Bill C-35

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada

This enactment sets out the Government of Canada’s vision for a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. It also sets out the Government of Canada’s commitment to maintaining long-term funding relating to early learning and child care to be provided to the provinces and Indigenous peoples. Finally, it creates the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

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

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

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

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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An article states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will give three examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The amendment reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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