Debates of June 6th, 2023

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[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.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her speech, although, with so much about House goings-on, it shifted away from early childhood education. This is concerning to me as a former early childhood educator who spent many years working hard for wages that were not livable.

We know the facts are on the table. Early childhood organizations are very clear. If we do not have a workforce strategy that pays livable wages, benefits and pension plans, we will not have a national child care strategy; we will continue to have a shortage of spaces. We need to focus on workers. Does my hon. colleague agree with this?

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

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with the member for Winnipeg Centre. I apologize to her for changing to a different topic. However, I think it is critical, and I thought I made it clear in my speech, that we support and respect the child care workers who deliver early learning and child care. Why do we pay CEOs and hockey players more than we pay people doing the most critical job in our society, which is taking care of our children?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be joining the debate. I am glad I caught your eye and was able to rise before my colleague from a different part of Quebec who wanted to speak as well.

Just to continue on something the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said, I hope I will not be accused of using notes. I have not used notes in many years in this place. I am sure that if we ever moved to benches, that would probably help with the use of written notes and the prolonged speeches that are perhaps prepared by others. Many members like to prepare their speaking notes way ahead of time.

This is government legislation that some of my constituents have written to me about. As I remember, this usually comes up at election time. I always have a few constituents who are concerned about access to early childhood care, and they usually mix different types of things together.

When I was growing up, my mother was a single mom and used day homes quite a bit. We are talking about quality care for children, but that was the experience for a lot of us immigrants who were newcomers to Canada and did not have many choices. We made do with what we could find. I know the government, through these agreements it signed with the different provinces, is hoping to fill that space in between, but when I look at the summary of the bill, it states:

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.

I have never had parents tell me at the door that they were looking for an advisory body to oversee something nationally. What they are looking for is someone they trust to watch their kids, where the kids will learn something new. As a single dad, that is what I always look for when it comes to my kids. They are much older now. My oldest son, Maximilian, just graduated from junior high on Monday, and I have two other kids in the Catholic school board system in Calgary. However, there was a time when that would have been one of the options that I would be looking for, because I was always trying to find something where they could learn something related to not only STEM, math or language skills but also art, getting dirty, doing things with their hands, just some hands-on learning and interacting with other kids. That was always something I looked forward to for my kids to have.

As has been mentioned in the House before by other members, the system the government is implementing here is one-size-fits-all. One of the big sticking points for my home province of Alberta before signing the agreement with the federal government was that it wanted more private care options to be eligible for funding through the Alberta government. In my area, there are a lot of newcomers and immigrants. Because their credentials are not recognized, and they do not necessarily have family support here, they are running day homes.

I know that in one family in particular, and I will not mention their nationality because they would be able to figure out quickly who they are, the mom runs a day home and is an accomplished musician. She helps kids learn different musical instruments. Maybe that does not meet everybody's expectations, but it is quite popular as a choice. It is a private day home. Because of legislation like this, and the agreement the Alberta government signed, this day home is going to have a tough time making ends meet, because it will not be one of the eligible options on the table for consideration for funding.

Some articles have talked about the potential problems and risks of the facilities that are currently running, such as the uncertainty this might create; the operator's experience, including whether they have certification to perform standard first aid practices; years of operation; the number of children the centre can accept; the ratio of children to caregivers; age group; the minimum and maximum numbers of children under care; and protocols for sick children or employees.

We often talk about the quality of care. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands talked about how important early childhood educators are and said that we should pay them better. However, if we are setting up a system where we are only paying them $10 and there is a cap, somebody has to pay. Then there is the question of who pays. In this case, it will be the federal government. Taxpayers will pay, because there is only one taxpayer at the end of the day.

In my pre-political life, when I was looking for other options that were out there, obviously, I leaned on extended family. That was always the first choice. If that choice was not available, then it was friends of the family who are so close they are essentially like family.

We all have those types of people in our lives with whom we would be happy to leave our children. Maybe parents want them to play with other children or be watched for a few hours while the parents are trying to get some work done. In many cases, they are trying to get to their shift, they are coming back late from a shift or they have irregular hours and are uncertain about how they will be able to watch their kids. As a dad with three kids, I have said this before, but it is difficult. I try to make sure I am back in Calgary whenever I possibly can be and it is my turn to watch over them.

I do have a Yiddish proverb, despite the fact that it is so late. I have Yiddish proverbs all the time, because there is always a good moment for them. I will say it in Yiddish, so I would ask members to bear with me on the pronunciation.

[Member spoke in Yiddish]

[English]

That means, “With a child in the house, all corners are full.” I am sure everybody has had this experience, especially with younger children. They have a knack for filling every single room they are in with stuff that they find, everywhere they go. I salute the people who accept kids in their homes from other families, who make the extra effort to try to teach them the life skills that they need. These things maybe do not earn them an A+ in school, but they include things like picking up after themselves, being kind to other people and teamwork, doing things in teams. They try to teach very simple things, such as basic cooking.

I mentioned this one family where the lady who was the main provider, the main caregiver, is a very accomplished musician. Providing these types of soft skills is quite useful for many people. I wanted to convey that Yiddish proverb, because it is something I think about with my kids, how they fill not just every corner in my house but every corner of my life as well.

Affordable care, which we have been talking about, is mostly a principle in this bill, because there are already agreements with all the provinces. What more could we do but talk about the principles and ideas behind the legislation that the government has put forward and that many of the members on this side of the House have already spoken in favour of? We support the bill, but we have concerns that we want to express on behalf of constituents.

There is going to be an increased demand for child care, but it is not going to solve the frontline problems with staff shortages, burnout and difficulty in accessing spaces. It does not really matter whether it is public, private or something in between, it is from coast to coast. Different provinces have different problems. When I look at those who choose to work in this field, in the next 10, 20 and 30 years, we will be facing a shortage of workers in general. It is going to be hard to convince people to retrain themselves to pursue this as a field.

When the Statistics Canada data is looked at, at the bachelor's level and above, there is essentially a job for every person who is looking for one. There are sectors where that is not the case and where it is hard to retrain someone, but at the high school level and below, there are a lot of vacancies. I do not think we consider early childhood education low skill. That is not a low-skill job. That is difficult. Put eight to 10 four-year-old or five-year-old kids in a room, and that is a full-time job. It is very difficult to get everybody on the same page, working in the same direction on the same tasks. That has to be remunerated a certain way. There has to be a total compensation package that attracts good people who want to work with children, who can be trusted to work with children and who have a skill set that lends itself very well to providing children with some of the early skills that they are going to need to succeed in school. That is important as well.

There is a high burnout rate in this area. Whenever there is a staff shortage, others are asked to do even more. This is just like the troubles we have in our school system with trying to find teachers in the early years; similar types of shortages will exist over here. Where are we going to find the people when we are already facing record shortages in multiple sectors across our economy?

To bring it back to newcomers to Canada, many will choose this as what I will call a temporary survival job, because that is really what a day home becomes. I spent my time growing up in day homes, but I know many other families depend on them, too. Many of these agreements cut those day homes out, and that is what I am concerned about. Although I support this bill, I think we should be debating the principle of the bill and the impact it will have on newcomers and others as well.

To bring it back to the Yiddish proverb, children do fill every corner of our homes and every corner of our lives. We can do better than what we have done before. This legislation, though, has faults in it that we should look at, and we should be debating the principles.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. As someone who is of Jewish descent, I always find his pondering of Yiddish proverbs interesting, to say the least.

He spoke about his home province of Alberta and the lack of flexibility and lack of understanding of the unique circumstances of families, but the Alberta agreement includes an additional grant for operating flexible and overnight child care. It is an operational grant to address spaces that are necessary for frontline health care workers, shift workers and so on, many of whom, as we know, are newcomers to Canada in various fields.

The principles of the agreement are about high-quality child care. Does the member not think that high-quality child care is the key component here and that while we have flexibility, we need to ensure high quality? The member mentioned that he supports the bill. Does that mean the Conservatives will support it?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, to go back, the person who deserves great credit for negotiating the deal was the minister at the time in Alberta, Rebecca Schulz, who was re-elected in this past election. She deserves an incredible amount of credit for holding out until Alberta got a better deal.

The problem with what the member just laid out as the deal for affordable care operators, who basically run a dual system that is part private and part public, is that they are basically being told to keep two different ledgers. Staff cannot go in between the two systems, which is written right in the agreement. It is highly complex, and for those in this space, it is hard to figure out, as a facility owner-operator, what exactly they are supposed to do. The agreement is so complicated that many have already come out in public and said that it is too complicated and that they will have to pick one or the other. Either they will do all shift workers and nothing else or they will just have the standard nine-to-five child care.

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

Madam Speaker, we are at the report stage of the bill right now, and I noticed, looking at parliamentary publications, that we have one motion at report stage. That has been brought forward by the member's colleague from Peterborough—Kawartha. She is moving that the bill be amended by deleting the short title. Essentially, the Conservatives want to get rid of the opportunity to call the bill the Canada early learning and child care act.

I am curious. Does he understand the rationale behind wanting to delete the short title of the bill?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, procedurally it was necessary in order to have this debate tonight, which is one of the things in Westminster parliaments. We sometimes have to put forward these types of motions in order to have a debate like this. That is my understanding of why it is on the Order Paper.

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

Madam Speaker, following up on that, it is true that at report stage the only amendments that can be brought forward, generally speaking, are deletions. However, certainly the official opposition had a choice of what part of the bill it might want to delete. Is there anything the member can add as to why the choice was made to delete the short title?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, no there is not, but it has given us an opportunity to talk about the principle of the bill and to share thoughts that constituents have shared with us. I think it is an accepted principle that we do what we must on behalf of our constituents, and in this case, it has given us an opportunity to talk about the content of the bill at any level of detail a member chooses.

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

Madam Speaker, I know, coming from Alberta, that the member touched on a lot of what we are hearing from operators on the ground. In fact, many of the operators have said they may have to introduce a CWELCC fee, CWELCC being the name of the program, and may have to add food costs. This $10-a-day child care is actually going to end up being a lot more.

I am wondering if the member has heard of any stories on the administrative burden and costs on the operators in his province.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question, because we have seen the cost of living explode in this country, and the cost of groceries is way higher now.

I have not yet had residents in my riding come to me with direct stories about their grocery costs, but the Cardus Institute has done a lot of work looking at the different agreements, the quality of the agreements and the likely outcomes of them. I am sure that over the next six, 12 or 18 months, we will have more aggregated data demonstrating that, indeed, all these ancillary costs are going to be added onto all of these early childhood operators.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, what is very clear is that the Conservatives do not support the program. Depending on who we listen to, whoever might be giving a speech, one could very easily draw the conclusion that the Conservatives are raising these flags as if they genuinely care about the national government playing a role in child care, when history has shown that it is quite the opposite.

The question I have for the member is this. Even though the past leader of the Conservative Party talked about ripping up the agreements and the Conservatives have cancelled child care programs, is the member prepared, on behalf of the Conservative Party, to say that he clearly supports the agreements the provinces and the federal government have entered into? Does the Conservative Party support the plan being proposed in this legislation? A yes or no would suffice.

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

Madam Speaker, I did not say whether I would support the bill or not. What we hope to do here this evening, as we have done since the beginning in committee, is to potentially improve this program and how it is implemented. We want to avoid using smoke and mirrors to fool Canadians without actually delivering what was promised. It is always the same thing.

The best example is the one I gave earlier, the two billion trees. The Liberals put on a big smoke show; it was unbelievable. This was supposed to save the environment. Earlier, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said that if we had implemented programs 20 years ago, there would not be any forest fires today. I think it is worth saying that that is not quite the truth.

I think that when a government really wants to keep a promise or implement a program, the plan needs to be whole and complete.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, earlier in his speech, the member complained that certain Conservative amendments were defeated at committee and then suggested that this was the result of a coalition. He said that there is a common ideology at work there.

I was at another committee recently where Liberals and Conservatives voted down NDP amendments to the air passenger bill of rights. When I voted against the new interswitching provisions, which are going to put railroad workers in Canada out of a job, Liberals and Conservatives voted together against me. I am just wondering what the common ideology was between Liberals and Conservatives and the coalition developing there, such that they decided to defeat NDP amendments together at committee.

Alternatively, would he rather say the truth, which is that sometimes parties have a common cause on certain issues and they vote together when they are working in the same direction and they vote against each other when they do not agree on certain things? Which is it?

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

Madam Speaker, I am trying to think about the question I was just asked. As we speak, there is a Canadian political coalition. I did not draw up the deal, nor did I sign it. It is between the Liberals and the NDP. Perhaps my colleague should look in the mirror and figure out which party he belongs to. As far as I know, he is from the NDP.

The question he just asked me has nothing to do with what we are discussing tonight. He has the right to vote for whatever he wants. I am not saying he does not have that right. What I am saying is that the Liberal-NDP coalition voted against the Conservative amendments seeking to improve the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague had a thoughtful intervention. I guess my question to him would be this: Does he believe that families and parents in his riding should have access to and should be able to choose what type of child care they send their children to?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup may give a brief response.

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

Madam Speaker, my response will be brief: absolutely.

[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.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, my colleague put a lot of emphasis on thanking those people who have helped get our government to this point. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that Paul Martin had proposed a national day care strategy. Unfortunately, that Parliament was dissolved by the opposition, and an election was called, which prevented us from moving ahead with it. However, it was in our platform and it was an important promise we made to Canadians, which has been delivered today.

In his closing, my colleague acknowledged that this is an important step for women's equality. I wonder if he would like to comment on the fact that we are now at 85% of women in their working years who are in the labour force, thanks, in part, to this policy. Is he seeing that change in the demographics of workers in his own riding and in his community?

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

Madam Speaker, I have just a quick comment on the opening statement by my colleague. I have heard Liberals mention what happened in 2005-06. What they fail to mention, of course, is that the Liberals did enjoy a majority government in 1993, 1997 and 2000. However, I digress.

I will agree with my colleague. I am, absolutely, seeing the results in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, through the hard work, by many different advocates, of pressuring members of Parliament to bring us to this point. I am very glad to live in a province that is governed by an NDP government, which sees value in putting families first and in making sure they have resources to thrive economically. I am also glad to see that the B.C. NDP government has been working with the federal government, and, of course, partnering with us, the federal NDP, to push the Liberals to this point so we can make life better for British Columbians and especially for members in my home community of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate how my colleague is advocating for the people who do have access to these spaces, but what the alarm bells are, and what we are really trying to get across here tonight, are those who do not have access. There are reports coming out that say that child care spots are available for only 29% of those who need them. That is from the Childcare Resource and Research Unit.

Particular to the member's riding, in British Columbia, 64% of children are in a child care desert. That means three children are competing for one spot. Has the member reached out to these families? Has he listened to these families? What is his solution for increasing access?

[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.