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.

Pharmacare Act

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have risen three times today because I was so eager to speak.

I am pleased to speak today at third reading of Bill C-64. We have been debating this bill for a long time. Clause-by-clause study took place last week, but we do need to wind up the debate at some point.

Before continuing with my speech, I would ask my colleagues to respect my right to speak and not talk over me.

First, to make things clear, if they are not already, the Bloc Québécois's position has not changed one iota: We are against Bill C-64.

I would like to remind my colleagues of the purpose of the bill. Obviously, a bill can have several different purposes, depending on which side we are on. Sometimes it may seem like a bill has a noble goal, but that may not be the case.

I would like to talk about something that is totally obvious to me but that people tend to forget when we get into these debates. Bill C‑64 addresses one of the 27 items in the agreement that the Liberals reached with the NDP in 2022 to stay in power by forming a sort of coalition with the NDP. This may have been in the NDP's best interests, although maybe it will want to argue that point.

I would like to remind the House of the wording of the second item in this agreement: “Continuing progress towards a universal national pharmacare program by passing a Canada Pharmacare Act by the end of 2023”.

They want to “continu[e] progress”. We often hear similar phrases in the House, phrases like continuing to move forward, continuing progress or continuing to do something. That is all very vague, in my opinion. I would imagine that pretty much anything we do is progress, even the bill we are currently discussing. Perhaps that covers the disagreement there was between the Liberals and the NDP on this issue.

As members know, the Liberals dragged their feet on introducing this bill. This bill was in the works for years. They were talking about it in 2022. It was introduced on February 29. They could not agree on the cost of the measure. Of course we would like to see a pharmacare act, but perhaps not at all costs, if my colleagues will pardon the pun.

This bill was introduced on February 29, at the very last minute, to save the agreement and to save the Liberals. I might add that it was also to save the NDP. I must say that I did not hold my breath at the time.

A moment ago, I talked about the purpose of the bill. I think that this bill was introduced purely for the purpose of garnering votes. It could have been introduced sooner, but there was an agreement. The NDP would not want to bring the government down. That is why I was not surprised when the bill was introduced this year, one year away from the election, just before the budget.

I also get the feeling that it may have been because the government is short on ideas. I have spoken many times about the government's lack of vision. It has been eight, almost nine, years since the government came to power. It will have been 10 years by the time the election comes around.

I have noticed that the House is copying the debates taking place south of the border. Take the debates over contraceptives and diabetes medication. It is not that I am not happy to see my colleagues across the aisle and next to me tackling the official opposition, to use a soccer term, here in the House over a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body. I was not unhappy about that. However, it is being done for the purpose of gaining votes. There is one party in the House that wants to limit women's rights. This may resonate with some people, even me, but it should not be done for that purpose alone.

In fact, maybe it was entirely arbitrary. The government did not know what to do, what to propose. It desperately wanted pharmacare, but it had no idea what it really wanted to do, so it thought about what could help it win votes. It figured that it could take certain debates from the U.S. bipartisan system and copy them here to pit the good guys against the bad guys.

In short, I am not saying that these billions of dollars that will be spent by the government are a form of pre-election advertising, but that is what it looks like. Again, Quebeckers and Canadians need to be aware of the partisan agenda hidden behind this bill. There is a hidden objective.

I think it takes a certain kind of courage to oppose a bill that seems virtuous. That is what we are being told: If we do not vote in favour of the bill, it is because we are against it. I, of course, am 100% in favour of a woman's right to choose and all methods of contraception. I am a member of the Bloc Québécois. I speak on behalf of Quebec. I am not against the provinces' positions. I do not mind if they decide that the federal government can interfere in their jurisdictions. That is their choice, and I respect it. At the same time, that is not what I want for Quebec. That is why the Bloc Québécois proposed the following amendment in committee:

Despite subsections (1) and (2), a province or territory may elect not to participate in national universal pharmacare, in which case that province or territory remains unconditionally entitled to receive payments in order to maintain the accessibility and affordability of the prescription drugs and related products already covered by its public pharmacare.

Our amendment concerns the ability to opt out with full compensation from the pharmacare program. It was not debated because we could not debate it in committee during clause-by-clause study of the bill. It was not rejected either. I would say that what happened is even worse: It was ruled inadmissible. I wish I could avoid talking about the reasons the committee chair ruled the amendment inadmissible, but I think it is important to go over them because this is just another clear demonstration of bad faith, in my opinion, and the federal government's disregard for the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec.

It was argued that the amendment required a royal recommendation, which is false. What we were told is that it will generate additional costs and that, since we are an opposition party, it requires a royal recommendation. I hate to say it, but that is absolutely false. The amendment did not require a royal recommendation, because the funds had already been committed by the government. The Bloc Québécois's amendment was therefore legitimate and admissible.

This is not the only time that government members have made arguments that do not hold water and that are merely a pretext to interfere in Quebec's jurisdiction. The government did the same thing in the case of Bill C-35, which deals with the child care program. As far as I am concerned, this is not only a sign of disrespect toward Quebec, it is basically an insult, because over the decades, Quebec has built a social safety net that is the envy of North America. We have pharmacare, as well as dental coverage for young people. We have free education and early childhood centres. We have made some huge social advances.

In this case, the federal government is digging in its heels and refusing to allow Quebec to opt out unconditionally with full compensation. As I see it, Ottawa is refusing to recognize Quebec's decades of leadership in this area. The same thing happened with child care centres and Bill C‑35. What is more, the federal government is doing all this without having jurisdiction over this area or having any expertise in care and social services. Quebec is being denied something we have every right to request by a government that lacks both expertise and jurisdiction. The government has no compunction about turning us down, but at the same time, it has to follow our example with a view to “continuing progress”, as they put it so eloquently. I have no problem with the federal government continuing progress, but I do not want this progress to come at Quebec's expense.

As I said before, Quebec already has a public pharmacare plan for part of the population that the government introduced nearly 30 years ago. I need to repeat this because I think some people have trouble hearing it. This is not the case with everyone, but in the House, it is true of nearly the majority. As far as Canada is concerned, it is trying to catch up. It is behind by 30 years, so now it is encroaching on our jurisdiction. It may be more. We also have a private plan offered by employers, to which workers contribute as well. No one in Quebec lacks pharmacare coverage. People need to stop spreading falsehoods.

The choice was made by Quebeckers. It was not Ottawa that made this choice, it was Quebec. Our plan is also paid for by Quebeckers. The federal government did not give a red cent for this plan. We know what is right for us. We do not need someone else to tell us. We are capable of taking care of ourselves. We do not need paternalistic Ottawa trying to manage a pharmacare plan in Quebec without expertise, without legitimacy and without experience.

I keep thinking that what the Bloc Québécois is asking from the federal government is simple and it makes sense. We are asking the federal government to take care of its own responsibilities, such as foreign affairs, defence and fisheries. It seems to me that the federal government has enough responsibilities. It has more than enough things to take care of.

Perhaps that is not sexy enough for the government. I should ask that question. Is that sexy enough for the government? Health and education are the two areas that affect people the most. Of course, health is a matter of major importance. We talk about the things we care about. If we are not alive, then nothing else matters, obviously. Health is important. These are the two budget items that are most important for Quebec.

The government knows that, for years now, its health transfers have been insufficient. They are shrinking down to nothing. It knows all that. If the government reduces the transfers, the burden will fall heavily on Quebec and the provinces. Who gets the blame when there is a shortage of care and services? Quebec and the provinces, obviously.

Jean Chrétien understood this well. He bragged to the G7 that all he had to do to balance the budget was reduce health transfers. He said that Canadians would look for someone to blame, but that they would not blame the federal government, because health is under Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction. They are the ones who would be cutting health care and education. For him, it was simple: Canadians would take it out on the provinces. The federal government would be able to achieve a balanced budget, and no one would hold anything against it. The provinces would pay the price, both literally and figuratively.

It always comes down to this, unfortunately, but as a separatist, I have no other choice. I am a separatist and I am pragmatic. It always comes down to the fiscal imbalance. The federal government collects more money than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, while the provinces and Quebec are not collecting enough to manage their own jurisdictions. They are short of money, which gives the federal government an opening to spend money on things under Quebec's and the provinces' jursidiction.

It is unbelievable. It is like the federal government is stealing from the provinces and Quebec. It is strangling them. If they meet certain conditions, it will back off and let them breathe again.

We would not thank anyone who is strangling us for stopping. We understand that interference is always done with a purpose. I mentioned this earlier, but it is still the same thing with the government and its minions.

The federal government swoops in like a saviour, slapping its flag on cheques, which it tosses around like confetti, and the cavalry of government members run around, trumpets blaring, trying to solve the problems it created itself. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like that image. It has definite educational value. However, although we may be laughing over it, it is a hard fact.

While the government is gaily running around, it has forgotten why it was elected. Perhaps it does not know. Perhaps it has forgotten. When a government has no vision, it may take a peek in the neighbour's yard, looking for direction.

Again, interfering in areas of provincial and Quebec jurisdiction has a purpose for them. In fact, the purpose is twofold in this case: one, to keep the government in power, and two, to prepare for the next election.

Until we gain independence, Quebeckers will have to fight to make sure this government respects us, respects our expertise and experience and gives us what is ours, meaning our money and, of course, control over our own jurisdictions. It will also have to respect the fact that we have our own pharmacare program.

Quebeckers are capable of discussing amongst ourselves, at home, and improving our pharmacare plan with our experts, based on our experience and our wishes. It is not up to the federal government to tell Quebeckers what to do. We refuse to let our own tax money be used against us and at our expense.

One way to respect us is to vote down Bill C‑64. I may be a member of the Bloc Québécois, but I am not the only one who says so. The Quebec National Assembly has said it too. Christian Dubé, Quebec's health minister, pointed it out the day before the bill was introduced. We do not want this bill. We do not want the federal government to encroach on areas of Quebec's jurisdiction. I would remind the House that the National Assembly alone speaks for all Quebeckers.

In closing, I would therefore like to let the voices of Quebeckers be heard through the unanimous demands of the National Assembly for compensation to be paid to Quebec. That is what the Bloc Québécois has asked for, because the Bloc Québécois speaks on behalf of Quebeckers. The motion unanimously adopted by the National Assembly on June 14, 2019, reads as follows:

THAT the National Assembly acknowledge the federal report recommending the establishment of a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan;

THAT it reaffirm the Government of Québec's exclusive jurisdiction over health;

THAT it also reaffirm that Québec has had its own general prescription insurance plan for 20 years;

THAT it indicate to the federal government that Québec refuses to adhere to a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan;

THAT it ask the Government of Québec to maintain its prescription drug insurance plan and that it demand full financial compensation from the federal government if a project for a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan is officially tabled.

That was back in 2019, so the Quebec government made its position clear quite some time ago. Today, I am still trying to be a voice for the National Assembly. I hoped that the federal government would respect Quebec's decision to refuse to join the federal plan, for example, in the motion put forward at the committee studying Bill C‑64. We respect the provinces that want to take part in the program set out in the bill, since coverage is rather inconsistent across Canada, but in Quebec, everyone is covered by a pharmacare program.

It is up to us to decide what we want to do next. It is not up to the federal government.

Second reading

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I do not live in the world the member lives in. It is another dystopia. The last time I listened to the member go on in a speech in that vein was on Bill C-35, the child care bill. She went on and on arguing against it and then, at the end of the night, she voted for it. In fact, every single member on that side voted for the bill.

I am wondering if it is going to be the same story with the pharmacare bill.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'd like to thank my CNPF colleagues for appearing today. I also thank Mr. Thériault.

Ms. Anderson and Mr. Racine, I must say that the CNPF has always been very close to my heart. So I am delighted to see you here. You mentioned post-secondary education, and I recognize its importance, but early childhood is of great concern to me, too. Your organization has key early childhood goals as well. The role you've played for a long time has helped set French-language schools on the path to success.

My questions will be very brief.

How will the changes made through Bill C‑35 help your association?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

I agree with you. I know how effective the Table nationale en éducation has been and I see that it may be time to create a collaboration structure for funding post-secondary institutions.

I also want to thank you, as well as your federation and all the member organizations, for the work you have done for bills C‑31 and C‑35 because it also focuses on institutions responsible for early childhood education, which is very important.

Mr. Surette, it is always a pleasure to see you.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your hard and extremely effective work in connection with Université Sainte‑Anne, as well as your contribution on the provincial, national and international levels for the establishment. You were a key player as director general of the Acadian provincial school board. I very much liked working with you and I thank you again.

That being said, I would like to address two topics: the ceiling on study permits and the official languages in education program.

Ever since the minister announced a strategy to control the number of foreign students he wants to welcome, I understand that the discussions in Nova Scotia seem to be advancing. I would like to know your opinion on the matter.

Has federal-provincial funding for post-secondary institutions increased since 2015? I would like to hear you say that is the case.

Are the criteria that francophone post-secondary institutions and universities need to meet different from those imposed on anglophone institutions?

For example, when I was working at the school board, I had different categories to rank, including cultural facilitators, investments in early childhood, recruitment, and so on. Do you think these categories exist?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

March 19, 2024

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 19th day of March, 2024, at 6:04 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ken MacKillop

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada and Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously with great regret that this House has learned of the passing of Canada's 18th prime minister, the Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney.

Obviously, all members join us in wishing the Mulroney family our deepest sympathy at this time as they deal with the loss of this great statesman, who has done so much for our country. I join all Canadians in offering our condolences. Out of respect, I would like to seek unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House:

(a) the motion respecting Senate amendments to Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be deemed adopted; and

(b) this House do now adjourn.

The House resumed consideration of the motion for second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak once more to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, with respect to the amendments that were provided by the Senate.

First, let me reiterate the Conservative Party's support for child care and for supporting women entering or re-entering the workforce as they balance their family lives. We want to see Canadians have equal access to child care in the forms that fit their families. This goes far beyond the Liberals' $10-a-day day care spots to include traditional day care centres; centres with extended, part-time or overnight care; nurseries; flexible and drop-in care; before- and after-school care; pre-schools and co-op child care; faith-based care; unique programming to support children with disabilities; home-based care; nannies and shared nannies; au pairs; stay-at-home parents; guardians who raise their own children; and family members, friends or neighbours who provide care. This is what it means to make up and support community, and our children and our grandchildren are some of the most vulnerable members in our communities. They all deserve high-quality care in the chosen style of their caretakers.

However, my Liberal colleagues have been clear that they do not want to amend the bill overall to include choice for parents. This is unhelpful for a variety of reasons. So many Canadian parents are not in a position to send their children to traditional day care during conventional work hours. First responders, medical personnel, military members, truck drivers and a whole host of others must work through the nights, weekends and holidays, when many traditional day care centres are closed, and they thus require specialized care. Do they not deserve flexible options that suit their needs, especially when so many of their jobs are community focused? Anyone working unconventional shifts to provide for themselves and their families is just as deserving of high-quality affordable child care as those who work Monday to Friday, nine to five.

I have personal experience in this realm. I raised my two daughters while travelling extensively for work as a chemical engineer. I have previously in the House discussed the challenges of securing child care for them while working around my busy travel schedule, especially when factoring in the realities of travel, which include delays, changed timelines and flights cancelled altogether. Families absolutely need options that work for their individual needs. When Conservatives form government, we would honour the provincial and territorial agreements and ensure parents have the choice and flexibility they deserve to remove the Liberal ideological shackles, if they so desire.

With regard to the Senate amendment of Bill C-35, the bill already contained references to the official language minority communities, or OLMCs, when it was sent to the Senate. However, the bill did not originally include any reference to them until the Conservative amendments were made during the clause-by-clause review done at HUMA and we introduced these safeguards. The references to the OLMCs in the bill now include a provision that federal investments related to programs and services for the education and care of young children should be guided by the commitments outlined in the Official Languages Act, and the inclusion of OLMCs and indigenous peoples in the composition of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care.

We are grateful to the hon. senator from Acadia who proposed an amendment to include a reference in clause 8 to eliminate any ambiguity before the courts, and we continue to support his amendment today. The amendment would add the words “official language minority communities” to the first sentence of clause 8, after “including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples”, and would divide clause 8 into two paragraphs. The first paragraph would then outline the government's financial commitment, while the second would specify the mechanisms through which the federal government would provide funding. To allay any remaining hesitancy, under no circumstances is it the intention to create a new direct-negotiation mechanism between the federal government and the OLMCs. The amendment text is very clear on this matter. Furthermore, adding a mention of OLMCs after the word “including” would not in any way diminish the rights of any other minority or indigenous peoples.

Clause 3 of the bill explicitly states that it would not infringe upon the rights of indigenous peoples as “recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”. The amendment is simply to clarify the intent to ensure the consideration of OLMCs as stipulated in clauses 7 and 11.

There has been much study done on early childhood as a critical period for language development and the identity development of children. Access to French language early childhood services is often a necessary condition for the transmission of language and culture in French communities. These services help young children acquire the language skills they need to prepare for education, especially for children who will enter French language or immersion schools across the country. This is all upholding the right to education enshrined in section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Critically, and to assuage fears from across the aisle, this amendment does not introduce any new funding mechanism and merely aims to clarify financial commitments. Especially with Sarnia—Lambton recently receiving the official Francophone designation and with French language use in danger throughout the country, it is more critical than ever to establish and protect these services for our official language minority communities.

This amendment was adopted by a large majority of senators, who clearly understand and appreciate both the need to increase child care spaces and access to them and the need to deliver services across the board in both of our official Canadian languages. It is clear now more than ever just how important and critical child care is, in terms of both obtaining an early child care space and maintaining it if one is lucky enough to have one, for recruiting and retaining women in the workforce.

The employment rate for young women has been on a strong downward trend since last February, with a cumulative decline of 4.2% over that period. This is the lowest since May 2020, excluding the pandemic. More than 46% of parents reported difficulty finding child care in 2023, which is up from 36.4% in 2019, so more parents are having trouble finding child care now, in the era of the Liberals' $10-a-day child care, than before.

A column in the Financial Post last week alleges that the Liberals' national child care plan is proving to be “an expensive shambles, creating widespread shortages and destroying private child care businesses”. This problem spans the country, with issues from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia.

This week there has been a slate of news reports across the country, with headlines despairing over the lack of access to child care, including the Liberals' $10-a-day program. Day care operators, including the owner of Little Heroes Daycare Centre here in Ottawa, say they cannot turn a profit and are not even breaking even since opting in to the $10-a-day program, which they did out of their desire to assist their families, to their own detriment.

To further illustrate, as part of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women's current study of women's economic empowerment, the executive director of the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario, which represents independent licensed child care centres, said, “[W]e have a sector of the economy that was largely created by women. It's essential to women's equality in the workforce. It's one of the only economic sectors in the country where women are fairly represented as owners and managers, and it's being not only undervalued by government but targeted for replacement by a government-run system.”

The Liberals are undercutting their own economy once again and pushing costs onto taxpayers while denying Canadians the freedom to choose what works best for their families. What is more is that one of the main goals of the $10-a-day plan was to enable women to join the workforce in greater numbers, but a recent Fraser Institute report looking at that issue indicates there is “little evidence” whether the Liberal program is reaching its stated goals. It reads, “There is also little evidence that the federal government is achieving [the second] goal of boosting the labour force participation of women with children.”

As the StatsCan data I quoted earlier shows, the employment rate for young women is on a downward trend. It is another example of the problem of the Prime Minister's fake feminism.

I will be generous and allow that the pandemic exacerbated the issues of child care, and many well-meaning parents changed their plans and their lives to accommodate for a more precarious world, either changing work hours to watch children, changing jobs or leaving the workforce altogether. However, the Liberals owe Canadian parents and families that much more for letting them down in the first place.

Conservatives, when we form government, will put Canadians first and prioritize freedom of choice and family life, empowering parents to make the decisions that best serve their child care needs and not just what the government prescribes.

If I look over the history of my own journey with child care, I will say that it is very difficult when only one in 10 families are covered by the existing program. That is nine out of 10 families that are not. I have people calling my office asking if I can help them find child care. It is almost impossible.

I had some very wonderful child care providers and some not-so-wonderful child care providers. Ms. Betty was a school teacher who was off with her own kids. She was probably a better mother than I will ever be, so that was great. She was flexible, because I could drop the kids off at 5:30 in the morning if I had to catch a flight at six o'clock. If a flight was cancelled, late, or the kids had to stay late, she had flexibility. That is really important for a lot of workers today.

Similarly, I had Joanne, who was wonderful. She was a stay-at-home mom with her kids. Once again, she was flexible and gave excellent care. However, she moved and I was left in a cycle of trying to find child care. It started with Sarah, who was a mom at the preschool that my kids went to, but once my kids were eating cat food on her stairs, I had to find another one. Then there was the student who was smoking weed and hanging out with her boyfriend. That one went away. Then there was Karen. I should have known maybe just by the name, but she was watching soaps when I came home and found out she has let my kids go swimming with a male neighbour some place up the road. That was not so great. There was a happy occasion with Generations Day Care in Petrolia, which was a wonderful experience. It was certainly expensive, but worth it. The pinnacle was Andrea, an ECE worker who became my nanny. She was able to stay overnight if I needed, make meals if I was travelling, and do anything that was needed. When my kids got older and went to high school, she opened her own day care and they ended up working there, so that was fantastic.

There is a lot of need. We need more care and in order to get more care we have to build on the $10-a-day child care and we have to allow parents to have choices. We have to figure out how we are going to help with those, because I think that is fair.

We also need to consider that, with the inflation we are seeing, the cost of food and heating is going up, and the interest rates are going up. All of these pressures are really affecting the cost of providing child care. I know when we studied this issue at the status of women committee we looked at the Quebec model. At the time, Quebec was charging less than $10 a day for day care and the actual cost was more like $47 or $48, which would have hugely increased now. However, the comment was that there were still long wait-lists. Therefore, I do not think it is good to have $10-a-day day care if there are no spaces. We need to provide more spaces. We need to be creative in figuring out how we help people get child care and broaden their freedom of choice so that people who work weird hours can get coverage, and people who have special needs children can get the care they need. All of these things I think will be important.

I know all of the provincial and territorial agreements have been signed. I always hear the Liberals whining about Conservatives wasting the time of the House on concurrence motions, but here we are debating something where the agreements have already been signed. Why do we have everyone state on the public record that we support this program when that is the case? We should move on.

Finally, I want to reiterate some of the things that have been implied. The members opposite have implied that Conservatives do not support this program. That is not true. We do support child care. Anyone can go to openparliament.ca and see that we all voted yes on Bill C-35.

I think there is more work to be done in this area. I certainly would like to see the government come forward with something that would not only address an increase in spaces but also help those who are less fortunate. We see that 71% of people who are taking advantage of the $10-a-day day care are higher-income people, whereas only 41% are lower-income ones. That does not seem right to me. I think there needs to be a means test. There needs to be something that favours those who need the help the most, because obviously we do not have enough spaces, so we have to prioritize.

If we could work with the provinces and territories to create some flexibility, I think that would help the private day cares. We need more spaces. We cannot afford to lose the ones we have, and that is what is happening. I am hearing from day care providers that are not eligible for this program that they are struggling, and many of them are even going out of business. I have heard from the ones that are in the program that they are having issues with cash flow because of the way the remuneration works.

I think there is more work to be done on this, but certainly we need to move in this direction. We want to see more women in the workforce. I certainly experienced the highs and the lows of child care, and would rather head in the direction of highs.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether the deputy House leader would be able to give his perspective on where the Conservative Party is on the child care issue. I know in the last federal election, there were members who were saying they would rip up the agreements we were putting into place, and then they kind of waffled. They were really critical inside the chamber. I think at one point they might even have voted in favour. I have no idea where they actually are on the issue of Bill C-35.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it certainly is relevant when I am referencing back to actual debate that took place in the House less than 10 minutes ago.

My point is that the Canada child benefit is means-tested, and people only get it when they meet certain thresholds. The program that the former Stephen Harper government had, which was basically to give everybody the exact same amount of money regardless of one's income just based on whether they had a child, was not means-tested. In fact, it was a program geared toward giving cheques to millionaires, which was exactly what happened.

I am happy to talk about this particular legislation today.

First, I just want to briefly say that it is with extreme sorrow that I learned today of the passing of Grace Eves. Grace was an incredible member of my community in Kingston and the Islands. She was extremely supportive of me throughout the years. Even in my early days of running for city council, Grace was my treasurer and helped with my campaigns. It was really hard for me to learn today, even though I had visited her in palliative care last week, that she had passed away. My deepest condolences go out to her husband, William, and to her family.

Bill C-35, and there has been criticism I have heard from Conservatives, is about entrenching this framework. I think it is important to entrench this into law because I feel that if a future government, whenever that may be, might make the decision to change course with respect to a policy like this, it is going to have to go through a legislative process in order to undo it. I think that is really important, and we have been talking about in this country for decades, talking about bringing in child care that could be a benefit to Canadians as a whole. I think those benefits are extremely important.

This is not just about investing in children, although it is extremely important to have early education and early learning opportunities for children. It is not just about empowering more people and, in particular, more women to get into the workforce, those who want to but are being held back because they are making conscious decisions about the cost of child care versus the additional income. This is also about growing our economy.

We know that a successful economy is one that is continually growing. We know that we have problems, like a lot of developed countries do, with labour shortages. This would provide an opportunity to empower people who want to get into the workforce to be able to do that, because they would not be burdened by the significant offset of child care. It would also grow our economy, and we would see economic growth through participation in the labour force, in particular, by filling those spots that quite often need to be filled.

It was brought up by a parliamentary secretary earlier that all one has to do, without even getting into the historical context of Quebec and the success it has seen, is to look at the United States, where 77% of women participate in the labour market. In Canada, that number is 86%. The parliamentary secretary said that earlier today. I think that this is already showing the results and the positive impacts of this program.

One of the concerns that have come up within the last several minutes here that I am hearing from my Conservative colleagues and, indeed a Bloc member was saying this too, is why this is important. Why do we need to do this? We already have signed deals.

We need to make this law and make this legislative, in terms of entrenching it into the laws in our country, to ensure that this is formalized. Why is that important? I think the general public should know, especially those enjoying the benefits of the child care agreements out there, that every Conservative MP who ran in the last election and, in fact, every Conservative candidate who ran in the last election, ran on getting rid of this program.

Erin O'Toole made it very clear that if he was elected, he would scrap those agreements that were made with the provinces. The current leader of the Conservatives, in the past, bragged about the fact that Conservatives got rid of child care programs that the Liberals brought forward.

It happened nearly 20 years ago, and we talked about this earlier. Ken Dryden was literally at the door with the agreements and was ready to work with provinces, but due to the unfortunate scenario where the NDP sided with the Conservatives to take down the Liberal government at the time, which resulted in a Conservative government being elected, Stephen Harper did exactly that. He got rid of those programs. This is something that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, has bragged about.

I think that Canadians are right to be concerned about the intentions of the Conservative Party, which is why entrenching this into legislation, by making this law, is so critically important. It would ensure that these agreements, this relationship and the collaboration between the federal government and the provincial governments, are sustained. If a future government decides it would like to do away with it, it would have to go through a lengthy process to do that, which would include debates in the House, votes and so on.

I do not think we have to worry about that. I do not think that the Conservatives are against it, despite their rhetoric, and they will point this out, as the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound pointed out earlier. That is good to hear. However, it is unfortunate that every time they stand up to talk about it, it as though it is one of the worst pieces of legislation that could have ever existed. This is the scenario that the Conservatives routinely find themselves in, whether it on this legislation or whether it is on scab-worker legislation. Routinely, they will speak out against something, talk very negatively about it, challenge all the work that has been done it and when it comes time to vote, they vote in favour of it.

I do not even think that Conservatives, because I think they know where the majority of Canadians are on this and how they feel about it, would ever consider touching this. Nonetheless, I would certainly feel much more confident, as I am sure my colleagues would and Canadians would, to know that this would be entrenched in legislation. That is why this measure is important.

When the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound asks the question, or when the member from the Bloc asks why we are even talking about this when we have these agreements in place, that is the reason. We need to do this to ensure that there is longevity to this and that, in order to dismantle this program, it would require a number of steps in the future.

If we want to look at the success of this program, and I have said this many times here, all we need to do is to look to the Quebec model, which happened several decades ago. I have stood up in the House many times as a proud Ontario member of Parliament, whether it is on this issue, on the environment or on other socially progressive issues, Quebec certainly led the way. We can learn from what Quebec did a number of decades ago with child care. We can see the results. We see that, in Quebec, more women are in the workforce. We knew we would be successful in encouraging more people to get into the workforce if we brought forward these agreements and worked with provinces in this manner. We can learn a lot, and indeed we did learn a lot.

It is important to recognize that there are always growing pains with new programs. I listened to the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound speak about how Quebec got it right. I am curious to know, if he went back and looked at its implementation several decades ago, if it was as squeaky clean and worked as effectively from day one as he suggests. I think that maybe it was not that great when it was rolled out because there are growing pains to these learning processes.

I understand if the Conservative angle right now is to try to highlight these growing pains as the challenges that would end the entire program. However, I have a lot more faith in our ability to deliver on this and a lot more faith in Canadians' abilities to ensure that this program lasts in perpetuity because of what we have seen in Quebec and because we have seen the success in Quebec, notwithstanding the fact that it may have had growing pains as well in the beginning. I find that so critical to look at the success of Quebec and other jurisdictions throughout the world that have taken on similar challenges.

I go back to a point I made earlier, specifically with respect to $10-a-day child care and the issue of whether child care should be means tested, as was suggested by Conservatives. We have a program in place to means-test, in terms of helping families to raise their children, and that is the Canada child benefit. That is a payment program to families with children, which is based on income. I do not receive it, and the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound does not receive it, as he indicated, nor would we if we tried to apply. It is something that we would just not get, given our level of income.

However, it is important that rather than the Conservative plan of the universal child care benefit, which just gave the same amount to every single family based on the number of children, this is a program that means-tests. The lower the income, the more a family would get from society, through the government, to help raise their children. As a Liberal, we see a value in that and in society playing a role in helping to raise children. We see a benefit to collectively coming together to make that happen and, in particular, to support those who need it the most. That is where the means testing part comes in, with respect to the Canada child benefit.

This particular program and $10-a-day child care is about making a universal standard across the entire country that absolutely everybody could benefit from. I started in my speech and will perhaps conclude with this, it is not just about providing child care for children and not just about making things cheaper. This is about providing opportunities. As has been demonstrated through Quebec, and as we can see already in Canada when compared to the United States, this is about empowering more women to get into the workforce, which is exactly what we are seeing as a result of this.

Most importantly, from my perspective, it is about growing our economy and helping to fill some gaps that exist within the labour force and the shortage of labour that we might have in this country. I am really excited to see that this has finally come to fruition. I accept the amendment that has been put forward by the Senate. I think we should pass this. This is a bill that would do great things for Canadians, just like the pharmacare bill that was introduced today.

I want to take the opportunity, as I have done before, to thank my colleagues in the NDP for working collectively and constructively on behalf of Canadians to provide programs that would genuinely impact and change the lives of Canadians. It is so incredibly important.

I would be the first to say that, because of the NDP, we have really been pushed forward in terms of our social and progressive agendas. Its members should take a lot of the credit for this, as I know they like to do and are doing. They deserve credit for being among the adults working in this room on behalf of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What is the relevance? We are talking about Bill C-35, and the member opposite is talking about—

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, someone I hold in high regard, for his speech.

Like my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, I would like him to discuss the issue of opting out with full compensation, but from another angle.

Based on what he said at the start of his speech, the key to Quebec's success is that no other government told the province how to set up its early childhood education program. Quebec had enough time to implement it properly. We agree with that.

We do not want another government telling us what to do in the future. I would like the member to tell us why the Conservatives voted against the Bloc Québécois amendments presented in committee in order to include in Bill C-35 a right allowing Quebec to opt out with full compensation.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot answer a question on a bill that has yet to be fully debated or analyzed, on pharmacare. I did speak to Bill C-35 and the child care program in Quebec, and I complimented Quebec because it was able to implement something. The majority of this does fall within provincial jurisdiction.

I made the comment when I spoke to this last year that I do not even understand why legislation is being brought in on this. The agreements have been signed. There are many other things we could be addressing versus debating something that has already been signed with the provinces and territories.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to open my speech this afternoon by clarifying a few things, especially for the member for Winnipeg South Centre and the member for Winnipeg North. They seem to be confused about how Conservatives voted on Bill C-35. The bill was voted on at all stages and received unanimous consent from every member in this House.

I will make it crystal clear to everybody now that I support the amendment, which is what we are debating. That is where I stand. I hope I do not have to answer that question later.

Today, I appreciate the opportunity to bring up and focus on the concerns I am hearing from day cares and parents right across my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I am going to back this up with data. In fact, I want to highlight that we actually need more data, specifically around the impact this program is having on before- and after-school programs across the country. This is mainly due to a lack of early childhood educators. I would encourage the government to listen and go out and seek that data, unlike what has maybe happened so far.

I have had this conversation with some of my colleagues from Quebec, which has a program that, I would argue, has been quite successful in la belle province. However, the reason it has worked is that it was implemented over time; they did not just jam it down people's throats and basically hold a gun, or a bag of money, to the provinces and territories to implement something without actually thinking out all the consequences.

The following is a quote from a speech made in the House:

Again, we see the Liberals promising what they cannot deliver. Ten dollars-a-day day care does not address the labour shortage and the lack of spaces. I will guarantee today that, if and when this strategy fails and has not delivered affordable child care for all those in need across Canada in all jurisdictions, the Liberal government will blame the provinces and territories for that failure.

Who said that? It was me. I said that during my speech last spring, when we were first debating this bill. I still hold that this is what we are hearing today, right now, from day cares and providers across the country.

Let us talk about some data and news coverage that we have been hearing within the last few weeks. It was reported earlier this month that 77% of high-income parents access child care versus only 41% of low-income families. The government talks about the child care benefit, which makes sense, is something I support and is means tested. I am struggling to understand how the government has implemented a program that is actually taking away from lower-income Canadians because of the demand from people who are making $1 million a year. It does not make sense to me, personally, and I just do not understand why the government would bring something like that in.

According to StatsCan, 46.4% of parents reported difficulty finding child care in 2023; this is up from 36.4% in 2019. Also, in 2023, 26% of parents of children aged zero to five years who were not using child care reported their child was on a wait-list, which is up from 19% in 2022.

A CBC News article reads, “Sharon Gregson with the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C. says while there are about 130,000 licensed child-care spaces in the province, 75 per cent of children age 0-12 aren't able to access them.”

I am not going to use my words now, but I am going to read from emails I received today. I found out I had the opportunity to speak to this today, so I reached out to the day care and child care providers across my riding and, in hours, received pages of feedback addressing the concerns they have around this program. Some commented that they would have provided me with a lot more, but they did not have time.

One nursery school wrote, “Although we believe in the concept, the current model is not sustainable. Our school is not receiving the funding needed. It does not take into consideration inflation. Inflation funding through the Canada-wide early learning and child care is significantly lower than the actual increased costs of operation. [The] 2023 inflation funding was only 2.75%, which is a decrease from earlier at 2.1%. Non-registered early childhood educators, which fill 45% of the workforce, are completely neglected in wage funding calculations.”

It went on to state, “We have a wait-list of over 100 families. Most of the children on the wait-list will age out before they get a spot at our school.”

Another nursery school stated, “The private independent centres are not the only centres raising deep concerns over this program.” It also stated some concerns from member private centres in the Ontario Association of Independent Childcare Centres, which are currently looking to opt out of the program if they have not opted out already. In fact, 70% of these centres, which are all volunteer-led, are looking to opt out when the cost-based funding comes out.

Another comment made was that there has been a huge increase in order to meet the demands of this program and the administrative time needed. This has pulled administrators away from other classroom activities they used to be able to do. They “do not feel they can stay in the program and deliver the programming and quality of care for which the centre stands.” In one case here, and again in Ontario, where I reside, this means their day care fees will go up from $525 to over $1,000 a month, or over $12,000 a year.

According to the school, “incremental funding adjustments have not kept pace with rising operational costs”. This is “far from sufficient to cover increased expenses over the last two years”, and it is looking for more “detailed guidance and clarity on implementation.” It said that this uncertainty is just creating challenges “for providers to plan and ensure the continued delivery of high-quality care.” It continued, “Without adequate support and flexibility in funding, providers are now considering opting out of the program.”

It provided some recommendations. This is the important part. It urges “all levels of government to work together to do the following: re-evaluate the funding model to ensure it accurately reflects the rising costs of providing high-quality child care, including considering direct funding to families or continued revenue replacement for providers.”

Another recommendation is to “engage in meaningful consultation with child care providers and parents to understand the challenges and adjust the Canada-wide early learning child care program to better meet the needs of all stakeholders.”

The last of its recommendations is to “follow the Quebec lead, where families that cannot access centres in the program can claim costs separately for the child care they choose. This allows parents to choose the child care that is right for their family and ensure it is affordable. Some may want Montessori, some academic, some forest schools or childminding in their homes. Parents should have the choice.”

The YMCA is urging the additional recruitment of newcomers into the early childhood education system “by prioritizing early childhood education as an in-demand profession in Ontario and recognizing home country credentials. Ontario should increase investments in accelerated early childhood educator assistant training programs, in addition to increasing compensation levels of assistants working in the sector.”

I recognize that part of this would be implemented at the provincial level, but the feedback we are getting from the provinces and territories is that the government has not funded them appropriately. Specifically, the YMCA in my riding is short 10 full-time child care educators for its toddler and preschool programs to achieve capacity. This translates into the potential to have another 59 new children from its substantial wait-list. I am going to get into the wait-list data here shortly. It can only increase its capacity for the school-age programs if it has the necessary educators. I will get into that later.

Another child care and family education centre stated, “The increases we are experiencing in utilities, food, rents and supplies have been staggering. The funding we receive does not cover our costs.” It also stated, “It is not hard to see why our educators are leaving the sector. This program is surviving on the backs of low-paid, hard-working educators. The additional paperwork, reporting, reconciling, is adding so much work to our administrative team, who are already struggling with so many other requirements. We cannot and will not be able to meet the demand for child care. Parents are struggling to find a space to benefit from the Canada-wide early learning child care reduced rates.”

The one program currently operates with over 527 licensed child care spaces across their locations. This includes for toddlers, preschoolers and school-aged children. Their wait-list was sitting at 790 for their program as of February 15, and they guarantee this number would actually be higher if they counted the wait-list today.

Not one day goes by that they are not faced with challenges with the current program. This system should be funded appropriately and equitably if it is to succeed. Parents are faced with the reality that, without child care, they cannot go to work. Parents are angry and frustrated with this system that they did not have a proper say about.

This is from Grey County, one of my counties. Both counties provided some good feedback on some statistics. The average monthly number of children aged zero to six years receiving the reduction is 1,231. That is some good news. There are 1,231 kids who are getting some benefit in my one county. However, as of December 31 of this past year, 1,835 children are reported to be on the wait-list.

Child care operators again continue to report ongoing issues in recruiting and retaining qualified staff, limiting the ability of some of these programs to operate at full licensed capacity. Again, there are concerns over the wage floor and the delay in the implementation of the funding model.

Specifically, I had asked for follow-up about the impact the program is having on before- and after-school programs. I hinted at this earlier in my speech. They are basically operating at a lower number than their licensed capacity. In Grey County alone there are 730 licensed spaces for children six to 12 in the before- and after-school programs. However, as of December 31, there were over 166 children reported to be on the wait-lists, and the main reason the operators report that they are only operating at 60% to 75% of their capacity is that they had to move staff to the full-day program for children aged zero to six. As well, they have a problem recruiting staff because of the shift requirements around the before- and after-school programs.

They are continuing to work with the operators of the child care centres on recruitment and retention strategies in an effort to fix this, so they are trying to do their best at their level.

I want to share the impact on somebody I know personally, a single parent. Since this program was signed, they have now lost their before- and after-school program. They have to drop their child off at 10 to 9 in the morning and pick the child up every day at 3:40. How does a single parent do that? Who works a six-hour day? It is very unmanageable.

If not for the flexibility of relying on friends and other family members, they are basically left with a program where we are taking lucky or single parents who were able to go back into the workforce under this program. Again, we are still missing the necessary staff and enough early childhood educators. However, in two years, or whenever a child has aged out and their parent is now trying to look for that before- and after-school program, they have to quit work, because they can no longer keep their job. This has an even larger impact on the gig economy and shift workers who do not have the flexibility to show up from 9 to 5. There are so many workers in this country, especially lower-income workers, who depend upon that flexibility of the before- and after-school programs that were available but have been negatively impacted by this current program.

I have the pleasure of representing most of Grey County, or all but one very important part, the municipality of Blue Mountains, which my colleague from Simcoe—Grey represents. I also represent the top half of Bruce County. What Bruce County has talked about, and some of it is positive, is affordable child care. I fully agree. I think everybody in this whole House is fully agreed, because we made these statements a number of times here in the chamber.

Affordable child care is a critical component to addressing inflationary cost of living concerns, economic growth, workforce participation and declining economic conditions that have disproportionately impacted women.

However, child care providers have expressed concern about the financial viability. Additional operational funding is also required to maintain these spaces and ensure that child care operators have sustained, predictable and adequate support to continue in the program. Full funding is required. Workforce challenges remain a barrier to expanding early years in child care access. To ensure the success of the early childhood program, workforce challenges must be resolved quickly, with increased compensation and benefits to reflect the education, skill sets and value of these early childhood educators.

This is specific data out of Bruce County. The expansion in order to meet the demand of just the access and inclusion framework of 645 new child care spaces requires another 100 to 130 additional ECEs in the sector to accommodate the child-to-staff ratios. There are currently 1,243 children on the Bruce County centralized wait-list who require licensed day care.

There is some good news here: Bruce County is co-leading a Bruce Grey registered early childhood educator recruitment and retention working group, which includes membership and support from local colleges, boards of education, workplace engagement services and corporate communications to develop and implement local ECE recruitment and retention strategies. To support the need for this, Bruce County has actually partnered with Fanshawe College to offer a part-time early childhood education program, which is being offered locally in our region. In this school year alone, 32 students are participating in that program. Let us do the math. Thirty-two new early childhood educators frees up somewhere between 150 and 250 of the child care spaces that are still needed once we get these early childhood educators into the workforce, but over 1,250 spaces are needed, so it is only a drop in the bucket, and we need to do more. There is of course no guarantee that all of the ECEs will stay in the program and choose to get into this work.

As I come near to the end of my speech, I just want to highlight a few of the points I had flagged before, when we had the privilege of debating this.

Regarding access, this program is difficult to work, especially in rural Canada, if the spaces and staff do not exist. This is something that needs to be done, because otherwise parents and families out there cannot access these subsidized rates.

Respecting labour shortages, this is something that has not changed. I highlighted the data very clearly. This is great, but these lower costs do not exist if parents cannot actually get access to the programs themselves.

With respect to the rising operating costs, and I highlighted this, we knew it was coming even last year. The funding that is currently set out through the federal government to the provinces and territories does not cover the expenses of many of the organizations that are being asked to deliver this.

In conclusion, affordable quality child care is critical, but if people cannot access it, it does not exist. Again, this bill specifically would actually do nothing to address the accessibility challenge. All Canadian families should have access to affordable and quality child care and be able to choose the child care providers who best suit their family's needs. Bill C-35 would be good for families who already have a child care space, but it would not help the thousands of families on the child care wait-lists or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces. Again, we see the Liberals promising what they cannot deliver.

Conservatives would support all forms of child care, including traditional day care 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; stay-at-home parents and guardians who raise their own children; and family members, friends or neighbours who provide care. It would be care for all.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his work.

To us in the NDP, what was really important in Bill C‑35 was that it prioritizes a public, not-for-profit, co-operative or community child care model. My colleague from Winnipeg Centre has done a lot of work on this and I congratulate her on that.

How important is it to my colleague that the private sector not be the one effectively prioritized in order to keep the prices reasonable and affordable for the families that really need it? That way we would be contributing to helping people return to work because their children could go to a co-operative or public affordable child care centre.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to participate in the debate on this historic legislation. Bill C-35, if passed, would indeed make history.

People may be asking why we are doing this now. Why is the Government of Canada embarking on this ambitious plan to build a Canada-wide child care system? There is no doubt that there are many other important issues to take on, and let me say that we will be better able to handle them if we make sure that women can fully participate in the workforce. Indeed, the United Nations sustainable development goal no. 5 states:

Gender equality is not only a fundamental human right, but a necessary foundation for a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world.

We cannot have gender equality if women are prevented from participating in the workforce. Let me share the story of a woman, a mother to a seven-year-old and a nine-year-old. She thanked us for the child care agreement. She said it was not going to impact her because her children were too old, but that she hopes that other women will not have to make the same choices she did. She was a spouse in a lower-income household. Putting her children into child care would have cost more than her take-home pay after taxes at the end of each month.

She stayed at home with the kids, and has been out of the workforce for over a decade. She said it was okay, but also said that she imagines what could have been, had she not had to make that decision. For her, it really was not a choice. It was something she had to do for her family's finances. That is why we are doing this. As that woman's story illustrates, affordable child care means mothers can enter, return or remain in the labour market, if they wish to do so. They could also go further in education or open up businesses.

Why now? In September 1970, more than 50 years ago, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended early learning and child care legislation, saying:

We recommend that the federal government immediately take steps to enter into agreement with the provinces leading to the adoption of a national Day-Care Act under which federal funds would be made available on a cost-sharing basis for the building and running of day-care centres meeting specified minimum standards....make similar arrangements for the Yukon and Northwest Territories.

So why now, at long last? The pandemic moved things along, so to speak. As the Deputy Prime Minister said in her April 2021 budget speech, COVID brutally exposed something women have long known: without child care, parents, usually mothers, cannot work.

The closing of our schools and day cares during the height of the pandemic drove women's participation in the labour force down to its lowest level in more than two decades. This is part of the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on women. The crisis has been described as a “she-cession”. The Government of Canada does not want the legacy of the pandemic to be one of rolling back the clock on women's participation in the workforce, nor one of backtracking on the social and political gains women and allies have fought so hard to secure.

There is broad consensus from all parts of society that the time is now. Private sector, social sector and labour leaders agree that child care is a vital part of our social infrastructure and one that was weakened by the pandemic. That is why we committed to this program in the 2020 Speech from the Throne. That is why, in budget 2021, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke of this smart feminist economic policy and pledged up to $30 billion over five years to build this child care system across Canada.

That is why we have Bill C-35 before us today. The bill echoes the recommendations made over 50 years ago in the royal commission's report. It sets out our vision for a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. It sets out our commitment to maintaining long-term funding. Finally, it creates the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care.

We have a bold goal. By March 2026, parents across the country should have access to high-quality early learning and child care for an average of $10 a day. This is because Canada is a country that believes in investing in its future. We are standing on the shoulders of the commissioners who penned the 1970 report. We are standing on the shoulders of the visionary leaders in Quebec who enacted legislation in 1997 that created a day care system similar to what we are rolling out country-wide.

At the time, women's labour force participation with young children in Quebec was more than two percentage points lower than in the rest of Canada. In 2022, it was five points higher than the rest of Canada. Women in Quebec have some of the highest labour market participation rates in the world.

In most countries around the world, the debate is no longer whether gender equality is an important objective or not, but how best to achieve it. I think that Bill C-35 is part of the “how”. It is part of the solution that will lead us to greater gender equality by supporting mothers in reaching their full economic potential. Furthermore, Canada's job gains, compared to when COVID-19 first hit, have outperformed almost all of our G7 peers, supported by an expanding workforce. The government's investment in early learning and child care is helping more women fully participate in the workforce.

The labour force participation rate for women aged 25 to 54 years has reached a record high of nearly 86%, compared to just 77% in the U.S. At the same time, a record high of 80% of Canadians, aged 15 to 64 years, are now participating in the workforce, reflecting broad-based gains in employment opportunities across demographic groups.

Making full use of the skills and talents of Canadians is a key driver of a stronger economy. It helps to address labour market shortages and increases the rate at which the economy can grow, without generating inflationary pressures. These are encouraging signs. Now we just need to pass this proposed bill so that a Canada-wide early learning and child care system can become entrenched in Canadian law and a part of our social safety net, something to make us all proud.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey Centre.

I appreciate, as always, the opportunity to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents in Winnipeg South Centre. It is timely that I have the opportunity to talk about this bill because just last week, during our constituency week, I visited Splash Early Learning Centre in my riding. It was a wonderful opportunity for me to get a tour of the facility. I noted that there were some really interesting and innovative things they were doing, and I will come back to that later on in my remarks.

As my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North has mentioned on a number of occasions today in the chamber, our home province of Manitoba has realized $10-a-day day care, and this is part of the $30-billion investment over a five-year period that is going to help benefit families, kids and ultimately educators throughout our public education and private systems across the country as a result of this investment.

A system that helps to ensure families across Canada can access high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care is critical no matter where they live. As has been said many times in this chamber, child care is not a luxury. It is a necessity. Parents should have the opportunity to build both a family and a career, and children deserve the best possible start in life. As members know, I spent a good chunk of my career as a teacher and as a principal, and there is no doubt, in my experiences working with young people and families, that when they had access to early child care and early learning opportunities, we saw the benefits of that later on in their educational journeys.

Bill C-35, which we are debating at the moment, would reinforce the Government of Canada's long-term commitment to early learning and child care. It would do so by articulating the federal goal, vision and principles for a Canada-wide system. Bill C-35 would also enshrine our commitment to sustained and ongoing funding to provinces, territories and indigenous peoples. In addition, Bill C-35 would enhance accountability through regular reporting to Parliament on the progress towards an early learning and child care system. Finally, Bill C-35 would establish in law the national advisory council on early learning and child care.

I will say that I think one of the most important and critical components of this bill is those last pieces I referenced. In particular, they are the necessity that Parliament report back on the progress that has been made in the agreements across the country and the national advisory council. I think it is critical that the input of experts from across Canada is taken into consideration.

Early learning and child care are essential needs. The early learning and child care system will drive economic growth, increase mothers' participation in the workforce, and guarantee that no parent will ever have to choose between returning to work or staying at home to take care of children.

To achieve these goals, we need to put in place mechanisms that will ensure that the early learning and child care system runs smoothly. One of those mechanisms is without a doubt the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care.

The National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care will play an important role in providing third-party expert advice and thereby complement federal expertise for designing the system. The council will serve as a consultative forum on the issues and challenges that the early learning and child care system might face. The council will represent the early learning and child care sector. Its members will reflect Canada's geographic, cultural and linguistic diversity.

I am pleased that my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and my colleagues from Quebec in the other parties are here. I think that the Quebec model is outstanding.

As my colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned a few minutes ago, there are many lessons we can learn from the Quebec model, which has had many success stories in recent decades.

I recognize there are ongoing challenges, just as there are at the beginning of any program. Of course, $10-a-day day care is a critical component. The cost is essential to ensuring that families can access this much-needed service. However, at the same time, we do need to continue to focus, and I acknowledge that, on some of the other challenges that face our system.

This would include making sure that we have enough early childhood educators, they are well paid and there are incentives, such as benefit packages, that come along with the work so that these educators do not get scooped up into the system to go on to be, for example, educational assistants.

This also means working with our colleges and universities. I am really pleased to know that, when I speak with early childhood educators and those post-secondary institutions and families on the ground in my riding of Winnipeg South Centre in Manitoba, I am seeing that this is starting to take place, but there is no doubt that there is room to grow.

One of the really interesting opportunities that are presented is the partnerships that can arise through early childhood learning centres and other community infrastructure, and this was displayed to me last week. As I mentioned, I went to Splash Early Learning Centre. What was really interesting, and I think it is perhaps something we should be talking about across party lines and across the country, is that, in this particular instance, there was a church in my riding, and the church was starting to see that the congregation was diminishing over time for a variety of different reasons.

The church decided that it was going to invest upfront and renovate a substantial portion of the space that it occupied and then, in turn, after the renovation was made, it was going to rent this out to the early childhood education centre. That is exactly what happened. This has provided the faith-based community, as this particular example is a church in my riding, with the ability to generate more revenue, which it was losing through other means, while, at the same time, making sure we can contribute to the well-being of young people in our riding by creating the spaces they need to experience quality child care.

I am not sure if I completely understand some of the arguments I have heard from colleagues of mine across the way. I come from a profession, as I have mentioned before, in education. This included working for a number of years in the northwest part of Winnipeg. This is a part of the city with large numbers of newcomers to Canada, large indigenous populations, large numbers of members of our community who are typically disenfranchised and who suffer as a result of a variety of barriers and obstacles, both historical and current, and challenges in accessing systems.

I think this is truly inspirational. I think this is truly beneficial. I think that, when we look back in the future at the investments the Government of Canada made and the laws we passed in relation to early childhood education in the country, they will be looked upon as some of the most important and most beneficial we have made in our history.

As I mentioned, when we see students by the time they get to middle school and high school, where I spent most of my time as an educator, the benefits of having access to early childhood education are very obvious. It is not only the benefits to the children that are of the utmost importance in the context of this conversation, but also what it does to the workforce.

We know that there has been a historic increase in the number of women who are participating in the workforce by virtue of the fact that they now have access in greater ways, with more opportunity, and more affordable opportunities, than they have had in the past. That has allowed for us to have more economic drivers, greater economic participation and more equity and equality across this country.

In conclusion to my remarks on this important and historic piece of legislation today, I want to note that one piece of criticism that seems to be coming from certain colleagues across the way is on the challenge of there being people who can afford child care, and this seems to be their preoccupation while, at the same time, we hear, day after day, criticisms about an affordability crisis in Canada. We are addressing that affordability crisis, of course, in a variety of different ways. One of the marquee ways in which we are addressing it is through ensuring that there is access to low-cost, quality child care in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, again I put on the record the Green Party's strong support for early learning, enriched child care accessible to all across Canada. I note that in Bill C-35 there would be a number of improvements, but one of the pieces is that while funding would be required, there is no particular funding mechanism mentioned.

I want to reference that I was honoured to know the amazing Canadian social justice activist and journalist June Callwood. June always argued that what we needed was a baby investment tax. She would have put it on corporations, and every corporation would be asked whether it had done its bit. Are we investing in our toddlers, our children? It is the strongest investment we could make.

Is the Government of Canada considering mechanisms to ensure strong, sustainable funding directed to early childhood education?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, what the member needs to do, along with others who have raised that particular issue, is start to get serious with the jurisdiction of the Province of Alberta. He tries to imply that the millions of dollars Ottawa is providing to Alberta is causing closures in day cares. I suggest it has a lot more to do with the ways in which it is being administered in working with the child care providers.

It is somewhat concerning in the sense that this is not just about the status quo of overall numbers. It is important that the number of spaces actually increases, and I believe that is what Bill C-35 is all about, good-quality child care and increasing the availability of spots.

Working with certain provinces, in particular the province of Alberta, and seeing what they are doing is something that is worthwhile. Maybe the standing committee can look at that—

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to such an important piece of legislation.

It is interesting to note the mechanisms that were used in order to prevent debate on this piece of legislation. It is fairly well established that, as a government, we have been very aggressive on the issue of trying to provide child care to Canadians. We have had a number of ministers work with different provincial entities and other stakeholders across the country in order to develop a plan that would be well received by Canadians.

Having achieved that plan, the work was then to start by working with provinces and getting agreements put into place. Many provinces actually have $10-a-day child care because of the government's proactive approach to providing good-quality child care. Manitoba is one of those provinces. In fact, it was not that long ago that we had the Prime Minister come to Winnipeg North and visit Stanley Knowles School, where he got to witness first-hand some of the benefactors of quality child care. That was in just one school in the riding of Winnipeg North. We saw children, parents and administrators of good-quality child care.

When we look at the dialogue that had taken place, see the individual efforts by the child care providers, and see the smiles on the faces of children and their parents and guardians who bring them to that facility, we get a better appreciation as to why child care is so very important.

Here is the issue I have. Virtually every member of the Conservative Party who speaks nowadays has been programmed to talk about their four priorities. The one I want to focus a little attention on is the priority they classify as “fixing the budget”. It is important that people really understand what Conservatives mean when they say “fixing the budget”. From my perspective, those are code words about a Conservative hidden agenda in terms of what a Conservative government would actually do. We need to be aware of that. The Conservatives need to start sharing what their true feelings, thoughts and policies are on very important public policy positions.

Earlier today, in the debate on this, one of the Conservatives stood up and was very critical of Bill C-35. I posed a question, asking if the member could be very clear, because the Conservative Party has not been clear on the child care issue and on Bill C-35. If we look at what Conservatives were saying during the election, the position they took was that at the end of the day, they were going to rip up the child care proposals that the Liberal government was talking about just prior to the election. That is what they were telling Canadians.

Shortly after the election, Conservatives started to waffle a little, as the government started to actually get provinces to sign on to it. Whether it was provinces like my home province of Manitoba or provinces like Ontario, what we witnessed is that from all regions of the country, provinces and territories were buying into the national program. That caused a few issues to the Conservative Party members, as they started to feel a little uncomfortable with what they were seeing during the last federal election.

Let us fast-forward to what is happening today and what we are hearing from the Conservative caucus. I asked a member who spoke on it specifically what the Conservative Party's position is on $10-a-day child care. It was pretty straightforward, but the answer was far from straightforward. It did not provide any clarity whatsoever.

That is why I say people need to be aware of the “fix the budget” bumper sticker or theme that the Conservative Party is telling Canadians. What it really means is that programs we are talking about today, programs that have the support of New Democrats, members of the Bloc and Green Party members will be on the chopping block. The Conservatives do not support them. They might say something at different points in time, but they do not support the initiative that has been taken by this government.

The contrast between the Conservatives and the government is very compelling when it comes to social programming. We have seen that from day one. When we think of how this government has been there to support Canadians, providing programs that have seen disposable incomes go up for seniors and families with children, we have witnessed the Conservative Party vote against those measures time and time again, right from the beginning.

We told families we would give the middle class a break and brought in a tax reduction for Canada's middle class, and the Conservatives voted against that. When we brought in reforms to the Canada child benefit, the Conservative Party voted against them too. We brought in measures that ultimately prevented millionaires from receiving money and gave more money to those with lower incomes, and the Conservatives voted against them. We brought in enhancements to the guaranteed income supplement, and the Conservative Party voted against them.

Let us put that in perspective when the Conservatives tell us to fix the budget. Fixing the budget, to them, means balancing the budget. In order to balance the budget and axe the tax, they are really talking about cutting programs, cutting investments we have made to support Canadians.

We had another program announced earlier today. The Minister of Health put forward yet another comprehensive program to help Canadians. Just like the child care program is going to help with affordability, we now have a national pharmacare program, a program I have been advocating for many years. I have introduced many petitions over the last number of years on that issue, asking parliamentarians to recognize the importance of pharmacare. I am absolutely delighted to see the legislation before us today, but I am concerned. Much like what we are witnessing on Bill C-35, with the Conservatives being critical of it and having opposed child care in the past, I am concerned that other social programs, like pharmacare, are going to be on the chopping block when it comes to “fixing the budget”, their priority issue.

That is something I know the constituents of Winnipeg North, and I would argue Canadians as a whole, see, understand and appreciate the true value of. These are the types of programs that I think the Conservatives need to better understand, so that when they start talking about fixing the budget they can be a bit clearer as to the types of programs they are looking at cutting.

When I listen to what they are saying on child care today and what I heard them say during the last federal election, I am concerned about child care and the future of child care. I believe that is easily justified. My colleague, the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, talked about how when Ken Dryden travelled the country and brought forward to Parliament back then, a number of years ago, a national child care program, it ultimately was defeated at that time by the coalition of the NDP and the Stephen Harper Conservatives, which brought down the Liberal government. As a direct result, Stephen Harper killed the child care program back then. When he was elected to the chair of the Prime Minister's Office, it did not survive.

Therefore, I think it is important that we question whether, under the current Conservative leadership, which is even further to the right than Stephen Harper, we really believe the child care program is going to survive, and why it is absolutely critical that we have this legislation pass, because at the very least it would make that more difficult as the program becomes more established.

Why is this legislation so important? I would suggest that all we need to do is look at one of the treasures of being Canadian, which is the Canada Health Act. It ensured that Conservative governments in the future would be prevented from getting rid of it. The longer that act was in place, the more difficult it was for future governments to not support a national health care program.

I would argue that the same principle applies here, to Bill C-35. The longer Bill C-35 is part of Canadian law, and today Canadians already understand and appreciate the importance of a national child care program, the better I believe it will stand the test of time, so that future generations will in fact have affordable child care opportunities. That is why I believe Bill C-35 is such an important piece of legislation.

I am concerned about the short term, because it is the short-term thinking of the narrow-minded individuals who make up the Conservative Party today, which is further to the right than we have ever seen it, that I believe is a great threat to a national child care program, not to mention other programs that we have already put in place. The dental program that was rolled out last year for children is being rolled out this year for seniors and people with disabilities. These are good programs that are making a difference. These are the types of programs that I am genuinely concerned about with respect to what would happen if there was a change in government. That is why I believe it is important for us in government not just to talk about these types of initiatives, but also to bring in the legislation, because in the long term I believe these types of national programs are part of the reason we are building a Canadian identity we can all be very proud of. The best example of that is our health care system.

When we think of child care itself, all we need to do is take a look at the province of Quebec, which has had affordable child care for many years now. As a direct result of that, there is a higher percentage of workforce participation by women, which I believe is attributed to the child care policies of the Province of Quebec. It is more than just a social program; not only do children benefit because of a high-quality child care program, but so do the economy and the family unit.

I do not know how factual this next statement is, but I believe it is fairly accurate because it has been cited in the past that in the province of Quebec, women's participation in the workforce is the highest in North America. I do not know whether that is still the case today, but it amplifies the fact that providing affordable child care has a very real, tangible impact. Why would people not support that?

I hear the criticism coming from the other side, saying, “Well, what about the number of spaces and what about this and that other aspect?” However, we have to recognize that, much as in health care, there is a provincial jurisdictional issue, so there are some limitations to what Ottawa can do. We have been very careful in the way in which child care has been rolled out throughout the country, which is why there has been a great deal of discussion and negotiation with all of the provinces and territories and the many different stakeholders. It is absolutely critical that we get it right.

We expect to see, and members will see in the agreements with other jurisdictions, the current stock of $10-a-day child care spots not only being maintained but also being increased. I can say, in good part because of the funding that is coming from Ottawa, that we are going to see an increase in the actual number of spots in the province of Manitoba, where we have already achieved $10-a-day care well before the targeted dates that were established. Manitoba is benefiting from the national program today.

I can tell members opposite from the Conservative Party that the agreement that was signed in Manitoba was actually signed by Heather Stefanson's government, a Progressive Conservative government. It is the same sort of Progressive Conservative government under Doug Ford here in Ontario that actually signed an agreement. Therefore the program is coming not only from Ottawa and the literally hundreds of stakeholders and thousands of parents, but also from provinces of all political stripes that understand and appreciate the true value of a national child care program that is there to support parents.

Members opposite like to talk about quotes from some parents. However, I would suggest that they talk to those who are actually in the system today receiving this, and we are talking about tens of thousands throughout the country, in all regions, who are benefiting today because of a sound, progressive policy that is universally being accepted by different political parties in different levels of government.

The House resumed consideration of the motion for second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have good news today. We have announced a whole bunch more homes being built in Canada. We have reduced taxes on the middle class and increased them on the one per cent, and those guys voted against it. The budget is the best in the G7, and we have a great record on reducing poverty. All these things are well in hand without the bad track record of the previous government.

Later today, we will have the final vote on the motion regarding the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. Tomorrow will be an allotted day.

When we return following the constituency weeks, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. On Wednesday of the same week, we will continue debate on the motion relating to the Senate amendments to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. Tuesday, March 19, and Thursday, March 21, shall be allotted days.

Carbon Pricing

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 2.3 million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty since this government took office and started caring about Canadians by putting supports in place that those guys had spent all their time cutting. Families throughout Canada have seen their child care fees slashed, in many cases down to $10 a day, thanks to this government and Bill C-35 that we are getting ready to pass today.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is a pioneer when it comes to this model of early childhood and child care centres. We are truly proud of that. It has helped so many women return to work. The comments in many studies at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women confirm the need to provide child care services.

Bill C‑35 includes the principle of ensuring that francophone children and those from Canada's francophone communities can benefit from child care services in their language.

Does my colleague agree that we must pressure the government to ensure that this is more than just a nice principle in the bill, that it is truly enforced, and that money is set aside to ensure that child care services are provided to francophone children across the country?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always very difficult to speak after the member for Nunavut because she is such a force within our caucus and such a champion for the people she represents. It is an honour to be in a caucus with her.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-35 and the amendments that have been brought forward. I want to start by talking about just how vital child care is in our country and what a fundamental thing it is to provide real child care across the country in an affordable way that women and families can access.

During COVID-19, I worked with the member for Timmins—James Bay to look at ways that we could have an economic recovery after the slowdown that happened during COVID. One of the things we heard constantly, whether it be from financial institutions, chambers of commerce, or labour groups, was the need for child care and the importance of it, that child care was the best thing we could do for economic recovery.

That is one piece of it, but I am a woman and I have children. I remember the struggle of finding child care. I remember how difficult it was to find quality child care, to be able to afford quality child care, to ensure that my children were cared for so I could return to the work force. I know for so many women across the country that this was not possible.

Having child care come forward after so many years makes me think of people like Irene Mathyssen, who pushed so hard for child care. I think about the member for Winnipeg Centre who has been absolutely tireless in this fight for child care for women. I think about these champions within the labour movement who have moved this forward over decades and decades. The fact that we now are here and have this program in place is fundamental.

I am not going to lie. This is not a perfect program. We have heard from labour leaders who say we need a workforce strategy to go along with this program. We need to ensure that the workers who are working in child care centres are adequately paid, are adequately trained and are given the resources they need so that child care spaces are available. There is a lot of work to continue to do. The idea of getting child care to people is fundamental.

The New Democrats have always known how important child care is. It is why, in my province of Alberta, Rachel Notley was the first premier to pilot a $25-a-day child care. It was wildly successful, but, of course, the Conservatives were elected under Jason Kenney and they cut that. Right now, the premiers of B.C. and Manitoba, again, New Democratic premiers, are championing and prioritizing the $10-a-day child care. Therefore, Canadians in those provinces will have that program in place.

Of course, the Conservatives in my province have, once again, fumbled the ball. As we all know, Danielle Smith would rather pick a fight with the federal government—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would remind the member that it has been the New Democrats who have been able to get the most results for Canada in the 44th Parliament. We are the ones who were able to get dental care. We were the ones who got pharmacare. The fourth party in this 44th Parliament has gotten the most for Canadians. We are the ones who have been ensuring that indigenous rights are being respected.

I do appreciate that the member has worked closely with my friend and colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre. She has shared that with me and I do appreciate the commitment she has to ensure the bill does pass. I hope she has the support of her party to ensure Bill C-35 becomes law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague to speak with her colleague about what we fought for in committee. The Conservatives were the only ones who put forward and supported an amendment for UNDRIP to ensure that first nations had access to their own child care rights.

The initial version of Bill C-35 made no reference to official language minority communities. The Conservative amendments were introduced during the clause-by-clause review by the HUMA committee and they were voted down by the Liberals, which the NDP supported.

Therefore, I would ask the member to say that the Conservatives have been the only ones standing for families and parents, including indigenous peoples and first nations, to do what they feel is best with their children and to give them the choice. Therefore, why are New Democrats supporting the Liberals?

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

Mr. Speaker, I picked up on the member's comment earlier today when there was an attempt by the Conservative Party to prevent Bill C-35 on child care from being debated, which I know is important in all regions of the country. She has commented fairly extensively on the benefits of the program. The Conservatives tried to do that by introducing the northern food allowance and the importance of food up north. I thought that was somewhat tragic, because it is an important issue and would make a nice opposition day motion.

I wonder if the member would expand on both because it was raised a little earlier, and I know her origins are in the north.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do plan to split my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona

As I said, Bill C-35 would open the opportunity for a national system of early learning and child care.

A 2022 Statistics Canada study found that 38% of parents were changing their work or study schedule and 37% were working fewer hours. Bill C-35 would allow more parents to get back to work to provide for their families. This would benefit women, who are disproportionately impacted without this bill. We need Bill C-35 to become law.

The NDP will keep fighting for Canadians, unlike Conservatives, who make cuts, and Liberals who are forced to act only to avoid an election.

Today, the Conservatives tried to delay the important debate on C-35. They used a report from the 43rd parliament on food security issues as a delay tactic. They only pretend to care that nutrition north is not working. If they really cared about indigenous issues, they could have used any of their last 10 opposition day motions to debate nutrition north. Instead, they are playing games by making last minute changes to the orders of the day and obstructing important changes that could benefit many indigenous peoples, as well as the passage of Bill C-35.

I am proud that Nunavut was one of the first territories, along with Quebec and the Yukon, to commit to providing $10-a-day child care. More impressively, this milestone was achieved 15 months ahead of schedule. With the youngest population in Canada, it should come as no surprise. Ten-dollar-a-day day care does exist. Coupled with the high cost of living and other challenges, affordable child care is especially important to Nunavummiut.

Much work will be required after the passage of Bill C-35. There will need to be major investments for improving infrastructure in indigenous communities. Many first nations, Métis and Inuit communities lack the facilities for early childhood education. With crumbling buildings and overcrowded homes, there is nowhere to open a day care.

It is not just early childhood education; there is a severe infrastructure deficit across primary, intermediate and secondary schools in indigenous communities. In Pond Inlet, Arviat and many other Nunavut communities, schools are overcrowded. The communities desperately need investments in new schools. I heard from Pacheedaht First Nation members, who have to bus their children for hours in each direction because there is no school in their community. Even with existing schools, they do not have the resources to provide the same level of service as schools in non-indigenous communities do.

I take this opportunity to remind the Liberal government that it must both reverse its decision to sunset Indigenous Services Canada programs and fill the major infrastructure gaps. In combination, the lack of investments will result in over $14 billion that will force indigenous peoples onto the streets in the future. It will force indigenous peoples to remain addicted to substances and to remain on the margins of society.

The federal government must make additional investments to ensure that Inuit, first nations and Métis communities can build the infrastructure they need to provide culturally appropriate early childhood education.

An amendment was later added to address a potential charter issue, as minority language education is a right under section 23 of the Constitution. As parliamentarians, we have learned that there is an increasing lack of French-language child care services outside of Quebec. The amendment to clause 8 of the bill would ensure the federal government maintains funding for official language minorities. I am sure the francophone community in my riding will be very happy with this amendment. I am glad to see the amendment pass so this important legislation can go forward without potential legal challenges.

While there are two official languages in Canada, hundreds of indigenous languages remain. In order to keep indigenous languages alive, languages must be passed on to children at an early age. Governments have obligations to meet the obligations set out in the Indigenous Languages Act.

I highlight the recent court decision on Bill C-92, which was another big win for indigenous rights. Bill C-92 reaffirms Inuit, first nations and Métis rights to make decisions regarding their own children, youth and families. This includes culturally relevant child care services in their own languages.

For these reasons, I urge parliamentarians to support the passage of this bill.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am honoured to rise on Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

I am proud to represent Nunavut and to be the critic for indigenous issues and northern affairs.

I thank my colleague and friend, the member for Winnipeg Centre, for her leadership in ensuring that Bill C-35 will positively impact Inuit, first nations and Métis.

Early learning and child care are of particular importance to indigenous peoples. Canada used all the resources it could to rob indigenous parents of their children. It used churches, RCMP and Indian agents. Indigenous children were sent to residential schools, and intergenerational trauma still exists because of Canada's genocidal policies against indigenous peoples. Amidst this, it has taken decades for this bill to finally reach this stage, which is so close to passing.

I thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for reminding us, in her speech, about who was instrumental in this. I echo her gratitude. She stated:

Generations of feminists, trade unionists, child care workers and advocates made this victory possible. They never, ever gave up the fight. They did not give up after the 1970 Royal Commission on the Status of Women's recommendation for a national child care program was ignored by the government of the day. They did not give up after the 1993 Liberal red book promised national child care, only for that government to pursue deep cuts to social programs instead.

New Democrats who have fought for this include the mayor of Toronto, Olivia Chow, and the current member for London—Fanshawe.

What would Bill C-35 do? It would ensure a long-term commitment of federal funding to provinces, territories and indigenous groups. It would provide the opportunity for a national system of early learning and child care. It would indeed help ensure that parents across Canada have access to affordable, accessible and high-quality child care, now and into the future.

The NDP fought hard to ensure that Bill C-35 takes a rights-based approach. Because of our work, it includes acknowledgements of the obligations that Canada must adhere to international human rights conventions and declarations.

For example, the third paragraph of the preamble affirms critical international instruments, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.

I return to the importance of passing Bill C-35. We all know that difficulty finding day care impacts the ability of parents to work.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

The House resumed from February 16 consideration of the motion for second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly, this government has done more for families and women than any other government in history, and I am incredibly proud to be part of that government and that work. This legislation, Bill C-35, is, rightly put, just one piece of the hard work we have done to support women and families.

I look to the Canada child benefit, a program that families can rely on each and every month, like clockwork, to support them and deposit funds into their bank accounts for whatever their families may need that month, whether it be additional shoes for Johnny, extracurricular activities or saving for their post-secondary education. We have been there for families and have demonstrated that, not only with legislation but also with others, such as the Canada child benefit, which was pointed out, and many other programs. I would point to the most recent Canada dental benefit and pharmacare, which was just recently announced.

We continue to do the hard work to introduce incredible social policy that is also really smart economic policy, enabling parents to get into the workforce by supporting them in their day-to-day challenges because we all know that raising kids is not easy work.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for her important responses.

It really is quite unfortunate that the Conservatives are using tactics to avoid important debate on Bill C-35. What I very much appreciate about Bill C-35 is that it takes a rights-based approach. I wonder if the member could share with us why the Conservatives would avoid ensuring that the bill passes so that rights could be respected.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today is the day we were supposed to be talking about the Senate amendments to Bill C-35, and the Conservatives have brought forward a concurrence debate with respect to food security in the north, which of course is an extraordinarily important topic. The issue, though, is that the Conservatives are using this as a tactic to delay a very important debate with respect to child care. The way I know this is that the Conservatives have had 10 opposition days when they could have brought forward the issue of nutrition in the north, and they have never chosen to do that.

In fact, when Stephen Harper was our prime minister, I believe that Pam Palmater, one of the indigenous experts, said that the Conservative government had actually set back indigenous relations 100 years in the 10 years that it had been there.

Why is the Conservative Party of Canada so eager to stop women from coast to coast to coast from being able to access child care, something that we know we need for women, for families and, frankly, for our economy?

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to that question here today. Obviously, Bill C-35 is a bill that is critically important to families, to children and to our partners, our provincial, territorial and indigenous partners across this country.

The bill has been thoroughly studied, both at the House committee and at the Senate committee. I would add that there have been numerous days of debate here in the House, as well as in the other place, both recently, in the winter, and back in the fall. I would also point out that, at the time, all parties voted unanimously to continue to support this work.

The member opposite has proposed that the system is in chaos. I would rebut that. I would tell the member to ask the families who are benefiting from this program, thousands of families across the country who are accessing care now, at least at 50% of the rate, if not at $10 a day. For those families, it has been incredibly impactful.

Rome was not built in a day. As we do this work together with the provinces and territories, more spaces are coming in line, and there will be 250,000 new spaces as we continue to build this out with our partners.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of the motion respecting the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, I move:

That debate be not further adjourned.

Notice of Closure Motion

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, with respect to the consideration of the motion relating to the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.

Public Services and Procurement

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful if we just moved on from the slogans written in the leader's office for one moment while I address another issue that would actually help Canadians. On the Order Paper is Bill C-35, which would guarantee lower child care costs for every single mother and father in this country. That could pass on a voice vote today.

Will that member, instead of taking his orders from the leader, walk down to the leader's office and tell him to pass Bill C-35 to bring down child care costs for Canadians?

Government Orders No. 35—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is what I can say: Every time we bring a bill to this House for debate at second reading, it does not really matter what it is. It could be called the “the sky is blue act”. The Conservatives would pose dilatory motions. For Canadians who are watching this, what the Conservatives do is they move concurrence on a committee report from six months ago that no one has talked about since. They bring aimless and pointless questions of privilege to the floor, things that prevent us from getting to the work we have to do.

The member voted for child care. I will put it to her right now: Will she go to her leader and ask that we be able to put Bill C-35 to a vote today, at all stages, so that Albertans can have access to the child care they deserve?

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say that the Liberals have actually foregone speaking times in this debate. If the member wants to jump in, he should talk to his whip.

Last but not least, Sharon Gregson of the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C. says that while there are 130,000 licensed child care spaces in the province, 75% of children aged zero to 12 are unable to access them. It does not matter how inexpensive child care is if parents cannot access it. It is a fantasy.

I have seen this in my riding of Northumberland—Peterborough South. Numerous parents have come to or called our office and said, “Mr. Lawrence, we heard through the media that there would be $10-a-day day care,” and I have had to report to them that, unfortunately, there are a very limited number of spots, and most Canadians cannot access them. That is from the parents' perspective.

Let us hear what the child care providers have had to say. This is from a report in Global News about two weeks ago:

A number of Alberta child care facilities shut their doors Tuesday, protesting what they say are problems with the $10-a-day child-care program.

The Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs said the job action is meant to draw attention to the issues that come with offering parents low-cost child care without ensuring the cost of delivery is still covered.

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

“You can’t even buy coffee and a muffin for $10 a day,” said Churcher. “We’re walking out in protest.”

We see, all the time, grandstanding from the government: big spending announcements and big plans. Although admittedly it is just tangentially related, I recently had the opportunity to ask the housing minister in finance committee about his housing accelerator program. I asked what I would have thought was a very straightforward, easy question for him to answer: How many houses has the housing accelerator built? I asked two or three times but did not get an answer until finally the minister admitted that the housing accelerator is not there to build houses. That is pretty much a word-for-word quote. The housing accelerator is great at building bureaucracy and the government is great at doing photo ops, but it is not delivering child care for Canadians and it is not delivering housing for Canadians.

I could go on, but I would like to talk about the substance of the amendment to Bill C-35. The original terms made no reference to the official language minority communities, a very important group. We need to protect our official languages. We need to make sure that French continues to grow. I attend my French classes every day because I believe it is absolutely critical we all take this seriously and help grow the beautiful French language.

The Senate proposed an amendment to the bill to include a reference to OLMCs in section 8 to eliminate any ambiguity before the courts. I will remind the House that section 8 reads:

The Government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples. The funding must be provided primarily through agreements with the provincial governments, Indigenous governing bodies and other Indigenous entities that represent the interests of an Indigenous group and its members.

Bill C-35 unanimously passed through the House last year. When it made it to the Senate, Senator Cormier, an Acadian who has stood up for francophones in the past and continues to do so, wanted to add the words “official language minority communities” to the first sentence of the section, which states, “including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples,” and he divided section 8 into two paragraphs.

The first paragraph sets out the government's financial commitment. The second paragraph outlines the mechanisms the federal government will use to provide the funding. Adding the words “official language minority communities” after the word “including” does not detract from any rights of any other minority or of indigenous peoples, but seeks to eliminate any ambiguity before the courts.

Early childhood development is incredibly critical for kids. As I said when I started my speech today, and as we heard many speakers talk so eloquently about, as a government, we need to put children first. We need to make sure that we put out solutions and programs and that we do not limit or impair the ability of parents to raise their children.

I look forward to continuing the dialogue and the discussion on this topic and to celebrating—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are rising today to talk about amendments to Bill C-35. All 338 of us value child care and the tremendous work of moms, dads, grandparents and other individuals who love and take care of children from coast to coast to coast.

Before I even commence my speech, I would just like to thank all the parents and child care providers from coast to coast, whether they are a grandma at the end of the street, a dad staying home to make sure their kid gets the love they want or a provider at a licensed child care centre working an extra half-hour or 45 minutes to wait for parents who are held up at work. Really, there is no more critical work than helping our children develop and become that next great generation.

I want to talk a bit about statistics, because they were mentioned earlier in the debate. When it comes to child care, the current stats from the Fraser Institute's report published on February 6 are that 77% of high-income parents report that they have access to child care, whereas 41% of low-income families have access to child care. It really strikes me that this legislation does not have any particular dedicated support for those who are most vulnerable.

Those children are not only fighting the challenges that all children are fighting, whether that is bullying or the challenges of growing up; they are also fighting poverty, and this legislation has no support for those children who are having to brave those incredibly difficult challenges that poverty brings with it. While we are giving 77% of high-income parents access to child care, we are only giving it to 41%, which is less than half, of those children who are fighting through all the additional struggles in addition to the challenges of poverty.

Also mentioned before was the labour participation of women. According to the same report, in September 2023, it was at 61.5%. Compare that to 2015 under Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives, it was at 61.7%, so the participation of women in the labour market has declined. Those are the numbers on that, so hopefully that ends the debate right there.

On top of that, according to another Fraser Institute study published on February 6, the employment rate of female youth is on a strong downward trend since February 2023. The cumulative decline of 4.2% over the period is a huge number. That is hundreds and thousands of young women who are not getting into the labour force. This is the lowest it has been since May 2000, excluding the pandemic, according to the labour force survey of January 2024.

This program is, of course, predicated on the fact that it would enable parents, both men and women, but if we call a spade a spade it is predominantly women, get back into the workforce, if they so choose, and the numbers just do not bear that out.

Some more numbers for members are 47% of infants younger than one year and not in child care were on a wait list, increasing from 38% in 2022—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to speak on Bill C-35. I want to start by addressing some of the amendments that were put forward by the other place.

In the initial part of this bill, there was no reference to official language minority communities, and it was Conservative amendments, made during the clause-by-clause review at the Standing Committee on Human Rights, that introduced these safeguards for our very important minority-language communities. We know that early child care is a crucial period for language learning and for the identity development of children. Access to French language early child care services is so necessary as a condition for the transmission of languages that have been transmitted by families over generations.

Several examples demonstrate the necessity of including these provisions in the bill. In Alberta, out of the so-called 1,500 new day care spaces announced by the government, only 19 were being allocated for francophones. That constitutes only 0.013% of all spaces, despite francophones representing 2% of the population of Alberta. It is important to protect these communities and their part in Canadian heritage that helped to build this nation, whether they be francophones in Alberta or anglophones in Quebec.

I want to talk about the great francophone heritage of my community. A gentleman, Ben Van De Walle, who is the son of the late, great member of Parliament from my area, Walter Van De Walle, who represented the great francophone communities of Morinville, Rivière Qui Barre and Legal. We have a very strong francophone identity in Sturgeon River—Parkland, and the Conservative amendments would go a long way to preserving our French-language heritage in our region.

Now that I have addressed these amendments, I want to talk about what I see as the unravelling disaster we are seeing because of the Liberal government's failed approach to child care. The proposed legislation and the current agreements made by the government with the provinces are failing to provide universal access to affordable child care and would cost far more than the government has estimated.

Small businesses are the backbone of our society, and the predominantly female entrepreneurs who are courageously trying to build businesses and build their livelihoods through providing child care are under attack by the Liberal government. The excessive red tape and regulations of the Liberal government are preventing day care entrepreneurs from opening new spaces and expanding their businesses. They cannot get the funding because the government will not fund new spaces.

This is making child care less accessible, and it is all because of the Liberal government imposing a one-size-fits-all model on a very complex sector of our economy. In the words of some child care operators, the Liberal government is essentially expropriating and nationalizing their businesses. I will use the words of one operator from Fort McMurray who said that, basically, they will “have no business” under the Liberal plan.

One of the government's tired talking points is its insistence that it has evidence-based policies. A more appropriate term would be evidence that is selective that corresponds with its ideological agenda. Let us go over some of the facts. As of the statistics published on February 6, just a short time ago, 77% of high-income parents have access to child care, and this compares to only 41% of low-income parents who have access to child care. It is a yawning gap.

I find it somewhat comedic that a Bloc MP earlier talked about how great this program is for single mothers. The University of British Columbia did a study in that province, in which it contacted all the child care centres to find out how many low-income single mothers were benefiting from this program. Across the entire province of British Columbia, it found 17 who were benefiting. There were only 17 single mothers benefiting, in the province of British Columbia, from the Liberals' failed day care policy.

Since 2019, the number of children under the age of five in child care has fallen under the Liberal government by 118,000 spaces. This is a decrease of 8.5% nationally. There was 46.4% of parents who reported difficulty in finding child care in 2023, which is up from 36.4% of parents in 2019. This is a problem that existed before the government's policy, but it is a problem that is only getting worse under the government's failed policy.

In fact, I personally know people who can only get one of their two children in child care, and they have to stay home to take care of the other children. These people are nurses and other skilled workers who cannot pursue their careers because the current government has made it more difficult for them to access any child care. It does not matter if it says it is affordable. If I could get 50¢ gas at the gas station, that would be great, but if there was never any gas at the gas station, it would not matter how affordable the price was.

Why is child care so expensive? We know that the key costs for child care, according to the operators, in order of magnitude, are labour costs, the cost of the facilities and the cost of food and other supplies.

Child care is a labour-intensive operation. The cost to create a space that is appropriate for children and the accompanying mortgage, rental costs, insurance costs and maintenance costs are extremely significant. Finally, the cost of food and other supplies has increased dramatically under this inflationary government.

What is a factor in all three of these costs? It is high inflation, which has increased the cost of labour, rent, mortgages, insurance and food at the local store. The price of food has gone up by 12%. Child care operators are not immune from these costs. They do not get some special discount at the store because they are child care operators.

The fact is that the Liberal government, through its inflationary policies, is driving up the costs to care for children in Canada. At the same time that it is driving up all of these costs, it is shortchanging child care operators by only giving them a 3% annual increase in their funding. They cannot support children when food prices are going up 12%, when wage costs are going up, and when mortgage costs are doubling and tripling, and rental costs are tripling. They cannot support these children with only a 3% increase from the government.

The Liberal government is expecting these predominantly female business owners to eat these costs. Consequently, it is causing them to shut down their business, to reduce spaces and restrict access to child care for Canadians.

In the child care sector in Alberta, we are already seeing the consequences of this inflationary agenda. Last month, parents in my riding were unable to get child care, because of closures in protest of these Liberal policies. Operators have described these agreements as underfunded and inflexible, and say that they threaten the financial viability of operators by placing fee caps and other restrictions on facilities that are struggling with these increased costs.

The owner of My Happy Place Daycare, in Stony Plain, Alberta said:

Right now, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place...Just being closed for the day has a huge impact. Imagine what would happen if day care centres across the province started closing their doors because they're going bankrupt.

I fear that because of these Liberals' ideological approach to child care, that is a future that we are seeing coming very quickly.

The proposed solution for inflation by proponents of even more government intervention in early child care is, no surprise, more inflationary spending. The government has tried to raise the wages of child care workers, but this is putting us into a wage spiral, because other groups that are competing for child care workers, such as school boards, are also raising their wages in order to compete for these workers.

In one case I spoke to a mother who worked in child care previously, before the government's policies were in place. She worked in child care because she received a significant discount for her own child's care at that facility. Once the government brought in its policies, her day care operator got rid of the discount, as it was not necessary anymore. She lost her incentive to work in child care. She has left that sector. Now there is one less child care worker.

I have spoken with child care operators who have had to pay increased rents and mortgages on their facilities. As everyone knows, mortgages and rental rates are skyrocketing after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, particularly in the last year.

Under agreements the government has signed, child care operators are limited in the costs they can bill the government toward their rent and mortgage. Since they are mandated to only charge families a fixed price, there is no way these operators can make up the difference other than by reducing other costs. What are these costs? It is food and craft supplies. Do we really want to talk about reducing the quality of the food and the quality of the programming for our children, just so these day care operators could make up the costs of skyrocketing mortgages and rents, because the Liberal government will not support them?

What is actually happening now is that they are just choosing to shut down instead. They do not want to provide subpar care for children under the Liberal policies, so they are just shutting down altogether. It is terrible to see.

The laws of supply and demand mean that the government must either restrict the capacity of day cares or dramatically increase funding beyond what it has already promised. The first option is unfair. We cannot prevent people from accessing child care. Yet, what we are seeing is that it is predominantly middle- and high-income families that are getting access, and low-income families are being left out. This is backed up by research from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which reported that the Liberal plan is not sufficient to meet the demand for child care. In fact, it will fall short in providing spaces for 182,000 children.

I said earlier that we have lost 118,000 spaces since 2019. The Liberal government is well on its way to meeting at least one of its goals, which is the reduction of child care spaces. It has reduced this number by 118,000, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer says it is going to 182,000 under the Liberal policies.

That is what we are already seeing in Alberta. Operators are struggling to stay open. They are closing down. They are reducing spaces. It is lowering accessibility for families.

We cannot continue going down this road. We need a new way to move forward. We need to support all child care operators, regardless of the model that they choose. We need to provide not only affordability for families but accessibility for families, and we are not getting it under this failed NDP-Liberal policy.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it looks like the Liberals have chosen to not continue speaking to this, so I am very proud to rise to speak on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country. I will be splitting my time with the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.

Amendments were brought forward from the Senate on Bill C-35, on child care, which is why we are here today. I would like to recognize the member for Peterborough—Kawartha and her team for all of their work on this bill, as well as for reaching out to parents and child care providers across the country. I would also like to recognize our Conservative members on the human resources committee. They brought forth common-sense amendments on this bill that were not accepted by the NDP-Liberal coalition. I will speak to that shortly.

Child care is an issue of great importance to many families in my community and the operators who run these centres, as they are taking care of our most important asset, our children. I want to thank them for the vital and important work that they do. As a working mom, I can say that child care was very important to me and our family. That was back when maternity leave was only six months.

I have unfortunately heard from many residents of Kelowna—Lake Country about the shortage of day care spaces, as well as the unaffordability of child care. I have also heard from operators, often young female entrepreneurs, of the challenges they are facing as well. If not resolved, these challenges may put them out of business for good, leaving families struggling to find a child care space that does not exist.

As the Conservative vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I am very familiar with Bill C-35, as it came before Conservative colleagues and me at that committee. We have to remember that this legislation is coming after agreements were already signed and implemented with the provinces.

Conservatives have also offered several other amendments at the committee stage to correct serious failures in this legislation. These are faults that have been apparent from the beginning of this NDP-Liberal government's approach to child care. Sadly, those amendments were voted down, and as a result, we are now seeing many of the consequences of their approach.

Parents are now facing wait-lists that have not gotten better. Child care centres are being forced to close their doors forever. The wealthy are getting access to $10-a-day child care spaces. The Liberal child care plan had no means testing. In fact, it does not even tie to whether the parent who is looking to access the $10-a-day child care even works or wants to work.

Let us look at the numbers. A Fraser Institute report, published just this month, showed that 77% of high-income parents access child care compared to 41% of low-income families. It should also be common sense that a high-income household does not need the government subsidy to access the same level to child care that a single working mother would need.

Accessible child care should be available to all working women, but many people are questioning how these government programs are good for working women and the families that need access to affordable child care. Despite the claims from the Liberals that their child care plans would allow more women to be in our workforce, that same Fraser Institute study found that labour force participation for women in September 2023 has dropped when compared to participation in September of 2015. This report also said, “There is also little evidence that the federal government is achieving its [second] goal of boosting the labour force participation of women with children.”

After eight years of high taxes, high inflation, high interest rates and more debt, we can add fewer women with children working to the NDP-Liberal government's list of accomplishments. Young women have also suffered. The Liberal's most recent labour force survey, published in January of 2024, showed that over the last year, the employment of young women has cumulatively declined by 4.2%. Outside of the pandemic, that is the lowest it has been since the year 2000, which was, interestingly, under the last Liberal government.

The young female entrepreneurs in the child care sector have been left behind. These are operators who are often working extended hours and days compared to the many large not-for-profit operators. Even if they are fully licensed from the provincial government, they operate within and follow all provincial regulations. The so-called feminist Liberals have not made them a priority to access the federal funding to bring down costs to the parents they serve. It is right in the Liberal legislation.

We have quickly discovered that these female entrepreneurs are not a priority in the NDP-Liberal government's child care plan. What they envisioned was that they could build something for themselves, a child care program that could be flexible for nighttime or weekend workers, better available to rural working families and cater exclusively to children with special needs. These are exactly the types of choices parents are asking for.

Ottawa has a role in helping build out child care in Canada, but it cannot do that if it only looks to work against the headwinds of what the real demands are and local situations are of working families.

The NDP-Liberal agreements have been opposed to the kinds of child care that often allow more flexibility, such as what women entrepreneurs provide. They may provide different availability and attainability to preferred government-run or not-for-profit centres. If these operations have challenges to staying open, the numbers of child care spaces will actually decline.

This is not the fault of any child care worker or any organization in the child care sector, whether it be private, public or not-for-profit. It is the fault of a badly designed government program.

I recently met with a well-run, not-for-profit child care centre in my community. This experienced operator was equally frustrated with the system. She talked about the bureaucracy that has been created that is making it very difficult for both her organization and parents to wade through.

The fact is that, since the Liberal government started its child care program, we have seen fewer children in child care in Canada. According to Statistics Canada, the number of children under the age of five in child care fell by 118,000 between 2019 and 2023, which is a decrease of 8.5% nationally. Statistics Canada also showed that 26% of parents of children under the age of five who were not using child care reported that their child was on a wait-list, which is 7% higher than it was in 2022. As well, 47% of infants younger than one year not in child care were on a wait-list, which is an increase of 38% compared to early 2022.

The Coalition of Child Care Advocates of BC said that there were 130,000 licensed child care spaces in the province and that 75% of children aged zero to 12 are not able to access them.

A common-sense Conservative government would bring common sense back to child care policy. Only Conservatives would fight for equal access to child care and choice for parents. We support all forms of child care, and this is something we tried to put in through amendments at the committee stage with this legislation, whether it be for traditional day care centres; centres with extended, part-time or overnight care; nurseries; flexible and drop-in care; before- and after-school care; preschools; 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; guardians who raise their own children or family members; or friends or neighbours who provide care.

The NDP-Liberal government has only brought costs, crime and crisis to families. After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, housing prices have doubled, food bank usage is at its highest, violent crime is up 32% and inflation is creating financial anxiety. There are 22 people dying each day by the opioid crisis, and our health care system is in shambles.

On top of this, in B.C., with the federal Liberals supporting B.C. drug policies, people taking their children to parks have to deal with open drug use. I spoke with a child care provider recently who told me that they often walk the kids to a local park to play, and though they scan the park before the children play, they are often terrified that they may have missed something because they often find drug paraphernalia.

I do have quite a number of articles from over the last month. I will just reference a couple because I know I am running out of time. First of all, Castanet said that the Kelowna child care crisis is being “amplified” and “not helped by government fee program.” Another headline reads “Edmonton daycares closed” due to protest. Another reads, “Child-care costs are dropping across Canada. But some families are still waiting years for spaces.” These headlines goes on on, and these are headlines from just over the last month.

Conservatives will honour the existing provincial child care agreements. However, we will work toward fixing what the government has broken, so parents will have the choice and flexibility that the NDP-Liberal costly coalition has not allowed.

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

Mr. Speaker, now they all come running back in to hear this marvellous speech, despite the heckles from the NDP guys over here.

Thankfully we have not gotten to the point yet where they want to get us to, but when we hear people deny the primary role of parents to raise their own children, that is the line of thinking that will start to take us in a dangerous direction.

Our approach to child care must respect parents and their choices. We cannot expect the NDP-Liberal coalition to get things right if they do not have that solid foundation to begin with.

Child care is crucial. Canadian parents know it better than anyone. As Conservatives, we want to meet the needs of families and we understand how valuable and important it is to do so. It is common sense. Especially in today’s world, which moves at a rapid pace, we need to maintain and support the family unit.

Children are a gift. Those of us who are parents know how much they change our lives. They give us purpose and direction. They bring joy and pride as they grow up, despite some of the difficulties that we sometimes have to go through as parents with our kids. Not to sound too cliché, but our kids are the future of society. That is why it is so important that we provide the right support to parents as they raise the next generation.

There are people out there looking for options that are affordable and help to build the lifestyle they want for their family.

For many, it is a struggle. I have heard about it in my own riding, which is largely rural. Last month, at a town hall in Eastend, as I was talking about at the beginning, I was asked about the lack of access and spaces in our area. It confirmed for me that not much has changed since I was part of another town hall in Maple Creek a couple years ago, where one of the prominent issues was also child care.

I would say that, as the most rural province, Saskatchewan is in a unique situation. We have so many small towns that are so spread out. There is an especially stark contrast between urban and rural. Access to child care is linked to our access to workers. Business owners in the southwest are struggling to hire, but it was not because of a shortage of applicants; it was a shortage of day care facilities where potential hires could have their kids taken care of. Unfortunately, these interviewees moved on, got another job outside Maple Creek, and left these businesses still wanting.

What is sad is that Maple Creek is just a phenomenal town. Houses are still decently affordable, the school is great and it is not too far from the Cypress Hills. It is a quick drive to some major centres in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is just an all-around great place for a family, yet people are choosing to not raise their kids here, in part because they cannot find access to child care.

We wanted to see this bill include a wide range of child care options that should be available to parents. That is what the NDP-Liberals rejected.

One of the amendments that we had proposed was to make sure we included all types of providers, private providers, home-based providers, alongside public and not-for-profit providers, just to make sure that all types of home care options were eligible.

In fact, in Saskatchewan, there are over 87,574 children under age six in our province but the majority of them are not in licensed care and receive no benefit from the implementation of the government's child care strategy.

This government has a one-size-fits-all approach for parents. This bill says to Canadians, “It is okay. Do not worry about it. Let the government take care of your kids.” That is basically it. This bill overlooks many families who want to have some other options, including stay-at-home parents. Many Canadians do not want that approach from the government; they believe that what is best for their family is that they stay home with the kids and live off one income.

By no means is it easy. I am speaking from my own personal experience. It requires determination and sacrifice but for my family, and for thousands and thousands of Canadians, the right decision is to have a stay-at-home parent.

Last time I spoke on this bill, I shared my own family’s experience with stay-at-home parenting, and I would like to touch on that point once again.

Shortly after my wife and I were married, and while our first child was on the way, we sat down and discussed how we could it make it work for my wife to be a stay-at-home mom, because that was something that she truly wanted and was near and dear to her heart. We also thought that this is what would be best for the kids in the long run. The decision to live on one income was definitely an adjustment. We got by for nearly a decade, until she went back to work in 2019, when the kids were old enough.

I would suggest that we were better off for it. We had adventures driving our old minivan. We had to make decisions on buying older, well-used vehicles, to make sure that we could make ends meet. These were definitely part of the joy, and the struggle at times, of deciding to live on one income and have my wife be a stay-at-home parent.

Yes, Conservatives supported this bill because there are Canadians in different situations who make other choices, and they are looking for support, too. Not all Canadians can survive on one income. We know that and get that, especially with the cost of living crisis spiralling out of control because of the government. However, for those who are able and choose to do so, they are completely overlooked by the Liberal government. Instead of supporting Canadians who choose to live as independently of government as possible, the government continues to throw program after program at Canadians, as if they cannot run their own lives.

Last June, the member for Milton said to me, “When women go back to work, they tend to earn money and pay taxes, and that pays for programs like this. I would like the member to appreciate that.” However, I did not need him to tell me that. There are mothers who work and contribute to our economy. My point is that parents are more than just simply taxpayers. The family is the basis of society, not the government. Strong parents make stronger families and, all together, they make for a strong society. If a woman does not want to go back to work after she has kids, we should not just let her, we should help her.

For the member to consider that women are nothing more than a taxpayer is a frightening insinuation. Does the Liberal government just view Canadians, especially Canadian moms, as just a source of income? If so, that is really worrying. The state is not the be-all and end-all solution for everything. Parents do not get up in the morning and head out the door to their jobs while thinking with pride about the taxes that are going to be carved out of their paycheques, but rather about how to pay for the food that their children are going to eat or how to pay for the mortgage that puts a roof over their heads, how they are going to save enough money to hopefully go on a vacation or maybe to have their kids sign up to play hockey, to put their kids in gymnastics or to have their kids take music lessons. Those are some of the finer things we are able to do as Canadian citizens. We cannot put a dollar value on parenting, and it is certainly not $10 a day.

Parenting, for many of us, is something in our bones, what we were created for. The government is looking at Canadians and thinking about its return on investment, not bout how it can support Canadians living life the way they want to, including as a stay-at-home parent. A mother who chooses to leave the workforce is not an extra cost to society. She is not a burden or a strain or a negative, by any stretch of the imagination. Moms are not a commodity to be given a dollar value. People have tried to determine the hourly cost of motherhood, that a mom’s work is worth about $180,000 a year. The work of a mother is absolutely priceless. We cannot put a dollar value on it.

This line of thinking, with the government’s belief that women must get back to work to pay their taxes, inherently devalues that work, the sacrifice and the unconditional love that mothers give. While child care might be $10 a day with the rollout of this bill, there can never be a price put on being a mom, or a dad, for that matter. Our kids are our future, and their youngest years are the most important years of their lives. Do members not think that mom and dad should be with them as much as possible during that time frame? The role of the government is to act in the best interests of its citizens, so why are we not doing everything in our power to ensure our children have the strongest start possible?

As I said, this bill, Bill C-35, is narrow. It ignores and leaves behind other child care options. Back home, we know that many families share child care responsibilities. Family friends are all brought to someone’s house and a stay-at-home parent takes cares of them for the day. There is no government intervention, no subsidies, just community coming together to find a solution to their needs.

Canadians who rely on others for their child care, people from their church, their neighbours, their co-workers, should be encouraged to do just that. They should not be forced to put their kids into a government-sanctioned day care. For the private child care groups put together between friends, for the stay-at-home moms who choose to leave the workforce because they see the value in spending every day with their kids, the Liberal government leaves them wanting.

The government must do more to tackle affordability and to enable parents to spend time with their kids. Parents know their kids better than anyone and will love their kids more than anyone else ever will. The government should not encourage the separation of child and parent, but should be actively working toward a country in which parents can spend as much time with their kids as possible. The 53% of child care centres in the country that are unlicensed are, therefore, excluded from this legislation and so, too, are the 35% of parents whose children are not in child care as they would rather stay at home with them.

Whether one is from urban or rural Canada, Vancouver or Swift Current, Toronto or Shaunavon, child care is something all Canadians need. Whether it is private, at a co-op, maybe over at one's grandparent's house, it could be a stay-at-home parent or a group of parents who have agreed to a cycle of taking care of the kids. However it presents itself, we know that Bill C-35 before us overlooks nearly all those people, and that does not even consider the fact that this scheme does not do anything to create new spaces. It is not growing access, which for people in the southwest matters the most.

In Saskatchewan, only 10% of kids aged zero to 12 have access to day care, either full time or part time. For the ages between zero and six, the ages managed by the agreement between the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada, that is just under 18%. For example, there is one day care facility in Saskatoon that has 90 spots available in its day home. Its waiting list had 1,900 people on it, which is 1,900 kids and families who are being overlooked by the Liberal government. Sure, the government might be trying to make day care more affordable, but if Canadians cannot get their kids into the day care, where is the benefit?

Across the provinces, we see some different approaches when it comes to delivering access to education, for example. When I came here to Ontario, I heard something in the news about how the multiple school boards work. It sounds different from the arrangements we have made in Saskatchewan or from how education funding is delivered in Alberta. Each province is responsible for its own needs in that area. We need to see the same respect shown to provinces when it comes to early child care as well.

I also want to say something my Quebec colleagues might appreciate. I hope we can work together to find some common ground whenever possible. Our friends in Quebec already have their own child care system, which has been running for decades already. I have to admit that I am not completely familiar with all the details of child care in Quebec or with the discussions they are having about it in that part of the country, but they genuinely do seem to be happy with it. However, that was long before the government in Ottawa brought forward its version of a program for national child care at the federal level. The government should not take the credit for what Quebec is doing. It also should not assume that what works in one province will work exactly the same in other provinces. There are different histories, cultures and values to consider.

The choice of parents matters the most. We need to expand their choices and not limit them, including through an affordability crisis. At the end of the day, a lot of the problems they face come down to the fact that this is a country where people can barely afford to live at all. After all, 51% of Canadians are $200 away from bankruptcy. Most women in Canada are having fewer children than they want, and it is partly because they cannot deal with the economic burden that comes with parenthood. The root of the problem is not child care; it is affordability. It is the fact that Canadians are not earning enough money to raise a family. The current government should not be putting a band-aid on the problems created by the government with social programs. It needs to address the very real concerns faced by Canadians so that they can have the kids they want and that they can raise them however they want, without the government telling them exactly what it is that they are supposed to be doing.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House, and it is great to be able to speak to such an important issue as what we are talking about here today, which is child care and, in particular, the Senate amendments.

I guess the fact that we are back here today goes to show, and I am sure my colleagues would agree, that there is always room for improvement when we are looking at any piece of legislation, but it is especially true when we are dealing with an NDP-Liberal government, such as we are now. That is what we tried to tell its members during the regular process of debate the first time through.

If the Liberal government decides it wants to involve itself in something, it really needs to make sure it gets things right and does not create a mess of things. As usual, it chose not to take its responsibility seriously. Instead it tried to blame us and play political games at the expense of Canadian families. It claimed we were delaying the bill, when we were simply doing our job as the official opposition.

Our Parliament is set up in certain ways for a reason. We have to consider and review what the government does carefully, or else there is trouble. Look at what happens when we do not. Was it a delay when a few months went by for senators to go through the bill and add this amendment? As a result, we are having another round of debate and a vote in the House.

In this case, that is probably a good thing. Many people from each party agree that the bill will be better for it. If we consider that it is dealing with child care, which is a complex and important issue, I think it is fair to say there are other things we also need to consider. We do not have to worry about a delay so much as the Liberal government making big announcements and rushing through legislation so it can try to look good and feel good about itself.

Canadians living in the real world have a lot of problems to face. They are counting on us to deliver solutions in the right way. Along with protecting official language minority communities, which is now reflected in Bill C-35, Conservatives proposed other amendments, which were rejected by the NDP-Liberals, including an amendment that would have basically done the exact same thing that we are debating here today with this Senate amendment, which was voted down previously by the NDP-Liberal government at committee.

The government's lack of respect for parents is quite apparent. In different ways, we have heard members of the Liberal-NDP government suggest that parents do not have the right to raise their own children. Recently, one of its members went so far as to say that there is no such thing as parental rights. There is a dangerous idea the far left has that seems to be gaining ground on that side. The Liberals think children should belong to the state and not to their parents.

The House resumed consideration of the motion for second reading of, and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-35 prioritizes child care facilities that are government run and not-for-profit. It does not prioritize small businesses and entrepreneurs, many of whom are are run by women entrepreneurs, even if those locations are licenced and regulated by the respective provincial governments. Why would a Liberal government that touts itself to be a feminist government not prioritize young women entrepreneurs in this legislation?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, it is a real honour and privilege to stand in the House to talk about a program that has been such an important affordability measure for young families, particularly in my riding. It has also allowed so many women, and so many parents, to get back to work a little sooner than they would have otherwise, leading to the best-ever marks on female engagement in the economy.

It has been a real landmark for Canada, and I am proud to speak to Bill C-35 from the perspective of Milton. As the House has heard us say repeatedly, access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive child care is not a luxury, it is a necessity. That is why our commitment to building a Canada-wide early learning and child care system matters so much to so many.

Since signalling our intention to create that system, the Government of Canada has signed Canada-wide early learning and child care agreements with all provinces and territories to support increased access to high-quality, affordable, inclusive child care, including supports to the early learning and childhood education workforce.

Since then, we have been working closely with our provincial and territorial colleagues to ensure that early childhood educators are the cornerstone of our child care system. I would like to recognize the outstanding contribution of so many of those educators, who continue to work so hard to care for children and support their growth and education. In particular, I would like to highlight the great work of the Milton Community Resource Centre. I visit regularly, and I talk to them about any and all issues that affect early learning and child care. It is one of the largest providers of early learning and child care in Milton and throughout Halton. Without it, there would be so many parents in Milton that would not have been able to get back to work. That impact on the earnings and the careers for members of a family is pretty profound.

When I am walking down the street, talking to neighbours in Milton, I have had so many parents come to me to say that they are saving thousands of dollars a year thanks to the early learning and child care program, which the government provides. It has been huge for a young community, such as Milton, that has so many parents and so many young kids.

Bill C-35 outlines the guiding principles for federal investments in early learning and child care. One of those guiding principles includes supporting the provision of high-quality programs and services through the recruitment and retention of qualified and well-supported early learning and childhood educator workforce individuals. That high-quality early childhood educator workforce is essential to fostering the social, emotional, physical and cognitive development of young children.

I can speak from personal experience. I am not a parent, but I have been in those classrooms with some of those kids, and I have seen how amazing the workers are. They are fantastic, and seeing the different personalities among the kids is a lot of fun every time I visit.

More specifically, international studies have shown that children who regularly participate in high-quality early learning and child care programs tend to have higher graduation rates. Later on, they make better decisions, improve their work habits and their grades, make gains in reading and math, are excited about learning and develop stronger social skills.

It is pretty clear to me that when we invest in a high-quality early learning and childhood educator workforce, we are investing it the health, well-being and success of generations to come. That is why we are putting forward this important legislation, to ensure that early childhood educator workforces are supported right across the country, so they can continue to provide children across Canada with the best possible start in life.

It all starts with our agreements with the provinces and territories, where commitments are made to, one, implement evidence-based, quality frameworks, standards and tools for early learning and child care; two, development and implement wage grids for early childhood educators; three, increase the percentage of child care workers who fully meet provincial and territorial certification requirements; and, four, increase training, professional development and other supports for early childhood workforces. These commitments are essential, not only to attract early childhood educators but also, even more importantly, to retain our high-quality workforce.

What does that look like in practice? From coast to coast to coast, the provinces and territories have been working closely to provide better training opportunities, increased compensation and more benefits to their early childhood educator workforce. Let us take British Columbia as an example. B.C. is investing in special training and development to upgrade skills in priority areas to make child care more inclusive, especially for children with disabilities and children needing enhanced or individual supports.

This training also focuses on making child care more culturally appropriate for indigenous children. We know that, in building an inclusive child care system that meets our children's needs, we must meet children where they are and support both current and future early childhood educators at the same time.

That is why the Government of British Columbia expanded its dual credit program for early childhood educators. The dual credit program allows secondary students in B.C. to take post-secondary courses and receive credits towards both high school graduation and a post-secondary program. The program covers tuition fees for the courses, resulting in more affordable training for students in early childhood education.

Let us go across the country to the east, to Prince Edward Island, where more training opportunities have been provided for both current early childhood educators and those interested in joining the early childhood education workforce. The province has also launched a one-time grant to help recruit early childhood educators back to the sector, and these investments are ensuring that early childhood educators on the island have the skills and tools they need to succeed while providing new opportunities to expand the workforce. Further, P.E.I. also increased staff salaries at early year centres across the province as part of a coordinated effort to move the province's early childhood workforce forward. Wage increases are instrumental in P.E.I.'s multi-year plan to support the early childhood sector and to encourage others to pursue a career in early childhood education.

Let us head up to the territories. In the Yukon, the territory has been investing in accelerated education pathways for early childhood educators in partnership with Yukon University. The goal of these accelerated education pathways is to enhance the level of education available for early childhood educators in the territory, which would help increase the quality of early learning and child care across the Yukon. This initiative in the Yukon is a win-win-win. It provides enhanced education, strengthens the workforce and benefits our youngest learners with the most qualified educators. Moreover, early learning educators in the Yukon will be able to customize their training plan, allowing them to continue to work in a licenced program, including in family day homes.

These are only a few of the amazing initiatives under way across the country to support the hard-working and dedicated early childhood educators. These initiatives are made possible thanks to the groundbreaking federal investments of the Government of Canada that we have made in building that Canada-wide early learning and child care system from coast to coast to coast. Our early childhood education workforce is critical to the success of the Canada-wide system, and it is key to Canada's economic prosperity. Our government is committed to building a stronger, more resilient economy where nobody is left behind. We know that access to early learning and child care that is affordable and inclusive is going to help drive our economic growth. It will enable parents, particularly mothers, to enter, maintain and re-enter the job market, and offer each child in Canada the best possible start.

This is why I encourage my colleagues to support Bill C-35 quickly so we can continue to work together to support, grow, develop and engage with the early learning and childhood educator workforce. As I said earlier, when we invest in high-quality early childhood educator workforces, we are investing in the health, well-being and success of generations to come.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Milton.

We all know that affordability is a top-of-mind topic, so let us consider early learning and child care through that lens. Before the early learning and child care agreements with all provinces and territories were finalized, daily child care fees ranged from $20 to $48 a day per child. Those dollars could go a long way in a grocery store or to keep children active in sports or other activities. Child care fees have been dropping across Canada, and we are continuing to work hard with our provincial and territorial colleagues to meet our March 2026 goal of a $10-a-day, on average, fee for children under the age of six in licensed child care.

Affordable child care means hundreds of dollars every month in the pockets of Canadians of all income levels. Affordable child care means money for nutritious meals on the table as prices at grocery stores remain high. Affordable child care means money for clothing and other necessities.

Carolyn Ferns, the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care's public policy coordinator put it perfectly: “Affordable child care is life-changing for families and for our communities. It is great to see the collaboration between the federal and provincial governments making that a reality for Ontario families.” Of course it is a reality not just for Ontario families; it is also a reality for every family in Canada with young children, whoever they are, wherever they live and regardless of their income level.

Let me share just a few of the testimonials parents have taken the trouble to write to members and to the government as they realize the financial relief affordable child care is bringing to them. Most are accompanied by expressions of enthusiasm and emphasis, such as multiple exclamation points or capital letters.

The first one is, “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 [governments] for collaborating on this excellent legislation. It truly puts families first.” The next is, “Just paid our January day care fees. Under $500! This is a 55% reduction from last year. This is going to make such a huge difference for so many families.” The third one is, “Our infant's day care fees have dropped $500 per month, and on the 26th at her [18-month anniversary], 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.”

Here is another one: “I will not benefit from this as my kids are grown and I remember paying $650/month for child care on a salary of $1,200/month back in the 80s. But I am so very, very happy that young families are benefiting from this.” The last one is, “It was absolutely surreal to see my day care fees drop from a high of $167.25. As of [January], we will be paying less than 50% of that, on a path to $10.” It is clear from these and many other social media posts, interviews and comments that families in Canada are thrilled and, in many cases, astonished that affordable early learning and child care is finally here.

The Government of Canada has made an historic investment of nearly $30 billion over five years to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. We have done so in collaboration with provincial, territorial and indigenous partners, all of whom deserve enormous credit for their willingness to work together to give every child in Canada the best possible start in life, and in so doing, to bring financial and emotional relief to millions of families from coast to coast to coast.

Child care fees have been reduced across the country, and by 2025-26, the average fee for regulated child care spaces across Canada would be $10 a day. As families across the country are realizing, there are no losers here. It is a financial win for families regardless of their income level. Since 2015, the Government of Canada has delivered real improvements to make life more affordable for Canadians. There is no better example than the progress we have made on the new ELCC system. As of 2025-26, a minimum of $9.2 billion would be provided every year, on an ongoing basis, for affordable early learning and child care, and indigenous early learning and child care.

The return on this investment for families with young children is obvious and is supported by evidence. Of course, we can look to the overwhelming success of the Quebec early learning and child care system, which is now ingrained in the social fabric of that province. When we speak about affordability, it is perfectly appropriate to ask whether the country as a whole can afford it. The answer is a resounding yes. This is a plan to drive economic growth, to increase participation in the workforce, especially among mothers who want to pursue professional ambitions or further their education to get better-paying jobs.

It is one of the many investments the Government of Canada remains committed to, investments that increase our economic growth and Canadians’ quality of life. Independent studies show that our early learning and child care system could raise real GDP by as much as 1.2% over the next two decades. Further, a range of studies have shown that for every dollar spent on early childhood education, the broader economy receives between $1.50 and $2.80 in return. That would be a huge return on our early learning and child care investment.

We are hearing loud and clear how thrilled families are that their governments have joined together to bring them significant financial relief. Doubtless, many are beginning to wonder why we waited so long. It is a fair question. As other colleagues have said, in passing this legislation, we would be promising the best possible start in life to future generations of children in Canada. We are on the brink of making history, of cementing together these wonderful provincial and territorial agreements into an enduring testament to our commitment and caring. When we eventually leave office, we can do so with the pride and satisfaction of knowing that we were all part of this great, lasting achievement.

I urge colleagues to give quick passage to Bill C-35.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

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

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

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

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

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

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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do not see in this bill how the individuals the member talked about are being prevented from accessing these programs.

Can she tell us where in Bill C-35 she sees the impact of not creating that equality? I see that equality would be better achieved because of things like what it would do for indigenous families and how indigenous families could better support each other so that indigenous women could also enter the workforce.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

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

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

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

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

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

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

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

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

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

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

An article states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed from February 14 consideration of the motion for second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that nothing is scarier than driving down Conservative highways, whether it is in Kamouraska or Témiscouata. Conservatives vote against highway infrastructure and refuse to fund them.

Later today, we will be voting on third reading of Bill C-62, medical assistance in dying.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on the motion respecting the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, the early learning and child care legislation.

Next week is a constituency week during which the House is adjourned. We will, of course, be in our ridings to serve our constituents.

Upon our return, the agenda will include Bill C‑58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations, 2012, which deals with replacement workers. On Wednesday, we will continue debate on Bill C‑61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands. Finally, Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days.

I thank the members for their attention and wish them a good week in their ridings.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the Senate amendment, which the Senate adopted to clarify that funding for official language minority child care would be delivered through bilateral agreements with provinces and indigenous governing bodies. We know, as I have learned from my meetings with different francophone groups, that there is a severe shortage of French-language child care serving francophone communities outside Quebec.

This is a potential charter issue. In fact, in section 23, minority-language education is a right. It is also an amendment that francophone organizations like the FCFA and the CNPF have been pushing for, and the government motion would concur with this amendment. Therefore, I am very pleased to rise in support of it.

Basically, the Senate amendment to Bill C-35 breaks down clause 8, on funding commitments, into two sections while adding an entitlement for official language minorities. It states that Bill C-35 be read a third time. With respect to clause 8(1), it states, “The Government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples [and adds] and for official language minority communities.” Adding “and for official language minority communities” is a critical amendment, so I look forward to supporting the amendment in the House along with my NDP colleagues.

There is a national child care strategy. I have mentioned very often in the House that I am a very proud former early childhood educator. I can say that one of the reasons I left the field was that the respect this kind of noble profession deserves certainly was not given. In Canada in 2019, there were 300,000 individuals employed as child care workers. Child care workers are less likely than other workers to be unionized or covered by a collective agreement, and less likely to have a permanent job. They are 10 times more likely to be self-employed, and we know that the province of Quebec has the highest number of child care workers relative to its employed population. That is a very old statistic, but we can certainly say that Quebec is ahead of its time when it comes to providing early childhood education.

A third of child care workers right now are immigrants or non-permanent residents. We know that since COVID, the employment among child care workers fell 21% between February 2020 and February 2021, compared to only a 3% overall drop in other fields. Why is there a drop in the number of people wanting to become early childhood educators? We know that 82% of child care providers had difficulty hiring staff with the necessary qualifications. In Alberta, staff turnover was in fact 25%, and according to the ESDC data, the average wage for an ECE in Alberta was $18.50 an hour in 2022. ECEs need higher wages, and benefits, personal leave and pensions.

The median wage is so low; it was $21,000 a year in 2022, up from $20,000 in 2021. It is unacceptable that we are trying to lift off a national child care plan, yet somehow early childhood educators are supposed to act as martyrs to the system that exploits and underpays them. I note that the majority, once again, come from BIPOC communities and are primarily immigrants and non-permanent residents.

I do not mean to age myself, but these are the same fights we were fighting over 30 years ago. When I saw the campaign in Manitoba fighting for $21,000 a year, the level of exploitation that child care workers currently have to endure was very apparent to me. The Liberal government calls itself a feminist government, yet in a field that we know primarily employs women, immigrants and individuals with non-permanent residency, workers are not even being paid a living wage. This is not just a workers' issue; this is also a gender and equality issue. We know that in occupations that predominantly employ women, people generally get paid less. This is an equity issue. A third of the licensed child care workforce has no health benefits, zero.

I decided to leave my job as an ECE, a job that I loved. I loved the little ones. I had them all lined up for gym time. We would sing a song. We had a daily routine. I loved the two-and-a-half year olds, who took such pride in their accomplishments every single day. They were loving, tender and open. It was such an honour to work with minds that were not tarnished yet by the world. It was eye-opening and so inspiring to me.

However, I left the field. I decided to become trained as a teacher, and I will say why. By 21 years old, I knew that one day I wanted health care benefits. I knew that one day I wanted to earn more than minimum wage so I could afford my rent at the time, never mind with the housing crisis we are in now and the fact that rents are high. At the time, I could barely afford to pay my bills. The current salaries for early childhood educators are not are not a living wage. As a result, people are either discouraged from joining the field or they leave the field so they can live in dignity.

If the federal government is serious about making sure the national child care strategy gets off the ground, it needs to put in place a worker strategy that includes ensuring that funding is dependent on living wages, health care benefits and pensions for workers. Only then will we see a national child care strategy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. She is a very direct and honest person, and I enjoy her humour as well.

My question for her would be in regard to Bill C-35 and the $10-a-day child care put forward by the Liberals and NDP. Does she think it makes sense for the federal government to intervene in provincial jurisdiction?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure to be able to speak to Bill C‑35. However, it would be hard for me to do it any more justice than my dear colleague, who did an excellent job of shepherding it through committee brilliantly, passionately and with commitment. I thank her.

Today is February 14. Some colleagues have decided to wish everyone they love a happy Valentine's Day. I have a lot of love for my country, Quebec.

The reason we have Bill C‑35 before us, as it is, is because Quebec was a pioneer 27 years ago, in 1997, when it implemented a unique model not of child care services, but of early childhood education services. The initiative was spearheaded by the Minister of Education, Pauline Marois, who became the first woman to serve as Quebec's premier. All of civil society rallied around this legislation to create a strong and robust family policy, with the dual objective of achieving balance between family life and work. We saw the tremendous benefits that it opened up for women in the labour market, and for our little ones. It gives them equal opportunities.

Today, as part of Hooked on School Days, we see what a difference it makes to have an early childhood education services policy with a focus on education. We can chart the entire educational path for children aged zero to five years. That is really wonderful.

I also want to point out the commitment, dedication and passion that the educators and staff in our early child care centres have for our little ones. I want to commend them for that.

I would say that, in Quebec, we do more than that. When we implemented early childhood education services, the department at the time certified all of the women who provide child care in their homes. They were certified under the policy. They are part of the same mission, the same policy. It was a labour, social and feminist movement because we contributed to the right to organize and to collective bargaining. The policies that Quebec has implemented are really social policies, like a family policy for early childhood education services. We also have the parental insurance plan, proactive pay equity legislation that also dates back 25 years. I could give plenty of examples that show the choices that Quebec has made. Quebec has made societal choices. The social policies that we implemented make a difference for our nation, because they contribute economically and help to reduce social inequality. We are very proud of that.

When it comes to Bill C‑35, I would say the government has drawn quite a lot, been quite inspired by what is being done in Quebec. I would hazard to say that it is wonderful for women and toddlers outside Quebec if the government can draw inspiration from our model. I have taken part in missions to the OECD where Quebec was represented. I have taken part in missions to United Nations Women, where I have long heard women from other provinces calling for child care policies in their provinces.

However, the success of this does not lie in the fact that the federal government has once again interfered in jurisdictions involving family policy and education. That takes a lot of nerve. Once again, the federal government is interfering in provincial jurisdictions. The success of this lies in the fact that Quebec has made a societal choice. Why should anyone count on Ottawa to ensure that other provinces make the same progress?

Eventually, the federal target is approximately 200,000 day care spots across Canada. In Quebec, we have about 250,000 day care spots. It depends on the choices being made. Ottawa cannot be expected to take the place of the provinces when they choose not to make certain choices. Quebec did not wait for Ottawa to set up its services.

That is why I am so disappointed. I am shocked, but considering that today is Valentine's Day, I will keep calm.

I could have mentioned other programs. I will get to that. In Quebec, we have a dental care plan. In Quebec, we have a government-funded pharmacare program. In Quebec, we have anti-scab legislation dating back to 1977. The federal government is going to keep using its spending power to introduce more policies that interfere in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction.

After all my time here, I am fed up. People here seem to forget that Canada is a federation and that each province has its own responsibilities and jurisdictions. Ottawa keeps writing cheques so it can slap its flag on them and look good, while abdicating its real responsibilities, its real social safety net and social security policies for Canadians.

I will give three examples.

The government is starving the provinces when it comes to health transfers, even though health care is a priority and a provincial jurisdiction. The government is deliberately imposing conditions when it transfers any funding. That is pretty serious. In the meantime, we do not have any real tools.

The same goes for anti-scab legislation. Under this fine agreement, an anti-scab bill is supposed to be introduced, but there has been no mention of it for 14 sitting days in the House, and the bill has not come back.

We can also talk about seniors. Old age security is a federal government program, but the feds decided to discriminate against seniors on the basis of age by increasing old age security by 10% for people 75 and over while giving nothing to seniors aged 65 to 74. It is in its platform.

We have also been waiting for eight years for legislation to completely overhaul employment insurance, which also falls under federal jurisdiction. Instead of interfering in provincial programs and jurisdictions when we are making our own choices, the federal government should focus on improving its own social programs. With all of its programs, Quebec makes a contribution that is unlike anywhere else in North America in many respects, and that is widely recognized.

It is not perfect. We could do better, and the way to do better is to have our own power and be independent.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.

I hope that the model in Bill C‑35 will be a success. Quebec is truly an example when it comes to child care services, parental leave, family benefits, tax credits and bonuses. So it is a model that should not be overlooked.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is accessible in Quebec. It is affordable. It is flexible. It is inclusive, too. Children get help. Families also have help for children with different ranges of abilities. I think Quebec really is a model that other provinces could learn from. The government should do the same with Bill C‑35.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our model is the best one. In fact, the member is proof positive that it is, since Bill C‑35 calls for another model.

As for the Conservatives, I have no idea how they will vote because they are impulsive. Unfortunately, I cannot say more than that.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville.

I am pleased to rise again to speak to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy Valentine's Day, especially my spouse, Marc, despite the distance separating us.

This bill has come back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Senate. In December, the Senate adopted an amendment to maintain long-term funding for child care services for official language minority communities, as well as child care services for indigenous peoples.

The amendment reads as follows:

That Bill C‑35...be amended in clause 8, on page 6, by replacing lines 13 to 20 with the following:

“8 (1) The Government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples and for official language minority communities.

(2) The funding must be provided primarily through agreements with the provincial governments and Indigenous governing bodies and other Indigenous entities that represent the interests of an Indigenous group and its members.”.

On reading this amendment, it is clear that its purpose is to add the words “official language minority communities” to the bill. This amendment addresses the calls from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Commission nationale des parents francophones, who wanted to see long-term funding commitments, especially for francophones outside Quebec. Since Quebec already has its own agreement with Ottawa, this amendment should not apply to Quebec.

In its current form, Bill C‑35 is not perfect from Quebec's perspective. I tried to improve it in committee, but all the amendments I proposed during the clause-by-clause study were rejected. In short, the demands of the Bloc Québécois and Quebec have not been heard or respected.

I want to provide a little background. Throughout the committee's study of the bill, we heard witnesses talk about how important affordable, quality child care is for early childhood development, for better work-school-life balance, for the emancipation of women and for return on investment in the economy. Throughout this study, Quebec was lauded as a model. On numerous occasions, the Quebec model was mentioned as one to draw inspiration from.

When it came time to include Quebec's expertise in the bill, however, I saw the other three parties dismiss that reality out of hand. The same thing happened with our amendments to include wording allowing Quebec to completely opt out of the federal program with full financial compensation. The only sign of any degree of openness was when a reference to Quebec's expertise was included in the preamble, the only place where these words ultimately have no real impact on the law.

Thus, Quebec does not have the option of completely withdrawing from this program with full compensation. The agreement concluded with the Quebec government spans a period of five years. Enshrining Quebec's full right to opt out of this program would help avoid another dispute between Quebec and Ottawa in case the federal government ever tries to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions, as it does so well. Senior officials who worked on the bill also repeatedly stated, when questioned on the subject, that while nothing would prevent the federal government from imposing conditions as part of a future agreement, the bill had always been designed with the asymmetry of Quebec's reality compared to Canada's provinces in mind.

The various members of the Liberal government who spoke on the bill also repeatedly said that the Liberals intended to continue working with Quebec on this issue. The current agreement also appealed to Quebec because it did not interfere in any area of jurisdiction and left the Quebec government free to spend the money wherever it wanted.

Given the current agreement between Ottawa and Quebec and the federal government's express desire to continue working in this direction, Canada does not seem to have any intention of lecturing Quebec when it comes to child care.

We therefore believe that another bilateral agreement would be possible, probable and necessary, since Quebec is the inspiration for the Canadian government.

Then, at report stage in the House, nothing substantive was added to the debate. The Conservatives continued to argue that this bill has major flaws, particularly regarding accessibility, since private child care is not covered by the subsidies provided for under this bill. Meanwhile, the NDP continued to ask the government to interfere even more in jurisdictions belonging to Quebec and the provinces.

It is also important to remember that for many years now, many Canadian families have been envious of Quebec's child care system, because child care often eats up a large portion of their household income. These families have long dreamed of having access to the same service that families in Quebec have been receiving for a very long time. It is high time that all Canadian families were able to access child care without breaking the bank.

For a number of years now, Quebec's child care policy has enabled Quebeckers to benefit from a better work-life or school-life balance and more generous maternity and parental leave. It also extended family assistance programs to self-employed workers and workers with atypical work schedules. This model is a valuable program that the entire Quebec nation is proud of. Considering the popular support they enjoy, the child care centres rank among one of the greatest successes of the new social economy, being democratically managed using an approach that involves both parents and educators.

It is also important to remember that the mission of Quebec's early childhood education services is threefold: one, to ensure the well-being, health and safety of the children receiving care; two, to provide an environment that stimulates their development in every way, from birth to school age; and three, to prevent learning, behavioural and social integration problems from appearing later on.

In my opinion, a real family policy like the one in Quebec, which includes components such as family leave, income support and an accessible child care network, must be integrated into a coherent whole in order to be effective, so it should be overseen by just one level of government.

Despite the many the flaws and imperfections of Bill C‑35's current wording, the Bloc Québécois will support the bill. It is high time that families outside Quebec also got to reap the benefits of an early learning and child care program. With prices rising across the board, Bill C‑35's passage will certainly bring many families some welcome financial relief. Not only will it give Canadian families some financial breathing room, we know it will also allow more mothers to enter the job market.

Bill C‑35 will strengthen the vitality of the French language outside Quebec and prevent assimilation into English. As Jean-Luc Racine of the Commission nationale des parents francophones said, his organization's “experience in the field clearly shows that as soon as [francophone] children enter an English school, it's all over, even in immersion....As soon as people switch to the English-speaking side, within a few years, they forget French.” These are some of the major reasons I have decided to support Bill C‑35.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Peterborough—Kawartha, who does excellent work on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It was a pleasure for me to work with her on the official languages section on this bill.

It is always a pleasure for me to rise in the House to debate important issues that affect Canadians.

People who know me know that I am a staunch defender of the French fact, so I am particularly enthusiastic about speaking on official languages, obviously in French.

That is a valid question. Why are official languages mentioned in the Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act? The answer is quite simple. The current Liberal government has once again forgotten francophone minority communities. That comes as no surprise.

However, as we have already seen when modernizing the Official Languages Act, the Liberal government claims to be the champion of official languages, but lacks courage when it comes time to take meaningful action. That is what the Liberals are: all talk and no action.

Because of the Liberal government's lack of vision and ambition, the elephant gave birth to a mouse, as I like to say when describing Bill C‑13. It aims to modernize the Official Languages Act. It was the first official languages review process in over 30 years. The government turned a deaf ear to stakeholders across the country. This is yet another missed opportunity. That has often been our experience with this Liberal government, which has been in power for eight years.

There is no obligation to count the rights holders. The federal authorities' powers are diluted. There is no central agency. There is no accountability. That is how it is with the Liberals. No one is ever accountable. What about the Commissioner of Official Languages, who is still awaiting the order in council granting him his powers? It is written in the act, but who is going to table that order before the government? Is it the President of the Treasury Board? Is it the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is one of the two ministers named in the legislation, but will not even appear before the Standing Committee on Official Languages? Is it the Minister of Official Languages? Is this the Minister of Justice? Who is it? No one knows and, in the meantime, the commissioner is waiting to take action. I would like to remind the House that French is in decline across Canada. The Liberals' approach to official languages is not serious, and it shows how little interest they have in this country's bilingualism.

Bill C‑35 passed unanimously here in the House last June. Today, however, we are debating a Senate amendment put forward by Senator Cormier, an Acadian, who stood up for francophones. He wants to add the words “official language minority communities” to the first sentence of clause 8, after “including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples”; and he divides clause 8 into two paragraphs. It is not complicated. However, we are still debating that today. Wow.

The first paragraph sets out the government's financial commitment. The second paragraph outlines the mechanisms that the federal government will use to provide the funding. Adding the words “official language minority communities” after the word “including” does not detract from any rights of any other minority or of indigenous peoples, but seeks to eliminate any ambiguity before the courts. The Liberals did a sloppy job, the Senate raised a red flag and made the necessary corrections. The Liberals always fly by the seat of their pants and leave things to the last minute. There is no discipline.

We are well aware of how much work and resources official language minority communities must put into defending their language rights. Let us talk about that. Even though the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique in its case against Employment and Social Development Canada, the federation still has to fight with the Minister of Official Languages to have that ruling enforced. It is unbelievable. What a waste of time and money. However, as we saw again today, the Liberals think that money grows on trees.

Early childhood is a critical period for children when it comes to learning language skills and developing their identity. All too often, access to early childhood services in French is essential for francophone minority communities to pass on their language and culture.

These services are vectors for French learning, ensuring that children acquire the language skills they need to prepare them for an education in their own language, and facilitating their integration into francophone schools across Canada. This contributes to the implementation of the right to education, as enshrined in section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We believe that this amendment is relevant and necessary.

I would also like to point out that the references to official language minority communities already found in clause 7 and clause 11 are thanks to the Conservative Party of Canada. I was the one who introduced them. I had the support of the Bloc Québécois, but the NDP and the Liberals voted against some of the amendments we proposed. However, we were able to get some of them through. Unfortunately, some others were rejected, and we had to go through the Senate. The Conservative Party of Canada made sure that francophones across Canada were included in the bilateral agreements for early childhood services.

I would also like to take a moment to thank the folks at the Commission nationale des parents francophones and at the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada for their hard work on this file.

The Liberals are not in favour of this amendment because they had to go through the Senate. Even the Speaker of the Senate, the government representative, clearly indicated that he would not support Senator Cormier's amendment. That was the stance the Liberal government was taking. Again, the Liberals flip-flopped. Francophones are the ones who took a stand.

As I said, the Liberals were not in favour of this amendment. The government's position was that this amendment was not necessary or appropriate. However, today, out of the blue, the Liberals are saying that they are in favour of the amendment. What is the reason for that?

Every individual should have access to early child care services in the official language of their choice, and that is non-negotiable as long as our country, Canada, is a bilingual country. I want to emphasize the concept of French and English bilingualism, because it is important to remember that this government appointed a governor general who is bilingual, but who does not speak French. I would also like to add that only one province in Canada is bilingual. This government appointed a unilingual lieutenant governor who, obviously, does not speak French, because the Liberals are inconsistent. Their intentions and desires may go beyond what is set out in the laws, but, unfortunately, the Liberal government does not walk the talk.

The Liberals realized that they would lose support in francophone regions and decided to adopt the Conservative Party of Canada's common-sense position. Yes, it is common sense. As long as we are a bilingual country, we should be consistent and protect both official languages.

We saw the Liberals use this same tactic with the pause on the carbon tax in Atlantic Canada. It is so odd. The Liberals reacted blindly, in panic mode. They punished all other Canadians outside the Atlantic provinces by denying them heat pumps. That was a problem. They were just reacting.

Then the Liberals changed their minds and said that Albertans and British Columbians might be able to use the credit. Again, they were improvising. It is unfortunate. This government is a disaster. It is shameful to try to score political points off our country's bilingual identity.

In closing, my message for francophones across the country is simple: Here in the House of Commons, the Conservative Party of Canada is the only party that can truly protect their interests. We will continue to take concrete action and stop the decline of French, which is a fact across Canada. We will also protect and promote our two official languages. We will not pit French against English. We intend to protect both official languages, French and English.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, today, while we are discussing the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, I would like to emphasize to my colleagues and, of course, to all Canadians that this bill is a significant and truly historic piece of legislation.

It follows through on the federal government's commitment to families across the country. It is a legislative measure that will enshrine in law all of the work that is being done to implement a Canada-wide early learning and child care system, a system that is affordable, accessible, inclusive and high quality, a system in which families across Canada, regardless of where they live, have access to affordable, inclusive, high-quality programs and services.

We did not get to where we are today by sheer coincidence. Over 50 years ago, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada tabled its report in Parliament. At that time, the report was already calling for affordable and accessible child care services for those who need them.

It took the advocacy of two generations of women and allies to help make these recommendations a reality. Thanks to the resilience of families and experts in the field, history has been made, and I am not just talking about child care.

We are seized with a Senate amendment that also touches on the issue of official language minority communities. This brings me back to the history of Canada's linguistic duality, as enshrined in the Official Languages Act, which is the product of the work of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.

Language rights were enshrined in the Canadian Constitution in 1982, owing to efforts to raise awareness and additional demands. We have an even stronger bill before us thanks to the efforts of our hon. colleagues in the Senate. I would like to thank the hon. senator from New Brunswick, who proposed this amendment, as well as all our other colleagues in the other place for studying this important piece of legislation and trying to strengthen it.

The amendment before us today concerns clause 8, the funding clause. This clause provides for the following: “The Government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples” and, as amended, “for official language minority communities”.

Next, the clause recognizes that funding will continue to be provided primarily through “agreements with the provincial governments and Indigenous governing bodies and other Indigenous entities that represent the interests of an Indigenous group and its members”.

This amendment acknowledges the work already under way with our provincial, territorial and indigenous partners to build a high-quality, culturally appropriate early learning and child care system that is accessible to all children in Canada. We have reached agreements with every province and territory as part of the implementation of a Canada-wide system. This also includes Quebec, although it has an asymmetrical agreement, since it already introduced an affordable child care system a long time ago.

In each agreement, each government, with the exception of Quebec, undertakes to consider the needs of official language minority committees. Here are some examples of what that actually looks like.

In the action plan under the agreement with British Columbia, the province agrees to continue partnering with B.C. Francophone Affairs and with representatives of the francophone community. Together, they have to meet the needs of young children from B.C.'s francophone families. They also have to ensure that workforce supports take the needs of francophone educators into account.

In the agreement with New Brunswick, the province underscores that francophone early childhood learning centres must follow the province's guidelines for language acquisition and cultural identity. The goal is to help protect and promote the francophone and Acadian language and culture.

In Yukon, the action plan prioritizes $1 million over the first two years for the creation of spaces for first nations, French-language non-profit child care and other non-profit programs. The action plan also highlights Yukon's three French first-language programs, as well as its commitment to supporting the expansion of minority language child care spaces.

In a national child care system, culturally appropriate child care services are paramount. Children from all walks of life need to have access to these services. For indigenous communities, this can take many forms. For example, it may involve passing on traditional knowledge and teachings or preserving indigenous languages. It must be based on indigenous priorities.

Early learning and child care contribute to long-lasting and far-reaching positive outcomes throughout a person's life. This is especially true for indigenous children and families, whose access to indigenous-led and culturally relevant early learning and child care services is crucial to laying the foundation for a child's cultural identity, sense of worth and future success. For official language minority communities, it is about ensuring that children have access to child care in the official language of their choice. This promotes language transmission and identity building.

Now, I would be remiss if I did not mention that beyond the agreements, when it comes to early learning and child care, the Government of Canada is making significant investments in official languages. The action plan for official languages 2023-28 brings our total investment in official languages to $4.1 billion over five years. This is the largest investment in official languages ever made by a Canadian government in the history of Canada. Again, this is historic.

The current action plan builds on past successes from the support for early childhood development program. This plan lays out new investments in early learning and child care. First, $50 million is being invested to create a network of early childhood stakeholders that will support cross-sectoral coordination in the implementation of specific initiatives for francophone minority communities across Canada. Second, $14.2 million is being invested to continue the development of ongoing and specialized training programs to address challenges facing the early childhood sector in official language minority communities and strengthen the skills of educators while supporting access to quality child care for children and their families in these communities.

I also want to point out that implementing this system will be no easy task. That is why the national advisory council on early learning and child care, which the bill will enshrine as a statutory body, is important. It will serve as a forum to hear from stakeholders in the sector, and its members will provide the expert advice needed for continuous improvement. Bill C‑35 would make the council a statutory body, much like the National Advisory Council on Poverty and the National Housing Council. The council will reflect the diversity of Canadian society, including Canada's linguistic duality.

The Government of Canada is clearly working hard to support all communities and bilingualism in Canada. I think it is also very clear that Bill C‑35 is crucial. I look forward to celebrating when this historic bill receives royal assent.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister on her speech and on her fine efforts to speak French. We always appreciate that.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill despite the fact that we feel that the federal government is once again trying to interfere to some extent with Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction. For example, family policy is not a federal responsibility; it is a provincial responsibility. It would have been so much easier to give the tools, by which I mean the money, to Quebec and the provinces so that Quebec could improve its very effective system and the other provinces could develop a system similar to the one in place in Quebec.

The predecessor to this bill was Bill C‑303. The previous bill included a provision, clause 4, that allowed Quebec to opt out of this agreement with full compensation. That is always a good way to ensure Quebec immediately accepts and supports federal government bills that encroach on the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec.

Can the minister guarantee that, despite the absence of that provision in Bill C‑35, the government still intends to respect Quebec's jurisdiction and Quebec's right to opt out with full financial compensation?

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, I am honoured today to rise to speak to Bill C-35 as amended by our hon. colleagues in the other House.

First, I would like to acknowledge the important work and the recommendations from the Senate as we look for ways to always improve on our policies and legislation to better the lives of families in Canada, and in this case, on such an important piece of legislation. In particular, I would like to recognize the Senate sponsor of Bill C-35, who worked tirelessly to ensure its passage, and also the government representative for the Senate for liaising with the senators throughout the bill and, finally, the senator from New Brunswick who put this amendment forward in the spirit of strong advocacy for his community and his region.

To better understand the amendment, it would be useful for me to recap for my hon. colleagues the important work that Bill C-35 would enshrine in law.

First, if passed, this historic legislation would cement the federal government's role as an enduring partner on early learning and child care. It would enshrine into law the federal vision and principles of a Canada-wide system, a system where families across Canada, no matter where they live, have access to affordable, inclusive and high-quality programs and services.

This is not to mention that, in this context, it would also represent a commitment to maintaining long-term federal funding for early learning and child care.

Second, this legislation would increase Parliament's accountability in terms of the progress being made in creating a Canada-wide early learning and child care system.

Finally, Bill C-35 would establish, in law, the national advisory council on early learning and child care.

This legislation is seeking to do a lot, so allow me to break it down. Let us go back to the key principles to be enshrined in the legislation: affordability, quality, access and inclusion. What does an enduring federal investment mean for each one?

On affordability, it means that we can continue to support our federal goal of making child care more affordable by reducing fees for regulated child care to an average of $10 a day, by March 2026, and ensure that it stays affordable well into the future.

That means that parents, usually mothers, will be able to go back to work or school and achieve their full economic potential. This not only supports families, but it also contributes to building a strong economy and better gender equality. This means that children in every family, regardless of their income, can have the best possible start in life because they will be able to benefit from high-quality child care programs and services.

For high-quality child care, it means that federal investments in early learning and child care services foster the social, emotional, physical and cognitive development of young children. This leads to positive outcomes for children's future academic success and long-lasting and far-reaching positive outcomes throughout a person's life.

It means continued investment in the child care workforce. These highly-skilled educators are responsible for helping shape our future leaders. Providing better support and work conditions for early childhood educators means better outcomes for recruitment and retention.

On the principle of access to early learning and child care, it means continuity of the important partnerships with provincial, territorial and indigenous partners, and that means availability of child care services no matter where families live for generations to come.

That brings me to the last principle of inclusivity, because when we say, “all children,” we truly mean all children, including those living in rural and remote communities; children from systematically marginalized groups, such as those from Black and racialized communities; children in lower-income families; and children with a disability or those needing enhanced or individualized supports.

Obviously, it also includes children from francophone and anglophone minority communities.

That is in addition to dedicated federal investments to support indigenous early learning and child care.

It is important to note that Bill C-35 acknowledges that first nations, Inuit and Métis families and children are best supported by early learning and child care services and programs led by indigenous people, and it reinforces the Government of Canada's commitment to work in collaboration with indigenous people to establish and maintain early learning and child care systems rooted in indigenous knowledge, culture and languages and guided by the codeveloped indigenous early learning and child care framework.

Here is another of this bill's major objectives: accountability. These are significant federal investments. Accountability and transparency are essential to ensure sound management of public funds.

That is why this bill requires the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development to report annually to Parliament on the progress being made on the Canada-wide early learning and child care system.

There is a long road ahead of us as we work with provincial, territorial and indigenous partners to build this Canada-wide system. There are and there will continue to be a range of issues and challenges facing families, operators and other stakeholders in the early learning and child care sector. That is why we have the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, and it is so important. It serves as a key forum enabling us to hear from the sector as we implement this system, and its members provide expert advice needed to support continual improvement.

The Government of Canada acknowledges the successes of its provincial, territorial and indigenous partners. They are the ones responsible for designing and implementing child care services in their respective jurisdictions. They are in the best position to set their own priorities.

That said, provinces, territories and indigenous organizations clearly benefit from the greater predictability and assurance of a long-term federal commitment to early learning and child care.

Since we last examined this legislation, our hon. colleagues in the other chamber have amended clause 8 of the legislation. The legislation, as amended, and I am paraphrasing here, would acknowledge the government's commitment to providing long-term funding to early learning and child care programs and services across the country, including for indigenous people and for official language minority communities. The amended legislation continues to recognize that federal funding would be provided primarily through agreements with provinces, territories and indigenous governing bodies and other indigenous entities.

It is through the advocacy of our hon. colleagues in the other chamber that we have before us this amended legislation highlighting the commitment to long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including for official language minority communities.

I would like to thank our hon. colleagues in the other place for their efforts to strengthen this legislation.

I would like to reiterate the government's commitment to supporting and maintaining Canada's linguistic duality. We will continue working with the provinces and territories to ensure that child care is fully inclusive of the needs of all children, including children of official language minority communities.

I recognize that my time is up. I look forward to questions.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Minister of Families]

moved that the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Sherbrooke.

I am honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-35 as amended by our hon. colleagues in the other House—

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I would first like to thank my hon. colleague and his colleagues in the official opposition for finally letting Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, come to a final vote. That is good news for Canada and our Ukrainian friends, with whom we stand in solidarity.

As for the business of the House, we will continue to have ongoing discussions that would see us dealing with Bill C-62, medical assistance in dying, next week. We are, of course, well aware of the deadlines that are looming. I remind all members of this House that there is a March 17 deadline attached to this very important legislation.

I would remind the House that we wanted to allow all parties in the House, as well as in the Senate, to participate in a process that could guide the government's choices on medical assistance in dying. We produced a report that resembled a consensus, and the bill reflects that consensus.

We will also give priority to bills that have been examined and amended by the Senate and are therefore now in the final stage of debate in the House. These include Bill C-29, which would create a national council for reconciliation, and Bill C-35 on early learning and child care in Canada.

As I said at the outset, we will continue to consult with the opposition parties. My door is always open. If necessary, we will make adjustments so that the House can continue to work in an orderly fashion.

[Andrea Hannen]

There's a preference in Bill C-35. It was also expressed in the agreements that provinces signed prior to the passage of Bill C-35. All expansion should primarily be in the not-for-profit and public sectors. Right there, when you put a hard cap on the expansion of the sector, what you're doing is telling every supplier this sector relies on—financial institutions, insurance companies, landlords and equipment suppliers—that there's no growth potential for this group of clients. We shouldn't be surprised when we see independent child care centres finding every other aspect of their operation made more difficult.

We heard, back in November, previous witnesses at the committee saying how hard it is for enterprises owned by women to gain access to capital. Imagine what's happening now. If you're a female entrepreneur who needs access to capital to expand your business, the government doesn't want you to and may not let you participate in the program. Think about what the government's statements are. By expressing this very clear preference for a public sector system, they're saying these independent sectors don't have a future.

Also, the funding formula is a whole thing. That varies by province a bit, based on their agreements, but the funding formula is also an issue.

[Andrea Hannen, Executive Director, Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario]

Hi. Thanks for having me here, and thank you for having such a lovely, constructive and good-natured committee.

I'm with the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario, which represents independent, licensed child care programs, both commercial and not-for-profit programs. I've been working with child care organizations since 1993, so the aspect of women's economic empowerment that I know best is child care and, more specifically, child care entrepreneurship.

It's to the detriment of all women that child care entrepreneurs are being targeted for extinction through the nationalization of Canada's child care sector. I'm here today to ask for your help in ensuring that child care entrepreneurs have a future in Canada for generations to come.

There are a few reasons it's important. The vast majority of child care entrepreneurs are women; child care is one of the only sectors of the economy in which women have always been fairly represented in terms of business ownership and management; and child care entrepreneurs not only provide a vital service for families but also serve as role models and mentors for other women and for the children in their care.

Let me tell you a bit about child care entrepreneurs.

They don't all run licensed child care centres. Many start out as unlicensed home-based child care providers, and they're often home with their own young children at the time. Some have their ECE credentials already, and some get them later on.

Second, child care entrepreneurs rarely go into business with the goal of making a lot of money. It's not surprising, because whether you're running a licensed child care centre or a microenterprise in your own home, taking care of children is an awful lot of work.

Often, the primary motivator for child care entrepreneurs is that they want to offer the kind of care they wish they could have found for their own children. A lot of them also say that they had a lightbulb moment when they witnessed the difficulties that large institutional providers have in supporting children facing challenges. They thought, wow, there has to be a better way.

Not all child care entrepreneurs start businesses, though: Some create independent not-for-profits. Entrepreneurs might be a group of parents from a faith-based, cultural or linguistic community who want their children's early years education to reinforce certain traditions.

My final point about child care entrepreneurs is that they not only laid the foundation upon which almost all of Canada's existing child care services are based, but they continue to lead the way in terms of innovation and flexibility. They're not preoccupied with creating a national system. They're just engaged in meeting an ever-changing array of family needs each and every day.

Right now, the question many of Canada's child care entrepreneurs are asking is whether they have a place in Canada's national child care program or a future in child care at all.

They're pleased to see the government recognize the important role child care plays in ensuring equal workforce opportunities for women, and they're pleased to see a commitment to consistent funding for families who might otherwise struggle to pay for care, but Canada's child care entrepreneurs have spent much of the last three years listening to their government characterize their life's work as having so little value that the government wants to limit the expansion of their services.

Bill C-35 expressed this, albeit in softer language, but most of the federal-provincial agreements spell it out very specifically. Further, the report filed by the Senate committee that examined Bill C-35 concluded with the recommendation that the government “focus on providing funding to create a high quality public early learning and child care system”.

Just to sum up, we have a sector of the economy that was largely created by women. It's essential to women's equality in the workforce. It's one of the only economic sectors in the country where women are fairly represented as owners and managers, and it's being not only undervalued by government but targeted for replacement by a government-run system.

Child care entrepreneurs know from experience how expensive and slow to build this new system will be, that it will require higher taxes to sustain and that there's no guarantee of a better result. When we look at Quebec, 25 years in, the province is still struggling with wait-lists, staffing and quality challenges, which are supposedly the reason the growth of private licensed child care in Canada has to be stopped. In the meantime, the demand for licensed child care across the country is skyrocketing.

I come to you today in all sincerity and with respect to say that there has to be a better way, and I'm asking the committee to help us find it.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleague Ms. Falk for bringing this private member's bill forward, because equity is really what this comes down to. That's what this bill is all about. A parent is a parent, and a caregiver. It's a critical bill and it's something to be extremely proud of.

In relation to Ms. Gazan's amendment and what she's brought forth, I can't stress enough how vital this is. We worked together on Bill C-35, which is the child care bill, and we've worked together on the status of women. When this was put forward in Bill C-35 to support the rights of Indigenous parents, the Liberals voted against it. We saw this again, and it just doesn't make sense.

I sense her frustration greatly today. I can feel it from her. I think that if we want to have a great country, we have to have healthy kids, and kids need to be cared for. This is a no-brainer amendment, and quite frankly, I'm shocked, especially when the person who has put forward the bill says that yes, this is well within the scope of what she had hoped for.

I fully support my colleague Ms. Gazan today, and I would deeply encourage.... We see article after article come forward in the news about this marketing slogan of $10-a-day child care crumbling in each province because the Liberal government did exactly what we said they would do: They set the provinces up to fail.

Do you know who's losing? It's children.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I had my staff do just a bit more research on “Indigenous governing body”. I asked them to do a search on where that term also exists.

The term exists in Bill C-35, the early learning and child care in Canada act; in Bill C-23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage; the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages; Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families; Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence; Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts; and Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019.

I haven't looked at how these might differ from each other.

Having said that, have you been able to assess whether or not there are similarities or differences between what's in this act and what these other acts might be?

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

Thank you.

My questions are about funding for early learning. The Senate adopted an amendment to Bill C‑35, which is now back in the House of Commons. The Senate clearly recognized the fact that there has to be targeted funding for child care in French outside Quebec. As we know, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA, supported that recommendation.

I would like to ask Ms. Boutiyeb and Ms. Enayeh if the Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne thinks this is an important amendment.

Online News Act

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

The NDP-Liberal coalition has been as sly as a fox and as slippery as an eel with this piece of legislation known as Bill C-18, the online news act. This is yet another Liberal attempt to control the online content available to the people of Canada. The government will pick winners and losers among our various media outlets with this faulty legislation if it passes.

When this bill was before our House of Commons' standing committee in December, the government cut off hearing from witnesses who wished to voice their concerns about the fairness for media outlets. These witnesses and media stakeholders who wanted to put forward their concerns were simply shut down. After hastily being pushed through the standing committee, Bill C-18 came back to this place, where the censoring Liberals called time allocation after just three hours and 20 minutes of debate. What utter disregard for the many journalists and media outlets whose livelihoods will be weighed in the balance should this law pass.

The NDPs who supported the Liberals, when their blushing brides wanted to rob witnesses of the opportunity to testify at committee, backed them again by shutting debate down and rushing to get this bill passed here and sent off to the Senate. This is what we have seen time and time again with these partners in crime when it comes to legislation that supports their socialist agenda.

Legacy socialist legislation, like Bill C-11, Bill C-21 or Bill C-35, routinely gets pushed through this House with no regard for the views of stakeholders, ordinary Canadians and the opposition party.

What is wrong with Bill C-18, one might ask? Why are we using our resources to oppose this legislation? How is it bad for the Canadian public? How is it bad for small and local and ethnic media? How is it bad for journalists who want to maintain their independence?

I will tell us a little bit about that.

While this bill was in our House standing committee, the Liberals' court jester, the Minister of Heritage, deceived the committee with fake stats. He claimed that news outlets are destined for extinction. He cited a study that showed that 400 news outlets had closed since 2008. The conniving part of this testimony was that he left out a very important piece, also outlined in that same report, which was that hundreds of new outlets had opened during that exact same period, yet the jester claims that this bill is about supporting local media and building a fair news ecosystem. Nothing can be further from the truth.

This bill will favour darlings of the costly coalition like the CBC. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that more than 75% of the money generated by this bill will go to large corporations like Bell, Rogers and the CBC, leaving less than 25% for newspapers. Very little of that will be left over for local and ethnic media after big newspaper businesses take the lion's share of that 25%.

According to the PBO, the Liberal claim that this bill will help sustain local newspapers and ethnic media is completely false.

That is why Conservatives tried to fix this grave injustice at committee but the NDP-Liberal coalition, and the Bloc, voted against the amendment.

Conservative senators tried to amend this bill to stop state-backed broadcasters like the CBC from competing with private broadcasters and publications for this limited money when they already receive secure funding from taxpayers' dollars.

According to the PBO, this bill would generate $320 million, and of that amount, $240 million would go to the big broadcasters: CBC, Bell and Rogers. They would be entitled to more resources than they can possibly use, to help them increase their market share, while smaller outlets like the Toronto Star could disappear, heaven forbid.

Bill C-18 is another greasy attempt at online censorship. It walks hand in hand with Bill C-11. The other place sent this bill back to this place with amendments made by its independent senators, while amendments proposed by Conservative senators have been completely disregarded. Witnesses at the Senate committee painted a grim picture for most journalism in Canada, but that testimony was disrespected and trashed, along with the amendments that arose from it. The Liberal government is determined to control what we see online. According to witnesses from The Globe and Mail, News Media Canada, La Presse, Le Devoir, CANADALAND, The Line, and Village Media, this bill would create enormous risk for the independence of the press, for the bottom line of news outlets and for the future of digital media across this country.

The government has disguised its eagerness to control what news can be shared online with its appearance to want to straighten out big tech, like Facebook and Google, and to protect small media. Does that sound familiar? The same Minister of Canadian Heritage used these exact same tactics with Bill C-11 by touting his protection of Canadian content; however, at the same time, he cut small media's global revenue streams.

The government is enlisting the help of the CRTC to determine what is news and what is not. When something is created to share information about something new, otherwise known as “news”, it would be up to the CRTC whether it can be seen online in this country. Who asked for this bill? Legacy media asked for this bill, and the Liberal government has responded. The bunch on that side of the House will make sure that their story, their narrative, their agenda and their propaganda get out, and that opposing viewpoints are silenced. That is what this is all about. The government will use this legislation to choose winners and losers in the information world, and if it does not match its socialist agenda, news will not see the light of day. Good journalists and independent news media risk falling by the wayside if this legislation receives royal assent.

Conservatives will fight censorship and stand up for freedom of the press, which is now much broader than what it once encompassed. This is a new world, and a new approach is required to fight censorship. Censorship can be easily enacted in the online world without anyone ever suspecting it. On this side of the House, we stand for freedom and for protecting the public from legislation which would restrict the news content they would see. This bill to protect legacy broadcasters would drastically impact what news Canadians can see online, and Conservatives will not go on the record as supporting it. Censorship is censorship, however one slices it, and I will not vote for a bill that supports it in any way.

To conclude my remarks, my thoughts are with my colleague from Lethbridge, who, in my opinion and in the opinion of many of my colleagues, has been censored. She has been treated unfairly. It rushed to my mind as I was speaking so much about censorship. Hopefully, my colleague will receive justice.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:20 p.m., 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 third reading stage of Bill C-35.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be read the third time and passed.

Bill S-8—Time Allocation Motion

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the opportunity to engage with my hon. colleague. He is one of the most articulate members in the House of Commons.

With enormous respect, it is important that we not adjudicate the ability of a government to make a difference in people's lives by the number of bills that a government has adopted. It may be that there are bills that have an enormous impact that will take longer to debate. I think, for example, about Bill C-35, the opportunity to put an affordable early learning and child care strategy in place in this country, which has now received a significant amount of debate and will be implemented over time.

To the extent that our use of time allocation reflects the same number of instances per bill, I have no reason to doubt the figure that the member is citing. However, what is important is not just the number of times that it has been used, but the context in which it has been used. If we look at this present piece of legislation that is being debated on the floor of the House of Commons, we can see that there is widespread agreement, and we can see that there has been significant debate.

This is a sea change in the appropriateness when I look at some of the instances where it was used before I was a member of Parliament; in particular when omnibus budget legislation was used, not for relatively uncontroversial measures but for things that would significantly erode the environmental assessment process that we use for waterways and our oceans. These are the kinds of things that I know attracted a lot of controversy at the time, not just because time allocation was being used, but because of the widely divergent views on important issues that were existential to the debates that we have in these chambers.

My view is that this is an appropriate time to use time allocation. It does not reflect anything other than an attempt to get something done that, I think all members will agree, is the right path forward. I look forward to having debates where appropriate and moving forward expeditiously with legislation when we are able to find common ground and agree, after a healthy debate has taken place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can recall the days when I was in opposition, and I spent a good number of days in opposition. Even back then I would articulate as to why time allocation can be an effective tool in getting legislation through. Opposition at times can, in fact, cause a great deal of frustration of the legislative process, because it does not take much to prevent legislation from being passed. All it needs is putting up speakers or possibly moving an amendment. A classroom of grade 12 students from any high school in Winnipeg North, I can assure members, would be able to prevent any legislation from ultimately being passed or force the government to bring in time allocation. It does not take much.

The issue is having an adequate amount of debate, and looking for that support, as the minister says, such as with Bill C-35, on the national child care program. Everyone was supporting it. Everyone said they were going to be voting in favour of it. We can look at the amount of debate. Without time allocation, we never would have gotten it passed earlier.

I have a question for the member, and he has already spoken to a good part of it already. There is a need. It can be a useful tool, and I think we have been able to demonstrate good decision-making in terms of when we need to bring in time allocation.

That is more of a comment than a question, but the member can feel free to provide other thoughts.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to take a few moments to talk about the tragic accident that occurred in Dauphin, Manitoba. Fifteen people were killed and another 10 are in hospital fighting for their lives. On behalf of all my colleagues from Quebec, my Conservative colleagues and all my colleagues in the House, I want to say that our thoughts are with those who responded on the scene, the first responders, the families of the victims, who are at the hospital with their loved ones, and all the communities affected. We are talking about seniors, who are the heart of the community around Dauphin, Manitoba. I feel we need to take a moment to think about all these people who are currently going through extremely difficult times.

I am feeling a bit emotional as I say this. I hope my colleagues will allow me to digress from the subject at hand, which is Bill C‑35. This summer will mark the 10th anniversary of the Lac‑Mégantic tragedy, when 47 Lac‑Mégantic constituents lost their lives in a tragic accident. It was the worst rail tragedy in eastern Canada's history.

These moments are always difficult. A community can never really recover from a tragedy like this. Yesterday in room 325 of the Wellington Building, I had the opportunity to present a documentary directed by Philippe Falardeau about this tragedy. The title of the documentary is Lac-Mégantic: This is Not an Accident. Why was this title chosen? Because many things could have been done to prevent this terrible tragedy from happening. Some of my colleagues attended the screening, and they were all shaken by the images they saw, by the reminder of this terrible tragedy. When tragedies like this happen, it is our responsibility as members of Parliament to take the time to look at what happened, to take the time to analyze what was done then, what was done beforehand and, above all, what will be done in the future.

We will soon mark the 10th anniversary of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. It should not become just a date on which we remember things that happened. It should be a date on which we remember that we failed to do enough and that we must always do more to protect people's lives. People are counting on the legislators here in the House to make a difference when it comes to regulations and to corporations that are interested only in making a profit, sometimes, and too often, at the expense of safety.

In closing, I thank my colleagues who attended yesterday's screening of the documentary. I also encourage anyone who would like to watch the documentary to do so. My Bloc Québécois colleague was there. Members of the Conservative Party were there. There were Liberals. My colleague from the NDP was there as well. Partisanship has no place here when it comes to doing our jobs. We can disagree on how to fix things or how to come up with solutions, but one thing is certain: We must all work toward the same goals to ensure that such tragedies never happen again.

Just now, after seeing the images of this new tragedy in the media, I needed to take a few minutes to think back on what happened in Lac-Mégantic and remind these people that we are with them and we support them. I also wanted to emphasize that our duty as members of Parliament transcends partisan games. Our duty is to improve the lives of the citizens we represent here, as well as the lives of citizens across Canada.

I thank my colleagues for allowing me to digress for a moment about these developing events.

We are here to discuss Bill C‑35.

My wife has been an early childhood educator for about 20 years. That has given me the opportunity to observe the evolution of public child care in the province of Quebec. I had the opportunity to see how these services were implemented because I was also involved in other levels of government at the time. I had the opportunity to see what a difference it can make for families, but I also saw what a difference it made for families that did not have access to child care.

I saw how much hard work and energy went into ensuring that, first and foremost, child care enabled women to access the labour market. I will tell it like it is: Parenting responsibilities have traditionally fallen to women. Unfortunately, many women have to say no to a career, put their career on hold or delay going back to school because they do not have access to child care. That is the reality we are facing today.

In recent years, we have seen more and more women enter the workforce, particularly in Quebec, and more and more women become totally independent. That is what we should be striving for. A growing number of women are getting involved in politics, in management and in decision-making positions. Madam Speaker, you are living proof of this. There are many things that a woman can do. Nothing is impossible.

The fact remains, however, that when a woman decides to have children with her husband or partner—and I do not want to limit this to a man and a woman—when a couple decides to have children, there is always the issue of child care. When someone has a child, if they want to go back to work, if they want to keep their job, if they want to keep getting ahead, they may not necessarily be able to do both at the same time. They have to take a break. If the break lasts too long, sometimes women unfortunately do not get back into the workforce, or sometimes men do not get back into the workforce. That is the reality.

The government came up with the proposal of a national early learning and child care system in Canada. We have already seen this play out in Quebec. More than 20 years ago, Quebec tried to set up a similar system. For the past 20 years, child care has cost less than $10 a day for families in Quebec. Does every mother, every family have access, 20 years later, to child care services? No, unfortunately. Why? Because the system is not able to absorb all the applications for child care.

My wife is an educator, and I have seen up close the different attempts by the government to ensure that families have access to public, educational child care services. They were called placement centres. People went there to register their children on waiting lists. In Quebec, people practically have to put their child on a waiting list before they are even conceived. If they wait too long, the child will be two and a half or three years old before a spot becomes available.

The Government of Quebec chose that system. The families who do not have access to this system, who did not have the chance to enter the system, whether at a facility with several groups, a yard and some games, or at a home-based service, which is also subsidized in Quebec, have no other option.

If they do not get a place for two and a half years, families have no other option. They cannot access affordable child care because the Quebec government chose the public child care option. Public assistance will therefore go to those who are lucky to have a spot.

Quebec is now facing another problem. I can speak to it because my wife is aware of it every day. Not only are there not enough spots, but now there are not enough early childhood educators in the system to be able to fill all the spots. There are children on wait lists that cannot access child care services because there are not enough educators. Some spend hours and hours with children without a break all day. At the end of the week they are burned out. They are spread so thin that, after a few years, these young women quit their jobs and look for other work.

The system is struggling because there is not enough staff and families do not have spots. This is all because the Quebec government chose to put all its eggs in one basket, namely public child care and early learning services.

The government could have chosen another option. If the government had offered help, mothers could opt to spend a year at home. Instead of putting all their eggs in one basket, the government could have offered a credit to mothers who decide to stay at home.

The government could have chosen to offer a credit to families who want to go to the private sector to access a spot. There is a parallel network of private child care in Quebec, alongside public child care. Private child care costs a lot more, but unfortunately, the government does not contribute to that network. It costs families a lot more. They have to pay out of pocket right away. They will recover some of that money at the end of the year, but it will never be as much as if they had had access to the public system.

The thing is, these mothers and families pay the same taxes and income taxes as everyone else, but unfortunately, they do not have access to the same services. The consequences of that are serious for these mothers. I often talk about mothers, but that is the reality. I wish it were not so, but it is. The lack of child care spaces primarily affects young moms. That is what we see.

The government's proposal was to introduce a national child care plan that would reduce child care costs by an average of 50% by the end of 2022 and bring them down to an average of $10 a day by 2026. The question is, who gets these discounted child care services? It is 2023. Will everyone have access to child care at an average cost of $10 a day by 2026? Quebec has not been able to pull that off in 20 years.

That is the reality. Everyone has good intentions. We want to do the right thing and help, but if there are no educators on the ground, it is not going to work. If there are no services, it is not going to work. If there is no incentive for a parallel network to absorb the surplus that the public network cannot handle, it is not going to work.

That is why we have expressed some doubts. Will the promised results ever be achieved? I have seen a lot of promises. Every government that has come and gone in Quebec has promised to either move faster or offer more spots. At one point, they even wanted to increase child care costs and make them proportionate to salary, so that people who earn more would pay more. During another election campaign, it circled back to the idea of a single rate for everyone. In short, they have tried everything, yet, even now, there is a significant shortage of child care spaces.

I therefore urge people to be cautious. I am speaking to mothers and families across Canada. There is no way that we will be able to set up a national child care system that is fair and equal for everyone in three years. It is simply not possible. If it were, all mothers and families in Quebec would have had access to a subsidized system a long time ago.

I want to talk about something that is very dear to me. I am often asked whether these child care and early learning services are useful. I am told that babysitters are available, and I am asked these questions: Why should people who are not working not have access to child care in Quebec? Why should subsidized child care be provided to people who do not need it because it is available at home, since mothers can stay at home? There are many reasons, but it is not for me to judge.

I can say that my wife is a child care technician. She was trained at college to be able to not only take care of children, but also support them in their learning. That is a good thing. It is needed. That is the choice that Quebec made.

Now, what I would like for Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia, is for the program being brought in to allow the provinces to choose the system that works best for them. We know that it is not easy because in 20 years, Quebec has been unable to create enough spots. I would also like the program to allow families to have a choice and create the spots that women need. It is great to talk about money and say that this is not going to cost much, but if there are no spots that do not cost much, then women and families will not have more access to child care services and we will be back at square one.

Will Bill C‑35 help produce better results? I hope so, but I am counting on the provinces for that because they are the ones that will ultimately make the decisions. It is not the federal government that will make the decision. So why is the federal government imposing standards on the provinces on how they should set up their network of child care and early learning services? I do not think it is a good idea to do this.

This bill seeks to confirm agreements that already exist. The government has already reached agreements with all the provinces to give them money to establish child care services. It is setting conditions. I believe that the best way to move forward would have been to remove the conditions and allow the provinces to develop the best child care services possible based on their situations. We could have then made progress and made it possible for more and more women to access the labour market and education to fulfill their careers and dreams.

I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, for the excellent work she did for our party on Bill C‑35. I think she did a lot of research and that she is very up-to-date on this matter. I will follow her lead when voting on Bill C‑35.

The House resumed from June 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to respond on behalf of the government.

This afternoon we will continue debate on Government Business No. 26, concerning amendments to the Standing Orders. When debate concludes later this evening, we will consider Bill C-35, respecting early learning and child care, followed by Senate amendments to Bill C-9, concerning the Judges Act.

Tomorrow we will consider Bill C-42, respecting the Canada Business Corporations Act, at report stage and third reading, and Bill S-8, respecting sanctions.

The priorities for next week shall include Bill S-8, on sanctions; Senate amendments to Bill C-18, respecting online news; Bill C-40, concerning the miscarriage of justice review commission act, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's Law; and Bill C-33, which strengthens the port system and railway safety.

Thursday shall be an allotted day.

Finally, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the next sitting be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 15, 2022.

The Economy

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians are sick and tired of is the Conservatives' hypocrisy that they care about affordability for Canadians. Right now in the House they are holding up BillC-35, an act respecting early learning and child care. There are only 19 minutes left in debate to get this bill passed through the House to go to the Senate.

Conservatives keep saying they care about affordable child care, but all they have done is play partisan games to hold it up. When will they finally be honest with Canadians and tell them they do not care about it, instead of playing silly games?

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology

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

Mr. Speaker, I always welcome the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of the Conservatives. Sometimes they just make it too easy.

When I first walked in this morning, honest to God, I really thought we were going to be passing historic legislation. I really thought we were going to be talking about Bill C-22. After all, if anyone went on the Internet and looked at what is happening in Ottawa, what would be debated in the House of Commons, the first thing in government business was Bill C-22.

I am sorry, Bill C-22 is another national program, that is the disability program. We do so much good stuff, there so much out there. We are supposed to be talking about Bill C-35, and it did not take a Conservative to point that out. They kind of get lost in the numbers.

At the end of the day, we were supposed to be talking about Bill C-35 today. It is a national child care plan, from coast to coast to coast, and we are enshrining it into law. We had 20 minutes to go, and then it would go into law.

However, no, the Conservatives had a different agenda. They have a partisan agenda. They have an agenda that says “cause frustration, do not allow legislation to pass.” The previous speaker stood up and said that we needed to have more legislation, referring to Bill C-27. He wants to multiply Bill C-27 into three bills. He wants us to introduce three more pieces of legislation so that the Conservatives have more to filibuster.

The member is criticizing the government, saying that it has been months since we last called this legislation. A lot of issues are happening on the floor of the House of Commons, even with the frustrations caused by the Conservatives, and they cause a lot of frustration. I will give them that much. They know how to play a destructive force. Never before have I seen an opposition, and I was in opposition for 20 years, so focused on playing a destructive force with respect to legislation.

Earlier today, I reminded the opposition that it was a minority government, and I acknowledge that. We accept the fact that we were elected as a minority government, and we thank Canadians for recognizing us and allowing us to continue in government. We take that very seriously. I kind of wish the Conservative Party would recognize that as well.

Do they not realize there is a sense of “responsibility” for opposition members as well. Providing endless filibusters and trying to prevent every piece of legislation from passing is the goal of the Conservative. Just last week, and I referenced it this morning, the Conservative leader made a strong statement, and it made the news. It was on Newswatch in fact, not to mention other news agencies. The Leader of the Conservative Party said that he was going to speak and speak and speak, and he might have said “speak” a few more times, to filibuster our budget implementation bill. Let us think about all the things in that the budget implementation bill, and there is not enough time to elaborate on that. That was his intention. He was going to speak until we changed it, and four hours later it passed.

We have these mechanisms to ensure that at least, even with the destructive force of the Conservative Party, we can still get things done for Canadians.

Let us fast forward things here. The Conservatives did not want to debate the child care bill this morning. Instead, they wanted to talk about an issue that now brings us to Bill C-27—

Justice and Human Rights

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has done admirable work on the files that she has had, on these ones and on the other ones before. We have worked together on a variety of different things. I have tremendous respect for my colleague, but I have to say that there are issues that are taking valuable time in the House. We are supposed to be talking about Bill C-35, which would entrench the issues of child care across Canada, to make sure that child care will continue to be available throughout the country and be affordable. I came in totally prepared to be dealing with Bill C-35.

What we are doing is wasting time. That is the wrong wording. We are accepting these recommendations and applauding the recommendations, but we should really be moving on with trying to get the legislation of the government through. That is part of what our job is: to move legislation through. That was what my intention was when I came today, and I would hope that, as soon as this is finished, we will get on to doing that. Issues of what a minister did, should do, or whatever, are issues, I believe, that should not be on the table for our continued discussion. We should be putting our legislation through the House.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I came in here this morning expecting to be dealing with Bill C-35. I certainly agree with the recommendations in this report. As my hon. colleague indicated, we should stay very focused on these recommendations but move forward.

The amendment that my colleague moved for in the concurrence report is just another effort to politicize another terrible issue that we are concerned about, injuring the very victims who we are talking about in the recommendations from the Standing Committee on Justice and its recommendations to be more sensitive to the victims. With the amendment that was moved earlier, it is exactly the opposite.

I do want to speak today on this and talk about Bill S-12, which is the government's commitment to victims of crime. I will highlight different parts of Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

Bill S-12 has three main objectives: first, to respond to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada last October in R. v. Ndhlovu, which struck down elements of the national sex offender registry; second, to strengthen the effectiveness of the registry; and, third, to empower survivors and victims of crime by changing the rules governing publication bans and a victim's right to information; all three very important.

Today, I want to explain some of the proposed reforms that aim to ensure that the registry continues to be an effective and efficient tool for law enforcement. The RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have lauded Bill S-12, and we are pleased that the legislation would ensure that the police agencies have what they need to do their jobs to better protect victims of crime and to prevent future crimes.

Bill S-12 would add to the list of offences that qualify a convicted offender for registration. Of particular note, the bill would add the offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images to the list. The bill would also target so-called “sextortion” by adding extortion to the list when shown that it has been committed with the intent to commit a sexual crime. This is an important step forward in helping the police identify perpetrators of offences, which are becoming far more prevalent in the digital age with which we are dealing.

The bill also proposes a new arrest power in the Criminal Code to address the issue of non-compliance with registration obligations. Currently, it is estimated that up to 20% of individuals with obligations related to the national sex offender registry are non-compliant. This is not acceptable to any of us as parliamentarians and it is not acceptable to Canadians.

The only legislative mechanism to facilitate compliance with the registry under the current law is to arrest an individual and lay a charge under the Criminal Code. However, laying a distinct charge does not necessarily result in compliance, which is the goal. The bill would create a compliance warrant to allow police to seek arrest warrants to bring non-compliant sex offenders to a registration centre to fulfill their obligations under SOIRA.

Another important change is that the bill would newly require registered sex offenders to provide police with 14 days advance notice prior to travelling, as well as a list of the specific addresses where they will be staying during to course of their travels. This will allow police sufficient time to conduct a risk assessment and to notify appropriate law enforcement partners, if necessary, in accordance with their existing powers under the SOIRA.

Next, I would like to discuss the publication ban and the victims information measures. These are critical steps to respond directly to victims' requests of our justice system, which is much of what the report that we have from the Standing Committee on Justice refers to, to ensure that we are listening to the victims.

Bill S-12 proposes publication ban reforms that respond directly to calls from survivors of sexual violence. Victims deserve more agency in the criminal justice process and the ability to tell their own stories if they so choose. They clearly are not being given enough priority and enough opportunities to share their stories.

The various publication ban provisions in the Criminal Code are intended to shield witnesses and victims from further harm by concealing their identity. A publication ban can encourage the testimony of victims and witnesses who may otherwise be fearful of coming forward. As we have heard many times over the last several months about publication bans, people who agreed to them for various reasons actually want them removed. Some survivors and victims of crime have found that publication bans have had the effect of silencing or restricting them. Again, we heard that several times in the last week or so. In fact, I recently saw a news report saying that eight women who were all subject to these publication bans wanted them removed so they would be able to speak about the situation that affected them and use it as an opportunity to educate other people.

Under the current system, we have seen victims convicted of violating a publication ban intended to be for their sole protection and benefit. This is clearly unacceptable. These survivors deserve to share their own stories if they so choose, and it is important that it be their choice and their choice alone, not a condition of some degree of settlement that will restrict them forever. One by one, many of the publication bans being removed are being removed at the request of the victims, at the request of the women who are still suffering as a result of some incident in their lives some years back.

To address this issue, Bill S-12 proposes that judges must ask prosecutors to confirm if reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that a victim has been consulted on whether or not a publication ban should be imposed. This proposal is in line with recommendation 11 of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, entitled “Improving Support for Victims of Crime”. In addition, Bill S-12 would clarify the process to modify or revoke a publication ban after one has been imposed by codifying the process that currently exists only in common law, which is to say through judicial decisions.

The bill would also ensure that publication bans are applicable to online material, an area that is of extreme importance to us as we move forward. Our young people are exposed to a tremendous number of things on our Internet systems, and we are having to deal with more and more issues, as young people are seeing and participating in things that they should not be. However, much of this online material may have been published before a ban was imposed.

Both of these measures recognize that victims and survivors should benefit from the right to change their minds. Choice to revoke or modify a publication ban should be dictated by the wishes of the victim or the survivor, not an employer or some other organization. However, the bill proposes that a residual discretion be given to the judge to refuse such a request if it would, for example, possibly identify a second victim involved who wishes to remain anonymous. It is expected that these types of scenarios would be extremely rare and that, for the overwhelming majority of cases, a publication ban would be lifted in cases where the victim clearly does not want it in place.

There is no good or right way to be a victim. This legislation recognizes the choice of victims and survivors and provides them with decision-making power. Returning power to victims and survivors of sexual violence can be essential for the healing process and can prevent retraumatization in the criminal justice process. Recently at the standing committee on women, many individuals were talking about their experiences and how difficult it was, and how little support there was, for them to talk about the issues they were facing.

It is important that we get this right. I suspect that many members have already heard from survivors while working on this issue, as I have. I am sure that many of my colleagues from all sides of the House have listened to and heard from many people, men and women, who have been victims.

Survivors are looking to us to fix the publication ban regime to better empower them and to treat them with dignity and respect. With a publication ban in place, they are not able to speak with anybody about the pain and suffering they went through. Removing the publication ban, which is what Bill S-12 is suggesting, would allow them to do that.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to ensure that we get this delicate balance right. This is an area that we can review at committee to see if the language can be strengthened further.

I want to take a moment to speak about a victim's right to information about the case of an offender who has harmed them. This right is enshrined in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in sections 6, 7 and 8. Bill S-12 would make it easier for victims to access information about their case after sentencing or after an accused is found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

To achieve this goal, the bill proposes several measures. First, it would require that the judge ask the prosecutor whether they have taken reasonable steps to determine whether the victim wishes to obtain this information. Second, the bill would allow victims to express this interest through their victim impact statement. Finally, the bill would require the court to provide Correctional Service Canada with the victim's name and the information if they have expressed a desire to receive this type of information. It is an extremely important part of this bill to give victims the option if they want to receive this information. Not everyone would want it because very often it revictimizes the victims.

Once again, this approach is respectful of the needs of victims and seeks to provide the flexibility required to obtain the information at a time of their choosing. I note that this proposal received particular attention and support from the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime.

The changes contemplated by this bill would meet an urgent need to make the laws governing the national sex offender registry compliant with the charter. At the same time, it would make the registry better able to accomplish its vital purpose of providing police with current and reliable information to investigate and prevent crimes of a sexual nature. It would also take an opportunity to make the criminal justice system more responsive to survivors and victims of crime, including victims of sexual offences.

These reforms are targeted, measured and sensible. They will make a tangible difference for victims of some of the most serious crimes under our law. They align with our government's firm support for victims of crime. We will never leave victims behind, and we are constantly working to improve our justice system to better accommodate victims.

The report that was tabled this morning, on which concurrence has been moved, is from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and it has 13 excellent recommendations very focused on how we can make life better for the victims and how we can better respond to the needs of victims. I look forward to discussing those recommendations as we proceed with the hearing today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can honestly say that, when I came in this morning, I had no speech prepared whatsoever. I had full intentions of seeing Bill C-35 pass through the House. It was not only going to be a majority; my understanding is that every member in the House is going to be voting in favour of Bill C-35. I honestly believed that we were going to be debating that and then going on to the next item.

I have been in opposition. Most of my political career has been in the opposition benches. Even when I was in opposition, and it can be found in a Hansard search, members will find that I have said in the past that something like time allocation is a necessary tool in order for governments to be able to pass legislation.

Filibustering for no real purpose, other than to frustrate the system, does a disservice to the chamber. I think we need to put Parliament ahead of politics. I have given the odd partisan speech, I will admit that. Having said that—

[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—

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I will not disagree with my colleague. There is, absolutely, a lot more to be done. If anyone thinks we are going to suddenly dust our hands off after the passage of Bill C-35 and say that all is done, that is simply beyond any reasonable thought.

I do not see Bill C-35 as being in opposition to that fact on the ground. In fact, the passage of this bill's enshrining in legislation the federal government's commitment to this funding formula is precisely the kind of action this Parliament and the leadership in this Parliament need to demonstrate in addressing the problem my colleague brought up. Therefore, I will agree with the member that there is a lot more work that needs to be done. It is my hope that, through Bill C-35, we are actually going to pressure the federal government to follow through with those agreements with the provinces. It is great that we would have an advisory council that would keep the government honest and transparent on that.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to stand in the House today to give my views on Bill C-35 on behalf of the wonderful constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Of course, for their benefit, we are talking about the Canada early learning and child care act.

This bill does a few things. I will just briefly go over them. It would set out the vision for a national early learning child care system and establish those principles that are going to guide federal investments in that system. That particular part of the bill is extremely important because I have heard Conservative colleagues asking why this bill is even necessary given that all of the agreements have already been entered into between provincial governments and the federal government.

I think it is really important to enshrine those agreements into legislation so we can avoid a future policy lurch where maybe a different government in the future decides to take us in a different direction. This is an issue that is so fundamentally important that I believe that those funding agreements need to have the force of legislation to back them up so that not only current generations of young families can enjoy those benefits but also future generations.

Another commitment is the long-term federal funding for child care services provided to provinces, as well as indigenous organizations and, of course, the establishment of a national advisory council on early learning and child care, which would allow that organization to be set up and to really deliberate on the progress being made to advise the government on what else is needed in its policy going forward.

I just want to speak personally here for a little bit. I am the father of three wonderful daughters. I have twins, who are almost 11 years old, and a five-year-old. My twins were born in 2012, before I assumed elected office. I can remember during those first three years of their lives when my wife and I were both working. We did depend on child care. We also depended on my parents at times, but it was not easy.

I can remember when I first decided to run for office back in 2015. Child care was a huge election issue in 2015. The NDP ran on a platform of trying to deliver $15-a-day child care. I remember this, particularly down in the city of Langford in the southern part of my riding, the great big southern metropolis of Langford, as I like to call it, because it has been one of the fastest-growing communities in all of British Columbia. Time and time again, in the 2015 election when I was out knocking on doors, more often than not the person who would answer the door would be a young child who would then scream to their mom or dad to come to the door because a stranger was there. It just really showed that the demographics of the city of Langford, and indeed much of my riding, consisted of young families who were struggling to get by.

A lot of the feedback I received from going to doors in 2015 was that, in many houses, there was a willingness for both parents to go out and work, but what I heard time and time again was that it was simply not worth it for them to do that because the child care costs completely negated any economic advantage that that family would get by working two jobs, let alone the availability. It would usually be the mother telling me that it just was not worth it, saying, “Why would I just put my child in child care when all of the money I would earn from a second job would be going to pay for that? It's better if I just stay at home because at least my child is with her or his parent.”

Enshrining this in legislation and following up with those agreements are things that New Democrats have fought long and hard for. It is something I have been proud to run under since I was first elected to this place, and it is nice to see that our House of Commons is coming together to deliver this. This is not just one party that is the author of this. This idea has its beginnings many years ago, and I am really proud to stand in this place on behalf of the constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and show them that we are putting into place legislation that would enshrine something that is incredibly important.

Absolutely, when it comes to Bill C-35, New Democrats are proudly standing here in support.

I also want to recognize former members of Parliament in the NDP caucus, particularly former MP Irene Mathyssen, whose daughter is serving right now as the member for London—Fanshawe, and former MP Olivia Chow, who of course is now running to become the next mayor of Toronto. I wish her all the best in that. Both of those exceptional members of Parliament, former MPs of this place, did try, with legislative initiatives, to bring something into this place, similar to what Bill C-35 is trying to do.

I also want to underline the confidence and supply agreement that our party has with the Liberals, because in section 2 of that agreement, one of the main bullet points reads as follows:

Through introducing an Early Learning and Child Care Act by the end of 2022, ensuring that childcare agreements have long-term protected funding that prioritizes non-profit and public spaces, to deliver high quality, affordable child care opportunities for families.

This is a very clear example where the CASA, the confidence and supply agreement, shows how we, as a small party, are working with the government to bring something in that would be for the common good. This is a key provision of that agreement, meaning that, if it had not been met, the agreement would be null and void. It is a great example of us working together to bring something that is obviously going to benefit so many families right across the country. I do want to say that, if it were not for New Democrats, many initiatives such as this would not be seeing their rapid pace of adoption in the House, as we are seeing today.

I also want to talk a little about the history because, of course, we have had strange bedfellows fighting for child care. We have major representatives from both labour and business making the case for child care. If we look at some of comments from Canadian chambers of commerce, all the way from the national organization to their provincial counterparts to chambers of commerce of local districts and municipalities, and they all realize the benefits that child care brings to small businesses. Their most valuable resource is their employees. When they are in danger of losing an employee because of a birth of a child, that could drastically affect small business. That is why we have seen chambers be some of the most vocal proponents of putting in place this system.

At the same time, the labour movement, often at odds with the chamber, could not agree more. In fact, we have a comment here from Beatrice Bruske, President of the Canadian Labour Congress, who said, “Ensuring affordable, high quality, accessible and flexible services means we will have a Canada-wide system of early learning and child care that meets the needs of workers and their families.”

In the conclusion of my speech, I want to recognize my fantastic colleague, the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre, for her work. She worked very hard at committee with members of the government to bring forward some constructive amendments. I am very pleased to see how many of those amendments were adopted and incorporated in this bill to make it stronger and to make it into the version that we are debating today.

I also want to recognize, again, that we would not be here today if it were not for the work of many different people over many years. I want to particularly thank all the child care advocates and unions who have fought to make this legislation a reality. I want to give special recognition to parents and families, particularly those in my riding, who have kept up the pressure, kept up the advocacy and kept on pressuring members of Parliament right across Canada to bring in the change that we are seeing through Bill C-35.

I also want to recognize women because we know that a national system of affordable child care helps advance gender equality, and that is an important reason for us, alone, by itself. With that, I welcome any questions and comments my colleagues may have.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here this evening to discuss Bill C‑35, or what the Liberals like to call the universal child care plan.

In particular, we are talking about the report presented by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which studied this bill. One of the reasons the Conservatives are here is to ensure that parents' voices are heard.

As a Quebecker, I must provide some context about what has been happening in Quebec for years. We have our own child care system, as my colleagues know. In January 1997, the provincial government unveiled Quebec's family policy, which included five main elements: child care services and parental leave, the family allowance, the work premium, the solidarity tax credit, and the refundable tax credit for child care expenses.

This program is not perfect, but it has existed since that time, and many parents in Quebec have been able to take advantage of it. We need to take that into account in this discussion we are having here tonight.

In my riding, there is a small association that was created in recent years, shortly before the pandemic, called Ma place au travail. A woman took the initiative to start a Facebook group that ended up bringing together women from all across Quebec who are, unfortunately, still waiting for a child care space in the province. The parents of approximately 70,000 children are in that position. I hope that the $6 billion that will be transferred from the federal program to Quebec will be used to address the lack of child care spaces in the province. The situation is different in other provinces, which do not have this kind of program in place. We must therefore analyze the bill from that perspective.

I must inform the House of all the efforts that we, the Conservatives, made in committee to improve this bill with a view to implementing it at the national level. Of course, the government wants to apply Quebec's model to the whole country. No one can really be against that, but it must be done properly. The Conservatives moved many amendments calling for choice, inclusivity, access, data and accountability. Unfortunately, the members of the Liberal-NDP coalition rejected all of them.

This coalition says it cares about access and inclusivity. However, its actions speak louder about what it is really interested in, namely promoting an ideology that will decide what is best for children.

We cannot trust this coalition on this or any other matters. We had another example of this with the budget implementation bill we discussed tonight. Nothing in that bill takes into account the labour shortage, the burnout affecting frontline personnel and the exodus of these professionals. That is an important point that I believe my colleagues raised at committee. Sadly, it was not included or considered by the Liberal Party or the NDP. Those amendments were entirely reasonable. They were justified and justifiable. Sadly, once again, they were rejected.

Once again, Conservatives introduced an amendment to solve the problem. The amendment stipulated that the annual reports needed to include a national strategy to recruit and retain skilled workers in early childhood education. Surprise! It was also voted down by the coalition. Why was it voted down? We would have to ask the coalition's members. I hope they will ask me the question. I repeat that it is a very reasonable amendment. I do not think this requirement concerning annual reports would have hurt the bill. Quite the opposite, it would have enriched it. It would have been a good thing if this suggestion had been accepted.

That makes me think of the 2 billion trees that this government, three or four years ago, promised to plant by 2030. It is 2023, so there are 7 years left, and 3 years have already passed. We have not even reached 4% of that objective. There was a big show with a lot of smoke, and it is the same with this bill.

The government is making big promises by announcing its intent to roll out day care services across the country based on Quebec's successful model, but it is unable to put in place all the elements or tools needed to carry out this project. Once again, it is not surprising, coming from this government.

The bill is supposed to include five pillars: quality, availability, affordability, accessibility and inclusivity. However, once again, we have proof that the Liberals want to score political points and are more concerned about marketing a plan they can sell than about the actual supply of what they are selling. As I just said, it is easy to make promises.

Over the past eight years, the government has promised many things. Unfortunately, despite the fact that it was not a Liberal promise, the only thing families have more of are taxes. The cost of living for families never stops rising. I completely agree with my colleague who talked about increasing the wages of all these workers. However, there is a limit because, eventually, families will also have to foot the bill.

The Liberals moved an amendment to the amendment in committee that removed the words “availability” and “accessibility”, which are the biggest issues with child care in this country. They are also the biggest issues in Quebec, where 70,000 families are currently unable to find a child care space. Obviously, the labour shortage is affecting all areas of society and all types of employment. It is not just child care. To attract workers, the right plan needs to be in place, which is clearly not the case at the moment.

I will paraphrase my colleague from Peterborough—Kawartha, who is doing a fantastic job. The reality is that we have about as much chance of solving the child care crisis with Bill C-35 as we have of winning the lottery. That is exactly what child care is like in Canada, because getting a child care space is like winning the lottery.

The reality is that the Liberals want to implement a nationwide program without having the means to actually do so. Some 70% of children still cannot get a space in day care. It is a national problem.

This brings me to the subject of families. Today, compared to eight years ago, the price of homes and the cost of rent have doubled. Everything has gone up. Inflation is at its highest in 40 years, and the interest rate keeps going up. My own daughter is now paying $700 more a month for the home she built five years ago. Inevitably, the amount of money that families are forced to spend is going to reduce their ability to pay.

When my children were young, there was no program. We worked hard and paid child care workers to come to the house. Then we starting sending the children to day care. Obviously these programs are an incredible help. My colleague from the Bloc was saying that it was a feminist policy. I totally agree with her. This has helped thousands of women to go back to work.

However, the reality is that today, unfortunately, 70% of families still do not have a spot. In Quebec, 70,000 children do not have a child care spot and women cannot go back to work because of the labour shortage.

I will say it again: Yes, these people have to be paid well. I think that there have been major improvements in this area in Quebec. However, the government is blowing smoke by launching a program of this scale without being able to put all the necessary effort into ensuring that it is carried out properly.

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

Madam Speaker, when I referred to partisan games, I was merely referring to the public statements that have been made by the leader of the official opposition on the intent to gum up this place with as many obstructive tactics as possible. If he did not intend for those comments to apply to this debate on Bill C-35, I apologize to the hon. member.

I agree with her. There are many things, as I mentioned in my speech, including legitimate concerns about access and the shortage of qualified early learning and child care educators. I hope we can work together in a non-partisan spirit to ensure that the vision of the legislation is actually implemented. I agree with 90% of what the member said. It needs to be worked on, and it needs to be delivered.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to speak in support of Bill C-35 at this time. I could not agree more with some of the members who spoke before me, such as the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill and the Bloc Québécois member for Shefford, who gave a great speech. I always appreciate my colleagues' efforts.

Despite the fact that it is late, I would like to give my opinion on this bill. This bill does more than set up child care services. It is important to highlight the principles of this bill: It aims to provide a system of early learning and child care to promote the development of young children.

It is really important to stress the way that Bill C-35 embraces things that many of us have been working on for years, early learning and child care. This is about improving the life chances of children, because the evidence is very clear that children learn with qualified educators who are doing more than making sure the children are watched through a morning or during the day while their parents are at work.

The principles of Bill C-35 underscore that child care must be accessible, affordable, inclusive and of high quality. These are things that we desperately need to see.

In the debate over the bill, I heard legitimate concerns from colleagues, particularly among the Conservative benches. These are fair points. We cannot find enough early childhood educators for all the spaces that are being created. Child care workers should be paid appropriately, and I am saddened by the reality that the existing agreement between the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario puts in place a payment schedule for child care workers that is embarrassingly insufficient for the work that we are entrusting these workers with.

They should really be paid more than CEOs. They should be paid more, with all due respect to colleagues across the way. I know at least one of our colleagues in the Conservative Party was a very famous hockey coach. We should pay our child care workers more than we pay our hockey players.

What is more important in our society than ensuring our children have the best start in life? Our teachers, at all levels, are underpaid. Early learning and child care educators are professionals whose work needs to be recognized and properly compensated.

However, it is not an unfair point to say we cannot find enough child care workers for all the $10-a-day child care spaces that are being opened up. The point is, we will. This has just come in. The agreements with provinces are very fresh. I am very encouraged that we are going to have it in law, in this piece of legislation, that one hopes any future government could not tamper with this. We have agreements with each of the provinces and territories, and that is a huge accomplishment.

Of course, we had accomplished it back in 2005, when, speaking of hockey players, a famous former minister responsible for the file, Ken Dryden managed to accomplish inked, signed deals with every province. Then we had the election of 2005-06, and the whole program, even though funded, with signed agreements, was scrapped by the incoming Conservative government of Stephen Harper. I wish I did not have such a good memory because thinking about that transition, where we lost Kyoto and Kelowna and child care in a relatively short period of time, is painful to recall.

The advantages of ensuring that every Canadian child, whether from families, as the hon. member for Nunavut was explaining so eloquently, that have not had the same advantages and privilege, or from families from equity-seeking groups, would be able to ensure that the child care program that allows the parents to go to work is of high quality.

I want to stress that part because early learning and child care is a different prospect than child care on its own. I have heard horror stories over the years, as a single mother myself, of child care arrangements that just were not adequate. They were actually unsafe. It is critical we elevate the professionalism, recognition and respect we give to the workers who do this work in early learning and child care.

I also want to mention, because it came up when the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill was speaking, why it is I continue to proselytize the virtues of the rules of Westminster parliamentary democracy that are ignored in this place. In the Palace of Westminster in the U.K. or any of the other Commonwealth countries that use the Westminster parliamentary system, reading a speech is not allowed. It is still a rule here, but it is not only ignored, it is ignored and encouraged with handing out podiums to people so they can put the speeches they are not supposed to be reading on a podium so they can read them.

In any case, I want to spend a moment on the advantage of not allowing a written speech. In the situation we are in right now on Bill C-35, we had a complete failure of House leaders to determine what kind of time was needed to deal with this bill in this place. This happens over and over again. The hon. members across the way will know this is the game that it is played.

In the old days, and I remember the old days because I am old, a minister or a House leader would say to another House leader that a certain legislation was coming up and ask how many speakers they thought would want to speak on it and ask how much time should be allocated for it. There would be an honest and fair-minded decision made based on knowing that so and so was deeply invested in the issue and would want to speak on it and that so and so would also want to speak on it so that probably there would be x number of speakers.

Of course, if one is not allowed to read a speech, which is the case in the Palace of Westminster in London, one would basically know who was prepared to speak to it because they were among the handful of people who know the legislation and the issue well enough to stand up and speak about it without a note in front of them.

I read a very interesting article some time ago now where Conrad Black reflected on his time in the House of Lords and how he contrasted it with the Canadian Parliament. In that comparison, we do not fare well my friends. He said it was wonderful that no one could speak with notes or a written speech and had to be able to stand up and talk about the legislation at hand because out of their own knowledge they could speak to the bill. He said that was far better; I agree.

One of the other advantages of that is one cannot play the game of “we can't tell you now how many of our members want to speak to that.” A House leader of either side of the big parties can say inscrutably that they are not sure and that it is maybe five, maybe 10 or maybe 80 speakers. That is how we find ourselves here tonight.

The government side, quite wrongly I believe, uses time allocation because it throws up its hands at the impasse it finds itself in with the official opposition. This is not about the politics. One can change the colours and the same problem persists. One just plays a game of silliness and says that maybe everybody wants to speak to it. We know what happens in the lobby. Someone says, “Hey, Joe, here's your speech. You're up next.”

I know some members of Parliament for the bigger parties, individual members, have told me over the years that they have refused to do that and are just not going to do it. One can kind of tell when someone is reading a speech they have not written themselves.

My only point here is to take the time to say we could do better. This bill deserves widespread support, and I hope it has it. It will pass. It will be a law.

Thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance for believing in early childhood learning and education and thanks to the Minister of Families. Let us get this passed, but let us stop the nonsense of debating until midnight when no one here is really speaking to the bill but playing a partisan game of delay.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-35 and will support the bill at third reading, even though it finds the bill to be ambiguous.

The bill does not comply with the distribution of powers set out in the Constitution, which clearly states that education and family policies are not under federal jurisdiction. Although the bill states that the provinces will be able to certify child care services and determine the applicable criteria, it also states that every government in Canada will have to comply with the principles set out in the multilateral early learning and child care framework.

This framework is full of good intentions and fine principles, but it is based on the federal government's supposed spending power, which Quebec does not consider legitimate or legal. One thing is clear: This bill was not tabled in the right Parliament.

I will first go into more detail about why we will nevertheless vote in favour of the bill. Then I will explain the Quebec exception and end my speech with an historical overview.

First, the bill excludes Quebec from this federalization of family policy for the next five years. In fact, the Government of Quebec will receive $6 billion in compensation for opting out of this centralist policy. In that sense, the bill respects the will of Quebec not to have the government interfere in its jurisdictions, especially since Quebec is a pioneer in child care services and a model of success, to boot.

Nevertheless, unlike Bill C‑303, the predecessor to this bill, the current version does not contain any wording on exempting Quebec. Indeed, Bill C‑303 stated the following:

4. Recognizing the unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec with regard to the education and development of children in Quebec society, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Government of Quebec may choose to be exempted from the application of this Act and, notwithstanding any such decision, shall receive the full transfer payment that would otherwise be paid under section 5.

The agreement concluded with the Quebec government spans a period of five years. Enshrining Quebec's full right to opt out of this program would help avoid another dispute between Quebec and Ottawa in case the federal government ever wants to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions as it does so well.

Passing this bill would also enable Quebec to recover significant amounts that could be used to reinforce its network and improve working conditions for workers in the sector.

By allowing Quebec to withdraw with full compensation, Bill C-35 takes into account these two opposing trends in federal-provincial relations. That sort of consideration is rare at the federal level.

Outside Quebec, Ottawa is seen as the guarantor of social progress, which results in a strong tendency towards centralization. Quebec rejects that type of interference. It would be interesting if Bill C-35 were consistent with the previous version in recognizing that the Quebec government's child care expertise is unique in North America. In fact, the international community acknowledged that in 2003.

The OECD, in its study of child care in Canada at the time, mentioned the following:

[It is] important to underline…The extraordinary advance made by Quebec, which has launched one of the most ambitious and interesting early education and care policies in North America....none of these provinces showed the same clarity of vision as Quebec in addressing the needs of young children and families....

In short, to come back to Bill C-35, public officials said that the bill was drafted with respect for the provincial and territorial jurisdictions and indigenous rights.

They also stated that the bill did not impose any conditions on other levels of government. That was the main concern of some provincial governments during the consultation process. Any provision seeking to ensure that the provinces shoulder their share of the agreement would be part of the individual bilateral agreements signed with each province and territory, agreements that must be renegotiated every five years, as I mentioned previously.

Here are some interesting figures to think about. Access to low-cost regulated child care could lead to the addition of 240,000 workers to the Canadian labour market and a 1.2% increase in the GDP over 20 years. In Quebec, the money would also serve to strengthen the existing network of early childhood education services, which is grappling with a shortage of teachers.

After the committee completed its work, it became clear that the demands of the Bloc Québécois and Quebec were not heard or respected.

Throughout the study, Quebec was cited as a model. It may not be perfect, but the Quebec model was cited on numerous occasions as being a model to emulate. However, at the amendment stage, when the time came to recognize Quebec's expertise in the bill, we saw the three other parties dismiss this reality out of hand. The same thing happened to our amendments giving Quebec the option of completely withdrawing from the federal program with full financial compensation. The only place the other members were even remotely willing to mention Quebec's expertise was the preamble, which is the only place where those words would ultimately have no concrete effect on the bill.

Although Quebec does not get the option of completely withdrawing from this program with full compensation, an agreement to that effect had already been concluded between Ottawa and Quebec. Senior officials who worked on the bill also repeatedly stated, when questioned on the subject, that while nothing would prevent the federal government from imposing conditions as part of a future agreement, the bill had always been designed with the asymmetry of Quebec's reality compared to Canada's provinces in mind. The members of the Liberal government who spoke to the bill also mentioned several times that the Liberals intended to keep working with Quebec on this file. The current agreement also pleased Quebec since it did not interfere with any jurisdiction and gave the Quebec government total freedom to spend the money in whatever sectors it wanted.

Third, let us rewind to 2022, when Quebec celebrated 25 years of the family policy. On January 23, 1997, Quebec's family policy was unveiled by education minister Pauline Marois on behalf of the Parti Québécois government. It was a visionary policy that reflected the changing face of Quebec, including the increase in the number of single-parent and blended families, the growing presence of women in the workforce and the troubling rise in job insecurity.

This forward-thinking policy has allowed Quebeckers to benefit from better work-life or school-life balance and more generous maternity leave and parental leave, and it has extended family assistance programs to self-employed workers or workers with atypical schedules.

This model is an asset. It is a source of pride for the entire Quebec nation, as studies show that every dollar invested in early childhood yields about $1.75 in tax revenues, and that every dollar invested in health and in early childhood saves up to $9 in social health and legal services. Early childhood education services have also been a giant step ahead for education in Quebec. They help improve children's chances of success and keep students from dropping out. They have a positive effect on early childhood development, help identify adaptive and learning difficulties early on, and ensure greater equality of opportunities for every young Quebecker, regardless of sex, ethnic origin or social class.

In conclusion, we also believe that a true family policy is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Quebec and provincial governments. Parental leave, income support and child care networks must be integrated into a coherent whole. In our opinion, to be efficient, this network and all these family policies must be the responsibility of the Government of Quebec alone. The Constitution clearly indicates that education and family policies are not under federal jurisdiction.

One last thing: As the Standing Committee on the Status of Women has noted in more than one report, including the report on intimate partner violence I spoke about earlier in connection with another bill, by providing quality day care that is affordable and accessible to all, we are providing women with an opportunity to fulfill their professional ambitions without compromising their family responsibilities.

What is more, this bill seeks to enhance day care services by providing a safe and protective environment for young children and especially for mothers who are seeking to escape intimate partner violence. What we in the Bloc Québécois are saying is, let us do this with respect for the expertise, but above all, for Quebec's jurisdiction. We will be voting in favour of the principle of Bill C‑35.

I will end with an interesting economic fact. According to the work of Pierre Fortin, Luc Godbout and Suzie St‑Cerny, between 1998 and 2015, with Quebec's child care services taking care of all these young children, mothers' labour force participation rate increased from 66% to 79%. We implemented this feminist measure. Yes, early childhood education is a feminist policy that made it possible for women to return to the labour market, to become emancipated and to provide equal opportunities for young children.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I think that is a different type of program that she might be talking about, but it highlights the importance of Bill C-35 and why we need to nationalize child care. We need to ensure, as I have said, that those who have been excluded from accessing child care get the supports that they need.

I heard a Conservative member talking earlier about his family supporting each other in the area of child care. I question whether that member would have had that same level of support if all of their family members had been marginalized for decades, had been oppressed for decades and had been forced to experience genocide for decades. I question whether he would have had the same level of family supports that he needed to ensure child care for his family.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am very pleased to appear this evening from my home riding in Nunavut. I am pleased to submit that the NDP supports passing Bill C-35. The NDP has, for a long time, fought for a national child care program that is enshrined in legislation.

Before I get to the main aspects of my speech, I highlight and thank the MP for Winnipeg Centre for her great work, the MP for London—Fanshawe for the work she did on Bill C-311 in the 43rd Parliament and Olivia Chow for her work, in the 40th Parliament, on Bill C-373.

New Democrats truly believe that every parent across Canada deserves access to affordable, high-quality child care wherever they live in Canada. That is why passing Bill C-35 is so important.

My intervention tonight will focus on three areas at this stage of the bill. First, I will speak to some of the content of the bill. Second, I will highlight the inclusion of international instruments in Bill C-35 and the importance of acknowledging indigenous laws in implementing these important instruments. Finally, I will address some of the disinformation that has been shared by other members in the House.

The content of Bill C-35 is important because it would set out a vision for the creation of a national early learning and child care system. It would ensure that there are principles that guide federal investments. These are important as they will show the willingness of this Parliament to invest in children, as they truly are the future and we must do what we can to keep it secured.

Bill C-35 would establish a national advisory council on early learning and child care. This is such an important measure to ensure that policy-making and advocacy would come from experts in the field. It is truly my hope that the composition of this council would include indigenous peoples in Canada.

It is great to hear at this stage that Bill C-35 has been improved in some areas through the work of the HUMA committee One such area is the strengthening of reporting requirements, specifically in areas where the minister responsible must report to Parliament. Another is to recognize that working conditions affect the provision of child care programs, and, as such, improvements were made regarding working conditions in this area.

International instruments and indigenous laws are also important. I turn now to the incredibly great work that my NDP colleague, the MP for Winnipeg Centre, was able to do in ensuring that indigenous rights are protected and that international instruments are included in Bill C-35. Specifically, I outline the important inclusion of recognizing the rights established in both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These are meant to have Canada acknowledge Canada's international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.

Finally, I highlight the prominent place for indigenous peoples to have free, prior and informed consent on matters pertaining to children. With June being National Indigenous History Month, I take every opportunity I can to make interventions that include indigenous history. What implementing the international instruments could look like is recognizing the existence of indigenous laws surrounding the raising of children. For example, in Inuit laws, there are three areas of laws that govern Inuit. I thank Jarich Oosten, Frédéric Laugrand and Willem Rasing for editing the book entitled Inuit Laws. The content of this book is based on interviews with Inuit elders: Mariano Aupilaarjuk, Marie Tulimaaq, Akisu Joamie, Émile Imaruittuq and Lucassie Nutaraaluk. I honour their great knowledge and their sharing it for us to use. What a privilege it is to share these names in the House.

The laws described in this book are piqujait, maligait and tirigusuusiit. I describe the first two for this speech. As I stated earlier this month, these categories govern our behaviours and our relationships to each other and to wildlife and the environment.

Piqujait, translated into English, means “behaviours that must be done as directed by a person of authority”. An example is piqujait from parents to children. In today's society, piqujait can also be used by child care workers when they are taking care of children in day care settings.

Maligait is translated into English as “those that must be followed”. These differ from piqujait because they focus on the obligation to obey. A maligait in this system could be used to establish policies, regulations and instruments that could guide decision-making.

I look forward to learning, in my role as indigenous critic, more about indigenous laws held by first nations and Métis so that I may speak to them. Even better, it would be great to see more first nations, Métis and Inuit across Canada taking up the challenge of representing their peoples in the House. I encourage more indigenous people to consider running in the next federal election so we can continue to make laws that reflect our existence.

Finally, in addressing the disinformation that has been shared by other members in the House, I will talk about what has been shared mainly by Conservative members. I hope to remind Canadians of some of these issues. As I have outlined in my speech, Bill C-35 is not just about existing agreements; it is about much more than that. Conservatives have shared that Bill C-35 would not provide supports to parents to get access to child care. The Conservatives, at HUMA, introduced amendments to remove prioritization of non-profit and public child care. They argued that prioritizing these groups makes it unfair to for-profit child care businesses. This is entirely untrue. Prioritization is not elimination; prioritization is giving equity-seeking groups extra supports they have been excluded from for years. Including prioritization of non-profit and public child care would ensure that children get a more full spectrum of child care in Canada.

In support of these arguments, I highlight two testimonies that were shared at HUMA in studying Bill C-35. The first is from Pierre Fortin, an emeritus professor of economics, who said, “There is no way to escape the conclusion that private markets for child care have, unfortunately, been a quality failure. I'm saying ‘unfortunately’ because I have defended private market solutions throughout my career, but a fact is a fact.” Second, I quote Morna Ballantyne, executive director of Child Care Now, who said, “Federal public funds should be directed to expanding the provision of high-quality early learning and child care, not to expanding opportunities to make private profit or to increasing the equity of privately held real estate and other business assets.”

In conclusion, I am very excited to support Bill C-35. It gives me hope that children and parents will be better supported. With the passing of Bill C-35, decision-making would be founded on human rights and indigenous rights. Accountability and transparency would be monitored by a national council composed of experts from the field. This bill would indeed help ensure working conditions for child care workers.

Qujannamiik from Iqaluit. My thoughts are with the many Canadians experiencing the forest fires across Canada.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny. Someone across the aisle just said that is literally their job, but I actually do not believe that. I believe that as members of Parliament, we are all here to work together for the future of Canada and Canadians.

What we need to do is collaborate, and that is what this government has been doing with every province, territory and group to put in place the child care system we have been advocating for as women for over 50 years. Think about that. It is 50 years that we have been asking for this, and it is now coming to fruition. Rather than celebrating that fact, all we can do is criticize the shortcomings and act as though it was the fault of the legislation that certain things are not happening.

There are two basic things we hear often. I hear it in my communities, and according to what I have heard tonight and over the last few days, it is something we hear in many constituencies. There are two concerns among several. The cost of living and affordability are one and the second is the labour shortage. This bill, for all the perceived shortcomings that have been pointed out, addresses both of those of issues and addresses them well.

Child care costs some families $50 a day depending on the age of the child. This bill would bring into place child care that will cost $10 a day by 2026. I can guarantee that the young families in my riding I speak to, the parents, both men and women, are very grateful for the fact that their costs have already been cut in half and are looking forward to $10-a-day child care.

This bill is addressing the affordability crisis. We hear constantly from members opposite that this is one of the biggest concerns they have. We are putting forward legislation that addresses it, yet all we hear is criticism.

The other issue is the labour shortage. We have the example of early learning and child care and the good-quality program in the province of Quebec. In Canada, we are lucky because we have an example of what could happen to labour force participation, and in particular the participation of women in the labour force, when we have a reliable, affordable child care program.

Estimates have been provided by many private sector firms, although I will not name them, that show the return on this investment is between $1.80 to $2.50 for every dollar we spend. This is a viable economic proposition that is going to increase labour force participation and reduce the cost of living, yet all we hear is that it is not flexible enough and that there are not enough early childhood educators. Is this the fault of the legislation? No. It has been designed and implemented through work with provinces and territories, with bilateral agreements that the provinces have agreed to and wanted.

The shortage of early childhood educators existed before this legislation was introduced. If anything, increasing labour force participation is going to address the labour shortage. It is going to allow for more people to work as child care workers or anything else they want to work as, and it will help address this problem.

In some cases, I think the members opposite confuse causality and correlation. That is a very important concept. Just because something happens over a period of time does not mean it is caused by something during that period of time. We have to do significant regression analysis with multiple variables to figure out what is causing it. We hear accusations time and time again that under this government, something has happened, so it must be the fault of this government. That is not how it works. We have to look at what is actually causing things. We can look at the labour shortage, we can look at what is causing it and we can look at this bill and say the bill would address it.

We have been asked why we have to pass this bill now when the money is flowing. This is about ensuring that this program continues over time. We have had plenty of examples of good legislation being made, with good investments in Canadians, only to be overturned. We have heard several Conservative leaders say they would overturn this legislation, that this legislation is no good. For many young families in my riding, that would be a huge step backward. I believe that for all Canadians, that would be a huge step backward.

Parents today raising their families would have more choices. This bill would not limit flexibility in any way. It is up to the provinces and the child care providers. As we all know, and as the Bloc has repeatedly told us, this is not our territory. We can fund, we can provide leadership and we can provide vision, but it is up to the provinces and territories to implement this as they see fit. That is why we have individual agreements with each of them. The $30 billion we are investing to help provinces and territories provide adequate child care for families over the next five years would create over 250,000 new spaces and ensure accessibility for all people.

As a member of Parliament, as a woman with two daughters and as a woman who has helped raised six children and has grandchildren, I do not want to leave my children and grandchildren with fewer choices. I want them to have more choices, and I believe that this bill, Bill C-35, would give more choices to people. I ask members to please look at the values behind this bill, look at supporting families, look at trying to bring down the cost of living and look at addressing labour force shortages. Vote with me, vote with the Liberal Party, vote with the young families in Canada that desperately need child care and need someone to take that first step.

It has been 50 years. Let us stop talking about what is not there and let us look at what we are doing for the future of our country.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and speak, and it is a great honour to rise and speak to Bill C-35. I am a mother who has been an advocate for affordable child care since the 1980s, and if I had to be in the House until midnight debating something, there is nothing more than this that I would rather debate.

I have been listening to people speak today, and a lot of the remarks have been read from a script. I would like to pay homage to my colleague, the leader of the Green Party, who often says we should be speaking without notes. As one can see, I am doing that because I could not recall the name of her riding.

What I want to talk about is what this bill is really about and what the opposition is saying about it. It is one thing to say we need to move forward and we need to work together. It is very easy to sit and criticize something that has been brought forward and to point out all the shortcomings, all the faults and all the things that are not being done without recognizing—

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments.

As a matter of fact, the premier of Ontario and the Ontario government signed agreements with us, and this is in the member's own province. Since these agreement were signed, 33 licensed spaces have been created in Ontario, and there is a commitment for a build-out of another 53,000 spaces during the next few years.

Prior to these agreements, there were no new spaces. As we know, the former Conservative government ripped up previous agreements. Is the member suggesting that the Conservatives would not support Bill C-35 because they do not believe in building out a system that they had previously prevented from being built?

My question to the hon. member is this: Will the Conservatives be supporting Bill C-35?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise here to represent the great people of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and speak to a very important bill.

My first question is this: Why are we debating this today? I remind all MPs that funding agreements are already in place and have been signed by all provinces and territories. The money is already flowing, and I would argue, there is a multitude of other higher priority issues around affordability that we could be debating that have yet to be addressed by the current Liberal government. Further, I would point out that 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. Ten dollars-a-day day care does not address the labour shortage and the lack of spaces. I will guarantee today that, if and when this strategy fails and has not delivered affordable child care for all those in need across Canada in all jurisdictions, the Liberal government will blame the provinces and territories for that failure.

I point out that back in January, during question period, the government House leader had the audacity to call these current agreements universal, as have other Liberal members of Parliament. How can these Liberal MPs say this program is truly universal when the current child care space shortfall is in the hundreds of thousands. It is not universal if hundreds of thousands of Canadians do not have access to it.

We have seen over the past number of years how increasingly difficult it is for parents to obtain child care at all, let alone affordable child care. Therefore, I can appreciate the efforts behind the bill and the idea of actually forwarding or advancing an affordable child care plan. However, if the spaces are not there, it is still not going to work. I further note that this impacts so many families across my riding, but it disproportionately impacts women. The current reality in Canada, which has been exacerbated by the current government's inflammatory and inflationary spending, is that the cost of living has skyrocketed, making all of life's necessities unattainable by many families, as it appears now. In most cases, two parents are required to work just to scrape by.

I am going to focus on three key areas of the bill, based on feedback that I received from over 20 different day cares and child care centres across my riding. The first one, as was already mentioned, centres around the issue of accessing the programs, especially in rural Canada. Number two is the labour shortages, which is an issue that is prevalent across many sectors. Finally, there is the rising cost.

I know I may get a question from the government members about amendments. I would note that our Conservative colleagues, specifically the shadow minister, put forward many great amendments during debate at committee and at report stage and, unfortunately, every single one of them was defeated.

Let us get back to my first point around the issue of access, especially as it pertains to rural communities like Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I am not going to use my words. I am going to use the words of those from the child care centres in my riding when they were talking about this program.

They said that the demand for child care has seen huge increases. Every family wants access to a $10-per-day child care space. However, they are confident in saying that they have children on their waiting list who will age out of their programs before a space becomes available. They continued that families cannot go to work if they do not have access to child care. Their local communities are suffering, and having no child care has a far-reaching impact on all rural communities.

Therefore, as I noted, the primary issue around this program is that, while the government can artificially lower some of the costs through its funding arrangements with the provinces, the demand is so great that many families will not be able to achieve or get access to those subsidized rates.

I will give one example about the limitations around this program. My brother and his wife both work for a living. One works for Bruce Power. My sister-in-law works in the health care system. They have to commute 30, 40 or 50 kilometres one way. They have two young kids, who are now in elementary school, but playing sports and trying to go everywhere. They did not have access to a program. They depended upon family members or local privatized child care opportunities to get the necessary support they needed.

The second point I want to address is labour shortages. For quite some time, all the child care centres in my riding have been raising the alarm over the issue of labour shortages. While the lower cost of child care would definitely help the families who are able to access the program, increasing the program itself is becoming out of reach due to staffing shortages. One centre in my riding offered that expansion is impossible without qualified staff. Early childhood educators are in very short supply. This child care program is very administration heavy. As well as the extra work needed in centres, there are numerous government employees being employed to monitor and manage the plan.

This program is hindered not only by labour shortages of child care educators, but also the bureaucratic burden that is being put on the program itself through the additional administration required to meet the compliance and ensure the standards.

Here is another key issue and one that I can relate to personally. It is the shrinking of the before and after school programs. What I got from my local YMCA is that workforce shortages have reduced the number of school-age programs operators can deliver, resulting in a lack of enrolment fees in school-age child care, i.e. before and after school care, and in addition to workforce shortages for this age group, there have also been program reductions as a result of ongoing school closures, the pivot to online learning and a greater population of parents working from home and managing before and after school care differently.

This is something that, as a single parent, I am concerned about. As this program develops, access to the before and after care for many single parents across my riding is going to be an issue because, again, of the lack of labour.

Another issue is the nature of the jobs themselves, which makes life much more difficult for the current employees when there is already a labour shortage. Another child care centre said that, not to mention, it is a very selfless and exhausting job, often without breaks. The burnout rate is high. It is a woman-dominated field, and the paradox is that is an essential service for parents to be able to re-enter the workforce with a young family.

My final key point is around the rising operating costs. Many of these child care centres confirmed to me that the funding set out by the current child care program does not cover expenses, with many organizations in my riding stating that the funding afforded for the program does not cover current expenses. Their utilities, food and insurance have increased by double digit percentages, and every other cost has increased. Their compensation to cover these increases was under 3%, but the math does not add up. Funding rural and urban centres equally is not equitable. They are operating with huge deficits every month, and it cannot continue.

As I mentioned earlier, Conservatives have put forward common sense amendments at the committee to ensure program flexibility, so that the families and child care centres are not punished for adhering to an “Ottawa knows best” approach. Families in my riding are increasingly demanding better access to quality child care services that fit their schedules, and it appears as if the Liberals do not understand that they cannot simply lower the price of a service that does not exist.

In conclusion, affordable quality child care is critical, but if people cannot access it, it does not exist. Bill C-35 does nothing to address accessibility. All 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 needs. This is especially pertinent in rural Canada. 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.

Finally, again, we see the Liberals promising what they cannot deliver. The $10-a-day day care does not address the labour shortages and the lack of spaces.

The House resumed from May 31 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.

Bill C-35—Time Allocation Motion

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech. There is still one thing missing from Bill C-35, and I would like to hear her comments on that.

It should be pointed out that the early childhood centre model and the vision of offering education to children who are not yet of school age was implemented in Quebec. That is where the model comes from. That expertise is even recognized throughout the world.

Quebec's contribution was recognized in black and white in a previous bill. This bill, Bill C‑35, currently mentions a five-year period. What will happen after five years? Will the federal government start another dispute over Quebec's right to opt out with full compensation in recognition of its expertise? Why was this not included in black and white in this bill? For now, it is all right, but what will happen in five years' time?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the hon. Minister of Families for her work, her non-partisan spirit, and the fact that from day to day, frankly, she inspires me, so she may be annoyed to find that I cannot vote for time allocation on Bill C-35, because we need to stop using time allocation in this place as if it is routine.

I protested it when it was done to us time and time again when the Conservatives were in power. In a majority government under former prime minister Stephen Harper, it was used abusively. I knew then that if it happens once, it keeps happening, so now it is being used abusively by the Liberals.

I know there are good reasons and serious provocation behind why the governing party wants to do this. I would say to my dear friends across the aisle that it does not help when the leader of the official opposition tells the Canadian media and the Canadian public that the Conservatives are going to use every sneaky trick they can to gum up the works.

The truth of the matter is that if this place used our rules, which would be that no one is allowed to read a written speech, or if every member in this place did not fill up all the time by forever giving speeches that are not always truly inspiring but definitely take up the time, we could make this place work better.

I appeal to all sides in this place to let good legislation like Bill C-35 move through this House properly without time allocation.

A gag order is not a good idea, regardless of the party in power.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the NDP members as well as the Bloc Québécois members for their support, because we are going to be able to move forward with Bill C-35 despite the delay tactics of the Conservatives. For all of the reasons he mentioned, it is important to move this legislation through the House so that we can ensure Canadians have access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive child care.

When it comes to the workforce, British Columbia is doing some excellent work. It has instituted a $4-an-hour increase for all child care workers. It will be coming out with a wage grid soon. We are going to continue to work in partnership with British Columbia and in fact all provinces and territories to make sure the workforce is well compensated and well respected right across this country.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her collaboration on Bill C-35. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with her on advancing this bill. We have had many conversations, and I share her deep commitment to ensuring that workers are fairly compensated and have the supports they need to thrive as child care workers.

Workforce supports are indeed part of each of the bilateral agreements and action plans. I will be meeting with my provincial and territorial counterparts this summer to come up with a more comprehensive workforce strategy.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say through you to the member and those moms that this is exactly why Bill C-35 exists. It is so typical of the Conservatives to say there is a problem, throw their hands up and do nothing. What Bill C-35 would do is commit the federal government to long-term funding to create additional spaces to make sure there is that access right across the country. In fact, included in the legislation is a comment specifically about rural child care. The member should talk to the provinces and territories, because they have really good access plans when it comes to increasing access to child care.

However, if it were not for this legislation and those agreements, none of those problems would be solved. We are working to do that.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that the substance of Bill C‑35 falls squarely within federal jurisdiction. It does not impose conditions on the provinces and territories. This bill is exclusively federal in scope.

We have an excellent relationship and an excellent agreement with Quebec. It is an asymmetrical agreement with the Province of Quebec recognizing its leadership on child care and early learning.

Since we are debating Bill C‑35, I will stop there.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is one that stumps all of us.

During the report stage debate, the Conservatives kept saying that they care about child care, yet they were doing everything they could to delay the advance of Bill C-35. We believe very strongly in making sure this legislation is in place.

As my hon. colleague was referring to, one of the very first things that former prime minister Harper did when he formed government in 2006 was rip up the child care agreements with provinces and territories. We hope that Bill C-35 would make it harder for a future Conservative government do just that. Conservatives would have to justify to Canadians why they do not actually believe in providing them affordable child care.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just got off the phone with a child care provider who was in extreme distress because she has been in this program now for 15 months and she does not see any light at the end of the tunnel. The reality is that parents are sounding alarms, and 50% of children are living in child care deserts. These agreements under Bill C-35 are provincial and territorial agreements that have already been signed; they are in the works.

We went to committee. We have tried to raise the alarm bells to ensure that every child is included and that parents do have choice. We see a rush by the Liberal-NDP government to push this through instead of making it right. They say they want to enshrine this for generations to come, so why would they time-allocate this so it is not being done properly? Is it not better to get it done right to ensure that all parents have choice? Right now, we have someone like Erin Cullen, who lives in Newfoundland and Labrador. She has no access to child care. Seventy per cent of those folks need access to child care facilities that are private. Why rush something, if they really care about all children and all parents?

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

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and the five hours provided for the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-35—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the following: report stage and third reading of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the bill.

Motion in Amendment

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, there are a couple things that I really appreciate about Bill C-35: the inclusion of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as requiring informed consent, as accorded in UNDRIP. Those two provisions, in and of themselves, are very important to supporting Bill C-35, and I wonder if the member agrees with my statement.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are here tonight discussing Bill C-35. I would like to recognize the member of Parliament for Peterborough—Kawartha and her team for all their work on this bill, as well as for reaching out to parents and child care providers across the country.

I would like to thank the Conservative members of the HUMA committee for their work on this legislation, as well as all those who have spoken tonight at this very late hour. I would also like to thank all those who provide child care to our children for the very honourable work they do.

To be very clear, the government went ahead and signed agreements with the provinces before developing legislation. This is quite unusual, as legislation would most often be developed by government and go through all the parliamentary processes to ensure that it is as good as it can be. There would be committee testimony from those affected, industry experts and perhaps academia. Everyday Canadians could write in submissions to be considered. There may be amendments that receive full debate at committee; the legislation then goes back to the House of Commons for debate again, and the whole process is repeated at the Senate.

However, for this child care funding legislation we are discussing here today, the government has done it backward. There has been no parliamentary involvement, no oversight and no debate. We have not heard from those affected, from experts or from the general public. The government developed policies away from Parliament and signed provincial agreements, which have been implemented.

This is happening at a time when the government is pouring fuel on the inflationary fire, making it much tougher for families. Inflation is high, interest rates are high, housing has doubled, and taxes have increased and will continue to increase. There is carbon tax 2 coming soon to a family near us, all because of policies of the government that are squeezing families. One in five people is skipping meals, and food bank usage is up over 30% in my community. I know this is very consistent across the country. Affordable, quality child care is critical, but if people cannot access it, it does not exist.

Bill C-35 does nothing to address accessibility. It is not a child care strategy. In British Columbia, a 2019 survey found that, in the greater Vancouver area, there were only enough child care spaces for 18.6% of children in the metro Vancouver region. In many rural regions in Canada, large child care centres do not exist at all or may be very far apart. This bill offers rural parents, for those who need it, no flexibility; it really does not offer them anything. It chooses to ignore the simple fact that low-cost child care is not possible if child care resources are not accessible to begin with.

I spoke to many child care operators in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, who said that there have been unintended consequences. As a reminder, this legislation is coming after agreements have been signed by the provinces. We are not talking about hypotheticals here, but results that have already been implemented.

Yes, some families are being helped and have some form of child care now. However, I have been told by providers in my community that there are many scenarios playing out. One, in particular, is where high-income families are paying for spaces while pregnant, because it is so inexpensive to hold the space for their family. The lower-income and middle-class families who need the spaces are not getting them, and the whole format of waiting lists has changed. There is serious concern about the lack of focus on ensuring that child care spaces go to those most in need instead of creating advantages for the already well off.

Conservatives recognize that Canadian families should have access to affordable, quality child care, and they should be able to choose the child care providers best suiting their family's needs. The government's focus in the child care bill on not-for-profit and government spaces, which is how it is worded in the legislation. Let me lay this out in a very practical way, on a very small scale.

For example, how would a large child care facility add 200 child care spots very quickly? Many times, these are large not-for-profits that do really good work taking care of our children. No one is disputing that. However, they are not the only kind of child care provider. They would need physical space and to have parking. They may perhaps need to move or expand. If they move, they have to ensure the local bylaws are met before building a new building. It is not that easy. Smaller, independent organizations are much more nimble. If anything, this is where the focus should be, or it should be on par with governments and not-for-profit providers, at the minimum.

Once again, the Liberal government has not considered small businesses as a priority. This legislation lists what the government's priorities are.

Small, independent businesses are once again an afterthought of the government. They are not included in the national advisory council being created by the government.

It is really a shame that, as part of this child care legislation, small business owners have really been demonized. This is how many of them feel. We saw this at committee with the way the Liberals and NDP representatives spoke about small business child care providers. One local independent small business child care provider in my riding told me how awful they thought it was that the government was making it sound like they were printing money. Those are their words. She said that they would not have opened if they were not-for-profit. She considered this years ago, however, looking into it, banks would not provide a loan to get her started. She had to open a company.

Most of these small business child care providers are women. Most of them are looking after their own children while helping other families.

What quality child care is for a child should be defined by the parents, not by the government. As a working mom myself, I knew the importance of quality child care. As well, I know kids who have not done well in large child care settings. Their parents had to pull them out due to their child's personality, anxiety or special learning needs. It is not that larger facilities could not provide good care. The kids, just like adults, are all different. Many feel more comfortable in a smaller, intimate environment. There is no right or wrong.

Instead of giving parents freedom to determine what child care works best for their children and their work schedules and their lives, the government has opened the door for a two-tiered framework of child care. We heard testimony on this at committee.

This legislation does not treat all kinds of child care equally. Conservatives brought forth a motion at committee, which was not supported. It was voted down. It was to be truly inclusive and accessible and would have allowed parents to make the best decision for their family.

The amendment read, “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 day care 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".

As I said, it was not supported. It would have addressed the argument between licensed and unlicensed, because it refers to meeting standards of provincial governments or governing bodies, which is quality care.

Bill C-35 is good for families who already have child care space but it does not help the tens of thousands of families on child care wait-lists or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces.

Bill C-35 increases demand for child care but does not solve the problem of frontline burnout, staff shortages, staff training or access to more spaces. The Canadian Union of Public Employees currently reports, “in many communities there is only one child care space available for every three children who need it, and waitlists are long.”

In British Columbia, 27% of child care centres turn away children due to lack of staff. We have had centres in my community reduce spaces due to staffing. This child care legislation does not address staffing or training in this legislation to meet the 40,000 workers needed now.

It is unfortunate that the government signed provincial agreements without Parliament's involvement and without hearing from the public, as we did at committee, and was so close-minded when looking at amendments that would have provided better access to child care for families across Canada.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. I think one of the big gaps right now is the lack of a labour workforce strategy to ensure not only that there are staff to take care of the children, but also that they are compensated appropriately for the important work they do.

That is why one of the comments I focused on, in terms of my remarks, was that, given the labour shortage, the government should not cut out the private sector. I ask the government to please look again at section 7(1)(a) of Bill C-35 and ensure that it is inclusive of the private sector and the many female entrepreneurs operating in the child care sector.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate this evening on Bill C-35, the Canada early learning and child care act. I believe this issue is non-partisan because it concerns the most important element of our country: its children. I want to begin with a quick level set just so that we are all working from the same fact base.

This bill sets out the vision for a Canada-wide early learning and child care system and its commitment to ongoing collaborations with the provinces and indigenous peoples. The bill also delineates principles where public and not-for-profit entities are exclusively called out for a focus that guides the ongoing federal investments established by the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, as announced by members of the council on November 24, 2022. Additionally, the bill notes a realization of the right to benefit from child care services, as recognized in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and it contributes to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Canadian parents have long hoped for the availability of affordable, safe and stable child care. To that effect, the government brought in a national child care program that proposed to cut day care fees by an average of 50% by the end of 2022 and down to an average of $10 per day by 2026. Earlier this year, the minister stated, per the National Post, that Bill C-35 would “enshrine the principles that provinces and territories agreed to in funding agreements with Ottawa, including the pledge to cut parent fees and create more spaces.”

The government had promised to introduce the legislation by the end of 2022 in its supply and confidence agreement with the New Democratic Party. While I wholeheartedly agree that affordable quality child care is critical, it becomes moot if people cannot access it or it simply does not exist. I am concerned that Bill C-35 does not address accessibility, and I am concerned that the government is embarking on a promise that it will not be able to deliver on. Moreover, I am concerned that $10-a-day child care does little to address the serious, real child care labour shortages and the lack of child care spaces.

I suggest that Bill C-35 would be good for families who already have a child care space, but it would not help the thousands of families on child care wait-lists or the operators who do not have the staff or the infrastructure to offer more spaces. Additionally, the bill would increase the demand for child care but would not solve the problem of frontline burnout, staff shortages or access to more child care spaces. Simply put, there are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone operating new spaces. The Canadian Union of Public Employees has reported that “in many communities there is only one child care space available for every three children who need it, and waitlists are long.” That is a very sobering statistic.

Bill C-35 is also discriminatory. The majority of child care operators are women, yet the language and intent of this bill would prevent any growth in opportunities for privately run female child care operators. Also, how does the government expect more women to be able to go to work when there are no child care spots available and with wait-lists being years long?

The Financial Accountability Office of Ontario projects that by 2026, there will be 602,000 children under six whose families will want $10-a-day child care. However, the province will only be able to accommodate 375,000, leaving 227,000 children, or almost 40%, without access. That is two in five families that will be unable to access a spot. Government estimates also suggest that by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early childhood workers. This is another staggering statistic.

In British Columbia, 27% of child care centres turn away children due to lack of staff. One child care director, who oversees 13 child care programs with 350 spaces, stated, “In the past two years, we've had to close programs temporarily, whether it's for a day or two, or shorten hours for the week...in order to meet the licensing regulations”.

What then are worthy policy options to consider? I have three that I hope the government will seriously think about.

First, we must enable families of varying incomes to benefit. Based on the guiding principles of the child care framework, the government should support families that need child care most, based on their income, which in many cases is outlined within the individual provincial agreements. As well, the government should not be subsidizing child care of wealthy families that can already afford it.

Second, we should address the so-called “Matthew effect”. This is the increasing of the public provision that actually ends up advantaging higher-income families rather than lower-income groups. Even in the Quebec model, despite the gains in access, quality levels remain low when compared to the rest of Canada, with lower-income children in lower, rather than higher, quality settings.

Third, we should resolve the labour shortage. There are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone operate new spaces. I think that is a point that is important to reiterate. The reality is that we cannot create new child care spaces without staff. Not enough students enter the ECE programs across Canada to support any growth, and it remains difficult to retain staff without the financial incentive to work in the field. The reality is that in British Columbia in 2022, 45% of employers reported losing more staff than they could hire, and 27% reported turning away children because of a lack of staff.

The lack of child care spaces across our country is considerable. In Ontario, the percentage of zero to 12-year-olds for whom full-day or part-time day care space was available was 25%. For children zero to five years, it was 21.3%. There are also so-called “child care deserts”. This is where there is a lack of, or inequitable distribution of, child care spaces or an FSA, or postal code region, with a coverage rate of less than one third of the child population. According to a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report that was published in May 2023, 48% of children live in child care deserts, and the percentage of children living in child care deserts in Ontario is a considerable 53%.

What are the financial implications?

The 2021 budget pledged $30 billion over five years on a national child care system with an additional $9.2 billion annually coming after that period. The bill before us is about children, the future of our country, and we owe them a duty to ensure that we are getting the best value possible for them when it comes to our hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

In terms of stakeholder considerations, the major comments coming from child care providers suggest that Bill C-35, while a step in the right direction, is however too generic. The bill does not go into specifics. Additionally the private sector is cut out of the equation. There are also significant major labour shortages, with the majority of those who are working being overworked and understaffed. Bill C-35 would be good for families that already have a space but not for workers. The bill also would do nothing to address the long wait-lists for care across the country.

There are ways that Bill C-35 can be improved. In my province, the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario suggested the following four amendments. First was to make the bill more inclusive by deleting the reference to public and not-for-profit child care providers. Second was to consider an addition that provides some guidance to advisory council members about avoiding potential conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety arising from their involvement on the council. Third was that advisory council members may also require guidance about avoiding any paid consulting or volunteer work related to political parties or candidates during their term on the council. Finally, fourth was to add additional specificity surrounding the composition of the advisory council with respect to regional representation as well as representation by female entrepreneurs and those involved in the direct delivery of licensed child care services.

In conclusion, I hope that Canadian families needing reliable, safe and affordable child care are able to access a national system that provides a viable program for generations to come.

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

Madam Speaker, I am speaking today about Bill C-35. The bill is called “an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada”. I will spend most of my time speaking about children, but I want to start with a few words about this bill.

This bill would do absolutely nothing for early learning and child care. The government has, in fact, already implemented its child care policies. Bill C-35 comes after the fact. The bill contains statements of principles and a declaration, but nothing would be changed legally or in terms of funding by putting these generic statements of opinion into legislation. Bill C-35 is a bill that simply states the government's views with respect to its own approach to child care. The bill itself would have no material impact on families and no material impact on the operations of the federal government, save for one thing. The one material change that would be brought about by this act is the establishment of a child care advisory council. This council would be paid and would consist of 10 to 18 members, with all members appointed by the government. Although the legislation says the council should reflect the diversity of Canada, it does not define what that means, and it certainly says anything about this council reflecting a diversity of opinion or experience. This council would not be elected and would thus have no democratic legitimacy. It would simply be a tool for the minister to appoint her friends, who would receive government largesse and give her advice, which would no doubt be consistent with her pre-existing opinions.

Instead of hiring and paying a council of the minister's good friends to reaffirm the things the government already believes, perhaps it should send these 10 to 18 people out to offer child care services to the many, many parents who still do not have access under its plan. That would be a much better use of resources than yet another Liberal advisory council.

On the substance of the child care issue itself, this is a subject that is deeply personal for me. I have five children, who range in age from 14 months to 10 years. Ten years ago, when Gianna was born, when I first met my daughter, I remember three overwhelming impressions. First, I have never felt the complete onset of love for another person so quickly. In most situations in life, love grows incrementally over time, but when one becomes a parent, a wall of love hits one in the face and overwhelms one completely. Second, I felt an overwhelming sense of responsibility. Bringing my daughter home, I was struck by the realization that this child had no other parents with whom we simply could drop her off when we got tired or did not know what to do. She was fully our responsibility, and for good. Third, as the weeks went on, I began to wonder what in the world I had done with all my free time before this child was born. Before having kids, I thought I was busy, but when she born, I realized I had had no understanding of what busy meant. Parenthood for me began with an overwhelming sense of love, responsibility and loss of time.

Children are expensive in terms of time and in terms of money. In a, sadly, too busy and too materialistic civilization, we count everything in terms of time and money, but these are not the things that really matter. It goes without saying that every minute and every dollar we have spent on our five beautiful children has been worth it. What, after all, could I possibly rather be doing? Children are amazing, and the measure of a good society is most fundamentally the degree to which it values and respects children, so, recognizing the immutable dignity and value of young children, the important question tonight is how a good society ought to provide for the care and education of children.

Parenthetically, it seems a lot of the government's discourse on child care starts from a different premise. When its members talk about child care, they start from what they think will be good for the economy or what they think would lead to increased workforce participation. These are fine things to talk about, but it seems to me to be starting at the wrong end. They always start by talking about what they think is good for adults instead of by asking what is good for children.

As I described, and as I think any parent will identify with, one naturally feels a deep and fierce unconditional love for one's children, which leads parents to want to sacrifice for whatever they think is best for their children. As such, I believe we should build systems of early learning and child care, and of education more generally, that always err on the side of deferring to parents and that leverage the deep, natural love parents have for their children. Do parents make mistakes? Absolutely. Parents get things wrong; I do especially, but in virtually all cases, we can count on parents to have a rectitude of intentions and a willingness to sacrifice for the sake of their children.

Many parents, myself included, choose to involve other people in the process of caring for their children. We involve grandparents, trusted friends and public and private institutions. There are very good reasons for parents to involve other people in the care of their children. Such care allows parents time to earn family income and to have necessary periods of rest, but it also exposes children to other people, experiences, ideas and role models.

I am not here to say what kind of child care or mix of approaches is best, but I would say that parents should be the ones making these decisions with sincere reference to their own consciences and with a love-driven evaluation of what is best for their children and their family. I trust parents to make these decisions. Therefore, I want to build a society and a child care model that allows parents to action the choices that they see are best for their children. If parents cannot access any external child care then we have limited the range of parental choice. If parents cannot afford to have one parent opt out of the workforce then we have also limited the range of parental choice. Right now we actually have both of these problems. We have parents feeling they need two incomes and not able to find desirable child care services.

We should be trying to build a society in which parents can freely make child care choices across the broadest range of options that reflect their own sincere evaluations without any kind of direct or subtle economic coercion to choose one option or another. Let us remove the child care gatekeepers and make it easier for parents to make the choices that they believe are right. A choice is not an end in and of itself but, given the diversity of children in families and the love that parents have for their children, letting parents make unfettered and uncoerced decisions is the best way to provide for the optimal outcomes for children.

While Conservatives have always championed choice in child care and have advocated different kinds of policies towards that end, Liberals have long preferred the one-size-fits-all model of state-subsidized and controlled traditional day care. Their approach has been to fund out-of-home day care centres, while regulating the fees that they can charge but, importantly, the Liberals have actually underfunded their own preferred model. The money cannot keep up with the big promises, even as out-of-control deficit spending already drives up inflation. Since the money cannot keep up with the big promises, we now have a situation in which some families have seen a short-term reduction in child care costs, but many families cannot access funded spaces and also, as a result of the regulated rates, many child care operators cannot afford to do the upkeep or expansion that is required.

Effectively, the government's approach has been to promise an increase in child care as a result of public funding, but instead they have pushed existing providers to lower prices without sufficient replacement funding and are thus, in the long term, undermining the operations of child care providers and threatening even the existing child care supply. The cost pressures that private child care operators are now facing will create a ticking time bomb in terms of actual child care availability as over time they will not be able to grow to keep up with demand and some will have to close.

Notably, there is no means testing associated with this Liberal program. While some parents are better off for now because they have access and some are worse off for now because they do not have access, we do not have any way of knowing if those who have the current access are the ones who needed the access the most.

This program is very poorly designed and even families who see themselves as benefiting in the short term should know that their child care access is at risk in the long term if operators are not able to access the capital that they need. A better alternative to this system would be to empower families and emphasize choice and flexibility without economic coercion, without funding some things and without using tax dollars from other families making different choices to fund families opting for traditional day care.

I just have one additional point I want to make before I wrap up.

Canada's child care policy should reflect the emerging technological reality. When my parents were raising us, my mother faced a sharp and essentially binary choice. Given the nature of her work, she could either continue to work at or near full time, or she could become a full-time stay-at-home parent. The binary of that choice was very harsh but, fortunately, today a smaller and smaller proportion of families face that kind of sharp binary. Technology has allowed an explosion in work-from-home and flexible work arrangements. It has also allowed the dramatic growth of so-called “momtrepreneurs”. My wife runs a web-based family medicine practice, offering appointments at the same odd hours that are most likely to be convenient for the women she serves. This would obviously have been unheard of a generation ago.

Workers and employers naturally have to assess the effectiveness of these kinds of flexible arrangements, but such arrangements do provide many obvious advantages, especially from the perspective of family life. People today still need child care, but they are more likely to want it in different places, at different times and in different ways, in accordance with evolving work relationships and their own considerations of the best interests of their children.

Work and work-life balance will continue to change, I believe, as technological developments continue and are deployed in different ways. The nine to five out-of-home child care model still serves some families, but an ever-declining proportion of the whole. That is why, more than ever, we need choice and flexibility today. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, built for a different technological reality, let us focus on empowering parents in 2023 to make choices that are best for their children and their families.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to say what a joy it is to see our colleague again. I congratulate her on the birth of her son. I know it was earlier than expected. It is a lovely thing to be joined this evening by one of the newest babies in this Parliament family.

I want to say, with all respect, that Bill C-35 does not require that anybody give up on such options as having family members look after their babies. It just makes an opportunity available across Canada to have affordable child care. It does not demand that people accept it.

Does she have any thoughts on that?

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

Madam Speaker, we seem to have delved into the energy sector when we are supposed to be talking about child care.

Nevertheless, I would like to remind the member that the bill reinforces the agreements. The Premier of Ontario signed their agreement. He was the last one to sign, and since signing that agreement, 33 new child care spaces have been created. It is one of the provinces that actively grandfathered in private child care operators and continues to work with them to ensure that there is growth, choice and flexibility within the province.

I do not seem to understand how we have gone from a bill that is aspirational to ensuring that we continue with this, considering the Conservatives ripped up the previous agreements from this time. Now that we are here, there are agreements and Bill C-35 is here, will the Conservatives support Bill C-35?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to rise in this House to speak about Bill C-35. In fact, what we have been discussing today, with very lively debate, is an act representing early learning and child care in Canada. What we have heard in this debate has a lot to do with affordability, and the Liberals and New Democrats have been talking about this a lot. I find it interesting that, despite child care being promised since about the 1990s, the Liberals have finally made a move on it, driven in large part by the affordability crisis that is hitting Canada.

We have first-time homebuyers who are having a very difficult time getting into the housing market, buying a home and starting a family and starting that Canadian dream. We have those who maybe have a house who are struggling to eat. We see that food bank usage is up pretty much everywhere in this country. One alarming rate that was in the news not too long ago was that first-time food bank usage was up, and that is a very startling statistic, when we think about those going to the food bank for the very first time. That is the desperation that is being felt across Canada.

Now we are discussing a child care bill that really would not do anything with affordability. I will kind of explain why I believe that is and articulate, and maybe build on, some of the arguments that were made here tonight in our speeches.

We still have the issue of the labour shortage in the child care spaces, so that is the one part of this very important puzzle that really is not addressed in the bill, and we see that labour shortage is starting to affect many other sectors of our economy. It can be in health care, child care and pretty much anywhere. I think anywhere an employer is, they are probably looking for workers. We need to address that, and it is not being addressed.

We also are looking at the ability to just access spaces that are there. In the bill, priority would go to the public and not-for-profit spaces. There is no room for those private sector spaces that are being created to help alleviate the crises, both affordability and access to spaces. Of course, if we had more choice of public, not-for-profit and for-profit in a competitive marketplace, we would actually find more options. When we have more options we have better choices to make, because competition makes everything better. We would get a better product at a better price with a better service. Everyone tries to improve with that model.

We can even go a bit further with this, in that child care spaces in a competitive market could be flexible to the very unique situations Canadians find themselves living in. Work schedules are not always nine to five. We have shift workers, students and a myriad of challenges that parents have to juggle with, and when we really limit the choices for parents, they basically get what they are given. Whether they like it and whether it works for them, it does not matter, whereas if there are more options and more choice, maybe there would be a day care, and I am sure there are many, that would adjust to the needs of very flexible schedules.

When there is abundance, there is peace. When there is abundance there is choice. The more abundance there is in any society, the happier the population. The less choice there is, the grumpier the population.

When we have the contracting of the economy and we have a space where there are shortages, we always see conflict, and that is why I think we raise this quite often. In all our speeches that I have been listening to tonight, the same points get made. We are hearing from our constituents these exact concerns over and over again, and once the government gets involved in providing a service, other competitors find themselves at a disadvantage. They have to compete against a subsidized environment, and then we start to phase out those additional spaces that are provided by the private sector, leaving only the government option, which as I mentioned just a few moments ago, is rarely flexible and often does not properly service rural communities.

Do not get me wrong. There are lots of providers in my community, and many others across the country, who are absolutely doing the best they can. I have yet to meet a child care professional who does not give their all each and every day. They are some of the best people I have ever met, and they do so because they love their community, they love their job and they want to see young ones grow up and be the best they can be. However, if people cannot access the child care spaces, it is hard to get that learning going.

It has to also be flexible. When the government oversees this level of control where only a certain selected few are getting funded, then basically it is just a proxy of government.

Money will be spent. Results will not be achieved like they could be. When we have a competitive market, we get rapid innovation. Let us think about what has been achieved over our lifetimes and those before ours and the economic prosperity that has been achieved. Things that were once only accessible to the very rich have become very affordable to the vast majority of Canadians, and that is a good thing. That is a great thing. We look back to when people used to wash their clothes by hand. Now, I believe pretty much everyone has a washer and dryer. That is a good thing because entrepreneurs, inventors and creators started to make the things that, at one time, only the rich had and made them affordable for the vast majority of people.

The same can be said for child care. When we have different ideas and different people doing different things, going back to abundance, and abundance equals peace, we can start to have a myriad of differences in the child care space. Again, that is a very good thing.

However, when the government continues to pick winners or losers in the marketplace, we get slower innovation. We see that in the energy sector and we see that in growing sectors with the government picking winners and losers in industries and expecting a better result.

I do not think there is any Canadian who is very happy with the telecom industry. There is no competition in the telecom industry. We sometimes like to pretend there is, but there really is not. People basically get what they are given, whether they like it or not. How is that working out for Canadians? We have some of the highest rates anywhere in the world. Again, when we talk about child care, it needs to include everything.

We talk about our energy industry. The government is contracting that. It has been punishing our oil and gas sector for years, and our mining industry. Forestry is hurting. The government is contracting the energy market, leaving what is available to obviously go up in price. One way it could lower energy costs is to strip away the tax. The other is to add supply. When we add supply to anything, it lowers the price. That is including food and day care too.

Since I am from Ontario, I will read this statistic out here by Ontario's Financial Accountability Office. It projects that by 2026, which is not too far away, there will be 602,000 children under six whose families will want $10-a-day day care, and the province will only be able to accommodate 375,000 of them, leaving about 38% without access. This is a major issue. Going back to what I first mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the labour part of this conversation is left out of this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saskatchewan for her comments tonight. However, I would encourage her to actually read what is available in the public data record on agreements online. Her own province, in 2022, created 1,800 new spaces and 409 new licensed child care spaces in 41 communities. What was a child care desert continues to be an issue, but without this work, without these agreements, those spaces would not have existed. Even more so, by the end of 2023, there will be 4,000 new spaces in 31 urban and rural communities.

The member talked about inclusion. The Conservatives seem to be redefining “inclusion”, but inclusion is very clear. It is about who receives care: those with vulnerabilities, children with disabilities and so on. However, should taxpayer dollars be paying for private entrepreneurship? I do not think so from the public purse. I would like to know, if those issues are addressed, as I have clearly explained, will the Conservatives support Bill C-35?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this place and contribute to this debate on Bill C-35.

The Liberals claim that their goal with Bill C-35 is to provide affordable child care to Canadians. However, what is the point of creating a system of so-called affordable child care if Canadians cannot access it? Since this bill was introduced, we have heard from many individuals, many stakeholders, that the major issue with child care is that Canadians do not have access to it. This bill does nothing to address the issue of accessibility. It is disappointing to families across Canada that, despite the two to three decades of planning to nationalize child care, the government has come up with such a flawed piece of legislation that will do nothing to address the real issues that Canadian families are facing.

My home province of Saskatchewan, for example, has very few child care spaces. Only 17.8% of children from zero to five years of age have access to full-day or part-time child care spaces. It gets even worse when we include children from the ages of six to 12, as only 10% have access to full-day or part-time day care spaces. This bill will not create spaces to address this shortage. As a mom and a grandmother of 11, I understand the importance of having access to quality day care.

While this could have been an opportunity for the government to put forward thoughtful measures to help Canadian families get access to quality child care, the Liberals have failed to do this. Perhaps that is the issue when the elites believe they understand the problems that average Canadians face.

This bill was introduced as a part of the confidence and supply agreement, which sees the New Democrats support the Liberal minority government through to 2025. Despite the ongoing issues plaguing the government, the New Democrats have declared that they will stick by the government through thick and thin, while claiming to hold it to account. It is as though someone were telling people to put out a fire while simultaneously pouring gasoline on it. The bill was a priority for the confidence and supply deal, and it continues the government's culture of mediocrity and ineptitude. If the government had bothered to speak with average Canadian families about child care, again, it would know that the biggest issue is accessibility. We could make child care free, but if people cannot access it, it might as well not exist.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees currently reports that “in many communities there is only one childcare space available for every three children who need it, and waitlists are long.” The lack of spaces in child care is underscored by labour shortages, which we have heard about, and staff burnout. Many child care facilities do not even have enough employees to fully staff existing child care centres, let alone new spaces.

Government estimates also suggest that, by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early childhood workers. We also found, through my colleagues’ work at committee, that the government and its NDP allies are not really interested in helping families to access these child care spaces. At committee, Conservatives introduced an amendment to include all types of child care to ensure that the program was inclusive and reflected parental choice, not political ideology. Of course, this was defeated by the Liberal-NDP coalition as it sought to force an Ottawa-knows-best solution on Canadian families across the country.

Another Conservative amendment sought to amend the national child care council to have representatives from private, home-based providers alongside public and not-for-profit providers. This was supported by testimony from Julie Bisnath, program coordinator for the Child Care Providers Resource Network, who stated, “Championing home child care as a central part of CWELCC would increase access to a diverse array of child care options.”

Despite being a common-sense amendment to address one of the major issues regarding child care in this country, the Liberals and NDP voted it down. One is left to believe that they are intent on imposing their views on Canadians instead of allowing Canadians to live freely and make their own choices for their child care needs.

It seems to me that we may be seeing a pattern here that the NDP-Liberal coalition is not interested in actually addressing the labour shortage, which is the biggest hurdle, as I have already stated, to providing more child care spots to Canadians.

There was another amendment put forward by Conservatives that would directly address the labour shortage. This amendment sought to amend the function of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care and includes supporting the recruitment and retention of a well-qualified workforce and conducting regular engagement. It includes a specific mandate calling for maintaining and understanding available child care spaces, the numbers on wait-lists and the progress made to reduce wait-lists for families. It makes sense. Additionally, this amendment would have required the council to provide an annual report on its progress. That also makes sense if one is serious about addressing the real issues.

Another Conservative amendment sought to amend the reporting clause of the bill to include the Minister of Labour. What a novel idea when looking at addressing labour shortages to include the Minister of Labour in the annual reporting, and that the annual reporting must include a national labour strategy to recruit and retain a qualified early childhood education workforce. This supports witness testimony, which was again heard at committee during the study on the importance of a strong national labour strategy dictating the success of a national child care framework.

Bea Bruske, President of the Canadian Labour Congress, stated, “That would absolutely be an amendment we would support because we know that we need a robust workforce strategy to make sure that we can address the recruitment and retention issues in the sector.”

The Coalition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia, in a briefing note, wrote, “We strongly recommend the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care must...provide an annual publicly available report to the Minister on the work of the Advisory Council in meeting the goals set out in the Act.”

Those two amendments, again, were both voted down by the Bloc, the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners. It is concerning that they may have voted against them just because they were brought forward by the Conservative members on the committee or it could be that the NDP members have forgotten that they are supposed to be holding the Liberal government to account to put forward meaningful and effective legislation. Whatever the reason, voting down these common-sense amendments shows how out of touch their Liberal coalition partners are. Canadians will be stuck on wait-lists for child care for years, if they ever get a spot at all.

Ontario’s Financial Accountability Office projects that by 2026 there will be 602,000 children under six whose families will want a $10-a-day care program and the province will only be able to accommodate 375,000 of them, leaving 227,000, or 38%, without access.

For a government that claims to be feminist, it is not considering the significant impacts that its policies are having on women with young children. Families are diverse and have different needs depending on their circumstances and a rigid, Ottawa-knows-best approach is not going to help them. The lack of spots will have an effect on women in the workforce as they will tend to be the primary caretakers if there are no available child care spots.

This bill does not address the major issues in the child care system that Canadian families are facing across this country and certainly not in my province. Despite Conservative efforts to improve the bill, it is obvious the NDP-Liberal coalition is not interested in seriously addressing these major issues.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Alberta and I have many great conversations here in the House. I was thrilled to hear that he understands how child care is really a great contributor to social growth and the advancement of women. It is certainly something I value.

He talks about spaces, and even in his province of Alberta, 1,800 new child care spaces were created under the program, through the non-profit system. He also leaned into the issue of private care. That is why the Province of Alberta, determining where it had desert spaces, committed to another 5,500 spaces, going forward.

There is a system that needs to be built. The system is being built, and I would like to know if my hon. colleague will support Bill C-35 rather than debate the title of the bill itself.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would also like to send my condolences to the family in the member's riding.

I really appreciated the member's intervention, because he seems to be taking Bill C-35 seriously and not talking only about the motion about the short title.

The bill is especially important for Nunavummiut. I do not know if members have read the Auditor General's report published on May 30 about Inuit children's and youth's rights being infringed. There are many children and youth who are in care, but who also who do not need to be in care. Preferably, Bill C-35 would help make sure that families are able to get the supports they need to use day care, rather than having their children stolen by governments.

What I do appreciate about the bill as well, and I thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for her great work, is that it includes the importance of upholding indigenous rights, because of the inclusion of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the implementation of UNDRIP. I wonder if the member agrees that it is absolutely necessary that we pass Bill C-35 so indigenous children's rights can be upheld.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I would like to join my voice to my colleague's in sending condolences to the Irwin family and to the member's entire community. I cannot imagine the pain they are going through right now.

The member ended by talking about grandparents taking care of grandkids. There is nothing in this legislation that would prevent a family from making their own child care choices. There is absolutely nothing that would change that. However, what I can say is that some of the people whom I have spoken to who are most excited about this legislation are grandparents. They love their grandchildren, but it is a lot to ask them in their golden hour to take care of little kids. When I travelled around this country, not only were parents excited, but grandparents were absolutely also excited about the affordable child care initiative.

I am still not sure. I have asked every Conservative member who has spoken tonight. We are just debating a spurious amendment right now. Will the Conservatives be supporting Bill C-35?

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

Madam Speaker, I love hearing stories about my hon. colleague's children and the great comedian Jim Gaffigan.

When we are looking at the Matthew effect, this is one of the criticisms that has been made of Bill C-35. For those people who do not know, the Matthew effect is where increasing public provision ends up advantaging higher-income rather than lower-income groups. That is what we have seen with the way this legislation is currently written. What does the member have to say about that?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, a lot of us can relate to what it is like to have a baby and that feeling of being overwhelmed, which is why child care is so important and it is so important for families to know they can send their child somewhere that is safe, that is going to provide quality development and education and that their child will be well cared for.

I need to correct the record. The hon. colleague ended by saying that if one has a home day care one is not eligible to participate in this program. That is simply false. In fact, in his own province of Saskatchewan, that is one of the ways it is increasing access to child care, through licensed day homes, particularly in rural areas.

This is typical of the Conservatives, who I am not sure have actually read the legislation or read the agreements, so they do not actually know what we are debating tonight, which in fact is an amendment to the short title of the bill. I have asked every single Conservative colleague here if they will be supporting Bill C-35. I have yet to hear a clear response.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are all hoping and praying for rain, and sending our best, in support of all the first responders who are responding to the tragedy.

It is an honour for me to stand on behalf of my constituents and speak to Bill C-35, the legislation currently before the House. This is a bill that would enshrine in legislation essentially the deals that the federal government has already signed with provincial governments.

It is important, right off the bat, for people listening to know that the debate tonight, no matter how long it goes today or in the coming days, does not actually affect the real-time outcomes among the different levels of government. That is something I wanted to get on the record right away, anticipating some of the concerns and phony outrage that might be manufactured in a few moments from some members from other parties.

I want to start off by pointing out the fact that I have five children. I often get asked what it is like having five children, especially when we went from four to five. Having that fifth child is nerve-racking. Many of my friends and family said four was a lot, asked how we went from four to five and what it was like as a family to experience that. The great Jim Gaffigan, who also has five kids, by the way, summed it up best. He said if people want to contemplate what it is like going from four children to five children, they should imagine themselves drowning and then someone throwing them a baby. I can attest that there is a lot of truth to that.

The difference between a first child and a fifth child is very different psychologically. When my wife and I had our first child, we had all the bells and whistles, the baby monitors and that special mat that monitored everything. At the slightest sound, we would run in and check on Thomas. When the fifth child comes along, it is a little different. Parents are a little more mellow and have experienced more. When I was asked how it was going with baby number five, I would say it was pretty good, that we were getting through the night. We would put the baby down, turn on a fan on in the baby's room and close Mary's door. We would go into our room, close our door and turn our fan on. When people would ask if she was sleeping through the night, we would say we did not know, but we were. That is kind of half the battle being a parent.

I tell these stories because, for those us who have been blessed with the opportunity to have and raise children, it is a lot. It is incredibly rewarding, but it is, at the same time, incredibly stressful. People go through all the normal difficulties of life with bills, jobs and managing different relationships in their lives and then they have this being that is 100% dependent on them as parents. Every moment parents are away from that child, they worry about him or her. They ponder whether they have left their child with the right sitter, if their mother-in-law is going to forget the thing she was told about the medicine at the right time or if their dad is going to think to do the other thing. All those thoughts that parents think of are always stressful.

Child care, of course, is a major preoccupation for parents from all walks of life, from all backgrounds, from all different corners of our wonderful country, so it is not surprising that, as the Liberal cost of living crisis continues, child care costs are one of the stress points in families. As the Liberal government has devalued our paycheques by robbing us of our purchasing power, as it ballooned the money supply, washing $400 billion of new money through the system, completely devaluing the dollars that we work so hard for, it is not surprising that one of the stress points is child care, because it is so intrinsically linked.

For many families, the ability to work, to go out and earn a living, is dependent on the ability to find someone to watch their children, to make sure their children have the care they need while they go out into the world and earn a paycheque. Sadly, under the Liberal government, more and more Canadian families are having to work more and more. They have to pick up extra shifts. I know many people in my riding who have second jobs, who work a full 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and then pick up maybe an 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift at a restaurant or hotel, and they are doing that just to offset the purchasing power that the government robbed them of.

I think back to my science classes when I was going through high school. Every once in a while we would kind of look at the fallacy around a perpetual motion machine, something often seen in tropes in science textbooks when talking about conservation of energy, entropy and things like that. It is pretty much an accepted fact that we could never have a perpetual motion machine. What does a “perpetual motion machine” mean? It means the machine itself provides the energy to power the movement of the machine which then creates the energy that goes back into creating the movement. There is a perpetual loop that the energy created by the machine powers the machine to create the energy in the first place.

One does not have to be a fourth-year graduate student to understand that there is no such thing in the real world as a perpetual motion machine, but in politics there can be. That is the perpetual motion machine of government justifying its continued intervention in the economy or in people's lives. The government taxes families more and more. It devalues the paycheques of the people who pay those taxes, which creates stresses in our society. We are seeing 1.5 million Canadians visiting a food bank, a staggering number in 2023 in a developed G7 country. We all hear heartbreaking stories of families who have had their utilities cut off because they could not pay the increased costs as the carbon tax takes a bigger and bigger bite out of their paycheques and, of course, we see it with child care costs as well. More and more of those take-home dollars have to go to pay the child care providers.

The government comes along after taxing and after devaluing paycheques and says it is going to tax more and spend more to help alleviate the problem that we ourselves have caused. When I say “we” I mean the Liberal government; it is not actually the Conservative government. The Liberal government has caused this dynamic. This is what I mean by the perpetual motion machine. It is continually creating problems through government action and intervention. Then to alleviate those problems, it comes along to tax more and spend more, which creates more problems and unintended consequences down the road. Who could have predicted today in 2023 that some of those terrible Liberal policies of 2015-16 would lead to these massive inflation numbers that we see today, accompanied by staggering interest rate hikes?

The Liberal finance minister finally acknowledged that inflationary deficits cause higher interest rates. Seeing the numbers from the last little bit, we know that in April the inflation rate for Canada went up even after the Bank of Canada took all kinds of measures to fight inflation by increasing interest rates; forcing Canadians to pay more and more of their mortgage payment to the bank for interest, instead of actually paying down the principal. After that kind of news and knowing what the U.S. federal reserve has done raising interest rates, experts are predicting that there are going to be future interest rate hikes coming to Canada this summer.

The reason why I mention all of this is because this might look like it is going to help Canadians. There may be many Canadians looking at this legislation, looking at these child care deals and thinking, okay, my child care costs are getting more and more expensive but at least the government is coming along to help me with that. The point is that the unintended consequences of massive amounts of new spending requiring new taxes to pay for it or driving up inflation will undo any of the benefits that the Liberals are claiming to have today.

I also want to very briefly point out how unfair this is to so many Canadians, so many women across the country who would prefer to raise their own children, to look after their own children, and with the entrepreneurial spirit that they have, decide to become a day care operator and open up their own home, maybe finish their basement or put on an addition to their house so that they can look after children in neighbourhoods in what is being called “day care deserts” which, according to data from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 92% of Saskatchewan is in a day care desert. Rather than facilitate and enable women to become entrepreneurs, to start businesses in their communities, the government has decided to fund one narrow form of day care. That is why the official opposition is raising these kinds of concerns and we hope the government takes these concerns seriously.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House for the second time today, this time to speak to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, which was introduced by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development on December 8.

From the work that we did at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, it is clear that the demands of the Bloc Québécois and Quebec were not heard or respected. Throughout the study of the bill, we heard witnesses talk about how important affordable, quality child care is for early childhood development, for better work-school-life balance, for the emancipation of women and for return on investment in the economy.

Throughout the study, Quebec was lauded as a model. Although it is not perfect, the Quebec model was mentioned many times as the model that should be emulated. However, at amendment stage, when it came time to include Quebec's expertise in the bill, the other three parties dismissed that reality out of hand. The same thing happened with our amendments to include wording allowing Quebec to completely opt out of the federal program with full financial compensation.

The only sign of any degree of openness was when a reference to Quebec expertise was included in the preamble, the only place where these words ultimately have no real impact on the law.

Although Quebec will not get the option to completely withdraw from the program with full compensation, an agreement to this effect had already been reached between Ottawa and Quebec. Senior officials who worked on the bill also repeatedly stated, when questioned on the subject, that while nothing would prevent the federal government from imposing conditions as part of a future agreement, the bill had always been designed with the asymmetry of Quebec's reality compared to Canada's provinces in mind.

The various members of the Liberal government who spoke on the bill also repeatedly said that the Liberals intended to continue working with Quebec on this issue. The current agreement also appealed to Quebec, since it did not interfere in any area of jurisdiction and left the Quebec government free to spend the money wherever it wanted.

With the current agreement between Ottawa and Quebec, and with the government's expressed willingness to continue that collaboration, it appears that Canada does not intend to preach to Quebec on the child care issue, especially since it has consistently praised Quebec's model of early childhood centres. We therefore believe that another bilateral agreement would be possible, probable and necessary, since the government is taking its cue from Quebec.

I presented six amendments in committee that, as I said earlier, would have made it possible to include Quebec's expertise in the bill. I wanted clause 7 to be amended by adding, among other things, the following:

(3) Having regard to the special and unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec relating to early learning and child care in Quebec society and despite any other provision of this Act, the Government of Quebec may choose to exempt itself from the application of this Act by giving the Minister written notice to that effect, in which case that province may still receive the funding under section 8.

The purpose of this amendment was to incorporate a clause that recognizes the expertise of Quebec in the guiding principles of the bill. The adoption of my amendment would have allowed for the recognition of Quebec's jurisdiction and guaranteed Quebec a right to opt out of this legislation with full compensation. The idea is to avoid disputes between Ottawa and Quebec by recognizing from the outset what everyone here knows: Quebec is a pioneer when it comes to early childhood education and must continue to have sole control of its policies in this area.

We know that Quebec adopted a forward-thinking family policy more than 25 years ago. This policy, which can be described as progressive and feminist, has enabled thousands of women and families to benefit from better work-life or school-life balance, specifically through the creation of a network of early childhood centres. This model is an asset and a source of pride for the entire Quebec nation. In fact, it is the inspiration for this bill.

The adoption of this amendment would have confirmed the special and unique nature of the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction over education and child development by giving Quebec a right to opt out completely with full compensation.

Furthermore, this is an exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, and we believe that this amendment, like all the amendments that I moved, would have prevented squabbling between Ottawa and Quebec in the next round of federal investments in this area.

With respect to the same clause of the bill, I moved that the following be added:

Quebec retains sole responsibility for implementing, evaluating and adapting its early learning and child care policies and programs in Quebec, and therefore the Council's functions do not extend to early learning and child care, or any other related activity, in Quebec.

This amendment would have reiterated Quebec's sole jurisdiction in this area. Quebec has no desire to be evaluated or monitored by some council that answers to Ottawa, seeing as Quebec is a pioneer in this area, which falls under provincial jurisdiction. This came at the request of the office of Quebec's Minister of Families.

I also wanted the preamble to recognize the unique and leading-edge expertise of the Government of Quebec in the development and implementation of accessible and affordable educational child care services, that government having developed an innovative child care model in 1997 as part of its comprehensive family policy designed to give Quebec families a better work- or study-life balance, access to generous maternity and parental leaves, and services that are suited to self-employed workers and those with atypical hours of work.

This change in the text of the bill would have been important in guiding actions and interpretations of the bill. My amendment would have enshrined Quebec's historical capacity and expertise in its jurisdiction and family policy in the bill.

Continuing with the preamble, I wanted to read that the Government of Canada recognizes that, because of the special and unique nature of the Quebec government's responsibility for early learning and child care and the fact that Quebec developed educational, accessible, affordable and quality child care services as part of the family policy it adopted in 1997, the Quebec government need not adhere to the multilateral framework, as it intends to retain the exclusive responsibility for this matter in its territory.

The amendment that I presented was important because it would have recognized all the work done by Quebec on family policy and early childhood education over more than 25 years. The Quebec government declined Ottawa's invitation to participate in meetings to develop the multilateral early learning framework for a very simple reason. Quebec is responsible for its areas of jurisdiction and takes full responsibility for its family policy and educational framework. In this regard, it is not accountable to the federal government for its decisions.

As I said at the beginning, when it came time to include Quebec's expertise in the bill, the other three parties dismissed the idea outright. As I have said many times, Quebec is a champion in this field and a model, a model repeatedly cited by several witnesses we heard from at committee, and a model long envied by other provinces and territories.

However, Quebec does not appear once in Bill C-35. If Quebec's expertise and recognition had appeared in this bill, it would have garnered greater support from the Bloc Québécois. That said, we still support Bill C-35 in principle and will be voting in favour of it.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech because it reinforces why Bill C-35 is important when it comes to creating affordable child care, creating accessible child care and creating more spaces.

I know that, when the Conservatives see a big challenge, they just throw up their hands to say, “We should not do anything”, but this government is different. We say, “There is a problem. Let us try to solve it.” We are going to create those 250,000 spaces. We have already created 50,000. We are getting the job done, and we are helping Canadian families.

I have two questions for my hon. colleague.

The member mentioned at the end of her speech that we should support child care in all of its diversity. Her colleagues before had talked about supporting unlicensed child care. I am wondering if she can clarify if they do in fact mean that they want to subsidize unlicensed child care that has not gone through the regulatory process.

Also, the member just said that they support affordable child care. Does that mean they are going to support Bill C-35? Right now, we are just debating an amendment to the short title.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-35, labelled as an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development was reported as saying that the bill would enshrine the “principles that provinces and territories agreed to in the funding agreement [with Ottawa], including [the pledge] to cut parent fees and create more spaces.” I want to emphasize “create more spaces”, which we all know are currently lacking.

The Liberals promised to introduce the legislation by the end of 2022 in the confidence and supply agreement that would see the New Democrats support the minority government through 2025. Conservatives support affordable, quality day care. It is critical. However, if it cannot be assessed, it does not exist.

Bill C-35 does nothing to address accessibility. Bill C-35 is good for families who already have a child care space, but it does nothing to address the thousands of families on child care wait lists or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces.

James and Leah are a young married couple who just had their first child. As new parents, they were both excited and anxious about welcoming their new arrival. They tried to do their due diligence to ensure everything was in place and ready for their new little arrival. Their friends and family advised they start looking for day care immediately. 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. They continue to look and hope something will become available for them before Leah's maternity leave is over and she needs to go back to work. How does the Liberal government expect more women to go to work when there are no child care spots available?

Bill C-35 increases the demand for child care but does not solve the problem of access to more spaces. Families, like James and Leah, are on wait lists for years. Ontario's financial accountability office projects that by 2026, there will be 602,000 children under the age of six whose families will want $10-a-day child care, and the province will only be able to accommodate 375,000. That is a shortfall of 38%, or 227,000 children. The term “child care desert” is often used to reference a lack of or inequitable distribution of child care.

A report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released just this month found:

...child care deserts to be widespread: there were an estimated 759,000 full-time licensed spaces for younger children across Canada in centres and family child care homes in 2023. Of the 1.97 million younger children who might be using those spaces, 48 per cent live in child care deserts.

That means that almost half of younger Canadian children (defined as not yet attending Kindergarten) live in a postal code that has more than three children for every licensed child care space.

The report also examined child care coverage in 50 major cities across Canada and found:

Most Canadian cities have a coverage rate below 20 per cent, meaning that in those cities, there are at least five infants for every licensed infant space. St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Ontario cities of Barrie, Guelph, Hamilton and Brampton, and Saskatoon scored particularly badly, with low availability of infant spaces compared to their population of infants. In those cities, there is less than one licensed space for every 10 infants.

We have heard time and time again that this bill does nothing to address long wait-lists. Bill C-35 is just another in a long list of Liberal promises that they cannot deliver on. This bill does not address the labour shortage. This bill increases demand, but does not solve the problem of frontline burnout or staff shortages. There are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone to staff new spaces.

The government itself projects that by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early child care 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 this. Over the next 10 years, it is reported that more than 60% of the workforce already employed will need to be replaced, meaning around 181,000 will need to be replaced. Once we add those two figures, over 200,000 workers will be required. Currently, 27% of child care centres in British Columbia are forced to turn away children due to a lack of staff.

The committee heard from one child care director who oversees 13 child care programs with 350 spaces. They said that in the past two years, they have had to close programs temporarily, whether for a day or two, or shorten hours of the week in order to meet the licensing regulations. Conservatives know how vital affordable, quality and accessible child care is, not only to family life but also to the growth of our nation. That is why we listened to providers and those on the ground.

My colleagues listened when Dr. Susan Prentice, a Duff Roblin professor of government at the University of Manitoba, stated the following: “One thing I would like to see, for example, would be the national advisory council assured of the kind of information and data it needs, so it can track, for example, progress on strengthening the workforce.”

The Coalition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia wrote to the committee stating, “We strongly recommend the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care must...provide an annual publicly available report to the Minister on the work of the Advisory Council in meeting the goals set out in the Act”. Therefore, at committee, my colleagues sought to amend the function of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care to include supporting the recruitment and retention of a well-qualified workforce, conducting regular engagement, and a specific mandate call—

Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear. I keep hearing another conversation, and I am losing track of my speech.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her thoughtful speech. She put a lot of thought into it.

I want to correct the record on a couple of things, though. The first is with respect to what child care is included in this legislation, as well as the agreements. There seems to be a misconception on the part of the Conservatives that for-profit or home day care is not included. In fact, it is, as long as it is licensed, and that is important to note.

The other part that my hon. colleague brought up that I think is important to clarify is with regard to rural child care. Manitoba and Saskatchewan are doing some really amazing work at announcing new spaces, particularly in rural communities, and we know that child care is not just an urban issue but an issue for families right across this country. I agree with my hon. colleague that this is something that needs to happen, and in fact it is.

Given her support for child care and saying that this is a step in the right direction, I would like to know if she will be supporting Bill C-35.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I hope Canadian women heard that speech, because the hon. member basically said that $6,000 a year in their pocket is scraps. She said that women want to stay home with their children. If they want to, that is their choice, but there are actually a lot of women who also want to have a career. I am sorry she has such an archaic vision of women in this country. I find that incredibly disappointing.

The Conservatives have gone from calling child care a “slush fund” to now calling it a “marketing tool”. I do not know if the member has spoken to the families who are benefiting from this, who are saving thousands of dollars a year, who have called this “life-changing”. The Alberta government has now created 5,500 new spaces since we signed the agreement.

Everything the member opposite said is simply false, but what I really want to know and what I think Canadian families want to know is whether the member is going to support Bill C-35? Will the Conservatives support Bill C-35 and work with us to deliver affordable, high-quality, accessible, inclusive child care for Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will note what I felt was missing from my colleague's speech today when she talked about what was missing from the legislation. She did not seem to mention that licensed private child care providers are actually grandfathered into the agreements in terms of accessibility. In addition, what she admitted when she talked about all child care providers was that they proposed faith-based care, au pairs, nannies and unlicensed home child care. The MP for Battlefords—Lloydminster asked why we could not consider au pairs from Europe. Are Canadians really okay with public dollars going to faith-based care? With all the complaints, my colleague has not really offered a plan. We do have a plan and we are implementing it. Will the Conservatives support Bill C-35?

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that child care is a principal concern for moms and dads across the country. Bill C-35 would establish an aspirational vision for a national child care program in Canada. Unfortunately, that vision is narrow. Child care solutions are not universal for all families. We know that parents rely on diverse forms of care to meet their own family's unique needs, just as all families should have access to child care solutions. It is also important that parental rights and choice remain at the core of our debates and the development of policy in this area.

The rejection of amendments that would have established a vision that was more inclusive and realistic of the child care landscape in our country confirms that this legislation is a marketing tool. It does not bring forward solutions to meet the existing gaps in the system. In fact, the Liberal government intentionally designed the bill to exclude and discriminate against certain child care providers. It would single out public and not-for-profit child care providers, disregarding and devaluing licensed home care providers and small business entrepreneurs. Many of them are women. It would do this despite the reality that these child care providers are critical to achieving universal access. My colleague, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, brought forward an amendment to the committee that would have included all types of child care. It was a change that would have better ensured access to child care and that would have better supported parental choice. Unfortunately, the Liberal-NDP coalition struck it down. It really is a shame.

The reality is that, while affordable and quality child care is great in principle, if a parent cannot access it, then it simply does not exist for them. If access is really a core principle, then limiting already limited resources does not make sense. Across the country, we know there are shortages of child care spaces. As members of the HUMA committee, we repeatedly heard from witnesses about the need for child care spaces across the country. We heard about the long and growing wait-lists to access the existing spaces. The director of Pebble Lane Early Learning, Jennifer Ratcliffe, told the committee, “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....Affordable child care is an empty promise to parents if it is not accessible.” Maggie Moser, director of the Ontario Association of Independent Childcare Centres, told the committee that her child care centre had 147 spaces and 24 half-time spaces. That centre was at full capacity and had 600 names on the wait-list. Sheila Olan-MacLean, CEO of Compass Early Learning and Care, told the committee that each of its centres had about 300 families on its wait-list. Those are just a few examples we heard at committee. The demand far outweighs the need across the country, but we know that in some areas, like those deemed child care deserts, it is even greater. With the existing resources beyond capacity, it defies common sense to limit the program and then create an uneven market that will then only create greater demand at the child care centres captured by the child care agreements.

It is also difficult to understand why the government is so intent on punishing child care providers that fall outside the public and not-for-profit sectors. Entrepreneurs and small businesses are the backbone of our economy and our communities. I again quote Maggie Moser at HUMA committee, who said, “Our...members are mostly women who took a risk and opened up a child care centre. They took out loans and mortgages on their houses. It's very expensive. We're talking hundreds of thousands, going into the millions, to open a centre.” Maggie Moser then went on to say, “Realistically, child care has been needed and it has been provided by these women entrepreneurs who took the risk and stepped up.” Not only does the NDP-Liberal coalition want to ensure these entrepreneurial women are excluded from the development of a national child care program, but it also wants to ensure they do not have a voice at the table.

Another amendment put forward by my Conservative colleague, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, would have ensured that the national child care council included representatives from private and home-based providers, alongside public and not-for-profit providers. This was a very reasonable amendment. It acknowledged the important role all child care providers have played and will continue to play in the development and provision of child care in Canada. The national child care council should be representative of Canada's child care landscape. The refusal to have fulsome representation at the table undermines the work and legitimacy of the council, but the NDP-Liberal coalition again struck down this reasonable amendment.

We also saw the rejection of an amendment that would have directed the national child care council to support the recruitment and retention of a well-qualified workforce, and another that would have required an annual report on a national labour strategy. We heard from witnesses just how dire the labour crisis is in this sector. Labour shortages remain a major obstacle in achieving access to affordable child care spaces. Witnesses were clear that there is a need for a specific workforce strategy and a need for better data and tracking of recruitment and retention efforts. In the rejection of these amendments, it is further made clear that this legislation is not designed to provide tangible child care solutions. The bill would do nothing to address the fact that the current programs are not targeted to supporting lower-income families; in many cases it is lower-income families that are on the outside looking in. Families who already had a child care space in public or not-for-profit care are now getting subsidized care, but everyone else is on a wait-list. If this bill passes, they would still be on a wait-list. This bill would not address the labour shortages in the child care sector. It would not direct the minister or the national advisory council to develop a plan to strengthen the workforce, and it would not present a viable path to creating the necessary child care spaces to create universally accessible and affordable child care spaces.

Like most of the policies and bills we see come forward from the government, Bill C-35 would have winners, but it would also have losers. Some moms and dads would get a boost, and others would get nothing. It is truly disappointing that the government is so unwilling and is resistant to trying to address those inequities. In fact, with the agreements already in place with the provinces, the national advisory council is already formed. What about the refusal to ensure more equitable access? This bill would really only be serving to reinforce the Liberal government's narrow vision for a national child care program and to create divisions. It is disingenuous for the Liberal government to pat itself on the back for creating accessible and affordable child care, when that is not the reality for most Canadian families and there is not a clear pathway to that becoming a reality.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House tonight to talk about, really, such an important topic for me, for the minister and for so many colleagues in the House, including my colleagues across the way. This topic is affordable, accessible and inclusive early learning and child care.

This is a powerful driver of economic growth and social equality. We have heard that from many here tonight. We all know that affordability is a top-of-mind topic, so let us consider early learning and child care through that lens. We have talked about a lot of other lenses until now. I would like to lean into the affordability discussion.

Before I get to that, I just want to take a moment to recognize my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for their tireless work and contributions to this bill. The discussions in committee were certainly fulsome.

Before the early learning and child care agreements with all provinces and territories were finalized, daily child care fees ranged from $20 to $48 a day per child. Those dollars could go a long way in the grocery store, in keeping children active or in other activities. In the year and a half since the first early learning and child care agreement was signed, child care fees have been dropping across Canada, and we are continuing to work hard with our provincial and territorial colleagues to meet our March 2026 goal of $10-a-day, on average, fees for children under the age of six in licensed child care. We are already seeing the results. British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador have achieved 50% in fee reductions.

What does affordable child care mean? It means hundreds of dollars every month in the pockets of Canadians of all income levels. It means money for nutritious meals on the table, as the prices at grocery stores remain high. It means money for clothing and other necessities, which are so important for families.

Carolyn Ferns, the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care public policy and government relations coordinator, put it perfectly. She said, “Affordable child care is life changing for families and for our communities.” She also said, “It is great to see the collaboration between the federal and provincial governments making that a reality for Ontario families”. Of course, it is not just a reality for Ontario families. Rather, it is also a reality for every family in Canada with young children, regardless of who they are, where they live and what their income level is.

I will share just a few of the testimonials parents have taken the trouble to write as they realize the financial relief that affordable child care is bringing to them. One wrote, “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 governments for collaborating on this excellent legislation. It truly puts families first.” Another 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.”

Another parent shared, “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.” It is about that personal impact. We have heard a lot of discussion here, but let us talk about the parents and the families who are talking about what this legislation and these agreements mean to them, family by family, across the country.

Another parent wrote, “'I won't benefit from this as my kids are grown and I remember paying $650/month for day care on a salary of $1,200/month back in the 80s. But I'm so very, very happy that young families are benefiting from this.”

I have just one more to share: “It was absolutely surreal to see my daycare fees drop from a high of $167.25. As of January, we will be paying less than 50% of that, on a path to $10 a day.” That is going from $167.25 a day to $10 a day. It is life changing.

It is clear from these and many other social media posts, interviews and commentaries that families in Canada are actually truly thrilled and, in many cases, astonished that affordable early learning and child care is finally here. The Government of Canada has made a historic investment of $30 billion over five years to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. We have done so in collaboration with provincial, territorial and indigenous partners, all of which deserve enormous credit for their willingness to work together, and I emphasize “together”, to give every child in Canada the best possible start in life. In so doing, they will bring real financial and emotional relief to millions of families from coast to coast to coast.

By the end of last year, child care fees were reduced across the country. By 2025-26, the average fee for regulated child care spaces across Canada will be $10 a day. As families across the country are realizing, there are no losers here. It is a financial win for families, regardless of their income level.

Since 2015, the Government of Canada has delivered real improvements to make life more affordable for Canadians. There is no better example than the progress we have made on this new ELCC system. As of 2025-26, a minimum of $9.2 billion will be provided every year, on an ongoing basis, for affordable early learning and child care, as well as indigenous early learning and child care. The return on this investment for families with young children is obvious, and it is backed by evidence. Of course, we can look to the overwhelming success of the Quebec early learning and child care system, which is now ingrained into the social fabric of that province, and we have much to learn from it.

When we speak about affordability, it is perfectly appropriate to ask whether the country as a whole can afford it. To that, I say the answer is a resounding yes. Actually, we cannot afford not to do this, because this is a plan to drive economic growth and make sure that our families and their children have the best start in life. It is a plan to increase participation in the workforce, especially among many young mothers who want to pursue professional ambitions or further their education to get better-paying jobs. It is one of the many investments the Government of Canada remains committed to; such investments increase our economic growth, the quality of life of Canadians and, frankly, women's equity in the workforce.

Independent studies show that our early learning and child care system could raise the real GDP by as much as 1.2% over the next two decades. Furthermore, a range of studies have shown that for every dollar spent on early childhood education, the broader economy receives between $1.50 and $2.80 in return. That would be a huge return on our ELCC investment. This is money well spent, with the data showing strong social returns from investing in our families and our children.

We are hearing loud and clear how thrilled families are that their governments have joined together to bring them significant financial relief. Doubtless, many are beginning to wonder why we waited so long. It is another fair question.

As other colleagues have said, in passing this legislation, we will be promising the best possible start in life to future generations of children in Canada. We are on the brink of making history, of cementing together these wonderful provincial and territorial agreements into an enduring testament to our commitment to caring for Canadian children, their families and our collective future.

I urge all our colleagues to give a quick passage to Bill C-35.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the passion that is there and I appreciate my hon. colleague's support for child care. Every single one of the issues that she raised is why this legislation is important and why this program is important. All of those issues would be in place if we were not moving forward with it.

In fact, the Conservative plan has been to provide tax credits. Those do not build spaces. Those do not increase wages. Those do not build a system. I hear that the member is saying they are not here to delay. In fact, we are at report stage and the amendment proposed is to delete the short title, so I do not really understand how that amendment to this legislation is addressing any of the issues that the Conservatives are putting forward.

Will the hon. member be supporting Bill C-35? Will you put your words on the table that you support access to child care and actually do it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member who is laughing understands exactly what I am saying. One only needs to read her comments.

I think it is a positive thing that we have been encouraged by the Conservative Party to bring in this legislation. However, from my personal perspective, even if the Conservative Party was supporting the concept of affordable, quality child care, I would still be advocating for legislation of this nature because it is good legislation.

If the Conservative Party was not so far to the right, I would be advocating for it, but with today's Conservative Party, it even becomes more important to have this legislation. I listened to the shadow minister. We do not call them critics; we call them shadow ministers. It is kind of scary when we stop to think about how the Conservatives are going to vote on this legislation. If we listen to the critic, we would think they are going to be voting against it.

I look at that, as I know many of my colleagues do, and ask who they are actually listening to. Obviously it is not their constituents. Instead, they try to give a false impression that this is broken. They then go on to talk about all the day care and child care problems, being very critical of the provinces, which have the responsibility of providing child care systems. I wonder if they have the support of the provinces to rip up things of this nature that we are proposing. I wonder if the provinces are aware of just how critical the Conservative Party of Canada is in regard to the performance of provincial governments across this country and those in the territories, because that is who its members are criticizing. We finally have a federal government, a national government, that has a vision of progress, of moving Canada forward on child care, yet we have a Conservative Party that has an attitude of “No, not here in Canada”. It does not want money being spent, which we hear constantly coming from the Conservative Party.

Yes, there is a cost to this. I recognize there is a cost going into the billions of dollars, and I think that is what offends Conservative Party members at the national level. However, let me suggest that if they open their eyes and try to get a better understanding of both the social and economic impact of a progressive policy of this nature, maybe they will do one of their traditional flip-flops, support the legislation and go against what they campaigned about on this issue. We all know the flip-flop they have taken on the price on pollution. Here is another good flip-flop for them, but a flip-flop in a positive way, where they would be supporting a national child care program. That would be encouraging to see the Conservative Party do.

Let us think of the economic advantage. We would have more people in the workforce. We would be making a more equal playing field. Many more women would be able to plan a career and not need to worry about the cost of day care, child care or early learning. These are the advantages. When they get into the workforce, they will be paying taxes, taxes that in all likelihood they might not have been paying because they did not have affordable child care. It is healthier for the economy.

There are parents who have their children in $10-a-day child care. We talk about other issues in Canada, things like inflation. This is helping families today in a very real and tangible way by putting thousands of dollars in their pockets, yet the Conservatives do not like the idea. They need to really start thinking about how society would benefit. It is not just the family who would benefit; it is everyone. All of us benefit when we have programs of this nature.

Bill C-35, in essence, ensures we will continue to have a national child care program and a national commitment to financing and contributing to the care of children. That is a good thing. I hope the Conservatives will flip-flop on this issue and support it.

I see the member is already standing to ask a question. I hope she will give a commitment to support the legislation. That is the question I would pose to her.

[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 speak to such important legislation. I suggest that what we are talking about this evening is historical legislation. If we take a look at it from the perspective of the Canada Health Act, the Canada Health Act has ensured that we have the health care system we have today. That is the way I look at Bill C-35.

Bill C-35 is a very powerful statement. It is a statement to all Canadians, no matter where they live from coast to coast to coast, that says the government recognizes child care is of the utmost importance. Having a national program will make a difference in a very real and tangible way.

Bill C-35 would put into place an act to ensure early learning and child care is there not only today but for future generations. It ensures that the federal government recognizes that it has a very important role to play. Not only will it be providing money, but there will be a higher sense of public accountability and transparency. It will ensure there is an affordability element to child care, no matter where one happens to live in Canada.

This is something that I believe will make a positive difference, and we have already seen some early results. When the minister talked about the bill an hour or so ago, she talked about the number and percentage of women in the workforce today. There are record numbers in North America. We have more women entering into the workforce than we ever have. That is going to continue to grow. We know that, because we can look at the province of Quebec to see how successful its program has been. We have taken what has happened in the the province of Quebec and amplified it to apply across the country. Everyone wins.

I do not quite understand the Conservative Party's position. It was long ago when we attempted to do this before. That would have been 20 years ago. Unfortunately, the first thing the Harper government did was rip up the idea, the agreements and the thoughts on this. As a result, it set back a generation or two of people who would have received good-quality child care, not to mention what I suspect would have been better wages and resources for child care workers. Because there was no legislative component to this, Stephen Harper had a very easy time destroying it.

Let us flash back to just a couple of years ago, when there were 338 Conservative candidates running around in the federal election. What was the Conservative Party saying then? We did not have full agreement from all the provinces at that time, but even at that point, less than two years ago, the federal Conservative Party was saying that it did not support this and that it would also rip it up. If we contrast the Conservatives with us, it is night and day. They do not support affordable, quality child care.

What we have done since the election is accomplish an agreement with all of the provinces and territories, along with indigenous communities. That means provincial and territorial parties that are not only Liberal. They are Conservative and NDP. When I say “Conservative” I mean Progressive Conservative. I should qualify that because the current Conservative Party is a very far right Conservative Party.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Bill C-35, the Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act.

Let me take this opportunity to first of all thank all of the advocates, experts, parents, child care providers, workers, unions and others who took the time to make presentations or write submissions to the committee. Their passion and their knowledge about quality, affordable and accessible child care shone through and helped us make the bill better. There are too many people and organizations to name, but I am so grateful for their advocacy and guidance.

I am proud that we have emerged from the committee process with an improved piece of legislation. As a result of amendments put forward by the NDP, the bill includes stronger reporting requirements for greater accountability and transparency; more inclusive language that reflects the needs of children with disabilities and those from official language minority communities; recognition that the conditions of work affect the conditions of care; and an amendment to uphold the right of indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent on matters pertaining to their children. This acknowledgement is historic, and it is the first time since the passage of Bill C-15 that it has been enshrined in federal legislation.

This builds on other important provisions included in the original bill, including an explicit prioritization of non-profit and public child care for federal funding, something the NDP fought for and won. Witness after witness made it clear that the research overwhelmingly agrees that non-profit and public child care delivers the best outcomes and the highest quality of care for children.

I hope that after Bill C-35 becomes law, we no longer see federal money being used to expand for-profit child care in Canada, as we saw several months ago in Alberta with the federal government announcing support for 22,500 new for-profit spaces. Public money should be used to expand public and non-profit child care. Public monies need to be invested in public institutions. It is better for workers and it is better for children.

The NDP supports this bill, and I urge my colleagues from all parties to pass it unanimously to show our commitment to supporting children, families, workers and child care providers. This is an important step towards building a permanent national system of $10-a-day child care.

I want to focus my remarks today on a theme that emerged time and time again in committee: We have a child care workforce crisis in this country. Child care workers receive wages that are not livable and benefits that are not adequate. They often endure difficult working conditions. Unless we address these issues, we are putting the success of a national child care system at risk.

Who are these workers? Well, more than 98% of them are women; one-third are immigrants or non-permanent residents; and child care workers are more likely than workers in all other occupations to be racialized. They perform some of the most critical work in our society, providing education during the years most crucial to a child’s development, and yet they are treated as disposable.

The wage floor for early childhood educators in Ontario, for example, is just $19 an hour. It is just $19 an hour for providing essential work. Do members know the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Toronto? It is $2,500 a month. This is outrageous. We are asking people to take on the work of looking after and educating our kids, and then we are not paying them enough to provide for their own kids. It is no wonder that people who trained as early childhood educators are leaving the profession to take better-paying jobs in other fields, or that many people are discouraged from entering the profession in the first place. More than any other factor, this is why we have a shortage of child care spaces across the country.

I know that the fee reductions we have been seeing as a result of the bilateral agreements with the provinces are having a huge and positive impact for thousands of families. I want to acknowledge that; I want to acknowledge that it is making their lives more affordable, but far too many others are stuck on wait-lists and cannot access the benefits of more affordable child care.

We can build all of the new spaces we want, but that means little unless well-trained, well-paid workers are put in place to staff these new centres.

I have often heard the situation in the child care sector described as a worker shortage, but let us be clear: This is not, in fact, a worker shortage; it is a wage shortage. It is a respect shortage. It is a dignity shortage. This shortage of dignity and respect is contributing to the shortage of affordable spaces.

Last week the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a report showing that almost half of younger children, which means those not yet attending kindergarten, live in “child care deserts”, where there are more than three children for every licensed child care space. In Saskatchewan, the number is 92%, and in my own province of Manitoba, it is 76%.

One of the key recommendations the report offers to address this situation is to guarantee decent wages and benefits for child care workers. We need immediate federal investments to provinces and territories to improve the wage grids of their child care staff. We also need this government to put in place a workforce strategy that ensures livable wages, better benefits, retirement security, adequate working conditions, and education and training opportunities.

I want to address the argument I often hear from my colleagues, which is that this is provincial jurisdiction.

We are building a national child care system. Without federal leadership to address this workforce crisis and improve pay, benefits and working conditions, this system will not be sustainable. It is not just workers who suffer from poor compensation; their working conditions are kids’ learning conditions. They are directly tied to the quality of care

The federal government can and must use its spending powers to raise the bar for workers. The Liberals know that they can do this. In fact, in 2021, during the 2021 election, they promised a wage floor of $25 an hour for personal support workers, an area that is also within provincial jurisdiction. Why can they not make the same promise of livable wages for child care staff, who perform different but equally essential roles in society?

We do not have to choose between $10-a-day child care and raising wages for child care workers. We can and must have both if we are going to have a successful national child care strategy. We can and must have both to ensure that kids get the best quality of care and that we are recruiting and retaining the workers we need to create more spaces so that parents can access affordable child care in the communities where they live.

I do not want this generation and the future generations of early childhood educators to have to make the same choice that I made: leaving a profession that I loved because I wanted to pay my bills. I want to live in a country where the work of early childhood educators is valued just as highly as the work of doctors, lawyers, engineers and all other professions.

The government cannot wash its hands of this responsibility. It has a leadership role to play in ensuring that every child care worker in Canada is treated with respect and dignity.

I ask this today of all of us in the House: Let us pass this bill. Let us ensure that the people who are at the heart of the national child care system that we are trying to build, without whose labour there would not be any system at all, are no longer an afterthought.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑35.

The minister began by commending the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for its work. I want to commend the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for the excellent work that she did on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which took many hours. I also want to commend the other committee members for their work. My colleague did a great job, and she asked a very insightful question.

I will digress from the subject of Bill C‑35 for a moment to talk about the most recent budget. In its latest budget, the federal government decided to make the child care program a federal project that would encompass all of the provinces except Quebec. I will come back to that.

At that point, there was already talk about Quebec's leadership, our model and our early childhood education services. I want to specify that we are not just talking about basic child care services but about educational services. It seems as though the other provinces rely on Canada to ensure their social progress, whereas, in Quebec, these are societal choices that we made 25 years ago or more. Quebec made this societal choice to give all children an equal opportunity and to incorporate the early childhood education services policy into an ambitious family policy.

I am hearing talk of how it does not work that way in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and that we need a national strategy for workers. I can see why we are proud of our Quebec model. It has been recognized by the OECD. I myself went on a mission to the OECD regarding child care services and, at the time, Quebec attended with the minister. Indeed, Quebec as a society has chosen social progress. In our opinion, this bill meddles in provincial jurisdictions, and it is the provinces that should be responsible for implementing these social programs. It is not up to the federal government to tell them what to do and come to their rescue.

That said, we can only hope that all children will be offered truly equal opportunities. Education and learning are the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. The government cannot regulate all the social choices made in other provinces. We have taken care of ourselves.

I am especially proud of the early childhood education services. The minister talked about leadership. The Quebec model has been recognized, but my colleague is right: If that model was used then why not include it in the bill? I was a witness in some respects at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Several witnesses in committee witnessed the implementation of the program in Quebec. That is the case for Pierre Fortin, a brilliant economist who worked on this to demonstrate to us that working on equality of opportunity for our children was not an expense, but an investment.

I do not understand why this was not indicated in Bill C‑35 even though there has been verbal recognition of Quebec's work on child care services, as the international community did in 2003. I am talking about the OECD. In the study it did on child care services in Canada, it mentioned that it is “important to underline...the extraordinary advance made by Quebec, which has launched one of the most ambitious and interesting early education and care policies in North America.”

As many people know, Quebec is already investing $3 billion in early childhood education services. There are over 200,000 reduced contribution spaces. This is a public service. It is not a blend of public and private services. Early childhood education services are public services, and parents' contributions are reduced. The cost is even lower than the $10 that will be charged under the federal program. Currently, the contribution in Quebec is $8.85.

When early childhood education services were first introduced, the parental contribution was $5. More than 25 years later, the contribution is a symbolic $8.85. The contribution is the same, whatever the parents' income, because the condition of these services for the zero to five age group is to enable all children, whatever the parents' social status, whatever their socio-economic conditions, to have access to educational services. This is an important difference. Children are not simply being warehoused while their parents work. Children are learning in these environments.

This was definitely helpful in the context of a family policy that saw an increase in the number of women returning to the workforce. It was astounding.

It is all well and good if the provinces or other territories can benefit from this agreement. Everyone agrees on that, and the bill simply confirms it.

The bill should have mentioned Quebec's leadership and its model and followed that model more carefully, not just haphazardly. The government also should have recognized that this bill will not apply in Quebec, not just for the next five years, but for always, because Quebec is the model. Quebec has a no-strings-attached agreement for the next five years. There were not a lot of Bloc Québécois amendments in this model.

The government also should have recognized Quebec's leadership and the fact that the agreement provided for transfers with no strings attached. How can the government impose conditions on Quebec when it is using Quebec's program as a model for its own? That is a big deal for us.

There has also been talk about a national strategy for workers. With all due respect, I can understand. If we want to provide quality early childhood education services, then training for staff, pay and working conditions are all very important, but those are not things that fall under Ottawa's jurisdiction. They are provincial responsibilities. I do not see how the federal government can include training and qualification requirements in salary policies. I understand that the government is making agreements so that the provinces are able to provide as many child care spaces as possible at 50% of the cost in the first year and then eventually at $10 a day. That is the goal. I think that the number of child care spaces that the government is looking at in the rest of Canada is the same as or less than the number we already have in Quebec. I think that the government should have recognized that Quebec inspired the federal program. That must be recognized and it should be recognized in the bill.

We understand that the bill is there to ensure that this is not undone by another government, but it will be up to each Parliament to decide. As soon as the model is put in place, I think this will indeed contribute to reinforcing these services elsewhere. If the government's financial contribution can help provinces define or develop child care policies, so much the better. However, what I can say is that in Quebec, even though we have been using this model for 25 years, the federal transfers or the federal policies on family benefits or allowances have never offset Quebec's fair share of child care costs.

Before entering politics, I was a union leader. I was proud to be there 25 years ago when the education services were implemented. This was done in the spirit of a social dialogue in Quebec. The employers, the departments, the government, the social milieu and civil society were all involved in this big project. I am proud to say that it was the work of the first woman premier of Quebec, Pauline Marois, as minister at the time. This accomplishment is a source of great pride for us.

That is what it takes in social policy.

However, a fundamental question remains. While the federal government has social programs—

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I really hope it is not the case that the Conservative Party of Canada has decided not to support affordable child care for Canadians, because I know that, for the hundreds of thousands of Canadian families for which this has been life changing, it would be so disappointing to know that the Conservative Party of Canada, once again, is voting against and not supporting affordable child care.

We know that, in 2006, one of the very first things the Conservative Party of Canada did when it formed government was to rip up the child care agreements with the provinces and territories. This legislation is particularly important, to make it harder for Conservatives to do that and to make it harder for Conservatives to hurt Canadian families and Canadian children. I am very pleased to say that we have the support of the NDP. I think we also have the support of the Bloc Québécois. We are just not really sure where the Conservatives are.

I will talk about what Canadian families are saying when it comes to affordable child care. They are calling it life changing. I have been across this country, to every province and almost every territory, and what I have heard from Canadian families is that this is a game changer for them. When I was in Nova Scotia, I was talking to a mom in Halifax who said that the 50% reduction in child care fees meant that, when she went to the grocery store, she was not deciding whether or not she could buy chicken. When I was talking to a mom in Toronto, she said that, because of the child care fee reduction, her family was deciding to have a second child. When I was in Vancouver, British Columbia, I was talking to a mom of three who has two kids in child care. She said that she has now put two of her three children into child care, and, because of those fee reductions, she has now gone back to work full time, which is a huge, meaningful change for her family and her family income. When we talk about child care, we are talking about choice. Despite what the Conservatives say, there is no choice if people cannot afford to go to work and to have someone to care for their child in safety and security.

This means, of course, that we are going to make sure there are enough child care spaces, so that every child in Canada who wants a space can get one. That is precisely why we have committed to creating 250,000 more spaces by 2025-26. We have already created 50,000 spaces across the country. That means there are now 50,000 additional spots.

If we had not funded this $30-billion initiative, those spaces would not have been created. Conservatives talk about families who need a space, and that is exactly why we created this initiative. Without the Government of Canada's intervention, these spaces would not have been created because the current child care market does not meet the real needs of Canadians.

As for Quebec, we signed an asymmetrical agreement because we recognize Quebec's leadership in child care. For 25 years now, Quebec has had affordable early childhood centres and day cares for families in Quebec. This has had an impact on the participation rate of women in the workforce. In Quebec, more women participate in the workforce than anywhere else in Canada. We recognize Quebec's leadership, and we have based our initiative on Quebec's efforts and leadership.

Our bill respects provincial and territorial jurisdictions, and we signed agreements with each one of the 10 provinces and each one of the three territories in this country to ensure that they can establish these child care services. We have common goals and Quebec promised to create 37,000 additional spaces with that money. We are here to support Quebec and to work together.

I will just say that, as of December, every province and territory had reduced its fees by 50% across this country, and several jurisdictions, including Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nunavut, have already reached the $10-a-day objective, three years ahead of schedule, which is making a huge and meaningful difference for families in those provinces and territories. Quebec and Yukon had already met that objective, and every other province and territory has been at 50% since December.

When it comes to quality, we know that quality cannot be achieved without a well-paid, well-respected and well-treated workforce. That is why every single bilateral agreement we have ensures that we are working with provinces and territories to bring forward a wage grid to make sure they are working on a workforce strategy. In fact, this summer, I will be meeting with my provincial and territorial counterparts, and the number one thing on the agenda is a national workforce strategy. Absolutely, our ECEs care for our children. They care for our most precious resource, and we need to be there to make sure they have the supports they need. That is all factored into Bill C-35, which would commit the federal government to making sure that we have that accessible, affordable, high-quality and inclusive child care system right across the country.

I will talk about the final pillar. When we talk about inclusion, one of the things that, as a parent, is very challenging is having a child with special needs or special requirements. Not only is it difficult to find a centre that will take their child; it is also difficult to find a child care space that has the requisite supports they need to thrive. One of the key pillars of our child care initiative, and it is here in Bill C-35, is making sure we are building inclusive child care spaces. I have had the opportunity to visit the GRIT program in Edmonton and a program here in Ottawa that have built and created space that is ensuring that children of all abilities and all neurodivergences can be there, can be safe and, most importantly, can thrive.

That is what is exciting about Bill C-35 and its complementarity to the work we are doing in early learning and child care.

I would like to say one more thing. We are a feminist government. Our government is committed to everything we have done for gender equality. We are seeing the results.

This year, we have the highest female participation rate in the workforce in Canada's history. That is due in part to our day care and early childhood centre program. We are seeing the results.

Yes, there is a lot more work to be done. Of course a system cannot be created overnight. However, we are working on it, and I hope to be able to count on the support of every member of the House. It is one of the most most important and transformative socio-economic initiatives to be undertaken by a government, by Canadians.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I am absolutely thrilled to be back in the House talking about Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

This is another important step on the journey to providing early learning and child care that is affordable, accessible, high quality and inclusive for Canadian children right across the country.

I do want to begin by thanking all of the members of the HUMA, who worked so diligently and so hard to get us where we are today, one step closer to making it the law of the land that the Government of Canada will be involved in early learning and child care from now on. Unfortunately, listening to my hon. colleague from the Conservatives, I really do not know where they stand on this. They seem to be quite opposed to affordable child care and to making sure that Canadians have access to it. I hope that is not the case—

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

My question will be fairly short and simple. The Bloc Québécois is known to be a staunch defender of Quebec independence, including its areas of jurisdiction. I get the impression that Bill C‑35 has been tabled in the wrong Parliament. Nothing related to family policies comes under the federal government's jurisdiction. Once again, the Liberal Party is trying to bulldoze its way into the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. This bill shows no respect for Quebec's demands that the federal government stop interfering in its jurisdictions.

Furthermore, the requests of Quebec and the Bloc Québécois were not listened to or respected. When the time came to include Quebec's expertise in the bill, based on its 25 years of experience in child care, all of the other parties, including the Conservative Party, rejected amendments aimed at upholding exclusive jurisdiction and the right to opt out with full compensation.

Does my colleague respect Quebec's autonomy and jurisdictions?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, what my hon. colleague said is really important because it is for all of those reasons that we brought Bill C-35 forward. It is because there was a lack of accessibility. It is because child care was extraordinarily unaffordable. It is because we wanted to ensure high quality care, and we wanted to make sure that it was inclusive for all Canadian children. For all of the reasons that the member outlined, we brought forward Bill C-35. We brought forward the $30-billion commitment over five years to bring forward child care.

I wonder what the member opposite proposes to do without the Government of Canada's involvement and how she would solve any of those issues that existed before Bill C-35, and would be exacerbated and worse without it.

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

moved:

That Bill C-35 be amended by deleting the short title.

Madam Speaker, I am going to start by reading what Melissa wrote to me: “I'm a healthcare worker who works long hours, currently have been trying to find childcare since I found out I was pregnant with no such luck. My son is 12 months July 1st, and I am set to return work July 4th, but no luck with childcare so not sure if I'm going to be able to return.” This is the reality of thousands of emails and messages I have read about Canadians struggling to access child care.

Tonight, we are here to discuss Bill C-35, or the universal child care plan, as the Liberals love to call it. In particular, we are speaking to the report put forth by the HUMA committee that studied this legislation. Conservatives are here, in particular, to ensure the voices of parents are heard.

This Liberal-NDP government loves to tell Canadians that it is feminist. In fact, the preamble of the bill specifically says “gender equality, on the rights of women and their economic participation and prosperity”. How does that help Melissa, the health care worker, in improving her rights, economic participation and prosperity when the choice to go to work is taken from her?

Erin Cullen, who speaks on behalf of ECEs and ABCs in Newfoundland and Labrador, said that there is no choice for families when it comes to child care because there is none available. Erin compared the $10-a-day child care slogan to the government telling people that they get free groceries, but when they go to the grocery store, there is nothing on the shelves.

The numbers tell the story. A report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, or CCPA, highlights the child care crisis. Of nearly two million kids under the age of six eligible for the program, 950,000 are living in child care deserts. That means that there are at least three children competing for one spot. Ninety-two per cent of families in Saskatchewan are living in a child care desert. Seventy-nine per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador are living in a child care desert. Seventy-six per cent in Manitoba do not have access to child care. It is 64% in British Columbia. The numbers do not lie, and the reality is that these numbers are, in fact, real people, real families and real children who are being left behind.

There is nothing more stressful for a parent than finding quality, reliable, safe child care for their child. Affordability is important, but the reality is that this Liberal-NDP government is failing in all areas to deliver.

I will read some of the testimony we heard in committee about the outrageous wait lists. I asked Sheila Olan-MacLean:

Sheila, could you clarify those numbers you said earlier? I asked about wait-lists. You said that there were 300 per program, but there are 40 programs. That's 12,000. That seems outrageous when you only have 3,300 spaces.

Am I doing the math wrong?

Ms. Olan-MacLean replied, “When you think of a program that may have possibly 100 spaces, or less than 100 spaces, and it has 300 to 400 people—some have 600 people—on the wait-list, yes, that's probably pretty accurate.”

This is the reality of what families are experiencing, and it is destroying their mental health. The reality is that parents can expect years on wait-lists, and there is nothing in the bill to correct it.

The Conservatives put forth multiple amendments calling for choice, inclusivity, access, data and accountability, and members of the Liberal-NDP coalition voted them down. They say they care about access and inclusivity, but their actions speak louder on what they really care about, which is pushing an ideology that will decide what is best for people's children. They believe that the government should decide how people's children are cared for.

Members can listen to this story from Alberta, which was shared by Krystal Churcher, chair of the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs, in committee. She said:

I have one child care operator in a rural, under-serviced area of Alberta who has proudly operated a high-quality day care centre for 17 years. She has invested in creating 194 child care spaces for her community. When [she was] asked how she felt [about the program, which is called] CWELCC...she said that she was excited for families to finally have access to more affordable child care and optimistic that it would bring relief to families sitting on wait-lists.

Yesterday she sent a letter to all of her 194 families in her centre, plus 563 families on her wait-list, to notify them that she was closing her centre. After 17 years of successful operation, the viability of her business is gone. With high inflation, fee caps and expansion restrictions on private centres, her centre is financially [blocked]. She has had to make the heartbreaking decision to close a business that she built, because she can't take the financial risk of signing a new lease or investing further into expanding her centre with the unknown of a cost control framework looming. She writes that she is worried that the $10-a-day goal will be at the cost of quality care for children.

These are the decisions facing operators on the ground right now, who are deciding to walk away from something they have proudly created because they can no longer carry the financial burden or because they simply can't agree with the reduced quality of care to bring the costs down.

Where is the gender parity in this story?

Krystal went on to say:

The bill was introduced without adequate consultation with all industry stakeholders and without respecting how the child care sector has evolved in provincial jurisdictions across the country. What we're seeing is a program that has created a demand without the infrastructure to support it, which is causing wait-lists, a two-tiered system and undue stress to families and operators. Women entrepreneurs are facing bankruptcy and closure of businesses that have now lost all their value. The system is, frankly, not equitably accessible and is failing to meet the promises to parents and families. Operators are asking what the real cost is of meeting this $10-a-day goal. Parents are losing choice; the quality of programming is at risk; educators are burned out; and women are losing their businesses.

The Liberal government is the first to tell us that it does not support two-tiered systems, yet this bill would do exactly that.

Ms. Maureen Farris, director of Strath-MacLean Child Care Centre, testified in committee and said:

As I've mentioned, there are so many children who sit on the wait-list and do not have a space, and there are operators who have chosen not to opt into CWELCC and can therefore provide or offer spaces to those families. Yes, that would absolutely create a two-tiered system. Families who could afford to pay for more expensive care would be able to do so, and families who can't may get substandard care, unfortunately.

Nothing addresses the labour shortage, frontline staff burnout and mass exodus from this profession. Again the Conservatives put forth an amendment to fix this, which stated that annual reporting must include “a national labour strategy to recruit and retain a qualified early childhood education workforce”, but, surprise, surprise, it was turned down by the coalition.

This bill is supposed to be composed of five pillars: quality, availability, affordability, accessibility and inclusiveness. However, yet again we have proof that the Liberals want to score political points and are more concerned with marketing a sellable plan than actually offering what it is they are selling. The Liberals moved a subamendment in committee that removed the words “availability” and “accessibility”, which are the biggest issues in child care in this country. Why? Why would they do this? The reality is that Bill C-35 is about as likely to help the child care crisis as it is to win the lottery, because that is exactly what the child care system in Canada is like. Getting a spot is like winning the lottery.

The heartbreaking messages shared in Facebook groups, in the media and to us as parliamentarians need to be heard and they need to be addressed. The Liberal government needs to stop promising what it cannot deliver. It has put the cart before the horse, and the reality is it has failed at affordability, the highest use of food banks. It has failed in accessing housing. Nobody can afford a house. It has also failed in public safety. Therefore, why would Canadians trust it with their children?

Conservatives will continue to fight for those left behind and will not stop fighting for freedom and choice for families to choose what is best for their children.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-35. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

The House proceeded to the 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.

National Strategy for Eye Care Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to see the clock at 6:30 p.m. so that we can begin Government Orders with Bill C-35 at report stage.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Absolutely, and look, the social finance fund doesn't pick specific sectors that it's going to invest in, but certainly child care is one that could take advantage of it as a social enterprise that's reinvesting in community and having a social impact. In fact, as you know, the YMCAs and YWCAs are great examples of how they provide child care through a not-for-profit initiative and then reinvest back into providing social services for their communities. Absolutely, there's an opportunity there.

Perhaps I could reiterate the point that the Canada-wide early learning and child care initiative has four pillars. Those pillars are enshrined in Bill C-35, but they're also enshrined in each of the agreements we signed with provinces and territories. Affordability is obviously an important one, but so too is accessibility. Creating those additional spaces is incredibly important, and it's something that provinces and territories are working on right now.

It's not as quick as doing the affordability piece, because you have to do the hard work of determining where and who is going to provide those spaces, but in just a year and a half, 50,000 additional spaces have been created, and we're working towards that additional 200,000 over the next two and a half years, which is something that would not have been done had it not been for this federal initiative.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Actually, Ms. Ferreri, if we didn't have this legislation and we didn't have this plan, they wouldn't exist either. The whole point of moving forward is that the market has failed.

We hear those families. That's precisely why we put in this $30-billion investment, and it's precisely why we're working with provinces and territories to grow the number of spaces available. I know those families. I meet with them on a regular basis. We want to build those spaces. I hope we can continue to count on Conservatives' support to advance Bill C-35 so that we can deliver on these initiatives for Canadians.

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

I didn't put any words in your mouth. If you're not able to answer any questions on the passport, that's fine.

I guess we could move on to Bill C-35, which is, for many people at home, the child care bill. There's been a lot in the media lately about what are called “child care deserts”. For example, 85% of Newfoundland and Labradorians do not have access to child care.

This is not a child care program. This is a marketing campaign for a lot of parents who are left in these deserts.

There was an amendment. The original wording in the amendment was, “the progress being made respecting that system, including information relating to the quality, availability, affordability, accessibility, and inclusiveness of early learning and child care programs and services and to the access to those programs and services”.

This is the wording of your bill, Minister. In committee, we saw an amendment put forward that removed the words of the key pillars, “availability” and “accessibility”. This is the number one thing we heard from witness testimony.

My question to you is, when did you and your office approve and support the amendment to remove the words “availability” and “accessibility” from the reporting of the progress of the program?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, in relation to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Red Dress Day

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

Mr. Chair, one of the things that I think is really critical in this discussion is giving back the power that was taken away. When we look at victims, the biggest thing is that power is taken away.

We were actually studying Bill C-35 in committee, which is is on child care, and we just wrapped it up today. My colleague for Winnipeg Centre put forward an amendment looking at free, prior and informed consent and giving indigenous peoples the choice to choose what is best for their children, and I could not agree more.

I think that is what we need to do as leaders in Parliament: give back power and autonomy to the indigenous communities. They know what to do. They do not need the government to tell them what to do or how to do it. They know exactly what their people need, and they should be in charge of deciding what is best for their people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

That concludes the clause-by-clause debate on Bill C-35. I thank all committee members for their input and discussion, as well as departmental officials for showing up to answer technical questions on the bill.

With that, Mr. Clerk and committee, the meeting is adjourned.

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

Thank you.

Well, I hope they do support it, because.... What I want to have on record here is that we have supported this. I think it is exactly the thing we are fighting for in this bill. When we look at Bill C-35 and why we supported this amendment put forth by my NDP colleague....

I respect her greatly and I know how fierce she is for indigenous rights. Conservatives believe in the rights of parents to choose what is best for their children, and it is a similar that conversation we are having. This bill continues to have winners and losers, because there are parents on wait-lists who will never have access to this program. These small, entrepreneur-owned businesses are shutting down because they can't afford it.

There was a woman who wrote to me and—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes. It's that Bill C-35, in the preamble, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 2 the following:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to upholding the right of Indigenous peoples to be consulted in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent for legislation pertaining to Indigenous children;

There are a couple of reasons this is important. One is that the committee approved the amendment contained within the bill, which makes it a necessary change.

The other thing is that I know Ms. Reddin indicated that amending the bill by adding “free, prior and informed consent” served no purpose. However, in the framework agreement that was signed, there is mention that indigenous peoples have a right to self-determination over matters impacting their kids. The very definition of self-determination is actually “free, prior and informed consent”, so the framework confirms that.

I'm merely stating what's already stated in the framework. If there was a concern about free, prior and informed consent, then perhaps they should have looked at that when they were developing the framework in consultation with indigenous peoples. In the framework, they recognize self-determination. Again, self-determination is defined as the right of indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent on matters impacting children.

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I want to pick up where we left off.

The Conservatives have been pretty open that we want to ensure that everybody is included in this bill and that children and child welfare are at the forefront of this discussion.

The pillars of Bill C-35 put forth by the Liberals were quality, availability, affordability, accessibility and inclusiveness.

The NDP amendment asked for an assessment of the progress being made respecting that system, including information on the “quality, availability, affordability, accessibility and inclusiveness of early learning and child care programs and services”. That was the amendment they put forth.

The Liberals put forth a subamendment, and it removed two key pillar words: “availability” and “accessibility”. Then we recessed, and it was brought to my attention that they would put these words back in because they were caught for not having them in there.

Mr. Chair, I guess I'm asking why these two words around this bill were taken out in a subamendment. What was the reasoning to remove two of the pillars, availability and accessibility, when we're looking at this legislation? These are the two biggest issues that we see in child care in this country.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

Committee members, we have a quorum and we have the timeline from the end of the last vote in the House of Commons.

Welcome to meeting number 66 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. There will be members appearing virtually in today's meeting.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to make a few comments.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. Those appearing in the room or virtually have the option of choosing to participate in the official language of your choice by using the interpretation icon at the bottom of your screen, and in the room the headset will provide interpretation services for you. If there's an interruption in interpretation services, please get my attention, and we'll suspend while it's being corrected.

As I said, unless there are exceptional circumstances—which we do not anticipate—in order to participate verbally in the meeting, you have to have a House of Commons approved headset. Those members of the committee appearing virtually can participate in all votes in the House by simply indicating yes or no by thumbs up or thumbs down.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee will continue its study of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Today we're resuming a clause-by-clause meeting. As the name indicates, this is an examination of the order of the bill. We're now into our third committee hearing on the bill.

The proceedings are the same. Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number to indicate which party submitted them. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended.

When a subamendment is moved, which is where we're at when we resume, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been done, we will adopt the title of the bill, and an order to reprint the bill may be required. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House.

I would like to welcome, again, representatives from the department who are available to answer technical questions related to the bill. They have all been introduced and are the same departmental experts who were with us from the start of the clause-by-clause review.

To begin, let's go back to where we were when we adjourned the last meeting. We had circulated the language for clarification of the subamendment of Madame Saks to the NDP amendment 5. It's the subamendment to NDP-5. That's where we had closed on Friday when the committee adjourned. We're at the subamendment of Ms. Saks.

Is there any discussion? If not, I will go to a vote on the subamendment of Ms. Saks.

Ms. Ferreri, you have the floor on the subamendment.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We're talking about accountability, and I think my amendment is stronger in terms of forcing accountability on the government.

The other thing—just as an aside to one of the reasons I couldn't support...and am proceeding forth with my amendment—is that we don't have a workforce strategy in place. This is problematic, and it's something that I've been bringing up—that this isn't going to work without a workforce strategy. Unfortunately, they haven't put one on the table yet.

What I'm proposing for this one is that Bill C-35, in clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 35 on page 7 with the following:

16(1) At the end of the fiscal year, the Minister must prepare a report that contains

(a) a summary of information in the Minister's possession relating to the federal investments made in respect of the Canada-wide early learning and child care system during the fiscal year;

(b) an assessment of the progress being made respecting that system, including information on the quality, availability, affordability, accessibility and inclusiveness of early learning and child care programs and services; and

(c) a summary of the advice provided by the Council under paragraph 14(a) and the work of the Council during the reporting period.

(2) The Minister must cause the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Before we go to debate, my role as chair is to ensure that the committee follows the rules and orders that are adopted by the House of Commons.

Having said that, Bill C-35 sets out the Government of Canada's vision for a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. The amendment proposes to allow the government of Quebec to retain sole responsibility for its early learning and child care policies and to exclude Quebec from the functions of the national advisory council on early learning and child care created by the bill.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd Edition states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair, as advised by the legislative clerk, the amendment is contrary to the bill's stated principle of creating a Canada-wide system. Such a council's function would not extend to the province of Quebec; therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. My ruling is not debatable, but it can be challenged.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I propose that Bill C‑35 be amended by adding after line 28, page 7 the following new clause:14.1 Quebec retains sole responsibility for implementing, evaluating and adapting its early learning and child care policies and programs in Quebec, and therefore the council's functions do not extend to early learning and child care, or any other related activity, in Quebec.

This amendment serves to reiterate Quebec's sole jurisdiction in this area. Quebec does not wish to be evaluated or monitored by some council that answers to Ottawa. This area, in which Quebec is a pioneer, falls under provincial jurisdiction. The amendment comes at the request of the Cabinet of Quebec's Finance Minister, and we hope that everyone will support the amendment.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes. Thank you, Chair.

What the NDP is proposing is that Bill C-35 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 7 the following new clause:

14.1 The Minister must, on request of the Council, provide the Council with any information related to the Canada-wide early learning and child care system that is in the Minister's possession and that the Minister is authorized to share.

This was something that came directly from advocates in the field in terms of accountability mechanisms for the minister. This amendment is merely echoing voices from leading advocates in the field.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

This NDP amendment proposes that Bill C-35 in clause 14 be amended by replacing line 23 on page 7 with the following:

(b) consult broadly with individuals and organizations that have an interest in early learning and child care, including parents, the early childhood education workforce, child care providers, advocates and policy and research specialists, on matters relating

That's what we're proposing for an amendment. It's not that I didn't like some of the amendments that were proposed by the Conservative Party, but I felt like it might be a bit overly prescriptive in terms of allowing the council to make those kinds of decisions as specialists in the field. I thought the amendment would give more autonomy to the groups I mentioned.

Our amendment also supports having a report included in the minister's report, so it puts more responsibility on the minister.

I think we're going in a similar direction, but it's stronger.

I'll leave it at that, thank you.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call this meeting to order.

The clerk has advised me that those appearing virtually have had their sound tested and that it's okay to proceed with translation.

Welcome to meeting number 65 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Committee members are appearing in the room and virtually. All witnesses are in the room with us.

I would remind those appearing that you have the option of speaking in the official language of your choice. Virtually, you have the translation icon at the bottom of your Surface. Here in the room, you have translation through the earpiece in your mike. If there's an issue with translation, please get my attention, and we'll suspend while it is being corrected.

I would also like to remind members that screenshots are not allowed at today's meeting. In-person shots in the room while the meeting is proceeding are also not allowed.

I would also like to remind you that if you could give your comments slowly, please, that would be great for the translators to deal with.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee will continue its study of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Today we are resuming clause-by-clause consideration. I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-35.

Members of the committee, we've gone through the particular material. I will go through clause-by-clause. Members who have provided an amendment will proceed to move that amendment when we get to that particular section.

Again, I would like to welcome, from the department, Michelle Lattimore, director general; Cheri Reddin, director general; Jill Henry, director, policy; Kelly Nares, director; and Christian Paradis, director.

(On clause 9)

We will begin. As you are aware, at the last meeting, we concluded and carried up to clause 8, so we will begin with clause 9.

Is there an amendment to clause 9?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me the time to present amendment CPC-2.1. I will try to be quick.

Amendment CPC-2.1 proposes that Bill C-35, in clause 7, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 5 the following:

(3) Federal investments in respect of early learning and child care programs and services subject to an agreement entered into with a province must be guided by the commitments set out in the Official Languages Act, in addition to the principles set out in subsection (1).

Clause 7 of this bill sets out the guiding principles of the funding granted by the federal government for early childhood services. The proposed amendment is critical in that it will ensure that the federal government takes its official languages commitments as set out in the Official Languages Act into account when it grants funding for early childhood services.

Bill C-13, An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, specifically proposes to add a federal commitment to the Official Languages Act to advance learning opportunities starting in early childhood.

To help in understanding what is really happening, I will cite a few examples.

In New Brunswick, the government recently announced the creation of 1,900 child care spaces, 300 of which will be francophone. This means that barely 16 per cent of the spaces are being allocated for francophones, when francophones make up over 30 per cent of the population in the only bilingual province in Canada.

In Nova Scotia, faced with an outcry from francophones, the provincial government decided to reverse its plan, with funding from the federal government, to merge all francophone and anglophone child care centres in the province under a single provincial agency already in existence whose senior management is exclusively anglophone. That would have constituted a violation of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In Ontario, it seems that francophone child care centres will not have access to the provincial funding intended to improve wages in child care centres. Only private anglophone agencies, that pay much less, will be receiving this top-up funding from the province.

In conclusion, I want to cite the example of Alberta. Out of the1,500 new spaces announced recently, only 19 will be reserved for francophones. This means that 0.013 per cent of the spaces will be allocated to francophones in Alberta, when francophones represent over 2 per cent of the population of the province.

I could continue, with examples for British Columbia and Manitoba. Manitoba's history is positive, with the Manitoba government's intentions giving the province a good track record in terms of financial effects.

Members of the committee, I invite you to consider this point. This bill gives us the opportunity to offer the federal government tools it can use to get tangible results when it comes to francophone education and child care services in minority communities across Canada. I think this is important.

As I said at the beginning of the meeting, it is important to have this presence in all bill that come after. This is particularly important now that we have concluded the study on modernization of the Official Languages Act, the new version of which will probably be adopted by the House of Commons very soon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Bérubé.

The role of the chair of the committee is to rule on admissibility of amendments as dictated by House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

My ruling, therefore, on this amendment is that Bill C-35 sets out the Government of Canada's vision for a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. The amendment proposes to allow the Government of Quebec to exempt itself from the application of the bill, while receiving federal funding for its early learning and child care programs and services. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes to alter the terms and conditions for spending provided in the royal recommendation. In addition, the amendment is contrary to the bill’s stated principle of creating a Canada-wide system, since there is no mechanism to allow any province or territory to opt out of that system while still receiving federal funding. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

The ruling of the chair cannot be questioned.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Chair, Bloc Québécois amendment BQ-1 proposes that Bill C-35, in clause 7, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 5 the following:(3) Having regard to the special and unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec relating to early learning and child care in Quebec society and despite any other provision of this Act, the Government of Quebec may choose to exempt itself from the application of this Act by giving the Minister written notice to that effect, in which case that province may still receive the funding under section 8.

I will explain. As you know, the purpose of this amendment is to incorporate a clause to recognize Quebec's expertise in the guiding principles of the bill. This amendment also recognizes Quebec's jurisdiction and guarantees its right to withdraw with compensation from the application of this act. The idea is to avoid arguments between Quebec and Ottawa by recognizing from the outset what everyone knows here: Quebec is a forerunner when it comes to early childhood education and must continue to have sole control of its policies in this area.

In fact, Quebec was in the vanguard when it adopted its family policy over 25 years ago now. That policy, which can be described as progressive and feminist, enabled thousands of women and families to enjoy better work/life or school/life balance, specifically through the creation of a network of early childhood centres. This model is an asset and a source of pride for the entire Quebec nation. In fact, it is the inspiration for this bill.

This amendment therefore confirms the special and unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Quebec government in the area of education and child development, by giving it a right to withdraw completely with full compensation. As well, this is a field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction and we believe that this amendment, like all of the amendments we are proposing, will avoid arguments between Ottawa and Quebec in the future federal investments in this area.

I therefore invite all of my colleagues to vote in favour of this amendment and of recognition of all the work done by Quebec in the last 25 years.

[Cheri Reddin, Director General, Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Secretariat, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Perhaps I can highlight a few things.

First, I'd like to highlight that Bill C-35 does include a strong commitment in paragraph 5(f) to contribute to the implementation of UNDRIP.

I'd also like to underscore that the indigenous-specific references in the bill are grounded in work that was codeveloped with indigenous peoples, including the codeveloped indigenous early learning and child care framework. That work continues through the codevelopment process that's being led through the Department of Justice with indigenous governments to give meaning to the United Nations declaration and its application in Canada, including consideration of FPIC in that context.

From a policy perspective, I would underscore the need to abide by that practice and to not use this legislation to get out ahead of it. I'd also like to underscore that the bill was drafted with the intention of being flexible and being able to catch up with that eventual outcome.

The last thing I would like to note from a policy perspective is that any decision to include FPIC at this time in the clause would essentially be baseless. As a federal official, I have no idea how we would implement that, what measures would apply or what test would apply to ensure that the government was adhering to FPIC obligations.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am here to show the importance that we in the Conservative Party of Canada place on the two official languages. I think it is important that this be reflected in all our legislation.

We have studied Bill C-13, which we will probably be debating tomorrow in the House of Commons. I am not revealing anything that is not already public. I think the importance of the two official languages needs to be specified in all future legislation, and for that reason I am proposing amendment CPC-0.1. I am going to read it.

First, I propose that Bill C-35 be amended by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 3 with the following:child care system, including in both official languages, and its commitment to ongoing collaboration with the provinces, Indigenous peoples and official language minority communities

Second, I propose that it be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 24 on page 3 with the following:nue avec les provinces, les peuples autochtones et les communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire afin

Third, I propose that it be amended by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 3 with the following: taining long-term funding for the provinces, Indigenous peoples and official language minority communities for the establishment and mainte-

In fact, what is important is that when we studied Bill C-13 on official languages, a number of organizations testified about the importance of making sure that our young people in official language minority communities have access to education in French so that our Canada will be bilingual in the future. I stress the fact that this bilingualism relates to French and English, because we have a Governor General who is bilingual but does not speak French. I think it is important to specify this in the bill and to make sure it is reflected in all of the laws of our country, Canada, which takes pride in being a bilingual country.

That is the purpose of the amendment I am proposing. If there are questions, I am available to answer them.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

I want to welcome and recognize Mr. Godin, who will be replacing Mr. Aitchison for today's meeting.

Welcome to meeting number 64 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. All the committee members are appearing in person in the room today. Nobody is appearing virtually.

To ensure an orderly meeting, before speaking, wait until I recognize you by name. You can choose to speak in the official language of your choice by using one of the headsets in the room. If there is an issue with translation, please let me know and I'll suspend while it's being corrected. As well, I want to remind members and those witnesses who may be speaking to speak slowly in order to give the interpreters the opportunity to translate.

As well, screenshots of today's meeting are not allowed. If any technical issues come up during the meeting, please get my attention and we'll suspend while they're being corrected.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee will continue its study of Bill C‑35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Today we are proceeding with clause-by-clause consideration. I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑35.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing the amendment, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member has received from the clerk. Members should note that the amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

As the chair, I will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. If at any time you are unsure, please, you can always call for a suspension while you get a chance to establish where we're at.

Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

I would like to welcome representatives from the Department of Employment and Social Development, who are available to answer technical questions related to the bill: Michelle Lattimore, director general, federal secretariat on early learning and child care; Cheri Reddin, director general, indigenous early learning and child care; Jill Henry, director, policy, indigenous early learning; Kelly Nares, director, federal secretariat on early learning; and Christian Paradis, director, federal secretariat on early learning and child care.

Again, welcome to the committee.

We will now proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑35, which you have before you.

My understanding is that there are no amendments to clauses 2 through 4.

(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 5)

I understand that there is an amendment on clause 5.

Mr. Godin.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's perfect. The YMCA is currently the largest provider of non-profit, licensed child care. In your brief you mentioned that it's critical for Bill C-35 to prioritize non-profit care. Do you agree that the federal investment should focus on an expansion of public and non-profit child care services, rather than those that are private and for-profit? If so, why?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

As well, the YMCA submission talks about how the language in Bill C-35 should be strengthened to better recognize the federal government's role in supporting early childhood educators.

Would you support amending the bill so that it clearly commits to supporting decent working conditions, livable wages and benefits as one of the principles guiding federal investments in the system?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much. I couldn't agree with you more.

Madam Cicek, I'm a huge fan of YMCAs across the country. I am blessed to have one in my riding, in fact, with an early childhood education centre right in it.

The YMCA Canada submission in regard to Bill C-35 states, “Without a dedicated pipeline of new ECEs, Canada will not be able to meet the demand or fulfill the expansion goals within the agreements.”

Expanding on the question I just asked, how significant do you believe low wages, insecure working conditions and inadequate benefits are in contributing to the child care workforce crisis?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses here today for our study of Bill C-35. All the testimony we heard today was moving. Ms. Harim's was was also very touching and personal.

I'm now addressing all the witnesses. We talked about the support some families need, about problems related to labour and attrition, various needs, problems in terms of potential quality, and available spaces in child care centres. I want to remind you that Quebec is a model for child care services. With all that in mind, what would be the most important thing to add to the bill?

[Sibel Cicek, Director, Government Relations, YMCA of Greater Toronto]

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to join you here today. I'm Sibel Cicek, and I'm here representing the YMCA of Greater Toronto.

The YMCA of Greater Toronto has more than 300 child care program locations serving children ages 0 to 12 and their families. We're also part of an Ontario network and a network across Canada. Together, YMCAs have 88,000 licensed child care spaces, making us the largest providers of non-profit licensed care across the country.

Our 55 years of experience in child care have taught us that accessible, affordable, inclusive and high-quality child care is essential to healthy child development, positive family outcomes, the participation of women in the workforce, and the strength of our economy. That's why we proudly signed on to the Canada-wide early learning and child care plan. It's also why we fully support the passage of Bill C-35.

I have three key points I want to touch on today. First is the need for consistent and predictable funding. Second is the need to support and compensate our workforce fairly. Third is the need to ensure equity and inclusion as we roll out the plan.

To begin, with funding, we are really pleased to see a commitment to sustained and ongoing child care funding at the federal level in this bill. Our recommendation is that funding be explicitly described as annualized and tied to the licensed, regulated system of child care. We also welcome mechanisms for ensuring that child care funding provided to operators reflects their true costs.

YMCAs, like other operators, are experiencing challenges with shortfalls as a result of frozen fees, the impact of inflation and inconsistent approaches across the country. This makes it difficult to forecast and plan. We know there will be bumps in the road—we're certainly feeling them—and we welcome additional foresight to ensure operators remain financially stable so that we can sustain our current operations and, in fact, also think about expanding and improving the quality of the programs we're delivering.

Second, when it comes to the workforce, I would also echo what I think you've heard here today; early childhood educators are the backbone of our child care system. We need to ensure that they are well-trained and fairly compensated for the valuable work they do. The CWELCC system will not succeed without them.

As fees for child care go down, demand is going up, and it's going up fast. In Ontario alone, the province estimates that we will be short 8,500 ECEs at the time of full implementation. Our own modelling at the YMCA indicates that we will need almost 3,500 ECEs to expand our capacity by just 20%.

Frankly, it's not just expansion that's an issue. The workforce shortage of ECEs is in fact challenging our current everyday operations. We currently have 420 vacancies for our ECE positions open in Ontario, which challenges our ability to keep our current programs stable. Without a dedicated pipeline, we can't meet current demand, let alone fulfill the expansion goals of our agreement.

We urge the federal government to work together with our provinces and territories to formalize a consistent wage grid that compensates ECEs fairly and ensures that the system can effectively recruit and retain them.

Number three is equity and inclusion. When it comes to equity in the system, we also want to ensure that safeguards are in place. If we fail to expand the new child care system in an equitable manner, the families that currently have child care spaces will be the only ones that can access the benefits. This means that families that could not afford licensed child care before CWELCC will still be prevented from accessing the program, because they will simply not be able to find an available space.

We also have much work ahead to ensure that children with special needs can be supported and included in the program. This will require more resources for staffing and support.

We urge the federal government to work together with provinces and territories to ensure that all decisions related to expansion going forward are made with an equity and inclusion lens.

Finally, if I may add one additional point, it's our need to support our six- to 12-year-olds. Anyone with kids will tell you that learning and development does not stop at age six and that families continue to need support managing the high cost of before- and after-school care for their older children as well. Although this is outside the scope of this bill, we would love to see more attention on this important age group, so that older children can have the same access to affordable high-quality care as their younger siblings.

To close, I want to reiterate that the YMCA supports Bill C-35 and continues to be a committed partner in realizing the Canada-wide early learning and child care plan. We support the establishment of a national advisory council, and we welcome ongoing formal and informal opportunities to continue to consult with all levels of government to ensure our continued success going forward.

Thank you.

[Jennifer Ratcliffe, Director, Pebble Lane Early Learning]

Good morning.

My name is Jennifer Ratcliffe. I am the director and owner of Pebble Lane child care, a private child care facility that operates care programs in British Columbia. I have been in the care industry for 20 years and have experienced working with not-for-profits, the Surrey school board and various other child care organizations.

I come before you today as a witness to Bill C-35 an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. Thank you to the members of this committee for giving me the opportunity to be here.

The pandemic showed us a child care crisis like never before. We saw how quickly a lack of available child care spaces can affect our country. This experience led to the creation of a national funding program and the realization that without adequate child care, people cannot work, pay bills, buy food and ultimately live. If the child care industry stops, even for one week, it becomes a national emergency.

A large majority of families live paycheque to paycheque, and a few weeks without being able to access child care leads very quickly to social and economic issues. A national funding program is exactly what our industry needs to support families and children. I believe our future lies in the strength of the generations that come after us, and it is our job to pave the way.

The delivery of the funding program is key. There are four major concerns that this program must address correctly in order to ensure long-term success. Each of these concerns is linked, and they affect one another. They are funding and inclusion, affordability, accessibility, and qualified and suitable staff. Funding programs must include all types of care, working toward one common goal.

I ask that the wording in proposed paragraph 7(1)(a) include “all licensed types of care”. All licensed child care spaces are required to follow the same regulations and uphold the same quality standards, regardless of business model. This allows quality standards to be consistent.

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.

Recently, increases to funding have been made to reduce the cost to parents. However, the delivery of this funding has been extremely complicated. The approval process takes months, and there is little to no support or communication to answer questions. Providers are subsidizing the government and going into debt to discount their parent fees while they wait for funding. Operators feel as though they are taken for granted.

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 have written to our government in B.C. many times, asking for help and guidance. I have never received a response.

We need our governments to support us. We need access to new spaces funding and funds to develop quality programs for the families we serve. Funding needs to be consistent, and the application process needs to be more straightforward to allow the creation of new spaces.

The vast majority of child care centres in our country are built from a lifelong commitment to caring for families and children. The women who create these facilities from the ground up have a passion and drive like no other, and they deserve recognition.

If you want a successful child care program, there needs to be drive, inspiration and passion. The work we do with children is very specific and cannot be replaced with a one-size-fits-all approach. A national child care program must be inclusive. There is simply too much demand to do it any other way if it is to be successful.

We need to work together to create quality licensed facilities and step away from the titles that separate us. Our country's core values are built on supporting others and ensuring equality. This funding program should be nothing less.

Thank you.

[Maryam Harim, Director, Tiny Hoppers Early Learning Centre]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of Parliament. Good morning.

My name is Maryam Harim. I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to Bill C-35. I am a registered early childhood educator who is currently working as the director at Tiny Hoppers, Newmarket South. I was an immigrant who came to Canada 30 years ago, and I started my career as an educator by volunteering at a child care centre.

Today, I stand here in front of you as a woman who raised her three children single-handedly, while working full-time in child care and going to night school. Back to 29 years ago, I was on a wait-list for subsidized child care for my first child. After my maternity leave ended, I was paying through the nose for child care. All the money I made at that time went to child care.

I had my second and third, and I was then approved for a subsidy. All the money was going straight to child care fees. I was on the wait-list, and I kept waiting until my third one was born.

It was a lot of pressure on a single mom, especially when all of my money was going toward child care, food and shelter, leaving aside any extracurricular activities that I wanted to send my children to, like ballet lessons, karate, basketball and swimming lessons.

Bill C-35 is a universal child care bill that is made to be flexible and accessible to all families of young children. I'm really grateful to whoever finally brought this across, because I'm happy that.... Yes, I suffered as a young woman back then, but my children won't. These families, whom I have been taking care of for the last 30 years, are not going to be suffering. They will actually benefit, because children need the kind of care that we've been giving, and they deserve it. They do not deserve to get through it with a second mortgage because they can't afford it.

I've been there and done that, and I'm really happy. It brings tears to my eyes when I look back at my years, but I'm extremely happy for what has gone through.

The idea is to give children the respect and care they deserve in child care in Canada. This is not a winning or losing game. We are all here, collectively, to advocate for the little lives and the future of Canada. As child care workers, we are committed to and focused on the well-being of the children in our care.

As a parent, it has made me very happy for my own children that they won't have to suffer the way I did back then in my days. They won't have to take out a second mortgage to be able to send their children to day care.

However, as an educator, adviser and director at Tiny Hoppers in Newmarket South, I am concerned. Will the government continue to support us forever? I am all in for Bill C-35, as long as the teacher-to-child ratios do not change and we provide the same quality care that we have been giving for the last so many years.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Welcome back.

The committee will resume its study of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. To assist the interpreters, I remind all members and those appearing virtually to please introduce yourselves when speaking and to speak slowly so the interpreter has the ability to fully grasp what you're saying and interpret it.

You can choose to speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available. For virtual participants, use the translation icon at the bottom of your Surface. If there is an issue with translation, please get my attention and we will suspend while it is being corrected.

Please address all comments through me, the chair, to ensure an orderly meeting, and wait until I recognize you. Also, please, no screenshots or camera shots are allowed in the room while the meeting is proceeding.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to begin our discussion with five minutes of opening remarks. We have Jennifer Ratcliffe, director of Pebble Lane Early Learning; Maryam Harim, director, Tiny Hoppers Early Learning Centre; and Sibel Cicek, director of government relations, YMCA of Greater Toronto.

We will start with Ms. Harim for five minutes, please. You have the floor.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

My first question is for Monsieur Lacasse.

You spoke about the importance of self-determination in regard to children, and I actually could not agree more. In particular, with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we know that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is mentioned 15 times. Central to that is self-determination.

I share that with you because I think that on matters related to children it's critical that indigenous people have free, prior and informed consent, particularly because of history, but also because of ongoing issues around having self-determination over our children. In fact, we just had a case in Manitoba that ended up on the news yesterday.

In your submission, you said that Bill C-35 could be improved by recognizing the right to self-determination of indigenous people and how it should contribute to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People by affirming first nations jurisdiction over child care services.

The NDP is putting forward an amendment to strengthen the bill: that under clause 6 it be amended so that it's “programs and services that are culturally appropriate, that are led by indigenous people and that respect the right of indigenous people to free, prior and informed consent in matters relating to children.”

Do you think that's an important amendment?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like the to thank the witnesses for being here. Bill C-35 is very important for our children.

Mr. Lacasse, I enjoyed your fine presentation on first nations, the Inuit and the Métis. I'd like to know what the current relationship is between Quebec's ministère de la Famille and the communities. In addition, what sort of agreement is there on the delegation of powers between the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission and the ministère de la Famille?

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

That will deeply impact our rural communities.

One of the things that's really interesting in the brief you submitted to the committee is that you said, “All public, not for profit and private licensed providers are bound by the same provincial licensing standards, yet Bill C-35 discriminates against private licensed providers and the families that rely on them.”

You spoke a lot about discrimination in this bill, intended or unintended. Can you expand on the discrimination you see and the quickest way to fix that?

I don't mean to rush you, but I have only a certain amount of time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today to discuss Bill C-35, a valuable conversation to ensure we are helping as many Canadian families as possible and putting the child first, at the nucleus of this discussion.

I'll start with you, Mr. Mitchell.

One of the things you said is a major concern to a lot of parents who are experiencing this. It is that currently only a third of all children have spaces. In the data you've provided, you are predicting that will get worse.

Do you have the research on the numbers that the wait-lists are expected to grow to?

[Patrice Lacasse, Manager, Early Childhood Services, First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission]

Good morning, everyone. I'd like to thank the committee chair and members for having invited us to come and speak about the realities of indigenous first nations.

I acknowledge that we are in Wendat territory. In fact the commission's offices are located in the community of Wendake. As for me, I'm an Innu from the community of Uashat Mak Mani-utenam.

I represent the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission. The organization's mission is to help the communities meet their health, well-being, cultural and self-determination objectives. The commission is covers several sectors, including health and social services, research, social development, and child care. Needless to say, all these sectors contribute to the well-being of children. The commission was established in 1994 by the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador. This body gives it mandates, whether for the secretariat or policy matters. The commission also receives mandates from its board of directors, whose members are the directors of health and social services in the various communities.

With respect to Bill C-35, the main recommendation in the brief submitted last month was about developing a distinct act for indigenous early learning and child care. In this presentation, we will discuss elements that could considerably improve what has been put forward in Bill C-35. The goal is to better address the specific needs and realities of the communities. Even though the bill recognizes the needs and realities of each community, we feel that these are underestimated, whether in terms of access to services, geographical realities or the importance of language and culture.

As for indigenous self-determination, one of the basic principles is the decision-making authority of the first nations. This authority should rest with the first nations. Employment and Social Development Canada's indigenous early learning and child care programs, IELCCs, affirm the right to self-determination and the right to control, conceive, execute and administer an IELCC system that reflects our needs, priorities and aspirations.

There is nevertheless a paradox. The former Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, acknowledged the jurisdiction of first nations and indigenous people with respect to child services. We are therefore asking why Bill C-35 or some other act specifically for indigenous people, might not acknowledge this jurisdiction. Canada also recognizes the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and has been working to implement it in its statutes. The government acknowledges the self-determination principle in the IELCC programs. However, the jurisdiction of the first nations and the Inuit over child care is required to implement these programs as effectively as possible. These powers need to be restored to the first nations.

For the implementation of the IELCC programs, the communities recently distanced themselves from the usual methods. Indeed, it was only last year that the organization signed an agreement with Employment and Social Development Canada. In order to show consideration for the powers of the communities, we recommend local coordination and mobilization. Early childhood is everybody's business, and not the preserve of a single sector. We would like to promote decompartmentalization. We have been straitjacketed for too long by certain programs. We would therefore like a development plan based not only on conditions, but also needs. The idea is to make sure that the measures introduced are aligned with children's needs, and also their environment, by which we mean the family and the community.

I'll stop there, because I've run out of speaking time.

[Beth Deazeley, Registrar and Chief Executive Officer, College of Early Childhood Educators]

Thank you. Good morning.

As the registrar and CEO of the Ontario College of Early Childhood Educators, I'm honoured to join today's panel and to provide our insights on the proposed legislation.

Our college is responsible for regulating the profession of early childhood education in Ontario, with a mandate to establish registration requirements, ethical standards, requirements for continuous professional learning, and a complaints process to ensure that the interests of children and families are prioritized and protected. Our work also includes maintaining a comprehensive public register of our members. This scope of regulatory activity is unique, and it does not currently occur in any other jurisdiction in Canada.

In recent years, we've helped raise the profession's standards by implementing a mandatory sexual abuse prevention program for educators, by providing guidance on the inclusion of children with disabilities, and by recognizing that acts of racism and discrimination by educators constitute professional misconduct.

Our membership data report shows over 60,000 early childhood educators currently in Ontario, with nearly an additional 30,000 registered at one time during the past 15 years, but who have now left the profession. This kind of data is valuable when considering workforce challenges, and isn't collected by any other organization.

While we acknowledge the importance of all the principles in Bill C-35, we wish to emphasize that measures intended to support the affordability and expansion of child care spaces should not compromise the quality of early learning in child care. We believe it's vital to safeguard against policy solutions that may focus on increasing access in the short term but exacerbate longer-term systemic problems that impact quality.

While there's no universally accepted definition of quality, what research has demonstrated is that qualified and well-supported educators are the most significant contributors to early years programs, resulting in better outcomes for children and families.

We're concerned that the proposed legislation does not sufficiently reflect the importance of ensuring a qualified and well-supported workforce. The concept of professional educators includes not just minimum standards of qualification but also an ongoing obligation to practice in accordance with standards, to put the interests of children and families first, and to continue development opportunities throughout a professional's career.

Our first request is for the inclusion in the legislation of a fifth guiding principle that clearly articulates the need for a workforce composed of qualified, professional, well-supported educators. This would help to ensure that funding and policy initiatives focus on supporting and developing the workforce.

Ontario, like many other provinces, is facing a workforce crisis in child care. While high numbers of educators enter the field each year, people leave at nearly the same rate. To address this, it's necessary to focus first on retention by addressing systemic issues—including working conditions, program resourcing, compensation and lack of opportunities for professional growth, which are contributing to attrition—rather than overemphasizing mechanisms to increase recruitment of new educators.

Our second request is for the opportunity to participate in the work of the national advisory council. As a unique organization with data-informed insights about the profession, the college's inclusion on the advisory council would help to maintain standards for professional educators, ensure that data inform decisions, prioritize the public interest and help maintain quality in the Canada-wide early learning and child care program as it's implemented across jurisdictions.

Thank you for the opportunity to join you today to provide our perspective. We look forward to collaborating on this critical work, and I'm happy to answer any questions from the committee.

[Peter Jon Mitchell, Program Director, Family, Cardus]

Thank you for the invitation to appear this morning, and thank you for the work of this committee in support of families across Canada.

Cardus is a non-partisan think tank dedicated to clarifying and strengthening, through research and dialogue, the ways in which people, institutions and governments work together for the common good. I direct our family program at Cardus, which explores how to strengthen family stability.

Child care is the care of a child, regardless of who provides that care, whether a licensed provider, an in-home caregiver, a neighbour or relative, or a parent who forgoes income. Statistics Canada data shows that Canadians rely on diverse forms of care to meet their needs.

Bill C-35 supports only a limited number of care options. The bill enshrines inequitable treatment of families, based on the type of care they use. Canadian data and international examples show that higher-income families are more likely to access subsidized licensed care as compared with lower-income families. There are better and more equitable ways and options to support the care needs of Canadian families. However, should Bill C-35 proceed, I recommend three amendments.

First, paragraph 5(e) should reflect that parents and guardians have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of their children. Parents are best positioned to make the care choices for their children. In the brief that we submitted to the committee, we provide wording that reflects the phrasing found in article 18 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the same article from which clause 5 of the bill draws its inspiration.

Second, paragraph 7(1)(a) discriminates against licensed independent operators in favour of public and not-for-profit providers. This discrimination harms families and hampers the government's own goals. This discrimination contravenes an earlier statement in the bill supporting the importance of flexible early learning and child care programs. Many of the agreements prevent funding intended for space creation and growth from going to licensed independent providers who are currently serving Canadian families.

This discrimination hampers accessibility. Currently, there are only enough licensed spaces for about one-third of Canadian children under the age of six. The aggressive space creation targets within the Canada-wide agreements are proving difficult to achieve. In the first year of its agreement, Saskatchewan exceeded its space creation budget, only to achieve 37% of its space creation target. The Financial Accountability Office of Ontario estimates that in that province, 25% of families with children under the age of six who want a highly subsidized space will be unable to access one. It is very unlikely that space creation targets will be met without independent licensed providers.

Third, clause 16, regarding annual reporting, must be strengthened. The desire to report on progress within the bill should be applauded, but clause 16 should be more specific. The federal government collects detailed financial data and progress towards targets from the provinces annually. The agreements in most cases state that provinces “may” report progress to the public. To my knowledge, only two provinces have publicly reported on the progress made during the first year of their agreements within the timeline specified in their agreements. One way to remedy this is to strengthen the federal reporting requirements within the bill, requiring the federal government to release detailed expenditures and progress towards stated targets for each province. How well are families being served by the Canada-wide program?

Caring for vulnerable populations, such as children, is complex and expensive. We should be striving for higher levels of accountability. Child care is the care of a child, regardless of who provides that care. We should strive for policy options that treat families fairly and offer true flexibility to families as they select the care that best meets their needs.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 63 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members will be attending in person in the room, as you can see, and virtually, online.

Before speaking, and to ensure an orderly meeting, please wait until I recognize you by name.

You have the option of speaking and participating in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available in the room, where you can use the interpretation earpiece. Online, at the bottom of your Surface, you can choose French or English audio. If there is a problem with interpretation, please get my attention, and we'll suspend while it's corrected.

Please, for your benefit, screenshots are not allowed of the meeting today, in the room or virtually.

Also, if you do not have a House of Commons-approved headset, you cannot participate in the meeting verbally. If you're a member of the committee, you can participate in the voting format by simply indicating, but I will not recognize you to participate verbally.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee will continue its study of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Everybody's equipment has been tested, so I would like to welcome our witnesses, beginning in the room with Mr. Peter Jon Mitchell, who is the program director at Cardus. From the College of Early Childhood Educators, we have Beth Deazeley. From the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission, we have Richard Gray, manager, and Patrice Lacasse, manager. Mr. Lacasse may be the one participating, because I believe we have an issue with Mr. Gray's audio.

Each of the witnesses will begin with five minutes this morning. We have one round of questions, so there will be six minutes for each of the parties.

We'll begin with Mr. Mitchell for five minutes.

I would ask the witnesses to please stay within the five-minute time allotment so that we can get our questions in.

Mr. Mitchell, you have the floor.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Ms. Moser, what do you feel needs to be added to Bill C‑35 as a priority?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Flaherty, is there anything else you'd like to see added to Bill C‑35?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

Ms. Hiscott, you spoke earlier about the importance of including certain definitions in Bill C‑35. Could you elaborate on that?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to everyone today for your testimony on Bill C-35 and child care in Canada.

Ms. Moser, I'll start with you.

Can I ask you about your current wait-lists? How many child care centres do you oversee? How many spaces are there? How many parents are on wait-lists?

[Marni Flaherty, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Child Care Federation]

Thank you.

I speak to you today as the interim CEO of the Canadian Child Care Federation, an organization representing child care affiliates and members from across Canada. It is Canada's largest national non-profit charitable organization supporting child care in research and policy.

Since 1983 we have been giving voice to the knowledge, practice and passion of early learning professionals and practitioners across Canada.

I know my time before the committee today is limited. The federation has submitted a detailed written submission on recommendations for your committee's study on Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. Today I would like to focus on a key point.

The current child care landscape in Canada is a mix of private, public and not-for-profit operators. The government has made it clear that all new growth in child care should be primarily in the not-for-profit and public sector. The federation strongly endorses publicly managed child care.

All regulated child care services must be organized, funded and delivered in a way that puts the best interests of children and families first. This should be the core requirement for all services that receive public funding. Child care is a public good that brings significant benefits to all of society in much the same way that our more developed public education and public health systems do.

We are in the early days of this rollout. This is a huge transformational change in that it will take time to collect data, build a system, and ensure recruitment and retention strategies for early childhood educators. Our ECEs are the backbone of this system.

The federation welcomes a transformational change. Why? It is because today early childhood education in Canada is an uneven patchwork. It is unavailable in many communities; wait-lists are long; the quality of programs is uneven; and for many parents, quality licensed child care remains unaffordable and not accessible.

We would further recommend that within Bill C-35, funding be explicitly described as annualized and tied to the licensed, regulated system of child care, which includes centre-based and home child care. We applaud the government for their commitment to a national plan. Let me be clear: The federation believes in and supports Bill C-35.

We recommend that there be deeper consideration and directions in two areas—workforce development and quality for children.

Let me speak to workforce, our ECEs.

The success of the new plan is possible only with a well-trained, valued and compensated early childhood educator workforce. This includes educators working in centre-based and licensed home child care, a critical and often poorly understood part of the child care system. 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.

We need to establish national standards for competitive wages and national education and credentialing standards for ECEs. We also need foreign credential recognition that supports high-quality programs and accelerates the entry of newcomers who are trusted and able to work in Canada.

I would like to highlight three more very important points.

One, the federation believes in the critical importance of language in the proposed act to ensure accountability through the annual federal public report on progress.

Two, the federation would like the act to clearly stipulate that there be Canadian-based early learning and child care research across a range of disciplines and methodologies. We need research into many areas, including early learning and child care for immigrant children, for children with special needs, for children from official minority language communities and for indigenous children.

Three, we support the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care and enshrining this advisory body into law.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about Bill C-35. The Canadian Child Care Federation fully supports this critical piece of legislation. We believe in the goal of the federal government to provide a Canada-wide quality and affordable early learning and child care system. The federation and all the early childhood professionals and practitioners we speak for look forward to continuing to do the work together with our government partners to realize the transformative system for children and families.

Thank you for your time.

[Kim Hiscott, Executive Director, Andrew Fleck Children's Services]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before this committee.

I am the executive director of Andrew Fleck Children’s Services, which is a multi-site, multiservice, not-for-profit agency here in Ottawa. This commitment to early learning is something I have dreamed about for decades, and the generational, long-term influence on children and families will support Canada beyond what we can even imagine.

I echo the comments from others that Bill C-35 can be strengthened by adding a robust, clear definition of “early learning and child care”.

Andrew Fleck Children’s Services has been around since 1911. We have a license capacity of over 3,000 spaces in our group sites and home child care. When we shared with our families that our fees would be reduced, the relief was palpable. We heard stories like this:

We haven't been able to save for a house since my child started daycare, it was almost as much as my rent. We thought we definitely would not be able to afford having another child either. This will change our lives so very much that we finally don't have to feel like we are drowning just to have quality care since we could not afford to stay home either.

However, as you know, affordability is only one component of respecting early learning and child care in Canada. I would like to focus on what else we need to pay attention to, including appropriately compensating and supporting early childhood educators, the expansion of not-for-profit licensed child care and the modernization of licensed home child care. I submitted a brief that expands on these points.

For decades, not-for-profits have kept our parent fees as low as possible to support families and the affordability of licensed child care. This came at the expense of the dedicated individuals working with children and those who support them. With 80% to 85% of our budgets attributed to compensation, we know that employees have subsidized the sector, and we are now experiencing the consequences of this approach. Not only are fewer individuals interested in obtaining their credentials; committed, experienced educators are leaving for other opportunities.

We have models in Ontario, and likely elsewhere, in which the role of an early childhood educator has been appropriately evaluated through a robust job evaluation process comparing the scope, breadth and depth of responsibilities of the role with comparators. It is appropriate and necessary to look to post-secondary institutions and municipalities that directly operate licensed child care and replicate their compensation packages, including benefits and pensions.

Factors that inspire early childhood educators to remain in the sector, such as programming time, professional learning, etc., are also necessary, alongside appropriate compensation, but not instead of. Other current or proposed solutions to address our labour crisis without addressing compensation are destined to fail.

There are already numerous examples of programs that are not at their allowable license capacity due to the lack of available employees, and the problem is expected to get worse. As we look to expand access to early learning, we know that finding qualified employees will be our biggest barrier. However, being optimistic and expecting that compensation issues will be addressed, we know that the expansion of our services will be necessary, because our current waiting lists are already very long.

I urge the government to strengthen its expectations that all federal investment should be focused on expansion in the not-for-profit sector. Public funding must be viewed as an investment to create long-term sustainable community assets. A federal lending program—either directly or through a third party—that not only offers financing at reasonable lending rates but also supports not-for-profits through the complicated construction or leasehold negotiation process is also necessary.

Not-for-profits can and will expand. They can be and are responsive to their communities, and they often work with other community agencies, such as services for seniors or housing, to the greater benefit of neighbourhoods.

Now I'll move to the modernization of licensed home child care.

Currently in Ontario, there are two options for home child care: licensed and unlicensed. Both include the individual provider being self-employed, but only licensed care includes oversight, monitoring and CWELCC eligibility so that parent fees are affordable.

With its flexibility of hours, including evenings and weekends, licensed home child care must be a component of a national system and may be the most viable option in smaller communities.

The licensed agency model is key to supporting quality. The federal government should separately and in great detail review compensation options that agencies can offer to these small business owners, including how to access benefits and while ensuring that providers are able to retain their self-employed status.

If we do not embrace licensed home child care, the agency model and self-employed providers, we will be perpetuating a two-tiered system in which families who can choose centre-based care because the operating hours fit with their schedules will have access to affordable child care, while those who need the flexible hours offered by home child care won’t.

It's likely that jobseekers will make choices based on affordable access to child care, meaning that we may unintentionally exacerbate a workforce crisis in some sectors due to the lack of child care access.

The Canada-wide early learning and child care plan is, overall, a welcome direction for our country and for all Canadians. It makes sense that it will take conversations with all of us—including those directly delivering services—to get this right. Bill C-35 is a positive direction. Let's make sure it has the teeth needed so that all expectations can be met.

Thank you.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Racine and Mr. Dupuis, earlier, we spoke specifically and respectively about sections 8 and 11. In your opinion, what's the most important amendment you would like to see in Bill C‑35?

[Jean-Luc Racine]

I would also note that the first point raised by my colleague Mr. Dupuis is very important. We have looked at many previous studies, from 2017 to 2021, and found that, without a funding commitment, the provinces' investments are next to nothing. So a commitment is always necessary.

Consider British Columbia, for example, whose government has made a $52-million commitment to indigenous peoples. We are very happy for them, but for francophones, the government has only committed to holding consultations.

That is why Bill C‑35 must include strong provisions relating to funding and respect for minority communities.

[Alain Dupuis]

In our brief, we propose seven amendments, but I will focus on two of them in particular.

The first pertains to clause 8 of the Bill C‑35, regarding funding commitments. It is very important that we add a provision stipulating a financial commitment to official-language minority communities. Too often, and not just in the case of early childhood, but for all programs for which there are federal transfers to the provinces and territories, the services are not actually offered because no budget or quota has been set on the basis of demographic weight.

Let us consider Mr. Racine's example, where francophones in New Brunswick account for 33% of population, but have access to just 15% of child care spaces. The federal framework legislation must stipulate a funding commitment for a number of places that is at least equivalent to the demographic weight of francophones. That said, so few places have been available to francophones over the years that there could be some catching may be needed along with a greater investment based on demographic weight.

The second amendment pertains to clause 11 of Bill C‑35, relating to the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care. We would like at least 10 of the 18 Council members to represent francophone minority communities. The Council must consider the reality of francophones outside Quebec, since it is responsible for providing a framework for all future transfer payment agreements.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Dupuis or Mr. Racine.

In Winnipeg, I represent a community called Winnipeg Centre, which is right next door to St. Boniface. We have an absolutely rich Franco-Manitoban community, which in fact is very much tied to the Métis community of Manitoba, and certainly the French language. The way it's been maintained in St. Boniface, which is very much an Anglo city, is pretty marvellous.

How can Bill C-35 be amended to better reflect the unique child care needs of official language minority communities, or even language minority communities?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses who are here at HUMA to discuss Bill C-35. There's a lot to learn and a lot to take in and consider as we strengthen this bill and try to close the gaps.

I'll start with Ms. Bisnath.

I found your testimony quite interesting. I know there have been a lot of parents crying publicly, both metaphorically and literally, because they cannot access child care. They've likened getting a space in $10-a-day child care to winning the lottery.

You talked a lot about the way the bill, as currently written, is non-inclusive. There are kind of winners and losers. That's perhaps an unintended consequence of the bill, but it's what's happening. If you don't have a spot, you just don't get access to child care. We've had multiple families sharing that they actually cannot go back to work. Women actually can't go back to work. It's actually hurting women more than it's helping women.

You spoke about women entrepreneurs, winners and losers, non-inclusivity and including everybody in the choice. One of the major push-backs I hear is concern that children are not for profit and that by opening up this bill to include everyone, people will profit from children.

Can you expand on that concern from some people in the sector?

[Marilou Denault]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the committee members for inviting me to take part in your study. I am Marilou Denault and I am the Senior Advisor for Communications and Public Affairs at the Observatoire des tout‑petits. I am accompanied by Christa Japel, associate professor with the Départment d'éducation et formation spécialisées of the Université du Québec à Montréal, who will be answering your questions along with myself.

Today, I will share with you the Observatoire's two biggest concerns about the current situation in Quebec, which highlight the importance of some of the bill's guiding principles. We believe it is essential to ensure the quality of services offered throughout the network by using quality standards that are scientifically recognized, and also to improve access to good quality child care services for the very young and the must vulnerable. I will now explain in more detail why these are concerns.

Our first concern is to ensure the quality of services offered. Studies show that child care services can have a beneficial impact on child development and help reduce gaps in development between children from more privileged backgrounds and those from lower-income backgrounds when they start school. However, in order to see that positive impact, child care services have to meet certain quality standards. Given the haste to create spaces in order to meet the needs of families, we would like to remind you of the importance of using recognized quality standards that have been documented in scientific literature.

Currently, two things could, in our opinion, threaten the quality of services that we offer very young children. Firstly, the required training for educators seems to have been reduced by measures that are meant to help ease staffing issues. I am referring to qualified temporary replacement staff, who only need to complete 25 of the 91 training units on childhood education techniques. And yet studies show that educators who are better trained are more sensitive to the needs of children interact more with them and provide better care and a variety of educational activities that are age appropriate.

There is also the issue of staff turnover, which has come out as one of the main concerns of parents in Quebec in a recent study done by the Institut de la statistique du Québec. Studies show that children who have been exposed to more frequent staff changes interact less with adults and will get lower scores in language skills tests.

Our second big concern is improving access to services for the most vulnerable children. We all know that many children are waiting for a space, indeed in Quebec alone 32,000 children are currently on waiting lists. We believe that some children are worthy of special attention, i.e., children from underprivileged backgrounds, children of immigrants and those that have special needs. These children are doubly vulnerable, because they are the ones who are living in conditions that are more difficult and would benefit more from quality child care services. Unfortunately in Quebec, these are the same children that often find themselves in daycares where the services are of lesser quality. These children and their families face geographical, financial, linguistic and administrative hurdles, to name a few. For example, services are sometimes not adapted to the needs of a handicapped child, or opening hours don't meet the needs of a parent who has an atypical schedule and works evenings and weekends. We believe it is essential to take these hurdles into account within existing daycares, but also for any new spaces that will be created.

We would also remind you that working within the community and with community organizations are proven strategies that allow us to better reach vulnerable families. These families have difficulty accessing child care spaces, which means their children change daycares often, which has an impact on the quality of the relationship that the children develop with the educators, the sought-after stability that is very important for a young child. Moreover, according to a survey done in Quebec, once these children reach school age, those who have been to three or more daycares are more likely to be vulnerable.

In conclusion, we hope that the challenges described today will be taken into account by the committee in its study on Bill C‑35. I would like to finish by highlighting the need to invest in the development of nonprofit services over the next few years. The networks that will be set up by the provinces must also have quality indicators and provide proof of the efficiency of the strategies used to reach vulnerable families.

Thank you very much.

[Jean-Luc Racine, Representative, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

Why are we lacking early learning services in French? The Commission nationale des parents francophones has submitted a brief to the committee which lays out the problem and recommends some solutions. Basically, the problem lies with the agreements signed with the provinces and territories providing for a national child care program. These agreements do include language clauses, but the provincial and territorial action plans are vague and don't provide much of a framework for access to child care in French.

We are therefore seeing situations such as the one in Alberta, where only 19 out of 1,500 new child care spaces will go to the francophone community. In New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province, only 300 spaces out of 1,900 will be set aside for francophones.

As it is currently drafted, Bill C‑35 will worsen existing systemic inequalities. We know that that was not the intention of Parliament nor of the government. We know that you want what is best for our children. That is why we are counting on the committee's collective wisdom to make the seven amendments to the bill that we recommend in our brief.

Our three main requests are the following: recognizing official language minority communities in the preamble, the definitions and other parts of the bill; including in the funding guidelines specific provisions for the establishment and expansion of child care services in French in nine provinces and three territories, excluding Quebec; and providing for representation of minority francophone communities on the national advisory council. These amendments will give a voice to francophones in all their diversity and ensure that francophones will be taken into account when decisions are made concerning early childhood services.

The federal budget that was tabled a few days ago explicitly recognizes that our two official languages are not on an equal footing and that the demographic weight of francophone minority communities is being eroded. Thanks to this bill, you, as parliamentarians, have the ability to change the situation for an entire generation of francophone children. It is vital that you seize the opportunity.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 62 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

The clerk has advised me that sound for everybody appearing virtually has been tested and we're good to go.

Again, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person and virtually.

Before you speak, I ask you to wait until I recognize you by name. For those appearing virtually, please use the “raise hand” icon to get my attention.

You have the option of speaking in the official language of your choice. If you're appearing virtually, you'll see the icon at the bottom of your surface. Those in the room can use the earpiece. Translation services are provided.

I remind all members to speak slowly for the benefit of the interpreters so that they can understand. If there's a loss of interpretation, please signal me to get my attention. We will suspend while the situation is being clarified.

I would also like to remind you that screenshots or shots in the room are not allowed during committee meetings.

Bill C-35 is an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee will continue its study of Bill C-35.

I would like to welcome our witnesses for their opening five-minute statements. I ask that you recognize the five-minute period.

From the Child Care Providers Resource Network is Julie Bisnath, program coordinator.

We will be hearing Mr. Alain Dupuis, Executive Director of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, as well as Mr. Jean‑Luc Racine, a representative.

From the Fondation Lucie et André Chagnon, we have Marilou Denault, senior adviser, who is appearing virtually; and Dr. Christa Japel, representative.

We will begin with Madam Bisnath for five minutes, please.

Madam, you have the floor.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Okay, sure.

Would you support adding more clear language to Bill C-35 that one of the guiding principles guiding the federal funding ought to be supporting an early childhood education workforce that has decent working conditions, livable wages and benefits?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Okay. Thank you so much, Madam Sarangi. I actually have another question for you.

Do you agree that Bill C-35 should be amended to include an explicit commitment to supporting decent working conditions and livable wages and benefits for child care staff as one of the principles guiding the federal investment in the system?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Are there other diversity-related considerations that could be added to Bill C-35?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here with the committee.

Ms. Gawlick, we hear about the huge challenges experienced by families in rural and remote regions when it comes to accessing child care.

What should Bill C-35 provide, in your opinion? Do you think it should provide targeted support for families in rural or remote regions to meet their needs?

[Dr. Christopher Smith, Associate Executive Director, Muttart Foundation]

Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today before the committee in respect to Bill C-35.

My name is Christopher Smith, and I serve as the associate executive director of the Muttart Foundation. I'm joining you today from Treaty 6, which is the traditional ancestral territory of the Cree, Dene, Blackfoot, Saulteaux and Nakota Sioux peoples, as well as the traditional home of Métis peoples.

The Muttart Foundation is a private charitable foundation based in Edmonton, Alberta, whose funding interests and charitable activities include early learning and child care. Over the past two decades, the foundation has conducted research and convened and supported stakeholder consultations on the organization, financing and delivery of early learning and child care. We have undertaken this work in collaboration with governments, public institutions and civil society partners. Consistent with our charitable purpose, the foundation undertakes its work in support of the public benefit and in a non-partisan way.

The foundation's most recent early learning and child care work has two main areas of focus.

First, the foundation continues to work with a range of partners to advance the educational preparation, working conditions and compensation of early childhood educators. Despite a large body of research that highlights the foundational role professional, well-qualified educators play in the delivery of high-quality child care, early childhood educators across Canada remain underprepared, poorly supported and underpaid for their important work. The primary reliance on market-based approaches for the funding and delivery of child care has profoundly undervalued the work of early childhood educators. It has further resulted in governments historically struggling to recruit and retain the qualified educators they need to deliver high-quality child care.

The second focus of the foundation's work is on the roles local governments can play in the planning, management and delivery of early learning and child care. In those countries with well-developed, mature early learning and child care systems, local governments play central roles in ensuring that services are responsive to community needs, that they commonly support and deliver child care, and that they play active roles in making sure that services are developed where they are needed most and delivered in ways that advance public interests.

At present, in much of Canada outside of Ontario, local governments play more limited or discretionary roles in support of child care. The potential exists for this to change, with the appropriate support from the senior levels of government.

With respect to Bill C-35, the foundation commends the federal, provincial and territorial governments on their historic agreements to work collaboratively to transform Canada's early learning and child care sectors into systems that are more publicly funded, managed and planned. The commitment of the federal, provincial and territorial governments to work together on advancing early learning and child care has been a long time coming, as has the commitment of the necessary public funding to ensure that every child has access to high-quality child care.

The foundation also offers its support for the federal government's agreement with indigenous governments to advance early learning and child care for indigenous children and their families in ways that are distinctions-based and self-determined. This agreement is consistent with Canada's commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and provides a basis for responding to the calls to action set out by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

The foundation views Bill C-35 as an important step in the longer and larger process of building the high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care systems that Canadian children and their families want and need. The bill affirms and reflects the collaborative nature of early learning and child care system building within the Confederation, and establishes the federal government's long-term commitment to the transformational change necessary to elevate early learning and child care as a public good.

The proposed commitment under clause 16 of the legislation to annual reporting on progress in system building is central to both maintaining public trust and ensuring the most effective use of public funds. This reporting should, therefore, be to Parliament, and it should provide parliamentarians—and, by extension, Canadians—with the opportunity to review and assess the work undertaken in support of system building.

Thank you for the opportunity to present today.

I look forward to your questions.

[Emily Gawlick]

When early childhood education is understood and operated as a commodity to be purchased by consumers in a competitive market, early childhood education is reduced to an economic transaction without consideration of educational values and purpose. From this perspective, early childhood educators are viewed as technicians only within a model of cost efficiency and minimum universal standards.

ECEBC supports the development of the national advisory council and the importance of the council to be accountable, to work with academics and educators, and to ensure we co-create a system that is not limited to a service but provides an educational space that all Canadian children deserve.

Current research asserts social policies and narratives that maintain our profession as gendered, racialized, marginalized and positioned as a secondary market force. However, we know that early childhood educators are much more than those narratives. Educators practice with ethical commitments as they co-construct lively curriculum with children.

For generations, the education of early childhood educators has evolved to reflect the diversities of children and families. Educators, who are predominantly female, have for too long shouldered inadequate working conditions, low wages, a lack of benefits and minimum professional recognition. During the global pandemic, it was highlighted how fragile the current funding and processes are, and how imperative it is to move forward to create a new Canada-wide social system that embeds a wage grid, higher post-secondary standards and healthy working conditions.

With federal leadership, a system can be developed that includes a fair wage grid that is reflective of education and experience and provides benefits for the workforce. Bill C-35 needs to ensure that the complexities and the pedagogy of this work is recognized, and that it holds provinces accountable for creating a system based on children's rights.

ECEBC is encouraged that this enactment honours indigenous rights and jurisdictions. We must demand this acknowledgement, identify and overcome barriers created by colonial systems and structures, and align our practices accordingly. We support and acknowledge that first nations, Métis and Inuit have autonomy. We commit to learn, listen and act in our ongoing work to decolonize our own practices, perspectives and professional education. ECEBC encourages everyone to make this commitment alongside us.

In my 30-plus years as an early childhood educator, I'm elated to see the investment and commitments from the federal government in the early years. Research has shown the importance of strong, ongoing investment in a public, not-for-profit, licence-based model. Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care, takes a progressive leap forward in recognizing this through the lens of a child's right.

ECEBC is committed to working in partnership to ensure that this bill fosters a system that attracts and retains highly qualified early childhood educators and represents the diversity of Canada.

Thank you for allowing me to speak today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Welcome back to the committee. We'll resume the study of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

To assist the interpreters in their work, I will remind all members to speak slowly. That way, they can interpret properly.

You may choose to speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available in the room with a headset and for those appearing virtually by using the translation icon at the bottom of your screens. You have the option of speaking in the official language of your choice. If interpretation services issues or technical issues arise, please get my attention and we will suspend while they are being corrected.

I also will remind all members who are appearing virtually that screenshots are not allowed.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to begin our second round, where they will speak for five minutes.

I will advise you at five minutes and ask you to conclude your comments, because our time is running tight.

We have with us Leila Sarangi, national director at Campaign 2000; Emily Gawlick, executive director, Early Childhood Educators of British Columbia; and Christopher Smith, associate executive director with the Muttart Foundation.

We will begin with Ms. Sarangi for five minutes, please.

You have the floor.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Olan-MacLean, I spoke about a workforce strategy.

Do you agree that Bill C-35 needs to more directly acknowledge the workforce crisis? Would you support including an explicit commitment to supporting decent working conditions, livable wages and benefits as one of the principles guiding the federal investments in the system?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Lainé.

With the passing of Bill C-15 in the last Parliament, the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was affirmed in Canadian law. That includes article 3, relating to the right of self-determination. We know that central to the right of self-determination is the respect for the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples.

Would you support an amendment to Bill C-35 to ensure the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples on matters pertaining to indigenous peoples, yes or no?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I think Val-d'Or is an example, because the services are beneficial for young children. However, under Bill C-35...

[Dr. Susan Prentice]

The committee itself is off to a good start with a representative committee. I'd make a plug for more researchers, but that's inevitable.

What seems especially important to me is that the committee is supplied with the resources and data to permit it to make a thorough and robust evaluation of the progress toward the objectives of the framework and the act, so that it would be able to report it to the minister and to report publicly to Canadians.

I have some concerns that the legislation as proposed is not robust enough to fully empower the national advisory committee to be able to undertake this work. At this point, I think it's a secondary problem.

I'm going to make the observation that what's before us today is the legislation. It has a very narrow focus, and it's quite different from the kind of implementation that will roll out across the country with provinces, territories and indigenous governments. As much as I've wanted to speak to implementation, I'm trying to speak directly today to Bill C-35, specifically.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for accepting the committee's invitation. I will take this opportunity to also thank the interpreters, whose work is important for us all.

My question is for all the witnesses.

In your opinion, are there things that it is important to add to Bill C-35?

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

Could I get you to table that for the committee, Sheila? It would be very beneficial to see those numbers for the wait-list. That would be great.

I'm curious. Could you tell me whether you feel Bill C-35—this legislation—has improved wait-list times and access to quality child care?

[Amélie Lainé, Director, Partnerships and Programs, Regroupement des centres d'amitié autochtones du Québec inc.]

Kwe, hello.

My name is Amélie Lainé and I am the Director, Partnerships and Programs, at the Regroupement des centres d'amitié autochtones du Québec. I am also a member of the Wendake nation.

This morning, I am happy to be working on the territory of my Wendat ancestors.

I want to thank the committee for having me here, virtually, and allowing me to speak about the needs, problems and challenges facing indigenous families living in urban settings and the impact of Bill C-35.

The Regroupement des centres d'amitié autochtones is a provincial association that supports ten indigenous friendship centres and three service points in Quebec. They are located in the cities that indigenous people visit in significant numbers. The Regroupement helps develop tangible solutions and public policies to improve the well-being of the increasing number of indigenous people living in urban settings. This is a constantly growing population in Quebec but also across Canada. The Regroupement also implements innovative and proactive strategies to address indigenous people's needs and support the development and implementation of projects and programs.

The Regroupement and its centres are also members of the National Association of Friendship Centres, a network of over 120 centres that is the largest infrastructure for the delivery of services to the indigenous citizens of Canada. This infrastructure has been in existence here for over 70 years.

The indigenous friendship centres are frontline service hubs for indigenous people. They offer a range of services, such as health, well-being, social services, education and employability. They also offer family and early childhood services. They are places that value identity and culture and that offer traditional knowledge and indigenous language teaching.

The impacts of the activities of the friendship centres are numerous and documented. Well-being and health improve; a safety net is created for indigenous families living in cities far from their communities; families are empowered; diverse spaces, opportunities and experiences are created that contribute to children's healthy habits; and, most importantly, we see a desire for lifelong learning.

The early childhood services that are delivered by the friendship centres depend on the resources and the realities and issues of the urban indigenous community that supports the friendship centre. The services include early childhood learning services and guidance and psychosocial support for families. As I mentioned earlier, there are front-line services such as health clinics that enable indigenous families living in cities to overcome a number of challenges. These families experience several combined vulnerability factors. There are also programming of day camp workshops, family outings on the land, perinatal activities, various cultural activities, spaces for children to have access to educational materials, goodwill visits to pregnant women and new parents, parental respite services, and food and emergency assistance, among other things.

Bill C-35 includes funding agreements with indigenous partners to enable indigenous governance and partnerships in this area and program delivery. Those agreements are necessary: despite the multitude of early childhood and family services available, many needs are still unmet.

As we know, indigenous families living in urban areas use little to no public services, whether in Quebec or in the other provinces of Canada. There is racism and prejudice and people don't trust government institutions, so community organizations like the friendship centres become reference points, and, most importantly, places where they can access services that are culturally appropriate and safe. It is important that these families have access to specialized services, since some of them are also in the youth protection system.

To fulfil the federal government’s vision and goal for early learning and child care, Bill C-35 must take into account the diverse realities and the needs of indigenous children living in urban settings.

Co-development, partnership and collaboration are the best ways forward. Unfortunately, place of residence too often affects access to quality education services. The result is discrimination on two fronts, direct and indirect. More than 50 per cent of indigenous people in Quebec live in cities. In Canada, it is more than 60 per cent. That population is continuing to grow and needs access to high quality services. Organizations that support urban indigenous communities, like the indigenous friendship centres, continue to face jurisdictional disputes when they seek funding.

Stable, substantial and equitable funding is needed to support our families living in urban settings. At present, urban indigenous organizations that offer services have little or no access to funding relating to the early learning and child care framework for young indigenous children, to consolidate and develop their early childhood and family services, since the funding is administered by the indigenous political institutions. The investments must therefore use equitable funding models that reflect the rights and jurisdiction of all indigenous people. Urban indigenous organizations need to be able to receive equitable, flexible funding that enables us to offer services. We must have access to resources...

[Sheila Olan-MacLean, Chief Executive Officer, Compass Early Learning and Care]

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

Compass Early Learning and Care is a not-for-profit charitable organization in central Ontario caring for over 3,300 children, from birth to the age of 12. We are led by the values of trusting relationships; safe, caring, joyful spaces; diversity, equity, inclusion and justice; collective intelligence; and lifelong learning.

We recently began a visionary strategic planning process. We began by asking children what kind of world they wanted to live in. Here's what a couple of them said.

Justin, age 7, said, “I want to live in a world where everyone has a job and enough money for a safe place to live and enough food to eat with no worries, and people have to say kind things and not just what they're thinking when they think it.”

Oliver, age 3, said, “I want to live in a world where there is a big city with lots of buildings and houses. My mummy would live there, and my daddy would live there too, and me. My whole family, like my grandma and my grandpa; Debbie, too.” Debbie is their caregiver. “I like flowers, so there would be flowers, and there would be lots of bees. If they sting you, you would be able to fly because they'd put a special spell on you with their stinger.”

These are just two examples of the comments we gathered that demonstrate children's connections to family, community and their caregiver; their empathy and kindness; their connection to the natural world; and their understanding of justice and equity.

Bill C-35 has many parallel values to Compass and to the children that we interviewed. It is a strong beginning, a foundation to embed accessible, affordable, quality early learning and child care as a right for Canadians. To bring them to life, there must be solid structures that will nurture each of these concepts and inspire a groundswell of people to come together and work for the ends and the goals outlined. To create such a system, we will need three things: a stable and sustainable workforce; accessible, affordable child care; and quality programming.

For Bill C-35 to have the impact that it proposes, federal and provincial governments must understand the impact that this child care staffing crisis has, not only on child care but on every other sector in our society. Right now, Compass is working with a group from central Ontario looking at how we can increase child care for medical staff. There's a crisis. We're having hospitals call us to say they need more child care so that they can have their staff. They're all so interconnected, and it starts with child care. People can't work without child care.

A stable and sustainable workforce means that we would need to increase our professional compensation starting at $30 an hour, having a pension plan and benefits. In previous federal government initiatives for workforce strategy, funding was rolled out in Ontario with the provision that not one penny could go to compensation of any kind. It was very explicit. Much of this money went to colleges for free tuition for an ECE diploma. Colleges are now reporting that these graduates are not going into child care. In fact, they are going into higher education. They are going to school boards. They're going to Costco and even to Tim Hortons, because the wages are higher and the responsibility is less.

CWELCC has made a great contribution toward affordable child care. Our families report that they can financially breathe again—a very good thing. Accessibility will be an issue, and it's not an easy issue to address right away. It will take all of us working together to expand our system to accommodate the many families currently on our wait-list and those who are going to join shortly. Every expansion dollar will be needed for quality programs, beautiful spaces and sustainable funding.

We must send a message to for-profit corporations, shareholders and entrepreneurs that Canada is not open for child care business and that, in Canada, children are not for profit. Working together as a child care community, along with the federal, provincial and municipal governments and community partners, we can look back in 20 years and see that our vision is coming to reality.

To do this, the not-for-profit and public sectors will need access to infrastructure loans, support from groups such as Building Blocks for Child Care and support for our home child care expansion, as well as high-quality—

[Dr. Susan Prentice, Duff Roblin Professor of Government, University of Manitoba, As an Individual]

Good morning. Thank you.

I submitted a brief by the March 17 deadline, and my comments today draw on it. My brief is more comprehensive than what I will have time to speak to today.

I'm a university professor, a sociologist. I have published widely on historical and contemporary child care policy. I actually earned my Ph.D. for a study of child care in Toronto during World War II and the campaign to save the wartime day nurseries.

I appreciate that your job is to scrutinize the legislation and propose amendments as necessary, and I would like to help. I have two main points.

First, the most important step that I believe your committee can take is to introduce a definition of “early learning and child care” early in the act, right after the short title in the definitions section. I propose that your definition should look something like this: “Early learning and child care is a system of regulated and licensed services provided by qualified early childhood educators who have specialized post-secondary education training.”

Yesterday in committee, a member read from a brief that suggests “child care is the care of a child, regardless of who provides the care”, and I urge you to see the folly in this kind of definition for the purposes of legislation. Let me explain why.

In my house, when my spouse and kids are sick, I get out the thermometer, I make them hot lemon with ginger and I provide over-the-counter pain medication. I am of course providing health care, but you would in no way reasonably want to include what I do under health care legislation or funding. In our Winnipeg home, we have smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, and we keep our fire extinguishers fully charged. We're practising fire hygiene, but we in no way belong to public firefighting.

Similarly, early learning and child care does not mean and cannot mean care of a child wherever it occurs. It means instead a very particular kind of out-of-home early learning and child care service, one that is regulated, licensed and provided by qualified early childhood education professionals.

Your bill needs this kind of definition.

I have a second major recommendation on clause 7 on funding. The commitment to public and not-for-profit investments must be strengthened, and in my brief I provide some textual direction.

The current language directs funding in particular to public and not-for-profit providers, and it's much weaker than it should be. Keeping taxpayer dollars out of private pockets is strikingly important. It provides protection for the child care ecosystem. It ensures maximally efficient use of public dollars, and it acts as a bulwark against the negative effects on quality staffing and regulations exerted by a lobby for commercial child care, particularly those parties with obligations to shareholders.

It would be very valuable for your committee to review the experience of Australia, beginning in the 1990s. In Australia, a series of decisions about small policy and funding changes set in motion a massive expansion of for-profit child care, including a virtual monopoly. On November 6, 2008, Australia's largest single child care chain went into receivership.

The bankruptcy of this one national day care chain left more than 1,000 child care centres, over 120,000 children and 16,000 child care educators in the lurch. The Australian government had to step in to keep the lights on until a fire sale could happen. It's been called a spectacular public policy disaster. It was directly triggered by permitting public funds to go to for-profit child care businesses.

Knowing this history makes it crystal clear why Bill C-35 should prohibit public funding of commercial child care operations.

Those are my two main points. There are more in the brief. I look forward to our discussion.

Thank you.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

The clerk has advised that the witnesses' sound has been tested, as has the sound for members appearing virtually.

Welcome to meeting 61 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today's meeting is again taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person and remotely, using the Zoom application.

To ensure an orderly meeting, before speaking, wait until I recognize you by name. For those participating virtually, please use the “raise hand” icon on your Surface. Before speaking, make sure that you turn on your mike. For those in the room, the microphones will be controlled by the verification officer.

You have the option of speaking in the official language of your choice. If interpretation services become a problem, please get my attention, and we'll suspend while they're being corrected. Translation is available with headsets here in the room, as well as by using the translation icon on your Surface.

Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the use of headsets with a boom microphone.... I will only recognize those participating virtually if their sound quality has been approved by the translator. For those members appearing virtually, if you're not approved to participate verbally, you can still participate in any votes in the committee by simply indicating, with a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down, a yea or a nay.

Again, should any technical issues arise during the meeting, we will suspend while they're corrected.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee will continue its study of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

I would like to inform all members that the witnesses appearing, as indicated, have been checked and we are fine.

I would like to welcome our witnesses today. As an individual, we have Susan Prentice, Duff Roblin professor of government at the University of Manitoba. From Compass Early Learning and Care, we have Sheila Olan-MacLean, chief executive officer. From the Regroupement des centres d'amitié autochtones du Québec, we have Amélie Lainé, director of partnerships and programs, by video conference.

We'll begin with Ms. Prentice for five minutes, please. I will advise the witnesses that, at the end of their five minutes, I will advise them to conclude their remarks.

Ms. Prentice, you have the floor.

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

Yes, I'm on the amendment. I just think it's important that we acknowledge the witnesses, who are critical because that's actually what we are debating when we talk about the amendment.

It was brought forth by me. There was a motion on the floor to close amendment submissions and clause-by-clause. I said we would discuss this later. I said we could discuss this during committee business and not during witness testimony, which chews up their valuable time. The Liberals and NDP voted no, so here we are, trying to ensure that all voices are heard so that we can ensure that Bill C-35 is done correctly.

I have also put forth an amendment to further this, so that we can actually get to the crux of what we're trying to do as elected officials, which is make sure that legislation is not set up to fail, but that it is set up to serve Canadians.

Witnesses, I will definitely ensure that we can get you back as soon as we can.

The amendment I put forth is, “That amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee in both official languages no later than 1:00 p.m, EST, Tuesday, April 20, 2023”. It's not far, when you think that we have two weeks of constituency work

It continues, “that the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee and any independent members to inform them of the study of Bill C-35 by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to Bill C-35 which they would suggest that the committee consider during the clause-by-clause study of the bill”.

The way we're looking at this is that we need amendments. Then we have to go through clause-by-clause to ensure that everybody agrees or disagrees and to strengthen this bill to its absolute strength. It concludes, “and the committee begin clause-by-clause consideration of the bill on April 25, 2023.”

We're back in the same round and round discussion of why we need these dates. The reality is that, as we've heard already, half of the submissions are in. We need to translate all of that. We need time to listen to all of it.

Mr. Chair, through you, the other issue is that we cannot write and create amendments until we have listened to every witness. We have to listen to every witness, listen to every submission and read every submission, so that we know we are listening to what they are saying and we can put forth amendments that strengthen the bill.

Even when we look at one of our witnesses, who never even got to testify tonight because of this circus—

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

Absolutely.

The real frustration that I feel regarding the things that I have not been able to access and that I know other Canadian parents have not been able to access is that, if we don't do a thorough job on this.... Really from the 11th to the 20th and then the 13th to the 25th, I just....

We also had this conversation with a speed-up in a previous legislation. I think MP Gray alluded to that in her amendment comment. It's a troubling precedent that I see and that I'm living. I think we're doing a disservice by not giving the time to hear from witnesses and not doing our job thoroughly, as we're supposed to.

Mr. Chair, I do want to say, in response to MP Saks' comment about our having an agreement, at a February 3 meeting, for an end date, that I don't know where that is. When I pull up the committee business from the committee website from the February 3 meeting, it states:

The committee proceeded to the consideration of matters related to committee business.

It was agreed,— That six meetings be dedicated to the consideration of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, commencing Tuesday, March 7, 2023, including a technical briefing from relevant department officials, an invite to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development accompanied by department officials, witness testimony and clause by clause consideration of the bill.

It was agreed,—That, in the context of the consideration of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, committee members submit their prioritized witness lists to the clerk of the committee no later than Friday, February 24, 2023.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I understand how with my intervention earlier.... I was trying to get clarity about where we were, to make sure that we weren't wasting time. I wasn't really afforded that opportunity, so it's disappointing for me. I want to understand. I understand that there was a motion that was moved, which said:

That amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee in both official languages no later than 1:00 p.m, EST, Tuesday, April 11 2023; that the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee and any independent members to inform them of the study of Bill C-35 by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to Bill C-35 which they would suggest that the committee consider during the clause-by-clause study of the Bill; and the committee begin clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill on April 18, 2023.

I understand that was the main motion, but I understand there was then an amendment, if I'm correct, to change some dates. I believe it would have been from April 20 to the 25th, if I've understood this correctly.

It's unfortunate for me, because I feel that this is a trend over and over again from the Liberal-NDP coalition to.... We're seeing it in the House right now. Debate is being limited on something that's very important and that we've heard a lot on from Canadians. Now what's concerning to me is that we're seeing this in committee as well.

I don't understand. Through you, Mr. Chair, I understand that MP Saks isn't happy that she's not getting her way. It's not even just her, but this is from the remarks that she has made. This could be the whole Liberal-NDP coalition not being happy that we're not in agreement.

We want to make sure that there is a thorough job done of hearing testimony from witnesses and from as many child care providers as possible. This is a very big country, and I think we would be doing a disservice to parents like me.... I have four young children. I said that in the previous meeting. As someone who has had difficulty finding child care, I know the real frustrations, just like I can't find formula on shelves either. I have a young baby who's not even one year yet—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting back to order.

Committee members, welcome back.

The committee will resume its study of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

To assist the interpreters in their work, I kindly remind all members and witnesses appearing today to introduce themselves when speaking and to speak slowly. You have the option of speaking in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available. Should interpretation services be lost, please get my attention and we'll suspend while they're being corrected.

I'll remind all members and witnesses to direct their questions through, me, the chair, and to wait until I recognize you. Those appearing virtually have a “raise hand” icon at the bottom of their screen. Please use it to get my attention. Again, all comments are addressed through me. I'll remind everybody that screenshots are not allowed in the meeting.

I will introduce the witnesses.

We have appearing now Kim Hiscott from the Andrew Fleck Children’s Services. We have Marni Flaherty, acting chief executive officer of the Canadian Child Care Federation. From the Ontario Association for Independent Childcare Centres, we have Maggie Moser, who is the director and on the board of directors.

Before I turn to the witnesses for their opening statements, the committee was in a discussion when we suspended following the earlier hour.

I see before me Ms. Falk with her hand up.

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

Yes, that's where I'm.... Yes, of course.

I talked about “universal”. How are we supposed to get all of the feedback in this time frame? I just can't understand how we're going to get all of that done if we're going to include all of Canada and all of the forms of child care, which I referred to earlier in terms of the Child Care Providers Resource Network, a witness that is here today and would like to share their stories with us. Obviously, child care is the care of a child, regardless of who provides the care: parents, grandparents, friends or relatives, in-home nannies and/or home child care providers, both licensed and unlicensed.

We need to ensure that we are doing this. It's two days we're talking about. I think we saw right off the top that there isn't collaboration from the other parties, in particular the Liberals, because, as I said, of course we can talk about this. It was a friendly motion, as you said. It was, okay, no problem, we'll chat about that tomorrow at committee business because we have all these witnesses who have come here to talk about Bill C-35 and how we strengthen this bill, how we fix it and how we ensure that everybody has access.

That's the fundamental part of the bill. That's what's a little frustrating. Is there opportunity here to discuss...? Can we have another amendment to this motion so that we can change the clause-by-clause date to one week later to give us more time? Can we discuss something like that? Is that an option so that we can get to these witnesses, which I think is really important, and so we can ensure that the clerk and everybody can get.... There is so much information, and my colleague across the way doesn't....

I have listened to thousands and thousands of families—thousands—and this bill is not ready to go to the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion, as I have it in front of me, is:

That amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee in both official languages no later than 1:00 p.m, EST, Tuesday, April 11 2023; that the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee and any independent members to inform them of the study of Bill C-35 by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to Bill C-35—

Mr. Chair, can I have clarification on what you mean by, “the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee”?

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I'm pretty dumbfounded, actually. I'll be honest. I can't believe we've brought these witnesses here, who are ready to testify and who are here to represent the welfare of the child, and now we're having this discussion when we could have easily done this in committee business. Now we have to make all these people who have waited to testify wait. It's quite embarrassing, if I'm going to be honest.

I'm the critic, as some people may or may not know, for families, children and social development. It has been a huge undertaking for me and my team to take all of the correspondence, because there are so many families, parents, child care workers and ECEs who are deeply impacted by this bill. If we're not listening to them and talking about this, I'm not sure we are doing what we were elected to do.

I know we have the Child Care Providers Resource Network here today. One of the things they have said is that the Child Care Providers Resource Network, CCPRN, is committed to and focused on the well-being and safety of all children. Isn't that the truth, Mr. Chair, that we should be focusing on all children when we look at a child care plan?

They are a non-profit charitable organization with a network reach of more than 4,800 parents and caregivers across the province and beyond. It is their mission to provide information, training, resources and support to those providing child care in a home setting. This part is really important, Mr. Chair. I want everyone to hear this, because this is what we should be listening to right now.

Child care is the care of a child, regardless of who provides the care: parents, grandparents, friends, relatives, in-home nannies and/or home care providers, both licensed and unlicensed. That's a lot of people.

There are two million children under six in Canada, and if we are not listening to all of these people, we cannot get this bill the way that it should be so that it doesn't collapse on itself and fail Canadians.

When we look at Bill C-35, it is supposed to be this universal child care bill, but there's nothing universal about it. In fact, it is set up for winners and losers right now the way it's currently written. We on this side of the House, the Conservatives, are fighting to ensure that everyone is a winner and that we have access for all Canadians so that all these families who are on wait-lists that are thousands of people long get access.

If this is legislation that, quite frankly, is already in place with the provinces and territories, as my colleague Mrs. Gray has pointed out, why are we rushing through if we need to listen to all voices to make sure all voices are included? What are we doing here?

I want to talk about this email that came in today. It says, “Thank you so much for speaking out for all Canadian parents of young children following the recent self-congratulatory announcement of $10-a-day child care in Newfoundland by the leader of the Liberal-NDP coalition government.

These are not my words. This is an email, Mr. Chair.

It continues, “As a retired systems analyst, it begs the question of whether anyone in the coalition spent more than five minutes developing this misguided debacle. Did no one ever consider the all-important impact on child care providers, when those services were clearly known to already be in short supply, or was this just another clumsy virtue-signalling attempt rushed to completion, hoping no one but those mothers requiring child care would understand how poorly thought out it was? I have a daughter in Newfoundland who began looking for a child care provider immediately after giving birth, 10 months ago, since she is or was planning to return to work in June and resume her engineering career. She's still looking.

“There are no doubt tens of thousands of other working mothers in the same position all across Canada, and even more women considering joining the workforce if the prospect of spending the greater portion of their income on child care expenses is no longer an issue. Did no one ever think of that? Help wanted signs abound all across Canada, but with the current inflation, minimum wage earners can hardly afford to drive to work, let alone pay for child care. How does the Liberal-NDP plan help those families?

“Think of how many women could return to the workforce, provide for the welfare of their families and contribute to the economy if only this government had been more diligent in developing a sensible child care plan. Instead, all the Liberal-NDP plan is offering mothers is a $10 coupon to shop at a store with empty shelves. If this Liberal-NDP coalition government sincerely intends to help young families, they need to address how to stock those shelves and not just hand the store keys to provincial governments and walk away congratulating themselves for a mission accomplished.”

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Having just arrived on the committee specifically for Bill C-35, I don't really have a point of reference on Bill C-22. I have noticed that chunks of testimonies and submissions are coming in. I'd like to ask the clerk if these submissions in translation were after the March 17 deadline date, the ones that are being submitted now.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe the clerk has received what I have and that it's in order.

For the case of housekeeping, we lost two meetings because of the budget and the visit of President Biden. Making sure that we're moving along well, I'd like to propose:

That amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee in both official languages no later than 1:00 p.m, EST, Tuesday, April 11 2023; that the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee and any independent members to inform them of the study of Bill C-35 by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to Bill C-35 which they would suggest that the committee consider during the clause-by-clause study of the Bill; and the committee begin clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill on April 18, 2023.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay. If you can let me formally get into the meeting, I will come to you.

Welcome to meeting number 60 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person and virtually using the Zoom application.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. For those participating virtually, please use the “raise hand” function. Before speaking, click on the microphone icon to activate your own mike. For those in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. Your microphone will be controlled by the proceedings and verification officer. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available. If there is a loss of interpretation services, please get my attention by raising your hand. We'll suspend while it is being corrected.

I would like to remind all participants that screenshots are not allowed to be taken and are not permitted.

Should any technical issues arise, please get my attention by raising your hand. We'll suspend while they're being dealt with.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee will continue its study of Bill C‑35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

I would like to inform all members that the witnesses appearing virtually today have completed the technical tests to check their connectivity and equipment.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to begin our discussion with five minutes of opening remarks, followed by questions. I'll introduce the witnesses, and then I'll go to Ms. Saks.

In the first hour, we have Julie Bisnath, program coordinator. We have from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, Alain Dupuis, executive director, and Jean-Luc Racine, representative. From the Fondation Lucie et André Chagnon, we have Dr. Christa Japel, representing on screen, and we have Fannie Dagenais, director, but we're still working out communications issues.

Before I get you to begin your five-minute comments, I will go to Ms. Saks.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As a reminder, these are the supplementary estimates and the main estimates, so this covers a wider range than just one of those. We have to remember, too, that, yes, we have had ministers here, but ministers have been relating specifically to legislation. That was appropriate. They came. It was their legislation. It made sense.

We also had a Liberal motion on housing. That was a great study that we did.

Everything that we've done here has been.... We had the estimates ministers, as well.

This is just normal practice. It's very reasonable to have them. This committee just happens to have this many ministers. There are other committees that might only have one. That's the way this is. Perhaps we can even look at scheduling extra meetings if we need to, but this is just a normal course of business.

I am open to an amendment to potentially move this to May 12 to give us a bit more time. Of course, we don't want to do anything to delay the work that's being done at the committee on legislation like Bill C-35, but that's something we can look at that would allow more scheduling time for ministers.

Those are my comments. Thank you.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It's just because I have limited time and I have one other question for Madam Farris.

You mentioned in your brief that transparency is vital so that public funds are being spent wisely.

Do you support amending Bill C-35 to add stronger reporting requirements so that people know what advice an advisory council is providing the minister and for the minister's report to include a detailed summary of all information regarding how federal money is being spent?

[Maureen Farris]

It's very disheartening for the staff. Honestly, when that wage floor was announced, it was like a punch in the gut to our staff. Not only is the wage floor really low, but there also is a cap or a ceiling of a maximum of $25 per hours—$23 if you take out the wage enhancement. Again, our staff doesn't have any room for growth within their careers. They're going to hit that ceiling really quickly. Then there is also a lack of benefits in some organizations. There are no pensions.

I feel that a national minimum wage for early childhood educators would be a really valuable component to Bill C-35.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

All right.

Ms. Friendly, are there any other key items that should be added to Bill C‑35? Do you have any concerns about the bill?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Okay. Bill C‑35 neither defines what child care is, nor does it gives any indication of the age range in which children will be covered by the Canada-wide early learning and child care system. In your view, is that a problem and can you speak to the impact that will have?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To all the witnesses, thank you for taking part in this meeting. It's important, because we're talking about the future of our young children.

Bill C‑35 neither defines what child care is, nor does it give any indication of the age range in which children will be covered by the Canada-wide early learning and child care system. In your view, is that a problem and can you speak to the impact that will have?

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

Thank you so much, Andrea.

Ms. Farris, do you feel that with the way Bill C-35 is currently written it could create a two-tiered system of child care? Basically, those who are lucky enough or who win the lottery have a spot, but those who are waiting do not.

[Maureen Farris]

Certainly. I'm sorry about that. Let me skip ahead.

Both the federal and provincial governments are promising to increase child care spaces. However, it's impossible to do so without the workforce to support and sustain this. Without adequate staffing, we cannot create more spaces.

As someone who operates two child care centres and sits on various committees, I can tell you that the biggest hurdle our child care community is currently facing is staffing. In fact, even the media is honing in on this. They admit that child care will be facing a staffing shortage and a staffing crisis by 2025.

I would argue that we're already in that crisis. What you may not be aware of is the incredible amount of pressure on frontline staff.

In spite of all the mounting pressure, Bill C-35 does not contain a clear staff retention plan. We need strong leadership in developing a workforce strategy. Otherwise, creating more child care spaces and, therefore, ensuring access to quality care are unrealistic expectations.

I have a lot more to say, but I will conclude, because you've asked me to do so.

It is my hope that the ideas shared at this committee meeting will help to refine Bill C-35 and the national child care plan so that they remain an excellent solution for families and their children, and that they are also equitable for educators, while being sustainable for organizations.

Investment in the early years is the best use of national funds. Every dollar invested in early learning and care is returned exponentially in our communities and the economy.

Bill C-35 needs to ensure that the focus is on the welfare of children, which is ensured through high-quality early learning and care provided by qualified early childhood educators.

It is truly my desire, and that of the child care community, that Bill C-35 does what it originally intended, which is ensure high-quality, accessible, inclusive and affordable child care for all who need it.

Thank you so much.

[Maureen Farris, Director, Strath-MacLean Child Care Centre]

Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the child care community. I'm grateful to be here, today, to share with you some areas of concern regarding Bill C-35 and the Canada-wide early learning and child care program from the perspective of a director, as well as others throughout the child care community, including educators, families and children.

I would like to start by acknowledging that the intention of Bill C-35 is an honourable one: a national child care plan that includes high-quality, accessible and affordable child care for all who need it. Bill C-35 is certainly moving in the right direction. However, there are parts of the bill that require refining, in order to meet the core principles it initially set out to meet: affordability, accessibility, inclusivity, quality, flexibility and collaboration.

Bill C-35 sets out a vision and core principles for a national child care plan, and the child care community is appreciative that this committee and the federal government are working to build on the plan and improve it, in order to make it accessible to all Canadians. To do so, there is a need for the expansion of child care programs and improvements to compensation that values educators. We need trained early-childhood educators to make expansion possible.

BillC-35 is intended to ensure equity and sustainability. In its current state, the Canada-wide early learning and child care plan, or CWELCC, is not equitable or sustainable. This program is terrific in theory, facilitating access to high-quality early learning and child care programs and providing funding to make child care more affordable for families. However, it is vital that the federal government look at the actual impact this program has on families, children, educators and organizations.

I would like to acknowledge that the Canada-wide early learning and child care program is fantastic for our families. These families have access to high-quality early learning programs that are now more affordable. This is incredibly important to the families we serve. However, as I mentioned, CWELCC is not equitable. It is not equitable for families on the wait-list that currently don't have child care. As the media continues to report on $10-a-day child care, our wait-lists are growing daily, which leads to further inequities.

In Peterborough, which is where I'm from, we have approximately 3,500 children on the wait-list across the city and county, and that number continues to grow. While this may be a provincial jurisdiction, simply put, we do not have the educators or physical space to create more child care places. We cannot create access to affordable child care without qualified, well-paid educators. It's important to recognize there is no access without educators.

The Canada-wide early learning and child care plan is also not equitable for families with children in care but whose children are not all eligible, under the guidelines of the program. For example, in our organization, we have several families with a school-age child in our before- and after-school programs, for which they pay $24 per child per day. These children have siblings in our preschool program, for which the family pays $19.85 per child per day. The children in our before- and after-school programs are there for a maximum of four hours of care. The children in our preschool program are there for up to 10 hours of care and receive all the associated education and outdoor programming, as well as two snacks and a hot lunch daily.

As you can see, families pay significantly more for less programming and fewer hours of care for their school-age child. Where is the equity in that?

We also have families that, beginning in the fall, will have two children in our primary after-school program. One of their children will be in grade 1 and the other in junior kindergarten. The JK child is eligible for the CWELCC fee reduction, whereas the child in grade 1 will not be eligible. As a result, these families will pay $17 for the child who is not eligible for a fee reduction, but only $12 for the child who is eligible. These children are in the same program with the same educators, and with access to the same programming and snack. Everything is the same, yet families will pay $5 more per day for a child who is not eligible. Again, where is the equity in that?

Furthermore, CWELCC is not equitable for educators. Bill C-35 states that high-quality early learning and child care programs will be provided through the use of a qualified and well-supported early childhood education workforce. However, in Ontario, at least, that is certainly not the case. While I again acknowledge that wage grids are a provincial and territorial jurisdiction, I would like to share, with this committee, some facts about the workforce in Ontario. As of January 2023, early childhood educators in Ontario are eligible for a wage floor of $19 per hour. As that amount includes wage enhancement, the wage floor is actually only $17 per hour.

Governments at all levels must focus on recognizing registered early childhood educators as professionals. They are professionals who educate our children, following a curriculum and a pedagogy routed in child development practices.

These professionals educate and care for young children, support their families and work collaboratively with other educators.

They are governed by the College of ECEs, as well as a code of ethics and standards of practice, while working within guidelines laid out in the Child Care and Early Years Act. ECEs are required to strictly adhere to all of these.

Our registered early childhood educators are not glorified babysitters. They need to be given the respect of a professional, which includes a professional wage—

[Martha Friendly, Executive Director, Childcare Resource and Research Unit]

Hello, I'm Martha Friendly. I'm the executive director of the Childcare Resource and Research Unit, CRRU. I think you have my written brief, which I submitted to the clerk. I'm just going to speak for five minutes, and it's going to be a small summary of that.

CRRU is a small child care and family policy research institute. It began at the University of Toronto in 1982, and it's been an independent non-profit organization since 2007.

I have been a policy researcher in child care for almost 50 years. I've written many papers, reports, popular articles and several books. I've worked on child care internationally. I've been a member of various government expert groups.

One of the main ideas that has guided CRRU's work is the idea that good policy-making needs a solid foundation of good evidence. That's been one of our guiding principles.

Since the earliest days, CRRU has urged governments at all levels to work together to establish an early learning and child care system based on the premise that child care is a public good. Thus, we've applauded the introduction of the Canada-wide early learning and child care plan, CWELCC, but we continue to point out ways that it's implementation can be strengthened.

We all know that quality child care for all is essential in a 21st century society, but how it's set up and designed is especially and critically important. Why? It's because a well-designed child care system can meet multiple goals at the same time. However, a child care market with child care deserts or poor-quality services does not deliver the same results.

Bill C‑35 is a key component as Canada begins to build its child care system. Legislation is important for setting out the high-level goals, aspirations, principles and objectives that we need to transform Canada's piecemeal child care market into a high-quality system, that is, a public good and part of our community infrastructure.

As a dedicated researcher, I find that the federal government's overall policy approach to child care is generally consistent with the best available evidence. That being said, though, I want to make several recommendations aimed at strengthening Bill C‑35, and the rest of my comments are going to be about the recommendations that I'm going to make.

The first thing that I want to recommend is strengthening the language that sets out the division. The importance of early learning and child care for children, women, gender equality, families and the economy is quite well represented in the legislation's preamble. However, the Government of Canada's vision in paragraph 5(a) is inconsistently tentative. Thus, I suggest amending paragraph 5(a) to read, “the Government of Canada's vision for a Canada-wide universal, high-quality early learning and child care system that is envisioned as a public good,” which, I think, would strengthen and make it more consistent with the principles in the preamble.

The second recommendation I want to make is to strengthen the rights-based language, which I was very pleased to see in the preamble, linking the new system to international human rights conventions, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, CEDAW and the social development goals. Therefore, I suggest amending paragraph 6(a) slightly to declare the Government of Canada's obligation “to support and ensure establishment and maintenance of a Canada-wide child care system”. This would be consistent with the federal government's role as the responsible state party identified in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and in the comments of UN committees reviewing Canada's compliance.

The third recommendation I want to make has already had a lot of discussion. I want to support the federal approach limiting for-profit care with regard to expansion while permitting existing for-profit child care to receive public funding on the same basis as not-for-profits, which is the government's approach at this particular point.

The legislation touches on this in paragraph 7(1)(a). I suggest strengthening this clause for at least two reasons. The first reason is that, as we've already discussed, there is abundant research showing negative associations between for-profit ownership and key quality indicators, including the number of qualified staff, their wages, working conditions and support, staff turnover and morale, and that observed what we call “process quality”.

I actually—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I appreciate that, and I was actually one of those people myself.

Madam Bruske, it's good to see you again, and thank you for your comments on the rights of indigenous peoples. Certainly that's something, you know, that is near and dear to my heart.

That's one of the reasons the NDP is pushing the Liberal government right now to make amendments so that the bill will align with Bill C-15, which affirms that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has application in Canadian law, by including this commitment in the bill to ensure that the government upholds the right of indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent for legislation pertaining to indigenous children. So, thank you for that.

I want to build on the comments by Madam Ballantyne.

We have a workforce crisis. Do you think that Bill C-35 should be amended to include an explicit commitment to decent work for child care staff?

[Morna Ballantyne, Executive Director, Child Care Now]

Thank you for inviting me to appear before your committee.

I'm a member of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, but I speak to you today as the executive director of Child Care Now, Canada's national child care advocacy organization.

Early childhood education in Canada is far from what it should be. It's unavailable in many communities. Where it's available, wait-lists are long. The quality of programs is uneven. Although parent fees have dropped dramatically over the last year, licensed child care remains unaffordable for too many.

These problems result from the failure of past governments at all levels. For too long they refused responsibility for the provision of early learning and child care, relying instead on private individuals and organizations to set up programs on either a for-profit or a not-for-profit basis. This has meant unplanned, uneven and under supply.

Also, for far too long inadequate public funding has forced service providers to charge high service fees, putting licensed child care out of the financial reach of most families. At the same time, the parent fee revenue collected has never been sufficient to properly compensate educators for their work and to ensure decent working and learning conditions. This is why the child care sector has suffered from a perpetual problem of high staff turnover and it's why it's so difficult to recruit educators to the sector, especially graduates from early childhood education programs.

Almost always governments have responded to these problems ineffectively through short-term patchwork solutions such as salary top-ups, subsidies for some parents and inadequate operating grants of various kinds.

Child care advocates in Canada cheered when the Government of Canada proposed in budget 2021 to spend just under $30 billion over five years to transform early learning and child care. We celebrated the funding agreements with the provinces and territories, and we welcomed Bill C-35 because it affirms the federal government's long-term commitment to fund early learning and child care and to establish with the provinces and territories systems that could eventually realize every child's right to quality early childhood education.

Going by the experience of other countries, it will take many years to reach the goal declared in paragraph 6(a) of Bill C-35, to have a Canada-wide early learning and child care system that gives all families access to affordable, inclusive, high-quality early learning and child care programs regardless of where they live.

It will take time and it will take spending federal money in the right way on the right things.

That's why in our written submission we propose ways to strengthen the principles in clause 7 of Bill C-35 that are intended to guide federal investments. It's why we also suggest ways to strengthen the accountability mechanisms in the bill.

Unfortunately, I don't have time in my five minutes to expand on our proposed changes, but I do want to take my last minute to emphasize what we don't want changed.

We agree fully with the language in paragraph 7(1)(a) that supports the expansion of early learning and child care operated on a public and not-for-profit basis. It is consistent with the Canada-wide early learning and child care funding agreements agreed to by every province and territory, and it fulfills the promise made in the 2021 budget that was adopted by Parliament.

Federal public funds should be directed to expanding the provision of high-quality early learning and child care, not to expanding opportunities to make private profit or to increasing the equity of privately held real estate and other business assets.

Also, evidence from Canada and internationally tells us that not-for-profit and public early learning and child care providers are generally of higher quality and are more reliable and that public and not-for-profit child care systems are better at serving low-income families.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[Bea Bruske, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. My name is Bea Bruske. I'm the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, and I'm pleased to speak on behalf of Canada's largest labour organization, representing three million workers from every sector of our economy.

The CLC supports Bill C-35 as an important building block in the effort to establish a truly pan-Canadian system of quality, affordable, accessible, inclusive, public and not-for-profit child care.

Canada's unions have been advocating for child care for decades, and we know that it is good for families, good for children and good for our economy. We also know that it is essential for enabling women's labour force participation. If done right, it could be a very important source of quality jobs in a sector that has traditionally been dominated by women, and often Black, indigenous and racialized women, new Canadians and migrant women.

Unions were excited, quite frankly, when the long-term funding was established in the 2021 federal budget, and we were hopeful when the multilateral early learning and child care framework and bilateral agreements were reached with the provinces and territories. However, we know that the devil is always in the details and, along with others in the child care sector, we have expressed some misgivings that there were not enough teeth in these agreements to ensure the outcomes of the new system meet the very high expectations of the parents, workers and communities, and that there was some risk that the effort might result in the further entrenchment of our patchwork, market-based system.

We have a chance to get this right, and that's why this legislation is so very important.

Unions believe that everyone should have the right to the care they need, and that includes the right to early learning and to child care. We further believe that decent work for people working in the sector, whether they're early childhood educators, cooks, administrators, cleaners or others, is deeply connected to the quality of learning and the care that our children receive and our families depend on. We were pleased to see that references to rights are included in this legislation, including the references to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

We also like it that the legislation clearly lays out the government's commitment to system building and to enshrining a set of core principles to guide the development of such a system, recognizing the roles of the provinces and territories, as well as those of the indigenous peoples, and the need for programs and services for first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families that are culturally appropriate and led by indigenous peoples.

We were very pleased to see the reference to public and not-for-profit early learning and child care, and we urge the committee to support this language. There is considerable evidence that public and not-for-profit programs and services deliver higher-quality care and better jobs for child care workers, and we do not believe that the diversion of public funds to private interests will help us build the affordable, accessible system that families have been waiting for.

We also support the references in paragraph 7(1)(c) regarding the need for “respect” and valuing “diversity” and meeting the “varying needs” of children and families. Although the text of the bill does mention “inclusive” programs, the need for programs and services that meet the needs of children with disabilities is not explicitly stated, and perhaps it should be.

We are glad to see the reference to a “qualified and well-supported” workforce in paragraph 7(1)(d). We believe it could be further strengthened by more specific reference to what “well-supported” might mean in practice, including decent working conditions, proper compensation commensurate with qualifications, experience, access to ongoing training and other measures necessary to recruit and retain workers. Child care workers have been sounding the alarm about the staffing crisis, and if the system is going to expand to meet the growing needs of families and the ambitious plans of government, a clear workforce strategy is absolutely essential.

We're also pleased to see the legislation enshrine the establishment of the national advisory council on early learning and child care. Ideally, we would like to see workers represented on this council as well. I don't believe that is currently the case; however, that could be something that could be addressed in regulation or practice rather than in legislation.

We would support any amendments aimed at making the functions of the council more concrete or more specific: for example, requiring meaningful consultations with stakeholders, including unions representing child care workers. The council could and also might be more directly mandated to assess progress and implementation of this legislation. Finally, the bill could be strengthened by a requirement for adequate funding to sustain the council's work.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[Hélène Gosselin, Chair, Board of Directors, Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance]

Thank you very much. Good afternoon.

My name is Hélène Gosselin and I am chair of the board of directors of the Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance, or AQCPE.

As an early childhood expert, the AQCPE provides leadership, representation, outreach and support of a quality system of educational child care centres and coordinating offices, commonly known as CPEs and BCs, for children aged 0 to 5 years. Thank you for inviting us to testify about Quebec's early childhood experience as part of the study of Bill C‑35.

In 1996, Quebecers were asked to make a considerable effort. It was the time of “zero deficits”. However, then-premier Lucien Bouchard knew that to achieve his goal, Quebecers would need to be given tools to enable them to participate actively in Quebec's productivity. The rest, as they say, is history.

Today, recent events have served as powerful reminders of the essential character of child education services. The pandemic and the widespread labour shortage propelled what was considered “nice to have” to “must have”. This recognition can also be found in the preamble to the bill, which contains findings from the Quebec experience, as well as from the many longitudinal studies on the positive impacts of such a measure:

… the Government of Canada … recogniz(es) the beneficial impact of early learning on child care and child development, on the well-being of children and of families, on gender equality, on the rights of women and their economic participation and prosperity and on Canada's economy and social infrastructure ...

This is welcome official recognition. Similarly, the guiding principles that led to the creation of the network of educational child care centres—affordable, inclusive and high-quality services—are also included.

Of all of these, our focus here is on the principle of quality. Why are we interested in quality services? Because it is not just a matter of work‑family life balance. Taking care of toddlers means much more than just making sure they are looked after and safe. Trained staff working in the CPE/BC network are not extensions of the home. It is a real social fabric that we wrap around children and their families, enabling them to develop their full potential.

In some cases, it means overcoming a language delay to ensure better educational success. In others, it enables the family to break the cycle of poverty. There are as many examples as there are testimonials, but each has its significance and impacts our society. Child development professionals are able to recognize subtle cues, and to do so at several levels simultaneously. That requires adapted training, specific skills and abilities.

It is also referred to as “structural quality”: the settings, equipment and management that support educational staff, links with other organizations that work with families and links with the health and social services network. To achieve the objectives, experience has also shown us that only one model can fulfill this mandate. The network of early childhood centres was built on community-based, non-profit day care centres, a model for and by the community, managed by boards primarily made up of parent-users and independent of financial considerations, all exclusively for the benefit of children.

This structure directly affects the level of quality offered. Since Quebec implemented the mandatory quality assessment, we are able to rank the different models. A clear difference between for-profit and CPE models emerges. Even with identical funding, as is currently the case between CPEs and subsidized private day care centres, the difference is 30% in favour of CPEs.

However, the network has been driven by political trends and its development has been chaotic. This has led to the proliferation of models and in so doing curtailed the positive impact. Thus, we are reaching out to our counterparts in other provinces: You now have the opportunity to choose the model that will enable you to achieve your early childhood education goals. This decision must be clear, scientifically based and impervious to political interference.

Finally, the desire to secure investments in early childhood is, in our view, an acknowledgement of how important that funding is to people.

While respecting provincial jurisdictions, we see in this bill a bulwark against economic and political uncertainty. Quebec's experience and the many studies, both national and international, speak with one voice: It is a win-win situation when a society invests in early childhood, and we hope that you, parliamentarians, will move in that direction.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 59 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members and witnesses will be appearing virtually using Zoom and with us here in the room.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name, and please address comments through the chair. You have the option of using the official language of your choice. If interpretation services discontinue, please get my attention. We'll suspend while they are corrected.

As well, I would like to remind all participants that screenshots are not allowed to be taken in the room or on the screen.

Also, for those appearing virtually, unless you're using an approved House of Commons headset that allows the interpreters to interpret your presentation, I will not recognize you to participate verbally, although those members of the committee appearing virtually will still have the option to vote.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee will continue its study of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Tests have all been done, Mr. Clerk, on the connectivity and the equipment, so we're okay to go.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to begin our discussion with five minutes of opening remarks, followed by questioning. I would remind the witnesses that after five minutes I will advise you to conclude your comments so that members of the committee have time to question you.

Appearing virtually, we have the Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance, with Hélène Gosselin, the chair; the Canadian Labour Congress, with Bea Bruske, president, and Vicky Smallman, national director, human rights, by video conference; and here in the room with us, we have Child Care Now, with Morna Ballantyne, executive director.

We'll begin with Madame Gosselin.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

That's good.

Do you think that Bill C-35 would achieve its targets in both rural and urban areas?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Ms. Mathieu, thank you for the clarification you provided concerning the distinctions between daycares and CPEs. It is important that the committee hear about that.

Knowing that the public data on Indigenous children that the government is working with are out of date, how can we make sure that Bill C-35 meets the needs of the First Nations and the Inuit and Métis?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses who are here today.

Mr. Fortin, you said earlier that there are five main lessons to be learned. Quebec is a leader and model in this field. What would it be essential to add to Bill C-35?

[Krystal Churcher, Chair, Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs]

Good morning. I am very grateful for the opportunity to share with this committee this morning. My name is Krystal Churcher. I am a private child care operator in Alberta. I am also the chair of the Alberta Association of Childcare Entrepreneurs, which is a non-profit industry association that represents the interests of private child care operators in Alberta, who currently make up 70% of our child care delivery.

What we have heard around Bill C-35 and the Canada-wide early learning and child care program is all very high-level information with very lofty intentions. I want to provide some of the on-the-ground, real-life experiences that operators and families are facing.

This program and legislation are all about the long term and entrench the federal government's vision for early learning and child care. It is critical that we move forward in an aligned way that respects the rights of children to quality, flexible child care and choice for parents.

The goal of this bill is for all families to have access to high-quality, affordable, inclusive child care. However, what we are seeing on the ground is the human toll and the impact around the rollout of this program.

The bill was introduced without adequate consultation with all industry stakeholders and without respecting how the child care sector has evolved in provincial jurisdictions across the country. What we're seeing is a program that has created a demand without the infrastructure to support it, which is causing wait-lists, a two-tiered system and undue stress to families and operators. Women entrepreneurs are facing bankruptcy and closure of businesses that have now lost all their value. The system is, frankly, not equitably accessible and is failing to meet the promises to parents and families. Operators are asking what the real cost is of meeting this $10-a-day goal. Parents are losing choice; the quality of programming is at risk; educators are burned out; and women are losing their businesses.

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. When subsidies go to child care spaces rather than directly to parents, it becomes a form of soft coercion. This doesn't create options that respect the difference of families or provide them with a form of child care they choose.

Decreased fees, which are also only available at specific centres, are actually eliminating parental choice and provide a forced standardized system. By limiting access only to programs that are predominantly non-profit, this program is forcing families to surrender their choice in child care.

While this program advocates for the full economic potential of women, our sector is made up of largely female entrepreneurs like me, and we are seeing the expropriation of our businesses. We all want to see women succeed, but what about the women who are investing in creating child care spaces in their communities? By wanting to provide affordable child care to the families we serve and opting into this program, we have had an expansion freeze placed on our private businesses, lost the ability to control the fees for our services, and ultimately lost the value of our investments.

The truth is that the promised child care spaces are not actually available to all families. In Alberta, what we're seeing is urban cities with wait-lists of 75 to 150 families on average and rural areas like Grande Prairie having wait-lists of 600 or more families. This legislation promises access to child care regardless of where families live, but that's not the reality. Parents are facing less access because the program has created a demand that can't be met, resulting in wait-lists.

When the guiding intent is to prioritize non-profit child care spaces, private expansion has been halted, yet demand for private programs continues to grow. Increased demand for child care has forced private programs to expand to meet need, despite having no access to grants for parents. This is resulting in parents paying upwards of $50 or more per day for the same program in the same centre. In Alberta, we are seeing a two-tiered system.

Do we really have affordable child care if we can't access it? The CWELCC program does not create equitable access to child care, especially for lower-income parents who were promised support to go back into the workforce. Parents and operators alike cannot understand how this CWELCC affordability grant funding is provided to every family, regardless of income bracket, when operators currently witness the majority of those on wait-lists fall into low-income brackets. Right now, families of varying income levels benefit, not necessarily prioritizing those who need affordability the most.

In closing, I urge the committee to take an approach to meet the Government of Canada's goals to make Canada child care more affordable to families.

I leave you with five solutions. They are to provide funding directly to families; change funding to an income-based model on a sliding scale so that true equitable need and accessibility can be met; focus legislation around the concept of parental choice, regardless of business model, and instead have the funding follow the child; open the full expansion of child care to private operators to meet the demand for child care; and respect and allow free market competition as a way to ensure quality and innovative niche programming that meets the needs of all parents.

We have a duty to Canadian families and children to make sure that we create a program that truly represents the needs of families, protects the quality of care for children and provides real accessibility to all families. We can't continue to ignore the issues that we're seeing across the country and move ahead with a well-intended but flawed program.

I'd like to share a few stories from operators this morning. I had one child care operator reach out to me....

I'm sorry. Am I out of time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Welcome back.

The committee will resume its study of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

To assist the interpreters in their work, I kindly remind all members and witnesses appearing today to introduce themselves when speaking, and to speak slowly. You may use the official language of your choice. If there is an interruption in interpretation services, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it is being corrected.

Please direct your questions and responses through me, the chair, and wait until I recognize you.

We will begin this last hour with three witnesses: Monsieur Pierre Fortin, emeritus professor of economics; Krystal Churcher, chair of the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs; and Dr. Sophie Mathieu, senior program specialist at the Vanier Institute of the Family.

We will begin with Mr. Fortin

Mr. Fortin, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

The Poverty Reduction Act establishes a national advisory council very much like the one we have in Bill C-35, but unlike Bill C-35, the national advisory council that's being used in the Poverty Reduction Act is required to submit a report to the minister on the progress being made in terms of poverty reduction. The minister is required to table the report in Parliament.

Clause 16 in the bill does not include a requirement for indicators to measure quality, accessibility, affordability and inclusion to be in the minister's report. The sector has raised concerns about how to ensure government accountability.

What is your plan for accountability? Are you willing to amend it so it's more similar to the Poverty Reduction Act?

[Cheri Reddin, Director General, Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Secretariat, Department of Employment and Social Development]

We were very interested in hearing from indigenous governments, organizations and representatives on Bill C-35. Formal outreach was undertaken to over 50 governments, organizations and stakeholders early last year. There was promotion through some of the existing partnerships to solicit feedback and interest around the proposed legislation.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

You said that Bill C-35 states that the First Nations were involved in developing the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework.

Can you tell us what groups were consulted and how many times they were consulted?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I think that's all positive, going back to Bill C-15, but all future legislation is supposed to be in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, so I would push back on that.

I will move on to wages and working conditions.

I think everybody knows I was formerly an early childhood educator. I'm very proud. We know the average wage for an early childhood educator is $19.50 an hour. That's not a liveable wage in most places.

Unions representing child care workers support adding an explicit, clear commitment to decent work to Bill C-35. We know that in order to make this work, we need a robust workforce. We also know that research, in study after study, indicates that poor pay and working conditions are deterrents to joining the sector. That's exactly why I left my job as an ECE. I didn't want to live on the no-salary we were provided for the important work we do.

Is your government resistant to adding language that establishes liveable wages and fairer working conditions as guiding principles for federal funding? I say this because your party, in a platform in 2021, came out and vowed to push for a $25 minimum wage for personal support workers. I support that. Care work is critical work.

Are you willing to support the same sort of liveable wage for early childhood educators?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Gazan, for being here and for your intervention.

We certainly share the same objective. I think it's very important to see Bill C-35 as a tool complementary to the co-developed framework on indigenous early learning and child care.

One thing we have been very careful not to do is have Bill C-35 go beyond the bounds of the co-developed framework that we did with indigenous early learning and child care, which was announced in 2018 and endorsed by the AFN, ITK and MNC at the time.

I've noted one thing very clearly in the travels I've done in the past year around the country. I made a specific note while visiting with indigenous communities and leaders advancing IELCC: This is distinctions-based, indigenous-led and culturally relevant, and it incorporates language learning as well. It's very much indigenous-led and something that is.... We are a funding partner. We co-developed this, but we need to see this as a partnership—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

It's nice to see you, Minister.

I know the Department of Justice is working on a co-developed process for free, prior and informed consent and that Bill C-35 includes a commitment to furthering UNDRIP. This was indicated by Madame Reddin in the last meeting, but we know this response isn't adequate, because we know there cannot be one single definition for “free, prior and informed consent”. Rather, as it is law, in fact, that circumstances determine how it's applied. This would also be true for Bill C-35.

Therefore, will the minister acknowledge this and take appropriate measures to enshrine the right of indigenous peoples to make decisions in matters impacting our own children?

I share this because it's the very foundation of reconciliation, especially in light of the findings of the TRC, which were based on the testimony of residential school survivors who were robbed from their families. This government has been stalling on enshrining FPIC—free, prior and informed consent. We're coming up to the two-year mark; you have a month and a half left. This is part of the law. You had two years to develop a plan, and there's nothing on the table yet. This isn't acceptable. We have an opportunity here to do the right thing.

Again I'm wondering, Minister, if you'll acknowledge this and take appropriate measures to enshrine FPIC and ensure the rights of indigenous peoples to have full free, prior and informed consent over matters impacting our children.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Quebec is a leader in relation to child care services because children are the priority. Given that fact, is the compensation you are going to give Quebec under Bill C-35 going to be generous?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

The purpose of Bill C-35 is to guide the federal government so that subsequent governments, whether or not they are Liberal, as I hope they will be, are guided by these principles and objectives when they negotiate with the provinces and territories.

Of course, Quebec is already a leader when it comes to these principles and objectives, as you say. Ultimately, what we want to do is improve child care services in the rest of Canada so they are at the same level as the services in Quebec. Quebec has also committed to creating 30,000 new child care spaces under the agreement and we are going to maintain a very positive relationship with Quebec.

As well, I have to say that at the federal-provincial meetings, it was very helpful to have access to Quebec's experience, through my former counterpart, who was very generous in this regard, in fact. This enabled the provinces and territories to learn about Quebec's experience.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

As I mentioned, Bill C-35 focuses on the work of the federal government and guarantees its long-term financial commitment for child care, a commitment that did not exist before Budget 2021. Before this, we had agreements with the provinces and territories. For example, in 2017, my colleague, Health Minister Duclos, negotiated a framework with all of the provinces and territories on this subject. In the case of the current bill, however, we are focusing on the work of the federal government.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

What is there in this bill that would avoid another conflict between Quebec and Ottawa when the current agreement expires?

As well, why was clause 4 of Bill C-303, which provided an exemption for Quebec, not retained and incorporated into Bill C-35?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome the Minister and the witnesses who are here with us.

Minister, we can agree that Bill C-303, which was introduced by the NDP in 2006, is the ancestor of Bill C-35, with a few differences. However, one of those differences concerns me: Bill C-35 makes no mention of an exemption for Quebec, although we are well aware that Quebec is a forerunner and a leader in the area of early childhood and daycares, as you yourself have said.

It has now been over 25 years since the Government of Quebec adopted a family policy that led to the creation of a network of affordable early childhood education services that help to create better living conditions and a better balance between parenting and work responsibilities for millions of families. Given that fact, do you believe it would be useful to include a clause in Bill C-35to permit Quebec to withdraw from this program, unconditionally and with full compensation, to avoid negotiations and arguments between the federal and provincial governments every five years?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Bill C-35 is complementary to the multilateral framework and the bilateral agreements we have through the Canada-wide early learning and child care initiative. We have signed 13 bilateral agreements with provinces and territories. The one with Quebec is asymmetrical, because Quebec is much further ahead in this regard than the rest of the country. In fact, they are the pioneers in Canada.

The funding arrangements, then, are complementary. We have signed these agreements on five-year terms so that we can make sure that we are setting out objectives, and provinces and territories can respond with action plans determining and illustrating how they are going to spend that money. Then Bill C-35commits the federal government to being a long-term funding partner.

I don't think it's appropriate for Bill C-35 to determine what the amount of money is, because I think we need to continue to have this as an evergreen process. I think what's really important is that it says that the federal government is committed to funding child care and that we are going to be there for the long term.

This is in addition to the budget 2021 decision that provided ongoing funding beyond the five-year agreements of up to $9 billion a year in perpetuity.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I know that a significant part of the investment is going to indigenous communities. I think it's just under $2 billion over five years, if memory serves me correctly.

One of the goals of Bill C-35 is to put in place a long-term strategy for funding. Can you explain how the mechanics of that would work? If the bill does go forward and Bill C-35 is in full operation, how would you envision that long-term funding being structured?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and committee, for having me to speak to Bill C‑35. As you mentioned, I've been here quite frequently recently, and it's always good to be back and spend time with my colleagues.

I am pleased to be accompanied today by the Director General of the Federal Secretariat on Early Learning and Child Care, Michelle Lattimore, the Director General of the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Secretariat, Cheri Reddin, as well as Directors Jill Henry, Kelly Nares and Christian Paradis.

Working with provinces, territories and indigenous partners, the Government of Canada is transforming the way child care is delivered.

As has been said many times, child care is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Parents should have the opportunity to build both a family and a career, and children deserve the best possible start in life.

As part of Budget 2021, the Government of Canada made a transformative investment to help give them that start—up to $30 billion over five years to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system.

Since that announcement, we have signed agreements with each province and territory to reduce fees everywhere outside of Quebec, support the creation of high-quality child care spaces, and ensure early childhood educators are better supported.

The Canada-wide system is already benefiting tens of thousands of families. Fees for regulated child care have been reduced in all jurisdictions outside of Quebec and the Yukon, which already had affordable child care systems. This system is a critical step toward our goal to see on average $10-a-day child care across Canada by March 2026.

To ensure the success of the system, we are also working hard with provinces and territories to create 250,000 new full-time regulated and primarily not-for-profit child care spaces by the end of March 2026, as well as to attract, train and retain the best early childhood educators.

We have put Bill C-35 before the House to ensure future generations of families across Canada can continue benefitting from this system.

The proposed legislation reinforces the government's commitment to support provinces, territories and indigenous partners in building a Canada-wide system. It will ensure that federal funding will be sustained; it promises accountability; and it further underscores our commitment to human rights conventions, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Bill C-35 is the result of comprehensive feedback from our partners and stakeholders. It is driven by shared interests, close partnerships and collaboration.

This proposed legislation respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction, and the vision and principles of both the 2017 multilateral early learning and child care framework that was developed with provinces and territories and the indigenous early learning and child care framework that was co-developed with indigenous partners.

With Bill C-35, provinces, territories, and Indigenous partners would benefit from the assurance of a sustained federal commitment to early learning and child care.

By enshrining our shared principles and vision into federal law, we would be building stability and predictability into the child care system.

Mr. Chair, our child care system is working everywhere in Canada, and more and more families are benefiting. This bill has been conceived to ensure that if it is passed as written, families will continue to benefit from these investments for generations to come.

Now we are pleased to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order. The clerk has advised me that we are good to go.

Welcome to meeting number 58 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, with some appearing remotely by Zoom and some attending in person in the room.

To ensure an orderly meeting, please direct all your questions or interventions through me, the chair, and wait until I recognize you by name. You have the choice of speaking in either official language of your choice. For those appearing remotely, there is translation on your Surface device. For those in the room, there is translation using the headphones. If there is an interruption in translation services, please get my attention; we'll suspend while it is worked out.

I would like to remind members that no screenshots or in-room shots are allowed while the committee is in hearings.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee will continue its study of Bill C‑35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

I don't think technical tests to check the connectivity of witnesses have been completed yet. I would like to inform all members that witnesses appearing virtually today and members participating remotely are required to use a headset approved by the House of Commons. If they do not, they will not participate verbally in the meeting, but members will still have the right to vote in the meeting.

I would like to welcome our witnesses. We have Minister Gould, Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. Welcome back again. You are a regular before this committee, Minister.

From the Department of Employment and Social Development, we have Michelle Lattimore, director general, federal secretariat; Cheri Reddin, director general, indigenous early learning; Jill Henry, director, policy, indigenous early learning; Kelly Nares, director, federal secretariat; and Christian Paradis, director, federal secretariat on early learning and child care.

Minister, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Michelle Lattimore]

Thank you for the question.

One thing I can speak to, perhaps, with respect to children with disabilities, is the value we are now seeing in having built a national advisory council that is reflective of the diversity of Canada, and in having, on that council, the voices of individuals who have deep experience with, and appreciation for, the challenges faced by families with children with disabilities.

Bill C-35 acknowledges that the government is committed to continuing to work in this space. This is rights-based legislation. It's reflected in the preamble of the bill as well. Its purpose is to further the progressive realization of the right to benefit from child care services, as recognized in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That includes application to persons with disabilities.

We understand the perspective of many vulnerable communities: Child care services are difficult to access and facilities are more expensive to build, so our goal is to work very closely with provinces and territories through the bilateral agreements to ensure inclusive spaces are at the top of the list in terms of those investments as space creation continues.

[Michelle Lattimore]

That's a good question.

That's why the bill is important. We just need to make sure that the federal government is present as a partner beyond five years. If Bill C‑35 is passed, it will confirm the government's commitment and funding for the early education and child care system, while maintaining the flexibility needed for agreements with the provinces, like the asymmetrical agreement with Quebec.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

All right.

Ms. Lattimore, you say that Bill C‑35 primarily applies to the federal framework, and therefore did not need to include Quebec's withdrawal with full compensation. However, the current agreement with Quebec is for five years.

What guarantee is there for Quebec that, in the next round of negotiations, standards and obligations won't be imposed by the federal government?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Bill C‑35 does not include a definition of child care.

I'd like to know if the bill would apply to before‑ and after-school programs and part-time programs.

What other types of child care services does the bill cover?

[Michelle Lattimore]

Thank you.

As you mentioned, it is in paragraph 6(b) in the legislation that we speak to the importance of having flexibility in early learning and child care programs and services so that they respond to the varying needs of children and families. Of course, there are greater details on all of this in the bilateral agreements. Each province and territory has its own regulations and policies for things like hours of care, length of care during the day, weekend care and pieces like that.

To give you an example, the Alberta agreement indicates than an additional grant for those operating flexible and overnight child care would be provided with such a grant. Other agreements with provinces and territories recognize this really important component and have committed to other measures.

Bill C-35 was drafted, again, to fully respect provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Regulation of hours of care is a matter of provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

According to the Constitution, education, like family policies, is not a matter of federal jurisdiction.

Do you believe that Bill C‑35 respects the Constitution and the various areas of jurisdiction?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Why was clause 4 of Bill C‑303 concerning Quebec's exemption not kept and included in Bill C‑35?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to be on this committee with my colleagues. I thank the witnesses for being here today.

We can agree that Bill C‑303, which was introduced in 2006 by the NDP, is the forerunner of Bill C‑35, save for a few differences. There is one difference that concerns me in Bill C‑35. There is no indication of the exemption for Quebec.

Do you think it would be good if Bill C‑35 were to include a provision setting out Quebec's full withdrawal from this program, with full compensation and without conditions? This would preclude negotiations, and even disagreements, between the federal and provincial governments every five years.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon. Good afternoon, colleagues.

Thank you to our witnesses this afternoon, and thank you for your work on behalf of all Canadians.

I ran in 2015 to be part of a government that delivered transformational programs. Whether those programs were the Canada child benefit or the housing benefit or the workers benefit or what have you, they're transformational. They are there to have a major impact on the lives of Canadians. There's absolutely no question that the child care agreements that were signed across the country will do that.

I don't think it's any secret that in the last election the Conservative Party actually ran to scrap that program. I heard at very many doors from concerned parents who were saying we were coming forth with a program that was going to cut their child care costs in half, down to $10, and the Conservative Party was running to scrap it. That was in their platform, actually.

For those Canadians who are watching or listening today, can you give us, at 20,000 feet, how important Bill C-35 is? We all know about the bilateral agreements. We all saw the pictures with the premiers and the minister and things like that, and they were wonderful, right across the country, but can you just speak at a very high level to people listening in about how important Bill C-35 is and what that means?

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

Thank you.

On slide 9 it says to “target funding towards families more in need”. However, the specific wording of Bill C-35 is “enable families of varying incomes to benefit”. How do you reconcile these?

[Cheri Reddin, Director General, Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Secretariat, Department of Employment and Social Development]

The Canada-wide approach includes an indigenous-specific strategy that complements the Canada-wide agreements in place. The goal is not to create separate systems but rather to enable indigenous-led strategies within comprehensive and coordinated systems that meet the needs of indigenous children and families wherever they live.

As mentioned, in 2017 a comprehensive national engagement was held on indigenous early learning and child care. This informed the co-development of the indigenous early learning and child care framework. The framework includes an indigenous-specific vision and principles, and it guides our work in this sector. It includes distinct first nations, Inuit and Métis early learning and child care frameworks. Since the mid 1990s, the federal government has been investing in aboriginal head start and day care programs, and this will continue.

Additional investments for indigenous early learning and child care, committed to in 2017 and strengthened in Budget 2021, build on those former programs and advance the priorities of the indigenous early learning and child care framework, and the development of the system across Canada. Most of these investments are held in funding envelopes based on high quality ELCC, and the funding is administered through amendments to contribution agreements. These funds are jointly managed through national and regional partnership tables with Canada, a process that puts indigenous leaders at the forefront of decisions concerning the allocation of funds, priorities and work plans.

Indigenous leaders have the flexibility to direct which agreement they would like to receive ELCC funding through. Four federal partners—Employment and Social Development Canada, Indigenous Services Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada—are lined up to support and administer agreements under a common set of program authorities.

These investments fall into three broad categories. In the first category are dedicated investments in governance and partnership building. This is to enable greater self-determination and indigenous government participation—alongside Canada and the provinces and territories—in the design and implementation of a Canada-wide system by hiring staff at the political and technical levels and establishing centres of expertise akin to ministries in a federal-provincial-territorial context.

The second is increased investments to support indigenous early learning and child care programs and services. This funding is flexible and supports a number of priorities identified by indigenous leaders, including, for example, the development of culturally appropriate curricula and learning tools, linguistic revitalization initiatives for early learners and expanded access or hours of care.

Finally, the third category consists of dedicated investments in indigenous early learning and child care infrastructure, including minor capital repairs and renovations at existing federal indigenous early learning and child care sites. Starting next fiscal year, there are new investments to replace sites that have outlived their useful life or to build new centres in communities that are underserved.

Indigenous early learning and child care investments alone are not enough to achieve the vision of a Canada-wide system. Collaboration among federal, provincial, territorial and indigenous governments is required to help break down barriers in access to early learning and child care programs and services and to promote culturally appropriate early learning and child care models.

To anchor this collaboration with indigenous partners as well as federal and provincial governments, the Canada-wide early learning and child care agreements recognize reconciliation, the indigenous early learning and child care framework and the importance of working collaboratively with indigenous governing bodies and organizations. The indigenous early learning and child care transformation initiative supports federal implementation of the framework. It shifts from a previous program delivery model—aboriginal head start and day care service providers—to a program delivery model with indigenous governments.

We heard, through engagement, “We know best. We want to be at the forefront of making decisions about children and families in our communities.” This approach aligns with that feedback.

This approach also aligns with the broader commitments of establishing a government-to-government relationship with indigenous peoples. Finally, this approach aligns with call to action number 12 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, calling on the federal, provincial, territorial and indigenous governments to develop culturally appropriate early childhood and education programs for indigenous families.

There are close to 60 national and regional partnership tables or bilateral relationships on indigenous early learning and child care across the country. Some of these tables are long-standing and have entrenched governance processes. Others are new and emerging and are focused around key experts or identified technical conveners. Technical capacity is emerging to support and provide advice to indigenous leaders for their decisions.

These partnership tables develop plans and funding allocations and set priorities. They coordinate indigenous early learning and child care activities and enable the sharing of best practices by bringing together many indigenous partners across programs, sectors, communities and governments, both nationally and regionally. They are also beginning to serve as venues for provincial-territorial dialogue and influence where there is willingness, especially in the context of advancing a Canada-wide early learning and child care system.

What is key is that indigenous leaders are at the forefront of decision-making on funding allocations, plans and priorities. Canada is at the table to provide oversight and expertise, but the primary federal objective is to ensure that the federal system is lined up to support indigenous priorities and decisions.

Slide 14 provides some examples of early progress in advancing and strengthening indigenous early learning and child care. In Manitoba, for example, a strategy and governance model designed and owned by a first nation is guiding multi-year investments in indigenous early learning and child care, building on a province-wide first nations education model. In addition, federal investments have supported a total of 73 Inuit communities to expand and improve access to culturally appropriate early learning and child care programs and services.

In Nunavut, federal funding is supporting indigenous language resources, Inuit cultural programs and subsidies for the early childhood educator workforce and improvements to child care facilities.

Last, I'll highlight that the Métis nation governments have been working to improve access, affordability and availability of culturally appropriate and Métis-specific early learning and child care programs and services. This includes child care subsidies in Alberta, Michif and Dene immersion programs for kindergarten students in Saskatchewan and the establishment of new Métis child care sites in Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and British Columbia.

Thank you.

I'll turn back to you, Michelle, to present the vision and approach behind Bill C-35.

[Michelle Lattimore, Director General, Federal Secretariat on Early Learning and Child Care, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here this afternoon.

We are here today to give you a technical briefing on the early learning and child care system across Canada, and on Bill C‑35, which as you know was tabled in Parliament on December 8, 2022.

Today's briefing will provide details on the vision, objectives and other key elements of Bill C-35, but prior to outlining the specifics of the proposed legislation, I understand there is some interest in digging into the agreements, so we would like to take some time to situate the bill within the broader context of the Canada-wide system that is being built in collaboration with provincial, territorial and indigenous partners. After the presentation, we would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Slide 3 in our deck provides an overview of recent federal commitments with respect to early learning in child care. Since 2016, the Government of Canada, in collaboration with provincial, territorial, and indigenous partners, has provided significant investments—which I won't repeat, but they are detailed on the slide—and has undertaken a range of activities to advance a Canada-wide system. What is perhaps most important for you to understand is that this work is grounded in two frameworks: the multilateral early learning and child care framework and the indigenous early learning and child care framework.

The multilateral framework was endorsed in June 2017 by all federal, provincial, and territorial ministers, with the exception of Quebec. This framework sets the foundation for a shared long-term vision for early learning and child care, guided by the agreed-upon principles of quality, accessibility, affordability, flexibility and inclusivity. It is these shared principles that formed the foundation of the initial bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories in 2017, as well as extensions to those agreements, and to the new Canada-wide agreement signed just last year.

I'd like to note that, although Quebec stated that it supported the general principles included in the framework, it does not approve of or formally adhere to the framework itself. The governments of Quebec and Canada acknowledge Quebec's leadership in early learning and child care. Together, they have negotiated asymmetrical agreements for the transfer of federal funds. Under those agreements, Quebec is not subject to the same accountability and reporting requirements, which I will come back to.

Concurrently, in 2017 the Government of Canada and indigenous partners undertook a comprehensive engagement process to support indigenous early learning and child care. Informed by this engagement, the government worked with indigenous partners to co-develop the indigenous early learning and child care framework, which was endorsed by the Government of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council and publicly released in September 2018.

This framework lays out a shared vision, principles and a path forward for high-quality, culturally strong indigenous early learning and child care for first nations, Inuit and Métis families.

As I mentioned at the outset, I would like to take a little time on slide 4 to position the legislation within the broader context of the Canada-wide system, core to which are the bilateral agreements with provinces, territories and indigenous partners. These are five-year Canada-wide agreements that run from fiscal year 2021-22 to 2025-26. They govern the transfer to the provinces and territories of the $27.2-billion investment announced in budget 2021.

We also have what we often refer to as the extension agreements, a separate set of bilateral agreements with provinces and territories that outline the transfer of budget 2016 and 2017 investments.

Finally, we have funding agreements with indigenous partners for indigenous early learning and child care. These are guided by the co-developed indigenous early learning and child care framework and managed through national and regional partnership tables.

The system is so much more than just the agreements. What we are trying to show is the many other initiatives that support the system across Canada, as it continues to develop.

First, we have a number of multilateral entities looking at current challenges and emerging issues regarding early learning and child care, including, importantly, challenges related to the early childhood educator workforce.

These entities include, first, the national and regional indigenous early learning and child care partnership tables, which support early learning and child care implementation to enable first nations-led, Inuit-led and Métis-led decision-making and a pathway to transfer high-quality indigenous early learning and child care programs to regional indigenous governing bodies; second, the federal, provincial and territorial forum of ministers most responsible for early learning and child care, which was established in July 2022 as a mechanism to discuss emerging issues and advance shared ELCC priorities; third, the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, which was announced in November 2022 to provide advice and a forum for engagement on issues facing the early learning and child care sector.

Supporting this work are our program—the federal secretariat on early learning and child care —and the indigenous early learning and child care secretariat.

The federal secretariat, which I lead, was first announced in the government's 2020 fall economic statement and launched in August 2021. Among other things, we negotiate and manage the bilateral agreements with provinces and territories, provide oversight for investments in data and research projects, manage the early learning and child care innovation program and provide secretariat support to the national advisory council and the FPT ministers table.

My colleague Ms. Reddin leads the indigenous early learning and child care secretariat, which was established at ESDC in response to feedback from national engagement and commitments on the indigenous early learning and child care framework around improving federal coordination and streamlining administration.

Ms. Reddin and her team act as a federal focal point for indigenous ELCC transformation, support indigenous elements of broader Government of Canada ELCC strategies and liaise with key federal departments on the implementation of the indigenous ELCC transformative initiative to ensure better horizontal coordination among departments in support of comprehensive and holistic indigenous ELCC approaches.

Last, of course, Bill C-35, the Canada early learning and child care act, is intended to complement and reinforce other elements of the Canada-wide system by, among other things, establishing in law federal commitments to provincial, territorial and indigenous partners to continue to work with them to build and maintain a Canada-wide system.

It's a lot, but on the fifth slide, you can see the agreements with the provinces and territories, which are essential to the development and maintenance of the system across Canada.

As I mentioned previously, budget 2021 earmarked $27.2 billion for provincial and territorial transfers to form the cornerstone of the system, complementing bilateral agreements in ELCC that were signed with provinces and territories to implement earlier federal funding from budgets 2016 and 2017.

Budget 2021 also committed the federal government to work with provincial and territorial governments to support primarily not-for-profit providers to expand the number of regulated spaces. Agreements were signed with all 13 provinces and territories between July 2021 and March 2022, with Quebec signing an asymmetrical agreement in recognition of their existing ELCC system.

The Canada-wide agreements are long, they are detailed, and they're all available online, but most importantly, they are binding legal documents that lay out provincial and territorial commitments to meet objectives related to four agreed-upon principles: affordability, access, high quality and inclusivity. They lay out eligible areas of investment, financial provisions and reporting requirements.

On the sixth slide, we highlight certain specific commitments included in the agreements.

First is affordability. The goal is to reduce average fees for regulated child care by 50% by the end of 2022 and achieve an average cost of $10 a day for regulated child care for children under six by 2025-26. We'll see in the table on the following slide exactly where provinces and territories are at on that.

Under “Access”, agreements commit each jurisdiction to creating a specific number of new child care spaces by 2025-26, with over 250,000 of them—the vast majority—being not-for-profit spaces.

The Canada-wide agreements also commit the provinces and territories to specific activities related to the delivery of high-quality child care. For all provinces and territories, this includes commitments to support the recruitment and retention of a skilled, qualified, early childhood educator workforce. In terms of the principle of inclusion, provinces and territories have committed to developing and implementing plans to ensure that vulnerable children and children from diverse populations have equitable access to regulated child care spaces.

The seventh slide gives you an idea of the current situation in terms of affordability and accessibility. I won't go into that any further, as the table is quite explicit.

Slide 7 is here to outline some of the progress that provinces and territories have been making with respect to shared objectives and commitments on affordability and access. You'll see that all but one jurisdiction approved the commitment to reduce child care fees by 50% by the end of 2022, but at the end of the day, that was reflective of the fact that Manitoba was able to jump to a $10-a-day commitment as of April 2 of this year, which was just announced on Friday. Everyone else, you will see, is either on track or there already. You'll note that affordability commitments are not applicable to the Quebec agreement, as the province already had a highly affordable system in place at the time of signature.

Finally, as I mentioned previously, in the Canada-wide agreements provinces and territories have committed to creating over 250,000 new spaces by March of 2026. The last column of the table summarizes space creation in each province and territory.

The next slide of the presentation, slide 8, provides some recent examples of provincial and territorial announcements related to the provision of high-quality early learning and child care programs and services, which, as many of you know, is closely tied to the ECE workforce. While the Government of Canada cannot set standards that amount to regulating child care, including the ECE workforce, as the jurisdiction of this falls under the purview of provinces and territories, what the federal government can do is attach some limited conditions to money transferred to provinces, which we do through the Canada-wide early learning and child care agreements and their associated action plans.

For example, through the Canada-wide agreements, jurisdictions are required to demonstrate meaningful progress on improving the quality of ELCC programs and services through workforce-related commitments. As a result, we are seeing provinces and territories announcing ECE workforce strategies and measures to recruit and retain ECEs in the sector in areas such as hiring, retention, training and wage increases.

Funding is also being used to recruit, train and retain indigenous early childhood educators, including the establishment of baseline wage scales to remain competitive with the ELCC sites operating in a provincial and territorial context.

In addition to establishing agreed principles and objectives, each agreement describes the eligible investment areas.

These areas of investment vary somewhat in each bilateral agreement, recognizing that each jurisdiction has the responsibility to develop or enhance a system that best responds to the needs and priorities of their communities. However, I can say in general that the agreements lay out the following: first, that federal funding is invested to expand regulated or licensed child care for children under six years old; second, that non-profit or publicly delivered child care is prioritized while recognizing that in some jurisdictions non-profit, public and private, and for-profit operators all play a role in the delivery of high-quality regulated child care; third, that provinces and territories take into account the needs of official language minority communities in developing and delivering programs and services; fourth, that they deliver innovative approaches to support the principles of the Canada-wide system; and finally, that they make efforts to target funding toward vulnerable families, including families of children with disabilities, lower-income families and families in underserved communities.

The agreements include provincial and territorial action plans that provide more details on specific investments that PTs will undertake in support of eligible areas in order to achieve the Canada-wide early learning and child care objectives. Currently, provinces and territories have prepared action plans for the fiscal years of 2021-22 and 2022-23. They will be submitting their action plans for the remaining years of the Canada-wide agreements at the beginning of the next fiscal year, with two exceptions: The Ontario plan is a little bit different because Ontario signed so late, so we already have its plan for next year, and Quebec is not required to submit an action plan under its asymmetrical agreement.

The agreements also include financial provisions and very detailed reports. They are outlined on the tenth slide. They include clarifications about the allocation and disbursement of federal funds. For instance, Canada's contribution is paid out in fairly equal semi-annual payments.

There are conditions around this. Beginning in the second year of the agreement, which is this year, the Canada-wide second payment is withheld if a province or territory does not submit an annual progress report outlining data and results achieved, as well as an audited financial statement of the previous fiscal year. In addition, beginning in 2023-24, the first annual payment could be withheld if a jurisdiction has not submitted its detailed action plan covering the remainder of the agreement. Funding may also be withheld if a jurisdiction is unable to meet the agreed-upon objectives as set out in the agreement.

Finally, the agreements also include details on their administration. We have already discussed the issue of reports, but we also included some other key measures that are in the agreements.

There is the establishment of bilateral implementation committees as a means to monitor progress on the implementation of the agreements and to provide a forum to identify challenges in consultation with stakeholders and partners.

Lastly, there are clear processes for any disputes related to agreement non-compliance. Ultimately, this concludes with a six-month termination clause, which is available to both parties if terms of the agreement are not respected.

I will turn to my colleague, Ms. Reddin, to look at the next slides.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Order. Committee members, I call the meeting back to order, as we've moved in public to continue.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee will commence its study of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to begin our discussion. Before we do the witness list, I simply want to remind members that we are appearing in a virtual manner. Today everybody is actually in the room. I would ask that you wait until I recognize you to speak. Direct all of your questions and answers through the chair. You have the option of choosing to speak in the official language of your choice. If there is an issue with interpretation, please get my attention, and I will suspend while it is clarified.

From the federal secretariat on early learning and child care, we have Michelle Lattimore, director general; Elizabeth Casuga, director; Kelly Nares, director; and Christian Paradis, director.

From the indigenous early learning and child care secretariat, we have Jill Henry, director, policy, and Cheri Reddin, director general.

I welcome the department to begin its presentation, following which we'll open the floor to questions. You have up to 30 minutes to give your overview to committee members.

Ms. Lattimore, you have the floor.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Although it's not necessarily on the website, I'm anticipating that we will have a technical staff briefing.

I would like to take this opportunity to invite the minister to come later in the week, perhaps March 10, to talk about Bill C-35.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

It's on Bill C-35.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to take this time to get some clarity on our agenda going forward. Bill C-35 is going to be coming to this committee. I want to get some clarity on our first meetings back that are potentially addressing Bill C-35 and on what the plan is.

Opposition Motion—Rising Inflation and Cost of Living

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be more than happy to explain the math. In the province of Ontario, the federal government came to an agreement with the Province of Ontario to implement a national day care accord. The first reduction was a 50% reduction by the end of 2022, which was done. Now we will work toward a $10-a-day reduction.

Is the member opposite forgetting that the Conservative Party just voted for Bill C-35 to support the national day care plan or are you going back on that already?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Zarrillo. Our time is gone.

Thank you, Minister Khera.

I have one item left under business before we adjourn the meeting.

Before we do that, thank you, Minister and departmental officials, for appearing today. You may leave.

Committee members, last night you received in your electronic binders a draft of the news release referencing Bill C-35. If I am seeing consensus, the clerk may release the news release if there are no objections.

Go ahead, Mme. Chabot.

Child Care

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I was really delighted to be in Edmonton last week to make that important announcement of an additional 20,000 child care spaces, which are going to be created in Alberta. That is in addition to the 42,500 that were already announced when we signed the agreement. This means that we are delivering more affordable child care for families in Alberta and right across the country. This is good news for Alberta families and the Alberta economy.

I am so thrilled that we can move forward with this, just like we are moving forward with Bill C-35, which would protect child care for generations to come.

Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act

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

I had a slogan suggestion for his leadership campaign as well. It was “Get high in the polls”, but anyway, I will carry on with my remarks here. I wish my friend well, but I will not be supporting his bill.

This bill is about a review of our pandemic preparedness and comes out of the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, which, it is sort of cliche to say but it is obvious, is the seminal event in all of our lives that has had so many dramatic consequences. There are the health consequences for so many people, but also the social and cultural consequences of the pandemic that have deeply shaped us and will continue to shape us. Most of those consequences, quite frankly, are negative and require a reaction to the social and cultural damage that has been wrought as a result of the divisions that have been created through this pandemic, some of them maybe just incidental or unintended, but some of them very much intentionally sown.

It is right that we, as politicians, as leaders but also as a society in general, should be evaluating and reviewing the effects of the pandemic and asking what happened here, how we got some things so badly wrong, what were the things that we got right, and how we could approach future pandemics in a better way. In principle, I agree with the idea of having a postpandemic review and having in place provisions to ensure that there is a plan for future pandemics. I do not regard this bill, sadly, as a serious approach to those things.

I will just mention some aspects of this. One is that Liberals love to put forward new advisory councils appointed by government ministers. We saw this with their child care bill, Bill C-35. We are seeing this again with Bill C-293, where they are saying they have this issue they have to think about and therefore they are going to have an advisory council that is going to be responsible for advising the government about it. The minister responsible for that area is going to appoint the advisory council. By the way, the advisory council should be, in certain respects, diverse, reflective of different kinds of backgrounds, experiences and so forth.

However, what guarantees diversity of thought in an advisory mechanism is diversity in the appointment process, that is, bringing in multiple voices in determining who are the right people to sit on this advisory council. If a minister chooses who sits on the advisory council, then obviously they are going to be tempted to appoint people who share their pre-existing philosophy and who are not necessarily going to dig into providing the kind of criticism that is required of the government's approach.

Various members have put forward proposals in terms of the kind of broad-based, genuinely democratic postpandemic review that we would need to have. Many of those conversations are already going on. There should be a mechanism within the government to have this kind of review. I know various provinces are looking at this already. There should be international mechanisms around pandemic review. All these things are important, but those review processes should not be a top-down, controlled whitewash. They should be authentically empowered to hold governments accountable, to ask whether we got some big things wrong in the context of the pandemic, why we got them wrong, and how we could ensure we fix those issues.

In the time I have left, let me highlight some of the things I think we got badly wrong about the pandemic, and some of the ways we need to think about how we go forward.

There were a lot of things that we did not know about COVID-19 when it started. Let us acknowledge that it was probably inevitable that we were going to get some things wrong, but at a basic level we should have had the stockpile of PPE that was required. This was coming out of past pandemics, so that people could eventually come to conclusions such as to what degree certain kinds of masks limit, or not, the spread of the virus. At the very beginning, before we knew anything, it would have been a good kind of default to say, let us make sure that we have protective equipment in place and that we have that stockpile available so that it could be available to people.

It was out of the discussion after the SARS pandemic a couple of decades ago that we created the Public Health Agency, which was supposed to help us be prepared for these things. We were not prepared. We did not have the stockpiles of PPE. In fact, we sent away PPE at a critical juncture early in the pandemic. There was a lack of preparedness, particularly around having the equipment that was required.

Members will recall, and it is important to recall, that the leading public health authorities in this country and in the U.S. said not to use masks and that masks are ineffective or even counterproductive. That was the message at the beginning. Likely, part of the reason that message was pushed, in a context where doctors and nurses were using that equipment but the general public was told not to use these things because they are counterproductive, was that there was a shortage of supply. The government could have been more honest about acknowledging the fact that there was a shortage of supply and that it had failed to plan and prepare for that reality.

This speaks to another point. There is the lack of preparedness in terms of having the PPE available, but also we would have been much better off if governments and public health authorities had been more willing to openly acknowledge the things they did not know. I think early discussions around masking were a good example of the tone we had. People were told that if they were for masking when they were supposed to be against masking, they were anti-science and they were pushing an anti-science message. Later, there was the revision, in terms of the government's messaging.

Our public health authorities and governments could have shown a greater degree of humility right at the beginning of the pandemic and said that there were just things they did not know and that masking was a reasonable precautionary measure. However, it was a very assertive approach that carried itself throughout the pandemic with respect to any diversity of opinion in terms of pandemic strategy. If people were disagreeing with the prevailing consensus, then they were supposedly anti-science. As members have pointed out, the way science progresses is through some degree of open debate and challenging presumptions. The reality is that public health bodies and governments were expressing certainty about things that they were less than certain about.

Let us acknowledge that throughout the pandemic there were various revisions. I recall, for example, that when vaccines first came out the government's message was to take the first available vaccine. Then the government said not to take AstraZeneca and recommended Pfizer or Moderna but not AstraZeneca. At the same time as the government was not recommending AstraZeneca for Canadians, I had constituents who did what the government told them to do with the first shot, and now it was telling them that they were supposed to have a second shot of a different kind, which was apparently totally fine in Canada, whereas other countries were saying that people needed to have two doses of the same kind. I understand that as the science is unfolding there are going to be things we do not know, but if the government had been willing to acknowledge in a more honest, transparent way throughout that process that there were some things we did not know, we would have been much better off.

I want to conclude by saying that I am very concerned about some of the social and cultural impacts of this pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, we were already seeing trends where there was sort of a breaking down of traditional community and a greater political polarization. People were less likely to be involved in neighbourhood and community organizations, community leagues, faith organizations and these kinds of things and were becoming more polarized along political lines. Those existing trends were dramatically accelerated through the pandemic, where the restrictions made it difficult for people to gather together in the kind of traditional community structures that had existed previously, and we have seen a heightened political polarization, with people being divided on the basis of their views on masks and their vaccination status.

As we evaluate what happened in the pandemic, and this is more of a cultural work than a political work, we need to think about how we can bring our communities back together, reconcile people across these kinds of divides and try to rebuild the kinds of communities we had previously, where people put politics aside and were willing to get together and focus on what united them.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for attending today.

I want to start out with child care. We're seeing this CWELCC program and Bill C-35 being rolled out and discussed in the House right now. Anybody who's been following this or who works in the industry knows there's significant burnout. Wages are not keeping people in this industry. I have letters here in front of me from a day care in Simcoe County that has had to shorten its hours because of labour shortages.

The promise is 250,000 early child care workers. This is wading into a lot of provincial jurisdictions when we look at child care and these agreements. You're already wading into that kind of jurisdiction, so at a federal level, there's a lot of anticipation that you will have a national strategy around how you're going to meet these demands.

I'm curious what that is. This number is lovely, and it's lovely to hear that you're going to hire this many, but you can't even retain or recruit the people you need now. Why wasn't a national child care strategy put into that bill? Do you have one?

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:16 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-35.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from January 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the subject matter of Bill C-35, child care and early learning, is very important, whether in Quebec or across Canada. We also know that this bill includes some key elements such as the benefits of early learning and child care on children's development, as well as the role of the provinces.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion. What does she think about respect for provincial jurisdictions in this area?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2022, Quebec celebrated the 25th anniversary of its family policy. On January 23, 1997, former premier Pauline Marois, then education minister for the Parti Québécois government, unveiled the Quebec family policy. This family policy was developed as a result of major changes in Quebec's population, including an increase in the number of single-parent and blended families, a greater number of women in the workforce, and the troubling rise of precarious employment.

Quebec's family policy had three basic thrusts: the implementation of an integrated allowance for children, the development of early childhood education services at a reasonable cost and the implementation of a parental insurance plan to provide adequate income replacement during maternity and parental leave.

This policy made it possible for thousands of Quebeckers to go back to school, as my wife did when our first child was born. It also enabled thousands of Quebeckers to improve their work-life balance, which was the case for us when my second child was born. It also enabled them to benefit from more generous maternity and parental leave, which was the case for us when my third child was born. My family really benefited from these progressive programs that are in place in Quebec.

The policy had three objectives: to ensure fairness through universal support for families and additional help for low-income families; to help parents balance their parental and professional responsibilities; and to promote children's development and equal opportunities for all. This policy was forward-looking, just like Quebec.

It was in the same spirit that the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development of the Government of Canada introduced Bill C‑35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, on December 8, 2022. This bill is full of good will and good principles. I can admit when that is the case. However, it is too bad that these good principles stem from the federal government's infamous interfering power. Pardon me, I meant to say the federal government's spending power. It seems to me that the federal government did not introduce this bill in the right Parliament, because I get the impression that we are once again facing the age-old problem of federal interference in provincial matters.

Let me explain. If passed, Bill C‑35, will enshrine in legislation the Liberal government's commitment to providing long-term program funding for the provinces and indigenous communities, as well as the principles that must guide that federal funding. The idea is to make it more difficult for a future government to dismantle the program.

This bill is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, it does not comply with the distribution of powers set out in the Constitution, which clearly states that education and family policy are not under federal jurisdiction. I wanted to remind the federal government of that because it tends to forget. On the other hand, it exempts Quebec from the application of the federal family policy for the next five years, with compensation. I will not deny that the Bloc Québécois is very happy with that second part. That said, it is too bad it took the federal government 25 years to follow Quebec's lead. This is not the first time that the federal government has dragged its feet on an issue.

Should Canada ever decide to take a page out of Quebec's playbook in other areas, such as the environment or energy production, it certainly would not hurt. We must not kid ourselves. Quebec has always been ahead of the curve in almost all areas compared to Canada. When it comes to child care services, Quebec is a pioneer, not only in North America, but in the world, and above all, it is a model of success.

In its preamble, Bill C-35 outlines the beneficial impact of early learning and child care on child development, on the well-being of children and of families, on gender equality, and on the rights of women and their economic participation and prosperity. Of course, I was not surprised when I read this. As I said earlier, this system was created on January 23, 1997, by Pauline Marois, then minister of education in the Quebec government, as a network of non-profit child care centres and home-based child care agencies. Based on the recommendations from a report entitled “Un Québec fou de ses enfants”, which highlighted the importance of early childhood stimulation, especially among children from more vulnerable families, the network upheld the principle of access to child care for all.

In Quebec, the mission of educational child care is threefold: to ensure the well-being, health and safety of the children receiving care; to provide a child-friendly environment that stimulates their development in every way, from birth to school age; and to prevent learning, behavioural and social integration problems from appearing later on.

This child care network has greatly contributed to making the workforce much more accessible to women. In just one year, yes, one year, it encouraged nearly 70,000 mothers to get a job in Quebec, which is a big deal. That was in 1997. No one in the House will be surprised to hear me say that there are many things that make me proud to be a Quebecker, and that is one of them. Another is the fact that Quebec has always been well ahead of Canada in a number of ways. I wonder if, by following Quebec's example, Canada will soon also have its own secularism law. That will come some day. When Canada realizes that every policy in Quebec bears fruit, then maybe it will stop dragging its feet and its governments will do the same. I will not talk about the federal immigration department because I have too much to say about that and not enough time.

What I can say is that Quebeckers have quite a lot of good ideas, and we are seeing that again today. Even the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development says so. I will stop there because I can tell the House of Commons is feeling a little uncomfortable. Everyone knows I like to take shots at members of other parties because there is always a way to have a little fun even while we are working. We must never forget who we are working for, though. As I have said more than once, as elected representatives, we work for our constituents. We serve the people—the citizens, workers, mothers and fathers—who placed their trust in us.

For that reason, I could not say to the Liberals that Bill C‑35 is not a bill. Even though it interferes in provincial jurisdictions, I like their bill because we were able to obtain compensation with no conditions for Quebec. It might be advisable to take what was done with Bill C‑35 and apply it to health transfers. Why can the government give money to Quebec with no conditions for child care, but when it comes to health, it wants to set conditions? Do the Liberals believe that children are less important than the health of the rest of the population? I would not go that far.

I like the bill, but I liked it even more when the Parti Québécois introduced it in the late 1990s. My wife and I were 23 when we had our first child. My wife was in university, and because this Quebec law existed, she was able to complete her bachelor's degree. We were 26 when our second child was born. This law helped us buy a house and become homeowners. We were 31 when our third child, Simone, was born. Once again, we were lucky to share our parental leave and to have day care centres.

I will close by saying that I support this bill, despite the federal government's interference. It is a good bill for the provinces of Canada, children and their parents. I do not want members to worry. I will pass the message on to Pauline Marois that the Liberals, the House of Commons, this government and all members of the House are saying thank you to her today.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to be speaking on Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

This bill is one of the most significant pieces of legislation before this Parliament. It is something that I have been working on since I was first elected. It is one of the key issues that I have heard from my constituents.

I have spoken with mothers who wanted to return to work after their 12-month parental leave, but they could not because they could not find affordable child care, so they stayed out of the workforce longer than they intended to.

I also know of families where the mother, who made less money than the father, realized that almost all of her income from working would go to child care. She ended up making the choice to stay out of the workforce, even though that was not what she would have preferred.

This legislation is giving families, and particularly women, their choices back to be able to decide when and how they want to re-enter the workforce and to have their families. We all know that in these kinds of cases, even today, this definitely impacts women more than it impacts men.

Bill C-35 is absolutely vital to gender equality. When I chaired the Special Committee on Pay Equity during the 42nd Parliament, we heard over and over again that women earn, over the course of their lifetime in Canada, about 74¢ for every dollar that men earn over their lifetime.

This is not just because women are paid less. It is also because women are more likely to interrupt their careers for caregiving responsibilities. That results in lower incomes throughout women's lifetimes. When women retire, they end up having smaller pensions because they are based on fewer years worked and lower salary.

We have heard in this House today that one of the key recommendations for the last 50-plus years has been that in order to reduce the wage gap between women and men, we need to provide affordable child care, so that women and men can make the choice to stay in the workforce if that is what they want.

Bill C‑35 will enshrine the principles of a Canada-wide early learning and child care system into federal law. These principles are access, affordability, inclusiveness and high quality. Because these principles will be enshrined in law, it will be much more difficult for any future government to reverse them.

Canadians have already started feeling the impact of the $30-billion, federal-provincial-territorial, multilateral early learning and child care framework.

In Ontario, in my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean, child care spaces have seen a fee reduction of 50% at the end of December. This saves families in Ontario, on average, about $6,000 a year. By March 2026, we will reduce fees to $10 a day. In addition to this, we are creating 250,000 new, affordable child care spaces, including 86,000 in Ontario.

In the past, what we have seen is federal-provincial agreements simply being cancelled after a change of government. What this legislation does is enshrine in law accountability, transparency and reporting, long-term funding and a national advisory council on early learning and child care.

This will allow families in Canada, and those who are considering starting a family in the future, the assurance that affordable child care will be available to them in the long term. It also provides predictability and planning to the provinces and territories that know they can rely on sustained federal funding, while fully respecting the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces.

I have been talking about the importance of child care to equality and values. What is often overlooked is that it is also a vital economic strategy. During the pandemic, 1.5 million women either lost their jobs or left work to take care of school-aged children who were home because of the pandemic. Many of them are still struggling to return to the workforce.

At the same time, our economy is now facing a labour shortage. Ensuring that we reduce the barriers to full labour force participation of women, the main barrier of which is lack of affordable child care, is key in overcoming our labour shortage and allowing businesses to find the skilled workers that they need in order to grow and thrive. Countries with high labour force participation of women have higher GDP growth and, therefore, access to early learning and child care is one of the key drivers of economic growth in Canada.

Studies have shown that investing in child care has one of the greatest returns on investment. For every dollar invested in early childhood education, there is a return to our economy of $1.50 to $2.80. We cannot afford not to do this.

At a time when the cost of living is rising due to global inflation and supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic and the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Putin, it is even more important to provide assistance to Canadians.

Reducing the cost of day care by thousands of dollars a year will also considerably help families with children who are struggling to make ends meet. That is only one of our affordability policies, and it is a very important one for families with young children.

I would like to talk a bit also about the principle that is in this law about inclusivity. We want families to have access to early learning and child care no matter where they live. Bill C-35 would build on the work done with indigenous peoples who have co-developed the indigenous early learning and child care framework, which is culturally appropriate and led by indigenous peoples.

I also know that women with intersecting identities, racialized and newcomer women, those living with disabilities, single parents and families in lower socio-economic conditions, face even greater challenges in finding good quality, affordable and reliable child care. This legislation would enshrine the principle of inclusivity into law. I hope that in the future we will elaborate this so that we can provide more supports to parents of children with special needs, to those working shift work or in precarious employment and to others who face additional barriers.

I would also point out that many child care workers themselves are women. This legislation would have the additional benefit of providing long-term funding and increasing the number of regulated child care spaces, creating more secure and higher-paid employment for those in this industry.

I am also very proud to say that my mom was a kindergarten teacher. I grew up in a house where I was given all the benefits of creativity, stimulation and learning from the very earliest age, but not all children are lucky enough to have a mother who is a Montessori teacher. That is why we are calling it “early learning” and child care. It is not just babysitting. This is a program that is designed to give children the best possible start in life.

We know that, traditionally, child care responsibilities are disproportionately shouldered by women. However, I hope that this law and evolving social norms will also help ensure a more equitable division of child care responsibilities between men and women.

I know that Bill C-35 is not the complete solution. It does not address caregiving responsibilities that many people, especially daughters, face for aging parents or responsibilities for caregiving for adult children with disabilities. I hope that this legislation is only the beginning of a wider societal dialogue about what we value as a society.

Caregiving has too long been invisible work done primarily by women in the unpaid economy. Our society has pushed the burden of caregiving from society onto the individual and, in particular, onto women’s unpaid care work. However, the pandemic has made visible many of the divisions and pressures in our society and I hope that it is allowing us to challenge the status quo of what we consider to be valuable work and to realize that community is important when raising families.

While Bill C-35 is an important first step, we need to ensure that we continue working to build a more equal and more prosperous Canada.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. The purpose of this legislation is to try to solve the issue of high child care costs in Canada.

This legislation does not address the serious economic challenges of implementing a Canada-wide early learning and child care agreement. I believe that this proposed legislation and the current agreements made by the Liberal government with the provinces will fail to provide universal access to affordable child care and will cost far more than what the government has estimated. In fact, I found it quite shocking that the Liberal speaker who came just before me admitted that this is not a universal program. He is right and he admitted the truth: It is going to be a two-tiered program where families who are lucky enough to get a child care space will benefit immensely while an estimated 182,000 families, according to the PBO, will be excluded and not have access to an affordable child care space.

Child care in Canada is provided by several mechanisms, including for-profit and non-profit models, parental care and care by other relatives. For the past several decades, the wages of average working families have not increased significantly while the demands on family finances through taxes, housing, food and child care have increased substantially. In the last few years alone, the costs for families have significantly outstripped wage growth.

The cost to provide child care varies based on age but is a minimum of $1,000 per child. Lower-income families have traditionally had access to subsidies, but these benefits vary across the provinces. Having one parent stay at home with a child is becoming unaffordable for many families and is far easier for families with higher incomes. Access to day care is already limited in Canada, with wait-lists. According to reports out of Quebec, there are an estimated 50,000 children waiting for access to an affordable care space. The price of child care in Canada is too high for most families, and access to affordable care is limited.

Why is child care so expensive? The key costs for child care according to operators, in order of magnitude, are labour, the cost of the facilities and the cost of food and supplies. Child care is a labour-intensive operation and wages vary. The cost to create a space that is child appropriate and the accompanying rental, mortgage, insurance and maintenance costs are significant. Finally, the cost of food and other supplies has increased dramatically.

What is the common factor of all three of these costs? They have all been severely impacted by high inflation. Inflation has increased the cost of labour and the cost of rent and mortgages dramatically, and as everyone can see at their local grocery store, the price of food has gone up by 12%. Child care operators are not immune from these costs. The fact is that the Liberal government, through its inflationary policies, is driving up the cost of child care in Canada.

The government's solution to this problem, a problem that it created, has been to sign agreements with the provinces to subsidize the cost of child care and to implement cost controls on wages, facilities and food in order to regulate a price for families that will eventually reach $10 a day. Unfortunately, this is unsustainable because since it is government spending that caused the inflation in the first place, more spending will only increase inflation further. The result will be an inflationary spiral that will further increase the costs of child care and the costs to maintain this program. Given our current deficit, the government will either have to raise taxes on Canadians or take on more debt to sustain this program.

What are some examples of this inflationary spiral? Speaking to child care operators in Alberta, I have already heard a number of significant challenges that the government has failed to address. Child care workers in Alberta can be paid up to around $23 an hour, but due to regulations under these agreements, operators cannot raise their costs by more than 3% annually. According to Statistics Canada, private sector wages rose by over 5% last year. Government regulations prevent child care operators from paying their staff even enough to keep up with the rate of inflation.

There is also intense competition for child care workers. School districts can often afford to pay $30 an hour with benefits. I have been told that schools are even poaching staff from day cares because they are in desperate need of these workers as well. Under the government's agreements, day cares have been put at an economic disadvantage in attracting workers, which will lead to a significant loss in day care capacity, meaning less access to child care.

The proposed solution for this inflation by proponents of even more government intervention in early child care is, no surprise, more inflationary spending. By raising wages even further for child care workers, school boards and others will also try to compete by raising their wages even further. This will result in an inflationary cycle where taxpayers will need to pay much higher taxes as schools and early childhood care centres compete for limited workers.

I have spoken with child care operators who have had to pay increased rents and mortgages on their facilities. As everyone knows, mortgages and rental rates have skyrocketed under eight years of the Liberal government, particularly in the last year. Under agreements the government has signed, child care operators are limited in the costs they can bill the government toward their rent and mortgage. Since they are mandated to charge families a fixed price for child care, there is no way for these operators to make up the difference other than by reducing other costs, such as food for children; shutting down their capacity by letting go of workers; or shutting down altogether, which we have started to see.

The laws of supply and demand mean that the government must either restrict the capacity of day cares or dramatically increase funding beyond what it promised. The first option is unfair, as it is going to leave many families out, and the second option is financially unsustainable. This argument is backed up by research from the parliamentary budget office, which reported in February of last year that the Liberals' plan is not sufficient to meet the demand for child care. In fact, it estimates that it will fall short in providing spaces for 182,000 children. That is 182,000 children who are being left behind by the Liberal government, with no plan in this legislation to provide their families with an affordable child care space.

What we are talking about here is essentially a more focused application of the wage and price controls implemented under the Anti-Inflation Act passed by former prime minister Pierre Trudeau in 1975. In seeking to combat high inflation at the time, the government passed legislation to control increases in prices and wages. The results were economically disastrous and the policy was rescinded shortly thereafter.

Today, the Liberals are trying to implement wage and price controls through their early learning and child care agreements. Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman put it better than I ever could by comparing this kind of policy to putting a kettle full of water on a hot stove. When the boiling water begins to push off the kettle lid, the appropriate thing to do is take the lid off and turn down the heat. Well, what the government is doing is putting a brick on top of the lid and letting the kettle explode. The result is that the pot will explode and this policy will collapse on itself. It is true for this child care policy.

The Liberals claim that this policy will reduce the effects of inflation on families, but the reality is that it is only meant to cover up, to mask, to hide the symptoms of inflation while doing nothing to solve the underlying issue of inflation. It is not a cure for inflation, because as the government continues to spend more, it will drive up inflation, and the cost of this program will continue to rise dramatically in order to maintain the fixed price of $10 a day. Demand from families will build up and eventually the program will collapse on itself.

Universal access to affordable child care is the stated goal of this legislation and the early learning and child care agreements, but the current plan fails to meet objectives. I believe that this plan will lead to a further loss in child care capacity as operators close down from unsustainable cost increases and the inability to find labour to fill their positions. The result will be a two-tiered day care system where those who are lucky enough to get their child into a regulated, affordable child care space will reap the benefits and save tens of thousands of dollars a year, while many families will continue to have to use expensive, unregulated child care or make arrangements with family.

The families that will benefit the most from this system are those with the highest incomes. Research from the OECD indicates that the vast majority of children in regulated child care come from those with the highest incomes. Children from low-income families are disproportionally under-represented in child care spaces. In its efforts to implement an absolute, across-the-board, no matter what one's income is price of $10 a day for all families, the government has failed to take into account the need to provide equity for low-income families. Consequently, the benefits of this Liberal program will disproportionately benefit those with higher incomes, who often already have and can afford a regulated child care space.

Ironically, it was the Liberals who ran attacks against Conservatives claiming that our universal child care benefit gave benefits to millionaires. The fact is that the Liberal plan benefits those with the highest incomes, including millionaires, far more than it does low-income families.

In conclusion, making child care more affordable is an important economic and political goal, but the current plan by the Liberals will fail to do that. It is unacceptable to leave 182,000 children out of the system, and it is unacceptable to put this debt burden on Canadians.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague across and far away, regardless of where we are sitting in this House, we are working very closely with each other to make sure important bills, such as Bill C-35, are passed.

Let us pass this bill, get it to the committee and make sure that every opportunity that is relevant to this bill, and the success of support for the whole program, specifically the educators, are considered and debated.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise for the first time in the House in 2023 to talk about the very important bill for the second reading debate on Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Like many of my colleagues who spoke before me, I would like to take on the theme of Ontario, which is the province of York region and Richmond Hill, the region and city that I am so proud to represent.

I unequivocally support this bill. Really, I do not see how anyone could even think about opposing Bill C-35. Opposing Bill C-35 would be like opposing one's own constituents, opposing one's own fellow citizens and opposing the people one represents, in this case the people of Richmond Hill.

These people are mothers, fathers and children. They are early childhood educators and service providers, including support workers. They are students, employees and employers. These people are in each and every one of our ridings.

Child care is critical, not just for families, but for the whole economy and, for that matter, for everyone. Everyone would benefit from the Canada-wide early learning and child care system we are building with provinces, territories, and indigenous communities and partners.

It would be an important support for parents, families and communities. It would enable parents, especially mothers, to reach their full economic potential and contribute to a strong economy and greater gender equality. In other words, the Canadian economy is at its strongest when every parent who wants to work not only has the opportunity but also can work.

The Canada-wide early learning and child care system is working everywhere, in every region, of this amazing country. It is working right here in Ontario. In fact, let me tell us how it is going to work in this province.

It was in March 2022 that the governments of Canada and Ontario announced an agreement that significantly improved early learning and child care for children in our province. Through various investments, we are working together to improve access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care programs and services in Ontario. The goal is to give Ontario families access to licensed child care for an average of $10 a day by March 31, 2026.

Here is what was planned: The Canada-Ontario agreement planned to reduce child care fees in licensed settings that enrolled in the Canada-wide early learning and child care system for children aged zero to five by 20%, retroactive to April 1, 2022. We estimated that doing so would save Ontario families an average of about $2,200 per child in 2022.

The agreement also planned that by the end of 2022, fees would be further lowered. That would result in a total reduction of 50%, bringing fees down to an average of $23 per day. That could save Ontario families an average of about $6,000 per child per year.

We might ask how things are going. Are things going according to plan? I would like to respond by saying, overwhelmingly, yes they are.

Already, fees have been reduced by an average of 50% across the province compared to 2020 levels. We are talking about fees for families with children under the age of six at licensed child care operators in Ontario that have enrolled in the Canada-wide early learning and child care system.

It really makes a difference for parents in Ontario, and I am not the only one saying that. Experts are also saying it.

I will give a couple of examples. Martha Friendly is a policy researcher and board member of an advocacy group called Child Care Now. She said that before the initiative parents in downtown Toronto paid about $1,800 a month in fees. She also said, “Some women had to stay home because either they couldn't find a space or they couldn't afford it.” She added that with the reduced fees people can go back to work.

Spyros Volonakis is the executive director of Network Child Care Services, which operates 19 child care centres across Toronto and the GTA. He said, “This is a very positive development in the early years and child care field. It supports family without compromising quality”. He also talked about how, “Parents need to have a peace of mind that their children are safe and are supported so that they receive the necessary programming within the early childhood education.”

We also heard from many parents. They said, too, that it has made a real difference for them. On Twitter there have been many positive reactions. A mother of two from Toronto tweeted, “It was absolutely surreal to see my daycare fees drop from a high of $167”. She mentioned, “As of Jan, we will be paying less than 50% of that, on a path to $10” per child per day.

Also from the GTA, a dad thanked the federal government because his toddler's day care fees went down to $36 a day. Another mom, this time from Ottawa, tweeted, “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.”

Now, it is great to have reduced fees, but we are also well aware that the challenge now is to make sure the number of spaces keeps up with increasing demand. Increasing the number of spaces also happens to be part of our plan. In total, Ontario is aiming to create 86,000 new licensed spaces relative to 2019. These new licensed spaces will be predominantly among non-for-profit, public and family-based child care providers.

To support the creation of these new spaces, we are also planning investments to support existing and attract new early childhood educators. Funding is available to Ontario to recruit and retain registered early childhood educators. This includes investments that provide a wage floor of $19 per hour for registered early childhood educators and $21 per hour for registered early childhood educator supervisors in 2023. Funding will also support an annual one-dollar-per-hour wage increase, until 2026, up to a maximum of $25 per hour.

I made myself clear that the Canada-wide early learning and child care system is actually working. It is working in Ontario. It is working everywhere in Canada. More and more families in Canada benefit from affordable early learning and child care. It is a great help for many feeling the pinch of the high cost of living, and it is a great help for the country's economy.

Opposing Bill C-35 would be like throwing a spanner in the works. It would be like standing against Canadians who have been working so hard to deal with the cost of living, who have been working so hard to make it and who have been working so hard to give their kids the best start in life. Again, I do not see how anyone could even think about opposing Bill C-35.

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

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I love being in the chamber probably more than any professional activity I have undertaken, but I am actually at home in my community because I am celebrating the birth of my daughter, Launa Grace, who joined us on January 18, not even two weeks ago. I am pleased to announce that I have a healthy baby girl. She is the new joy in my life.

Over the last two days, I have very much appreciated a very comprehensive debate from all political parties on a very important subject, a subject that, for every parent, is probably the closest to our hearts, and that is the well-being of our children. Like many of the speakers who have shared personal stories, I have my own as well.

I have a three-year-old son in a licensed, registered day care facility. Since the agreement with British Columbia was signed, my fees went down approximately $450 in December. I know that many of my constituents are very appreciative of the decrease in fees, because the cost of living is almost insurmountable for many of them. I acknowledge the benefit, that the contract signed with the Province of British Columbia in July 2022 has made a moderate improvement for many young families struggling to make sense of the challenges they face today.

Indeed, child care is challenging. Many families do not have access to the type of facility that I do, and many who do, many parents who work in shift work, understand that raising a child is not only nine-to-five. It might be relying on neighbours, like I have to rely on my neighbours to come over in the mornings when my wife starts work at 6 a.m., and the nanny I have to employ at times when I am in Ottawa and my wife is left alone with our children or has other professional commitments. It is the grandparents as well, who play such a vital role in the upbringing of many children in many families across Canada. Also, it is the wonderful early learning and child care staff, who are so important to my kids. In fact, this very morning, my son Declyn and I went to his old child care facility. He was able to give a hug to one of his old teachers, because that relationship is so important to Declyn.

All that said, I am still at a loss as to why the government is putting forward Bill C-35 when the funding agreements have already been reached with the Province of British Columbia and the other provinces and territories in Canada. I looked through the bill quite comprehensively yesterday, and I figured, to add to the debate so far, I would point out a few of the discrepancies or points I believe the government should look at a little more closely once the bill gets to the committee stage and is studied in further detail.

The first point I would like to raise relates to indigenous participation. In July 2022, the Government of Canada actually reached a $40-billion settlement with indigenous people over past discretions of the Government of Canada failing to meet its obligations to indigenous children in respect to Jordan's principle.

Bill C-35 states that any future negotiations would include separate negotiations to uphold the nation-to-nation commitment to reconciliation. On that point, I would encourage the government members to look specifically at the preamble and paragraphs 5(a) and 5(b), and whether the government would actually be able to uphold its commitment to reach individual agreements with each respective first nation, Inuit and Métis community or entity.

The second point relates to the funding commitments. In clause 8, there is no specific dollar amount actually outlined for the future negotiations of agreements between provinces, territories and indigenous communities. I reference this because the government states in the bill that it would undertake negotiations on a nation-to-nation basis. If the government actually wants to divest responsibility, finally, as many indigenous communities have asked to have control over child and family services, which I understand would include child care, the government needs to get to work today, because it would not be able to reach those responsibilities accordingly.

The third point I would like to raise is about geographic equality or, I might add, inequality. In paragraph 6(a), under “Declaration”, the government commits to inclusive and high-quality early learning and child care programs and services where one lives. In many rural and remote communities and indigenous reserves, child care simply does not exist.

My constituents in rural communities do not have access to the government program that I do in Abbotsford and Mission. That is problematic. In fact, one young mother in the community of Boston Bar stated that she is effectively going to have to cut back on her small business because she is having a child and none of the government programs being discussed here today are accessible to her and her family. We need to do better. If the government is really serious about the universality it spoke about when it first introduced these agreements, it needs to spend more time looking at the availability of child care in remote and rural communities.

One aspect of the bill that I am very perturbed about is clause 9, which would establish 18 new federal government positions on a national council, with salaries that will be decided at a later point by the Governor in Council. In my opinion, the creation of a new council undermines the role of provinces as the primary level of government responsible for child care and, second, it undermines the valuable contributions of public servants at Employment and Social Development Canada. Many public servants worked for years to reach these agreements. They have connections with the provinces and stakeholders across Canada. The public service has the ability to do what a national council would and to provide the requisite advice to the minister in advance of future negotiations in 2026.

What I am fearful of is that the creation of this new advisory council is just another attempt by the government to create plum positions for Liberal partisans to get paid by the government and appointed solely by the government. We should not undermine the valuable contributions of the public service to provide the necessary advice in advance of future negotiations by the Government of Canada and the respective provinces and territories.

Finally, I will end on a note regarding the nature of child care for so many families. As a politician, I have to admit that my wife takes on many of the primary responsibilities that relate to child care due to the nature of my job and the time that I am away. This Christmas season we were sitting down with another family that had a similar experience. We also shared a song by Dolly Parton and the movie about working nine to five. My wife quipped that actually she is working more like five to nine. That is the experience of many women across this country. Their jobs start the moment they wake up in the morning and a lot of them are working until the moment they go to bed.

We need to ensure that child care programs and facilities give women the choices they need that account for shift work and the nature of professional work today so that they can participate in the economy in the way they feel best for themselves and their children accordingly.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today for the first time in 2023 on behalf of the good people of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. I hope you have been able to have a very restful holiday season with your family, and that all members of the House have been able to do the same and come back recharged for what I am sure will be a very busy session.

Over the course of the last month, I had an opportunity to connect with my constituents, being away from this place and being at their places, at their doors, and hearing what is top of mind. Not surprisingly, one of the things that is top of mind for most people is affordability challenges right now, with the cost of housing and groceries going up. This is putting a real burden on families.

For many years now, one of the largest costs for families has been child care. In a riding like my own, one of the fastest growing in all of Canada, and particularly the Sea to Sky region, which has grown by about 20% over the last five years, this is a big concern. For example, in 2021 there were 5,100 children under 12 years old in the Sea to Sky region who were in need of child care, and there were only 1,100 child care spaces.

I often hear of families waiting for two or more years to get a spot. Meanwhile, the cost of child care ranges between $85 and $100 per day in many cases. Even with the income-tested Canada child benefit we brought in, which puts up to $7,000 per child back in the pockets of Canadians, families are still being stretched. As a result, many families in my riding are forced to pay up to $1,800 a month for child care or balance dual workdays caring for their children while trying to earn a living. This is a burden that negatively impacts not only the economy and the parents but the children as well.

This is why our government created the Canada-wide early learning and child care system through budget 2021. To highlight how much of a priority it is for my province, B.C. was the first province to sign on to this agreement in the summer of 2021. Just last month, we were able to announce that child care fees have already been reduced by an average of 50% to $20 a day in B.C. and will average $10 a day by 2025-26. This is already saving average B.C. families $6,000 a year per child and will help them save over $9,000 per year per child by the end of 2025-26. Given how families are now being squeezed by global inflation, this relief could not come at a more important time.

However, it is not just about the cost of child care. Access is just as important, particularly in fast-growing areas like my own. It is important to note that 40,000 new spaces will be built through this agreement with B.C., and in fact over 12,000 have already been built. Budget 2022 invested an additional $625 million to accelerate this process.

The benefits of this policy are wide-ranging. By allowing both parents to return to the workforce, we are unlocking the economic potential of thousands of parents, most of them women, who have not been able to participate fully in the workforce due to an inability to access quality affordable day care.

Independent studies have shown that this, alone, can help the economy grow by as much as 1.2%, in addition to improving the quality of life for families. A range of studies have also shown that for every dollar spent on early childhood education, the broader economy receives between $1.50 and $2.80 in return. Just about all leading economists agree there is no measure that would increase our GDP more than this.

I am excited there are already a number of child care facilities in my riding now offering $10-a-day child care. On the Sunshine Coast, there are ESPRIT Daycare and Huckleberry Childcare in Gibsons, Little Scholars Child Care in west Sechelt and Sunshine Coast Tiny Tots day care in Sechelt. Just last year, Sea to Sky Community Services in Squamish began offering $10-a-day care. In West Vancouver, the owners of KidiKare told me that they are excited to offer $10-a-day care, among many other facilities that are now offering the same.

There remain major challenges in delivering the child care people need. In areas like Squamish and Pemberton, spaces are an issue, and we need the province to deliver more spaces there under our agreement. In fact, spaces are so slim right now that I have heard stories of folks driving 40 minutes from Squamish to West Vancouver just to put their kids into day care.

In other places like Whistler, the Sunshine Coast and West Vancouver, ECE workers are badly needed, so we need to continue to work with educational institutions like Capilano University on the north shore to graduate more ECE workers and to bring in qualified ECE workers from around the world.

Clearly, this policy is already making a real difference for families in my riding and across the country, but we know we are living in an uncertain world right now. With the spectres of ever-worsening climate change and international conflict, many people are concerned about the future. With the rising cost of living all around the world, I know many young people who are thinking twice about having children.

It is important that, as parliamentarians, we provide peace of mind about what the future holds. Bill C-35 is so important because it would assure current and future parents that they would not be left in the lurch with high child care prices. In fact, it would do the same for provinces, territories, indigenous peoples, child care operators and others.

The legislation sets out our vision for a Canada-wide system where all families have access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care, no matter where they live, today and into the future. It would enshrine the principles of the Canada-wide early learning and child care system into federal law and commit to maintaining long-term funding for provinces, territories and indigenous peoples. It would make sure the government remained accountable for continuing to follow through on this promise by creating an independent national advisory council to provide expert advice to the government on all matters related to early learning and child care. It would also require the federal government to publicly report on all federal investments and progress being made towards a truly Canada-wide system.

While I do not have kids, I want to end by discussing a story of someone who does: my sister, Berkley. She and her husband, Sean, have three boys: my six-year-old nephew, Haiden, and my twin two-year-old nephews, Sawyer and Beckham. I love these three boys to bits. Members can imagine what it is like to have three young boys running around and all the chaos that comes along with that, but it is also important to think of the cost that it would create for three young kids to be in child care. If someone is paying $1,800 a month per child, like many parents are in my riding, then the cost of child care alone exceeds the average income of a British Columbian. Things like these have led many parents in my riding and across the country to leave the workforce, which also greatly impacts our economy.

The announcement last month that fees were being cut in half, on average, has been an absolute game-changer for my sister and her family. Instead of paying $2,200 a month for the twins to access child care, she is now paying $1,260. She has been able to go back into the workforce, and not only that, but also to now pursue her dream job. Just as she has always been there to look after and care for me in my life, she is now working as a postpartum doula so that she can care for other new parents throughout the region.

Not only has this made a huge difference in her whole family's life, but now, she is also able to help other families. The presence of other doulas like her is alleviating the burden on our health care system. These doulas are reducing stress, depression and the number of physical injuries among expectant and new parents, who are going through major changes, some of the most emotional in their lives.

This is just one very personal example of the impact of affordable and accessible child care. Through Bill C-35, we would ensure that families would not be at risk of having access to child care cancelled by government, now or in the future. More and more spaces would be created, and more spaces would become $10 per day. Throughout the process, there would be transparent oversight of the implementation of this agreement.

I can see my time is running out here. I look forward to the questions from my colleagues, and I look forward to having this bill passed through this process into committee so we can move it a step forward in becoming law in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is significant is that in Bill C-35, we are establishing a fundamental, universal early learning and child care program that would be a first in the history of Canada. We are saying that in working with provinces, territories and indigenous communities, there would be public, non-profit child care that is affordable and provides the type of quality care that Canadians want. This will enable women in particular to get into the workforce if they choose to do that, or volunteer or upgrade their educational opportunities. All sorts of wonderful opportunities would be created here, and it is modelled off what we saw in the province of Quebec.

Would the member not agree that this is an absolutely critical aspect of furthering, in a very significant way, child care and enabling women in particular to get more opportunities in the future?

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

Mr. Speaker, clause 8 of Bill C-35 discusses funding commitments. It states that the Government of Canada would engage with “Indigenous governing bodies and other Indigenous entities that represent the interests of an Indigenous group and its members.” When the previous child care agreements were signed, they were done between the provinces and territories and the federal government, respectively.

Is the government really prepared to engage with first nations communities who want more jurisdiction over their child care needs? This is a monumental task, and I am not sure whether the Department of Indigenous Services Canada would be able to complete this in two to three years.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I know that during my question about means testing, I started to get heckles from Conservative members about opening the door. I am not going to disappoint them, and I am going to jump right in and address that point. This is not to worry them that they will not get any answers, because I have a lot to say about that narrative that is being led by Conservatives throughout the debate on this yesterday and today.

Before that, I want to talk about this program and how it has had an impact in my community of Kingston and the Islands specifically. I think the YMCA is considered a well-rounded organization. We get all walks of life in the YMCA. Socio-economic backgrounds of visitors to the YMCA vary wildly. I always gauge the YMCA as being one of those not-for-profit organizations that genuinely has its finger on the pulse of what is going on.

I want to read a quote from Rob Adams, who is the CEO of the YMCA of Eastern Ontario. In particular, he works out of the Kingston location. He said, “As Canada’s largest not-for-profit child-care provider, the YMCA is delighted to hear of the additional child-care spaces. There is nothing new in stating that child-care fees place a financial burden on families, and extra spaces at affordable rates will have a meaningful impact locally.”

I appreciate the incredible work that Rob does at the YMCA. Our son Mason, quite a few years ago, had the opportunity for a couple of years to use one of the child care spaces at the YMCA. The quality of care the YMCA provides in those young developing ages of children truly needs to be applauded, so I thank Rob and all the folks in Kingston.

I heard the Conservatives talk quite a bit about this means testing and their sudden new-found interest in means-testing every program. I find it quite ironic for starters, because the default go-to with Conservatives is tax credits. We can look at Stephen Harper's former Conservative government, and everything was a tax credit. There was a sports tax credit, and everything was a tax credit. There was no means testing involved in any of that, so the Conservatives find themselves in a very difficult position right now.

Quite frankly, they know they are going to support this. They have to support this. This program is wildly popular. In Ontario alone we heard from a parliamentary secretary that 92% of day cares have already taken it up. Every Conservative premier in Canada has signed on to this. It is a wildly popular program. Conservatives are going to support it, so they are left in this position of asking how they can critique it, and they are going after an angle, talking about the fact that certain people cannot access the child care program. They are trying to cloud and smokescreen using that narrative.

The reality is, and I have heard it time after time coming from Conservatives asking this question, that it is up to the provinces to work with the federal government to develop the framework through which they want to have the child care spaces administered and delivered in their provinces.

I hope my colleagues from Alberta know that the very framework agreement that Alberta set up with the federal government specifically references individuals who work shift work and individuals who require non-traditional forms of child care. It is being addressed.

This is the only thing we have heard from Conservatives. The only critique they have been able to make of this is trying to cloud something and convince people that the program the federal government has put in place, working with provinces to develop that framework, is a program that is absolutely necessary for us to do to work with the provinces. I will spare my Conservative colleagues the need to ask me the question. The issue is addressed. It is in the individual framework agreements. Alberta has it in its agreement. I encourage the Conservatives to go back and read the agreement. We ask ourselves why the Conservatives would have to take this narrative. I think of this quite a bit.

I cannot help but go back to a tweet from the now Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, who said, on November 30, 2020, “Why should [the Prime Minister] get to force parents to pay through taxes for his government daycare scheme, instead of letting them choose what's best for their own kids?” This is what the Leader of the Opposition said only two years ago. We know the Conservatives support this bill now, though my sense is that we will not be voting on it until June, but whenever they do let us vote on it, the Conservative leader will vote in favour of it, despite this. It is a complete about-face. That is what it is.

The reason he is doing this is that, as I previously said, he knows the program is wildly popular. He knows that he has no choice but to go along with it. Conservatives do what Conservatives do, and they will try to find any other angle to smokescreen and cloud the issue so that Canadians are somehow fooled into believing that the program is something it is not.

The member for Carleton was asked a question by a reporter at one point. The question was, “When you say about cutting the supplementary spending, in your view does that include the newly signed child care agreements with most of the provinces?” How did the member for Carleton, the leader of the Conservative Party, respond? He said, “We've said we do not believe in a $100-billion slush fund.” The member for Carleton, the leader of the Conservative Party, who will vote for this, whenever we get around to voting for it, calls the program a “slush fund”. That was his response to an individual reporter when asked about this program.

This was before we were able to sign deals with every province and show the Conservatives how successful this program could actually be. This is the problem. That is not leadership. Leadership is not sitting on the sidelines and making commentary, saying one does not support something and then completely changing direction on it when realizing how successful the government has been at working with primarily Conservative premiers to bring this program to fruition.

Here we are, in this position, where the Conservatives are somehow fumbling around the issue, trying to figure out what their narrative will be, when it is very clear on this side of the House to the NDP and the Bloc. With all due respect to my Bloc colleagues, I cannot think of a program so national in its scope that the Bloc Québécois ever voted in favour of, but they are going to vote in favour of this because they see the benefit of it. They know the benefit of it.

We do not even have to look outside this country to see how successful this program could be in getting people, in particular women, into the workforce. We just need to look to Quebec, the neighbouring province to Ontario. Quebec has had it in place for a number of years and it has been wildly popular and wildly successful. If we look at the statistics, more women have entered the labour force and a higher percentage of women have participated in the labour force since Quebec started this program several years ago.

I know that we will eventually get to a point where we can enshrine this into law. That is incredibly important, because provinces, territories and, indeed, families looking to grow their families or individuals who are looking to start a family want to know what their options are. If we have a program that can be so easily removed and discarded because it is only temporary in nature, at least in terms of the budgetary impacts, then we do not have that security. That is what this bill, Bill C-35, would do. It would enshrine these agreements that have been made with provinces into legislation so that any future government, any political party, will have to go through some pretty significant steps in order to remove it.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I have been hearing a theme from the Conservative members that the choices about child care are being taken from parents. I wonder if the member could explain specifically where in Bill C-35 that choice is being taken away from parents.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-35 is being introduced at a time when many family day cares have recently closed their doors and there are concerns about the labour shortage.

Under such circumstances, I do not find that the Conservatives' solution to just give a tax credit is very helpful. We need to take action at some point. A tax credit benefits those who pay taxes; however, not all parents earn enough income to do so.

How are we going to help the less fortunate members of our society? I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am always delighted when the member gets up and asks a question, because he does it so often and he gives us a chance to clarify the record.

I did not say what he says I said. What I said is that the concept of a universal child care benefit was something we, as a Conservative government, brought in. It was continued by the Liberals, albeit in a different form and format. What is interesting about these comments is that there is no means test in Bill C-35. The very people the member claims we helped the first time around with a universal program are going to benefit from putting their children in $10-a-day day care.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, speaking to parents of young children, this debate on Bill C-35, the Canada early learning and child care act, is about them and the type of support they need from their government while their children are preschool age. They will find the Conservative caucus and the majority of the House supports the legislation at this stage, but they will also find two competing visions for the future of child care in Canada.

The Conservative vision flows from our belief in small government and big citizens. We respect the agency of parents to make the child care decisions that meet their individual needs. That means we must ensure families have financial flexibility to create the life they dream of for themselves and their children. To do that, we need to make life more affordable, lower taxes and leave more of their hard-earned dollars in their pockets.

I was part of the previous Conservative government that promoted income splitting for families, implemented a child care tax credit and the universal child care benefit. We did so with a balanced budget.

The child care benefit was a direct cash transfer to Canadian families that gave them more flexibility in their child care choices with no strings attached. It was so well received that when the Liberals came to office, they decided to keep it in place and rebranded it as the Canada child benefit. The benefit was universal and supported the needs of every child in Canada.

Unfortunately, the vision of the NDP-Liberal government fails to meet that standard. Bill C-35 would not help every preschooler in Canada, not by a long shot. The legislation flows from its core belief that government is the best solution to societal problems. That is why the bill would give more power to the government to decide who gets child care support and who will provide the services.

What the government is offering is an Ottawa-knows-best solution, forcing provinces to give the federal government more control over their jurisdiction. For example, the child care agreement with B.C. will direct $3.2 billion into the child care system, with one key condition: that those dollars only be allocated to run regulated day cares.

That means families that choose to have a parent take time away from work to focus on the most formative years of their child’s life will not benefit from this spending. Parents working shifts beyond the hours of operation of regulated day cares will not receive any further support. Parents who prefer to rely on family members for child care will not receive support. This includes new Canadians, many of whom are waiting for the arrival of grandparents to help with their child care but are stuck in the Liberal-made backlog at the immigration department, which is well over two million applications long.

Many indigenous parents who distrust child care institutions, given their family experience with residential schools, will not receive support when they arrange child care alternatives. Parents in rural and remote communities where regulated child care is often not available will not get a nickel of support. For those who are able to align their schedules to benefit from this program, they may need to wait years on a wait-list.

That said, the child care agreement with British Columbia will help some families, but far too many are being left behind. After eight years, I expected an inclusive child care approach from the Prime Minister, because after all it is 2023. His Deputy Prime Minister promised better when she introduced the child care plan in her budget. She said:

This is women's liberation. It will mean more women no longer need to choose between motherhood and a career. This is feminist economic policy in action.

This is typical of the Liberal government: big promises but no follow-through.

Bill C-35 and the related child care agreements fall demonstrably short. Instead, the Liberal government implemented a program, frankly, straight out of the 1970s, when women were generally limited to typical nine-to-five jobs.

Speaking as someone who was a single mother for four years following the death of my first husband and as a woman who raised four children with a career in law and politics, this program is certainly not feminist economic policy.

I do not know where the Liberals have been for the last 50 years, but while women have been breaking the glass ceilings of every industry and every realm of life, have they really noticed? Women are leaders in the military, policing, medicine, aerospace, engineering, mining and resource extraction.

They are on the cutting edge of research and development. They are bolstering our food supply chains as agricultural producers. They are manufacturing the cars we drive and designing the transit systems we rely on. Many women are taking up jobs in the skilled trades, helping to construct the homes and highways that we need to build up our great country. Women are thriving in industries that were once male dominated, and they need flexible child care options that meet their needs.

The idea of a national child care program is a recycled Liberal election promise from the 1980s, but it does not seem to have evolved with the times. John Turner promised the program in 1984 and 1988, but could not win a mandate. Jean Chrétien made a similar promise in 1993, but failed to deliver the program despite having successive majority governments.

Liberal leaders ever since, including Martin, Dion and Ignatieff, all made similar promises but never got it done. The current Prime Minister copied and pasted the program into their election platform, but failed to modernize it for women working in today’s economy.

To make matters worse, the program fails to live up to the standard set by the courts. In 2010, as an administrative law judge with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, I presided over the Johnstone case.

Fiona Johnstone worked rotating shifts as a border services officer. Her child care preference was to rely on family to care for her children, but her family was available only three days a week. She sought accommodations from her employer, the Canada Border Services Agency, requesting that she work full time with extended shifts over those three days. Her employer refused her request, believing it had no obligation under the Canadian Human Rights Act to accommodate her personal choices around child care.

After hearing testimony from several child care experts on availability and quality, I made a precedent-setting decision that found the CBSA discriminated against Fiona Johnstone by failing to accommodate her child care request. My decision, which has since been upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal, protected child care choice as a right for working parents under the ground of family status in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I would hope that a national child care program would reflect the ruling of the court by supporting the child care choices of all Canadian parents. Sadly, it falls short. In fact, the bill itself is a half-hearted effort. After eight years, when the Liberals could have gotten it right, most of it is inconsequential. A lengthy preamble, a declaration and some guiding principles make up most of the bill.

The one thing the bill would do is establish an advisory council to advise the minister on child care going forward.

I have four pieces of advice for this council to consider in order to help families take control of their child care choices. The first is to find solutions that help all parents in the modern economy. The second is to empower parents to make child care choices that suit their needs. The third is to refrain from dictating to provincial governments how to deliver those services. After eight years, it is difficult for other orders of government to take the federal government seriously when it cannot even issue passports or process visa applications. The fourth is to find ways to give families more financial flexibility to build the lives they want.

The Liberals can start by axing their plan to triple the carbon tax. They can rein in government spending that is driving high interest rates and inflation, which is the cruellest tax of all. To conclude, Conservatives will vote to send the bill to committee and will seek to amend it with a clear objective, which is to make sure the national child care program respects the choices of all Canadian families.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the subject today is not Bill 101, but Bill C‑35. In my opinion, Quebec has an excellent model for Canada.

In fact, that is exactly what we have seen, a government that has looked at the Quebec model, looked at other provinces and opened the door to ongoing discussions that ultimately led to agreements.

I mentioned Quebec before, with nearly a 2% increase in that province's GDP since 1997. There is a lot to learn from the Quebec model. This country and this government will seek to do better, and the Quebec model is instrumental in all of that.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, it is a great opportunity to stand in the chamber to speak to the importance of child care, which is what Bill C-35 is all about. The aim is to establish, through this legislation, a national early learning child care system.

This is something that is not a new discussion in Canada. It was this government that was able to get it done, but the discussion, as members know, goes back to 1970 when a national child care program was called for by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada. Ten years later, in 1980, the Canadian commission for the international year of the child said the same thing. In 1986, a federal task force made the same recommendation. One year later, in 1987, it looked like the Mulroney government was going to get it done, but they were not able to. Its aim was to invest $4.5 billion toward the creation of 200,000 child care spaces.

The efforts of Prime Minister Paul Martin and the social development minister in early 2006 have to be lauded. There was an incredible effort made by Ken Dryden at that time to establish a national system, but unfortunately, it was not to be. Politics got in the way. Politics has not come in the way this time. We have been able to collaborate across the aisle. We have been able to collaborate with the provinces to establish a national system, and this legislation would enshrine that so any future government could not change it.

There are many benefits. This legislation stems from the fact that we have carried out enormous consultations with Canadians across communities across this country. The benefits for children are very clear. Child care programs play a critical role in children's development.

This is not to say that child care programs are the only way to foster and to nurture the development of the child. It is up to parents to decide how they wish to raise their kids. They still have the choice under this system. However, those who choose to put their children in child care will absolutely see obvious benefits, including the ability to interact with other kids, language development, cognitive development, the motor skills that come with these programs and other basic skills. This is something that I have seen up close, in my own experience.

My daughter Ava is now 16 months as of yesterday. She goes to Arbour Glen in London, where the incredible staff have worked with her in really important ways, which I cannot even begin to describe. These are early childhood educators. That is what they are. It has been disappointing to hear the word “babysitter” sometimes used across the aisle, as it is not appropriate.

They are early childhood educators, as important in our communities as teachers, nurses and others who carry out public-facing roles in support of the community. Whether it is Arbour Glen, where Ava is, or KidLogic, London Bridge Child Care Services, Oak Park Co-operative Children’s Centre or so many other child care centres in the city of London, parents have the option, more so even now. I talked about choice before. They have even more of a choice now to enrol their children in these outstanding programs.

What is the result? The result is not only important for the development of the child. The result is also important in terms of a community focus. TD Bank made clear just a few years ago that, when it comes to government investments in child care, “for every dollar invested, the return ranges from roughly 1.5 to almost 3 dollars”. A more important point from the study, which bears enormous emphasis, and I cannot repeat this enough, is “that the benefit ratio for disadvantaged children [is] in the double digits.” This is not from some far-left organization. In fact, my Conservative friends will like hearing this, as this is one of the big banks coming out in favour of national child care.

One might ask in what ways the enormous benefits would flow. The research is clear that children who do partake in child care programs see higher graduation rates. It is something that promotes lifelong well-being. Future earnings are in fact impacted by this. On average, those children who are involved in child care do tend to see higher earnings, and equality levels rise as children spend time with one another. For children from different socio-economic, ethnic and religious backgrounds, there is a very positive impact, in the long term, on equality.

Furthermore, the economic impact, which I have touched on just briefly, flows into something else and that is gender equality. In fact, it is quite relevant. Just a few days ago, Statistics Canada's labour force survey came out. This was in early January. It is made clear that 81% of Canadian women aged between 25 and 54 were working during 2022. That is the highest number recorded on record in this survey.

Mothers with kids under six are employed at a rate now of 75% of the 2022 figure. We will see but it is even more likely to increase in 2023 as a result of this program. The 2022 figure that I Just cited is a 3% increase from 2019. As I say, I expect that number to grow in the coming years.

There are a number of reasons for this. The pandemic has seen a more flexible approach to work being embraced by employers. I will not say that remote work patterns are the norm but they are becoming more regular in work places. We are seeing Parliament move in that direction as well. In all of this is the importance of national child care.

Now that every province and territory has signed on to this system, it is a natural consequence that there is a rising number of women in the workforce. That is not only good for the economy but also good for the goal of gender equality. Women now have more of an ability, if they wish, to work in a pursuit of what matters to them, to pursue their creative interests and to pursue work that they find meaningful. As we all know, that is a central goal of gender equality.

In relation to the economic impact, on GDP we can look to the province of Quebec where an excellent child care system has been in place since 1997. Since that time, the province, just because of its program alone, has seen a 1.7% increase in GDP. That is something very important with respect to planning for future social programs and other laudable aims that governments in that province have presently and will have in the future.

Finally, let me touch on the savings for families, particularly at a difficult time as Canadians grapple with the effects of inflation. Let me do so by touching on my own community's experience.

In London, 92% of licensed child care providers have signed on to this national program, which is a huge number. It even caught me by surprise. This number goes back to November. It could even be higher at this point. It speaks to the structure of this program, the fact that licensed providers have found it enticing to sign onto. Of course, the results are not just good for child care providers and their employees but also for everyday Canadians; in my case, everyday Londoners.

In 2018, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives put out a landmark study, a very important study that made clear how much the average family was paying in child care costs city by city. In London, that cost ranged between $1,000 to $1200 a month, depending on the age of the child. That could be a mortgage payment. It is a very expensive cost. Sometimes it was even more than $1,200. I spoke to a Londoner this morning and said I would be doing a speech on Bill C-35 on a national system. That individual was paying upward of $1,500 to $1,600 a month until this program came into being. Now those costs have been cut in half.

At a time when Canadians and Londoners continue to face the challenges of inflation this is a very important development. We can look at how it complements the other suite of measures that this government has introduced, such as the GST tax credit and the ways we are helping through the rental benefit and the dental benefit.

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

Madam Speaker, what I like about Bill C-35 is that it embodies, in recognizing the importance of early learning and child care, true Canadian values. Not only do we have agreements with the different provinces, territories and indigenous communities, we also have the substantial funding of $30 billion over a five-year period of time. This legislation would embody the commitment from the federal government to ensure there is a strong role going forward.

I would ask the member to provide her thoughts on the significance of this historic piece of legislation.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the land that we are on. It is the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. Since today we are debating Bill C-35, the Canada early learning and child care act, as we acknowledge the land we are on, it is important that we acknowledge the ongoing injustice that indigenous people face.

We pause not only to remember and honour the indigenous survivors who were impacted by residential schools and the children who never made it home, but also we must collectively commit to a future where there is justice for indigenous people and where every child matters. A piece of this is supporting indigenous-led child care programming, committing to a future where every child matters and where indigenous children have the opportunity to experience high-quality, culturally rooted early learning and child care programming.

Bill C-35, the Canada early learning and child care act, has been a long time coming. I thank the child care advocates who have worked tirelessly for decades to make this happen. I say tirelessly because their advocacy has continued despite decades of broken promises. However, it is also important to note that so many of the people who have been pushing for national child care, who are parents, grandparents and educators, are tired.

Parents have been struggling to afford the unbelievably high costs of child care, paying monthly child care fees that are as much as or more than their monthly rent payments. They have been struggling to find child care spaces. They are struggling, and many parents, especially moms, have told me they would like to return to work. However, because of the impossibly high costs or because they cannot find a space, it is impossible for them to return to their careers.

I have spoken with grandparents who are generously stepping in to provide care, but who have worked hard their whole lives. While they are stepping up as much as they can, they are tired and they do not want to be full-time caregivers. I have spoken to educators, who give so much to our children, yet for decades have been underpaid and undervalued. There are educators who are leaving the field, because they cannot afford to make ends meet without a living wage.

Their stories highlight some of the reasons this piece of legislation is so important. I am glad the government is committing to funding. We are beginning to see that funding make an impact in my home province of B.C. The B.C. government has been reducing child care costs, creating more spaces and recruiting more early child care educators. Every parent and every child deserves access to high-quality affordable child care.

The bill would enshrine this vision into law and commit the federal government to long-term funding for provinces and indigenous peoples.

New Democrats pushed the government for this legislation. It is one of the 27 commitments outlined in the supply and confidence agreement. We were able to successfully push the government for the prioritization of public non-profit care, which would mean affordable, high-quality and accessible day cares for families who need them. That would ultimately mean better wages and working conditions for staff.

We also pushed to make sure the bill would contribute to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and for the inclusion of a commitment to the right to child care, as recognized in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I want to give a shout-out to my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, for her tireless work on this file.

There are also ways the bill could be further improved, and as New Democrats we will not only be supporting the bill but also working alongside child care advocates, educators, unions and other experts in the field to strengthen it at committee.

We know that one of the major barriers to the expansion of affordable child care is staffing. We have been echoing the calls of unions representing child care workers that call for a workforce strategy that addresses staffing shortages in the sector. Early childhood educators in Canada continue to leave their profession due to the low pay, the lack of benefits, the lack of supports and the lack of decent working conditions.

Enticing new people into a field when they are facing these conditions is extremely challenging. The federal government must take a leadership role, commit to a workforce strategy and support amendments to this bill that outline explicit commitments to fair pay and decent working conditions for staff.

CUPE, which was my union before I became an MP, and also the union that represents over 12,000 workers in the child care sector, has stated clearly, “Until the child care staffing crisis is resolved, the promise of affordable and high quality child care for every family in Canada who needs it will remain unfulfilled.” It is constantly advocating for its members, reminding us that child care workers are highly skilled, trained individuals whose work is important. These are the people who are caring for and educating our children. They deserve respect and fair wages.

We will continue to push for a more unequivocal commitment in this bill for decent work for child care staff. We need clear language that explicitly mentions fair wages and working conditions.

We are also going to be pushing for stronger reporting requirements. The current language in the bill has a vague promise that the minister will report on progress, but there should be requirements to report on the number of new spaces built, the number of new child care workers being hired, and a detailed breakdown of federal spending.

We will also be pushing for stronger accountability mechanisms to ensure the provinces are spending child care money for its intended purpose. This is particularly relevant when we see in Manitoba the average cost of child care not going down, and when we see Ontario opening the door to and prioritizing the expansion of for-profit care.

Our New Democrat team is putting forward constructive proposals to improve the accountability and reporting mechanisms in the bill to ensure costs are reduced, child care spaces are created and child care workers are being hired, but we are also pushing for a workforce strategy and a clear commitment to decent working conditions and fair pay for staff.

A study that was released last year by the Childcare Resource and Research Unit provided the dos and don'ts when building a universal child care program. The researchers drew from studies both in Canada and internationally and concluded that, based on the best available evidence and on all we know about building the foundations for a publicly funded universal child care system, the best way for Canada to build an affordable, accessible, inclusive, flexible, equitable and quality early child learning and child care system is to use our public funds to prioritize non-profit and public child care.

That is not to say that we ignore or exclude the current for-profit child care providers. Instead, it argues that the most constructive way forward is a three-point plan. The first point is to maintain funding and the existing supply of regulated public, non-profit and for-profit child care. The second is to ensure more vigorous, publicly managed regulation, including affordable provincial parent fees and wage scales that ensure decent staff compensation. The third is that any future public funds aimed at the expansion of the supply of child care should prioritize public and non-profit providers, while simultaneously pursuing new public strategies for developing early learning and child care services for when, where and for whom they are needed. This is the road map to a national child care system that provides parents, children and educators with the support they need.

I want to end with a few comments about the gendered impacts of our policy decisions. We know that a national system of affordable child care helps advance gender equality by making it easier for women to re-enter the workforce after having children on their own terms. Unpaid household and family child care responsibilities disproportionately fall on women, and investing in affordable, accessible and inclusive child care is essential if we want women to have equal opportunities.

It is important to note that there is little data on the particular challenges faced by racialized women in accessing child care. If we want to ensure that the most marginalized women do not slip through the cracks of a new child care system, it is essential that we bring the voices of under-represented women and gender-diverse people to the forefront of these policy discussions.

It is also important to remember that, professionally, the child care sector is one of the most feminized job sectors in Canada, and early childhood educators are some of the most undervalued workers, with low pay, low retention rates, low levels of job satisfaction and, unsurprisingly, labour shortages. Investing in affordable, accessible, high-quality child care, where child care providers are paid a fair wage, is good for gender equality, good for the economy and good for our children. Let us make a more prosperous, equitable, affordable and inclusive Canada for all.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier I asked another member a question. I will ask the same question, but put it a little differently.

My colleague clearly explained how Bill C‑35 will actually help women, children and families. We know that the system has worked very well in Quebec for 25 years.

The federal government says that it will let the provinces manage their own child care services. It will send a cheque and let them manage this file as they wish.

Health care helps the same people: women, children and families. At present, emergency rooms are overflowing in Quebec. However, when it comes to health care, the federal government is saying no. It claims that the provinces do not know how to manage health care and it has to tell them what to do and how to spend their money.

How can the same government have two different approaches to similar issues where the same problems have to be tackled when trying to help the same people? I am trying to understand this.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House today to speak to Bill C-35, which is an important and crucial piece of legislation that would make a real difference in making sure that our kids get the best start in life.

I am the dad of a beautiful young boy who will hopefully go to day care in about a year or a year and a half. As we think about our circumstances and the circumstances of many of the other folks in my riding of Vancouver Granville, making sure they have access to quality, affordable child care is critical. We know that affordable, universal and inclusive early learning and child care is absolutely essential. It is essential for families, it ensures women's participation in the workforce and it helps grow our economy.

Do members know who said this best? It is the Hon. Rebecca Schulz, the former Alberta minister of children's services. She said, when Alberta signed its child care agreement:

Today is a good day for parents and families in Alberta. We've listened to families, child care operators, and business leaders to develop an agreement that gives us flexibility to truly meet the needs of and make life a little easier for even more families in Alberta.

This certainly sounds like somebody in government who was quite excited about signing a child care agreement, as were many of the other governments, and indeed all provincial governments, across this country. The reason they were excited is that, at a time when the global economy is facing serious challenges, Canadian families are feeling the impact, and this is one immediate way that Canadian families can look forward to a better future.

Affordability and the rising cost of living are top of mind for families in my riding of Vancouver Granville and across the country when it comes to groceries and buying staples. Over the past few months, we have introduced critical supports to ensure that families have what they need to survive and thrive. However, when it comes to early childhood education and child care, this is an investment in the future. This is an investment in the future of young people. It is an investment in the future of Canadian families. It is an investment in the future of communities. It lays the groundwork for making sure that young people have the start they need. It also makes sure that caregivers, primarily women, have the option, if they wish, to return to the workforce without having to worry about quality child care for their kids.

For far too many families across B.C. and across Canada, the lack of crucial access to high-quality early learning and child care has been a problem for many years. I am proud to say that as of December of last year, licensed child care fees for families with children five and under in B.C. have been reduced by an average of 50% across the province. Parents across B.C. can now save an average of $550 more per month for every child they have in licensed care. That is about $6,600 in annual savings.

These types of savings make a real difference to the average family from an income perspective and from a family budgeting perspective. These results mean something to people. They make it easier for caregivers to work outside the home if they choose, as I said. The fact that B.C. just announced yesterday that more than 725 new spots are joining the $10-a-day ChildCareBC program starting in February is a huge step. It is great progress. It is the type of progress that must be enshrined into law. Progress only works if we know that the system is going to be in place long into the future.

What Bill C-35 would do is make sure that families in this country can count on quality, affordable child care for generations to come. They would not have to worry about who the government of the day is. They would not have to worry about whether or not someone is going to rip back a benefit that is important. It is something they know they can count on for the future, and that is a really important step.

However, it is not a step that comes carte blanche. It is a step that comes with structure. It is a step that comes with a meaningful strategy. It is a step that allows us as parliamentarians and as Canadians to look at this with a sense of confidence knowing that it will be well executed.

First, what the legislation would do is reinforce a long-term commitment to early learning and child care by articulating a goal, a vision and principles for a Canada-wide system. It builds on the investments that were made in the 2020 fall economic statement and budget 2021, which made building such a national child care system a reality. The vision itself reflects an early learning and child care system that enriches children's cognitive, emotional and social development. It is a system that will leave a positive imprint on all of our kids while giving vital assistance to caregivers present in a child's life.

Most importantly, it underlines the necessity of culturally appropriate early learning and child care for indigenous people, which is an important step on the path to reconciliation. It acknowledges that first nations, Inuit and Métis families and children are best supported by ELCC services and programs led by indigenous peoples.

Second, it enshrines our dedication to maintaining sustainable, ongoing funding to the provinces, territories and indigenous communities, because making sure that provinces and territories can plan for the future is important. This is where that sustainable funding comes into play, because making a real difference in the lives of children and in the lives of families has to be sustainable change.

Third, we are enhancing accountability through federal public reporting on our progress toward a sustainable and effective early learning and child care system. This is important. It would make sure that the minister could report to Canadians every year on how our progress is going and making sure that Canadians could have a clear vision and a clear understanding as to whether we have been achieving our goals with respect to early learning and child care. Those are accountable and measurable results in action.

Fourth, to make sure that we are always at the forefront of best practice, we are establishing a national advisory council on early learning and child care. An advisory council like this would provide the government the advice it needs to make sure we understand what is the best practice, what the challenges are that are being faced in this sector and to make sure we are always doing our best to serve children and families.

We know that investments in early learning and child care make good economic sense. Studies that have been quoted in the House before show that for every dollar invested in early childhood education, the broader economy receives between $1.50 and $2.80 in return. There are Nobel prize-winning economists who say that it goes up as high as $15, $16 or $19 in some cases. There is not a study out there that says if one invests in early learning and child care, that one would not have a positive return on one's investment.

That is because people who understand the importance of early childhood education know that giving children the best start they possibly can has an important, positive outcome for the future of any country. It would make sure that caregivers, particularly moms, who are disproportionately impacted by the burden of child care, have the ability to use their skills if they choose to go back into the workforce and to do that in a way that gives them confidence and security.

Child care is good for the economy. It is good for families. It is good for the future of the children of this country. It is just the right thing to do. We need to be able to look at one another and say we have done the best possible work that we could to ensure that everyone in society has the ability to use the skills that they want in order to be able to contribute to building this country.

Thinking about constituents in my riding, I knocked on doors before this was something that was a reality. I knocked on a door and a young man, about my age at that time, answered the door. He asked me why I was there and we chatted a little bit. I heard a child crying in the background. I asked if was he was taking care of his child, if she was home from day care and what was going on. He said that his wife had a great job at the bank, so she went to work every day. He had to quit his job because he could not afford child care. He said he stays home every day with his daughter and it is a great blessing, but he had to give up what he used to do as a landscaper. He said he could not make enough money to afford child care.

That stayed with me, because I realized that those are the people we need to help. I fast-forward to 2021. I was knocking on doors and I came across a constituent who said to me that they were so glad we are doing child care, because after they had had their child they had to have a discussion as a family about what was going to happen. She was proud to say that her husband could keep running his small business, and she could go back to work at UBC as a researcher.

Think about the impact on families like that. It is important and it is essential that everybody in the House gets behind this legislation. It is going to set the foundation for the future that our kids need, that our families need and that the economy of this country needs.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague listed some cases of citizens, parents, mothers who do not meet the criteria and are not eligible to receive a child care spot. The proposal to send a cheque to everyone and tell people to figure it out themselves will not create more child care spots in Quebec or anywhere else.

I think that the solution is to fund existing services properly. That is what is going to help in hiring qualified people to take care of our children in the child care centres. That is what is going to help create more spots.

I think my colleague and I agree on one thing: Bill C-35 is full of good intentions, but it may be a step too far into areas that should fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

Does my colleague not think that it would be best to send money to the provinces and Quebec and allow them to take care of this?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be in the House to share my thoughts. Today, I rise to speak to Bill C‑35.

As much as I Iike being here and as proud as I am to represent the people of Calgary Midnapore, I want to start today by talking about the greatest pride and joy in my life, my son, Edward. He is just the best guy ever. I will never forget when my husband brought him around the green curtain after I delivered him, and showed him to me. I know at that moment I made the decision to do whatever I could to give him the best life possible. He is a great guy. In addition to doing well at school, he also plays piano, begrudgingly. In addition to that he is a great hockey player. Go Wolverines. He is a good little centre forward. As well, he is a cub scout where he learns all sorts of amazing life skills. He is a good little guy. As much as I love this place, he is my one pride and joy. I know my wonderful husband, James, feels the same way.

I know that every mother out there, every parent, feels the same way about their sons or daughters. There is just nothing we will not do for those little people. We want them to have the best lives possible. We want them to get the best care possible.

When we started out we had to put Edward on a waiting list when he was very young, but we were very fortunate. We got a space at a good facility near us. That is the reality in this day and age. Parents have to put their children on waiting lists.

This bill actually has unnecessarily been brought forward in this House, given the agreements between the provinces. Nonetheless, it is still here. It is unfortunate, because even though I am talking to people here today, this program may not be for them.

Are people like me? Perhaps they have full-time jobs and husbands or partners with full-time jobs. They have two parents or caregivers working. They have to get their children into some care before the work day starts, so may need something that starts early. People cannot always pick them up at three o'clock, four o'clock, or some days even five o'clock. People need flexible hours even after going through all the effort of packing them up with their blankies and snacks. Maybe the hours just are not flexible enough for them with this type of program.

Maybe people are like me, parents with partners who are doing their best in this world with two full-time jobs. There are holidays when at times the facility is closed and people have to figure out care. Maybe people are like me. Maybe they are in a situation with two parents working. Unfortunately, this program is not for people like them.

Are people like my friend Chris? My friend Chris is a flight attendant. She does not know what her schedule is going to be. Sometimes she does not know when she is going to be called in. She might be called in for a three- or four-day shift back and forth across the country or maybe to some exciting destination. Maybe she has to start really early in the morning. Maybe she gets in some weird time at night. She has a very flexible schedule that changes all the time. There are thousands of parents like Chris across this country. If someone is like Chris, this program is not for them.

Are people like Armeen? Armeen runs a day home in her house. She has five children herself, so there are always lots of kids the children who are there can play with. She loves staying home. There is always a delicious smell of whatever she is cooking in her kitchen. Her home is a warm, inviting place but her day home does not qualify necessarily for the national program. If people are like Armeen trying to run day homes out of their houses, this program is not for them.

Are people like my mother-in-law, Anita, so happy to become grannies, nanas, omas or dandis? They know they want to be an important part of their grandchildren's lives when they are born. The best part of their day is when their grandchildren are dropped off. They are just so excited to see each other.

They gave up their part-time work and maybe gave up their volunteer work, but that is okay because that is what they were willing to do as grandparents. That grandchild in their life was important enough for them, and their life is complete and worthwhile as a result of taking care of that grandchild. However, guess what. Unfortunately, this program is not for them.

If someone is like my friend Misty, they are a single mother. Her ex is in the trucking business. He is up at 7 p.m., drives all night and then goes back to bed to do it all again another day. Her two kids are at different schools and she has a full-time job with some flexibility, but it is still a lot to manage between the two parents' schedules. She is constantly trying to communicate with the other parent, figuring out who can get which child when. Of course, her two children are in extracurricular activities as well, and she is adjusting to life on her own in addition to adjusting to her children's schedules and the schedule of her ex-partner. Perhaps this program is not for her.

Is anyone like Shelley? Shelley is new to a community. She moved there not long ago. Her husband got transferred from his job, so it is a new place for her and her family is not there. When her daughter was born, she put her name on a waiting list, but that was in her former community. In her new community, Shelley does not have a space. She has put her name on the waiting list for the national program, but in the interim she is trying to cobble together some type of care for her daughter, who is three years old now. Spaces are filled up, so she is on the waiting list once again. Is anyone like Shelley? If they are, guess what. This program is not for them.

Is anyone a child care business owner-operator like Krystal, trying to meet the needs of the community but unable to find enough staff to meet the demands of children coming in? The nutritious food they serve, which might be the only good meal that a child gets in a day, is no longer covered by the government's allocation as a result of inflation and prices going up. The profit framework means that some centres have some families paying a certain amount and other families paying up to four times more. That is the reality of the situation. They might even have to shut down their operation because costs go beyond what is considered reasonable by the government.

Maybe some people are like Krystal: They are an owner-operator who is trying to run their business, and as a result of the rigidity of the government's day care program, they are not only unable have a business as a woman, but are unable to provide a much-needed service to the community. In the case that someone is like Krystal, guess what. This program is not for them.

My name is Stephanie Kusie. I am the member of Parliament for Calgary Midnapore and I am a mom, but this program is not for me.

Is anyone named Chris, Anita, Misty, Shelley or Krystal? Guess what. This program is not for them. The government can call it whatever it wants, including $10-a-day child care or universal child care, but that claim is a lie because this program is not for them.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be back in the House of Commons debating legislation. I will be sharing my time today with my friend, the member for Calgary Midnapore.

When I heard the minister talk about Bill C-35, it was like it was the panacea of child care. One can imagine my surprise when I looked at it. The agreements have already been made with all the provinces and territories, and the $6 billion for the $10-a-day child care has gone out the door, so why do we need this bill?

The bill says it would do a few things. It sets a vision out, but if we look at the vision, it is all common-sense stuff, like we want an early childhood learning system that should be diverse, flexible, accessible and affordable. That is not visionary; it is pretty simple. Then it sets out the government's commitment to long-term funding, which it has already signed up in the contracts. Again, why?

Then it sets out the principles that guide the ongoing federal investments. If we look at the details, it says we are going to go with what the provinces have said. However, it would establish a national advisory council on early learning and child care. Why do we need a national advisory council on early learning and child care, when there is such a council in every one of the provinces that we just signed contracts with? Is this just another opportunity to hire a bunch of Liberal insiders to do work that is already being done?

I want to be clear for members opposite who are always saying that the Conservatives do not support this bill. The Conservatives support child care. Let me start with my own experience. One can appreciate, for a chemical engineer flying around the world, with flights out of Sarnia leaving at six in the morning, how easy it would be to find somebody to take the kids at 5 a.m. What if the plane gets delayed, which of course never happens with Air Canada? What if I do not show up until 11 o'clock at night to pick up my kids? Who is going to want to be that child care provider for any length of time?

I had some amazing child care, some at home and some more public in nature, but I also had those bad experiences. There was the one who had her boyfriend over all the time while she was watching my kids. There was the one who was smoking pot while she was watching my kids. There was one who let the kids go swimming with the guy next door without accompanying them because she was watching soap operas. Then there was the day I showed up and my kid was eating cat food sitting on the stairs because she had not had lunch. I would certainly like to emphasize in this House that I really support good-quality child care, and it is not easy to come by.

That said, it is clear that we are trying to echo the system that exists in Quebec. When I was on the status of women committee, we did many studies, and one of them was on unpaid care, with child care as a specific focus. We made recommendations to the government, and I will read what they said:

That the Government of Canada, in partnership with Quebec and the other provinces and territories, with the goal of ensuring that all families in Canada, regardless of geographic location or immigration status, have access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive childcare options, work to:

adequately and sustainably fund, through transfers to the provinces and territories with the rights to retraction with full compensation, an affordable and culturally appropriate national early learning and childcare system; and

ensure that this national system includes options for Canadians such as, sufficient public childcare spaces to meet demand, or sufficient financial support to Canadians who wish to care for their children at home.

That was in 2020, so it was not that long ago.

Absolutely, when it comes to wanting child care options, this is a place to start, but CUPE has said there is three times the need for spaces. Even if we look to the Quebec system, there is a two-year waiting list there. People who have family members who are already in the day care system in Quebec can get another kid in from their family, but new families cannot get in the door. What do they do?

In addition to what the government has put forward, there are going to be additional solutions needed. We have to have flexibility. When we think about this from a cost perspective, I have seen many studies that show that if we want more women in the workforce, we need to provide this kind of child care.

Let us say, according to the members who spoke previously, that we are giving $14,000 to each person as a subsidy for their child. After taxes, some of that goes back to the government. In addition to that, somebody is going out to work and they are paying taxes. There are ECE workers who are watching the children and they are paying taxes. Many studies have said this is a cost-neutral exercise that will result in more women in the workforce, and that is what we want.

However, we have to make sure we are flexible enough for those who work long hours, like nurses. My one daughter is a nurse and they have 12-hour shifts. Finding day care for that is not going to be covered by the current system the government has designed. There are many places where people prefer to have a grandmother or aunt watch the children. What is the financial incentive to make the system fairer there? I leave it to the government's creativity, but there is definitely something to be done there.

There was a promise a few years ago to make 42,000 child care spots available. I think that was a 2018 promise from the Liberals. I am not sure how many of those actually happened, but when I did the math and divided up 42,000 spots among 338 ridings, it sounded like fewer than 200 spaces per riding, which is nowhere near what was needed. Again, there is the problem of not having enough spaces.

There has been discussion about the labour shortages. There are definitely labour shortages in every business I am hearing from in my riding, but specifically with respect to ECE workers. I hired an ECE worker in 1989 or 1991, and I was paying $1,200 a month. Think about what that is in today's dollars and how much it would cost to pay them, but the pay for ECE workers is really not that good. A lot of them, although they get the training, do not end up staying in the business.

I think there is something to be done in terms of making the wage attractive enough to get those additional workers in the jobs. We see the same thing with PSWs in the health care system where the wages just are not good enough or the hours are not enough for somebody to live on. I definitely think there is something to be done there.

With respect to the actual bill, there are some suggested amendments that have come from associations. The Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs suggests it has a problem with the committee makeup of this national advisory committee, which I am not sure we really need. If we have one, we should have representation from both private child care centres and the not-for-profits in order to hear all the voices.

The Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario wants to make the bill more inclusive by deleting the reference in the bill to public and not-for-profit child care providers, so that we could have the flexibility that some of the members have indicated they would support. Different provinces are going to want to allow a combination of private and not-for-profit child care. I think that would be good.

Another thing missed in this bill is that not every day care is the same. Depending on the location, there are needs. For example, let us talk about food programs. There are some places where child care and day care are providing meals because that might be all the food these kids get. In the model that has been put forward, there is no allowance for that. Either those day care facilities are going to have to charge money on top of it, which goes against the whole point of this bill, or they are going to have to stop feeding the kids, which is the wrong answer.

At the same time, there is an administrative burden of applying for all of this funding, and people are already busy watching tiny, busy bodies, so they do not necessarily have the wherewithal for the complicated government applications. Something that could be looked at is to streamline those as well.

All in all, it is a step in the right direction. We need more child care so we can have more women in the workforce. This will certainly create a great number of spaces. I look forward to the government expanding in terms of flexibility and some of the other things I have outlined in my speech.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe the national advisory council that is being established in Bill C-35 is very important in moving forward and addressing some of the concerns and ensuring that we learn from what is happening and that we are addressing individual needs in different areas. I do believe that this, the accountability and the funding are all important parts of this legislation, enshrining what we are doing in law to ensure that another government cannot come and undo the hard work that has been done over these decades.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could not understand what they were saying, but I am sure they were agreeing with what I was saying, so that is okay.

These measures that we would be enshrining in law in Bill C-35 are so important right now. Regarding affordability, in my riding I know there are families that are struggling. The hundreds and thousands of dollars these families would save would make a difference in meeting their mortgage payments and ensuring they can take care of their children.

When we look at the caregivers, the people who are taking care of not only children but seniors, and the stresses they have been under, the mental health challenges, we can think about how alleviating some of that stress would affect these people, who are still primarily women, although I am very happy to see there are more and more parents of other genders who are now participating in child-rearing.

This is also going to allow more people to enter the workforce. We have a labour force shortage right now. We have been talking about the need for more child care workers. By allowing more parents to be fully engaged in the workforce, we would be increasing labour force participation. This would help with our shortage, and it would also help with our economy. In fact, the Royal Bank study that was done recently had some really interesting facts and figures about the increase in our GDP that we would see as a result of these increased numbers. We can just compare our workforce participation with that of Quebec to see what difference that would make, and I believe the number was about $92 billion, in terms of increase in our GDP.

It would help our economy. It would help our workforce participation. It would help women, and it would help children. We all want children to have a great start in life, and we know that this affordable, quality early learning and child care program would give children an equal start. This kind of equity and this kind of fairness are Canadian values. These are things we all agree on.

We have a historic opportunity right now to all support a bill that would move us forward as a society, increase inclusion and equity, benefit our economy and address the immediate problems of affordability. I so hope that everyone here will join me in voting for this bill.

I have so many facts, figures and statistics I could share, but I know that all of us who are interested in this subject have read them and seen them, so I just want to reiterate that I am so proud of this government, of all the members in this House who are supporting this initiative, of all the people who have worked to make child care a reality and to make this program actually possible, of the provinces that have sat down and negotiated with this government, and of the will of this government to lead, to not stick with a broken system that has not worked in the past and continue to do that, but to look forward, to be progressive and to take chances, as opposed to just sticking with what we did in the past.

Although some question the expense, I say we cannot afford not to move forward with this program at this time. The reality is that it has been over 50 years since the Royal Commission on the Status of Women first urged our government to put in place a program like this. The national early learning and child care program reinforces key Canadian values and helps build an economy that works for everyone.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vaughan for sharing his time.

It is a pleasure to be here in the House today. It really is an exciting day for me to be speaking on Bill C-35. There are many reasons I am excited to be speaking on this bill today and to be representing my riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. Many residents in my riding could benefit greatly from this bill, and it is with great pleasure that I am here to support it.

We have already heard many members speaking about the benefits of the early learning and child care system. Members from the Bloc Québécois have illustrated the benefits it has given to Quebec society, and we are very grateful la belle province has gone ahead with this.

In the rest of Canada, it is not for want of trying that we are without a program. We have been trying for decades. Rather than going through all the economic benefits of this program, I would like to spend a couple of minutes on personal stories and history. This is not only about our economy and families or affordability, although it is about all those things; it is also about women, their choices and their ability to make those choices.

It concerns me greatly when I hear members opposite talking about the freedom of people to make these choices. I think back to my mother, who raised four children. She had a career in nursing, and she and my father both wanted a family. In the sixties and seventies, when my mother was raising her family, there were few choices for child care. If one was not lucky enough to have a mother or a mother-in-law live nearby or have a community association or maybe an organization in a church basement, one stayed home and raised one's family.

While I know my mother valued that, and we all do, I also know that she would have loved to stay in the medical profession. I imagine my mother would have continued her training, and she would have gone on to be a doctor and work in the medical field, contributing not only to her family but also to the larger society. When I think about my mother in the sixties and seventies and the history in Canada, I must give a nod to all those who have worked on this over the years. It has been over 50 years.

For those who do not remember, the first time this was recommended was in the 1970 report from the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. The commission was headed by Florence Bird under the government of Lester B. Pearson, and one of the recommendations was universal affordable child care to address key issues on gender equality in Canada.

It was not until 1982, in the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, that under Judge Rosalie Abella and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's government, there was another urge to implement a national affordable child care program. Around that time, when I was working with the National Action Committee on the Status of Women at the University of Toronto, I was thinking about my career. We did not have child care. I was looking ahead and thinking about how I could balance the kind of career I wanted with raising children. I did not think I could. I waited quite a while to get married and have children.

I am very fortunate to have a wonderful family. I have enjoyed being part of that and helping to raise children, but at the time, it was not a clear and easy choice to make. For women across this country, many of us made choices over the decades that we might not have made if we had affordable, quality, accessible child care. For the women of Canada, for the women in my riding, this bill is incredibly important.

I do not want to overlook the other issues I mentioned. Bill C-35 is not just about women. It is about Canadian values. It is about equity and inclusion. It is about supporting families, and very importantly right now, it is about affordability. It really makes me wonder why people are in opposition to this bill at this time. There are certainly some concerns. We have all heard that there are things needing to be worked out.

However, I would suggest that any member who is concerned about this look at the agreements that have been negotiated between our government, the provinces, the territories and our indigenous partners, recognizing those jurisdictions and the needs and concerns of those organizations, read the differences between these agreements and understand that it is in partnership with our partners that we are moving forward on this and not forcing anything on people.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from York region, the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

It is great to return to Ottawa after several weeks in our constituencies where all my colleagues heard issues and concerns from our residents and to ensure their voices were heard here.

I do wish to give a quick shout-out to the residents of my riding, Vaughan—Woodbridge, and that the new year is proving to be a healthy, productive and prosperous one for them in all tangents.

It is a pleasure to rise this morning to speak to legislation that reflects the core values of our government in building a more inclusive Canada; a Canada where Canadians know that their government has their backs; a Canada that gives the best start for our children from coast to coast to coast; and a Canada we know we want, one that is a leader in the rights of children and their families.

Bill C-35 is important legislation as it would establish an act respecting early learning and child care. Affordable and inclusive early learning child care is an essential driver of economic growth, socio-economic activity, and today is making life vastly more affordable for Canadian families in all our ridings.

The purpose of Bill C-35 is to strengthen and protect the system by enshrining its principles into law and also help guide future federal investments into this great program, which is benefiting so many families, literally thousands and thousands of families across our beautiful country. Frankly, the legislation marks a historic milestone in our government's commitment to ensuring that families across Canada have long-lasting and enduring access to affordable, inclusive and high-quality early learning and child care.

Bill C-35 is the result of engagement between the Government of Canada, the provinces, territories, indigenous governments, organizations and stakeholders. It reflects the core values of our government in building a Canada that is inclusive for everybody and in building a Canada where we see inclusive economic growth, a strong and growing middle class and assisting those who wish to join the middle class.

Many of us here who are parents of little ones know the exorbitant and sometimes unreachable cost of day care that Canadian families have faced for generations. However, we know that the introduction of early learning and child care plan is a transformational one for Canadian families.

For example, it has brought the cost of day care for families in the province of Ontario down by literally thousands of dollars, thousand of dollars that are back in the pockets of hard-working families in Ontario and, of course, across this blessed country.

As many of my colleagues know, my family was blessed with a surprise during COVID. Leia is now 15 months old and attends day care in the heart of my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. Leia is truly a blessing from God to our family and has made life so much more special. She is awesome.

I want to thank the early learning childhood educators at my daughter's day care, and all the day care centres across Canada, who are taking care of our kids, nourishing their souls and their bellies. A special shout-out to the folks at my daughter's day care, the team headed by Nenza and ECE staff Isabella, Christine and so many others. I thank all the early learning child care educators across this beautiful country.

The agreement on early learning and child care is having a significant impact on the pocketbooks of Canadian families. I will give an example of this, and it truly reflects how we are helping Canadian families with affordable, high-quality day care for their children.

Prior to the Christmas holidays, families at our day care centre were informed of the new fee schedule and for children like my daughter Leia the reduction of monthly day care fees was approximately $760 a month or on an annual basis, $9,400. Those are after-tax dollars. If we do the math, that is approximately $14,000 in before-tax savings for families. That is $14,000 savings for families just in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. That is money back in the pockets of families in Vaughan—Woodbridge and in every other riding across the country.

We have signed agreements with all provinces and territories. This is how we put in place measures to help our economy, to help Canadian families and to give the best start to children across our country. That is real change. That is helping Canadian families. That is why Canadians have elected us to come here and do the good work to help them.

For hard-working Canadian families, whether in Vaughan, Halifax, Vancouver or anywhere in between, saving over $10,000 on child care fees means real savings. These savings can be used for clothes, sports activities or however parents wish to utilize these funds. It is real change, and it brings real relief to Canadian families.

Since 2015, whether it is in offering the Canada child benefit or the Canada workers benefit, increasing old age security by 10%, doubling the GST, raising the personal expenditure amount to $15,000, reducing taxes for millions of hard-working, middle-class Canadians or supporting students, helping Canadian families by providing real relief from increased costs for their daily necessities has been a paramount concern and objective for our government. Frankly, we have the backs of Canadians. We will always do so.

The goal of the Canada-wide early learning and child care system is for families to have access to community-based, high-quality, affordable, inclusive and early learning child care. It should be there no matter their socio-economic standing or racial identity, whether their children have disabilities or require needs-enhanced or individual support, or where they live in Canada.

Our government has committed nearly $30 billion over five years to make high-quality early learning and child care affordable, and yes, accessible. We have worked with the provinces. We have instituted best practices, and we will continue to do so.

Combined with our previous investments announced since 2015, a minimum of $9.2 billion per year, ongoing, will be invested in child care, including indigenous early learning and child care, starting in 2025-26.

Economists know that affordable and high-quality day care results in increased participation, primarily of women, in our labour force. For example, we know that in Quebec's situation, women's labour force participation went from 4% below the average to 4% higher than the average. That is good policy.

I applaud la belle province for instituting a child care system before the rest of the provinces did and before the national program. We are looking at best practices. That is what we do as a government. We will continue to do so.

In addition, it is estimated that the early learning and child care system will raise the Canadian real GDP by as much as 1.2% over the next two decades. This would primarily reflect the increased labour force participation rate of women and people entering the labour force, as well as the lower cost and greater affordability of child care for Canadian families.

Inclusive child care is a win for Canadian families, a win for the economy, and most importantly, a win for children. That is a path that we must continue to institute for Canadian families.

This is a seminal moment, I believe, for legislation that we have introduced as a government. For decades, we have been talking about a national system of child care for Canadian families from coast to coast to coast. Well, you know what, Mr. Speaker? We have done that.

With Bill C-35, we have delivered for Canadians. That is why they sent our government here. Bill C-35 is a next step to enshrining the principles of the early learning and national child care agreement.

Bill C-35 would enhance and provide further transparency and accountability. I am all about transparency and accountability.

The act would require reporting by the federal government on the progress made to establish a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. The act would also enshrine in law the national advisory council on early learning and child care, which would provide third party expert advice to the Government of Canada and serve as a forum for engagement on issues, challenges and specific challenges facing the early learning and child care sector.

The legislation commits to maintaining long-term funding for provinces, territories and indigenous peoples for ELCC and enshrining the principles of a Canada-wide early learning and child care system.

In my last minutes, I would like to say that the early learning and child care system across Canada is already delivering results. If we read the Bank of Canada's “Monetary Policy Report” for January, we have already seen indications that the labour force participation rate of women with young children has increased by several points. The Bank of Canada concluded that approximately 100,000 individuals have now entered the labour force because of the measures we have made to assist Canadian families from coast to coast to coast.

It is the right thing to do. We started it with the Canada child benefit, which now delivers approximately $26 billion a year, tax-free, to Canadian families in all our ridings. We all know the differential that is. This is now the second piece, where we have an early learning and child care system.

I know the benefits for the families that go to the same day care that my family sends little Leia to. We see the benefits. Yes, we are blessed as a family. I can only imagine the difference this is making for families across the country where they are seeing literally thousands of dollars of savings.

I will say this: There is nothing like seeing a bunch of young kids who are 15 months old playing together—

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Repentigny for her excellent speech. I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑35, which enacts development funding, maintenance and strengthening of child care services throughout Canada.

Quebec has its own way of building the services it delivers to the public and organizing its commitment to responding to the realities facing young families. It was the Parti Québécois under Pauline Marois that gave us this network of child care services that the rest of Canada dreams about today. The development of the model for early childhood centres stems from a strong network and the skills of their managers and educational staff; it is the envy of many around the world.

I would like to discuss what is involved in developing a child care system. It is not an easy task. It involves many stakeholders in our communities. Most of the tasks fall to the provincial and territorial governments. In Abitibi—Témiscamingue, the shortage of child care spaces and the shortage of early childhood educators are hindering our economic development. The money given to Quebec will undoubtedly help advance new types of projects in the coming years. For example, Adria Power Systems created spaces for its employees. Child care services are at the heart of a strategy to attract and retain workers.

The development of child care services, like that of health care services, involves many stakeholders at the provincial level. Many sacrifices were made in Quebec to allow for the development of our child care system. It is a tall order. It takes a lot of effort to open up a space in a child care centre. I would like to remind members that, to create spaces, we must compete for the same resources as the rest of society. We need project managers, architects, engineers, entrepreneurs, plumbers and electricians, every type of construction tradesperson and professional. It is important to understand that there is a labour shortage in that sector, which results in delays and increased costs.

When we open day care spaces, we have to think about getting a sufficient number of staff members to provide and maintain services for the thousands of parents who are waiting for a space that will enable them to get back to work or to school. The labour shortage has an impact on every part of society. Consequently, predictability in such an ambitious project is also a factor for success. We need to train as many people as possible who want to work and have a career in child care. We must have the wisdom to recognize and value the professions that revolve around children under the age of five. Educators are an important factor in early childhood development, and we need to recognize the value of their work by developing quality training programs in our CEGEPs and universities, while providing adequate funding. I commend these educational institutions for their contribution.

The quality of the curriculum is just as important as the quality of the care. The curriculum in Quebec has gone through several iterations and has evolved over the years. It keeps pace with the children's development and takes advantage of their interest in play to spark a desire to explore, create, reflect, learn and advance through the stages of socialization. That is the way to educate the next generation. Quebec still has to complete its network and secure the funding it needs to adapt and innovate in the area of services for special needs children. To do so, it will need to develop even more specialized care, which is desperately needed.

At this stage, the Bloc Québécois is willing to support Bill C-35 in principle so that it can be studied in committee, where witnesses will shed light on the intent and scope of the bill. The Conservatives would rather send families cheques, and we cannot fundamentally change their minds, but they will come to see that there are many benefits to developing a high-quality, accessible, flexible, inclusive and even universal child care network.

We also have some qualms about the bill. It is not a bad bill, but it bears thinking about. Our concern is that the bill fails to respect the distribution of powers set out in the Constitution. The Constitution clearly states that education and family policy are not under federal jurisdiction.

Every Quebec government has challenged the legitimacy and legality of federal spending in provincial jurisdictions. However, the framework proposed by the federal government in this bill involves the application of the so-called federal spending power. In its current form, the bill would require all provincial and territorial governments to comply with the multilateral early learning and child care framework. We will have to check whether the text is acceptable to them when the bill is studied in committee.

In the case of Quebec, the framework exempts it from the application of the federal family policy for the next five years and gives Quebec $6 billion in compensation for opting out of this centralist policy. After that, however, there is a good chance that the federal government will have a fight on its hands. Still, the framework does respect Quebec's opposition to federal meddling in its jurisdictions, especially since Quebec is not only a pioneer in child care, but a model of success as well.

However, the Liberal government added a nuance to Bill C-35, and we would like to understand why. Bill C-303, a precursor to the current bill, was tabled in the House in 2006. Clause 4 of that bill recognized Quebec's unique jurisdiction and would have allowed it to opt out and receive a transfer payment instead, if it so chose. As members of Parliament, we will have the responsibility of moving an amendment to that effect during the committee study.

The current agreement with the Quebec government runs for five years. However, the inclusion of a full right to opt out for Quebec would forestall another quarrel between Quebec City and Ottawa over the federal government's meddling in Quebec's jurisdictions, which it does so well.

Maybe the government is afraid that future governments will decide to back out and switch to another payment model for families. However, it is also true that, if we have to keep battling over funding, as we do in the case of health care, this bill will not settle anything.

Quebec's stance in its relations with the federal government is that it must have a full right to opt out with compensation. The social progress in Quebec that the federal government is looking to emulate today should not be used as a pretext for once again violating Quebec's right to hold a certain political view of its relationship with the federal government.

I would also like to point out that we can see other political movements brewing in Canada's western provinces, and those provinces seem to be starting to understand Quebec's position better.

It used to be harder for us to explain to Parliament what makes Quebec different and to get members to understand that centralization is not the solution to everything. There are plenty of reasons for wanting the federal government to stop meddling in the provinces' jurisdictions. This might be an opportunity to strengthen ties between the provinces and Quebec.

I sincerely hope that we can solve this problem. To be clear, I would like the bill to be amended by adding clause 4 of the former Bill C-303 as tabled in 2006. It would be a good idea for Bill C-35 to follow its predecessor's example by recognizing the Quebec government's unique expertise in North America when it comes to child care, as the international community did in 2003.

The passage of this bill would allow Quebec to obtain significant funding that would enable it to complete its child care network and enhance working conditions in the sector. Now that would be something to be proud of.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my enthusiastic colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Yesterday, my colleagues from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and Laurentides—Labelle spoke to Bill C‑35. Today, I will be delivering a somewhat complementary speech, and I want to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of this bill.

In 2022, Quebec marked the 25th anniversary of its family policy, which ushered in an integrated family allowance and a parental insurance plan and provided for the development of affordable educational and day care services. This is just one more development for Quebec society that confirms the distinct and unique nature of our nation. The objective of this progressive plan was to ensure equity through universal support for families and increased financial assistance to the most vulnerable families, to make it easier for parents to achieve work-life balance, and to promote child development and equal opportunity.

The architecture of the child care system and its success stories have been commended by many experts in education and in public policy development around the world. The OECD described Quebec's system as “one of the most ambitious and interesting early education and care policies in North America” and added that “none of [the] provinces showed the same clarity of vision as Quebec in addressing the needs of young children and families”.

Others have made similar comments. We have been hearing them for more than 20 years. Quebec is most definitely and without question a distinct society, and its child care program is another example of what makes it different. Naturally, the Bloc Québécois is pleased that the federal government is adopting our model 25 years after it was implemented. It is noteworthy that other countries, such as Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Australia, adopted it as a model before the federal government did.

I also want to talk about the introduction of early childhood centres, or CPEs, and what they helped Quebec women accomplish, as well as their role in poverty reduction.

Quebec is second in the world for the best integration of women into the labour force. The Research Chair in Taxation and Public Finance of the Université de Sherbrooke compiled the OECD data, and the employment gap between men and women aged 25 to 54 in Quebec is the smallest of the 32 OECD countries. For 2019, the employment rate for women 25 to 54 was 83.4% whereas for men in the same age range it was 86.8%. In Quebec, the gap is therefore 3.4 percentage points. In comparison, the average gap in OECD countries is 17.1 percentage points, or five times greater than the gap in Quebec.

The employment rate among Quebec women rose from 65.5% in 1996 to 83.4% in 2019. Only Sweden performed slightly better, and only by half a percentage point. In practical terms, this means that women were able to take up positions related to their training or even advance to positions that otherwise would have been out of reach without the child care system. In single-parent families, women were able to enter the workforce without fear of “breaking the bank”, as we say back home. More generally, women could actually see themselves having better work-life balance, pursuing graduate studies, and so on.

Now I want to talk about poverty. In 2023, providing affordable child care services in a public system is also a very effective way to fight poverty, and everyone wins. After child care services were introduced in Quebec, the number of single-parent families on social assistance dropped by 64% between 1997, the year the system was set up, and 2016. With more women in the workforce, more income and consumption taxes are paid, so the system helps finance itself, to some extent.

This bill will help move Canadian provinces toward true work-life balance. With more than 1.8 million single-parent families in Canada, it is not surprising that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce believes that the number one barrier to career advancement or a career change, whether chosen or imposed, is the lack of affordable child care. This was examined in an article in The Globe and Mail last spring.

We need to tell it like it is. Do not forget that women still tend to be responsible for the children, for the household. There has been some progress since I had children, but more needs to be done.

In this case, the statistics are clear. Current child care costs are so high that one parent's take-home pay, often the mother's, is almost entirely allocated to child care. That does not make sense. On average, fees seem to be $1,600 per month in Ontario, according to recent research done for 2022. This reality impacts mothers, as well as the availability of labour and everything else that revolves around that, including the local economy, personal growth, professional growth, tax revenue for the government, the socialization of children and much more.

Quebec, an authority known the world over as a forward-thinking pioneer in family policy, will not participate in the federal program and will receive full financial compensation. The opposite would certainly have been unacceptable. However, we want to see it written in black and white: Quebec can fully withdraw from this program with compensation. This would prevent a potential fight between Quebec and Canada.

One caveat though: although Quebec is way ahead of the Canadian provinces, when it comes to setting up such a major program, they should be wary of some of the choices made by Quebec governments that came after the progressive Parti Québécois because some of those governments were not quite so progressive.

Bloomberg recently published two articles on Quebec's early childhood centres. The title of the first, dated December 31, 2018, is “Affordable Daycare and Working Moms: the Quebec Model”. It analyzes the reality of the hybrid child care system and delves into why the provinces should guard against allowing the private for-profit sector to play too great a part.

Here is a quote from the article: “Unfortunately, the private for-profit non-subsidized sector has not been as good for child development. The parents/users who are in this part of the system, the private, non-subsidized sector of the program, have on average low-quality care, as opposed to the subsidized centres, which have a very high level of quality.”

That is what Bloomberg found in its research. The economist who made that statement was echoing the sense of unfinished business expressed by Pauline Marois, who headed up the initiative during her time as education minister.

The second article, published in April 2021, is entitled “Lessons from Quebec on Universal Child Care”.

His analysis involves the exceptional maintenance of public child care services in Quebec during the pandemic. He warns us about the market-based model used in the rest of Canada and the United States, even with the various tax arrangements.

Allow me to paraphrase: Even in the best of times, advocates of this market-based approach consider it a tenuous business model for child care, which requires heavy staffing to meet even basic safety requirements, and the children lose out as well. I think we should be aware of this, because quality child care is an “intangible good”. Its quality is more difficult to assess, so market-driven programs compete on cost rather than quality.

I will end with this. Earlier, I mentioned Pauline Marois. The family policy developed while she was the minister of education under a Parti Québécois government is decidedly the policy that changed everything for millions of women and families in Quebec. It was nothing less than a revolution for women with families. I am certain that several generations of Quebeckers recognize this. It is an exceptional political legacy. I heartily thank Ms. Marois.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for mentioning Nunavut a few times in her speech. Indeed, I am quite proud to stand as an NDP member and to have created so much interest in Nunavut.

I have seen a record number of MPs come to my riding. Indeed, the minister came to my home community of Iglulik to make the announcements about the day care program, and we are seeing the positive impacts of this program that started.

My grandson, of whom I am very proud, and my daughter have seen positive impacts. However, they have also seen a bit of a negative impact, and that is in the administrative burden that is being caused.

Could the member talk about the administrative burden that may be alleviated through the positive implementation of Bill C-35 to make sure that this day care system that they are so excited about does not create more of an administrative burden for the child care providers in the communities?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague opposite on her speech and particularly for saying a few words in French near the end. That is always appreciated. It was very kind. I thank her for that.

We have heard this before. Quebec already has a child care system that has been in place for a long time. It was implemented by Pauline Marois, who was the Quebec education minister in 1997. This is not the kind of thing that can be set up overnight. It is something that is built up and improved over time through trial and error. We are improving our system from year to year.

If there is one thing that Quebec does not want to see with something like this that is working relatively well, it is federal interference. There are several recent examples of that with passports and employment insurance. Those are well-documented fiascos.

We also do not want to see the federal government put its big paws all over Quebec's child care system. The federal government and Quebec reached a financial agreement that would enable Quebec to opt out of the system with full compensation. That was good to see. It would enable Quebec to use that money for other things. However, that was in the previous version of the bill; it has not been included in Bill C-35.

Does my colleague agree that the bill should be amended to specify that Quebec can opt out with full compensation? What are her thoughts on that?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is so nice to be back in the House with friends and colleagues. I would like to take advantage of the very end of the statute of limitations to wish everyone a very happy new year. I particularly wish the residents of Hamilton Mountain a happy new year.

It was so great to be back in the riding over the holidays, but I am thrilled to be back in the House today to stand to speak in support of Bill C-35, which we hope will become the Canada early learning and child care act. This bill would enshrine into law the Government of Canada’s commitment to working with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples to build a Canada-wide system of early learning and child care, a system that would help ensure families in my riding of Hamilton Mountain, and families across Canada, can access high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care, no matter where they live.

In my riding of Hamilton Mountain we have many early learning and child care centres that provide access to high-quality early learning, such as Today’s Family, YMCA, YWCA Hamilton, and Umbrella Family and Child Centres, and I have been proud to tour some of those facilities with the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. Centres like these not only benefit our children, but they also benefit parents who can afford to go to work knowing their children are being cared for and educated.

As a mother, I wholeheartedly agree with all of those who say that child care is not a luxury. It is a necessity. My friend and constituent Ala Mohamed is a child care worker at YWCA Hamilton. Her heart has been melting with joy since just before Christmas, when a barrage of parents started calling because they could not believe the child care refunds they were getting, just in time and when they needed them.

There were parents who could suddenly afford Christmas gifts and stop struggling to meet their mortgage payments, mothers who could finally go to work to help support their families and parents who could start planning higher education for their children. Ala said that parents are happy that child care costs dropped, while the quality of that child care has been enhanced because of renewed support for registered early childhood educators.

We believe parents should have the opportunity to build both a healthy family and a healthy career, and that children deserve the best possible start in life. As part of budget 2021, the Government of Canada made a transformative investment designed to give them that start, an investment of up to $30 billion over five years to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. Combined with previous investments announced since 2015, a minimum of $9.2 billion per year, ongoing, will be invested in child care, including indigenous early learning and child care, starting in 2025.

We are already seeing results well ahead of schedule. Women’s participation in the workforce in Canada is near an all-time high of almost 85%. The Bank of Canada credits the early learning and child care plan, saying “This increase in the participation rate of prime-age women has expanded the labour force by almost 100,000 people, helping ease firms' labour shortages and hiring challenges.” This means mothers are already finding they can afford the choice to find full-time work.

In November of last year, Nunavut became the first jurisdiction in Canada to reduce fees for regulated child care to $10-a-day under the Canada-wide system, joining Yukon and Quebec in delivering an affordable child care system to its residents, and doing so more than three years ahead of schedule. This is a tremendous achievement, one that will make life more affordable for families that use regulated child care in the territory, and while families in Nunavut are enjoying the benefits of this system to their fullest, they are not alone.

Every other province and territory that has not yet achieved $10-a-day care has announced fee reductions to parents under the Canada-wide system. This is a first and critical step toward our ultimate goal, which is regulated child care that costs an average of $10 a day across Canada by March 2026.

The Canada-wide early learning and child care system is becoming a reality. The legislative measure that is before us today will strengthen and protect this system so that it remains a reality for future generations.

The Canada-wide early learning and child care system is becoming a reality, and the legislation we are considering today would help strengthen and protect that system to ensure it is a reality for generations to come.

Here are some of what this legislation would work to achieve. It would provide support for the continued implementation of an affordable Canada-wide early learning and child care system by enshrining the vision, the guiding principles, and a commitment to long-term funding. It would enhance transparency and accountability by requiring the Minister of Families, Children, and Social Development to report annually to the public on progress being made in the system. It would also establish in law the national advisory council that would provide third-party expert advice on issues and challenges facing the ELCC sector in Canada.

This legislation is critical. As we build on the early successes of the Canada-wide agreements, we want to set the foundations for success over the long term. We are doing this by enshrining into law the federal government’s commitment to strengthening and protecting this Canada-wide system.

This bill is the result of collaborative efforts between the Government of Canada and its partners and stakeholders.

Bill C-35 builds on the collaborative work we have undertaken with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples from coast to coast to coast. This is not a top-down process. It is not imposing anything. It is driven by shared interest and close partnerships and collaboration.

This legislation respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction and the vision and principles of both the 2017 multilateral early learning and child care framework developed with provinces and territories, as well as the co-developed indigenous early learning and child care framework, which was jointly released and endorsed in 2018 with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council.

By enshrining these principles and vision into federal law, we are building not only stability into the child care system, but also predictability and commitment. We want provinces, territories and indigenous peoples to know that the federal government is in this for the long term, that our commitment to ensuring access to affordable, high-quality and inclusive early learning and child care from coast to coast to coast is one they can count on, one that will endure.

That is why I am supporting Bill C-35, and I would urge the Conservatives to do the same.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can say that the system we are building is an affordable and inclusive system. I gave the example earlier that in British Columbia alone, the capacity has gone from 6,500 to 12,500 spaces across the province, and I am sure other provinces are following the lead that British Columbia has taken and are creating those spaces.

However, I want to remind my hon. colleagues on the other side that we need Bill C-35 because I know the record of the Conservative government. When Prime Minister Harper took over, Ken Dryden had formed an agreement with all 10 provinces and territories on universal child care and early learning, and what happened? When the Conservatives came in, child care cuts were made. With respect to the Kelowna accord to help our indigenous partners, do members know what happened? It was gone. Regarding Kyoto on the environment, after the Conservatives came in, it was gone.

This is why this bill is even more important, so that our future generations will have a system that is inclusive, affordable and universal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in September 2020, the Governor General delivered the Speech from the Throne that outlined our government's intention to create a Canada-wide early learning and child care system with provinces, territories and indigenous partners. That was the start of our journey to transform the way child care is delivered in this country.

This is why I am standing in the House today, and I will be sharing my time with the member for Hamilton Mountain.

What we had at that time was a patchwork system that strained family budgets, left early childhood educators underpaid and left many children without proper care.

Our government's vision for a Canada-wide system recognizes that high-quality early learning and child care enrich children's cognitive, emotional and social development, which has the potential to deliver long-lasting and far-reaching positive outcomes throughout a person's life. Child care is also an important support for parents, families and communities as it enables parents, particularly mothers, to reach their full economic potential, which contributes to a strong economy and greater gender equality. That is why we are committed to supporting the establishment and maintenance of a Canada-wide early learning and child care system, including before- and after-school care.

Through budget 2021, we committed a substantial investment of up to $30 billion over five years to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system in collaboration with provincial, territorial and indigenous partners. We have already seen great results. We now have agreements with all provinces and territories to reduce fees, build high-quality spaces and ensure early childhood educators are better supported.

Since the signing of the Canada-wide agreements, all provinces and territories are seeing child care fees significantly reduced, and we are on track to achieve our goal of an average $10-a-day licensed child care by March 2026. This really is a significant accomplishment. As the hon. Minister of Families, Children and Social Development has said, we want to ensure that future generations of families across Canada can count on the progress we have achieved so far.

Bill C-35 builds on the incredible work that our government has already done. From day one, our government has been making life more affordable for Canadian families.

In 2016, we introduced and implemented the Canada child benefit, which gives more money, tax-free, to nine out of 10 families and has helped lift nearly half a million children out of poverty. From August 2021 to August 2022, in my riding of Surrey—Newton, nearly 28,000 children have been supported through $103 million in benefits due to the Canada child benefit.

Our Liberal government is committed to ensuring that families have access to affordable, inclusive and high-quality early learning and child care no matter where they live.

That leads us to the legislation before the House today. Bill C-35 was first tabled just over a month ago, and today I am honoured to speak in support of this bill.

British Columbia took the first steps with us towards creating a Canada-wide system of child care when it was the first province to sign an agreement in July 2021. Less than two years later, in December 2022, British Columbia announced an average of 50% reduction in licensed early learning and child care fees. Spaces in the $10-a-day program reduce the average cost of child care from $1,000 a month for full-time, centre-based infant care to $200 a month for the same service, saving families an average of $800 per month, per child.

I also want to point out that by the end of 2022, because of federal and provincial investments, British Columbia had nearly doubled the number of spaces in its $10-a-day program, from 6,500 to over 12,500 spaces across the province.

I am also very encouraged to see that more people are choosing to pursue studies in early childhood education in British Columbia. Building on the province’s work to introduce another wage enhancement, I look forward to seeing additional measures under the Canada-wide system that will support the recruitment and retention of this essential workforce.

It is worth noting that cutting child care fees is one way we can put money back in people’s pockets, at a time when inflation is making life more expensive. This much-needed support will dramatically help reduce the cost of living. The relief that these savings offer parents of young children cannot be overstated. It means that thousands of dollars can be used for energy bills, additional groceries for their families every month, or other essential matters.

This legislation makes it harder for any future government to cancel or cut child care and undo everything that we have achieved for children and families, together with the governments and jurisdictions across this country.

Passing Bill C-35 would build on the amazing journey that has seen transformative co-operation between the federal, provincial and territorial governments and indigenous partners. Through individually tailored agreements with the provinces and territories, we carefully stitched together this system and created a Canada-wide early learning and child care system that is accessible and affordable. It is worth building on into the future. That is what this bill will allow us to do, through an ongoing partnership approach. It does not impose any conditions or requirements on provincial and territorial governments, nor indigenous peoples. Bill C-35 is not a top-down approach. It is an act of partnership, building on the collaborative work with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples.

I am keen to support this legislation because it will serve to strengthen the Canada-wide child care.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you and the other members had a very merry Christmas. I wish all members, and of course the residents of Surrey—Newton, a very happy new year.

During my conversation with members of my riding on the ground they were asking me to support a system like this, child care that benefits families that need it. I respectfully ask all my colleagues to ensure the swift passage of this bill, giving Canadian families enduring access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I too have communities in my riding that have very young demographics, and they do not have access to the kind of child care the current government is proposing to fund exclusively.

At a time when families are struggling, when they are already worried about how they are going to pay for their mortgage, feed their families or heat their homes, they should not have to worry about access to child care, which many already are, because this bill does nothing to improve access for people who do not have it right now.

Bill C-35 is providing Canadian families with a single solution to which access is limited. It is critical that we open up not only this debate but our minds to the reality that we need those small, privately owned child care spaces, most of which are operated by women, to meet the demand of young families.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this place and contribute to the debate on Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

As a mom and a grandmother of 11, I understand the importance of having access to quality child care, and I join my colleagues in recognizing those who work in this sector and the very important work they do, and I thank them for it.

With all of the fanfare that this two-to-three-decade plan in the making to nationalize child care has been given, this bill falls flat when it comes to providing a solution for the issues that currently face families who need these programs. As part of their confidence and supply agreement that sees the New Democrats support the minority government through to 2025, the Liberals promised to introduce this legislation by the end of 2022.

With that deadline fast approaching, the Liberals introduced this bill last December. While the bill sets out to establish a vision for a Canada-wide community-based early learning and child care system, it lacks substance in charting a path to get there. Not only does it not address the problems that already exist, but it creates even more.

In declaring their goal to support the establishment and maintenance of a Canada-wide early learning and child care system, where families have access to affordable, inclusive and high-quality early learning and child care programs and services, regardless of where they live, the Liberals have included one proviso that has many families and child care providers concerned.

That condition is found in paragraph 7(1)(a), to "facilitate access to early learning and child care programs and services—in particular those that are provided by public and not for profit child care providers”.

To start, it favours or gives preferential treatment to public and not-for-profit providers over any other type of child care program that exists. Only public, non-profit child care spaces have open access for parents to utilize the supports of this program. If a family chose a new, privately owned centre or one that has recently expanded to meet the demand, it cannot access the subsidy it needs at that centre, therefore limiting the child's ability to access quality child care.

Families are diverse and so, too, are their circumstances. The federal government should not be dictating what child care is best for families. Conservatives recognize that Canadian families should have access to affordable and quality child care and believe they should be able to choose child care providers who best suit their families' needs.

Second, this bill does nothing to address the wait-lists of thousands of families needing child care. For example, the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario projects that, by 2026, there will be 602,000 children under six whose families will want $10-a-day care and the province will only be able to accommodate 375,000 of them, leaving 227,000, or 38% of those children, without access.

Third, it does not address the concerns of operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces. Currently there are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone staff new spaces. Government estimates also suggest that, by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early childhood workers.

In British Columbia, 27% of child care centres turn away children due to lack of staff. One child care director who oversees 13 child care programs with 350 spaces says that, “In the past two years, we’ve had to close programs temporarily, whether it’s for a day or two, or shorten hours for the week…in order to meet the licensing regulations”.

There are also concerns of inflation increasing operating costs. Many child care centres that offer food programs are now considering seriously cutting back on the programs or eliminating them all together.

The cost of inflation is putting pressure on child care centres, and they need to lower costs because the funding they are receiving is not reflecting the drastic rise of inflation. They are now faced with cutting down costs in drastic ways.

In a Globe and Mail article, an owner of a child care centre in Calgary stated, “If we've got to start jettisoning expenses...do we start cutting back on our food program, or even eliminate it in its entirety over time?” Once again, the Liberal government is not taking into account the inflation crisis it has fuelled when implementing new policies.

While we would see the demand for child care increase as a result of this bill, it would not solve the problems of lack of access to more spaces, frontline burnout, staff shortages and rising costs. Affordable, quality child care is critical, but if people cannot access it, it does not exist, as I have already stated. Bill C-35 would do nothing to address accessibility.

In the time that I have left, I want to focus on the clause that will create a national advisory council, which has already been appointed. Clause 9 states, “A Council is established, to be known as the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, consisting of no fewer than 10 but no more than 18 members, including the Chairperson and the ex officio member.” That ex officio member would be the deputy minister.

The chairperson, and up to 18 members, would be appointed by the minister for three-year terms. The members of this council would, of course, be paid with the remuneration to be set by the Governor in Council. These members would be entitled to reimbursements for travel, living and other expenses incurred for their work on the council, including the deputy minister.

They would also be deemed to be employees for the purpose of the Government Employees Compensation Act, and to be employed in the federal public administration.

Here is the thing. While this bill appears to put a focus on respecting and valuing the diversity of all children and families, and respond to their varying needs, the national council would have zero representation of entrepreneurial providers at the table.

In provinces like Alberta and New Brunswick, the majority of stakeholders are private, and there are a large number of them, in fact. It is 67% for Alberta and 80% for New Brunswick. There would be no one who will bring to the table the views of those female entrepreneurs who have stepped up and made investments to meet the need for child care in this country.

The government is not taking into account the realities of families who have access only to private child care providers. The national advisory council should have representation for the different options of child care offered across this country. Canadians need a solution that is flexible enough to fit their varying needs, not an Ottawa-centric, one-size-fits-all solution. That starts with representation on the national council for entrepreneurial child care providers.

In conclusion, I find that this bill is superfluous to the child care issue. It would do little but create a council of bureaucrats with full benefits and compensation to dictate to Canadians the Liberals' view of what the provision of child care should be across this country. This bill needs to be amended, and many of my colleagues have already noted that. It is flawed, narrow in its approach and does not address the issues facing this sector and the families who desperately need it.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country.

Just as a reminder, I am splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

I will lay out some of the issues with the Liberal child care bill, Bill C-35, that will need to be addressed.

I thank those who work in the child care system and who look after our children.

To be clear, this is not a child care strategy. In my province of British Columbia, a 2019 survey found that the greater Vancouver area, represented by several cabinet ministers in the Liberal government, had only enough child care spaces for 18.6% of children in the metro region. That is bad enough in urban areas of our country, but in many rural regions of Canada large child care centres do not exist at all. This bill offers rural parents or those who need flexibility nothing. Again, it chooses to ignore the simple fact that low-cost child care is not possible if child care resources are not accessible to begin with.

However, the rural-urban divide is not the only issue with this legislation. There is a serious concern about the complete lack of focus on ensuring that child care spaces go to those most in need instead of creating advantages for the already well off. After all, affordable child care should be prioritized for those who otherwise cannot afford it.

There is no means test. Under the current Liberal proposal, someone who works on Bay Street with children already in day care will get access to $10-a-day child care the same as a lower-income family. People who do not need to work have the same access as a family who needs to work.

There is no flexibility for families who are not working the weekday office job hours and who currently have different types of child care options that work for their shift work or their schedules. That is because this legislation dogmatically preferences not-for-profit and government child care over operators working and running child care centres in the private sector. These are people, most often women, who work in their homes, who have small businesses and who often have young children.

When my son was a baby I found someone to come into my home part time. That was back when maternity leave was only six months, and it was hard to work with such a young baby. Having someone come in was expensive, and I was not making a lot at the time. However, it was the only option I had at the time as few child care centres took infants that young or would allow me flexibility with part-time needs and hours. Christina became like family.

Anyone who has this type of scenario would not be applicable in this legislation. When my son was a toddler he was in the home of a wonderful woman, Pauline, who had a group of kids. Because I needed flexibility in child care due to the type of contract work I was doing at the time, the larger, structured child care centres did not work for what I needed.

The scenario of in-home small business child care does not meet the priorities of the government's legislation. Instead of giving parents freedom to determine what child care works best for their children and their lives, the government has opened the door for a two-tiered framework of child care. Under the government's plan, only not-for-profit and government child care spaces have open access for parents to utilize the Liberals' program as the legislation states is the priority. That is not universal access and the legislation does not include strategies to address spaces or labour.

We know there are labour shortages. About a year ago, in Kelowna, it was announced by one centre that they had to say goodbye to about 24 children, because they could not find the staff to meet the government licensing requirements. That left families scrambling with little ability to find a new location with waiting lists being long.

A Vancouver operator of 300 spaces said, “In the past two years, we've had to close programs temporarily, whether it's for a day or two, or shorten hours for a week”. A report on child care recruitment published in January 2023 found that in British Columbia, 45% of child care centres are losing more staff than they can hire, and 27% of child care employers turned away children because of a lack of qualified staff.

To adequately staff the Liberals' proposed plan in British Columbia, they found that 12,000 new child care employees were required. Still, current recruitment and retention programs are failing with several thousand employees behind target.

When the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development put this bill forward, she said its purpose was to enshrine the Liberals' record on children and family into law. However, their record on this file is something that they are not strong champions of. Canada was once ranked 10th among the OECD for the well-being of children, but under the present government, Canada has fallen sharply to 30th place.

We will work on this side of the House to try to make this legislation better and more accessible to parents who want and deserve the freedom to decide what kind of child care works for their family. Looking beyond this, a future Conservative government will work hard on ways to increase child care workers and spaces and to ensure there are stable, good-paying jobs for families to keep more of the money they earn in their pockets.

The House resumed from January 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

I want to start today by thanking child care workers for the important work they do.

In reading the government's new legislation, Bill C-35, I have to say that I am disappointed. Once again, we are seeing the Liberal government choosing to put forward buzzwords and campaign slogans rather than crafting the substantive solutions parents in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country are asking for when it comes to serving their child care needs.

To be clear, this is not a national child care strategy and not a national child care program. It is strictly to subsidize, through the provinces, some families already in the child care system using certain types of child care deemed a priority by the Liberals. It is not universal. This bill in its current form is another missed opportunity for Parliament to work toward creating and staffing actual child care spaces where families could place their children. This bill does not seek to shorten long waiting lists.

What is particularly disappointing is that it is hand-picking the types of child care that are acceptable to the government. While I am disappointed, unfortunately I cannot say that I am surprised. The promise of universal child care has long been an over-promised and never-delivered commitment of the Liberal Party. How do we know? It is because it has promised it since most members of this House were children themselves.

In 1984, the former Liberal prime minister John Turner ordered a national task force to study and implement a federal child care program. It was never created. In 1993, the then future Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien promised in the Liberal red book a national child care program, and no program was ever delivered.

In 2004, after 10 years of doing nothing on child care, the then new Liberal prime minister Paul Martin promised to spend $5 billion on a national child care program in a last-ditch effort to save his government. Despite winning the 2004 election, no program was ever created.

Canadians are not fooled by the Liberals' over-promised yet under-delivered way they manage. We will continue to hear from the government that it has lowered the cost of child care in Canada, and it has for some, but there needs to be a number of updates made to this legislation to make child care accessible and inclusive, allow parents the freedom to do what works for their family, and to actually make a difference for many. The Conservatives will be working on these.

Just as the Liberals have allowed Canada's once ample supply of children's cold and cough medicine to dwindle to levels so low that parents must now make supply runs to American pharmacies, so too have they allowed a chronic shortage of child care spaces across Canada over the past eight years of their time in government.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees studied the shortage and found that, “in many communities there is only one child care space available for every three children who need it, and waitlists are long.”

The Quebec child care system, the model from their provincial cousins that the federal Liberals have long said they wish to copy, at last count had a wait-list of 51,000 spaces. We know, listening to those operating private child care centres, that many have the resources and space to take more children, but they are continually hampered by the same labour shortage issues repeatedly ignored by the current government in many sectors of our economy and social support networks. Looking again at British Columbia, we see stories of day cares of all structures reducing their hours and turning away new children because of staff shortages.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague across the way will agree that early childhood educators and other child care workers have been undervalued and underpaid for years and years. This is something in British Columbia that the provincial government has taken some steps to rectify. There is a lot of work left to do, but really what we need is a national approach to ensuring fair working conditions and fair compensation for these educators.

Could my colleague inform the House whether he would support adding an explicit commitment to Bill C-35 to ensure that right across Canada early childhood educators earn the kinds of wages that they deserve for the role that they play in our children's upbringing and development?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise today, one day after the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attack at the Quebec City mosque, I just want to acknowledge the loss that occurred on that day six years ago, the other five lives that have been taken by Islamophobic attacks in this country and the work that we all need to do as parliamentarians and as Canadians to fight against hatred and intolerance, in particular Islamophobia.

I rise today to participate in today's debate, not just because it is the first day of the session, not just because I am glad to be back in the chamber and glad to be back surrounded by parliamentarians seeking to advance the interests of our country and of our individual ridings, but because it actually reminded me of a conversation I had in 2019. That conversation was on a street in my riding in Roncesvalles Village and I remember encountering a family.

It was election time. It was the 2019 election. I was going door to door, as so many of us do every election period. I was confronted with a family. I had a very blunt conversation with the female lead of that family, the mother of that family.

She said to me that we have done so much work and that we continue to do so much work putting women at the forefront of things like international development assistance, women's reproductive rights and so many different initiatives, including a gender-equal cabinet. She said to me, quite candidly, that if we were really sincere about women and women's empowerment, we need to resolve child care.

I said to her that this was fair. I appreciated that criticism.

She elaborated. She said that we cannot really empower women's full participation in the workforce, whether as an entrepreneur, as a salaried employee in a public or private sector setting, unless we alleviate the disproportionate burden on women that relates to raising children.

My riding has a lot of families, a lot of young families and a lot of young kids, and there is a lot of financial burden that goes along with raising those kids. When I was raising my kids, who are now eight-and-a-half and 12, the fees ranged, per child, between $1,500 and $1,800. It is quite common in Toronto to hear of fees that are $2,000 a month.

What I am pleased about today's debate and the subject of what we are discussing is that, yes, after many decades of discussions, thoughts about it, and hearing about agreements that were scuttled at the last minute, etc., finally, this nation and this Parliament are moving past the obstacles in implementing positive change. I think that is critical.

I also want to acknowledge that it was not just individual constituents like mine who had spoken to me in 2019 that provided an impetus, but there was another impetus, an impetus that has become all too familiar to all of us and that is the COVID-19 pandemic. Let me remind us, there were literally families around the country who were dealing with the difficulties of, all of a sudden, shifting their workplace and their educational place for their children and, effectively, substitute day care, all within the confines of their own home, in a matter of weeks, in March and April of 2020.

That is what faced Canadians. I am being very candid here. I think, all of a sudden, it penetrated the brains, particularly, of men in the country, in terms of what a challenge it is to try to have any sort of career or profession, in a virtual setting or otherwise, and have kids running around at all hours of the day, asking about their math homework, where their history homework was, a geography lesson, name it. It was a struggle. That struggle became manifest, I think, for men like me in this country. All of sudden, the level of people's awareness, including my gender's awareness, about the pressing need for a national child care program became that much more acute.

What I like about what we are doing is that we are creating a system where one does not have to choose between building a career and raising a family. That is a false choice. No one should ever be confronted with that. Thankfully, we are now moving toward a stage where one is not. I think that is really important.

It comes with a large price tag. A massive social change and a massive social program are not inexpensive. We readily acknowledge that. When we prioritize families, children and the women who disproportionately share the burden of raising those children, we need to invest. I think that is exactly what we did when we announced this program in our 2021 budget and the $30-billion price tag that would go along with it over the course of the next five years.

What it is going to achieve is to basically take child care that used to cost hundreds of dollars a day and project it to cost $10 a day, on average, across the country by 2026.

Some provinces were very early adopters of this program. It is staggering in terms of its magnitude, in terms of what it could achieve. Some were a bit late to the game and maybe manipulated the electoral cycle for their own purposes, but I do not want to wade into that. We are now at a stage where, of 13 provinces and territories in this country, literally every square kilometre of this country is covered by a child care agreement.

In my own province of Ontario, which I am proud to call home, fees have been reduced, on average, by 50%. Something that might have cost people, doing simple math, if they had their child in child care for 10 months of the year, $17,000 to $20,000 has been cut in half. Thousands of dollars are being saved by Ontarian families in my own riding of Parkdale—High Park. That is staggering, given the number one issue that we all hear when we go door to door now, which is about the cost of living and the crisis of affordability.

If we could return thousands of dollars to families in this country in one single fell swoop, that is reason enough on its own to get behind this kind of legislative initiative. What we are doing is reducing fees in every province and territory. British Columbia, Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, P.E.I., New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and NWT have all reduced their fees by an average of 50%.

Saskatchewan, and there were some speakers from Saskatchewan earlier in today's debate, has gone beyond that target, and it has already reached, on average, a 70% reduction of the fees. I was chatting earlier with the member from Winnipeg, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. In his province of Manitoba, the fees are currently reduced by 30%, and they are on track to achieve a $10-a-day child care early in the new year. This year, Manitobans will reach $10 a day on average for their child care.

In Yukon and in the province of Quebec, which is really at the forefront of all this in terms of an initiative, regionally, many decades ago, they have had $10-a-day child care. Nunavut joined them in November 2022, three years ahead of schedule.

These are truly incredible results, and they point to what we are doing. I will give one statistic that I am perhaps most proud of. In the speech by the member for Newmarket—Aurora, he talked about labour force participation. He talked about what Quebec had done, where they were about three decades ago, about 4% below the national average for women's participation in the workforce, and that now they are 4% above the Canadian average.

What we know as of right now, in the nascent days of this fledgling program, for women aged 25 to 54, is that 85% of those women are in the workforce right now, and that is 9% ahead of our southern counterparts in the United States of America. That number is only going to grow, which puts proof to the point that was made by my constituent in Parkdale—High Park, when she said to me that if we want to fully believe and allow for women's participation and their economic potential to be increased, we need to implement this kind of program. That is what we are working towards.

It is not just about the women. It is about the children who are going to benefit from earlier formative education. Again, when I struggled with that grade 4 math class, such as it was, I realized my own limitations as an instructor. As great as parents are in this country, we do not have that formalized training and certification that early childhood educators have.

What are we doing to remedy this? As part of that funding that I articulated, nearly half a billion dollars is dedicated to the training of early childhood educators, to their certification so they are providing more, better, higher-qualified training to our young people. That is a win-win. It is great for the children's development, and it is great for the early childhood instructors, who have a better certification and higher wages as a result. Most importantly, it is better for the women, who can now make not a false choice but a real choice. Some may choose to stay at home, and that is their choice. Some may choose to start that business. Some may choose to return to work. Some may choose to stay at work.

What we are doing in this one fell swoop is empowering and unlocking incredible economic potential on the part of literally half of our country. That is to the benefit of this country. That is to the benefit of our economic output. That is to the benefit of Canadians. That is why I hope that, by legislating this initiative, we concretize it, we solidify it and, I dare say, we make it permanent in this country on a go-forward basis.

That is what Bill C-35 is about. That is why I am happy to stand in support of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments.

As my colleague knows, there will be so many benefits from the passage of this legislation, but I would ask him to provide his thoughts in terms of the historical meaning of passing Bill C-35 and putting into place a truly nationwide program that is going to benefit children from coast to coast to coast.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that I am sharing my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address this House on Bill C-35, what we hope will become the act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

As the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development indicated in her remarks earlier, we now have in place a Canada-wide early learning and child care system that aims to ensure access to affordable, high-quality and inclusive child care for families across the country. The purpose of Bill C-35 is to strengthen and protect that system by enshrining its principles into law. This is a commitment from the Government of Canada to support access to affordable child care for families in Canada, no matter where in Canada they live. In fact, the new Canada-wide system is already benefiting tens of thousands of people from coast to coast to coast with fees for regulated child care having been reduced in all jurisdictions across Canada, outside of Quebec and Yukon, which already had affordable child care systems, and we are just getting started.

Bill C-35 is the result of engagement between the Government of Canada, provinces, territories, indigenous governments, and organizations and stakeholders. It builds on our collaborative work with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples. It also builds on the agreements negotiated with every province and territory to establish a Canada-wide system. The collaboration that delivered this remarkable system was detailed, and sometimes challenging, but held in an atmosphere of respect, commitment and a willingness to succeed. For sure there are similarities in the agreements, but we never expected a one-size-fits-all model that conveniently served all of our partners. We succeeded because we agreed on one fundamental principle, the thing all Canadians care about most deeply, giving children in Canada the best possible start in life.

This legislation respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction and upholds indigenous rights. All our partners in this Canada-wide effort can look forward to benefiting from the long-term federal financial commitment.

Let us talk about funding. In budget 2021, the Government of Canada made a transformative investment of more than $27 billion over five years. If we include related investments, including in indigenous early learning and child care, we have committed nearly $30 billion over five years to make quality early learning and child care affordable and accessible. Combined with previous investments announced since 2015, a minimum of $9.2 billion a year ongoing will be invested in child care, including indigenous early learning and child care, starting in 2025 to 2026. These investments are already having an impact. To date, fees have been reduced in every jurisdiction across Canada. Further, Quebec, Yukon and Nunavut are providing regulated child care for $10 a day or less.

Let us take our agreement with Saskatchewan. The province has been one of the early leaders in fee reductions. Over a year ago, Saskatchewan announced a 50% reduction that it made retroactive to July 2021. That was a year and a half in advance of our December 2022 target. Saskatchewan followed with another fee reduction, effective September 1 of last year, where fees were lowered by a total of 70% compared to March 2021 levels. This is a huge saving for families across the province.

While the province is lowering fees, it is continuing to ensure that early childhood educators are kept at the heart of the system. Last September, Saskatchewan announced that federal funding from its Canada-wide agreement is being used to establish an ECE wage enhancement grant, which will result in increased wages for the workforce that is critical to the success of the Canada-wide system, and there is more.

In early 2022, Saskatchewan announced the creation of over 1,200 new licensed child care spaces on top of the over 600 spaces the province announced in December 2021. That is more than 1,800 new child care spaces providing more children with a better start in life.

This is the Canada-wide early learning and child care system in action: lowered fees, a supported ECE workforce, more child care spaces and real results for making life more affordable. For all these families across Saskatchewan, and the thousands of others like them across Canada, this system means hundreds of dollars more each month to put healthy food on the table and to sign up kids for music, sports or after-school activities.

The federal investment not only benefits families and young children, it also benefits the economy as a whole, which means it benefits all Canadians, and here is how: It will grow Canada’s economy. Economic studies show that, with each dollar invested in early childhood education, the broader economy receives between $1.50 and $2.80 in return. The federal government's estimates predict that the Canada-wide early learning and child care system could raise the GDP by as much as 1.2% over the next two decades. It will grow Canada’s labour force. As we have seen in Quebec, at the time the Quebec Educational Childcare Act was instituted in 1997, the women’s labour force participation rate in Quebec was four percentage points lower than the rest of Canada. In 2021, it is four points higher.

The figures are telling us that investing in increased access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care is not only the right thing to do for families, but it is also the smart thing to do for Canada and our economy. It is a win for all of us.

Our colleague, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, has many times said, “access to high-quality, affordable, flexible and inclusive [learning and] child care is not a luxury—it is a necessity.” As the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance put it, “child care...is as much a piece of critical infrastructure...as a bridge or a road”.

It boils down to this: All parents and caregivers have an opportunity to build both a family and a career, and all children should have the best possible start in life.

This legislation comes with the twin federal commitments of respect of jurisdiction and a reliable funding partner. We are creating a great system together, a system we can all be justifiably proud of, and I respectfully ask that my colleagues give rapid passage to Bill C-35 so we can put this last piece in place.

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

Mr. Speaker, for young families across this country, child care is a principle concern. When a child is in their care or with another, parents want to feel confident that their child is being well cared for, and that they are safe and in a healthy environment that supports their development.

Canadian families across the country should have access to affordable and quality child care. Parents should also be able to choose a child care solution that best suits them and works with their family's own unique needs. The reality is there is no one-size-fits-all child care solution.

Not only is the issue of child care important for families, but it is also a significant consideration in workforce participation. Access to child care continues to be a large barrier to workforce participation, and it cannot be overlooked as we look into addressing the labour shortages we are experiencing across industries in this country.

While there is presumably a consensus on the viewpoint that there should be accessible, affordable and flexible child care for parents throughout our country, this legislation offers no real assurances to Canadian families that there will be. The families that will benefit from this legislation are those families who have already secured a child care space in a public or not-for-profit program.

However, this legislation does nothing to help the thousands of families on child care wait-lists and those whose child care needs require more flexibility. It does nothing to help those families whose child care needs fall outside the standard hours of operation. In fact, the primary problem with this legislation is that it fails to ensure that demand can be met and that supports are flexible enough to meet the needs of all Canadian families.

Affordable, quality child care is a great concept. It is a wonderful concept, but if a parent cannot access it, then it is ultimately worthless. In laying out a vision for a Canada-wide, early learning and child care system, Bill C-35 offers Canadian families a single, just one, child care solution, and by its own design, the access is limited.

This legislation intentionally ignores an entire section of the child care landscape, which is critical to meeting demand. The Liberal-NDP government is shutting private operators, who tend to be women-owned small businesses, out of its plan. It fails to even ensure them a seat at the table.

There is no representation for these women-owned small businesses in the makeup of the proposed national advisory council on early learning and child care. In addition to public child care programs, these women-owned small business operators are critical to meeting the growing demand for child care spaces, not to mention that, by limiting supports to public and not-for-profit child care programs, this will drive up the demand for child care spaces in these programs where the wait-lists already exist.

We know that wait-lists already exist because there is not necessarily the staff or infrastructure put in place to offer more child care spaces. This legislation does not solve the issue of recruitment or that of retention in the early learning and child care sector. It does not answer the pressing question of who will staff these programs.

Report after report indicates that early childhood educators are overwhelmed and burnt out, and that there is a steady stream of early childhood educators leaving the profession. There have been operators who have had to close their doors at times because there was not necessarily enough staff to operate.

To ensure that the government is delivering more than just announcements to Canadians, the government needs to deliver a tangible plan, in partnership with our provinces, to recruit and retain labour. That plan should engage all child care providers.

With limited resources, it does not make sense to shut out these women-owned small businesses from this solution, nor should the government be putting these entrepreneurs at a disadvantage. These child care providers should be able to operate in a fair market.

Without a real plan to address the existing challenges in child care, access to child care will never really be achieved. If the goal is truly to deliver universal access to child care, child care policy also needs to be comprehensive.

However, the government's vision for child care policy is limited. For one, it fails to acknowledge that not all parents have a standard work schedule. The reality is that standard child care operating hours do not meet the needs of most shift workers. Parents who work early mornings, evenings, nights, weekends, statutory holidays, casual shifts or any other irregular shifts are largely being left behind. By focusing child care supports on programs that do not offer any real kind of child care solution to families with non-standard work schedules, there is a massive gap in the NDP-Liberal government's child care policy. It is not a universal solution.

The NDP-Liberal government also purports to be addressing affordability through the creation of a $10-a-day child care program, but that is not entirely accurate either. As I have mentioned, the only families who are benefiting from the cuts to child care costs are those who already have child care spaces in eligible public and not-for-profit programs.

We are now hearing reports of operators who are struggling with the skyrocketing cost of living in the country. These operators, like all Canadians, are seeing the cost of everything climb. Many who offer food programs are now having to consider whether they are going to cut these programs entirely or charge parents additional costs to keep them running.

Either these parents are getting fewer services from their child care providers or some of those savings will ultimately be lost. Of course, for those parents who cannot access a child care space, they are not benefiting from these savings, but are still struggling under the pressures of the rising costs.

In fact, I was listening to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development's speech earlier in the debate today. She highlighted that she had heard from parents who could now afford their mortgage payment because their child care fees were reduced and other parents who could afford groceries for their family because of the reduction in child care fees. Well, she was quite proud of that achievement, and it really points to a bigger problem, a problem that is her own government's doing. Canadians are paying the price for this costly coalition's tax-and-spend agenda. The NDP-Liberal government needs to take affordability seriously.

Canada's food price report has reported that the average family of four is expected to spend $1000 more than it did last year on groceries. Meanwhile, surveys are already reporting that 52% of Canadian families are concerned that they do not have enough money to feed their families. We are now seeing record usage of food banks across the country.

The cost of basic necessities is becoming out of reach for more and more Canadians, and the Liberal government's addition of half a trillion dollars in federal debt has led to the 40-year-high inflation rates that we are seeing now. Its continued deficit spending is fuelling inflation and Canadians are paying more in taxes than ever before.

We know that parents are stretching their dollars as far as they can go, but that is becoming less and less fruitful. Those parents who are shut out of the child care program because they cannot access it or because it does not meet their needs do not share the minister's elation.

The driving force behind the skyrocketing cost of living crisis needs to be addressed to really help Canadian families who are struggling to make ends meet and, ultimately, if we want to help Canadian families with the cost of child care, we need to ensure that child care is first available. Child care is unique to each family, and a federal child care policy should reflect that.

Bill C-35 is a flawed piece of legislation. Its approach to child care is narrow and it does not provide Canadian families the assurances that their child care needs would be met. I hope that the NDP-Liberal government is prepared to make some amendments and listen to this—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents of King—Vaughan.

Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, sets a vision for a Canada-wide early learning and child care system committed to ongoing collaboration with provinces and indigenous people to support efforts to “establish and maintain”. Just over 52% of Canadian children younger than six years were in licensed or unlicensed child care in 2022. This bill proposes to cut day care fees by an average of 50% by the end of 2022 and down to an average of $10 per day by 2026.

Bill C-35 is a step in the right direction. However, it is too generic and does not consider or address many obstacles that parents face when accessing child care. Affordable, quality child care is critical, but if it cannot be accessed, it does not help families. Bill C-35 is beneficial 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 forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

In Ontario alone, the Financial Accountability Office says that demand for the program will exceed the number of available spaces. The FAO estimates that by 2026, approximately 600,000 children under the age of six will have potential access to $10-a-day child care, but only 375,000 licensed child care spaces will be available. Therefore, approximately 227,000 children under the age of six will be left behind, not able to access the $10-a-day child care.

Canada needs far more child care spaces than it has, and Bill C-35 would not address the need for increased child care infrastructure. The Liberal government simply offering up grants and subsidies through Bill C-35 does neither initiate nor promote operators to step up and start up centres where they are needed.

Bill C-35 also fails to address the child care labour shortage. There is currently not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity. Child care workers in Canada continue to leave the sector due to the low pay and poor working conditions. The majority of child care professionals are overworked and suffer burnout. The shortage of workers means that in many communities there is only one child care space available for every three children who need it and wait-lists are long.

According to the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Bill C-35 fails to address the shortage of early childhood educators and child care workers. Until the child care staffing crisis is resolved, the promise of affordable and high-quality child care for every family in Canada that needs it will remain unfulfilled.

One of Bill C-35's commitments is to provide more accessible child care to indigenous people and contribute to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous early learning and child care programs that focus on the languages and culture identities of first nations, Métis and Inuit communities have been found to contribute to better educational outcomes for indigenous children and help to build their language ability and sense of cultural pride. However, there is a shortage of indigenous workers trained in early childhood education in Canada, particularly because of challenges they face in acquiring training, such as cost, entrance requirements and residence in remote areas with restricted technology.

According to Statistics Canada, indigenous childhood educators and assistants and child care providers are less likely to have post-secondary education compared to their non-indigenous counterparts. Although claiming to support indigenous child care, Bill C-35 would do nothing to address the shortage in indigenous child care workers or the disparity of education between indigenous and non-indigenous child care workers.

The guiding principle of the framework for Bill C-35 heavily gives preferential treatment to public and non-for-profit day cares over small business models. This piece of the bill opens the door to a two-tier framework of child care across Canada.

Quality child care comes in all shapes and sizes. In Canada, options for child care range from nannies and home day care to day care centres, preschool programs, and before- and after-school programs. By giving preferential treatment to public and not-for-profit child care, Bill C-35 discriminates against women. The majority of child care operators are women, and the language and intent of this bill prevent any growth and opportunities for private female operators.

How would Bill C-35 assist single parents who do not have regularly scheduled nine-to-five jobs? This issue is not addressed in the bill. How does Bill C-35 address child care for children with disabilities? In British Columbia, children with disabilities are continuously left behind when it comes to child care. There is no official count on how many child care sites are accessible for kids with disabilities, because there is no provincial definition of what makes a child care site inclusive. How about grandparents who have stepped up and put their retirement on hold for their grandchildren?

The 2021 federal budget pledges $30 million in new spending on the national child care system over five years, with another $9.2 billion annually. These stats are coming from the Liberals' numbers.

Morna Ballantyne, executive director of Child Care Now, told CBC News, on the implementation of Bill C-35:

...we'd like to see...a full report on what progress has been made with respect to the system building in each jurisdiction. How many spaces have been created, where have they been created? Who's operating the spaces that have been created, what are the ages of the children being served by the new spaces?

We really think there needs to be a proper and full public accounting of how the money, the public money, has been spent.

The minister is on record saying that providing the federal government with details of the provinces' child care plans is a condition of their deals with Ottawa, but how can we trust that? This is coming from a government that has eight years of failed Liberal policy and does not hold itself accountable for it.

This is coming from the same government that spent $54 million on an ineffective ArriveCAN app and refuses to supply Canadians with a full list of all the contractors who got the money. This is coming from the same government that has $28 billion of suspicious spending and another $4.6 billion of outright waste. This is coming from the same government that failed to keep children's medication on the shelves.

Can Canada really trust the government to implement a quality child care system and ensure this federal funding is properly used? From the lack of detail in Bill C-35, I am not so trusting. Amendments need to be made to ensure all Canadians have access to quality child care.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking and congratulating my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London on her speech. I also want to thank our shadow minister for families, children and social development, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, for the excellent and extremely important work she has done on this file.

Over the next few minutes, I will have the chance to talk about the reality facing Canadian families. I wanted to speak to Bill C-35 because my wife has been working in child care centres in Quebec for many years now, so she is very familiar with the system. She witnessed its creation. Unfortunately, she has also witnessed the deterioration in services over the last few years. I think it is important to share her experience of this public system, which has existed in Quebec for over 20 years.

It is important to identify the flaws in the system, to recognize that there are still problems and look at how this Parliament can work to improve the child care situation across the country and in every province. It is also important not to put all our eggs in one basket, as Quebec has done in recent years. This would allow more families, more single mothers and fathers, more people to have access to appropriate child care across Canada.

Let us talk about the current reality for Canadian families. The cost of living has skyrocketed. We are facing interest rates that are making it harder and harder for young families to access home ownership. Food prices went up nearly 12% in just a year. That far outstrips the rise in inflation. We hear that many women would like to go back to work, especially young women who just had their first child. Young women who still do not have access to a child care system could be on a waiting list for several months, even a year.

In Quebec, in particular, when a person no longer has access to parental benefits, they may have to wait another year before they get a child care spot. It is unacceptable. This prevents many women from going back to work and thriving. More importantly, it also denies children the opportunity to access a public system that could help in their development.

At first, I was against a public child care system like the one that was implemented in Quebec in recent years. However, I must now admit that such a system improves the living conditions of many children. An educational child care system helps children be better prepared for school. Sometimes, these children come from disadvantaged backgrounds and their families do not necessarily have all the tools to help them develop before they go to preschool and kindergarten.

These services are good for children who manage to get into the system. Unfortunately, there are still many children who are unable to do so. Eight years after the Liberals made their promises, they are now introducing a bill that proposes access to that kind of system in the future. Unfortunately, based on what we have seen from the Liberals over the past eight years, we are worried that this bill is all about good intentions and that the results may not be up to par.

The Liberals want to move too quickly. They are grandstanding and trying to win political points. They are implementing a fine program to help families, but once again, they are realizing a little too late that they may not have done their homework properly and that, unfortunately, thousands of children will not have access to child care.

Why will they not have access to child care spaces? First, there is already a shortage of spaces in the system, especially in Quebec, and second, there is a dire shortage of specialized educators, so the centres cannot provide services to these children.

Day cares lack money for food. I was surprised to learn that in some day cares in Quebec, they no longer give meat to young children under the age of five because they cannot afford it. Non-profit centres can no longer afford to buy meat to feed the children. Instead, they serve plant-based proteins in the morning.

All sorts of other products are being used to try to adequately meet people's needs, but meat has been banned in the day care centres because there is not enough money, because everything costs more. There is also a glaring lack of choice. Families would have had the opportunity to access child care services, but unfortunately, Quebec has favoured subsidized non-profit day cares as currently proposed by the federal program. As a result, we find ourselves in a situation where, 25 years later, needs are still not being met.

I have some stats here about children on the waiting list. These numbers are from the Government of Quebec's ministry of families. There are 286,817 spaces in the system according to data from May 31, 2022. Quebec currently has 101,244 children in early learning centres, or facilities. There are 50,444 children in subsidized child care. There are 68,431 children in non-subsidized care, the so-called private day cares. Lastly, there are 66,698 children in home-based child care.

These child care services are offered by women, entrepreneurs who decide to open their own home-based child care service but are part of the network subsidized by the Government of Quebec. These female entrepreneurs are subsidized by Quebec to provide services to children. Unfortunately, this approach will not be allowed in all provinces, which do not all have the same agreement. This means more choice.

The big problem, despite all this and after 25 years, is that there are still 33,829 children waiting for a child care space. Some 30,295 spaces are being created, so there is already a shortfall. There are 2,500 subsidized spaces to be allocated. The facilities have not yet been developed to ensure that young people can access these child care centres or spaces. The number of children with “pending” status is 50,000. After more than 20 years of the public subsidized system, there are still 50,000 children who do not have a child care space. If you multiply that number by one for the number of mothers and by two for the number of parents, it is quite clear that there is a problem with putting all your eggs in one basket and taking just one path forward.

Fortunately, the Quebec government is providing subsidies to stay-at-home mothers who decide to open their own home-based child care. This is a way out. However, we deplore certain aspects of this bill, which is why we have some requests. We will be proposing amendments in committee to allow for more choice and to achieve the ultimate goal of accessible child care for children, and particularly for mothers who need access to a child care system.

We also have concerns about cost. If we cannot even create the number of spaces promised, will the government be able to keep its promise of creating $10-a-day spaces? That is the second big question. Based on past experience and different programs presented and adopted by the Liberal government in the last eight years, there is reason to have doubts and to ask questions.

The government does have an area of expertise that could help Quebec. Quebec is currently trying to fill 18,000 educator positions and the Quebec government would like to recruit abroad to fill these 18,000 positions. I believe that the federal government has a very specific role to play to help address the shortage of child care staff. It must work with the Quebec government and the governments of all the other provinces to expedite the arrival of these educators so that an increasing number of children, families and single parents can access quality child care services.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way knows well that I am happy to talk about child care all day long.

Bill C-35 is really legislation that encompasses the agreements that have already been put in place. If we look province by province, much work was done to identify and register a wide array of child care. While, yes, there are caps on private, there is private child care that has been grandfathered in Ontario, but the idea is to create more spaces, because the market demand for spaces is there. Each province gave us a list of how many spaces it needs, and the partnership with the federal government is to commit the funds to build those spaces. I was just in Manitoba announcing $70 million for rural spaces.

I would ask the member this. Does she not understand that this is really a set of agreements under this legislation so that we continue to work together with provinces and families?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, it truly is my pleasure to be speaking today about this transformative legislation. A year and a half ago, the first Canada-wide early learning and child care agreement was signed with the province of B.C., and today the federal government has signed agreements with all provinces and territories.

Making the Canada-wide early learning and child care system a reality is a momentous accomplishment. Too many families, for too long, have lacked access to affordable, high-quality and inclusive early learning and child care. Child care is a necessity and there is no question that it helps children in the long term. Early childhood educators set children up for success. They educate and build confidence in children, setting them on a path to success in school and life. This helps families thrive. That is why building a Canada-wide system matters. Most of us know that child care is expensive. Child care fees have placed a massive strain on the budgets of many families.

More than half a century ago, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada called on the federal government to immediately begin working with provinces and territories to establish a national day care plan. We came close to achieving a national plan under former prime minister Martin, but it was dismantled by the Conservative government of Stephen Harper when it took office in 2006.

When I was vice-chair of the status of women committee in our study on the economic security of women, the number one issue we heard that was holding women back economically was access to affordable, quality child care. I'll quote from our report:

The lack of access to high-quality affordable childcare was identified as a significant barrier to women's economic security because women bear a disproportionate responsibility, compared to men, for the unpaid care of children. Witnesses spoke of societal expectations and workplace culture that assumes women are the primary caregivers for their children at home and that women be responsible for arranging childcare if they want to work.

The Committee heard that the provision of accessible, affordable childcare is a key element in promoting women's labour force attachment. Lack of access to childcare limits women's ability to seek education and training, limits women's opportunities to re-enter the workforce, hurts their ability to achieve professional goals, and leads many women to seek part-time and precarious employment.

Generations of Canadians have waited for their government to answer the call. Making the Canada-wide system a reality means we can now relieve some of the stress felt by families from coast to coast to coast.

When my son was born, it was tough financially. Back then, I got only three months' maternity leave, and when it was time to go back to work it was a tough decision. I almost did not go back, but thanks to a very generous boss I was able to. My son, Fraser, went to a terrific day care run by the Canadian Mothercraft society in downtown Toronto, in the newly opened BCE Place. It was an awesome day care, but no doubt about it, it was expensive. I do not know how families made it work financially with more than one child.

With the introduction of Bill C-35, families in Canada do not have to endure the hardship of finding affordable and inclusive high-quality child care. This is our government's commitment to maintain long-term federal funding for provinces and territories. All provinces and territories have already seen child care fees significantly reduced, and we are on track to achieve our goal of an average $10-a-day regulated early learning and child care by March 2026.

The Canada-wide early learning and child care system and this bill are the result of significant collaboration with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples. Since 2017, we have worked with our provincial and territorial partners to establish the multilateral early learning and child care, or ELCC, framework that sets out the long-term vision for child care in Canada. We negotiated bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories to increase access to child care across the country. We co-developed an indigenous ELCC framework that reflects the unique cultures, aspirations and needs of first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families across Canada, which was endorsed by and jointly released with the Assembly of First Nations, ITK, and the Métis National Council in 2018.

This proposed bill respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction, and respects and upholds indigenous rights, including the right to self-determination. We are not imposing any conditions or requirements on provincial and territorial governments, nor on indigenous peoples.

With this legislation, we would enshrine into law the federal government's continued commitment to working collaboratively with and supporting provincial, territorial and indigenous partners in their efforts to establish and maintain a Canada-wide system of early learning and child care. The national advisory council, which would be enshrined in the legislation, would provide advice to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development on this important work.

Combined with other commitments, we are investing up to $30 billion over five years to make first-class early learning and child care affordable and accessible, and we are committed to continuing to work with our partners as the system matures and evolves. Our goal is simple and clear: We want to give children across the country, wherever they live, the best possible start in life.

From the beginning of the process, the Government of Canada has maintained that early childhood educators are key to the success of a high-quality early learning and child care system and deserve to have their work valued. We know our early childhood educators are dedicated and professional people. It is in all our best interest that we give early childhood educators and those contemplating a career in early childhood education the necessary incentives to support their growth and professional development. Early childhood educators are a pivotal part of the Canada-wide system. They deserve more for the critical work that they do with our children.

This legislation is not just about making life more affordable. All parents should have the opportunity to build both a family and a career. Parents, and especially mothers, have too often been denied the support they need to finish their education, participate in training, open businesses and maintain good jobs to provide for their families. Now parents would not have to choose between raising a family and having a career.

It is not simply a matter of being able to go out to work. It is also about the impact it has on women's careers and their ability to be entrepreneurs, as well as on their long-term earning capability. The longer that parents, especially moms, are out of the workforce, the harder it is for them to get back in and advance in a career with all the social and economic benefits that that brings.

Affordable high-quality child care is a feminist economic policy and a smart economic policy that would increase Canada's GDP by 1.2%, allowing for more women to return to the workforce. McKinsey Global Institute estimates that boosting women's participation in the workforce could add $150 billion to Canada's economy by 2026.

I remember crying tears of joy when the Minister of Finance announced a national child care plan in budget 2021 because I knew how transformational it would be. I remembered the financial challenges of child care 33 years ago and the challenging decision of whether to return to work being based solely on finances. As I knocked on doors in the 2021 election, I was concerned that the Conservative Party members had said that, if they were elected, they would scrap universal child care, which would have been absolutely devastating for families in Canada.

I am now a proud grandmother of the most perfect little boy. He started day care in November and is thriving there. His parents waited anxiously for a deal with the Province of Ontario to ensure their child care costs would be affordable for them. Needless to say, our family was overjoyed when the deal was signed and their child care costs have already been reduced by 50%, which means that wee Cameron is able to grow and learn at his day care, and his mom and dad can both work in meaningful employment.

With this bill, all of us in the House have the chance to do something that is going to make a difference for generations to come. It is my hope that we can swiftly pass this bill to ensure the longevity of the Canada-wide system, which would help all of Canada access high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Oakville North—Burlington.

I am so excited to be talking about child care and Bill C-35 today. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, it gives me great pleasure to rise to speak in support of this proposed legislation.

Simply put, affordable and inclusive child care is good for parents, good for children, good for women, good for families and good for the economy. It would reinforce the federal government’s long-term commitment to families from coast to coast to coast. We are working to build a system that will remain in place long into the future, so generations of children in Canada can get the best possible start in life.

Affordable child care is yet another way our government is demonstrating that we are here to support Canadians. We understand how hard life is for Canadians now and has been through the pandemic. That is why we have put forward significant benefits to help Canadians beyond affordable child care. Whether it is through the Canada child benefit, the Canada dental benefit, the doubling of the GST tax credit, the Canada housing benefit or an increase to the Canada workers benefit, we are there for Canadians.

The purpose of Bill C-35 is to enshrine the principles of a Canada-wide child care system into law. It is a system that will ensure families in Canada have access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care, and it is critical in supporting the goals of the early learning and child care agreements between the Government of Canada and provincial and territorial Governments that have been signed from coast to coast to coast.

It also supports the vision, principles and goals of the indigenous early learning and child care framework, which was co-developed with indigenous peoples and jointly released by the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council in 2018. In addition to the principles set out in the co-developed indigenous early learning and child care framework, it would continue to guide federal action with respect to early learning and child care programs and services for indigenous children, regardless of where they live.

I would like to focus for a moment on the development of the indigenous early learning and child care framework, which was first introduced in 2018, after being co-developed through an extensive nationwide engagement.

We know that culturally appropriate early learning and child care, designed by and with indigenous peoples, gives indigenous children the best start in life. The member for Winnipeg Centre has worked closely with us to ensure that those principles remain in place.

The indigenous early learning and child care framework, and the collaborative work to implement it over time, responds to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 12, which calls for all levels of government to work together “to develop culturally appropriate early childhood education programs for [indigenous] families.”

Guided by the indigenous early learning and child care framework, we made it clear that this legislation will respect and uphold indigenous rights, including treaty rights and the right to self-determination, as well as the Government of Canada’s commitment to reconciliation. The goal is to support indigenous nations, communities, organizations and governments in meeting the unique needs of their communities, families and children now, and seven generations forward.

We are investing an additional $2.5 billion over five years and $542 million annually ongoing in federal funding to get this work done. This funding will increase access to high-quality, culturally appropriate ELCC programs and services for indigenous children through indigenous-led governance. Indigenous governments are also working alongside provinces and territories to ensure ELCC is comprehensive and coordinated so all children are benefiting, regardless of where they live.

Since 2019, a total of 32 quality-improvement projects have been funded. These will continue to advance the implementation of the indigenous ELCC framework through best practices and innovation. These improvements will strengthen indigenous-centred knowledge and expertise to support all partners working toward a strong, culturally appropriate system of early learning and child care.

We have said many times that high-quality, affordable, and inclusive child care is not a luxury for families. It is a necessity. All caregivers should have the opportunity to build both a family and a career, and all children should have the best possible start in life.

As I mentioned previously, this legislation would not impose any conditions or requirements on provincial and territorial governments, or indigenous peoples.

It respects first nations, Inuit and Métis rights, and supports control of the design, delivery and administration of early learning and child care programs and services that reflect their needs, priorities and aspirations. However, the federal government has a role to play in setting federal principles and supporting provinces, territories and indigenous peoples in their efforts to establish and maintain a Canada-wide system. Indigenous peoples will benefit from a federal commitment to sustained and ongoing funding.

As a government, we will invest up to $30 billion over five years to make early learning and child care affordable, accessible and nationwide. Combined with previous investments announced since 2015, a minimum of $9.2 billion per year ongoing will be invested in child care, including indigenous early learning and child care, starting in 2025-26.

Thanks to these investment, fees for regulated child care have been reduced in every jurisdiction in Canada. Quebec and Yukon were already providing regulated child care for $10 a day or less before our Canada-wide investments. In December 2022, Nunavut joined them by being the first jurisdiction to lower fees for regulated child care to $10 a day under the Canada-wide system.

By 2025-26, the average fee for all regulated spaces across Canada will be $10 a day, and that is great news for families. Child care fees in Newfoundland and Labrador have already been reduced to $15 a day, down from $25 a day in 2021. These are not just numbers. These are families saving hundreds of dollars each month across the country.

Regardless of political stripe, governments across Canada believe in giving all children in Canada the best possible start in life, and that we can agree on. The relief this offers parents and caregivers of young children cannot be overstated.

I will conclude by offering some outside assessments of nation-wide ELCC.

Charles St-Arnaud, chief economist at Alberta Central, said, “Women feel more confident going back into the workforce because they won’t be spending their whole paycheque on child care”.

Martha Friendly, a board member at Child Care Now, said, “Some women had to stay home because either they couldn’t find a space or they couldn’t afford it. Now, people are getting child care at 50 per cent reduced fees on average and that means [they] can go back to work.”

The Financial Post, on December 5, noted that our child care policy has been a success. It said, “government policy has played a role in getting women back in the workforce...especially when it comes to child care.” Again, St-Arnaud said, “Women feel more confident going back into the workforce because they won't be spending their whole paycheque on child care”.

Families are benefiting, children are benefiting, and I encourage every member of this House to support child care across this country through Bill C-35 and its swift passage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Child Care

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating and welcoming my newest colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore to the House.

I am thrilled to talk about Bill C-35 and the important work that it is going to do to ensure to Canadians, to families, to children, to women, to day care providers that the federal government is there for the long term. I have no doubt that his constituents in Mississauga—Lakeshore voted for him because they know that he is a hard worker and that the Liberal government is going to be there in tough times.

I am glad for the support of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. I hope the Conservatives will reverse their position—

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to stand before the House for the first time. Earlier today, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development led off a debate on Bill C-35 to enshrine the Canada-wide early learning and child care system into law.

My constituents all know so well how important access to affordable and inclusive child care is for our economy and women's empowerment.

Could the minister please update the House on how Bill C-35 will ensure that affordable and accessible quality child care is here to stay?

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today as the NDP's critic for children, families and social development to address this historic legislation, Bill C-35.

Finally, after so many years of struggle, we have a national child care legislation that accompanies a system of national child care.

Let me begin by acknowledging the people who made this system and the bill we are debating today possible. There are too many names to mention, but let me say this. Generations of feminists, trade unionists, child care workers and advocates made this victory possible. They never, ever gave up the fight. They did not give up after the 1970 Royal Commission on the Status of Women's recommendation for a national child care program was ignored by the government of the day. They did not give up after the 1993 Liberal red book promised national child care, only for that government to pursue deep cuts to social programs instead. They did not give up during the 10 years of a Harper government that viewed child care as a dirty word. It has been 30 years since the Liberals promised a national child care program and, as a result of their relentless advocacy, we finally find ourselves here today.

I, a proud New Democrat, along with my colleagues, am proud to stand here today in support of Bill C-35 on behalf of our party, which has always prided itself on being a feminist movement and a vocal advocate for an affordable, accessible, universal child care program.

Our party prides itself on standing alongside organizations, advocates and unions in their demonstration of courage and commitment even when the possibility of national child care seemed so unlikely. It is because of their tenacity and their refusal to quit even when the odds were against them that we are here today.

I stand on their shoulders; we stand on their shoulders.

I also want to acknowledge the role that our party and particularly women in the NDP have played in getting us to this point. Olivia Chow, the former MP for Trinity—Spadina is a child care champion. Her private member's bill, Bill C-373, laid out a foundation for an affordable, accessible and high-quality national child care system. More recently, my colleague, the member of Parliament for London—Fanshawe, built on these efforts with her Bill C-311.

I am grateful to them both for their work in moving this issue forward and demonstrating what a positive role for the federal government in ensuring that families can have access to child care they need when they need it looks like.

Finally, I wish to thank the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, the member of Parliament for Burlington, and her team for the collaborative approach they have taken with this legislation. The minister sought out our feedback and was receptive to many of our suggestions about what should be included in this legislation.

Although there are still areas where the bill can and should be strengthened, I am delighted that several of our key recommendations did find their way into the current version of the bill. I will address some of these key recommendations in more detail later, but I wanted to take this opportunity to acknowledge how I appreciated, very much, the minister's openness to our feedback.

By establishing a long-term commitment for federal funding to provinces and indigenous peoples and enshrining the principles of a national system of early learning and child care, Bill C-35 would help ensure that parents across Canada can access affordable, accessible and high-quality child care now and into the future.

In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, where the price of almost everything has increased, child care is a rare exception. Parents in many cities across the country are seeing child care savings as significant as 50%, providing real relief to thousands of families. It is vital that the target of $10-a-day child care by 2026 is not only achieved, but sustained for the long term.

I will note, however, that not all cities and provinces have met their fee reduction targets. One province in particular is Manitoba, which has conspicuously lagged behind. This is a topic I will return to later.

Nevertheless, the child care agreements are delivering significant fee reductions for parents from coast to coast. It is important this continues indefinitely, not just for five years until the agreements need to be renewed. Much like our system of universal health care, child care must be a permanent feature of our social safety net.

The commitment to long-term funding is also crucial for advancing gender equality in our country. Child care is a feminist issue. It gives working women the ability to choose when and how they wish to re-enter the workforce after having a child. The Quebec model of low-cost child care offers a powerful example of this. Indeed, Quebec's investment in a universal child care have resulted in women's participation in the workforce increasing by between 8% and 12%.

Not only has this boosted Quebec's economy, it has improved the financial security of women. It means a greater portion of household income is now under the control of women, which gives them more security in the case of separation, including in cases where they need to leave an abusive relationship. This is what feminist public policy looks like.

I often hear members of Parliament sharing stories about the struggling single parent mother trying to make ends meet. In fact, the member for Carleton, now the Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, often invokes the experiences of single moms in Parliament.

I can be certain that he has never been a single mother. If he had been, maybe he would not be so quick to oppose a national health care program, which will help thousands of single moms and children across the country have a better life.

I, in fact, was a single mom. I was very fortunate at the time to have stable employment teaching in post-secondary education. However, even on an academic salary, I often had difficulty making ends meet, paying up to $650 a month in child care expenses. This resulted in me having to take on more employment, which resulted in my having less time with my precious son. I have lasting mother's guilt about having to leave him so I could provide for him.

I am lucky to have such a wonderful son, whom I adore. Looking back, maybe if there had been a national child care program at the time, our life might have looked much different. I was exhausted, and my son missed his mother.

More affordable child care, let alone $10-a-day child care, would have changed my life and my son's life. Therefore, for any member of the House who uses the story of struggling single mothers for political gain without having been one themselves, they should vote in favour of the bill and support a system of national child care now.

Returning to the bill, beyond the long-term funding commitment, Bill C-35 contains other important provisions we pushed for and managed to have incorporated into the bill.

First is the inclusion of international human rights conventions and declarations that enshrine access to child care as a human right.

Preambular paragraph 3 affirms a commitment to further realization of the right to child care as recognized in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is something for which child care advocates have long demanded and for which the NDP have fought. Preambular paragraph 3 also affirms the commitment to furthering the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and contains important references to other international conventions, including the UN Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities and the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.

An other inclusion for which the NDP fought for was that rights-based language be included in the bill. I am pleased that this has been included.

Second and highly significant is that Bill C-35 would explicit priority to child care programs and services offered by public and not-for-profit providers as one of the principles guiding federal funding. This is a provision fought for and won by the NDP. It is is a win for parents because public and non-profit child care means affordable, quality and accessible day care for families that need it rather than day cares that make a profit off of the backs of parents.

We also know that an emphasis on public and non-profit child care means better wages and working conditions for staff in the system. Study after study, union after union have heeded these calls for a public not-for-profit child care system.

Those in the House who say they stand with workers then they need to stand with a public, non-profit child care system. Taking care of our kids should not be on the backs of parents. Kids are not a business. The focus should be on providing the best possible care at a price that parents can afford, not delivering a profit for shareholders.

While all of what I describe represents an important step forward, as I mentioned previously, there are areas where this bill can and should be improved. One of the improvements required is adding an explicit commitment to decent work for child care staff.

At this point, I will digress briefly to say that I was once, as many people know in the House, an early childhood educator. If someone had told me all those years ago that I would be in this place debating national child care legislation, I would not have believed that person.

Workers are at the heart and soul of a national child care system. For far too long, child care workers have been grossly underpaid and undervalued in spite of the fact that they perform some of society's most critical work. That is why I left the profession even though I loved the kids who I was teaching everyday. I loved the work but I could not afford to continue in a profession that did not pay a living wage or provide good benefits.

A national child care program will only be successful and sustainable if the workers who make it possible are treated with dignity and paid fairly for their labour. That is why I support the Canadian Labour Congress' call for the legislation to include a clear commitment to decent work for child care staff. All child care workers deserve to earn a living wage with benefits with which they can support their families.

As an aside, it is also vital for the federal government to develop a workforce strategy to address staffing shortages in the sector. When we talk about creating new spaces, the building is not the most important element. It is having trained staff to look after the kids in these new child care spaces, a workforce strategy that can help ensure we are continuously expanding child care options where the demand is greatest.

The bill can also be strengthened with respect to the accountability and transparency it provides. While the creation of a national advisory council is welcome in terms of the expert advice that it will provide, it does not have the enforcement power to ensure that the provisions set out in Bill C-35 are followed. It is important for the bill to include strong accountability mechanisms so that the commitments it contains are upheld.

The reporting requirements on the progress being made in establishing national child care and federal investments in this sector lack detail, stating only that the minister is required to make an annual report. This is too vague and the bill should specify the specific metrics, including new spaces being built, new child care workers being hired and other quantitative details. It is vital that members of the public and Parliament have access to this crucial information.

It should also establish conditions on federal child care funding, real accountability for when provinces fail to deliver on fee reductions or expanding public, not-for-profit care.

I am deeply concerned that Manitoba is the only province where we have not seen an average reduction in fees. Instead, the government has made changes to who is eligible for the subsidy. This is unacceptable. Also concerning is the Ontario government's decision to remove profit caps, paving the way for an expansion of for-profit care.

I know the government has said there are accountability mechanisms built into the bilateral agreements, but they are either inadequate, not being properly enforced, or both.

I am also aware that Bill C-35 does not supersede the bilateral agreements, which are legally binding, so we cannot impose new terms on top of these existing agreements. However, I am hoping the bill could be amended to provide stronger conditions that would apply on an ongoing basis, or on a going forward basis, to future agreements after the current ones expire, five years from when they are concluded. Right now, the bill says nothing about how future agreements would be enforced to ensure accountability for the funding. This is a notable gap that we should address.

While there are more opportunities to weigh in on the bill at committee and in the chamber, I want to conclude by again acknowledging the gravity of what we are discussing today. We have progressed from being a country where child care was seen as the sole responsibility of mothers, unpaid labour with which our society could not function, to a country where child care is not just an individual responsibility but a collective one. We have progressed to being a country where we will finally have national legislation underpinning a national system of child care in every province and territory.

After years of false starts and broken promises, that is something we can all take pride in. To the women, the workers and the advocates who have helped make this dream a reality, I say their tenacious efforts have made our country fairer, more just and more inclusive.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, my wish for my colleagues is that 2023 is a bit different than these past few years.

A few minutes ago, I heard my colleague ask if we could encourage people to get into politics and set aside partisan rhetoric on the thousands of files before us.

Today I have the great pleasure of speaking to Bill C‑35. I say bravo because we are entirely in favour in principle. I am very proud of that. I must also say that my colleague did a fine job explaining the ins and outs of everything that might be missing from this bill.

I will talk more about the pride of Quebec for more than 25 years now. Having heard the speech by my Conservative colleague, I hope to give the others a bit more of an understanding of the purpose of this bill and the need to see it through.

I want to look back because I want to talk about how proud I am. Just before being appointed, the first female premier of Quebec introduced a forward-thinking family policy that changed the lives of countless families and boosted the economy. It levelled the playing field for everyone and put children on the path to educational success, and I am very proud of that. What is more, the policy was implemented in a reasonable way that did not break parents' budgets. That is why, at the time, it was known as the groundbreaking $5 day care. Today, it does not even cost $9 a day. For us, it is still a good program with benefits that I will talk about in the next few minutes.

As the minister said earlier, in 1997, this program made it possible for children from all walks of life and all social classes to attend day care and for all parents, both men and women, who had never even considered doing so, to go back to work and become independent, to prepare to take the path I talked about earlier.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues are really bothering me. I thought we had set the stage for a minimum level of respect. They need to go talk somewhere else besides right in front of me because I am finding it difficult to keep speaking. I want to point that out.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I can be brief.

My colleague did a great job explaining how progressive Quebec is. It is surprising and always a pleasure to see how the federal government can follow Quebec's example, instead of lecturing Quebec as it does most of the time. Every once in a while it looks at Quebec and decides to implement the Quebec model from coast to coast to coast.

There are even more areas where it could follow Quebec's example but, unfortunately, does not. This bill respects provincial jurisdictions, which has never been the case with the health transfers we have been asking for for years.

Does my colleague not think the federal government could use Bill C‑35 as an opportunity to really respond to the provinces' requests, specifically by putting more money into the system—

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I am pleased to be back here in the House. I would like to thank my team in Val‑d'Or, Lebel‑sur‑Quévillon and Chibougamau for the work they are doing for my constituents. I also want to say hello to the people of Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik—Eeyou.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, which was tabled by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development on December 8.

If passed, Bill C‑35 will enshrine in law the Liberal government's commitment to maintaining long-term program funding for the provinces and indigenous peoples, as well as guiding principles for that federal funding. The bill contains no specific financial promises for the national program, but enshrining it in law could make it more difficult for a future government to dismantle.

As we know, for many years now, many Canadian families have been envious of Quebec's child care system, because child care often eats up a large portion of their household income. These families have long dreamed of being able to benefit from the same service that families in Quebec have been receiving for decades. It is therefore high time that all Canadian families were able to access child care without breaking the bank.

In 2022, Quebec celebrated the 25th anniversary of its family policy. On January 23, 1997, the Parti Québécois government's Minister of Education, Pauline Marois, unveiled the Quebec family policy, which was based on five main pillars: child care services and parental leave; the family allowance; the work premium; the solidarity tax credit; and the refundable tax credit for child care expenses.

The family policy was developed as a result of changes in Quebec's population, including an increase in the number of single-parent and blended families, greater numbers of women in the workforce, and the troubling rise of precarious employment. This groundbreaking policy allowed Quebeckers to improve their work-life or school-life balance and benefit from more generous maternity and parental leave, and it extended family assistance programs to self-employed workers and workers with atypical work schedules. This model is a valuable program that the entire Quebec nation is proud of.

Providing early childhood educational services was also a giant step forward for education in Quebec. These services increase students' chances of academic success and prevent them from dropping out, positively impact early childhood development, allow for the early detection of learning disabilities and adjustment difficulties, and ensure that all young Quebeckers start off on the same footing, regardless of their sex, ethnic origin or social class.

Considering the popular support they enjoy, the new child care centres rank among one of the greatest successes of the new social economy, being democratically managed using an approach that involves both parents and educators.

The mission of Quebec's early childhood education services is threefold: one, to ensure the well-being, health and safety of the children receiving care; two, to provide an environment that stimulates their development in every way, from birth to school age; and three, to prevent learning, behavioural and social integration problems from appearing later on. Child care services provide a conduit for instilling values, culture and language. This system helps children grow and develop more healthily from an early age. This is an important principle of childhood socialization and sharing.

In my opinion, a real family policy like the one in Quebec, which includes components such as family leave, income support and an accessible child care network, must be integrated into a coherent whole in order to be effective, so it should be overseen by just one level of government.

I myself took advantage of our child care services, and my children received an education that contributed to their success in life. It is truly a pleasure to bring a child to the centre in the morning, knowing that they are safe, that they will learn something and discover their creativity, and that they are picking up life skills by making friends they can play with.

I have to say that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-35 in principle, but we think it is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, it does not comply with the distribution of powers set out in the Constitution, but on the other, it excludes Quebec from the federal family policy for the next five years.

Let me explain. The Constitution clearly states that education and family policy are not under federal jurisdiction. Moreover, although the bill states that the provinces will be able to certify child care services and determine the applicable criteria, it also states that every government in Canada will have to comply with the principles set out in the multilateral early learning and child care framework.

This framework is full of good intentions and fine principles, but it is based on the federal government's supposed spending power, which Quebec does not consider legitimate or legal. One thing is clear: This bill was not tabled in the right parliament.

On the other hand, the bill excludes Quebec from the federal family policy for the next five years. The Quebec government will receive $6 billion in compensation for opting out of the centralizing policy. This demonstrates respect for Quebec's aversion to federal meddling in its jurisdictions, especially since Quebec is not only a pioneer in child care services, but is hailed as a model for success.

Nonetheless, unlike Bill C‑303, Bill C‑35's predecessor, there is no indication of any exemption for Quebec in the current wording of the bill. This is how clause 4 of Bill C‑303 was worded:

Recognizing the unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec with regard to the education and development of children in Quebec society, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Government of Quebec may choose to be exempted from the application of this Act and, notwithstanding any such decision, shall receive the full transfer payment that would otherwise be paid under section 5.

The agreement signed with the Quebec government is valid for five years. However, giving Quebec the full right to opt out of this program would help avoid another dispute between Ottawa and Quebec City when the federal government inevitably interferes in Quebec's jurisdiction, as it is wont to do.

During the joint announcement by the federal government and the Legault government, the Premier of Quebec indicated that the federal government would continue to help Quebec and that the agreement would respect Quebec's jurisdictions. The Premier of Quebec, Mr. Legault, said that after 2026, he will expect help from the federal government.

The passage of Bill C‑35 would make it possible for Quebec to recover significant sums that it could use to complete its network and enhance working conditions for workers in the sector. By allowing Quebec to opt out and be fully compensated, Bill C‑35 takes into consideration these two opposing tendencies in federal-provincial relations, which is rare on the part of the federal government. Outside Quebec, Ottawa is seen as a force for social progress, which results in a strong tendency towards centralization. In Quebec, we reject this interference.

However, as I just mentioned, unlike its predecessor, Bill C‑303, specifically clause 4, this bill does not provide for the right to unconditionally opt out. It is essential that this be included in order to reflect this opposing view of Canada, that is centralization outside Quebec and respect for jurisdictions within Quebec.

Finally, it would be a good idea for Bill C‑35 to emulate its predecessor by recognizing the Quebec government's unique expertise on day care services in North America, as the international community did in 2003. In its study of day care in Canada, the OECD stated that it is “important to underline...the extraordinary advance made by Quebec, which has launched one of the most ambitious and interesting early education and care policies in North America....none of [the Canadian provinces] showed the same clarity of vision as Quebec in addressing the needs of young children and families”.

In closing, it is my hope that all Canadian families will one day be able to enjoy the same child care benefits as Quebec families. We know that, in addition to giving a financial boost to Canadian families, this would enable more mothers to enter the job market. It is an investment in a better future for our children, and our children are the future.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, it is in an honour and privilege to speak on behalf of Canadians and the people of my community, Peterborough—Kawartha.

Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to recognize the life and service of Hazel “Hurricane” McCallion. She was what all of us inside of the House should aspire to be, which is fierce, fair and for the people.

“Rest in peace, Ms. McCallion. You made Canada better.”

Today, we are debating Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. As a mom and as the shadow minister for families, children and social development, I cannot understate the importance and value of affordable, quality child care. However, affordable, quality child care does not exist if one cannot access it.

As a shadow minister and critic, it is my job to speak up for all Canadians and point out what is wrong with the bill. It is my job to listen to the frontline staff and parents who are directly impacted by the bill and speak on their behalf.

I do not think we will find a Canadian who does not want what is best for their children. However, we must acknowledge that it is not the government’s job to decide what is best for one's child. Rather, it is the parent, the caregiver.

Every Canadian deserves to choose what works best for their family when it comes to child care. Every family dynamic is different, and our diversity and our culture are what make Canada Canada. What works for one family may not work for another. We all have different situations, circumstances and needs.

Bill C-35 would not offer choice for families. In fact, it would exclude many Canadians from accessing quality, affordable child care. This bill speaks exclusively to those who already have a child care space with a public or not-for-profit child care operator. It does not offer anything to families who have been on wait-lists for years. It does not offer anything for families who choose to raise their children at home, use a grandparent or access a private or home-run day care.

There is no freedom to choose in this bill, and there is absolutely no mention of how to manage the frontline burnout and labour shortage of child care providers.

Bill C-35 would not solve the problem of the staff shortages and the out-of-control wait-lists to access child care across this country. In fact, the bill would do exactly the opposite. It would increase the demand for affordable child care and leave parents with no access. This bill would subsidize the wealthy instead of prioritizing our most vulnerable families who need child care.

The bill specifically says, “enable families of varying incomes to benefit from affordable early learning and child care programs and services”. In a cost-of-living crisis, why is the Liberal government subsidizing the most wealthy?

This message is from Morgan, who sent it to me. She says, “I think my story is pretty common among new parents right now. I have three children, one in school and I have to go back to work in February from my latest maternity leave. I’ve been on the waitlist since I was 8 weeks pregnant and still won’t have any care for at least another year likely.” She asks whether she is just supposed to give up her career, her income, her pension and her benefits. She continues, saying, “I’m not sure how I am supposed to provide for my family with no income. Many daycares I have reached out to say they have had to shut down some of their rooms, meaning even less child care spots.”

Here is another story from an operator in Peterborough, Ontario. She says that they have a child in their preschool program who is eligible for the Canada-wide early learning and child care program, or, as many call it, the CWELCC, and who has a sibling in the senior before and after school program who is not eligible for CWELCC because of their age. Program eligibility, for those who do not know, is only for children under six.

The day care operator says that the parent fee for the preschool child is $19.85 a day, for up to 10 hours of care. The day care is open 7:30 to 5:30. This fee includes a hot lunch prepared by their cook, as well as two snacks each day, also prepared by the cook. For the senior before and after school child, the fee is $24 a day for a maximum of three hours and 45 minutes. This includes one snack per day.

She asks where the equity is in this. Families who have children over six are not entitled to CWELCC program fee reductions and therefore are paying more for under four hours of care than families who are entitled to a full day of care with a hot lunch and two snacks.

This example points out many of the flaws in the bill. What about parents who work shift work, are entrepreneurs or who work weekends? Where can they take their kids for child care?

Second, how would the bill create more spaces when the child care operator who has written this letter is located in a school, and there are physically no more spaces to put in the school?

Furthermore, how would this bill help with the labour shortage? There is no labour strategy in this bill.

Matthew Lau’s synopsis of this bill and the Liberals' failed attempt at child care is spot-on. He writes that the challenges are the same across the board and there are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone staff new spaces.

Bill C-35 has nothing in it to fix these problems.

Andrea Hannen, the Executive Director of the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario, or ADCO, gives many examples of what we can expect with this Liberal flawed bill. She says, for example, that taxpayers and the families who use the program will wind up paying more and more for it, while all children will wind up getting less and less.

This bill, like most Liberal policy, says a lot of really nice things but gives zero details on how any of these nice things will be delivered or how they will be achieved. The Liberals love to promise unrealistic expectations, and then act shocked when they cannot achieve them. They also love to tell taxpayers to just trust them.

After eight years of this Prime Minister and seeing how badly Canadians are suffering, we do not trust them. The Financial Accountability Office of Ontario says there is a committed shortfall of $1.2 billion in 2026-27 based on the minimum federal and provincial commitment. We have barely started, and we can already see there is no sustainability plan here.

Susan Cake, chair of Child Care Now Alberta, an advocacy organization, says that there has been a giant frustration in Alberta about the lack of communication, that everybody does not know what is going on, does not know where funding is coming from and does not know where they are going to get money.

I want to take a minute right now. This is very important to listen to, because as members may have heard earlier, the minister talked about how this is such an advancement for feminism. This bill would do exactly the opposite.

Feedback from the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs said that the majority of private child care in Alberta is operated by women, with a large number being immigrant women, and that the impact of this agreement and the intention of the federal government to prioritize the business model of child care rather than the affordability, accessibility or quality of care is having the opposite effect on women. It notes that we are seeing a women-led industry targeted and pushed out of business, and that women across our province are facing bankruptcy and losing their homes because they signed on to this agreement because they wanted and advocated for affordable child care.

The association also notes the creation of a two-tiered child care system. For example, one of its directors has a centre in Grand Prairie. She had a wait-list of over 400 families, so she decided to expand even though she understood the new spaces would not have access to the affordability program. Now in her centre she has her original 120 spaces with families paying an average of $13 a day, and 86 new spaces with families paying an average of $65 a day for the same care in the same centre. This is an unintended consequence of this child care program.

The written feedback also says that there are new centres sitting empty. They are fully operational and licensed, but because of their choice to be private operators, they cannot access subsidies for families. There are centres with wait-lists of 100 families but only four children attending, because the other families need the subsidy and cannot access it in that centre. These women who have invested their savings and taken the initiative to open centres and meet the needs of their communities are going bankrupt. They likely have signed 10- to 20-year leases with personal guarantees of their families' homes and assets, but the federal government is restricting them from having access to a fair market to operate their businesses. The message this sends is that the choice of these parents does not matter and that these women are collateral damage to meeting this Liberal campaign promise in an NDP coalition.

As the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs has pointed out, we must have private child care along with public and not-for-profit centres to meet the demand and to offer the choice to fit what is best for families. However, the language and intention of this bill clearly leave private child care operators in the cold. The exact language from the bill reads that it is to “facilitate access to early learning and child care programs and services — in particular those that are provided by public and not for profit child care providers”.

How can we expect to meet the demand without private operators? We cannot. We need them, yet this bill clearly leaves out any representation from private operators on the national council. What does that say? It says the same thing the Liberals always say, namely that they will decide what is best. They will decide how to spend our money. They will decide who the representatives are at the table. They do not believe in the fair market or having freedom of choice. It is not right. It is not good leadership, and it is not a good long-term strategy for our country.

Ontario’s Financial Accountability Office projects that by 2026, there will be 602,000 children under the age of six whose families will want $10-a-day day care, but the province will only be able to accommodate 37,000 of them. That will leave 38% of children without access. Government estimates also suggest that by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early childhood workers.

In British Columbia, 27% of child care centres turn away children because of a lack of staff. One director, who oversees 13 child care programs that comprise 350 spaces, said that in the past two years, they have had to close programs temporarily, whether by closing for a day or two or shortening hours for the week.

In Peterborough, we have 4,200 licensed child care spaces in our city and county. There are 3,500 children on the wait-list. Frontline burnout is hurting our entire economy and contributing to our mental health crisis, as is not being able to access quality child care.

When the minister says that more women will be able to go to work, she is misleading Canadians. One cannot go to work if one lacks access to child care. One cannot help address our labour shortage without available day care spots. They will say they are going to create more spaces but give zero details of a plan for achieving that.

Bill C-35 does not solve these problems. It is not a child care strategy. It is a headline marketing plan.

Women are rethinking having children because of the cost-of-living crisis and because there is just no access to child care. I know many women who put their name on a wait-list before they were pregnant; now they have toddlers but no indication if they will ever get a child care spot. Accessing quality child care is one of life’s greatest stressors. Any mom or parent watching this knows that leaving their child with somebody is the ultimate stressor in life. Parents need choice about who to leave their children with. It is an indescribable stress.

Parents deserve access to quality child care; more importantly, our children deserve access to quality care. If we are not invested in our children's welfare, then what is our future? Children are our future. They are our most precious resource, and this bill does not put children first. It is a marketing plan.

The following is Meredith's story:

“I have been on a wait list for my 21 month old son since the day he was born, I have never come off of it nor have I received notice that I am coming to the top of any list, let alone some of the choices I feel would best suit our families needs. I’m now pregnant with my second and have already registered this baby on the list in hopes of having more success next time. I have spent countless hours on Facebook groups, asking friends, on paid service websites trying to find adequate care. It’s sad to me because I thought I would be choosing the center/provider that best suited our needs as a family, but it would appear that we are being forced to just accept whatever we get. I have also heard from friends who applied strictly for part time care who gave gotten calls from centres that only accept full time spots. This makes me question how many people are taking up spots on a list for full time when in reality they only require part time care? This seems like a simple issue to fix in the application process. In Facebook groups I see posts every single day of mothers and fathers desperately seeking care as their time on leave has run out and they still don’t have a reliable option. I consider myself lucky, I decided to leave my job after maternity leave and start my own business because I don’t feel I will ever be comfortable leaving my children wherever I get to the top of the list first. This has presented its own challenges as a full time parent & a full time entrepreneur, but at least I am not desperately seeking care left between feeding my family & staying home to care for my children”.

She goes on to state, “This entire thing breaks my heart as I also think that while there are certainly many dads highly involved in the search for care, it ultimately seems to fall on women who are now being forced to leave their careers and remain home with their children despite wanting to return to the workplace”.

It is really unfortunate that someone cannot be present with their children because they are so stressed out about whether they will be able to find child care and go back to work. They do not have a choice; they have to go back to work to pay for food because of inflation and the cost-of-living crisis.

In terms of poor planning, alongside not providing clear communication or details on this ideologically driven bill, we have reports coming from child care centres explaining that parents are being charged an extra fee because, as everyone watching knows, the cost of food has skyrocketed after eight years under the current Prime Minister.

As reported by The Globe and Mail, “Governments' daycare budgets didn't account for inflation, and it's affecting how kids are fed”.

Ashley Collins is co-chief executive officer of Compass Early Learning and Care, which operates 40 child care programs across Canada. She estimates that Compass has had to increase its food budget by up to 10%. She said, “There's so many multifaceted things like we need to do from an operational level – make sure that food can continue, but also our staff, being able to make sure we're still putting money into increasing wages”.

According to The Globe and Mail, “Compass programs will continue to look for sales on food and adjust menus accordingly rather than cut food offerings or add them as an extra fee”.

“How unfortunate would it be that centres are feeling like they have to add that extra fee at a time when fees are supposed to be going down,” Ashley Collins said.

There is so much wrong with this bill, and I cannot stress enough that Conservatives believe in freedom of choice for quality, affordable child care. Everybody wants that. However, this bill is flawed, and simply listening to parents, child care operators and frontline workers should have given the knowledge needed to fix it.

We just need to listen to the people who are impacted by this to know what not to do. Clearly, the Liberals believe that Ottawa knows best. Conservatives know that Canadians know best, not Ottawa bureaucrats. We are elected to serve the people, and service means listening and doing something that is better, not worse.

There are concrete policy decisions that can help families. Affordable and quality child care is critical, but if it cannot be accessed, it does not exist. It is great that we are having this conversation. It is great that we are recognizing how important affordable and quality child care is, but this bill falls very short on achieving results and details, as well as providing equal opportunities for families to access quality, affordable child care.

It is because we have listened to parents, frontline staff and operators across this country that Conservatives believe we can fix this. We do not want to leave Canadians without hope. We know how important hope is. We can offer the freedom for families to choose what is best for them.

The Conservatives will put forth strong amendments to address these glaring shortcomings in the legislation and ensure all Canadians can access affordable quality child care. Their children are important—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying how nice it was working alongside the minister in the drafting of this legislation.

This is good legislation, but not perfect. One concern I have brought up many times in the House is how early childhood educators historically, and I would say even now, have been underpaid and undervalued. Noting that this is critical work, noting that this is work that is vital for women across the country, does the member support adding in Bill C-35 an explicit commitment to fair wages and working conditions for staff in this sector?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have an excellent relationship with Quebec when it comes to early childhood education and child care. I have worked extensively with my Quebec counterparts on this issue.

As my colleague mentioned, Quebec's child care system has been a source of inspiration for us. We want the rest of Canada to catch up with Quebec and its system. We negotiated an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec for exactly that reason.

Bill C-35 fully respects provincial and territorial jurisdictions. It is based on the principles and objectives we have set out in the agreements with the provinces and territories.

What I understand from the Government of Quebec is that they are happy with this bill precisely because it respects provincial and territorial jurisdictions. It also demonstrates that the Government of Canada will be there for the long term and will ensure that it is not just five years' worth of payments—

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

moved that Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me tremendous pleasure, and it is an honour to rise in the House today to kick off the debate on Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

I want to start with a few thanks. I first of all want to thank the thousands of advocates across this country who have been waiting and fighting for this day for just over 52 years. It was 52 years ago in December that the Royal Commission on the Status of Women came out with its landmark report that asked the Government of Canada and suggested that it put in place an affordable, high-quality, inclusive and accessible child care system across this country.

Fifty-two years is a long time to wait, and there are lots of families who went through child care during that period of time. However, what I have heard from stakeholders and advocates across this country is that now is a good time to start. It is never too late to do the right thing, and here we are.

Today, we have agreements signed with 13 provinces and territories. As of December, almost all of them have reduced fees by 50%, and we have one more that is going to be making a good announcement very soon. More of those fee reductions are on their way.

What excites me about this system and about this bill is the impact it is having on families. I have had occasion to to travel to almost every province and territory across the country over the past year, to engage with families and to hear from them the stories about how this system is making a difference in their lives. I have yet to speak to a child care centre representative or a family who has not talked about the very real and tangible impact that this reduction in fees is having on their families' bottom line.

I will start by talking about one of the things that we have been doing as a federal government for a while, and that is the RESP, the registered education savings plan. For decades, we have been encouraging families to save for post-secondary education. We understand that this is a huge expense, but that it is important for all of our children across this country, for the future of our country, to make sure that they have the opportunity to attend post-secondary education.

Child care fees can range between $12,000 and $24,000 or even more per year. Multiply that by three or four or five, depending on the province they are in, and it could be two or three times the cost that the average student would spend on post-secondary education, yet we did not have any mechanism, until recently, to support families for this major expense.

It is an expense that starts right at the beginning of their family's journey, often when they have recently purchased a home or when they are just getting started in their careers. We are talking about tens of thousands of dollars. That is a huge impact and, not always but often, it results in the lower-income parent deciding to take a step outside of the workforce, because it just does not make financial sense for them to carry on.

The stories I have heard over the past year are changing that. I have been to every province and almost every territory. I meet parents. It is often a mom, I have not heard from a dad yet, but I am looking forward to that as well. However, I hear from so many moms who talk about the fact that it is because of these lower child care fees that they are returning to work.

There was the mom in Ottawa a couple of months ago who said that because of the 50% fee reduction she enrolled her daughter in day care, and she is returning to work full time as a real estate agent. She spoke of the impact that it had not only for her family's finances but also for her career development.

In Richmond, B.C. in December, in talking to a mom of three, she said that it is because of these reductions that she is able to go from part-time to full-time work, because she can now afford to have two of her children in full-time day care, with one of her children in school.

In Nova Scotia, a mom whom I was talking to said that because of these fee reductions, she is not only returning to full-time work, but she breathes a sigh of relief when she goes to the grocery store. She is not as worried about making sure that she can afford to buy healthy, nutritious food for her family because of the significant fee reductions.

Most recently I was talking to a mom in my community of Burlington, Ontario. She explained that when she and her husband saw the 50% reduction in child care fees, they decided they would not have to give up their house. Financially it made sense to keep her child enrolled in day care. They would be able to afford their mortgage and both of them could keep working.

This initiative is having a real tangible impact on families across the country, and I could not be prouder to be part of a government that is delivering this important policy.

That brings me to today and the introduction of this legislation at second reading. I hope all members in the House are going to support it and get it through committee quickly, so we can cement this important legacy for Canadian families, children and women right across the country.

Let me talk a bit about what Bill C-35 would accomplish. It would provide support for the continued implementation of an affordable Canada-wide system by enshrining the vision, guiding principles and a commitment to long-term funding. It would enhance transparency and accountability by requiring the minister responsible to report annually to the public on progress being made on the system. It would establish in law the national advisory council, which, by the way, is having its first official meeting today in Ottawa. This legislation would also build on the early successes of the Canada-wide agreements.

We are enshrining into law the federal government's commitment to strengthening and protecting this Canada-wide system.

We are enshrining into law the federal government's commitment to strengthening and protecting these Canada-wide systems while respecting provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

Bill C-35 would build on the collaborative work we have undertaken with PTs and with indigenous peoples from coast to coast to coast, and it is driven by a shared interest, and close partnerships and collaboration. It respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction and the co-developed indigenous early learning and child care framework that was jointly released and endorsed in 2018 with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council.

By enshrining these principles and vision into federal law, we are building stability into the child care system, and not just stability but also predictability and commitment.

We want provinces, territories and indigenous peoples to know that the federal government is in there for the long term. Importantly, we want parents, families, child care providers and early childhood educators to know that the federal government is also there for the long term. That is so important with Bill C-35, because we have seen in the past, unfortunately, when in 2006 then-prime minister Stephen Harper ripped up the child care agreements with the provinces and territories. It was one of the first acts the Conservatives did when they came into government. We need to ensure we are doing everything we can to make it harder for any future government, like a future Conservative government, to take that away from families, to take that away from our children and to take that away from the Canadian economy.

Let me talk a bit about the Canadian economy, because child care is one of those amazing policies that is not just good, smart, feminist, social policy, but it is good, smart, feminist economic policy. For every one dollar invested in child care, the economy sees a broader return of $1.50 to $1.80.

It is estimated that the Canada-wide system could raise real GDP in our country by as much as 1.2% over the next two decades. An OECD report shows that improvement in gender equality and family friendly policies has boosted growth in per-capita GDP by between 10% and 20%.

In Sweden, for example, when it brought in universal affordable child care, female employment rates increased by almost 30%. The IMF estimated that closing the participation gap between Canadian men and women in the workforce could raise Canada's GDP levels by 4% in the medium term. That is $92 billion.

Gender equality, ensuring women have access to economic opportunities, ensuring our children get the best possible start in life, is not just good for us as a society; that is excellent for our economy.

Let us talk a bit about what that means in real terms. We talk about the macro picture, but when we look at what that means, we have an example in Canada.

Quebec is celebrating 25 years of universal day care. Quebec went from having the lowest female workforce participation in the country in 1998 to now having the highest. In fact, some of the highest rates of women with children under the age of four are working in the entire OECD. If Canadian women join the workforce at the same rates that Quebec women have over the last 25 years, that is an additional 240,000 workers entering our workforce today. That is an impressive number. Those are workers in Canada, people who want to be part of the workforce, but for economic reasons have not been able to justify it or make it work.

As I said, I have talked to moms all across the country for whom this is making the difference. This is really exciting. As to where this is going to set us up as Canada in our future, for our economy and, most important, for Canadians, the potential is unmatched.

I want to spend a bit of time talking about the workforce. We know there is no child care system in Canada without the talented, qualified, well-trained, caring early learning and child care workforce. I want to give a big thanks to each and every one of them. During the pandemic, they went to work so that Canada could keep working. We saw what happened when child care centres were closed. It meant parents were staying home with their children.

It is pretty hard. I do not know about other members, but I was home during the pandemic for the first six months and my two and a half year old was home with me. It is pretty tricky to get work done when parents have a two year old or a two and a half year old with them. Anyone who is a parent or has been a parent of a young child can attest to that.

Those child care workers went to work during the pandemic. They went when we needed them most. We need to recognize that, we need to say thanks and we need to ensure that we have the system in place to support them with good wages and that they have an environment in which they can thrive, grow and develop their careers as well.

When we talk about child care, we talk about the economic impact and the social impact, but we also need to talk about the impact that it has on our children. Being in a safe, secure place is important, one where they feel loved, where they feel cared for, where they are well taken care of, but also where learning is part and parcel of the framework.

The Minister of Finance likes to talk about setting up a generation of super kids in the country, and I could not agree with her more. As a mom who is so grateful to the child care workers who made it possible for me to do my job while my son was little, the absolute illumination that he had when he went to day care and the explosion in learning that I saw from him is one of those things for which I will be eternally grateful.

When we talk about child care, there are so many spinoffs that are important for our society and our economy. I like to describe it as a home run, because it is good for our children, it is good for our families and it is good for the economy.

Bill C-35 is going to help us cement the role of the federal government. It is going to ensure that we are there in the long run for Canadian women, families, children and Canadians in general. It is going to ensure we are setting the country up for the 21st century to take hold of those opportunities and ensure that every child in our country has the best possible start in life.

I hope that my colleagues from all parties in this place will support Bill C-35 and move it forward so we can provide that commitment and assurance to Canadians and their families that the federal government is there in the long term, that we support our children and women, that we are setting Canada up for success.

Child Care

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-35 would enshrine the Canada-wide early learning and child care system in law, ensuring a future government could not unilaterally cancel the agreements. Bill C-35 is necessary, because we know Canadian parents are counting on us to have affordable child care available to them, and they are planning their family budgets with this in mind and their futures. Our government is committed to delivering affordability measures to help Canadians, and affordable child care is a hallmark of that commitment.

I invite all members—

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development introduced Bill C-35 in the House to enshrine a Canada-wide early learning and child care system in law. On this side of the House we know just how important access to affordable, quality and inclusive child care is for the economy and women's empowerment. Last Friday, the Prime Minister announced in Richmond that British Columbia reached its target to reduce child care fees by 50%.

Could the parliamentary secretary for family, children and social—

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for the question.

Quebec has led the way for 25 years in what good, affordable, high-quality child care means to Canadian families. I am pleased that every province and territory in this country has now signed on in understanding how affordable child care is needed and demanded by families across this country to give our children the best start in life.

Bill C-35 respects the jurisdictions of every province and territory in how they run their affordable child care systems. We continue to learn from Quebec. We are so happy that provinces and territories have signed on board.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, Quebec's early childhood centres are a child care model that is unique the world over. Quebeckers are right to be proud of these centres. Not only do they foster children's socialization exceptionally well, but since they were created, they have enabled millions of Quebec women to have better access to work. Quebec's child care centres are universal, egalitarian and beneficial to Quebec, which is crazy about its children.

Can the minister commit to respecting the expertise of this Quebec model of child care in Bill C‑35?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, child care is not a luxury; it is a necessity. That is why our government is establishing a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. All families should have access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care, no matter where they live, today and into the future.

As a single mom of two kids, I know from personal experience what a universal child care system means for a parent's ability to start a career, provide for their family and contribute to their community.

Bill C-35, introduced yesterday by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, would enshrine the principles of our Canada-wide system into federal law. Families and child care educators like Anna Care, the director of Blaydon day care in York Centre, have been advocating for a national child care system for decades.

I encourage all my colleagues from all parties to join me in passing Bill C-35 quickly so that we can continue to work together to make life more affordable for families and give every child in Canada the best possible start in life.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day. This morning I introduced Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. Our child care plan is working. Fees are being reduced across the country, new spaces are being built and women are getting back to work. This legislation matters.

Let me remind the House that the leader of the Conservatives boasted in 2015 that his government had proudly cancelled Liberal child care agreements, and in the last election, every Conservative candidate ran on a promise to cancel affordable child care for Canadians. We are not going to let that happen. On this side, we are going to support children, families, women and our economy.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be sharing my time with the very hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I am very pleased to join in today's debate on the issue of the higher cost of living. It is one that is top of mind for our federal government and also for the residents of my riding of Davenport. It is also the top economic challenge facing our country right now.

We have been speaking with Canadians and know the real uncertainty they are feeling today. First, we have experienced a once-in-a-generation pandemic. We turned the Canadian economy off and then turned it back on. Then Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. Now we are dealing with inflation. All of these things are related, of course. Global inflation has not been created by the decisions of any one government alone. Global inflation has been created by the combined aftershocks of two and a half years of historic tumult.

Fortunately, Canada is faring better than most other G7 countries in these very difficult times. However, that reality does not change the impact on Canadians when they are looking at their grocery bills or their gas receipts. Our federal government knows how challenging these past several months have been, and while inflation is down to 6.9% from a peak of 8.1% in June, it is still too high. It is also no comfort that Canada's inflation rate is one of the lowest of all G7 countries.

Affordability and covering the costs of everyday living will continue to be a top issue. It will continue to be a difficult time for a lot of Canadians, friends, families and neighbours. Our economy will slow, the same as economies around the world, as central banks continue to act to tackle inflation, as we heard from the Bank of Canada yesterday. There will be people whose mortgage payments will rise. Businesses will no longer be booming in the same way they have been since we left our homes after the COVID lockdowns and went back out into the world. Our unemployment rate will still be low but will not be at its record low.

We know that Canadians are worried about the higher cost of living and are also wondering when it will all end. For the Canadians who need it the most, namely those who are the most vulnerable and those who feel the bite of rising prices most acutely, our federal government is there with measures in our affordability plan right now, this year.

Our affordability plan has been providing up to $12.1 billion in new supports throughout this year, with many measures continuing after this year to help make life more affordable for millions of Canadians. Let me go through some of those measures.

We have doubled the GST credit for six months, which is providing $2.5 billion in additional targeted support to roughly 11 million individuals and families who already receive the tax credit, including more than half of Canadian seniors. Many received this additional payment last month.

The second thing we are doing is enhancing the Canada workers benefit to put up to an additional $2,400 into the pockets of low- and modest-income families, starting already this year.

We also increased, on a permanent basis, old age security by 10% for seniors over 75. That began in July. This increases benefits for more than three million seniors and provides more than $800 in the first year to full pensioners.

In addition, we have a $500 payment this year going to 1.8 million Canadian low-income renters who are struggling with the cost of housing through a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit.

We are also cutting regulated child care fees by an average of 50% by the end of this year. I am delighted that we have introduced Bill C-35, legislation that will protect access to affordable, inclusive, high-quality early learning and child care now and ongoing. This legislation will make it harder for any future government to cancel or cut any child care in the future. I am very happy that this is happening and is currently under way.

We are providing dental care for Canadians without dental insurance who are in households earning under $90,000 and have children under the age of 12. They are getting up to $650 this year and up to $650 next year.

We are also indexing benefits to inflation, including the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.

All of these measures mean that Canadians are getting more money back in their pockets when they need it most. Also, when it comes to pollution pricing, we know a national price on pollution is the most effective and least costly way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and putting money back into the pockets of most Canadians.

I would like to take a moment to further highlight two other measures in this plan in more detail.

First, in the fall economic statement, we set out a plan to further improve the Canada workers benefit, in addition to already expanding and enhancing it in budget 2021 to reach up to three million Canadians who do important jobs but do not get paid very much. The federal government currently delivers the Canada workers benefit through tax returns. That means eligible Canadians need to wait until the tax year is over to receive the money they have already earned.

However, bills need to be paid throughout the year. That is why in the fall economic statement, we set out a plan to further improve the Canada workers benefit. With the changes proposed in the fall economic statement, the Canada workers benefit will reach up to 1.2 million additional hard-working low- and modest-income Canadians through advance payments that would be made in July, October and January based on a worker's income in the previous year. This means that in total, the Canada workers benefit would top up the income of up to 4.2 million Canadians. They are among the lowest paid Canadians, and no one who works 40 hours a week should have to worry about paying the bills or putting food on the table.

The second measure I would like to underscore is our federal government's investments to support early learning and child care. Child care is not just a social policy; it is an economic policy too. Affordable, high-quality child care will grow our economy, will help give every Canadian child the best start in life and will allow more women to enter the workforce.

I call this policy a game-changer. In fact, just last week, Statistics Canada reported that almost 82% of women in their prime working years had jobs in November, the most on record, as our implementation of the Canada-wide early learning and child care system continues to close long-standing gender gaps in conjunction with a tight labour market. At a time when the cost of living is top of mind for so many, the investments we have made are having a real, tangible impact on what is often one of the biggest monthly expenses for a family.

This is very popular among residents in my riding of Davenport. They love this national child care plan. They are absolutely using it. They very much appreciate the additional dollars, especially during months like December, when there are some additional family gatherings and they need additional dollars.

In budget 2021, our federal government has made a historic investment of $30 billion over five years to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. In less than a year, we have reached agreements with all 13 provinces and territories. As I mentioned earlier, by the end of this year, regulated child care fees will be reduced by an average of 50% by 2025-26. Child care fees will average $10 a day by then for all regulated child care spaces from coast to coast to coast.

Today, that means parents across British Columbia can now save on average up to $550 more per month for each child they have in licensed child care, representing up to an additional $6,600 annual savings. This is on top of the existing savings of up to $350 per month introduced by the ChildCareBC plan in 2018, for a total of almost $900 in savings per month on average.

As we continue to work with the provinces and territories on the implementation of agreements, we are also creating an early learning and child care infrastructure fund. Through an investment of $625 million, this fund will enable provinces and territories to make additional child care investments, including for the building of new facilities, all with the goal of making high-quality child care across Canada more accessible and more affordable.

When it comes to ensuring Canadians will get through this challenging economic time, we are providing inflation relief, through our affordability plan, to Canadians who need it the most: the most vulnerable, who are most exposed to inflation. We, of course, cannot support every single Canadian the same way we did with emergency measures at the height of the pandemic. To do so would only make inflation worse and more persistent. In saying that, I note we have been responsible with our spending, we are being compassionate and we are going to continue to have the backs of Canadians who need it the most, both now and moving forward.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)