Michelle Rempel

[Government Orders No. 35—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings, February 26th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. If members want to show that they are in the House and choose not to vote, they simply do not rise in their seat. There is a video record of them not rising in their seat either for or against, thus showing an abstention visually.

[Government Orders No. 35—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings, February 26th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that type of revisionist history is why the Liberal polling numbers are so flaccid. Debate on legislation is why we are here. We are here to hold the government to account, and we are not here to make this easier for Liberal cabinet ministers because they failed to work plan.

For example, responses to Supreme Court rulings, such as the one on MAID, have been introduced into the House at the last minute. The government then attempts to ram these things through without intervention, and that is because of its failure to work plan. It is often the Liberals who are holding up legislation. It is often they who are delaying Parliament. For example, last week, a Liberal on the government operations committee filibustered to block a Conservative motion to compel the owners of GC Strategies, a company at the centre of the “arrive scam” debacle, to be questioned by parliamentarians.

Is the real reason the Liberals are putting this motion forward that their cabinet has failed to work plan due to the legions of scandals the government is facing?

[Public Services and Procurement, February 16th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, to be clear, I am not questioning the integrity of the Auditor General. I am questioning the integrity of the government that is hiding these documents from the RCMP. Canadians deserve accountability. Somebody needs to be held to account for the waste of $60 million that went to a shady IT company that had two people working in a basement.

Why have the Liberals not released these documents? Release them now.

[Public Services and Procurement, February 16th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the RCMP needs access to the documents so that people can be held to account for this waste. The NDP-Liberal government's waste of at least $60 million on the arrive scam app, which wrongly put 10,000 people into mandatory quarantine, was so bad that the RCMP are investigating, and it needs access to these documents. After eight years, Canadians deserve better. They deserve accountability and transparency.

Why have the Liberals not released these documents and what are they trying to hide?

[Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act, February 16th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, again, I voted in favour of Bill C-35, but 2000 called and wanted its child care program back. This is not a bill that acknowledges the current economic reality in any part of our country with regard to the changes in how people work. This is a bill that was developed to provide child care in 2000, and there have been many gains made; our pluralism has grown and has changed in so many ways. This bill truly does not recognize how diverse our country is and how people work. It does not recognize the differences between urban and rural communities. It does not recognize the labour of grandparents who might be attempting to come to the country to provide child care for recent new Canadians.

The role of Parliament is to look at current economic conditions, to see where the football is going and to try to make sure government expenditures are addressing the needs of the population, not 20 years ago, but today and into the future. If we know how people work has changed, then it is incumbent upon us to ensure the program reflects that. Again, this is why it is so important for the government to track the data I mentioned.

[Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act, February 16th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that in any program seeking to provide universality, equality of access for indigenous persons has to be paramount.

To her question about whether Bill C-35 would provide true universality, it would not. Grandparents, who might provide unpaid labour at home, are not valued in this bill. The parent who works in the gig economy, shift work or part time, would likely not have access to those spots. In fact, it would be high-income Canadians who work nine-to-five jobs who would have access to these spots and would push out access to lower-income Canadians who need it the most. The government has put no safeguard in this bill to safeguard that at all, which is problematic.

Also, I fundamentally believe that the way this bill is structured undervalues the labour of child care, even those providing those spots for nine-to-five jobs, as we are seeing in my home province of Alberta with rolling closures. In no way, shape or form would this bill achieve true universality. My party, my colleagues, firmly believe that the provision of child care should be valued in all of its forms and that parents should have access to the workforce through access to affordable child care. This bill leaves a lot to be desired.

[Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act, February 16th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I love this question because it gives Parliament an opportunity to thank the unsung heroes of Canada: home-based day care operators. It is usually someone on a cul-de-sac or in an apartment block who takes in children in the neighbourhood, allowing them to play and to grow up together, putting in long hours, being flexible for parents and really being the neighbourhood mom or dad, grandma or grandpa. The fact is that the government has not recognized that foundational part of Canadian culture, which, frankly, is also part of our pluralism. There was cultural diversity on my street where I grew up with kids, and grandparents would share child care duty. That is how we got to know one another. This is such an important component.

I again want to underscore that Bill C-35 would not truly provide the concept of universality in child care. It would not value all forms of child care equally, particularly those forms of child care that my colleague mentioned: those small, home-based businesses that have provided income for so many people and a lifeline for support, a trusted place to provide child care that is close to home. I thank them and, frankly, shame on the government for not recognizing their value in an adequate way.

[Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act, February 16th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would point my colleague to the substance of the amendment we are debating today. I find it disappointing that the Liberal government did not demonstrate a commitment to linguistic duality in the first instance of Bill C-35. The other place had to propose an amendment to correct that, which, I am sure, is as important to my colleague as it is to me.

The other thing I would like to do, since I have the opportunity, is to thank the hard-working people of Alberta, who have contributed to the equalization program for so many years and have provided opportunities for provinces that may have benefited from that program.

[Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act, February 16th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I guess it is an Atlantic Canada and Alberta problem.

To re-emphasize what my colleague said, the problem is so acute in my province that unions that represent child care workers say that they might have to close facilities because of the inadequacies in the way this bill, Bill C-35, was structured. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Liberal government to address that.

To my colleague's point, child care is not a homogenous thing. We cannot expect it to be a homogenous thing because parents will raise their children according to their values, their traditions and their economic circumstances, so we cannot present nine-to-five, $10-a-day day care as a panacea. We have to value child care labour equally, be it provided by somebody next door, a grandparent or a parent, and this bill would not do that.

[Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act, February 16th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in debate today with respect to the early learning and child care act, as well as amendments sent to this place from the other place.

There are many things to speak about today since this bill is back before the House. First of all, the amendment that the Senate has sent back to us relates to the importance of linguistic duality.

My maiden name is Godin. This is the first time I have had the opportunity to talk about early childhood learning. My father, Claude Godin, may or may not be watching this today. I would like to take an opportunity to say I wish his French-language skills had been imparted to me. That would have been great. It would have been really nice to have my French heritage given to me because it would have saved me a lot of learning here and it would have given me a better sense of connection to my culture, my country and the importance of linguistic duality. In fact, it has been through my time in Parliament, being able to interact with colleagues from francophone areas in the country and with francophone constituents, that has imparted to me how important it is for children in our country to have opportunity to have access to early education in the language of their choice. That is why it is so important for this amendment to be debated here today.

I am looking at my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier's comments. He spent a lot of time in debate making a lot of points that I agreed with. He found it unfortunate that the Liberal government was against this amendment, it had to go to the Senate and it is back here and we are having to debate the importance of it. This was really a lost opportunity for the Liberal government. It could have dealt with this in the first iteration of the bill. My colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier raised this point in House debate: Does this actually raise questions about the government's commitment to linguistic duality? As somebody who has a very personal experience with understanding why it is so necessary for Canadians to have access to linguistic duality in education from an early age, I would agree with those comments.

There are other issues that have come to light about this bill since it was last debated in this place. I would like to speak on behalf of my constituents in Calgary Nose Hill. I point to challenges in implementation of the bill that were raised in previous debates that the government did not address, which are now really coming to light, are made real and are impacting parents. When this bill was last debated, many of my colleagues raised concerns that it could have a perverse outcome and could actually reduce the number of child care spots in the country, and we are starting to see that happen.

At the end of January, there were several articles that came out after Alberta child care facilities took part in rolling closures to protest the $10-a-day program. It is not that these facilities oppose affordable child care. They oppose the fact that the government's implementation of this bill did not foresee or take into consideration the costs that facilities would have to absorb, making it unaffordable for them to deliver services to their clients, the parents. The Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs stated that the job action of rolling closures was meant to draw attention to issues that come with offering parents low-cost child care without ensuring that the cost of delivery is still covered.

An article states:

“It’s been underfunded from the beginning,” said Krystal Churcher, the chair of the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs. “There is not enough funding to ensure that the level of quality is going to be continuing on...”.

As I have put on the record before, Conservatives support access to affordable child care. That is not in question. The way the Liberal government has structured this program has become overly bureaucratic and has not adequately valued the labour of child care in all of its forms.

When I last spoke on the bill, I talked about the fact that the way the bill is structured and the way the funding mechanism is structured would not give access for parents who work in the gig economy and may have hours that are not conventional nine-to-five jobs. It would not provide for access to child care for people in those situations in an adequate way.

Also, people in rural communities are in similar situations. Frankly, the bill also does not adequately value the labour of child care provided by parents, grandparents, extended family members or neighbours who may pool child care resources to take care of one another's children or grandchildren because of the lack of affordable child care spaces in other ways, but that caregiving component has no value in the bill, under the current Liberal government.

If we are going to, in Canada, as a very regionally, ethnically and economically diverse country, maintain the unity of our pluralism, we cannot set forward principles on child care that do not universally value the labour of child care provision equally, and the bill before us would not do that. In spite of all the time the Liberals have had to enhance these offerings, they have failed to do so. To me that speaks to a lack of creativity, a lack of innovation and a worn-out government that has really overstayed its welcome.

When I think about younger Canadians in my constituency, work for them looks a lot different than work looked for their parents or their grandparents. The reality is that for somebody seeking a spot under the Liberals' current formula under Bill C-35, if they are working shift work or in the gig economy, they are not going to have the same access to care as somebody who is providing professional services, like bankers or lawyers, who are working traditional nine-to-five hours. Those people are also in a position of privilege, because they have usually had a different level of education or they might have access to networks, that other people might not have access to, to get into these child care facilities. That does not speak to universality and valuing the labour of child care.

What I fear, because the government has failed to correct these deficiencies in the way the bill is currently outlined, is that, as we start measuring the outcomes of spending over a two, five or 10-year period, we are going to see a big disparity between bankers and lawyers, who have the networks to get into a child care spot and work nine-to-five hours, versus people who are working multiple jobs in a gig economy and who are already having trouble making ends meet.

With that, I also want to talk about a fact. I did read through the debate on the amendment that happened earlier this week, and I noted that the minister purported that the bill would provide transparency to Canadians on outcomes. It would do none of that. I want to outline what the government must do. I am going to put this on the record now, because I know a future parliamentarian will want these figures. I bet the Parliamentary Budget Officer will want these figures. The Auditor General may want these figures, because we need to be able to manage value for money.

The government has talked a lot about spending on Bill C-35, but it is not talking about the opportunity cost of how this spending could perhaps have been used in a different structure to provide better universality of care for Canadian parents.

So, in terms of transparency, as a parliamentarian there are data points that I cannot find. For example, how many children are currently enrolled in a $10-a-day spot in total and broken down by province or territory? It is impossible for parliamentarians to find out the number of children who have access to the spot and then measure it against the needs in a region. If we want to be able, as parliamentarians, to measure the efficacy of this large amount of spending, then we should have access to that data.

The other concern I have is that there is no data on the average income of parents who have the $10-a-day spots. The government has not put means testing in the bill, and I am concerned that these spots will be disproportionately going to higher-income Canadians as opposed to lower-income Canadians or Canadians who might be in the gig economy or in shift work. The fact that the government is not measuring this and is not talking about this tells me that we are going to have a problem in the future.

The other piece of data that we do not have is how many $10-a-day spots are for flexible child care outside of the hours between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If the government wants to stand up and say that the bill would provide universal access to child care, then, again, as I said earlier, it should take into consideration all the forms of work and work arrangements that we see in Canada. We are starting to see a major shift in economic modality in the country.

I still feel like there are many people in the public service who perhaps might be providing advice to the government who are saying, “Well, let's structure it around a nine-to-five job”, because that is what they know. However, the reality is that, outside of government, nine-to-five hours are few and far between now, and even people who have nine-to-five jobs, because of the inflationary crisis, are having to pick up second or even third jobs. We know a lot of people might be working in a $40,000 or $50,000-a-year traditional nine-to-five office job but then are driving for Uber or Uber Eats in the evening. There are a lot of people who have side hustles who could have access to income and economic productivity who do not have access to child care under this formula.

The other key component that the government is not measuring adequately speaks to the problem in Alberta that I just mentioned. How many additional child care workers are needed to achieve the number of spots that the government promised would be created? I have not seen the government provide any sort of analysis to show that there is an adequate plan in place to train and retain child care workers to provide the services it promised. There is a lot of money going into the creation of this bureaucracy, but if we do not have the labour to provide the services, then it is all for naught.

I would also point out that if the government is not doing this analysis and not projecting forward on it, this problem is going to be compounded as we see an aging baby boomer population, and there are many people in my generation who are now feeling squeezed between parental care, child care and, in some cases, grandchild care. So, as we see more of a demand for care for seniors, it will be competitive labour for child care, and the government needs to be measuring those statistics in order for Parliament to be able to determine whether or not this is an adequate or right expenditure, because this is not a cheap program.

Speaking to the concerns raised by child care workers in Alberta, the government has not been transparent on the average wage of a child care worker who provides $10-a-day day care. Again, why is this data necessary? First of all, it is necessary to determine whether the government is considering fair wages in the context of a $10-a-day day care provision. Second, it is needed to ensure that, when we are looking at labour supply over a long period of time, we have the data on at least what the wage floor would be so that cost and potential cost overruns or cost expansion of this program could be adequately assessed. Provincial governments are going to need this data as well.

The last component is that if we are seeing an average wage to fill these positions, it needs to be much higher than what the government has forecasted. The government will not have adequately costed out the entirety of the program either, which also puts a burden on provincial governments.

The other components of data that the government has not provided in its analysis to Parliament, which I do not think it is measuring at all, are how many of the $10-a-day spots are located in urban areas versus rural areas. I think that the government has, through many different policies, created more of a wedge between urban and rural Canada, when it should be trying to knit these parts of the country together for national cohesiveness, for economic outcome and just for social cohesion. To create a disparity between availability of child care in urban versus rural areas is wrong. The government should be providing data to the public on whether that disparity exists and, if it does exist, how it plans to correct the program so that that delta does not get worse over the years.

There is also the fact that the government has not been forthcoming. It does not seem like the government cares about tracking this information. It did not put any of this information forward in committee study. The government's tone and tenor on the debate has been “this is the only way for the state to have a role in child care in Canada”. That is fundamentally flawed, but the extent of that flawed nature can only be measured with this data. I think that is why the government is hiding it from Canadians.

I just want to take, for the record, extreme exception to the minister's comments that somehow this bill was providing transparency. It is a very Orwellian thing she said. None of this data is available to the public. Child care, labour, unions, child care providers and parents need to have this data to plan for the future.

I will close with this. Over the last eight years, we have seen an unprecedented cost-of-living crisis in this country that has been exacerbated and has been made worse by the extreme level of deficit spending by the Liberal government. In so many situations, we have just seen abject waste: $250 million to a company that has two employees who have done no IT work and that is in the basement of a cottage. How many other things have we seen like the WE Charity scandal? There has been so much waste with the Liberal government that any expenditures the government is making now have to be evaluated with rigorous data against the outcomes of what the government is purporting the program would do.

My concern, based on what we have seen in Alberta, has to do with the lack of transparency on data and the lack of the principle of universality. The government cannot be making the inflationary crisis worse by putting forward expenditures that are not directly impacting, in a positive way, every person in this country. That is why data is so important.

The government does have an obligation to parents to address the inflationary crisis. We can talk about child care all we want, but the reality is that child care is one of many issues Canadians are facing that they were not facing eight years ago: out-of-control mortgage prices: out-of-control rent prices; not even being able to buy a bag of groceries for less than $100. These are all things that make children unaffordable. As we see global fertility rates, we need to ensure that we incentivize Canadians to have children. Addressing a wide variety of issues around that, affordability writ large has to be a bigger part of the conversation.

Again, I am dismayed that the government does not have better data on these outcomes. I am dismayed that it has not addressed the concerns of child care operators in my province. I certainly hope that the government will be doing a better job of this so that future governments will not have to correct the mistakes that Canadians will have paid for.