Michelle Ferreri

[Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act, February 14th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the Liberal members have to stand up to ask what this has to do with child care because it has everything to do with child care. That is the reality.

I will read the headlines to members. These are just from the last month: “As the Liberals' universal daycare policy unravels, Conservatives could go on the offensive”; “Burlington child care centre leaves parents struggling with one week closing [time]”; “Daycares navigate financial struggles as province aims for $10-a-day child care”; “Rolling closures highlight need for emergency actions to keep $10 a day childcare viable”; “9,200 children waiting for child care in Waterloo Region”; “Alberta daycares brace for losses as [the Prime Minister's] deal kicks in”; and “Parents have yet to get the child care they deserve”.

To the member opposite, this has everything to do with day care. People cannot go to work. That is what is happening. I will continue to list the headlines: “$10 a day daycare is a great idea, but in Yellowknife it’s hard to find a spot”; and “'My son’s daycare can’t afford to stay in the $10-a-day program. Now, we’ll have to pay an extra $800 a month'”.

Liberal-paid media is telling us this: “As a London daycare's waitlist quadruples, a desperate parent opens her own dayhome instead”; and “Child-care spaces remain tight on P.E.I. despite government initiatives”.

Shall I keep going? That is the reality of this failed program. That is what—

[Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act, February 14th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to my colleague's speech about this. I will get into that with the amendments.

Going back to what we have seen now that this program has been delivered, the Liberals love to say it is transformational. That is absolutely true. The numbers on child care wait-lists under this program have skyrocketed. Child care centres cannot grow to meet the demand. Child care centres cannot afford to operate. There is a bias against entrepreneur-run child care centres and an open call to phase them out, which would decrease access even more. The people who need affordable child care the most are not getting it. This program is not equitable. The child is not the priority of this agreement. Instead, it is the ideology.

Parents do not have a choice. Children with special needs, the numbers of which are going up as we see more neurodivergence, are not getting the support they need with this agreement. Access to child care has decreased, which means that, instead of empowering more women, it has taken away their choice and, yes, I have the statistics to back all of this up. This is setting the provinces up to take the blame when they were coerced into signing a flawed federal contract.

Let us break this all down. It is quite easy to break down because, really, what we need to do is pick up the phone and answer the calls that have been, I am sure, flooding into constituency offices across the country. We can start with just a few quick statistics of what has happened.

We know that 77% of high-income parents access child care versus 41% of low-income families. That is the statistic right now. How equitable is that? Should we not want to provide service where the people who need it the most can access it?

The labour force participation rate for women was 61.5% in September 2023 compared to a high of 61.7% in 2015. The number of women in the workforce is going down, not up. The employment rate of female youth is on a strong downward trend since February 2023, with a cumulative decline of 4.2% over that period. This is the lowest since May 2000, excluding the pandemic.

The number of children under the age of five in child care fell by 118,000 between 2019 and 2023, which is a decrease of 8.5% nationally. In 2023, 46.4% of parents reported difficulty finding child care, which is up from 36.4%. In Ontario, the proportion of children in child care was 48% in 2023 compared to 54% in 2019. Child care deserts are affecting nearly 50% of young children in Canada.

It goes on and on, and the numbers are there. The numbers are real, but when we start to listen to the stories, that is where we really have to pay attention. As I have said multiple times in the House, there are true human consequences to the incompetence and wasteful spending of the government.

We recently heard from Andrea Hannen. She oversees ADCO, which is the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario. She represents independent licensed child care centres, both commercial and not-for-profit. We are doing a study on economic empowerment for women in the status of women committee, where she said, “we have a sector of the economy that was largely created by women. It's essential to women's equality in the workforce. It's one of the only economic sectors in the country where women are fairly represented as owners and managers, and it's being not only undervalued by government but targeted for replacement by a government-run system.”

What is even more disturbing about that testimony is that not one of the Liberal members in the committee disputed this. In fact, by their line of questioning, it was clear the Liberals were quite comfortable with the idea of arbitrarily eliminating small businesses. It seems now that this was their plan for child care. That is the reality of what we are talking about, and that is why this is an ideology-based system. They had the option multiple times to help these female-operated small business owners who are sitting at home and want to go back to work but who cannot leave their kid.

They think they are going to do two things: start their own business to be an entrepreneur and help the other women in their lives and the families they know. They are going to invite children into their homes, care for them and provide quality care. What I have heard repeatedly across the country is that these women-owned day care centres are being targeted, bleeding money and shutting down.

A woman wrote to me from Simcoe. I want to tell members that she told me that she, right now, is personally funding $20,000 to $30,000 per month just to pay bills so child care is available. She said that they are committing to helping their parents by being in this program. The program is called CWELCC, for the people at home, and it is an acronym for Canada-wide early learning and child care. She also told me that the reality is, by staying in the program, they will be bankrupt and they will lose 250 child care spaces. As well, 45 dedicated staff will be unemployed. This program will close the business that she worked so long and hard to build.

That is the reality of what this program is doing. Members need not just take my word for it. I am sure that people are sitting at home, saying that I am a critic who has nothing nice to say about the Liberals. I do not because they have a record of repeatedly showing us that they cannot manage taxpayer money. All week, the news has been about an arrive scam app that should have cost $80,000, but $60 million is the total we know of right now, and it is probably more. They spent $1.36 billion on homelessness, and I do not know if anyone has been outside lately, but there seems to be a lot more tents.

The government is famous for making people dependent upon it and then taking away what they are dependent upon and destroying them. The government did it with the media, and it has done it with so many other industries. It is doing it now with our post-secondary education and immigration for students. The government has turned off the tap. Now these universities do not know what they are going to do.

[Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act, February 14th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and speak on behalf of the beautiful riding of Peterborough—Kawartha. Happy Valentine's Day to everybody watching. I hope everyone has someone in their life that they love, whether it be their parents, kids or somebody special.

I am the critic on this file. It is my job to really hone in on what is not being done. Today, we are talking about Bill C-35, which people at home may know as the infamous $10-a-day child care bill. The Liberals have run a very big marketing campaign on it, promising the moon, the stars and the sun; unfortunately, they have not delivered any of that.

I listened to my colleague across the way, who is the minister for this file, and I want to start by reiterating that the purpose of this bill was to sell a real pipe dream to Canadians. As a mom, it is an easy pipe dream to buy: access to affordable, inclusive, quality child care.

However, what I am going to outline clearly today in this speech, and when we talk about the amendments that were sent back from the Senate, is what we actually have in reality.

I would request unanimous consent to share my time with the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

[Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act, February 14th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, my first question would be about what we are seeing now, which are the stats coming out that more families with lower incomes are not accessing this program. It is actually inequitable.

Higher-income families are accessing this program. Lower-income families are not. What is my colleague doing to fix that, and why is it happening?

[Carbon Pricing, February 13th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost of the suffering he is causing. The Payne family operates Asphodel Sheep Company. They were recognized as farm family of the year in Peterborough County. The carbon tax is set to increase by 23% on April 1, and it is truly hurting them. The kids do not know what is going to happen to their family farm.

Katie, who is 15; Jolene, who is 13; and Lucy, who is nine, asked me to ask the Prime Minister this: Why is the Canadian government making it so difficult for the agriculture industry to do its job of feeding the country?

[Opioids, February 12th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, I shared a heartbreaking Facebook post. I reached out to Dave and Susan Girard and asked them if I could share it here in the House of Commons, and they replied, “Yes, please.”

Here is some of the post, as I do not have time to read it all. It states, “After a long battle with addiction, our 28-year-old son, Ryan David Girard, died of a drug overdose on February 8, 2024. Beloved son of David and Susan. Dear brother of Mitchell. Cherished grandson of Ted and Betty Maker, and David (deceased) and Delores Girard.

“Our family would like to speak the truth about his death. Silence would mean Ryan's death was in vain, but if one person’s life is saved by his story, I would tell it over and over. Fentanyl and opioids are terribly addictive substances, and unfortunately, addiction is a disease that has no cure. Ryan loved animals, water sports, hockey and soccer and when he was young, he was above average academically and athletically, but drugs stole his soul.”

We must fight against these drugs that are killing 22 Canadians a day. It is our job to do better.

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, what a backward place we work in. Why are we even having this legislation? It should not have even been here in the first place. Why are we expanding it when it should not even exist? It does not make any sense. Now they say, “Well, you know what? We only have so much time. We've got to expand it because we shouldn't have put it in there in the first place. Are you going to support it or what?”

This is so backwards. If it had not been put in place from the first, we would not even be here having this discussion. This legislation should not be offered, period.

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I guess my response to that member is to ask why medical assistance in dying should be offered to somebody who has a mental illness, when what they need is help. It does not make any sense. As I said, I cannot reconcile those two things. If we do not know with certainty whether somebody is going to get better, why would we put that into legislation to even make it an option?

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, a thousand per cent. I hope that he will pay for the plane ticket himself to send me there. I will be there with bells on.

I think what that member said is so disturbing. He said that their government has invested more in mental health than any other government. What a fallacy and an insult. I do not know who he is talking to, but I have seniors, family members and other people calling me who are living on the street and using food banks. What does he think that does to mental health? We are 35 out of 38 in the OECD with regard to teen suicides in this country, yet the government has invested the most. There is a wait-list of almost two years for a teenager who needs access to mental health, but the government has done its best job. What about that $4.5-billion mental health transfer that was supposed to happen? Where is that?

I am sorry, but the stats speak for themselves. We have never been in a worse mental health crisis than under that Prime Minister and that Liberal government that divides people and makes them not want to live.

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it is always a true honour to stand in the House of Commons and represent the beautiful riding of Peterborough—Kawartha.

I believe that what we are talking about today, which we have been talking about for almost a year to the day, is actually one of the most important pieces of legislation this Parliament will ever discuss and decide on. If people do not know about it, I can promise them with certainty that it will impact either those who are watching or someone they know.

What we are talking about is MAID, medical assistance in dying. The Liberals have put forth the notion to extend MAID to people with mental illness. Members heard me correctly. It sounds absurd because it is absurd. It is the worst message we can send to somebody who is in despair: that they are not worth saving. The worst message we, as legislators and policy makers, can send is that someone's life does not matter. I do not think I can name a member of the House who does not know somebody who has had, or who has not themself had, battles with mental health.

The government is saying it would put forward legislation that would not put more resources, money or time into better understanding mental illness, which includes substance abuse, through which 22 people a day in this country are dying from overdoses, but would offer MAID. This must disturb us. This must make us get up. This must make us speak loudly. I do not care where people sit on a political spectrum; the bill before us is the legislation people should be deciding their vote on, because it is a huge statement of what we as Canadians stand up for.

I want to read this: “To be eligible for MAID under the Criminal Code, a person must have a ‘grievous and irremediable medical condition,’ which is defined as ‘a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability’ that has led to an ‘advanced state of irreversible decline’ and intolerable suffering.” It is impossible to determine irremediability in individual cases of mental illness. Many experts have been clear that MAID for mental illness cannot be implemented safely.

Dr. John Maher, a clinical psychiatrist and medical ethicist said, “Psychiatrists don't know and can't know who will get better and live decades of good life. Brain diseases are not liver diseases.” As my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester, who is a medical doctor, has attested to multiple times, we cannot say with certainty what is going to happen to someone. We do not know what tomorrow is. I am going to read the most powerful letter into the record, because I think it is critical for everyone to hear it.

I also want to say that in February 2023, just a year ago, 30 legal experts from across Canada wrote an open letter addressed to the Prime Minister and Liberal cabinet ministers to dispute the claims that the then justice minister had repeatedly made, which were that his government was bound by the courts to expand MAID and to make it available for persons whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness.

This is hard to comprehend, and I spent hours trying to decide why they would want to do this. My 14-year-old said to me on the weekend that if someone is in a state of mental illness, like bipolar disorder, and is in an extreme low, they cannot make a decision that is right for them. That is the whole thing; they need help. With the legislation before us, someone could, in that state, ask for MAID. On what planet does that make any sense? It does not.

I am going to read a letter into the record. It is extremely powerful. Kayla has been writing to me since the issue first came aboard, and she has been very vocal in letting me share her story. I shared her original letter, and now that she knows the government wants to extend MAID yet again instead of throwing it out, she wanted me to read this letter to every member of the House of Commons:

“Hello, Michelle.

“I am thrilled to hear that MAID for people with mental health disorders as their only condition will not be put into place next month. However, it is deeply disturbing to me that the Liberals think time to get this right makes it better. What will be the difference in 2027? They will still be offering death to people who may very well live long lives with improved quality of life.

“In my own darkest moments I also thought things would never get better. I thought I would be sad and scared and hallucinating for the rest of my life, but they did get better, and offering MAID to people like me when in their worst moments is robbing them of the opportunity for things to get better. It is robbing people of the opportunity to receive help. It is robbing them of the opportunity to heal.

“It is also disgusting to me that death would be offered as a solution to people with mental health disorders when the resources for people with mental health disorders, at least where I live in Ontario, are in shambles. People are living on the streets with addictions. People are coming to myself to help them get help knowing that I have been through my own dark mental health struggles, and I am at a loss for where to send them. Wait lists are long, and while I know of some early psychosis intervention programs, people who have been struggling past early adulthood have nowhere to go but the hospital where they can't stay forever.

“I want to tell you about my dear uncle. He lives with paranoid schizophrenia. He recently hit rock bottom. He lived on the streets for over a year, and not for a lack of my family trying to help him. He almost died of pneumonia. Every time my family would take him to the hospital and try to get him help for his mental health, he would be released. Then he would get arrested and return to the hospital only to get released again. This went on for years. I understand a normal hospital doesn't have resources for him, but the point is no one knew what to do.

“But back to MAID. This idea needs to be scrapped. Offering death as hope to people in mental health crises is despicable. Just because it is a needle does not give people more dignity. It denies the dignity that already exists in every single human life. Just because the government hands you the knife while smiling doesn't change the fact that they are handing you the knife to kill yourself.

“Our lives are not useless or lesser just because we struggle with mental health disorders and it is time the current Canadian government started to believe that.

“Thank you, Michelle.

“Kayla.”

Can we please give Kayla a round of applause for her bravery? She has spoken up so many times about this, and in genuine distress.

I heard my colleague across the way, the Liberal member for Winnipeg North, say that he struggled with this because it is so personal. He said that this was what his constituents wanted. My response to him would be: I would like to see the data. I would like to see a referendum that this is what his constituents want, that they would rather MAID be offered than support to resources in understanding how the brain works, why the brain does what it does and what is mental illness. I challenge him right here, right now, to give me that data, because I can say with certainty that the families I know, the children I know who are on wait lists over two years long, do not want to be offered death. They want hope, they want treatment and they want solutions.

It is insane that we are even having this discussion, “Well, we'll just extend it.” Do members know what the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions said in the House? She said that it is not a matter of if any longer; it is when. This is such a deep ideology that the Liberals cannot even say, “Okay, all right, we get it. We heard from the 30 experts. We have heard from the people. This does not make any sense and there is no science here. We will pull it back. This was a mistake.”

There is no shame in admitting there was a mistake. We are here to make people's lives better, not worse, absolutely, without a doubt, not this message of, “You know what? Yeah, it is not going to get better. So, here, sign this paper. We are going to give you MAID.”

For those who are watching and have voted Liberal and are loyal, I plead with them to look at this. This is the most disgusting piece of legislation that has ever been put on the floor of the House of Commons, and we must invest in mental health and treatment.