Bill C-35

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada

This enactment sets out the Government of Canada’s vision for a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. It also sets out the Government of Canada’s commitment to maintaining long-term funding relating to early learning and child care to be provided to the provinces and Indigenous peoples. Finally, it creates the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care.

Justice and Human Rights

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, maybe the best place to start off this discussion is that, at times, the role the Conservatives feel they need to play can be fairly upsetting. However, before I comment on that, I want to take the opportunity to think of the victims, Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy, and their families. It is incredibly difficult for any one of us to imagine the horror of what took place and the impact it has had, not only on the families of these two victims, but also on their friends, the people who got to know Kristen and Leslie.

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind of the horror caused by Bernardo, and many have talked about this horrific crime. At the time of the incidents, I was living in the Prairies, and I was an MLA. I can recall many nights watching what had taken place in the trial on the news broadcasts, and I recall the anger that was generated as a result of this horrific crime. I do not believe there is a member in the House, no matter what political party one represents, who would disagree in any fashion whatsoever that the actions taken by Bernardo at that time were nothing less than totally horrific. When we see something of that nature, we want to ensure there is a sense of justice that will applied.

There is no doubt in my mind that today, just as we saw yesterday, it will continue to be discussed in the chamber. I suspect there is a very good chance that it will come up in question period. I would encourage the Conservative Party, in particular, to consider this issue for an opposition day motion. I say that because there are so many issues out there that no doubt would be of interest to Canadians.

I have a concern in dealing with the debate Conservatives have put on the floor this morning, and I had posed this in the form of a question to the member earlier, which is that the members opposite know there is a limited timeframe to deal with legislation. They continue to bring forward concurrence motions on reports. They know that by doing so, they are preventing debate on government legislation.

They pull a report out of the pot to say it is an urgent issue, such as the most recent one with respect to housing and the housing crisis. We had a discussion on it. Before that, opposition members brought forward concurrence reports to prevent government from debating legislation. The Conservative Party continues to do that, whether it has been in this session or years past, yet I have never seen it bring a concurrence report on an opposition day, not once. I think it is important for Canadians to realize that the issue Conservatives are raising will be talked about later today, so they are not fooling anyone.

It is an important issue. People are genuinely concerned. As the Minister of Public Safety clearly indicated yesterday, and as indicated in communications from the Government of Canada, we are genuinely concerned about this issue. It is on the front burner. We are all appalled by the impact that this is having, not only on the family members, but also on our communities as a whole.

I do not need to be told by Conservatives that I do not care about the issue because I do care. They try to give a false impression, as if only the Conservative Party of Canada wants to discuss an issue or have an issue addressed. It is a false impression.

Last night I was here, I think it was around 9:30 in the evening, and I was speaking in my place. I was talking about child care. We can talk about inflation and the positive impact the child care program is having, and there is about 20 minutes of debate still left on that. Then we are going to pass through that legislation.

If the Conservatives want to continue sitting for the month June, going into July, it would not bother me. Honestly, I would come back in July. I will sit as many days as the opposition would like to sit. I am open to it. I do not mind when the House sits until midnight.

What I do mind is when the Conservatives continuously and consistently play that destructive force preventing government legislation from passing. We witnessed that when the Leader of the Conservative Party said he would stand up to speak until the government and the Prime Minister changed the budget implementation bill. A few hours later, the bill passed.

It passed because there is a process, and the Conservatives could not bring in a concurrence motion there. Otherwise, who knows what concurrence motion they would have brought in.

Canadians did elect a minority government back in 2021, but what they expected is not only a responsible, accountable government but also a responsible and accountable Conservative opposition. With the exception of some things that might have occurred during the pandemic in the previous Parliament, I have not witnessed that. Instead, I see the Conservatives amping things up whenever they get the opportunity to do so, even if the opportunity is not legitimate.

Instead, the Conservatives will go on character assassinations and things of that nature. I do not say that lightly. I am not trying to belittle the issue in that report, but we saw that with the moving of the amendment. The members moved an amendment. We could ask how that amendment is directly related to the report itself. I would suggest the Conservatives are proposing a politically motivated amendment. They are more concerned about the politics than the issue, and it is not the first time.

We have seen how the Conservatives always tend to favour fundraising and seem to favour the politics as opposed to the issue at hand. We have seen that not only with the introduction of a concurrence motion but also with the moving of the amendment. Was the amendment even called for? Was it even necessary?

We have standing committees of the House that meet to discuss a wide variety of issues. They come up with reports and a series of recommendations, and then the report comes to the House. The vast majority of reports never get called upon for concurrence motions, but it is a tool to be used on occasion. I even used it when I was in opposition years ago, but I like to think that I never abused that tool.

Let us contrast with the Conservative Party of Canada's behaviour with the concurrence of reports. One only needs to look. Why did the Conservatives bring it in today and then move an amendment to the concurrence motion? If they were genuine in wanting to deal with the report, that is what the debate should have been about. Then we would all concur in the report, or if we wanted to vote against it, we would do that. However, that was not the purpose of moving concurrence of the report. This is the sensitive issue of the murder, and who knows what else, as I am not going to get into the graphic details, of both Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. The Conservatives are taking that issue today and using it as a way, in part, to filibuster. That is shameful.

They might be able to fool some, but for many the truth is known because we can see it in the amendment more than anything else. What does the report actually talk about? What are the recommendations of the report? I have a copy of the report and a series of recommendations. I was even provided some of the ministerial responses to the recommendations. I do not see any of that in the amendment proposed by the Conservative Party. I do not see that at all.

What I see consistently on the issue of crime from the Conservative Party is a lot of talk. The Conservatives like to talk tough. They really do. The last time we had this kind of talk on an issue such as this was a few years back. It is not that often that I will quote myself, but I am going to do that. I am going back to February 4, 2020, when I am making reference to the Conservative Party in Hansard. I said:

They tried to give the impression that it was the Government of Canada's fault, as if this government had ultimately allowed for the healing lodge placement of Ms. McClintic. I remind Conservatives that as we got more into the debate, we found out that it was actually Stephen Harper's regime that had her transferred to a medium-security facility, which made her eligible to be brought over to a healing lodge. We also found out that under Harper's regime, other child murderers were put into other medium-security facilities.

It is a totally different, horrific crime, and the Conservatives were jumping out of their seats and giving graphic descriptions. That is how I could recall the speech I had given a few years back. There were graphic descriptions of the crime committed and how it was the Government of Canada's fault. Where was that passion for child murderers then? Was it somewhat misplaced when we found out that it was actually Stephen Harper's government that authorized transfers to medium-security institutions?

Today, here we have a very high-profile incident, likely one of the worst and most horrific incidents in Canadian history, or definitely in the top two or three. It was amplified across the country, even though it is an incident that happened in a relatively small, loving community.

Everyone knew about the case; it was on the nightly news. The opposition members are taking that tragedy, trying to piggyback on top of a report from a standing committee that put forward 13 recommendations. There are many ways in which the opposition could be dealing with the issue. They are using this report as a mechanism to say they want to talk about the issue of crime for three hours, in order to prevent and ratchet up one issue. What are they actually preventing?

If we had gone on to government business, we would have actually been debating Bill C-35, which had under a half-hour of debate left. That legislation will ensure, for the first time ever in the history of Canada, that we actually have a national child care program from coast to coast to coast. This program has already delivered $10-a-day day care in a number of provinces and, I understand, at least one territory. It is having a real impact on the lives of Canadians. More women are working today in the workforce in terms of a percentage than ever before. The program was modelled after what the federal government saw taking place in the province of Quebec. That is what we were supposed to be debating today. As on many other occasions, the Conservatives, as the leader of the Conservative Party has demonstrated, do whatever they can to prevent legislation from passing through the House of Commons.

We will likely have a chance to go over those 13 recommendations in that report. What colleagues will find is that that report is being manipulated to the degree in which it has been amended to politicize it. This takes away the work that a good number of members on all sides of the House put into the report.

I will just give one or two of the recommendations:

That the Department of Justice establish a national working group with federal and provincial government officials, representatives from community organizations that work with victims, and victims’ representatives to agree on national best practices and minimum standards for victims of crime, particularly as regards the level of support and the services available to victims.

The member was talking about victims. The government sees the value in terms of supporting victims. Enhanced funding was part of the recommendations, recognizing that our judicial system is a joint responsibility. We have to and we do work with provincial, territorial and indigenous communities. The member is criticizing us about the issue of victims. The government has not only recognized victims but also allocated funding to victims. This is a part of the response to the report from the minister: “Several of the Committee's recommendations speak to the need for enhanced funding for victim services and victim-focused activities. A key component of the FVS, a horizontal government initiative led by Justice Canada, is the Victims Fund. When it was established in 2000, the Victims Fund had $5 million available.... Since then, the funding available has grown to a little under $32 million in 2022-2023.”

The government understands the importance of victims. We do not need to be told by the Conservative Party. We understand the harm that is caused by horrific incidents, and we will continue to be focused on Canadians.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak again to Bill C-35. As I said in my previous speech about this bill, no parent is perfect. I can attest to that first-hand; I make lots and lots of parenting mistakes. However, parents are the best proxy decision-makers for their children because parents have a deep and natural love for their children. This love that parents have for their kids generally ensures a rectitude of intention. “Rectitude of intention” means that parents always want what is best for their children. If they make mistakes, they at least do so from a place of love, wanting to give their children the very best that they can.

I trust parents to make decisions for and about their children. There are, of course, extreme cases in which external authorities have to take over parental decision-making, but the possibility of these extreme and rare exceptional cases should not be used to justify a general policy of having the state interpose itself between children and their parents. While the state can aspire to a kind of general goodwill for all people, this general goodwill is nothing compared to the fierce and natural love that leads parents to always want the best for their children.

Before I come to the particulars of the child care issue, I want to say that we are seeing broader challenges in many areas to the idea that parents should be trusted to shape the direction of their own families. We see movements to have teachers, school counsellors and therapists facilitate dramatic and potentially irreversible changes in the lives of young people without the inclusion of parents, in fact with the explicit exclusion of parents. Why does anyone want to exclude parents from important conversations about the lives of their children? Parents love their children and want the best for them. Of course parents make mistakes, but someone motivated by deep love is less likely to make mistakes and is certainly quicker to correct their mistakes than an official, institutional bureaucracy driven by politics and constrained by inertia. That is why everything that happens in a school, in a child care centre or in any out-of-home program should happen in the context of an openness to conversation with parents. I remember my parents' telling me, as a child, “If anyone tells you not to tell mommy or daddy anything, make sure to tell us right away.” That is still very good advice.

This country has a history of parental alienation, of a state bureaucracy taking children away from their parents in an explicit effort to disconnect them from the culture and values of their families. This was wrong. Today, I am hearing from families, and, most recently, especially from Muslim families, who are concerned about parents' not being included in conversations about how the state and state institutions are relating to their children. This is something we have to be vigilant about.

Going forward, Conservatives will always stand on the side of parental choice and on the side of not excluding parents from important conversations that impact the lives of their children, because the role of the family is at the heart of a Conservative belief in the importance of subsidiarity. The federal government should not stick its nose into the business of the province, and neither the federal government nor the provincial government should stick its nose into what is properly the business of the family. In our federation, this constant sticking of noses into other people's business has led to redundant and inefficient expenditures in many areas and has obscured what should be clear lines of accountability.

With respect to parents and parental involvement in the lives of children, I noted one line in particular from the minister's speech about this child care program. It was a quotation from someone else that she read, but a quotation that I think she read approvingly. She said of these programs, “They are shaping our little people into who they are going to be in the future.” That is undoubtedly true. Part of the reason parents want to choose so judiciously what child care options they select is that child care providers do play a role in shaping critical aspects of how a child sees the world. All education is informed in some way by underlying world views. There is no such thing as value-neutral education, so parents will generally want to pursue an alignment between the values they are teaching at home and the values being promoted in programs outside the home. Therefore, when the range of options is narrowed, it becomes harder and harder for parents to find that alignment. Choice and flexibility in child care make it easier for parents to find programs to facilitate a good alignment between child care provider and family.

Parents should have an opportunity to seek to pass their core beliefs on to their children. Of course children grow up, and there is a natural process of children being exposed to more of the world as they grow more and more, in due course coming to their own distinct conclusions on things. That was certainly my experience growing up. However, parents can and should be able to provide an intellectual foundation that allows children to know where they come from and receive the wisdom of those who love them most and best.

In my last speech, I focused on the practical and economic arguments for choice in child care, but there is more to it than just that. I believe that parents should be able to make decisions about the kinds of child care arrangements that are best aligned with the economic and practical needs of their families, but even more importantly, I believe in choice in child care because I believe in respecting the role of parents making choices about how they will seek to train children in virtues, traditions and practices that are particular to their families. Children should begin life knowing and growing upon the firm ground of their families, and this requires that parents are able to shape the environments that their children are in.

Having said that, I would like to shift to another point, that of workforce participation. This has come up a few times in different ways in different speeches that have been given tonight. Liberals champion, as a feature of this plan, that it would increase workforce participation. By increasing the cost the taxpayers pay and channelling those dollars into a particular model of out-of-home child care, this puts more financial pressure on families that do not use the state system, which likely forces some of them to opt to enter the workforce.

By taxing all and subsidizing some, this approach tips the scale in a certain direction, and I think the argument goes that this tipping of the scale leads to higher levels of workforce participation, which is identified as one of the goals. The Conservatives' preferred policy is one that supports families without tipping the scale. That is that it finds ways of supporting families that do not involve the arbitrary redistribution of resources among families based on their different child care choices.

On the issue of workforce participation, I want to clarify an important distinction. Workforce participation measures the proportion of people who want to work while the employment rate measures the proportion of those people who are actually working. Therefore, people who choose not to work are not considered unemployed. They are considered not in the labour force. People are considered unemployed if they are in the labour force, that is if they wish to work, but they are not able to find a job. Again, people are not in the workforce if they are choosing not to be in the workforce, and people are unemployed if they are choosing to be in the workforce, wanting to work, but are not able to find a job.

Clearly, we should seek to minimize the unemployment rate. We should seek to have as low as possible the number of people who want to work and who are not working. We want as high an employment rate as possible, but it is not obvious to me that we should always aim for the highest possible workforce participation rate. There are many good and legitimate reasons why people might choose not to be in the workforce. It could be because they are studying, retired, of sufficient means and would rather spend their time volunteering, or attending to the needs of their families. All of these are, of course, forms of work, but they do not formally count as being in the workforce. That is that they are not forms of work that are commodified.

There is nothing wrong with people making these kinds of choices to opt out of the workforce. We should not be so narrowly mercantile as to suppose that the only way for a person to live a good and productive life is by generating income and paying taxes. Rather, we should focus on the advancement of overall happiness and well-being on the discovery of the true, the good and the beautiful, and on facilitating this by trying to build a society in which people have the prosperity and the freedom to maximizing their own happiness and well-being with choices.

I do not see any reason why we should set a goal of public policy to achieve the greatest possible participation in the formal workforce. If someone has well-considered reasons for not working inside the formal commodified marketplace, such as the ones I described earlier, I do not see a problem. Why should the state seek to push or incentivize someone to move in a different direction than they wish to go when it comes to workforce participation? Ideally, I would like to see people be able to study if and when they want, to take time off work if and when they want, to retire if and when they want and to stay home with their children if and when they want.

For plenty of practical reasons, this is not always the case, and personal preference is not the only factor that shapes our lives, but why should the state aim for the highest possible labour participation rate by increasing taxes and subsidizing those choices that involve higher workforce participation? Why tip the scale in this direction?

The state should aim to allow people to make their own choices, presumably choices that they believe will maximize their own happiness and the happiness of their families. If a woman or a man, having the means to do so and with a view to their own assessment of what is best for their family, decides that they want to work part time or not work at all for a period of time for the sake of being with their children or for some other purpose, I do not understand why we in the House of Commons should presume to tell them that there is something wrong with that choice, nor should we in the House of Commons presume to tell a dual-income family that there is anything wrong with their choice.

However, the government's policy is to use higher taxes to subsidize certain kinds of families to make certain kinds of child care choices over others. Increasing taxes to subsidize certain kinds of choices over others does not advance freedom or choice.

The Conservative policy of offering direct support to families allowed parents to have the means to freely make their own choices, motivated by love for their children and unfettered by economic coercion. It is support for all families without tipping the scale.

Regardless of the particulars of the child care policy, nobody has made the argument in this place, as far as I have heard, that higher workforce participation is a good in and of itself. Presumably, existing retirement and post-secondary support programs are an acknowledgement that higher workforce participation is not always desirable. If the government cancelled existing retirement supports, I suspect workforce participation would then go up, but this would still be a bad policy, because it would limit the ability of the retirees to choose to leave the commodified workforce during their golden years.

Of course there is a gender dimension to this workforce participation discussion. Statistics suggest that women are more likely to opt out of the workforce for some portion of their child-raising years. I suspect that we would find women are also more likely to opt out of the workforce for post-secondary education, since right now women are attending university at much higher rates than men.

Certainly, we should seek to ensure all people are able to make their choices freely, without any kind of coercion. Regardless of the reasons or the circumstances that lead people to want to opt out of the workforce, we should seek to maximize choice and flexibility for everyone, but it seems to me to be grossly paternalistic for the state to presume some kind of false consciousness operating in the choices that many women make in this respect. The state should seek to promote prosperity and freedom; how people then choose to use that prosperity and freedom inside or outside the workforce should not be the business of the state.

I want at this point to highlight some of the key points I made previously in this debate.

Number one is that this bill substantively does nothing, other than establish an advisory council. All of the agreements are already in place; this bill is merely an active self-congratulation by the government.

The government has put in place a system that is not effectively achieving its own stated goals. In fact, what we see with the current system is that by subsidizing child care but in fact not sufficiently to align with the promises it has made, and at the same time by regulating prices, it has put a great deal of strain on child care providers.

The people one would expect to be most enthusiastic about this program, child care providers, have actually been in many cases the most vocal in expressing concerns about it. What they are saying is that combining subsidies, at the level they are, with price regulation makes it very difficult for child care operators to invest in and grow their business and offer those additional spaces over time.

What we are seeing is a kind of ticking time bomb created in the system: The government is over-promising at the same time that it is imposing enormous strains on those who are actually providing child care services.

I would warn the parents who feel they are benefiting in the short term, because some families have seen reductions in their costs while many families are still on waiting lists and many families are paying higher taxes because of the current government, those who are experiencing short-term reductions in costs, that the structural damage the government is doing to the child care system, by putting strains on child care providers, is not going to allow child care to deliver in the long term.

One of the speakers on the government said that this is about establishing a generational long-term promise. Not at all. What the government is doing is using deficit spending to underfund while over-promising child care operators, who now face enormous strain, cannot bring in new staff, cannot expand, and creating a system that is simply not going to work over the long term. It will not fulfill the promises it has made. We have seen this in many aspects of this government's record, the over-promising and under-delivering. I would encourage those who are following this debate to listen to child care providers to hear from those who are working in the system.

When we raised these concerns with the minister, she asked why we were so negative. She said that Conservatives are always criticizing and being negative about the things the government is trying to do. I think our job in this place is to tell the truth, even if telling the truth about the trajectory of government policy involves pointing out that there are flaws and risks. We hear this accusation a lot from the government by the way. A couple of years ago, when our leader was talking about how overspending was going to lead to inflation, the Liberals said we were being negative, but it was true.

We will continue to speak truth to power and highlight the problems of the child care approach.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a tremendous honour and privilege to stand in this place and to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the constituents of Lethbridge, whom I represent. Tonight, I have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-35, which has to do with universal child care.

I think what we will discover in this conversation tonight is that, actually, it is not universal, even though we like to use that term; I will get to that in just a moment. However, I would like to point out that, as a member of His Majesty's loyal opposition, it is in fact my job in this place to talk about the legislation that is before the House in such a way that I highlight, yes, some of the good but, more importantly, the opportunities to make it even better. I will be doing that tonight.

Some in my riding have expressed support for this legislation. Others have no support for it and have been very opposed. Still others fall somewhere in the middle; they like parts of it, but they see flaws in other components.

To be clear, in many ways, Bill C-35 is not actually a child care strategy, which is what the Liberal government would like it to come off as. Rather, it is more of a marketing plan. It is something that these Liberals use over and over again in their talking points, but when we actually ask them for substantiated evidence of a program that has been rolled out with great productivity and provision for Canadians, they are not able to actually show us that. This is problematic, because it is over-promising and under-delivering. Ultimately, at the end of the day, it is Canadians who suffer.

I would like members to imagine that they are taken on an all-expense-paid shopping trip. I believe this is most women's dream. They are told that they can look through all the shop windows and have anything they wish. They arrive on Fifth Avenue in New York City and get to work. They look around, and a shop window attracts the attention of an individual. She walks over to the store and tries the door, only to find that the shop is closed. She takes another look around and finds another shop window that has another outfit she thinks is quite nice; she goes to the shop door and tries to open it, but it is closed. This poor woman repeats this over and over again, only to find that the stores are all closed. The promise was great and exciting, but it did not deliver. This is exactly what the Liberals have presented us with: a promise without a premise. A promise without a premise is absolutely worthless, which is what so many Canadians are facing with the bill before us.

The reality is that affordable, quality child care is critical, if we can find it. It is needed for many families in this country; there is no doubt about that. Many families need to have two individuals working, and many are single parents who need to work. In these cases, they would need child care of some sort. Now, the problem with the bill is that it actually dictates where that child care needs to be found. It cannot be a family member, a neighbour or friend. It has to be a state-run or non-profit day care, which is a problem, because—

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech because in it she points out all the reasons why Bill C-35 is important. As my colleague in the NDP had said in his last question, when we had a market-driven system these issues existed before, and they are only going to be fixed with intention and with purpose. Therefore, I am glad to know that the Conservatives are supporting Bill C-35. It is funny to me that the member is calling this a divisive bill when this has passed every stage so far unanimously. There actually seems to be much more agreement than my hon. colleague is letting on.

There is, in fact, nothing in this bill that is looking to divide Canadians, or divide women for that matter. In fact, there is nothing that would limit choice in this legislation. I am glad to hear that the member is supporting this bill. I am glad to hear that Conservatives support child care. I hope that we can count on the member's support at third reading as well.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak, especially to a bill as critical as Bill C-35, which would truly play a big role in determining the future of our nation.

I just want to take a moment to recognize the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, who I think has done an incredible job of giving a voice to so many mothers, fathers, parents and entrepreneurs, many of them women and many of them new Canadians, who needed their voices heard here in the House of Commons. I congratulate her and her team, who are ensuring that we can get the best bill possible, not only for women and families, but also for all Canadians.

I am going to go through three things in my speech. I am going to provide an overview of some of the points many of my colleagues have laid out. After that, I am going to give some testimony from the many Canadians we have heard from across this country. I will then conclude with perhaps the most challenging and disappointing aspect of this bill, at least for me, as a woman and as a parliamentarian.

I will just review some of the points my team has outlined. Affordable, quality child care is critical, but if someone cannot access it, it does not exist. We have said this time and time again. Frankly, the number of spaces that currently exist, or that are forecasted to exist, just does not meet the demand. Even though there are many Canadian families that want this service, this solution, as provided currently by the government, would not address the issue.

Bill C-35 is not a child care strategy; it is a headline marketing plan. Again, we see the Liberals promising what they cannot deliver; $10-a-day day care does not address the labour shortage and the lack of spaces. I alluded to that in my last comment. We have seen the government, time and time again, promise the sun, the moon and the stars, but it consistently falls short. Unfortunately, we are very concerned that would happen with day care spaces under Bill C-35 and that this would continue to happen.

Conservatives recognize that Canadian families should have access to affordable and quality child care, and should be able to choose child care providers that best suit their family's needs. We have heard from many Canadians that this one-size-fits-all approach does not necessarily suit many Canadians and the needs of many Canadian families. I just want to reiterate that.

Bill C-35 is good for families that already have a child care space, but it does not help the thousands of families on child care wait-lists, or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces. I certainly recall that, as a mother, I was very grateful when my husband the foresight to put our name on a list. I think it was probably two years ahead of our son's requiring that space. This is a very tangible problem, and we will see it exacerbated as we see this program implemented throughout time. Bill C-35 would increase demand for child care but would not solve the problem of frontline burnout, staff shortage or access to more spaces. I think this is a very critical consideration, given the labour shortage we have seen since the pandemic, and we truly need to consider this as we consider implementing Bill C-35. There are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone to staff new spaces.

Bill C-35 would discriminate against women. The majority of child care operators are women. The language and intent of the bill would prevent any growth or opportunity for private female operators. How does the Liberal government expect more women to be able to go to work when there are no child care spots available? Wait-lists, as I mentioned, are years long. Ontario's Financial Accountability Office projects that, by 2026, there will be 602,000 children under six whose families will want $10-a-day day care, and the provinces will be able to accommodate only 375,000 of them. That leaves 227,000, or 38%, without access.

Government estimates also suggest that by 2026 there could be a shortage of 8,500 early child care workers. That is an astounding number. In British Columbia, 27% of child care centres turn away children due to lack of staff. I know my colleagues from B.C. have certainly been very adamant in expressing this shortage. One child care director, who oversees 13 child care programs with 350 spaces, said, “In the past two years, we've had to close programs temporarily, whether it is for a day or two, or shorten hours for the week in order to meet the licensing regulations...”

We also talk about the child care deserts that exist across this country and that is very much a problem. I have here, as I said I would, some commentary from Canadians who have written in, expressing some of these problems which I have outlined. Katie writes, “Finding people who start at 6 a.m. or end at 11 p.m. is impossible. More flexible hours for people who work shift work. Adequate child care is a huge barrier within health care.”

Cheryl writes, “Something that many of my co-workers and I have talked about many times is how beneficial a day care that had extended hours or was nearer the hospital would be. So many health care workers struggle to find child care that is available for the shifts we work. I have been raising my granddaughter for 14 months now and have spent so much time and energy finding child care that will work for us. It has been incredibly stressful and I am so grateful for the care provider we have now who has worked in the health care field and takes Ava at 6:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. for me.”

Both of these individuals writing in to us indicated that this one-size-fits-all approach does not work for them and that day care solutions and solutions for families do not come in a box; they have to be flexible. Therefore, in bringing forward amendments for this bill, we were trying to improve the bill.

Let us see who else. Shannon writes, “I'm going back to work full-time in July. I put my daughter on six day care lists and have heard it takes years to get into a licensed day care. I think start times are an issue as well. At most day cares, the earliest start time is 7:30 to 8 a.m.”, which is a challenge I remember, as a mother. Shannon continues, “...and I start work at 6:30 so I need something earlier than that.”

Again, the government is looking at a one-size-fits-all approach.

Laura writes, “Before- or after-school care.... The reduced fees have been welcome for my 20-month-old, but the cost for my six-year-olds' before- and after-school care are now more expensive than full day care and this comes with a reduction of the CCB, so my family is now spending more on care as my children get older and my children attend school.”

There we see some Canadians who have written in saying that this one-size-fits-all day care does not work for them. As members can see, I have outlined many challenges with this legislation.

I will get into what is the most problematic thing about this bill, which I do not even think is necessarily addressed through the policy within this House. I believe that this bill is a tool that has been used as a divider. I believe that this bill has been used to divide rural versus urban. I believe that this bill has been used to divide those mothers who want to stay at home versus those mothers who want to go to work. I have seen on social media, very unfortunately, women judging other women. Why would the government put forward a piece of legislation where women are put in a place to judge other women?

That is where Canada is at today. It is broken. Household debt is at a record level. Inflation is at a record level. Interest rates are at a record level. This country is in crisis and the current government really thought it had us with this bill in dividing us further. However, the good news is that when the leader of the official opposition becomes the Prime Minister of Canada, this hateful division would end and Canadians would once again be united. It starts with our supporting this bill and improving this bill.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Midnapore.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents of King—Vaughan. It allows me the opportunity to speak about Bill C-35, which is labelled an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development said that the bill would create more spaces. Conservatives support affordable, quality day care; it is crucial. However, if we cannot access it, it does not exist, and Bill C-35 would do nothing to address accessibility. The bill is good for families who already have a child care space, but it would do nothing to address the thousands of families on child care wait-lists or operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces.

James and Leah in my riding are a young married couple who just had their first child. As new parents, they were excited and anxious about welcoming their new arrival. They tried to do their due diligence to ensure that everything was in place and were ready to go back to work once they could locate a child care spot. Their friends and family advised them to start looking, because there are not a lot of spaces available. So, when Leah was just a few months pregnant, they began the search. They quickly realized that there was, on average, a two-year wait-list. Maternity leave is not that long. However, they continued to look and hoped that something would become available for them before Leah's maternity leave was over and she needed to get back to work.

The bill would do nothing to address labour shortages. The bill would increase demand, but do nothing to solve the problem of frontline burnout or staff shortages. There are not enough spaces in the system to help run the facilities; they are at full capacity. The government itself projects that, by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early childhood workers. The minister stated that she plans to build 250,000 new spaces. Accordingly, 40,000 new child care workers would be required in order to accommodate.

Over the next 10 years, it is reported that more than 60% of the workforce already employed will need to be replaced, meaning that around 181,000 will need to be replaced. Once we add those two figures, we will need over 200,000 workers. Currently, 27% of child care centres in British Columbia are forced to turn away children due to a lack of staff.

A news article quoted a child care provider who stated that “In the past two years, we've had to close programs temporarily, whether it was for a day or two, or shorten hours for the week in order to meet the licensing regulations....”

The Conservative Party supports affordable child care and recognizes quality care in many forms, unlike the bill before us. Who better to nurture our children than their grandparents? I cannot think of a better solution to kill two birds with one stone.

Seniors are struggling to make ends meet due to the big rise in inflation the government has created over the last eight years. What a wonderful opportunity this could be to provide an income to struggling seniors while reducing the wait-lists and nurturing our children in a healthy environment.

I was one of the luckiest children in the world. I had the benefit of a loving and caring environment, provided to me by my grandparents. I was taught not only the facts of life and the value of hard work, but also that it does not matter where people come from; Canada is the land of opportunity for everyone. I consider myself to be a really good cook. My grandmother not only taught me the facts of life, not only taught me about math, and not only taught me about history; she also taught me how to live from the land. I would come home from school, and she would turn her garden into a playground for us. She explained the benefits of, and how to grow, fresh vegetables, and how to nurture one's children with one's own hands. She also taught me the importance of volunteering. If we had neighbours in our area who were ill and needed our assistance, my grandmother would take our hand, walk us down to the neighbour's home, and we were there to help each other.

That is what community building is like. That is what children need to learn. They need to learn that at a young age, so that when they develop into grown-ups, adults, they can teach their children to help, the way I was taught to help. My grandparents instilled that in me and ensured that I would grow up to be a responsible adult. We are not going to get that from anyone else. They taught me all the things I needed to do and all the things I needed to be, and that is the woman I am today.

As a young widow with two small children, I found day care very challenging, given my work schedule. I was fortunate that I had a job that could support my children. However, when my husband passed away and two incomes were reduced to one, there was no choice but to find affordable child care. I did not have a nine-to-five job. I did not have the luxury to have day care and to make sure I got there on time to pick up my children.

My question for the Liberal-NDP government would be, why can we not implement the beauty of allowing the flexibility for parents to choose their child care, so that their children can have the same opportunities I did? We could have our parents nurture our children, and reduce the wait times, because right now, there are no wait times because there are no places to put children. Let us look at some of the amendments our party put forward, and let us try to implement them, amending Bill C-35 so it could accommodate more children.

Marni Flaherty of the Canadian Child Care Federation testified at committee. She said, “We would like to see strong language in the bill that promotes sustained investment in a national strategy for the recruitment, education and retention of the early childhood educators workforce.” This led my colleagues to put forward such an amendment. However, it was voted down by the Liberal-NDP coalition. As I said in my opening remarks, Conservatives recognize that affordable, quality child care is critical, but if it is not available, it does not exist. This bill would do nothing to help James and Leah find affordable, accessible day care when the time comes for Leah to return to work. This is not a child care strategy; it is a headline marketing plan.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise here. The hour is getting later, but nevertheless, we are in the third reading of what is historic legislation, Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

There are child care advocates, families and women who have been waiting for this for over 50 years. We need to pause and really reflect on that, because for over 50 years families, women and child care providers in this country have known what we needed to do to give our children the best start in life. They have known what we needed to do to ensure there was gender equality progressing in this country, where women could enter the workforce when they wanted to, how they wanted to and in the careers they wanted.

I think of Anna Care, who is the director of Blaydon day care in my riding of York Centre. When I went to visit her, she showed me a picture of her demonstrating at Queen's Park in the seventies holding up a sign demanding for this to happen. Here we are today in the third reading of Bill C-35, where we know that for Anna and for families and children across this country this will remain the future. It will be the future for women to continue to support themselves and their families and to set an economy that will just grow and flourish, from our youngest generation to the women who are holding the steering wheel on this today alongside our partners in this chamber.

It could not have happened without the collaborative nature of this work between the federal government and the provinces. Every province and territory in this country signed on to this agreement. The $30-billion investment we as a federal government made in partnership with provinces and territories and indigenous peoples is making a difference. We know this because we are seeing the fee reductions that are putting money in pockets of families from coast to coast to coast.

The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development shared so many of those amazing stories earlier in the evening. We know what that means to them. It is tangible and impactful on an individual level to each and every family who participates in this program. It is more money to buy groceries, to purchase school supplies and so many other essentials when affordability is an issue right now. We know we are making a difference.

Many of my colleagues tonight have talked about the good value of this investment, where every dollar we invest in our children and families is $1.50 to $2.80 back into the economy. That is good money well spent. We know this. We know it by the expansion of the women's workforce. The data shows it from January of this year.

We know we are on the right path for building a Canada-wide system that takes the planning, care and thoughtfulness of these agreements and enshrines these principles and values, so when the next round of agreements come forward, when we evolve to the next stage of this amazing Canada-wide system, we know, Canadian families know and Canadian children will benefit from knowing no one will be left behind.

The provinces and territories are already showing that collaborative work, and they have announced more than 50,000 new spaces since the first Canada-wide agreement was signed in British Columbia. The work continues. We have a goal, which is 250,000 new regulated early learning and child care spaces, supported by our federal investments, by March 2026.

The Conservatives asked why we are doing this. They said that we could cut cheques to people or give tax credits. Tax credits do not build spaces. Tax credits do not create a workforce. Federal investments, investing in our workforce, and investing children and families is what makes the difference.

The principles in Bill C-35 are creating the progress of that ultimate goal, which is a system that provides children in this country with access to affordable, inclusive, accessible and high quality early learning and child care no matter where they live, today but also for the future. It is for future generations, because this is a generational nation-building project that every family in this country is impacted by.

We are providing our children today, and in the future, in this country with the best possible start in life. This is not just about the big numbers we are talking about such as the $30 billion or the 250,000 spaces. It is about how we are supporting Canadians on an individual level, family by family, community by community, urban and rural, across this country and the direct benefit they are seeing. We have heard many of those stories tonight.

The real-world differences we are making with the system are impacting the lives of Canadians, particularly when it comes to rural communities and space creation.

For example, Nova Scotia has announced 1,500 spaces since signing its Canada-wide agreement, and more than half of them are in communities outside of Halifax.

In the town of Bridgewater on the South Shore, there are eight new infant spaces that will be made available this summer. Infant spaces are the hardest spaces to come by.

This summer in Hubbards, six new toddlers and preschoolers are being welcomed to the Through the Years Early Learning Centre, which is near the intersection of Lighthouse Road and Highway 3, for those who are from our Nova Scotian community.

In Lunenburg County, there are 16 new family homes with the Family Matters home child care agency, and eight new licensed spaces for infants will be available later this summer in the Lunenburg Day Care Centre.

Step by step, communities are stepping up, provinces are stepping up, and the federal government has stepped up for our children.

These new licensed spaces are making life easier for hard-working families across this country, particularly in our rural communities. Members do not have to take my word for it. They can ask Yvonne Smith, the CEO of the YMCA Southwest Nova Scotia, who said the expansion will “make a real difference for families in this community. There is a significant need for infant care in rural communities across Nova Scotia, including the South Shore.”

These spaces are already making a difference, and with more to come by 2026, more Nova Scotian families will soon see those benefits as well.

As we cross the country and hear more of these stories, I can share thoughts from Manitoba. Manitoba has seen more than 2,800 new spaces since it announced the signing of its agreements. Similar to Nova Scotia, Manitoba focused its efforts to support families where the need is the greatest. That is the whole point.

Here in the chamber, we have heard a lot of “Ottawa first” talk about how the federal government is directing this. No, the provinces are working collaboratively with us. They are identifying needs in their communities. Each province is unique, and they are facing these challenges head-on and working with us in partnership to make sure that we meet the needs of families and our children.

More than 1,600 new spaces, half of Manitoba's total thus far, have been announced under the province's innovative Ready-to-Move child care project. I was there for the announcement of the 1,700 spaces in rural communities. Multiple levels of government worked in partnership to provide land, do the build-out and provide services, including the indigenous first nation community of Peguis.

The point is that it is a collaborative effort of all levels of government and communities to make sure that these spaces are created over time. They are identifying them with us, and we are working together to build them, because new spaces do not get built overnight, they do not get built by tax credits and they do not get built by cutting cheques to millionaires. They get built by the will, by the work, by the planning that goes these systems to build an infrastructure province by province.

Families in first nations and rural communities have the greatest need, as we know, and they will be the first to benefit, just like the Peguis community, with these spaces all expected to be operational in Manitoba by the end of this year. We went decades without work being done to create spaces, and by the end of this year, 1,700 new spaces will be created in Manitoba.

Armand Poirier, the mayor of the Rural Municipality of Taché, put it like this, “The new child-care spaces in our rural municipality open up opportunities for our community members, enabling them to put their children in daycare close to home and fully participate in the workforce.”

We are building rural communities. People can work close to home and grow these rural communities into places they want to stay in and thrive in. There is added value in every level for families, children and the communities themselves, because these investments are supporting and strengthening our rural communities in Manitoba.

In B.C., the first province to sign, its ChildCareBC strategy is really the one to watch. Just last month, ground was broken on a new project in Invermere, the hub of the Columbia Valley, a project that will see a brand new child care facility built that will include 148 new licensed child care spaces, including 100 preschool spaces.

Investments like these are where we are going with this legislation, from Taché to Lunenburg. Every member of this House should be joining us in building that vision.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Obviously, we in the NDP support Bill C‑35. It is a good idea. We have been saying for a long time that child care is needed. The strange thing is that the Liberal Party has also been saying that for a long time. The first time they put it in their election platform was in 1993. I was still a student at the Université de Montréal. It took them 30 years, but it is better late than never.

However, I do want to stress one point. While the Conservatives say that it is incredibly expensive, it is an incredible rebate for families who will be able to access day care at an average cost of $10 a day. This will save them money. When a family is paying $50 or $60 a day in child care costs, no tax cut will be able to put as much money into the family income as access to $10-a-day child care.

I would like to hear my colleague comment on the fact that this is a program that puts money back into the pockets of families.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend from York Centre.

It is always a pleasure and privilege to rise in the House and speak on behalf of my constituents in the wonderful riding of Brampton East. I want to thank the hon. members who have spoken before me to this very important bill, Bill C-35, the Canada early learning and child care act. Their messages, stories and questions have proven that Bill C-35 would have lasting beneficial impacts across our country. This is a bill that would improve the lives of Canadians, their children and future generations to come.

I would like to stop and thank my wife, my mother-in-law and my mom for helping to take care of my two daughters so that I can be here today. I am lucky to have that family support, but there are many in my riding who do not have that support and are utilizing our $10-a-day child care strategy to save money and enrol their children in child care. When I speak to constituents in my riding, I hear stories first-hand, but I also hear about the added stress they have to endure just to find affordable, accessible and quality child care. I can hear the frustration in their voices. I can also hear that they share a common goal, which is being able to provide for their children and give their children the best start in life. This is a straightforward and simple goal that every parent has, but when one's entire paycheque is going towards child care fees, that goal can start to become out of reach. Our government has a plan in place to help parents give their children a better start in life; this is a plan to nurture their minds and help elevate them to their fullest potential.

Let me tell members about my constituents Matthew and Jennifer, both of whom are full-time nurses. They welcomed their first child, Sebastian, into the world in 2021. When the time came to consider child care options for Sebastian, they quickly learned that their options, like those of many parents, were very limited or beyond their means. Paying for child care meant that Matthew and Jennifer's goal of home ownership would have to be put on hold, but not anymore. With our $10-a-day child care strategy, families in Brampton East who used to pay upwards of $1,300 a month per child are now paying roughly $700 a month. Being able to save families like this one over $5,000 a year is very important because it helps with the cost of living and helps them to buy groceries or put money toward housing.

Another constituent I spoke with remembers, as a child, seeing one parent in the morning and one at night every day because they worked opposite shifts to be able to save money versus spending it on child care. She mentioned that this would sometimes come up in conversations when she was older, and her parents even said that they would not see each other until the weekends; that was very tough on her upbringing. This constituent told me about the leaps and hurdles her parents had to navigate through, back in the early 2000s, just so she was cared for. The only opportunities she had to participate in organized early learning were through free programs that were offered by the local high school, which facilitated ECEs as co-op students. This is another reason why having access to affordable, high-quality and inclusive child care is vital.

One of the guiding principles of Bill C-35 is that it would enable families to have access to child care. Parents would not have to work opposite shifts to make sure one of them is home, and they would not have to initiate the difficult conversation of considering putting one of their careers on hold because the cost of child care is too high or inaccessible.

As I mentioned before, within its guiding principles, Bill C-35 encapsulates that all Canadians have access to quality, affordable and inclusive child care. This is a lasting commitment built on a collaborative framework approach with provinces and territories across Canada. Within this commitment, the Government of Canada recognizes that first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families are best supported by programs that are culturally appropriate and led by local communities. This recognition extends to our neighbours in Quebec, who have successfully led the way for over two decades, with the development and implementation of their provincial child care plan. Our government will continue to learn from Quebec's system to improve our Canada-wide child care system. Our government is grateful to be able to reference Quebec's example of how to lead a government-funded child care program successfully.

I also want to highlight some of the impacts that Bill C-35 would have on the Canadian economy. While many people, including me, consider Bill C-35 to be smart social policy, it is also policy that makes good economic sense. When we invest one dollar into early learning and child care, the broader economy will see roughly two dollars in return. This could help raise our real GDP by over 1% in the coming years. Some of my hon. colleagues may have already mentioned these numbers, but they are worth repeating.

The $27-billion investment made through Bill C-35 over a period of five years will help boost our economy, provide real and beneficial growth and help parents, especially women, enter or re-enter the labour force, a sector that we all know is experiencing shortages throughout various occupations and fields within Canada. Empowering women who want to enter the workforce and stay is good social and economic policy that helps eliminate gender inequality. Women, who statistically are more likely to take on the duties as the primary caregivers, will no longer have to choose or bear the burden of choosing between a career and caring for their children. Bill C-35 is empowering women to have the benefit of a choice, without being forced into making one.

As the hon. Minister of Families, Children and Social Development so powerfully put, Canada has the potential to gain an additional 200,000 workers entering into the workforce, should this trend have the same trajectory of involvement that Quebec experienced when it implemented its child care program roughly 25 years ago. Our government is adding additional options and opportunities for parents to make smart financial decisions and not limit their aspirations of career advancement.

When I speak with constituents at the doors, child care has always been a recurring topic that has come up from time to time. Even before parents have welcomed their new baby into the world, they are already researching various child care options to see if centres have space available, or how long the wait-lists are to get in, and calculating costs to figure out if they can afford it. Hon. members in this House have attested to their own experiences when trying to find child care for their little ones and how stressful this process can be.

Constituents in Brampton East are excited to hear about our government's agreements in place with our provincial and territorial partners to increase the number of child care spaces by over 250,000 in the next five years. Constituents are relieved to hear that active steps have been taken toward meeting this target: Roughly over 50,000 spaces are already committed to being built. Significant progress is being made, and the passing of Bill C-35 would mean that none of this progress would be lost or reversed. This legislation is meant to be multi-generational and will continue to operate and improve via the oversight mechanisms put in place to ensure accountability, transparency and sustainability.

Reporting on our government's progress has always been a key factor with Bill C-35, because transparency and accountability are critical components when analyzing the need for improvement and sustainability. The National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care comprises 16 individual experts who offer their invaluable knowledge and expertise within their respective fields.

The importance of having members who reflect the diversity of Canada is a key consideration, because this legislation will help all Canadians, no matter their background or beliefs. Having this third party expert advice creates a forum to help address the challenges that are currently being faced within the early learning and child care sector. We are also held accountable by our partners, and Canadians as a whole, to get this right. The annual reports to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development will help our government enhance its efforts.

Bill C-35 is multi-generational. It is a long-term commitment to Canadians, and it gives families the assurances they need, knowing that their children, grandchildren and future generations will be able to enjoy the same benefits as children today. This is another reason why having the proper oversight and mechanisms in place that provide transparency and accountability is so crucial to Canadians.

When this bill passes, and I have every hope that it will, I can provide constituents and their families the comfort of knowing that this legislation cannot simply be cancelled or taken away. In those same conversations, I can reassure parents that more spaces are being added to help shorten wait-lists. I can also tell them that Bill C-35 will bring a sense of financial security through savings of thousands of dollars a year for their families to help with affordability.

Parents are already seeing the results of a Canada-wide system with significantly reduced fees across provinces and territories. These reductions are in line with our goal of achieving an average of $10-a-day licensed child care by March 2026.

As I conclude today, this legislation respects the notion that child care is not a luxury, but a necessity. The bill is a necessity that respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction due to its collaborative approach with a shared commitment to strengthening and protecting this Canada-wide system for future generations. I trust that the hon. members of this House will do same to continue to support women, children and families through this legislation.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, there is a five-year limit with the agreements, so this is not forever. That is one thing to make note of.

Bill C-35 does not create new spaces. Sure, there are parents who already have their kids in a child care centre or use whatever model is accepted by their province and works for them. However, if they are not already in there, too bad, so sad; they are still on a wait-list.

The Conservatives moved a motion at committee to recognize labour, as we need a labour strategy. The NDP voted against it, so I would ask the member why his party voted against the labour force strategy for child care educators.

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

Madam Speaker, I respect everyone's views in this place. We all bring stories. I am the father of three daughters. My eldest twins were born in 2012, before I was elected, so my wife and I are also familiar with the struggles of raising children and trying to find care.

The situation the member described is one that has existed for many of my constituents before we had child care agreements, before Bill C-35 even came into being. I do not see how those particular issues could not be helped by the bill. It is trying to enshrine a payment system, a funding system, that is trying to address the very issues that she raised as concerns in her speech and that are affecting constituents right across this country.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I just want to note I will be splitting my time this evening with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

We know, and there is no doubt, that child care is an important conversation to be had. We know it is a conversation that parents are also having on a regular basis across this country. Child care needs can look different, not just from one region to another, but also from family to family.

Public policy and the development of a national program should respect and take into consideration those differences. It has been very disappointing that, throughout the deliberations of this bill, whether in the chamber or in committee, the approach of the NDP-Liberal coalition has been narrow and exclusionary. The Liberal government has sought to divide and disparage child care solutions outside of their own prescribed form. This is even more disappointing given many reports would suggest in some regions, such as Saskatchewan, most families do not have access to child care.

The demand for child care remains far greater than the available spaces. Child care providers, in all streams right across the country, have long wait-lists. Access remains a main concern when it comes to child care, but it is not solved by the existing agreements, nor is it resolved in Bill C-35.

We have heard accusations from members opposite that Conservatives have tried to obstruct this legislation. In reality, Conservatives have been working to elevate the voices of parents who are raising serious concerns with the government's child care program.

We have articulated those concerns from child care providers. It is completely disingenuous to suggest that this, in any way, is hindering the delivery of the Liberals' program. The facts are that the child care agreements are already signed with the provinces, and the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care is already formed.

If anything, this should be an opportune time to examine the delivery of the program so that we can understand its shortcomings and take stock of its limitations and its potential reach. However, that was never the goal for the Liberal government. It put forward this legislation to pat itself on the back.

However, the bill, like many of the policies put forward by the Liberal-NDP government, creates winners and losers. The Liberals' self praise is an insult. It is an insult to the moms and the dads who are left out. They are left out in the cold and find themselves on the outside looking in with no spaces for their children in child care facilities.

Let me highlight some of the testimony and voices the government seems very eager to ignore. This includes voices of child care providers who find themselves excluded from the program and the Liberal government's vision for child care in Canada.

Amélie Lainé, representing indigenous friendship centres in Quebec, told the HUMA committee, “funding is only administered through indigenous political institutions, and it does not give service organizations like the indigenous friendship centres in Canada access to funds to develop early childhood and family services.”

Krystal Churcher from the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs told the committee, “Bill C-35 does not sufficiently recognize that Canada's current child care system still very much depends upon thousands of private operators despite directional preference for the non-profit business model.”

With wait-lists surging across the country, it is only logical that we use every tool at our disposal to meet the needs across this country from coast to coast to coast, and that we not purposely shut out child care providers who are providing quality care currently. In fact, in the study of this bill, the HUMA committee heard about how the exclusionary structure of the program could actually be to the detriment of the quality of care. We heard about a parent who felt that she now had to choose between the quality of care for her daughter and more affordable costs. It is a decision that she was faced with because her preferred care provider falls outside of the current agreements and would not be captured by the vision laid out in this bill.

The rollout of this program has not even provided much of a choice for many families and more often even less of a choice for lower-income families. We heard in committee that more often lower-income families that cannot afford child care costs are wait-listed because they do not have children enrolled. Excluding child care providers is in the exact opposite spirit of achieving accessible, affordable, inclusive and high-quality child care for all children.

To really tackle child care in Canada, our approach should be comprehensive. The passage of my private member's bill, Bill C-318, would support that goal. Allowing adoptive and intended parents equal access to EI leave to care for their new child would give those parents more time to bond with their child and more time to find a child care solution. It could also help to alleviate some pressure on the child care system. I would hope that, if not the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development would herself see the merits of her government's keeping its promise to these parents and offering the royal recommendation that is needed for Bill C-318.

It is also clear that any hopes of making real progress toward accessible, affordable, inclusive and high-quality child care for all will require a labour force strategy. There is a clear crisis in the childhood educator workforce. There needs to be a plan to recruit and retain labour. The success of a national child care program will depend on this. We cannot flick a switch to create more spaces if there is not a workforce to handle it.

That is why it is particularly frustrating that the NDP-Liberal coalition rejected amendments put forward by Conservatives in committee to address these particular shortcomings. They rejected an amendment that would have explicitly directed the national advisory council to support the recruitment but also the retention of a well-qualified workforce. It would have given the council the mandate to track availability, wait-lists and the progress made in improving access, which is one of the pillars of this bill. It is not clear why the NDP-Liberal coalition would oppose this being a core function of the council. Similarly, the NDP-Liberal coalition rejected an amendment that would have explicitly required the minister to report annually on a national labour strategy.

The rejection of these amendments tells parents and those in the child care sector that the Liberals are not taking this workforce crisis seriously. It certainly does not give them confidence that the recruitment, education and retention of early childhood educators are a priority for them. Just as the recommitment to their exclusionary vision for child care does not give parents on wait-lists hope that universal access is within reach, the rejection of these amendments to include all types of child care providers in the program and to have a more fulsome representation at the table ensures that there will continue to be winners and losers. The reality is that there will be parents who receive no support and there will be qualified and quality child care providers who will continue to be vilified because of their business model by the NDP-Liberal government.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very strongly in favour of Bill C-35, but I think we had better not ignore the concerns that we are “Not Done Yet”. That is the title of a report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, co-authored by economist David Macdonald and Canada's leading champion for early childhood education Martha Friendly.

We have child care deserts in this country. We have areas where children are not yet in kindergarten and parents have no hope of getting their child into a child care space because there is only 20% coverage for children in those communities. The worst in Canada is Saskatoon, then Kitchener, then Regina, then Vancouver. There is 24% space availability for the 100% of children who need a place.

Is the government open to reading this report, accepting its recommendations and working hard to provide the incentives and decent wages for early childhood educators to create the spaces for the children whose parents are going to benefit from $10-a-day child care?

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

Madam Speaker, it is nice that the member for Winnipeg North mentioned a variety of programs, including dental care.

Did anyone know that in two days it is going to be the two-year anniversary of when the Liberal Party voted against Jack Harris's Motion No. 62, which was first seeking to bring in dental care? I am glad that as New Democrats we have forced Liberals to see the value in such programs, and I am similarly glad that, through our confidence and supply agreement, a bill such as Bill C-35 is a part of that agreement. I would agree with the member that we are delivering programs that are going to be hugely important for Canadians.

I would like to know from the hon. member, when it comes to a bill such as Bill C-35, could he talk about why it is so important to put in a legislative commitment so that we do not suffer from any possible future policy lurch? This bill would really guarantee that the funding would be there for future families and their needs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and talk about substantive legislation that would have a profound impact, not only for today but also for future generations.

I think we would have to go back quite a way to find a government that has been so progressive in providing advancements in a wide spectrum of areas to support Canadians. I often hear, whether from the Prime Minister or one my colleagues, that the issue for us is that we want to see an economy that actually works for all Canadians. We often talk about Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it, and how we could develop policies and initiatives, and take the budgetary measures to advance that. That is what Canadians expect.

Through the last number of years, we have heard the Conservatives focusing on other things, outside of what is important to Canadians. Today is a good example. We see a government that is listening to what Canadians are saying and delivering on that in a very tangible way. For example, an hour or so ago, we were talking about Bill C-22. It is historic legislation. For the very first time, we are saying that Canadians with disabilities need to have support that would ensure that there would be fewer people with disabilities living in poverty. This would be as a direct result of Bill C-22, a wonderful, progressive piece of legislation.

Now, we are talking about Bill C-35. In many ways, Bill C-35 would have such a positive impact, no matter where, what region, in Canada one looks at. Getting these agreements is not necessarily an easy task. The current minister has reached out and contacted provincial and territorial stakeholders, not to mention, as she made reference to in response to a question, numerous advocates. In a very humble but accurate way, the minister acknowledged the input of those advocates who have been working, trying for years to put in place what Bill C-35 would do.

In some of those years, we have experienced a great deal of frustration. I have talked about the Conservative hidden agenda. Let me tell the House why there is a Conservative hidden agenda and why Bill C-35 is so critically important. Members across the way might recall the Stephen Harper days.

I would not say “hear, hear” to that.

With respect to child care, the first action former prime minister Harper took was to get rid of child care agreements, 15 years or so ago.

I want members to imagine, if they will, what would have happened had Stephen Harper and the Conservative government at the time recognized the real value of what Paul Martin, Ken Dryden and the Liberal government had put into place. It was a substantial, extensive program. I know that Ken Dryden, in particular, put so much effort into it in terms of working with some of the advocates the current minister has no doubt had to deal with. That plan was put into place, approved and signed off, and provinces were onside. Then the Conservative government, led by Stephen Harper, cancelled it outright, on day one. What was the cost of that policy decision?

A couple of years ago, after we made many other initiatives that have been really important to Canadians, we took the bold step to bring this thing back in a very real and tangible way. Once again, we have a national minister recognizing that there is a role for the federal government to ensure that we have child care from coast to coast to coast.

All one really needs to do is to take a look at what is happening in the province of Quebec. Quebec has had this model for many years, and we see the benefits to Quebec society as a direct result in terms of things that have been achieved, whether it is women engaging in the workforce far more than in any other jurisdiction, from what I understand, in North America, to providing an improved, quality standard of child care to ensuring that there are more equal opportunities, not to mention how the economy benefited by it.

We understood this many years ago, and now we are forwarding it. However, it is because of the goodwill and support from Canadians from coast to coast to coast that we were able to work it out with the many different stakeholders, in particular, the provinces and territories. I believe Ontario was the last one to sign on board back in March 2022. By Doug Ford's signature, we had a true, national, coast to coast, child care program, and that is something we should all be very proud of.

As a Liberal caucus and as a team, we understood the benefits of the program, and it is an issue we promoted. In fact, as my colleagues will recall, we only need to take a look at the last federal election. We had 337, 338 candidates going door to door talking about the importance of child care, and that if we were re-elected into government, we would materialize a child care program.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, said that they would tear it up, that they did not believe in what we were doing. So, when a Conservative member stands up and says “Well, we're voting for the legislation”, I encourage members to read some of the speeches that were given by Conservatives. Look at what they did on the first run. This is why we need the legislation. We do not want a potential Conservative cabinet 15 years from now making the decision to get rid of the program. We want this program to be there for future generations, because by making that sort of commitment, we know that society here in Canada will benefit greatly.

We cannot trust the Conservative Party, quite frankly. It has demonstrated that time and time again when its members talk about progressive policies for the betterment of Canadians, and I do not say that lightly. I actually sat in the chamber and listened to many of the Conservative MPs speak on this legislation, and I could not tell how they were going to vote. I think someone put their finger up in the air and felt the political wind and thought, “Oh, jeez, it might be tough for us to vote against this, so let's support it.”

Some might use the word “delusional”, but I would suggest, after 30 years of being in Parliament and watching the Conservatives at play, that it is more of a reality issue. I would suggest to members that the Conservatives actually recognize the true value of this program. They should be bold and go against their own leadership if need be and make some of the statements that are really important in recognizing the value of this program. They will say that, yes, they want to give more child care dollars to a certain degree, but they are not talking about the same sort of child care program that we are talking about.

What does this program do? It provides $10-a-day day care, which is life-changing. It is going to enable so many people the opportunity to afford, for the first time, child care services and the educational program that goes along with it.

I was really encouraged, and I think it was back in September, when the Prime Minister came to Winnipeg North and we went to Stanley Knowles School and visited the child care facility. We could see relief in the faces of the individuals who are recipients of what we are talking about today. It was relief, joy or just appreciation that there is finally a government trying to do the things that are important to citizens.

Winnipeg North is not the only riding the Prime Minister has visited. As he has gone through the country, he has attended town halls in other constituencies and has spoken to parents and been there with the children. I always enjoy the playful attitude the Prime Minister has toward the children of Canada because it is so genuine.

We have a Prime Minister who is committed not only to providing $10-a-day day care but who understands the needs of our young people. He is there to talk, answer questions and listen. As a result, whether it is him, the Minister of Families or my caucus colleagues, they take a look at the issues that come up in our constituencies and bring those issues to Ottawa so we can develop the budgets and the legislation necessary and that is going to make a difference in the lives of Canadians.

What are the issues today we often hear about? Inflation has to be one of them. I feel a great deal of empathy and sympathy for what Canadians need to overcome as a direct result of inflation, even though Canada is doing quite well on inflation compared to the U.S. and many of the European countries, our allied countries, and so many others. This is not to mention other economic indicators. It does not take away from the fact that as a government we still need to do what we can to help Canadians at a time of need.

With this program, we are talking about hundreds if not thousands of dollars every year that are going to be left in the pockets and purses of Canadians from coast to coast to coast as a direct result. That is action. That is going to make a difference in a very real and tangible way.

On other actions to support our children, remember the dental program. The Conservatives actually voted against this particular program. As we implemented the dental program, the first thing on the agenda was children under the age of 12. We do not want to recognize, by their smile, a child who is not able to get the dental work they require. Far too often children are going to hospitals to get dental work because their mom, dad or guardian do not have the financial resources, for some reason or another, to bring that child to a dentist.

Again, through this program, we are seeing literally dollars going into the pockets of families to assist children in being able to get the type of dental services that are necessary.

I started off by talking about national programs. I talked about the historic program of disabilities. Then I talked about children. Now I am making reference to dental work. I would challenge any member of this House to demonstrate any government before this government that has developed and put into place programs to support Canadians. It has been a wide spectrum of programs and I want to spend just a bit of time to emphasize that. It clearly shows why Bill C-35 is a part of a larger plan that is very comprehensive and shows Canadians that, whether it is a legislative measure or a budgetary measure, this is a government that has the backs of Canadians in a very real and tangible way. We have a government that has now negotiated, for example, an incredible $200-billion plan to ensure that future generations of Canadians are going to have a health care system that is based on the Canada Health Act.

We have a government that, within the first couple of years, understood the importance of retirement and worked with all the provinces, as it has done with the three programs I have just mentioned, and had CPP addressed, which is something that Stephen Harper completely ignored and said that he would not do. Before he was the leader of the Conservative Party, he advocated getting rid of the CPP. We as a government worked with the different provinces and stakeholders, including small business and labour groups and were able to get the agreement on CPP.

I say this because, like Bill C-35, these are initiatives that really make a difference in the lives of Canadians. That is why I am encouraging members opposite to change their attitudes toward the way in which government spends its money. Let me give a specific example by using Bill C-35.

The Conservatives have this mindset: If they spend a dollar, it is a bad thing if it is government dollars. It is cut, cut, cut. One day, I even had one of the members suggest that we could always cut money from military defence. I can say that when the government invests in programs, more often than not we get a pretty decent return. For example, yes, the child care program is going to cost a lot of money; there is no doubt about it. However, if we recognize the value of that investment and start acknowledging some of the benefits, we quickly find out that it is not costing as much as one might think.

For example, specifically as a direct result of Bill C-35 and the budgetary measures by this government, there is no doubt that we will see an increase in the workforce. We are going to see more, in particular, women participating in the economy. As a direct result of that, when more women are participating in the economy, more taxes are generated. When members say that there is a cost for child care, there is a cost benefit that also needs to be factored in. That is not to mention the other benefits that I have already cited: to the community, to the family unit and to the child receiving that quality child care.

In conclusion, I would encourage members to realize the benefits of not only saying they are voting for this particular legislation, but I am going to be looking to see the Facebook and social media commentaries coming from the Conservative Party, saying how wonderful this program is, and be—