Debates of June 6th, 2023

Bill C-35—Time Allocation Motion

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague held my position before me and I know he is also a champion of child care and early childhood development centres.

This is an excellent question. We are seeing results already. Since November, more women have been active in Canada's workforce than ever before. Part of the reason is our early childhood and child care program. We are seeing an increase in women's economic empowerment.

I wonder why the Conservatives do not support economic empowerment, based on their track record over the past 25 years in Quebec.

We also know that early childhood is the most important stage of development in every person's life. This program, which is based on quality and inclusion, is critical to ensuring that current and future generations of children have greater opportunities than we did.

[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, of course the affection for my hon. colleague is mutual. I also feel inspired and deeply respectful toward her as well.

I understand where she is coming from. I do not think this is something we want to do, but unfortunately the Conservatives have forced our hand in a way, because they are not letting good legislation through simply by the fact of being opposed to it.

As I said, there is not another political party across this country that is opposed to this child care legislation; it is only the federal Conservatives. Every single provincial Conservative party is for this legislation. In fact, most of them have signed bilateral agreements with us to move this measure forward.

Therefore, in many ways I share the regret of my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, but unfortunately the Conservatives have decided that they are going to gum up this place and are not going to let good legislation pass that will truly benefit Canadians. Honestly, I think that needs to reside within their conscience.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, how can Canadians trust a government that is quite happy to talk about an announcement and very unhappy or unwilling to talk about results?

We asked the government how many child care spaces in the communities have been created across Canada and how many families have access as a result of this legislation. It said that it is not tracking the data.

We do not know if the child care agreements with the provinces are leading to more spaces. In fact, in my community, there is not one space available for $10-a-day day care, yet the government said it has increased access to Canadians all across the country.

Will the Liberals commit to even just reporting on the progress they make, or are they just going to hide their heads in the sand and bury them with the failures as they always do?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very unfortunate that my hon. colleague is not basing his question on facts, because when I was at committee I was very clear that we have created 50,000 new spaces across the country.

In fact, we do have reporting in the legislation. The legislation requires the government to report on an annual basis as to the progress we have made. I can tell the hon. colleague that across this country there are now six provinces and territories that have already achieved $10 a day, and those remaining have reduced fees by 50%.

If the hon. colleague had taken the time to read the legislation, the action plans and the reports, he would have a question based in fact.

[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?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are two things that need to be separated. There are the five-year agreements we signed, and there are laws, which have no expiration date.

The important thing is that this bill applies to the federal government. It does not apply to the provinces and territories, which have their own laws because that is their jurisdiction. The amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois to recognize Quebec's leadership were deemed inadmissible by the House of Commons, not by the government. They exceeded the scope of the bill.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a brief moment to thank the minister for her work establishing a new passport office in Prince George to serve northern B.C. It is something I pushed hard for and it is going to make a real difference for the 300,000 people who call that region home.

Moving to child care, the government's agreement with the Province of British Columbia is making a difference in the northwest. I know a lot of people are pleased to have access to lower cost child care. However, the big challenge we face is, as she well knows, recruitment and retention of new early childhood educators. These positions are not paid nearly enough for the role that they play in our society.

What role does she feel the federal government has in ensuring that these positions are compensated properly and that we are able to recruit good people into these important roles?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, was very pleased to see the opening of the Prince George passport office. There will be about 20 additional offices that will be providing passport services across the country over the coming months.

I do want to commend the leadership of the Government of British Columbia when it comes to workforce. It has some very innovative ideas when it comes to recruitment and retention. One of the things that they are leading the country on when it comes to recruitment is that they have created a new high school accreditation program for ECEs that is going to allow high school students to do their grade 11 and 12 combined with the college ECE program, so that once they graduate from high school, they can enter straight into the child care workforce. It is innovative ideas like these, which are happening through the funding that we have provided to the provinces and territories, that are really going to make a difference when it comes to recruitment and retention.

The federal government will continue to work in partnership with provinces and territories, to ensure that we address the challenges that we are facing within the child care sector.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, the legislation that we are going to be trying to get through the House, with or without Conservative support but I tend to think that it will probably be with, is the legislation that will genuinely impact so many Canadians. This is going to change not just the manner in which parents are able to care for their children, but it is going to change the way that our economy works. It is going to change the labour force participation.

I am wondering if the minister could comment specifically on the impact that this will have in so many more people getting into the labour market and what that will mean for our economy, as our economy continues to grow as a result.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am genuinely excited about this. This is a really exciting nation-building project that we are embarking on. All 13 provinces and territories have signed on. Are there challenges? Certainly.

Is this legislation working to fix them and to create a vision of access to early learning and child care across the country? Absolutely.

It is looking to grow our economy. We know that for every dollar invested in early learning and child care, we see $1.80 to $2.40 returned to the economy. We estimate that this will grow our GDP by up to 1.2%. That is significant. We see, with the example of Quebec over the last 25 years, what it means for female workforce participation. Quebec has the highest rate of women with children under the age of four working in the OECD.

We are looking forward to that across Canada. What does that mean for female economic autonomy? It means a huge amount. It means that women will have control over their finances. It means that as they age, I anticipate that we will also likely see a reduction in senior women's poverty.

These are huge opportunities for our country. I am glad that the NDP and the Bloc are supportive of this, that they are excited about it, and that the provinces and territories are excited about it. I would just hope that the Conservative Party of Canada would join me in that excitement and move this forward for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister may not have an answer to this question right off the top of her head, but I would ask that she come back to the House with an answer or send it to my office within one week.

How many new spots have been opened up in Northumberland County because of this program?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the specific number for the member's county, but I could sent it to him today if he would like, with regard to what Ontario's plans are for opening new spaces for the county and municipality by municipality. This program has only been in place for just under two years, but let us remember that Ontario only signed just over a year ago. It was the last jurisdiction to get on board, but it has a really thoughtful expansion plan and it is working on rolling that out.

No one thinks that Rome was built in a day. It took time to do that and that is what we are doing. However, let us not take the Conservative approach of throwing up our hands, sitting down and doing nothing. Let us actually work together to build this, to build the system and to ensure that Canadians have access to child care that it is affordable, that it is high quality and is inclusive of our diverse children's needs.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my daughter Julia has an eight-month-old daughter, Mirabel, my granddaughter. She put her daughter on the list for child care before she was born, and yet she still has no prospect of getting that child care. I was very proud to see Julia and Mirabel featured on the front page of the Vancouver Sun the other day in an article about how difficult it was to get child care.

Could the minister comment on the hopeful words she could give to my daughter about the prospects of getting child care and on what this bill would do for them and thousands of others across the country?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague asked a very good question of the Conservatives during the report stage on what the amendment was that they had proposed, and they were unable to answer. I congratulate the member for that.

In response to the member's question, the agreement that we have signed with British Columbia commits British Columbia to creating 40,000 additional child care spaces. What I would say about this legislation in particular and why it is so important is that it would commit the federal government to funding, to child care and involvement in child care indefinitely, for the long term. Without this legislation, we could see, as we saw in the past in 2006, a Conservative government coming in, ripping up those agreements and leaving Canadian families in the dust. That is what they did almost 20 years ago.

The legislation says to the member's daughter and his granddaughter that the federal government believes in their access to child care. It believes that people have a right to affordable child care and that we are committing ourselves, as a federal government, as Canadians, to building this system so that they too can have access to that child care. They can pursue their career and their dreams and we will be there for them.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #351

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Simcoe North.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for you.

In an Order Paper question, Question No. 1270, I asked the Minister of Families and Social Development how many child care spaces were provided by the government's commitments. In response to that question, the minister said there was no answer. However, the minister today, in response to the same question, said she has the data. I am curious and want to give her an opportunity to clarify—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is getting into debate.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my regards to you and to all our valiant colleagues who are here with us.

This is a debate at report stage on the budget, specifically Bill C‑47. It is the month of June. The Stanley Cup finals are going on. It is hot out, we still do not have a budget and we have a minority government. As we have seen all this week and today, there is a blockage in Parliament. Everything is delayed, everything is moving slowly. These blockages clearly have an impact on government policies, Quebeckers and Canadians.

In a minority government, we would expect the government to use methods that foster a consensus and the advancement of the work of Parliament. We would expect the government to propose a budget that we could agree on, one that could achieve a consensus, especially since there is great potential for blockage here on the part of the official opposition.

The Conservatives have many faults, including being against women's right to control their own bodies, being against environmental policies and being pro-oil, but they do have one good quality, and that is that they are predictable. We know that they will block everything.

We expected the government to have the foresight to propose a budget that we could work on. Instead, the government did exactly what it had promised it would never do. It is something the Harper government did time after time, namely present an omnibus bill, a colossal bill that is basically impossible to rework and that is almost designed to be delayed.

It almost seems like the government has no respect for the House and is looking for trouble. This bill amends 59 acts, in addition to the Income Tax Regulations. Anything and everything is in there. There is even a royal provision in the budget to recognize Charles III as sovereign. After all that, the government members are surprised that it is being blocked. They are surprised to see the Conservatives propose 900 amendments. They will say that everyone else is being unreasonable, when they are the ones who tabled an omnibus bill. They will ultimately invoke closure. The NDP will get into bed with the Liberals and support closure as usual. After that, they will accuse the other parties of picking fights.

As a responsible opposition party, all we ask is to debate and be able to do our work on each element of the budget bill.

For example, we wanted to be responsible and work intelligently on the royal provision. There is an appointment in the bill. Charles III is to be appointed head of state in a sovereign country. We thought we would do what we do for all appointments of all commissioners and officers of Parliament. We thought we would call His Majesty and have him come to committee. We wanted to give him a chance and see if he is competent to be head of state. There is no one more sporting than us. We are square dealers.

We therefore asked the clerk of the Standing Committee on Finance to contact Rideau Hall and ask them invite His Majesty. This is, after all, part of his kingdom. We were told that they do not have his phone number. We were surprised to see that the Governor General did not serve much purpose. Honestly, I was surprised. I did not expect that. Then we went back to the clerk to see if he could contact Buckingham Palace and ask them to have His Majesty come testify. An email was sent to Buckingham Palace. The response we received from Buckingham Palace was that His Majesty is a bit old-fashioned and only opens snail mail, so the invitation would have to be mailed to him. I do not know if mail addressed to His Majesty can be sent postage free. That should be checked. Nevertheless, he was supposed to be invited by mail.

How should we interpret that? First, we have a head of state who cannot open emails. Do we really need to invite him to committee to know that he cannot deliver results? Would we hire an ethics commissioner or a privacy commissioner who could not open emails? Maybe we should have sent him a homing pigeon. Government do not work that way.

We have to wonder. Does a refusal to come pay a short visit to parliamentarians not show contempt for Canada, its institutions and its Parliament? I see that as contempt.

I cannot believe that, in order to send an invitation to His Majesty, we have to send him a letter on papyrus and wait for the letter and his response to travel across the Atlantic Ocean. I thought it seemed obvious. Even His Majesty is embarrassed about the budget and ashamed to be associated with it. I think members can understand why. The reason is that the things that are most important to Quebeckers and Canadians have been left out of the budget. Even the King is embarrassed.

Take, for example, employment insurance. The government was supposed to have learned from the crisis. During the COVID-19 crisis, the government went from one temporary measure to another. That is because we have an EI system where 60% of people who lose their jobs are not eligible. It is not right that six out of 10 people are not eligible. What is more, women and young people are particularly affected because many of them hold non-standard jobs. They have a hard time qualifying. It also has more of an impact on those who are vulnerable because of the new realities of work, or what is referred to as the sharing economy, which is a way of artificially turning a salaried employee into a non-salaried employee so that they do not have access to all the benefits that a social safety net could provide.

The Liberals have been promising to reform EI since 2015. They promised not once, not twice, but three times. It was supposed to happen in August. Then we saw the actuarial forecasts in the budget. We realized that not only was a reform off the table, but they were going to pick $25 billion from the pockets of SMEs and workers through a payroll tax to pay off the EI fund deficit that built up during COVID‑19, even though all the other pandemic measures implemented were funded by the entire population.

That is why His Majesty is embarrassed to come. He no longer wants to have anything to do with the Liberals. It could be that His Majesty is embarrassed over the environmental policies. We are giving away $20 billion to $30 billion in dirty oil subsidies, allegedly for carbon capture, even though the problem is immediate.

The government tells us that the environment is important. On May 31, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change boasted to the New Economy Canada conference that there was a plan for transitioning to the green economy.

That same day, the Minister of Labour told an audience of business people, “Don't tell me a green energy future doesn't include oil and gas.”

What colour is oil? It is not the colour of the chairs here in the House of Commons. It is definitely not green. The environment is being completely neglected.

Here we have the government creating its much-touted green fund, the $16‑billion Canada growth fund. This fund will be managed by PSP Investments, a company that does not report to Parliament and will not be accountable. The only mandate it has ever had is financial performance. Through no fault of its own, this company has absolutely no expertise in this area. At the moment, it sees carbon capture as the green development model. That technology is not yet up and running, but we are being promised that it will exist in 30 years' time. However, the problem is here now. There is even talk of using small modular nuclear reactors to extract more oil by using less oil to export more. That is what PSP Investments is all about.

In the budget, there is nothing for seniors who dealt with the crisis and were hit hard by it. Even before the crisis, their purchasing power had declined.

There is nothing for our regions either, nor for discount regional flights. I am thinking about Abitibi, the Gaspé and the north shore. We know that for regional development, for economic development, we need regional flights. It is very important. There is absolutely nothing in the budget. It is always promises, promises.

The budget includes changes to the equalization system that deny Quebec of $400 million in short order. Let us talk about equalization. We are still in this mode where the Liberals are not meeting their commitments. That being said, they are doing some things. It is not all bad, but they are not getting results where it counts.

They will tell us that we should support this because the best is yet to come, but we know all about Liberal promises. We knew about them in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. We still know about those Liberal promises, but we no longer believe them. That is why we are going to do what King Charles III would do if we were in our shoes: We are going to vote against the budget.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, my colleague is an economist and has taught economics.

As recently as February of this year, the Minister of Finance said that higher deficits would add fuel to the fire of inflation. That statement from the finance minister is the exact opposite of what she proposed in the last budget.

Does my colleague think that makes sense? Does he believe that the government has failed in its duty to manage the country properly by adding fuel to the fire of inflation, with such high interest rates and skyrocketing inflation?