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.

Motion in Amendment

[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.