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.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[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—

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak in the House in support of a historic piece of legislation, Bill C-35.

I want to begin by acknowledging the hard work of my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who has worked tirelessly on this bill and who has worked alongside our team to push the Liberals to create a stronger version of this bill on behalf of children, families, Canadian women and all of us.

For me, child care hits close to home. As many of us know, and as my constituents certainly know, I am the proud mother of five-year-old twins. I, like many mothers in Canada, faced real challenges when it came to accessing child care after I had my kids.

I was on a waiting list for child care in Ottawa for over two years, and then, of course, as soon as COVID hit and, knowing that our child care needs had entirely shifted to my constituency here in Manitoba, I was again on a waiting list, and of course, like all families, I faced the insecurities and disruptions caused by the pandemic.

Many who may have tuned into our online sittings throughout that time would have seen one or even both of my children popping up on Zoom during working hours, because that is what it was like to work from home with kids at home without access to child care.

While I treasure the time with my kids, as many mothers know, juggling all of that without access to child care when we want it and when we need it can be a real nightmare.

The reality is that the lack of access to child care in Canada has absolutely held women back and held families back. This legislation is an important step in standing up for women in our country, for families and for a better future for all of our children.

As I begin this speech, I want to say that this victory would not have happened without the decades of activism, of work that has been done by women across our country.

I want to acknowledge the groundbreaking work of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, with leaders like Judy Rebick. I want to acknowledge the many activists involved in the national action committee throughout the country, including people like my mother, Hariklia Dimitrakopoulou-Ashton, who has certainly shaped who I am and who was part of an organization that made it very clear that equality for women and justice for women means child care.

I also want to acknowledge the many women in the labour movement who have tirelessly fought for decades for access to universal, affordable not-for-profit child care. They include leaders like Barb Byers, Vicky Smallman and Bea Bruske, the current CLC president, and her team.

I want to acknowledge women across the country who have made it their aim to speak and fight for child care. In B.C., they are people like Sharon Gregson. Many women here in Manitoba have been part of this fight. Martha Friendly and many more have fought for child care for decades. They and many others are the reason we are standing here today.

I also want to acknowledge a former colleague who is in the news a fair bit right now and who I think many of us hope will soon be the mayor of Toronto, former New Democrat MP Olivia Chow, who, when she was in Parliament, fought tirelessly for child care. She was the first to propose an early learning and child care program for Canadians. Her leadership created the framework for a universal, high-quality, affordable and not-for-profit national child care program.

New Democrats have long called for universal early learning and child care in this country, and it has been a long road to get the other parties on board. I am thinking of long negotiations just to include this in the supply and confidence agreement with the Liberals. Our demands that this be implemented by the end of the year are the reason we are here, and I am proud that due to NDP pressures, we will see this bill adopted before the end of 2023.

Let us look at the figures. Roughly half of Canadian children under six years old do not have access to either licensed or even unlicensed child care. This impacts primarily women, delaying their capacity to return to work at a time of their choosing. Of the women in families that do not have access to child care, 42% end up postponing their return to work.

This is unacceptable. Our current piecemeal system leaves far too many women without the choice to decide for themselves, ourselves, when we can go back to work. Those lost years mean less income for women and fewer opportunities for promotions and furthering careers. It means being punished for starting families.

Every day that we do not have an early learning and child care program in Canada is a day when Canada shows the extent to which it devalues women and how little it wants us to succeed. Let us be clear. The provinces know this. Everyone in the House knows this. We have had commission after commission and report after report. Over half a century ago, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women identified publicly funded universal child care as one of 167 recommendations. For over 30 years, we have heard Liberal promises around child care. It was just around the corner, red book after red book and often heard about during the election, only to have the Liberals complain how hard it was to enact when they got into government.

Far too many women are waiting for far too many men, and some women, to figure out how to treat us with basic dignity and respect. Whether it is our earning power's resembling that of our male counterparts, our capacity to live safely and without fear of violence, equitable abortion access in communities in rural and northern parts of our country, or access to child care, women in Canada are tired of having to prove their basic humanity.

This bill is important, and no one should diminish that. Every parent across Canada deserves access to affordable, accessible, high-quality child care. This bill would enshrine this vision in law and would commit the federal government to long-term funding for provinces and indigenous communities. This bill sets out the vision for a national early learning and child care system and the principles guiding federal investment in that system.

Speaking of funding, we need to be clear. There needs to be long-term, sustainable core funding directed at not-for-profit, accessible and universal child care programs. We need to make sure that ECE workers, who are incredible individuals and amongst the most patient people I know, make a living wage and beyond for the work they do. We need to make sure there is investment in infrastructure. I am thinking of indigenous communities here in our region, with some of the youngest populations in our country, that do not have access to adequate day care spaces. We need to make sure the federal government works with first nations, with Inuit communities and with indigenous communities across the country to make sure adequate child care centres are being built.

It is important to acknowledge that this bill would establish a national advisory council on early learning and child care and set out reporting requirements on the progress being made regarding national child care and the federal investments being made in the system.

Finally, it is meant to contribute toward the realization of the right to child care services, which is recognized in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill acknowledges Canada's international obligations under the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, as well as that a national child care system must respect the rights of indigenous peoples as affirmed by the Constitution Act of 1982.

Today's work in Parliament and the passing of Bill C-35 is nothing short of historic, but we need to make sure that subsequent governments live up to their obligations in this bill and ensure that there is adequate funding to invest in our most prized resource: our children and our future.

I end by thanking those who have come before us: the feminists, the women, the many people who fought for this day to be a reality and who will continue to fight to make sure that children, women, all of us, get the chance and the support that we all deserve.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the New Democratic Party and the entire NDP caucus for their collaboration and for their support of Bill C-35. This is something that all parliamentarians can be extraordinarily proud of. It is historic and it will transform this country.

We have heard the Conservative leader of the official opposition call the support that the federal government is providing to families through child care a slush fund. Tonight the Conservatives said this is just slogans, meaningless and a false promise, although, as I mentioned, thousands of Canadian families are directly benefiting from this program already.

I am wondering, first, what the leader of the NDP thinks about those comments and, second, how he thinks Canadian families take those comments when they are seeing thousands of dollars returned to their pockets every year.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.

Today, I am speaking in favour of Bill C-35. It is something that New Democrats are proudly supportive of. It is a bill that establishes a national early learning and child care system.

Why this bill is so important is because it is transformative. It is another example of New Democrats never giving up. We fought hard for years alongside many advocates who said that we needed affordable child care. Affordable child care really is a transformational thing in the lives of people. Let us think about the reality for families right now and look at what people are going through with the cost of living so high, mortgages so high and the cost of groceries so high. A lot of families who want to have children look at the costs and say that there is no way they can do it, especially if they both cannot continue to work. That is a reality for many families. Many women who often fall into the role of having to be the primary child care provider want to get back into their careers and continue to work. When they look at the cost of child care they say it is simply impossible. To ensure that families across this country can have affordable child care is literally a transformational thing in the lives of so many. We believe this is so important.

Bill C-35 represents a long-standing commitment of the New Democrats to see national child care introduced. That is why we included this as a requirement in our agreement. This is a specific element we forced the Liberals to include in our confidence and supply agreement to legislate it and make it permanent so we do not rest on the whim of a one-time negotiation, but that we forever in this country have child care that is available and affordable for families. That is exactly what New Democrats do. We commit to fighting for people. We fight for people, we never back down, and we continue to fight until we win, and we deliver for Canadians. This is an example of New Democrats delivering. We promised to deliver permanent child care. We delivered it using our power in this minority government and forcing the Liberals to include this in our confidence and supply agreement.

I want to also acknowledge my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, for all of the hard work she did on this file. It took a lot of work. She has been a strong advocate for child care generally and she played a crucial role in the shaping of this bill.

One thing that is really emphasized in the bill is that it not only provides an opportunity for investing federal dollars into child care but to also build the type of child care we want for the future. The choice is, like many choices when it comes to providing services for people, whether we allow a for-profit system to continue to grow or we make it clear through legislation that New Democrats believe this is our opportunity to build up the public and not-for-profit sector. That is exactly what this legislation does. It prioritizes public and not-for-profit child care, which builds child care that is of the highest quality, where every dollar goes toward the care of our children, and does not provide an opportunity for rich corporations to make more money.

The NDP fought hard to have public, not-for-profit child care prioritized in this bill. We know that this approach means affordable, high-quality child care that is accessible to families who need it, not child care that puts profits first to the detriment of parents and children. This means better salaries and better working conditions for child care workers, who play an essential role in our children's development.

I also want to make a clear contrast here. While we used our power to force the government to legislate child care to ensure that it will be there moving forward, we have seen the Conservatives oppose this bill every step of the way and say they want to scrap it. As the member from the Bloc mentioned, in Quebec there was a time when there were people like the Conservatives who said we needed to get rid of child care, but it is so clearly beneficial to families that no one in Quebec would dare oppose it. I dare the Conservatives, once millions of families are benefiting from affordable child care, once people in their constituencies are benefiting from it, to try to remove this bill and try to fight against child care.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am so very pleased to speak to Bill C‑35 this evening, especially since I prepared my speech by running the statements I am about to make by my colleague from La Prairie, who is an economist. They call him “the big softy of La Prairie” now because he is so nice. It makes a change from his former life in Quebec City, where he was known as the “butcher of Sanguinet”. That was my little introduction.

Why am I so pleased? It is because, in my former life, I taught a course on social policy to social workers, in which we discussed Quebec's family policy extensively as one of the best examples of a successful social policy. As we know, Quebec's family policy encompasses a number of measures, including child care services and parental leave, which were introduced by Pauline Marois.

When explaining to students how to grasp the scope of a social policy such as child care, I always began by identifying the different ways of looking at society. The fact that there are multiple ways of looking at society gives rise to ideological debates. We are seeing these ideological debates play out this evening. I find that a good way of distinguishing between the people I would call social democrats and those who espouse what might be called classical liberalism—or conservatism, as I should call it for the benefit of people here—is to look at how social policies are articulated.

I would define a progressive as someone who fights for individuals to be able to define themselves on their own. That is what progressives try to do. Why is that? As we know, there are people who are stuck in a predetermined social position. Here is a simple example: People whose parents are on welfare have a tougher time at school because they have fewer resources. They are at risk of becoming stuck in a predetermined position that they do not want, but that was assigned to them by their circumstances, because they were born into families with limited resources, or because they were born into a social group where education was not valued. These are people who are assigned to a predetermined social position.

As I see it, a progressive is a person who clearly knows that people born into favourable circumstances have enough social capital to achieve social fulfillment. Equal opportunity takes this into consideration and creates mechanisms that allow less advantaged individuals to experience upward mobility. The concept is nothing new. The member for La Prairie explained to me that this is the very basis of Keynesianism.

According to the liberalism of John Maynard Keynes, a free market is not enough. We also need a social safety net so that every individual can participate in society. We know what this social safety net is. Our social safety net is access to education and health care. This allows for greater equity and gives people in less enviable social circumstances the chance to fulfill their potential. That is how I would describe a progressive.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that this is the role of the market, that this is the role of the individual and that, if the individual puts in enough effort, they will succeed. That is what we call a meritocracy. I was basically trying to explain to students that these are two very different visions of society. My goal at the time was not to participate in ideological polarization, but I did point out that, generally speaking, it is the more progressive people who will have a positive vision of social policy, and therefore a positive vision of a measure like $5-a-day child care.

We are seeing that tonight in the House. My Conservative colleagues' speeches reminded me of the ones I heard in Quebec 25 years ago when child care was first introduced. Some people said that parents are in the best position to make decisions for their child. No one is in a better position to choose than the parent. No one is saying otherwise. No one is saying that it is not up to parents to decide what will happen to their child.

People also said that the lack of child care spaces was creating inequality. It was not just for the mother who wanted to send her children to a day care that had no more spots, and it was not just for the mother who wanted to keep her children at home either. To me, this is just rhetoric that does not offer any solution and just advances a political agenda, but does not account for specific situations experienced by individuals.

I say that because history has not vindicated those who supported this point of view. After Quebec's family policy was brought in 25 years ago, we realized that there were more women in the workforce. That was Pauline Marois's initial goal when she introduced this policy. We also realized children started school with fewer language delays. They will succeed academically because they are not starting at a disadvantage. We know that when a child enters school with language delays and has trouble integrating into the school curriculum, that child has less of a chance of moving up and succeeding than a student who has supportive parents. A child who is sent to a day care that provides good services could have those delays sorted out. That truly is what happened, looking back, 25 years later, at the benefits of Quebec's family policy.

This means that a successful social policy is one that takes into account a multitude of factors. Quebec's decision to introduce a child care system was about more than just enabling mothers to enter the labour market. It was also about enabling mothers to escape poverty. It was about enabling children to have initial contact with education, learn how to be independent and embark on a path towards an undoubtedly brighter future. As we have seen, it worked, because Quebec is a progressive society.

Let me provide a few examples. Not to be petty or mean-spirited, but Canada's family policy is 25 years behind, unfortunately. It happens. The federal government sometimes lags behind. The same can be said of medical assistance in dying. We are not blaming the federal government. It is slightly delayed, which is normal. It is also the same thing with secularism. In 25 years, perhaps the federal government will realize that a law on secularism is also progressive. However, that is a different debate that I do not necessarily want to get into.

It is important to understand how a social policy fits in. It is also important to realize that there is an ideological struggle going on between the two visions. That is what we are seeing tonight. However, the ultimate goal is to do good. The ultimate goal is to ensure that every child has access to quality services and will eventually be able to thrive and escape from conditions in which they could be trapped. As I was saying, a child born into a bad environment is more likely than others not to have access to education and, ultimately, to have a bleaker future.

Quebec has shown what successful day care services look like. I was saying that the federal government is lagging behind, but it will eventually catch up. All of this is fantastic, and it means the Bloc Québécois will likely vote in favour of Bill C‑35. However, I would not be true to myself if I did not point out the fly in the ointment.

The fly in the ointment goes hand in hand with the disease that is eating away at federalism. It is a disease called the fiscal imbalance. I have no intention of reopening the debate on health care funding. However, as will be shown, the logic is undeniable. What does the federal government do all the time? I call it predatory federalism. It encroaches on jurisdictions that do not belong to it. Once inside these jurisdictions, it proposes policies and then it pulls out. In the process, it creates a sort of dependency and obligations. Then it avoids paying the costs associated with these obligations. This is what we saw happen in the health care system.

If we look back to the early 1960s, we will find that under the legislation that created the public health system, for every dollar invested in or spent on health, 50¢ came from the federal government and 50¢ came from the provinces. That was in 1960.

Over the years, health transfers went through a series of reforms. The 1970s was when the first change was made to substantially reduce the federal contribution to health care.

In the 1990s, Canadian-style neo-liberalism arrived with Paul Martin. At that time, transfers were slashed outright, and Canada's budget was balanced on the backs of the provinces. If I can use 1996-97 and 1997-98 as benchmark years, the federal government repeatedly cut transfer payments by $2.5 billion a year, if I remember correctly. This created intense pressure on the provinces.

In one of his occasional moments of lucidity, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien told his colleagues at a G7 meeting that he could balance the books at any time without paying a political price, because it was the provinces that had to deal with the financial difficulties he created.

A child care system is now in place and Quebec will be given $6 billion over five years. There are no guarantees, however. The government is currently in a minority, which is good. The NDP is supporting it, barely. That is good because it means the Liberals cannot do everything they want. Sooner or later, there will be a financial reckoning. That makes the Conservatives' mouths water. This is what gets them excited, like a kid in a candy store. Sooner or later, we will have to return to a balanced budget.

When the government loses its alliance with the NDP, it will have to propose measures to return to a balanced budget. What will it do? Will it cut its own spending? Technically, it will be tempted to lower the payments it makes to the provinces. The despicable thing about all of this is that, generally, the government does this after having previously set standards.

As we have seen, the government wants to impose health care standards. The government is telling the provinces that if it sends money back to them to reinvest in health care, they will have to invest it in specific services, such as long-term health care or mental health care. The particularities of each province are not even taken into account. The federal government does not have the expertise, but it is telling the provinces how to behave. It is doing it with health care, and there is no guarantee that we will not see the same thing with child care.

The $6 billion announced in 2021 by the Prime Minister and Premier Legault is fantastic. However, there is no guarantee that when the government goes back to its old ways and wants to balance the budget, it will not slash these transfer payments and make the provinces bear the brunt once again. The provinces will have to bear the brunt and face their residents as services are cut and access to services becomes more difficult.

This is the blind spot with child care and Bill C‑35. We cannot totally agree with what the government is proposing. We know very well that, in the future, when the federal government intrudes on our areas of jurisdiction, that could translate into Quebec and other provincial politicians paying the price. They might have to deal with the federal government's predatory federalism reflex, which leads it to encroach on jurisdictions and then to pull out, refusing to pay the political price and instead foisting it onto others.

I say this because that is generally what happens. In my opinion, my Liberal and Conservative colleagues resemble each other in this respect. Ideologically speaking, they are willing to provide certain services to the public, but when the time comes to pay, they are much more tight-fisted.

The political instinct is to secure their own future, without thinking of the future of provincial politicians or the people's needs.

In my introduction, I said that I considered Quebec to be a progressive society. As we can see with child care, Quebec is 25 years ahead of the federal government. That 25-year head start is also reflected in the federal government not being ready right now to meet its obligations, at least when it comes to health care.

The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑35 with all due reservations. I urge my Conservative colleagues to stop using the sterile rhetoric about how they want to defend everyone's freedom to choose whether they want to send their children to a public day care or keep them at home. It is not constructive at all and it does nothing to combat the fundamental problem of poverty in all advanced western countries.

Whenever we look at poverty indicators, who tops the list? It is single mothers. That is how it is in Quebec and every other province.

The best way to support these individuals and get them out of the disadvantaged conditions they are in is to have proper child care services. However, let us remain vigilant, because if the past is any indication, I am convinced that in five, six, or seven years, we will see a Liberal or Conservative government ready to cut the financial support currently offered to the provinces.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, there was a lot in my colleague's speech that was simply untrue.

Conservatives talk about fighting for choice, and there is nothing in this legislation that prevents parental choice about what kind of child care they choose to pursue. That is very much a Conservative ideological point.

There is nothing in this bill that divides Canadians. I really do not understand where the Conservatives are coming from in saying that child care is a divisive issue. In fact, when we talk to Canadians and hear from them, they are exuberant about this. It is cross-generational. It is not just folks who have little kids right now. It is, in fact, all generations.

After such a down and negative speech, why are the Conservatives voting for Bill C-35 if they are so against it?

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a real privilege to speak to child care in this country and to be the critic for families, children and social development. It is obviously a great honour to rise and represent my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha.

Tonight, we are in what is called the third reading of Bill C-35. For people at home, this means that after this reading, we will vote on it and see what happens. There has been a lot of study and a lot of debate on this bill. There has been a lot of opportunity to meet with stakeholders and operators and to listen to parents and colleagues across the way in committee.

The reality is that the Liberal government loves to promise the moon and the stars but not deliver. Therefore, it is not very surprising that this universal child care bill is no different; it is not universal. As critic to this file, I am here to elevate the alarm bells of parents and operators who are being silenced about the shortcomings of this bill. Do members know the ratio of private versus publicly funded child care in Newfoundland? It is 70%. Seventy per cent of Newfoundland relies on the private sector. Therefore, why would the Liberals purposely leave them out of Bill C-35?

Here is the exact language of the bill. Under “Guiding principles”, paragraph 7(1)(a) says:

(a) support the provision of, and facilitate equitable access to, high-quality early learning and child care programs and services—in particular those that are provided by public and not for profit child care providers....

Therefore, Conservatives put forth an amendment in committee, which read as follows:

(a) facilitate access to all types of early learning and child care programs and services regardless of the provider—such as those that are provided through traditional daycare centres, centres with extended, part-time or overnight care, nurseries, flexible and drop-in care, before- and after-school care, preschools and co-op child care, faith-based care, unique programming to support children with disabilities, home-based child care, nannies and shared nannies, au pairs, stay-at-home parents or guardians who raise their own children, or family members, friends or neighbours who provide care—that meet or exceed standards set by provincial governments or Indigenous governing bodies and respond to the varying needs of children and families while respecting the jurisdiction and unique needs of the provinces and Indigenous peoples....

That is a pretty well-rounded amendment, and it really speaks to what Conservatives have been saying from the beginning: The bill should deliver choice and flexibility and include everyone. The Liberals and NDP voted “no”. Why did they vote “no” to that amendment? This is where the politics and ideology really come into play. They have an agenda, and it does not include everyone. They really believe in public and not-for-profit; they really believe that they can decide what is best for people's children. That is just the opposite of what Conservatives believe.

They think they know what is best for people's children. However, in reality, this bill would actually exclude 50% of children. Fifty per cent of children in Canada are living in a child care desert. The Liberals are quite talented, actually, at coming up with marketing slogans. What sounds better than a $10-a-day day care? It sounds wonderful. The out-of-control cost of living created by the Liberals, with their inflationary spending, has made life unbearable for most Canadians. However, what they love to do is come in from the side, bring a distraction and say, “Do not look at that; we are going to make life more affordable for people. Here is $10-a-day child care.” They give faulty solutions to the big problems they have created.

Therefore, it is really important to break down this $10-a-day day care plan. Let us break down the fine print and the very important details that the Liberals conveniently forgot to mention. They will tell people we are negative. We would like to tell them that we elevate the voices of the people who speak to us, because that is what we were elected to do.

This marketing campaign instantly and drastically increased demand. Of course it would do that. As a mom, I know that affordable child care is critical. However, if people cannot access it, it does not exist. The reality is that there are no systems or infrastructure in place to meet the demand. The children and the parents are then the ones who suffer. The quality of child care is being compromised because of this poorly thought-out and poorly executed bill. One operator told me that Bill C-35 is like putting a Band-Aid on a sinking ship.

How many people are familiar with budget airline service? This is the concept where the customer pays a lower fee but is nickel-and-dimed for all the basics. For example, one pays $200 for a flight but then one also has to pay maybe 50 bucks for a seat, another 50 bucks for luggage, more money for food and so on. Members get the idea. By the time all is said and done, there is really not a deal, because the money has to come from somewhere. That is what is happening with this child care bill. Centres are being forced to charge parents extra fees to cover food, administrative costs and more. One operator told me they are 15 months into their provincial agreement, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel; this means that they do not know how they are going to manage the extra costs.

Erin Cullen is an engineer with a beautiful new daughter. She lives in Newfoundland and Labrador, and she cannot access child care. I think she really summarized it best when she compared the Liberal child care program to the government telling Canadians they are getting free groceries: “Everybody's getting free groceries. You get free groceries, and you get free groceries.” The problem is that when we get to the grocery store, there is no food on the shelves.

I think the worst part about this bill and the story the Liberals want to sell is the promotion of gender equity. How is not having a choice equitable? Erin is one of many who has no choice. There is no choice because she, like many health care workers, shift workers and other workers, cannot go to work because there are no child care spaces available. Erin has said they have to leave the province. They have to leave her home. How is that equitable?

Jennifer Ratcliffe is the director of Pebble Lane Early Learning. She testified at the HUMA committee when we studied this bill. I want to read into the record what she said, because I think it is really important. For those watching, I note that CWELCC means Canada-wide early learning and child care. Many children require additional support right now. They are still reeling from COVID. There are so many special needs kids out there.

Ms. Ratcliffe testified:

Currently, the CWELCC excludes disbursement funding that is used to hire support staff. Without this funding available, we have to turn away children who require additional support in our programs. This must also change, so that we can meet the needs of all children.

She went on to say:

The pressure to implement this program so quickly has resulted in overpayments to providers, families double-dipping, and funding methods being overlapped. Parents are stressed and providers feel like they have no help. It is clear that the provinces are scrambling as they try to prove they can do this, but they are ultimately failing. You cannot simply throw money at a problem and expect it to change.

Wait-lists across the country are growing by the thousands each month, and families are left with no one to help them. Parents need to work and if they don't have care, their only option is social assistance. This doesn't seem right. Affordable child care is an empty promise to parents if it is not accessible.

Providers are doing everything they can to accept as many families as possible, but there are simply not enough spaces. Demand is increasing at a level that we have not seen in years. New spaces must be created in order to meet demand. Private operators need to be able to expand, but being excluded from funding for new spaces means they cannot afford to. The fee caps mean we are restricted when negotiating leases and working out operating expenses.

I really want the NDP members to listen to the testimony of this next woman who testified. This is what the NDP fight for, quite frankly, and I think it is important. Maggie Moser is the director of the board of directors, Ontario Association of Independent Childcare Centres. She said:

The CWELCC program has not delivered good value for taxpayers and does not meet Canadian standards of equity. The implementation provides undue benefits to higher-income families, who are sailing their yachts on the tides of the program, while those who need it most are left drowning.

Lower-income families were excluded from obtaining access to the CWELCC child care spots. Families who could already afford the fees of their centre were the ones who benefited from the rebates and discounts, while the rest were left behind on a long wait-list.

That is the reality of this bill, because if people already have a spot, they are going to take it up. Then there are people who need maybe a part-time spot, but they cannot access it; people are holding their own spots because they are so scarce. It is the people who have the lowest incomes, the most vulnerable, who are most negatively impacted by this.

I asked Maggie about her current wait-list, how many child care centres she oversees and how many spaces there are. Maggie responded:

We have 147 spaces as well as 24 half-time spaces, going all the way from infant up to kindergarten. Our centre is 100% full. There is not one empty space in our centre.

At the moment, we have around 600 names on our wait-list. They are for spots in the next year and a half.

That is the sad part. By the time some of these people are able to access this spot, their child has aged out of it. We have people who are thinking about having kids and putting their names on a wait-list.

I want to acknowledge to the minister and to everybody that, yes, for the people who were lucky enough to get a spot, this is helping them. I will not dismiss that at all. However, it is like winning the lottery. This plan is saving them money, if they are lucky enough to win the child care lottery. That is what this is. However, the money is also being taken in other spaces, such as food, gas and mortgages. I just think it is really important that we recognize where all of the gaps are.

One problem is all the women who have messaged me, because they cannot choose to go back to work. Kathryn Babowal, who operates Les Petite Soleils Inc., made a written submission to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I want to read it into the record: “From what I can see happening today as a result of the CWELCC program, and what will inevitably continue to happen through Bill C-35, many private child care centres will not survive this transition and the investments made by private, tax paying citizens, will be instead replaced by not-for-profit child care centres that will be funded through hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money in subsidies and supports.” Kathryn says, “There are private childcare operators ready and willing to make the investments in their communities to create childcare spaces with no cost to taxpayers, but they are unable to access a free market and thus the families that choose these private centres are unable to receive the affordability support of the CWELCC Program. There are also substantial administrative costs being incurred by taxpayers to offer incentive grants to not-for-profits and to staff government positions to manage the use of funds, claims and audits. As a Canadian, as a tax paying citizen, and as a child care entrepreneur who has invested thousands of dollars and hours into building the best child care program I possibly could to support the parents and children in the community...[I find] this...extremely disheartening.” Her voice matters too.

This email is pretty powerful: “My name is Rebecca and I am [a] lawyer practising in St John's Newfoundland and Labrador. I have an 11 month old and I am currently on leave from my position.” Rebecca says, “The federal government brought in a subsidy so that parents could avail of $10 a day daycare. Daycares collect 10 dollars a day from parents and collect the rest from the federal government, however the federal government only pays on a quarterly basis and often late. As such daycares end up operating at a loss with...minimal cash flow and many have had to shut down as a result.” This part is so important: “The intention of the 10 dollar a day daycare was to allow women to access affordable childcare but it has had the very absurd result that women are being forced out of the workforce entirely with no income at all because they made the choice to have a child.”

Many of these people, when they phone me, say, “Michelle, I am a Liberal” or “I am an NDP supporter.” When we talk about partisanship, the child should be at the crux of this discussion, but it is not, because it is political. This is part of the supply agreement that the Liberals and the NDP signed together, and they checked it off. When we look at the political implications of this, at where the child care deserts are the highest, with Saskatchewan at 92%, how many Liberal seats are in that province? There are zero.

They know that. They have created a bill to try to divide us and, unfortunately, pit women against each other. I am not buying into that. I am here to elevate the voices of parents and operators.

It is urban versus rural. That is what this bill has done. It has left more people out. The reality is that so many people in rural ridings cannot access a centre. That is not how it works. One has to rely on one's friends, family, neighbours or grandma. It is not in this bill. If they really cared, they would have added that amendment. They would have said, “Yes, we will put that amendment in.”

This is a political game, because they are failing as a government in all areas, including housing and the cost of living. This is a distraction. They say, “We are giving out $10-a-day day care.”

This place is so upsetting. I really think that everyone in here came with the intention to help people. I believe that, and it is the biggest question we get asked, but this is the reality of what we are dealing with. It is just upsetting because one thinks that people come here to make a difference and to listen, but one gets sucked into these political games.

When the Conservatives asked the Liberal government in a written Order Paper question how it could back up its claim that Ontario had 92% of licenced child care providers sign on to the CWELCC program, and that almost all of them had reduced fees by 50%, it responded, “The specific implementation of these ELCC [or Early Learning and Child Care] agreements falls within the legislative authorities of the provinces and territories, in accordance with their own unique ELCC systems.” This is the proof I am talking about.

The Liberals are setting it up so that, when this fails, it will be on the provinces' backs. They are going to be the fall guys for all of these shortcomings, which everyone is ringing alarm bells about. It is not just Conservatives. Members can Google child care, and every single day there is an article about this.

The minister, in effect, will say, “Oh, the Conservatives say to do nothing”. That is not what we are saying. We are asking the government to include everybody. We are asking the government to offer choice. That is what we are saying here, and I would ask for collaboration on this.

Conservatives put forth concrete amendments to the bill for the national advisory council to track data on the implementation of the child care program, including the availability of child care services, the number of families on wait-lists for child care places and any progress made in reducing the number of families on wait-lists. It is accountability and tracking. How do we measure success if we are not tracking it? Do members know what happened to this amendment? It was voted down. How are we going to track success if we are not measuring it?

I want to put into the record, because I think it is pretty powerful, something from Christine Pasmore. She wrote that she had a family share with her that they had to send their children back to a third-world country to live with their grandparents as they could not find any child care options in Grand Prairie. She said that families are being discouraged from moving there on Facebook because of the lack of child care in the area, and families are moving out of Alberta.

She also wrote of how they had two YMCA after-school care locations announce that they will be closing permanently as of July 1, 2023, as they are unable to staff them. This will be a loss of a 127 after-school care spaces there. Parents are not enrolling their children into the education system for kindergarten because of the lack of child care options. Instead, they are leaving them in day care full time. She said that this is the first time in the 17 years she has been in child care that she is seeing this happen.

I will speak to another letter that was really important. We do talk about moms a lot, but I had this one dad write to me, so I want to give a shout-out to the dad, Curt. He said that he was writing in reference to a post and that he does not usually speak up, but affordable child care does not exist for most. He is a father of two children, ages six and eight and, unfortunately, they have been in day care since they were babies because both he and his wife have full-time jobs.

He says that they have been very fortunate to have always been able to find work and, until a few years ago, they have not struggled financially. Because of their jobs, they have to have their children in after-school programs. He describes how now, with the new rules for affordable child care, to recover costs for younger children, because the real cost of care does not go down simply because someone wants to, the fees for school-aged is going up. To add to the frustration, the amount of tax credits for child care for school-aged children is also decreasing. For Curt, it is getting to the point, like it is for so many other families, where the cost of child care is so great that one of them will have to quit their job. He said that he had no questions, and he knows it is the reality and there is nothing I can do, but he just wanted to make sure that I was aware of these unfortunate facts. He said that, like all the other things the current government is doing, it seems designed to break this once great country.

The reality is, we will honour the agreements that are signed by the provinces and territories, but I want it loud and clear and on the record where all the gaps are.

Conservatives will continue to fight for choice and freedom. We believe that parents are the best people to make the right choices for their children, and we believe that there should be access to all forms of child care. We believe in freedom, choice and flexibility, and we will fight to remove the ideological shackles from the bill.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

moved that Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, it gives me such tremendous pleasure to rise on the occasion of third reading of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Today is another historic step toward having federal legislation with regard to early learning and child care. I have spoken numerous times in this House about the benefit of early learning and child care. I have talked about the life-changing experiences it has led to for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

We are coming up on the two-year anniversary of signing the first agreement with British Columbia, and since then, as members know, all 13 provinces and territories have signed on. That has meant 50% fee reductions as of December 2022 in every single jurisdiction. Six jurisdictions, Quebec, Yukon, Nunavut, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, have already achieved $10-a-day child care in regulated spaces, which is well ahead of schedule, and we are on track to meeting our objective by 2026.

We understand that what is important is making sure that all Canadian families have access to affordable child care, so we have also committed to increasing the number of spaces by 250,000 in that same time period. About 52,000 have already been created with the provinces and territories. It is so incredible to be at a groundbreaking or to hear from families that now have access to affordable child care.

Of course, we cannot do this without the talented and qualified early learning and child care workforce, which is the backbone and beating heart of child care in Canada. We recognize those tremendous workers, who go to work so the rest of us can go to work as well.

Having quality, inclusive, affordable and accessible child care is exactly why we are here at third reading debating Bill C-35, moving it through the legislative process and hopefully continuing to get the unanimous support of every single party and member in this House to move forward and do something that is truly historic and truly transformative for Canadian families.

Do not just take it from me. Since I have spoken a lot about the benefits of child care, what I would like to do tonight is share the voices of Canadians and share what Canadians across this country are saying about our Canada-wide early learning and child care initiative.

Candice from Burnaby, British Columbia, said, “we paid $455 for TWO kids to be in daycare for the month of December. Is this real life? Three cheers for your hard earned tax dollars being put to our use. I love you all.”

Katie from Ottawa, Ontario, said, “Just paid our January daycare fees. Under $500!!!!! This is a 55% reduction from last year. This is going to make such a huge difference for so many families.”

Greg from Kelowna, B.C., said, “My daughter's daycare fees have dropped from $1200 to $500 per month as well. It sure reduces the stress, including the strain on us grandparents.”

Ben from Toronto said, “Our infant's daycare fees have dropped $500 (FIVE HUNDRED) per month, and on the 26th at her 18mnthaversary it will drop an ADDITIONAL $200 (TWO HUNDRED!!) per month. Probably one of the largest pieces of legislation to personally affect me in my lifetime.”

Alana from Ontario said, “This is incredible work—I am so grateful as a mother to benefit from this and see my children thrive, as an RECE to feel hopeful for the future, and as a advocate to contribute to building this system.”

Amil said, “We are finally FINALLY seeing real reductions in our daycare costs. It's genuinely life-changing to see fees reduced by just over 50%—this is how you support families, this is how you achieve real equity in the workforce.”

Jocelyne from B.C. said, “My daughter on Vancouver Island found out yesterday that her daycare will be charging $10/day. This is huge for families! Thank you to the federal and provincial gov for collaborating on this excellent legislation. It truly puts families first.”

Isabelle from Toronto said, “It was absolutely surreal to see my daycare fees drop from a high of $167.25. As of Jan, we will be paying less than 50% of that, on a path to $10. Two kids, non-profit centre, Toronto.”

Clay from Nova Scotia said, “I remember when my grandmother who raised me on her own received $20 a month baby bonus & how much it meant to her. The Liberals did that and improved it every time they formed government. I can't imagine what a $10 dollar a day childcare would be single moms today.”

A tweet from someone in the Snuneymuxw territory said, “Thank you and your party for every one of these steps forwards for Canadians during these very challenging times. Though I'm not a member of any political party, I admire the progress made by @liberal_party despite the official opposition's grandstanding and obstructionism.”

Karen said, “Early '90's I paid $900/mo for 1 preschool[er] and 2 after-schoolers. Thank goodness families today will have a better chance of getting ahead.”

A parent from Alberta said, “I paid a lot in daycare costs, and I didn't have a choice. I am more than okay with families getting help with costs. It benefits us all when parents are able to join the workforce.”

Another person said, “My highest daycare bill for 2 kids was $2100. That's now over for me but working families should not have to pay that much. A break was much needed.”

The principal from Ataguttaaluk Elementary School in Igloolik, Nunavut, said, “It helps students prepare in a more formal setting for school, kindergarten, grade one and up. When you can introduce students at the young age of three, four to a routine or a program I think it benefits them years down the road in their education.”

Meghan from Winnipeg said, “I can't bring my baby to work. $10 a day childcare has been absolutely fantastic.”

A parent from P.E.I. said, “This is great news! This helps families, and will result in better outcomes for kids—the more support we give to early learning and childcare centres, the healthier and happier children are. The economic ROI is huge—and parents can choose to return to the workforce!”

Amy from Nunavut said, “I work in the field of ELCC in Nunavut and their multilateral and coinciding bilateral agreements with all P/T's have allowed for crucial initiatives and programs that otherwise would have been impossible.”

Let me tell members what Myra said. She said, “Thank you, Minister Gould. As a minority member of the society, I've witness[ed] friends and family members who struggle to keep up with inflation and high interest rates. This will surely help families, especially children and women.”

Sam said, “I just found out yesterday my daughter was accepted for a full time spot!! We'll be paying just 22$/day! This is a MASSIVE help to our budget, we would have been paying 59$/day if not for this program.”

Quinn said, “Affordable child care most importantly allows for my children to grow and develop in a safe, loving, and nourishing environment. The early years are so [important] and without the affordability, so many people were missing out on the perks of a licensed child care facility. They are shaping our little people into who they are going to be in the future. Secondly, it allows moms to work who may not have be able to before due to the high cost of childcare. For myself, I work in this field as well and the benefits for all my families in my centre are huge. This has been such a blessing all around!”

Finally, Natalia says, “This reduction in feeds has meant that I can go back to work. I'm a mother of 2 boys, a 3.5 year old and a 16 month old. If the fees would have continued to be so unaffordable, I would not have been able to afford childcare for my children and would have had to stop working outside of the home for a number of years to care for my little ones. This means that as a woman I can continue to have a professional life while being a mother. It means that we can afford a better life for my family and most importantly, it means that I feel happy and productive because I want to work and have a career.”

These are just a few examples of what Canadians are saying across this country about what the Canada-wide early learning and child care agreements and this legislation mean to them. I think that last point is really important. It is really about choice. When someone cannot afford child care and cannot afford to work, they are not really making a choice. What we are offering Canadian women, Canadian families and Canadian children is a real choice, the choice that they can be a parent and can also be in the workforce.

The stats are backing that up. In the past year, from April 2022 to April 2023, unemployment among women over the age of 25 dropped 10% in Canada. That means that the participation of prime-age women in the Canadian workforce has expanded by almost 100,000 women. We have reached an all-time high of Canadian women in the workforce, and the Bank of Canada points to our early learning and child care initiative as one of the key factors.

Twenty-five years ago, Quebec established its child care system. Today, 85% of Quebec women over age 25 with children under four years old are in the workforce. That is the highest rate in the world.

Quebec economist Professor Fortin attributes this high percentage to Quebec's child care system. We know that making sure high-quality, affordable and inclusive day care centres are available is a powerful economic driver.

It is a strong economic engine for our country, for our society and, most importantly, for our families. What it means is that they now have that extra bit of disposable income to pay what they need to pay for, to make sure that they are providing the best start and the best quality of life to their children.

Debating Bill C-35 here is an exciting opportunity for us to enshrine in Canada, in federal legislation, the role of the federal government to ensure that future generations will not have to worry about the cost of child care. They will not have to worry about making that impossible choice between whether they want to continue to pursue a career or whether they want to stay home and raise their children, because they will actually have the opportunity to make that choice.

We know there is a lot of work ahead when it comes to affordable child care in Canada, but we would not be able to do any of this work if we had not put those bilateral agreements in place and if we were not bringing forward this legislation.

That does not mean that we do not see challenges and it does not mean that there will not be bumps along the road of implementation; that is what happens when we buidl a brand new social program, the biggest and most important social program in this country in probably 50 years. It means that we should keep pursuing that objective and keep building that new system, that transformational objective that is going to have such a positive impact on families across this country.

Indeed, those stories that I read into the record show that it is already having a positive impact, so I hope I can continue to count on the support of all members in this place to keep advancing this legislation so that we can keep working together to do what is right for Canadian families, for Canadian children and for our economy. This is smart economic social policy that I think is going to have a truly transformational impact on our country, and members do not have to take it from me: This is what Canadians are saying right across the country.

With that, let us move expeditiously through third reading. We have gone unanimously through second reading unanimously through report stage. Let us get unanimously through third reading and send this over to the other place. Let us deliver affordable, accessible, high-quality, inclusive child care for all Canadians.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the report stage of Bill C-35.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

The House resumed from June 8 consideration of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, inflation is a global phenomenon. It is good that Canada is below the OECD average. It is also below the G7 average, the G20 average, the U.S., the U.K., Spain, Germany and many other countries. Of course, that is not good enough. We have to continue to lead and do everything we can. That is why I am so proud that this House just adopted a budget with critical measures to help Canadians in every corner of this country with affordability, because we are not going to fix the problem of global inflation by slashing support to the most vulnerable.

After passing the budget, this House has important work to do over the next two weeks.

It will start this evening as we resume debate on Bill C-35, on early learning and child care, at report stage. Once that debate is done, we will resume debate on Bill C-33, on railway safety. Tomorrow, we will debate Bill C-41, on humanitarian aid. On Monday at noon, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C-48 concerning bail reform, and then we will go to Bill C-35 at third reading after question period. On Tuesday we will call Bill S-8, on sanctions, at report stage and third reading.

On top of this, priority will be given to Bill C-22, the disability benefit, and Bill C-40 regarding miscarriage of justice reviews, as well as our proposal to implement changes to the Standing Orders, which were tabled earlier today, to render provisions with respect to hybrid Parliament permanent in this House.

Furthermore, I have a unanimous consent motion that I would like to propose in relation to the debate tomorrow.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, in relation to Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts:

(a) the amendment in Clause 1 adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which reads as follows:

“(a) by adding after line 26 on page 1 the following:

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who carries out any of the acts referred to in those subsections for the sole purpose of carrying out humanitarian assistance activities conducted under the auspices of impartial humanitarian organizations in accordance with international law while using reasonable efforts to minimize any benefit to terrorist groups.

“(b) by deleting lines 15 to 19 on page 2.”

be deemed within the principle of the bill; and

(b) when the bill is taken up at report stage:

(i) it be deemed concurred in, as amended, on division, after which the bill shall be immediately ordered for consideration at the third reading stage,

(ii) not more than one sitting day or five hours of debate, whichever is the shortest, shall be allotted for consideration at the third reading stage,

(iii) five minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders that day, at the conclusion of the five hours allocated for the debate, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall be deferred pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

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

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on part of the member's concerns. I am very much concerned that the Conservative Party, given its track record, has no intention of supporting the type of program we have negotiated with our provinces. That is the primary reason we see Bill C-35. It is because I do not believe the Conservatives can be trusted on the issue.

Does the member have any thoughts on the importance of this child care issue? How important is it that the agreements continue on into the years ahead?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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