why we do not incentivize private corporations to build facilities at their offices, and why there is not more effort put into working with the private sector and building those facilities at their headquarters.

Can we imagine a young woman today who wants to be a plumber being able to go on her lunch break at a manufacturing facility in Pitt Meadows or in Mission and being able to have lunch with her children? We can think innovatively about addressing the child care needs we have in British Columbia and, indeed, across Canada, if we think outside the box a little more and maybe work with more small business owners who want to hire those workers and who want to have an environment where those workers can be close to their children and maybe share lunch together once in a while.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that my friend, the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, is among the thousands of British Columbians saving $550 or $450 a month on child care fees as a result of these investments. However, I agree that more needs to be done to increase spaces. Certainly the labour shortage across the country is not specific to child care but is in every sector.

I am also thrilled to hear that the member is an advocate for means testing for various programs, especially given the Conservatives' previous version of the Canada child benefit, which was a universal program that sent thousands and thousands of dollars to millionaire families. However, I would say that this is an education program; it is all about education. I question whether or not public schools should be available to wealthier families. I believe they should be, and I think early learning and child care should also be available to wealthier families.

How can we, in a collaborative way, increase the labour force and make sure that there are more spaces in the communities that do not have enough?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, with respect to means testing, at the end of the day, I chose to put my children in child care and chose to take on the economic and fiscal responsibility of paying for that. However, I believe that early learning and education for children has to be treated a little differently from school-age programs. I am not challenging that the government does or does not have a certain role in that process, but parents need to play an integral role in making those decisions. That is why I believe that more should have been done to address the day care shortages in indigenous communities as a first priority, because my constituents do not have access to the same programs that I do based on where they live.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke a bit about workers. One demographic he spoke about was the many immigrant families that choose to become child care workers. Some 98% of early childhood educators are women, and one-third are immigrants and non-permanent residents. More often, workers within early childhood education are also racialized. We know those systems are exploitive. We know that workers are not earning enough money.

I question the concern about this focus on public and non-profit care, because after the Liberal government came out with the announcement prioritizing that, it funded 22,500 private spaces in Alberta. I do not really understand what the hysteria is about.

I wonder if my hon. colleague—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member has used up over a minute, and I want to get to another question.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the member from Winnipeg knows, the agreement signed with British Columbia was different from the agreement signed with Manitoba, where she is from. We have to look at every agreement with the provinces individually.

The Province of British Columbia, which has an NDP government, rightly gave some of the day care workers a raise when this program went through to retain some of those workers, which I think is a positive thing. My family relies on those workers. I put my trust in those women to take care of my children and to do a wonderful job every day. They deserve to be compensated in a fair way.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon continues to amaze me given how much he is like a Green Party candidate, because it is in our platform that we need workplace child care for all the reasons the member just discussed, which I would love him to expand on.

I think Bill C-35 is consistent with putting child care spaces where people can visit their kids throughout the day. If the member wanted to comment more on the advantages of workplace child care, that would be great.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, why I love hearing from my colleague on the opposite side is that we have a Parliament to parler, or to talk and to discuss ideas. If there is agreement between political parties or an idea raised, that is what this chamber is all about. We come here to do exactly that. I do support private corporations that see a need and a way to retain workers by working with their business to provide those extra services to retain workers and train them and to give child care as well. The Government of Canada should incentivize that and encourage it.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to once again be able to rise in the House on behalf of the great people of southwest Saskatchewan.

As I kick off my speech tonight, there is a core principle I really want to get at, and that is about trust. When I speak in this House, I like to ask how much trust the government has built with Canadians and whether Canadians can actually trust what the government is doing.

Before I get into the meat of it, I would really like to talk about the actual cost. We hear a lot from the Liberals about how this is $10-a-day day care. I recognize there is a benefit to people who are currently in the system, who will be paying less up front because of the program. I am not going to deny that and I am not going to say it is not a benefit to people who are in the program and are already benefiting from it. That is great for those people.

However, a lot of people email my office and routinely ask how much this program is actually going to cost. What we do know is that over five years the Liberals have set aside $30 billion to implement this program, so that is the cost we are aware of. We heard others, through many speeches tonight in this place, about the additional costs that are starting to already creep into the system. This is the cost of meals on top of the fees people are going to be paying up front. We are already hearing of extra costs that will be burdened onto the system.

That does not even get into the fact this system we are talking about here tonight is not going to build much in the way of new spaces. It is not going to provide new access to people, which, being from Saskatchewan, and particularly being from rural Saskatchewan, to me is the crux of the debate when we talk about day care.

We know day care is a universal need. It does not matter if one is from urban or rural Canada, from Saskatchewan or Ontario, from Toronto, Swift Current, Frontier, Leader or Maple Creek, one needs access to day care. There are many different ways people realize this. There are a lot of different programs out there. Some of them are private, some of them are run through co-operatives and some of them are just in-home systems. There might be a person who has chosen to be a stay-at-home parent, and other people looking for child care might bring their child to that person and have that person provide the service to them.

A lot of what we are finding out is that this bill would not do anything for those people who are in those situations. In fact, in Saskatchewan, only 10% of kids from the age of zero to 12, whether they are full-time or part-time, currently have access to day care. From zero to six, which is what the agreement signed between the Province of Saskatchewan and the federal government covers, right now that access number I believe is a bit under 18%.

Saskatchewan is a bit of a unique case. I would be willing to say we are the most rural province in this country. I think that is a fair thing for me to say. We have so many small towns. We are a very spread out province, so the needs of people are vastly different in rural versus urban. The access to spaces is different as is access to workers. One of the fundamental issues we have is the access to workers to be able to fill these positions. That is one of the key points we have.

I did a town hall probably about a year and a half ago or maybe two years ago in the town of Maple Creek. A lot of the business owners came together and arranged this. They wanted to have me out to talk to them about what is affecting their businesses. Part of it had to do with the pandemic at the time with the programs and different things, but we also talked about things that were outside of the pandemic.

One of those issues was day care. Multiple business owners have told me they cannot hire the workers they need. In fact, there are many people who came to Maple Creek, interviewed for the job and really wanted to move to Maple Creek, but because there was actually no day care available to them, these people passed on that job and passed on moving to Maple Creek.

To me, Maple Creek is one of the greatest towns in this country. It is a phenomenal place. It does economic development really well. On the cost of living, one can get affordable housing there. There is a great school there and it is close to Cypress Hills. It is close to some of the bigger centres both in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is not terribly far away, so it is a great location and a great place to raise kids, but there are people who have a young family who are choosing to not move to Maple Creek simply because they cannot find day care.

When I talk about trust, repeatedly we do not see the government working to build trust with rural Canadians. To me, that is a problem and is again where this bill misses the mark.

I talked earlier about the agreement between Saskatchewan and the federal government. Part of the agreement that they signed only provides the subsidy for kids aged zero to six. I have a had a mother reach out, talking about both her and her husband and the hours they work. They need day care before and after school, and the agreement actually does not cover people in that situation. Therefore, those people are being left out of the picture here, yet in a community like Swift Current, that is actually a big chunk of people who are trying to utilize day care spots.

I also want to talk a bit about my own story. My wife and I have three kids, and they are fantastic. They are 12, 10 and eight years old. When my wife and I had our first child, we had a great conversation, talking about what our goals as parents were. One of our goals was something that we even talked about when we were first married; it was that my wife wanted to be a stay-at-home mom. This meant that we had to plan out a few things. We had to figure out how we were going to make that work and what that was going to look like. We had to make some big decisions, such as where we were going to live, where we could afford to live and what kind of vehicle we were going to drive.

We had to make a lot of sacrifices. For example, a lot of our friends would go on these big, elaborate trips, and we never did that. For us, a trip was driving from Swift Current to Saskatoon. That was our summer vacation, but that was because it was all we could afford with the goal of having my wife be a stay-at-home mom raising our kids. That just meant that disposable income was not necessarily there. Those were some of the sacrifices we had to make. However, the bill before us would not have any provisions for people who are choosing to stay at home and raise their own kids.

As we added more kids to the mix, it definitely changed that dynamic. My wife was a stay-at-home mom from 2011 all the way up until about 2019. Then, she was first able to go back to work, because our kids were old enough. All three of them were in school at that point in time, and she was able to find some part-time work where she could work during the school day but be home when school was over, so she could be there for the kids when they got home.

I recognize that this reality is not available for everybody, but there is a lot of sacrifice that is required to do that. Therefore, I think it is really important that we talk about the government respecting families that have made that decision. I have listened to Liberal speeches at report stage here and also at second reading, and to paraphrase them, what I heard repeatedly from that side and from some of the other opposition parties was that women are only of value if they are working; they are not of value if they are staying at home. I think that is completely bonkers. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Being a mother is a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week job. There is no break from it. As husbands, we come in and try to do what we can, but there is no replacing a mom in the house. My wife and many other moms we have talked to talk about the commitment it takes, how much work and effort go into it, and how it is more tiring and more gruelling being a stay-at-home mother and being with the kids compared with going to work. However, it is also more rewarding.

I recognize that some people are dedicated to their profession, and they have chosen that professional life, which is awesome. It is fantastic that they are doing that, and we want them to be able to do that. They should have that choice and the ability to do that, but the signalling we are getting the government is that a woman who decides to stay at home has no inherent value, because she is not working. That is the vibe we get from the government. That is the message it is signalling, and that is wrong. The value a stay-at-home parent has, even if the father does stay at home with the kids, is extremely valuable. Society, the kids we raise and the system generally, at large, all benefit from that.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, the notion that somehow anybody in this House has devalued the importance of women in parenting roles is absurd. This is all about choice. This program has helped so many women and fathers go back to work earlier as a result of this subsidy. For what it is worth, I know lots of men who are the primary caretakers and lots of women who are the primary earners in those relationships, and I think it is wonderful that we live in a country where people can have that choice.

The member, prior to that absurd allegation that our government does not value women who stay home to care for their children, which I find offensive, was talking about—

[An hon. member]

He's offended.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, I am offended. As the product of a single mother, I am quite offended by that.

The suggestion that it costs too much to provide an early learning and child care program was also false. When women go back to work, they tend to earn money and pay taxes, and that pays for programs like this. I would like the member to appreciate that.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think it is clause 7 of the bill that talks about funding, but it only talks about the not-for-profit care providers. There is no provision for moms who decide to stay at home and raise their kids. That is the problem.

What actions are the Liberals taking? I have listened to their speeches. I have not for a single speech, ever since second reading, seen one of them get up and talk about the value and importance of a parent being at home with their kids. It could be a father. It could be that the mother is the primary earner, and that is fine; no one is begrudging that. The point is that if somebody decides to stay at home with their kids, there is zero commitment from the government to make sure those people can actually afford to do that, even though a huge percentage of the population would like to do that but cannot because of the predicament the government has put them in.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I found it very shocking that the member, when referring to women who stay home with their children, said they are not working. In fact, that is probably, as a mother, one of the hardest jobs I have had. I just want to remind the member that most unpaid care work is done by women.

Getting back to respecting women, I would also like to remind the member that 98% of early childhood educators are women and they are not earning a livable wage, which is one of the very reasons we have the child care desert that the members keep talking about. When we talk to Conservatives about putting in a plan for workers that pays livable wages and that invests in robust, public not-for-profit care where workers get benefits, wages and retirement, they seem to overlook that question.

Does the member support livable wages and a workforce strategy that pays livable wages, benefits and retirement for early childhood educators, yes or no?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, obviously I support livable wages. I also support an economy where people can afford to live without having to be massively topped up and subsidized by the government. People should be able to have paycheques that actually reward them for the work they are doing.

I also said in my speech, though, that mothers or stay-at-home fathers, and it does not matter which one, are working 24-7 parenting. Whether it is the mother or the father, it is a 24-7 job. I know that my kids, when they wake up with a fever or something like that, are not calling for dad; they are calling for mom. Moms are on call 24-7. It is the hardest but most rewarding job there can be on this earth, and the government fails to recognize that.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, my question is very brief.

I know the member represents a large rural constituency, as do I, his in Saskatchewan and mine in Alberta. I wonder if the member could reflect a bit further on how rural is left out of the entire conversation when it comes to this bill and the overall approach by the government on a whole host of issues but specifically when it comes to child care.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. If we look at a lot of the day care spaces that are the beneficiaries of this program, they are largely in urban centres. Because the majority of private facilities are in rural communities, quite often it is the small-town co-operative that is left out. People are relying on grandma and relying on their aunts and uncles or friends down the road to take care of their kids for them, and this bill does not recognize that.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is 11:30 at night, and it has been a long week here so far, but I am proud to join the discussion and debate tonight on child care affordability in our country.

One of the most difficult things we do at times is humanize ourselves and, more importantly, humanize the debates we are having here about improvements, and helping Canadians and families. I do not have any children. Tonight, as we have this conversation about Bill C-35, I am thinking of my nieces and nephews Kane, Johnny, Hailey and little Evy. The best part is the title that I have is “Unckie Dunkie”. I am going to have to tell the Table here how to spell that for Hansard afterward for the record. I have the best job in the world. If we go to a family function or event, I feed the kids candy and Coca-Cola, or whatever they want. I fire them up on sugar and I get to leave at the end of the night, and my sisters, stepsisters and siblings have to put up with getting them to sleep. Therefore, I have to say I am a bit biased. I have a very good role as “Unckie Dunkie”.

I want to contribute to what has been talked a lot about here tonight, and over the course of the past few weeks, when it comes to the Liberal and NDP plan on child care.

One of the things I have said many times, on many pieces of legislation, is that the Liberals are the best in the communications business when it comes to making flashy announcements. I have always said they get an A for announcement and an F for follow-through on the realization of what they are talking about. This conversation on child care is another perfect illustration of that. Here is the problem. If we were to listen to Liberal and NDP speakers, they would make it seem that the framework for this legislation and the money allocated to it is available to every single parent and child in this country when that is not the case.

We can look at a recent headline across the country on CTV News within the last month, entitled, “New report finds child-care spots available for only 29 per cent of those who need it”. The CBC highlighted, through that same report, another important angle, that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador only has enough registered spaces for 14% of children.

We, as Conservatives, have been highlighting that this is not the be-all and end-all solution to child care affordability, because the number of families that are going to be able to tap into this program is very limited. The desert of child care spaces available in this country is very large and is frankly growing. Many advocates are saying that the problem, under the Liberals over the course of the last eight years, is getting worse, not better, when it comes to spaces and affordability for far too many families.

The other thing I want to contribute, which is a regular thing when it comes to Liberal legislation we see in the House, is that I would call this a bit of a Seinfeld bill. The issue and title of the bill are perhaps worthwhile, but not its content. The Liberals and NDP would make us think that if it did not pass immediately without debate, if we pass it no further, if we do take the time at committee and in the House to share our stories and perspectives, that the financial deals with the provinces are somehow in jeopardy. That is not the case whatsoever. Those deals were signed separately.

Bill C-35 is a vague framework, and like many pieces of legislation, it does not get into the details, but rather kicks things over to the minister in charge of the file to make decisions outside the House, and through regulation afterward.

The interesting thing is this. I have to commend my colleague, who is over my shoulder right now, which is perfect, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, who has been a fantastic voice for our caucus and our party on this. I want to talk about some of the things we tried to do to strengthen the quality, accountability and transparency of the bill to get the true record of what the Liberals and NDP claim they will be doing in the coming years.

We tried to pass amendments on two things, the wait-lists, and the labour rates and number of staffing in child care across the country. If this is going to address spaces, and not create major wait-lists to tap into the program, the government should table a report every year with respect to what the wait-lists are. It refused. The Liberals and the NDP voted that down.

When we said there should be an annual report on the labour force around child care, getting people into those jobs, into those positions, into those new spaces being created to see if the Liberals are following through with what they said they would do, they voted that down as well. That tells us everything we need to know about what this legislation and the plan will do for the overwhelming majority of Canadian families, who are not eligible or able to tap into this.

If there was not going to be a wait-list, if the wait-list was going to be decreasing and solving all the problems, if there was going to be a massive change and surge in labour to address those challenges, one would think the Liberals and NDP would be confident, saying they would absolutely love a report every year. This would show how they are doing better and making improvements. The fact that they voted it down, the fact that they denied that accountability and transparency, tells Canadians everything they need to know about what this plan would do.

I have to say, along the lines of the NDP, what will happen. I was a member of the public accounts committee, a great committee that reads through Auditor General reports. Time and time again, Liberal and NDP members are trying to explain that “A” for announcement, this amazing announcement they have about spending record amounts of money, adding to the deficit, adding more spending. Every time someone criticizes a program, they say not to worry, they have x number of dollars more. The Auditor General is concluding from her independent office that time and time again, the announcement and the follow-through are two completely different things.

As Conservatives, we will continue to fight for Canadians and families to address the root causes, doing more than what is being done here. The principle of affordable child care has been mentioned a few times here tonight. I believe it is a reasonable principle that everybody in this House shares. What Conservatives are fighting for and speaking about is that, in this legislation, in this framework and in the plan that the Liberals and NDP have, there is a lack of flexibility and choice.

I talked about personalizing this debate. I have talked about my nieces and nephews, and my nephew Kane. My sister Jill and her husband, Cody, were very blessed. As Kane grew up and was going into child care before starting school, there was Cassandra Tibben, a neighbour of Jill and Cody's just north of Iroquois, who did an incredible job in her few years with Kane. She was a home care provider just a couple of hundred feet from their place. Jill is a nurse, and Cody works in construction. Cassandra offered that service close to home with flexible hours, and it was a connection in a small town like Iroquois, like in South Dundas and like in eastern Ontario. Under the framework and program that the Liberals have put the funding envelope in, that type of home care is not eligible.

I am thinking tonight of some communities in northern Ontario. I am thinking of Blind River, Wawa, Kapuskasing and Hearst, where there would be some not-for-profit spaces. However, for a shift worker who is 45 minutes out of those towns and looking for home care, the framework that the Liberals and NDP are proposing is very rigid. It leaves out many providers and the finances of many providers, even getting assistance through this, and it leaves a lot of families with no option and no hope through this existing framework.

I am very proud of the work the Conservative caucus has been doing in talking not only about affordability but also choice for parents. Parents need that flexibility. Shift workers, people in rural areas and parents with children with disabilities need more flexibility than what is being offered. We will continue to fight in this House, in committee and across the country to let families know that every single time, these big, flashy Liberal announcements do not follow through with results. Conservatives are results-oriented, and we will keep holding the government to account for its continued failures. Child care, I am sure, through the Auditor General and through the public accounts process, will be the same; it will be another part where the rhetoric does not match the reality.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member opposite was able to personalize a little, and I can too. Last Friday, I was walking through Milton and knocking on doors. In between doors, I talked to Teddy, who was pushing his son in a little stroller. Teddy's son was driving the stroller, actually. I asked how his family was doing. I said I knew there are tough financial times right now and asked if everybody was doing well. He said the big thing is that his family is saving $500 or $600 a month on child care. The Conservatives have repeatedly called this program a failure, saying that investing in a child care program for Canadians is a failure.

I can tell the member first-hand that this is not a question for Teddy's family. Canadians are provided with the kind of support that they are demanding from us. It is saving families a lot of money. It might not be reaching every single family in Canada yet, but it is a great start, and Teddy's family is very grateful.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, Teddy is an example of where somebody is tapping into the program. If they have access to it, if they already have a space, they are able and they are eligible for it, but for every one Teddy, there are probably two or three more, right in Milton, who are not able to go into that program, who are not realizing those savings, who are not seeing those spaces, who are not seeing that increase.

Again, what the member, the Liberals and NDP fail to realize is that for every Teddy, there are multiple other Teddys who are not able to tap into this program. Their child care fees are not being reduced, and instead their taxes are going up, their financial situation, if it is their house price, their mortgage, their rent or trying to save for a down payment on a home, that has all doubled. There are many families being left behind.

It is nowhere near as universal as the Liberals and NDP claim and want us to believe.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, in Quebec, we have experience with day cares that are public and accessible to families who have less money. Is the system perfect and are there always enough day care spaces for everyone? The answer is, of course not. Is that a reason to do nothing and to leave it all up to private, for-profit day cares that cost a fortune? The answer, again, is no.

The framework must be set up, and then workers and space need to be found to create spaces for our families' children. That is how we can get ahead and make some progress.

The Conservatives talk to us about choice, but, right now, the only choice people have if they cannot access a day care that is not expensive but affordable is to stay at home because it costs more to pay for a private day care than it does to go to work, because work does not bring in enough money. That is not a real choice; it is a lack of choice.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, the choice is to do the right thing and provide the flexibility for parents to do what it is best in their family situation.

That would mean expanding the opportunity and the eligibility for assistance beyond not-for-profit and public centres, offering home care as an option that is in people's homes, a couple of blocks away, in their neighbourhood. It means providing the choice and that funding to go towards people who are shift workers in health care and factories, in rural and urban areas alike.

The problem, time and time again, and I agree with the NDP that doing something is one thing, but they are not doing enough. They are not providing the flexibility or the choice for parents to actually make a difference, using those tools and those options that work for best for their choice, not what the Liberals and NDP tell them are the best.

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

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy the member's interventions, and now I do not know that I can ever not call him “Unckie Dunkie” for the rest of his life.

What the member does so well is articulate and elevate the voices of his constituents. Are there are other stories that he would like to share with the House that really highlight the gaps that have not been closed by these Liberals and the NDP?