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.

Bill S-8—Time Allocation Motion

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are here to discuss Bill C‑35.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday shall be an allotted day.

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

The Economy

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

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

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

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do they not realize there is a sense of “responsibility” for opposition members as well. Providing endless filibusters and trying to prevent every piece of legislation from passing is the goal of the Conservative. Just last week, and I referenced it this morning, the Conservative leader made a strong statement, and it made the news. It was on Newswatch in fact, not to mention other news agencies. The Leader of the Conservative Party said that he was going to speak and speak and speak, and he might have said “speak” a few more times, to filibuster our budget implementation bill. Let us think about all the things in that the budget implementation bill, and there is not enough time to elaborate on that. That was his intention. He was going to speak until we changed it, and four hours later it passed.

We have these mechanisms to ensure that at least, even with the destructive force of the Conservative Party, we can still get things done for Canadians.

Let us fast forward things here. The Conservatives did not want to debate the child care bill this morning. Instead, they wanted to talk about an issue that now brings us to Bill C-27—

Justice and Human Rights

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has done admirable work on the files that she has had, on these ones and on the other ones before. We have worked together on a variety of different things. I have tremendous respect for my colleague, but I have to say that there are issues that are taking valuable time in the House. We are supposed to be talking about Bill C-35, which would entrench the issues of child care across Canada, to make sure that child care will continue to be available throughout the country and be affordable. I came in totally prepared to be dealing with Bill C-35.

What we are doing is wasting time. That is the wrong wording. We are accepting these recommendations and applauding the recommendations, but we should really be moving on with trying to get the legislation of the government through. That is part of what our job is: to move legislation through. That was what my intention was when I came today, and I would hope that, as soon as this is finished, we will get on to doing that. Issues of what a minister did, should do, or whatever, are issues, I believe, that should not be on the table for our continued discussion. We should be putting our legislation through the House.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I came in here this morning expecting to be dealing with Bill C-35. I certainly agree with the recommendations in this report. As my hon. colleague indicated, we should stay very focused on these recommendations but move forward.

The amendment that my colleague moved for in the concurrence report is just another effort to politicize another terrible issue that we are concerned about, injuring the very victims who we are talking about in the recommendations from the Standing Committee on Justice and its recommendations to be more sensitive to the victims. With the amendment that was moved earlier, it is exactly the opposite.

I do want to speak today on this and talk about Bill S-12, which is the government's commitment to victims of crime. I will highlight different parts of Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

Bill S-12 has three main objectives: first, to respond to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada last October in R. v. Ndhlovu, which struck down elements of the national sex offender registry; second, to strengthen the effectiveness of the registry; and, third, to empower survivors and victims of crime by changing the rules governing publication bans and a victim's right to information; all three very important.

Today, I want to explain some of the proposed reforms that aim to ensure that the registry continues to be an effective and efficient tool for law enforcement. The RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have lauded Bill S-12, and we are pleased that the legislation would ensure that the police agencies have what they need to do their jobs to better protect victims of crime and to prevent future crimes.

Bill S-12 would add to the list of offences that qualify a convicted offender for registration. Of particular note, the bill would add the offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images to the list. The bill would also target so-called “sextortion” by adding extortion to the list when shown that it has been committed with the intent to commit a sexual crime. This is an important step forward in helping the police identify perpetrators of offences, which are becoming far more prevalent in the digital age with which we are dealing.

The bill also proposes a new arrest power in the Criminal Code to address the issue of non-compliance with registration obligations. Currently, it is estimated that up to 20% of individuals with obligations related to the national sex offender registry are non-compliant. This is not acceptable to any of us as parliamentarians and it is not acceptable to Canadians.

The only legislative mechanism to facilitate compliance with the registry under the current law is to arrest an individual and lay a charge under the Criminal Code. However, laying a distinct charge does not necessarily result in compliance, which is the goal. The bill would create a compliance warrant to allow police to seek arrest warrants to bring non-compliant sex offenders to a registration centre to fulfill their obligations under SOIRA.

Another important change is that the bill would newly require registered sex offenders to provide police with 14 days advance notice prior to travelling, as well as a list of the specific addresses where they will be staying during to course of their travels. This will allow police sufficient time to conduct a risk assessment and to notify appropriate law enforcement partners, if necessary, in accordance with their existing powers under the SOIRA.

Next, I would like to discuss the publication ban and the victims information measures. These are critical steps to respond directly to victims' requests of our justice system, which is much of what the report that we have from the Standing Committee on Justice refers to, to ensure that we are listening to the victims.

Bill S-12 proposes publication ban reforms that respond directly to calls from survivors of sexual violence. Victims deserve more agency in the criminal justice process and the ability to tell their own stories if they so choose. They clearly are not being given enough priority and enough opportunities to share their stories.

The various publication ban provisions in the Criminal Code are intended to shield witnesses and victims from further harm by concealing their identity. A publication ban can encourage the testimony of victims and witnesses who may otherwise be fearful of coming forward. As we have heard many times over the last several months about publication bans, people who agreed to them for various reasons actually want them removed. Some survivors and victims of crime have found that publication bans have had the effect of silencing or restricting them. Again, we heard that several times in the last week or so. In fact, I recently saw a news report saying that eight women who were all subject to these publication bans wanted them removed so they would be able to speak about the situation that affected them and use it as an opportunity to educate other people.

Under the current system, we have seen victims convicted of violating a publication ban intended to be for their sole protection and benefit. This is clearly unacceptable. These survivors deserve to share their own stories if they so choose, and it is important that it be their choice and their choice alone, not a condition of some degree of settlement that will restrict them forever. One by one, many of the publication bans being removed are being removed at the request of the victims, at the request of the women who are still suffering as a result of some incident in their lives some years back.

To address this issue, Bill S-12 proposes that judges must ask prosecutors to confirm if reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that a victim has been consulted on whether or not a publication ban should be imposed. This proposal is in line with recommendation 11 of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, entitled “Improving Support for Victims of Crime”. In addition, Bill S-12 would clarify the process to modify or revoke a publication ban after one has been imposed by codifying the process that currently exists only in common law, which is to say through judicial decisions.

The bill would also ensure that publication bans are applicable to online material, an area that is of extreme importance to us as we move forward. Our young people are exposed to a tremendous number of things on our Internet systems, and we are having to deal with more and more issues, as young people are seeing and participating in things that they should not be. However, much of this online material may have been published before a ban was imposed.

Both of these measures recognize that victims and survivors should benefit from the right to change their minds. Choice to revoke or modify a publication ban should be dictated by the wishes of the victim or the survivor, not an employer or some other organization. However, the bill proposes that a residual discretion be given to the judge to refuse such a request if it would, for example, possibly identify a second victim involved who wishes to remain anonymous. It is expected that these types of scenarios would be extremely rare and that, for the overwhelming majority of cases, a publication ban would be lifted in cases where the victim clearly does not want it in place.

There is no good or right way to be a victim. This legislation recognizes the choice of victims and survivors and provides them with decision-making power. Returning power to victims and survivors of sexual violence can be essential for the healing process and can prevent retraumatization in the criminal justice process. Recently at the standing committee on women, many individuals were talking about their experiences and how difficult it was, and how little support there was, for them to talk about the issues they were facing.

It is important that we get this right. I suspect that many members have already heard from survivors while working on this issue, as I have. I am sure that many of my colleagues from all sides of the House have listened to and heard from many people, men and women, who have been victims.

Survivors are looking to us to fix the publication ban regime to better empower them and to treat them with dignity and respect. With a publication ban in place, they are not able to speak with anybody about the pain and suffering they went through. Removing the publication ban, which is what Bill S-12 is suggesting, would allow them to do that.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to ensure that we get this delicate balance right. This is an area that we can review at committee to see if the language can be strengthened further.

I want to take a moment to speak about a victim's right to information about the case of an offender who has harmed them. This right is enshrined in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in sections 6, 7 and 8. Bill S-12 would make it easier for victims to access information about their case after sentencing or after an accused is found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

To achieve this goal, the bill proposes several measures. First, it would require that the judge ask the prosecutor whether they have taken reasonable steps to determine whether the victim wishes to obtain this information. Second, the bill would allow victims to express this interest through their victim impact statement. Finally, the bill would require the court to provide Correctional Service Canada with the victim's name and the information if they have expressed a desire to receive this type of information. It is an extremely important part of this bill to give victims the option if they want to receive this information. Not everyone would want it because very often it revictimizes the victims.

Once again, this approach is respectful of the needs of victims and seeks to provide the flexibility required to obtain the information at a time of their choosing. I note that this proposal received particular attention and support from the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime.

The changes contemplated by this bill would meet an urgent need to make the laws governing the national sex offender registry compliant with the charter. At the same time, it would make the registry better able to accomplish its vital purpose of providing police with current and reliable information to investigate and prevent crimes of a sexual nature. It would also take an opportunity to make the criminal justice system more responsive to survivors and victims of crime, including victims of sexual offences.

These reforms are targeted, measured and sensible. They will make a tangible difference for victims of some of the most serious crimes under our law. They align with our government's firm support for victims of crime. We will never leave victims behind, and we are constantly working to improve our justice system to better accommodate victims.

The report that was tabled this morning, on which concurrence has been moved, is from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and it has 13 excellent recommendations very focused on how we can make life better for the victims and how we can better respond to the needs of victims. I look forward to discussing those recommendations as we proceed with the hearing today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can honestly say that, when I came in this morning, I had no speech prepared whatsoever. I had full intentions of seeing Bill C-35 pass through the House. It was not only going to be a majority; my understanding is that every member in the House is going to be voting in favour of Bill C-35. I honestly believed that we were going to be debating that and then going on to the next item.

I have been in opposition. Most of my political career has been in the opposition benches. Even when I was in opposition, and it can be found in a Hansard search, members will find that I have said in the past that something like time allocation is a necessary tool in order for governments to be able to pass legislation.

Filibustering for no real purpose, other than to frustrate the system, does a disservice to the chamber. I think we need to put Parliament ahead of politics. I have given the odd partisan speech, I will admit that. Having said that—

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

Madam Speaker, maybe the best place to start off this discussion is that, at times, the role the Conservatives feel they need to play can be fairly upsetting. However, before I comment on that, I want to take the opportunity to think of the victims, Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy, and their families. It is incredibly difficult for any one of us to imagine the horror of what took place and the impact it has had, not only on the families of these two victims, but also on their friends, the people who got to know Kristen and Leslie.

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind of the horror caused by Bernardo, and many have talked about this horrific crime. At the time of the incidents, I was living in the Prairies, and I was an MLA. I can recall many nights watching what had taken place in the trial on the news broadcasts, and I recall the anger that was generated as a result of this horrific crime. I do not believe there is a member in the House, no matter what political party one represents, who would disagree in any fashion whatsoever that the actions taken by Bernardo at that time were nothing less than totally horrific. When we see something of that nature, we want to ensure there is a sense of justice that will applied.

There is no doubt in my mind that today, just as we saw yesterday, it will continue to be discussed in the chamber. I suspect there is a very good chance that it will come up in question period. I would encourage the Conservative Party, in particular, to consider this issue for an opposition day motion. I say that because there are so many issues out there that no doubt would be of interest to Canadians.

I have a concern in dealing with the debate Conservatives have put on the floor this morning, and I had posed this in the form of a question to the member earlier, which is that the members opposite know there is a limited timeframe to deal with legislation. They continue to bring forward concurrence motions on reports. They know that by doing so, they are preventing debate on government legislation.

They pull a report out of the pot to say it is an urgent issue, such as the most recent one with respect to housing and the housing crisis. We had a discussion on it. Before that, opposition members brought forward concurrence reports to prevent government from debating legislation. The Conservative Party continues to do that, whether it has been in this session or years past, yet I have never seen it bring a concurrence report on an opposition day, not once. I think it is important for Canadians to realize that the issue Conservatives are raising will be talked about later today, so they are not fooling anyone.

It is an important issue. People are genuinely concerned. As the Minister of Public Safety clearly indicated yesterday, and as indicated in communications from the Government of Canada, we are genuinely concerned about this issue. It is on the front burner. We are all appalled by the impact that this is having, not only on the family members, but also on our communities as a whole.

I do not need to be told by Conservatives that I do not care about the issue because I do care. They try to give a false impression, as if only the Conservative Party of Canada wants to discuss an issue or have an issue addressed. It is a false impression.

Last night I was here, I think it was around 9:30 in the evening, and I was speaking in my place. I was talking about child care. We can talk about inflation and the positive impact the child care program is having, and there is about 20 minutes of debate still left on that. Then we are going to pass through that legislation.

If the Conservatives want to continue sitting for the month June, going into July, it would not bother me. Honestly, I would come back in July. I will sit as many days as the opposition would like to sit. I am open to it. I do not mind when the House sits until midnight.

What I do mind is when the Conservatives continuously and consistently play that destructive force preventing government legislation from passing. We witnessed that when the Leader of the Conservative Party said he would stand up to speak until the government and the Prime Minister changed the budget implementation bill. A few hours later, the bill passed.

It passed because there is a process, and the Conservatives could not bring in a concurrence motion there. Otherwise, who knows what concurrence motion they would have brought in.

Canadians did elect a minority government back in 2021, but what they expected is not only a responsible, accountable government but also a responsible and accountable Conservative opposition. With the exception of some things that might have occurred during the pandemic in the previous Parliament, I have not witnessed that. Instead, I see the Conservatives amping things up whenever they get the opportunity to do so, even if the opportunity is not legitimate.

Instead, the Conservatives will go on character assassinations and things of that nature. I do not say that lightly. I am not trying to belittle the issue in that report, but we saw that with the moving of the amendment. The members moved an amendment. We could ask how that amendment is directly related to the report itself. I would suggest the Conservatives are proposing a politically motivated amendment. They are more concerned about the politics than the issue, and it is not the first time.

We have seen how the Conservatives always tend to favour fundraising and seem to favour the politics as opposed to the issue at hand. We have seen that not only with the introduction of a concurrence motion but also with the moving of the amendment. Was the amendment even called for? Was it even necessary?

We have standing committees of the House that meet to discuss a wide variety of issues. They come up with reports and a series of recommendations, and then the report comes to the House. The vast majority of reports never get called upon for concurrence motions, but it is a tool to be used on occasion. I even used it when I was in opposition years ago, but I like to think that I never abused that tool.

Let us contrast with the Conservative Party of Canada's behaviour with the concurrence of reports. One only needs to look. Why did the Conservatives bring it in today and then move an amendment to the concurrence motion? If they were genuine in wanting to deal with the report, that is what the debate should have been about. Then we would all concur in the report, or if we wanted to vote against it, we would do that. However, that was not the purpose of moving concurrence of the report. This is the sensitive issue of the murder, and who knows what else, as I am not going to get into the graphic details, of both Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. The Conservatives are taking that issue today and using it as a way, in part, to filibuster. That is shameful.

They might be able to fool some, but for many the truth is known because we can see it in the amendment more than anything else. What does the report actually talk about? What are the recommendations of the report? I have a copy of the report and a series of recommendations. I was even provided some of the ministerial responses to the recommendations. I do not see any of that in the amendment proposed by the Conservative Party. I do not see that at all.

What I see consistently on the issue of crime from the Conservative Party is a lot of talk. The Conservatives like to talk tough. They really do. The last time we had this kind of talk on an issue such as this was a few years back. It is not that often that I will quote myself, but I am going to do that. I am going back to February 4, 2020, when I am making reference to the Conservative Party in Hansard. I said:

They tried to give the impression that it was the Government of Canada's fault, as if this government had ultimately allowed for the healing lodge placement of Ms. McClintic. I remind Conservatives that as we got more into the debate, we found out that it was actually Stephen Harper's regime that had her transferred to a medium-security facility, which made her eligible to be brought over to a healing lodge. We also found out that under Harper's regime, other child murderers were put into other medium-security facilities.

It is a totally different, horrific crime, and the Conservatives were jumping out of their seats and giving graphic descriptions. That is how I could recall the speech I had given a few years back. There were graphic descriptions of the crime committed and how it was the Government of Canada's fault. Where was that passion for child murderers then? Was it somewhat misplaced when we found out that it was actually Stephen Harper's government that authorized transfers to medium-security institutions?

Today, here we have a very high-profile incident, likely one of the worst and most horrific incidents in Canadian history, or definitely in the top two or three. It was amplified across the country, even though it is an incident that happened in a relatively small, loving community.

Everyone knew about the case; it was on the nightly news. The opposition members are taking that tragedy, trying to piggyback on top of a report from a standing committee that put forward 13 recommendations. There are many ways in which the opposition could be dealing with the issue. They are using this report as a mechanism to say they want to talk about the issue of crime for three hours, in order to prevent and ratchet up one issue. What are they actually preventing?

If we had gone on to government business, we would have actually been debating Bill C-35, which had under a half-hour of debate left. That legislation will ensure, for the first time ever in the history of Canada, that we actually have a national child care program from coast to coast to coast. This program has already delivered $10-a-day day care in a number of provinces and, I understand, at least one territory. It is having a real impact on the lives of Canadians. More women are working today in the workforce in terms of a percentage than ever before. The program was modelled after what the federal government saw taking place in the province of Quebec. That is what we were supposed to be debating today. As on many other occasions, the Conservatives, as the leader of the Conservative Party has demonstrated, do whatever they can to prevent legislation from passing through the House of Commons.

We will likely have a chance to go over those 13 recommendations in that report. What colleagues will find is that that report is being manipulated to the degree in which it has been amended to politicize it. This takes away the work that a good number of members on all sides of the House put into the report.

I will just give one or two of the recommendations:

That the Department of Justice establish a national working group with federal and provincial government officials, representatives from community organizations that work with victims, and victims’ representatives to agree on national best practices and minimum standards for victims of crime, particularly as regards the level of support and the services available to victims.

The member was talking about victims. The government sees the value in terms of supporting victims. Enhanced funding was part of the recommendations, recognizing that our judicial system is a joint responsibility. We have to and we do work with provincial, territorial and indigenous communities. The member is criticizing us about the issue of victims. The government has not only recognized victims but also allocated funding to victims. This is a part of the response to the report from the minister: “Several of the Committee's recommendations speak to the need for enhanced funding for victim services and victim-focused activities. A key component of the FVS, a horizontal government initiative led by Justice Canada, is the Victims Fund. When it was established in 2000, the Victims Fund had $5 million available.... Since then, the funding available has grown to a little under $32 million in 2022-2023.”

The government understands the importance of victims. We do not need to be told by the Conservative Party. We understand the harm that is caused by horrific incidents, and we will continue to be focused on Canadians.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak again to Bill C-35. As I said in my previous speech about this bill, no parent is perfect. I can attest to that first-hand; I make lots and lots of parenting mistakes. However, parents are the best proxy decision-makers for their children because parents have a deep and natural love for their children. This love that parents have for their kids generally ensures a rectitude of intention. “Rectitude of intention” means that parents always want what is best for their children. If they make mistakes, they at least do so from a place of love, wanting to give their children the very best that they can.

I trust parents to make decisions for and about their children. There are, of course, extreme cases in which external authorities have to take over parental decision-making, but the possibility of these extreme and rare exceptional cases should not be used to justify a general policy of having the state interpose itself between children and their parents. While the state can aspire to a kind of general goodwill for all people, this general goodwill is nothing compared to the fierce and natural love that leads parents to always want the best for their children.

Before I come to the particulars of the child care issue, I want to say that we are seeing broader challenges in many areas to the idea that parents should be trusted to shape the direction of their own families. We see movements to have teachers, school counsellors and therapists facilitate dramatic and potentially irreversible changes in the lives of young people without the inclusion of parents, in fact with the explicit exclusion of parents. Why does anyone want to exclude parents from important conversations about the lives of their children? Parents love their children and want the best for them. Of course parents make mistakes, but someone motivated by deep love is less likely to make mistakes and is certainly quicker to correct their mistakes than an official, institutional bureaucracy driven by politics and constrained by inertia. That is why everything that happens in a school, in a child care centre or in any out-of-home program should happen in the context of an openness to conversation with parents. I remember my parents' telling me, as a child, “If anyone tells you not to tell mommy or daddy anything, make sure to tell us right away.” That is still very good advice.

This country has a history of parental alienation, of a state bureaucracy taking children away from their parents in an explicit effort to disconnect them from the culture and values of their families. This was wrong. Today, I am hearing from families, and, most recently, especially from Muslim families, who are concerned about parents' not being included in conversations about how the state and state institutions are relating to their children. This is something we have to be vigilant about.

Going forward, Conservatives will always stand on the side of parental choice and on the side of not excluding parents from important conversations that impact the lives of their children, because the role of the family is at the heart of a Conservative belief in the importance of subsidiarity. The federal government should not stick its nose into the business of the province, and neither the federal government nor the provincial government should stick its nose into what is properly the business of the family. In our federation, this constant sticking of noses into other people's business has led to redundant and inefficient expenditures in many areas and has obscured what should be clear lines of accountability.

With respect to parents and parental involvement in the lives of children, I noted one line in particular from the minister's speech about this child care program. It was a quotation from someone else that she read, but a quotation that I think she read approvingly. She said of these programs, “They are shaping our little people into who they are going to be in the future.” That is undoubtedly true. Part of the reason parents want to choose so judiciously what child care options they select is that child care providers do play a role in shaping critical aspects of how a child sees the world. All education is informed in some way by underlying world views. There is no such thing as value-neutral education, so parents will generally want to pursue an alignment between the values they are teaching at home and the values being promoted in programs outside the home. Therefore, when the range of options is narrowed, it becomes harder and harder for parents to find that alignment. Choice and flexibility in child care make it easier for parents to find programs to facilitate a good alignment between child care provider and family.

Parents should have an opportunity to seek to pass their core beliefs on to their children. Of course children grow up, and there is a natural process of children being exposed to more of the world as they grow more and more, in due course coming to their own distinct conclusions on things. That was certainly my experience growing up. However, parents can and should be able to provide an intellectual foundation that allows children to know where they come from and receive the wisdom of those who love them most and best.

In my last speech, I focused on the practical and economic arguments for choice in child care, but there is more to it than just that. I believe that parents should be able to make decisions about the kinds of child care arrangements that are best aligned with the economic and practical needs of their families, but even more importantly, I believe in choice in child care because I believe in respecting the role of parents making choices about how they will seek to train children in virtues, traditions and practices that are particular to their families. Children should begin life knowing and growing upon the firm ground of their families, and this requires that parents are able to shape the environments that their children are in.

Having said that, I would like to shift to another point, that of workforce participation. This has come up a few times in different ways in different speeches that have been given tonight. Liberals champion, as a feature of this plan, that it would increase workforce participation. By increasing the cost the taxpayers pay and channelling those dollars into a particular model of out-of-home child care, this puts more financial pressure on families that do not use the state system, which likely forces some of them to opt to enter the workforce.

By taxing all and subsidizing some, this approach tips the scale in a certain direction, and I think the argument goes that this tipping of the scale leads to higher levels of workforce participation, which is identified as one of the goals. The Conservatives' preferred policy is one that supports families without tipping the scale. That is that it finds ways of supporting families that do not involve the arbitrary redistribution of resources among families based on their different child care choices.

On the issue of workforce participation, I want to clarify an important distinction. Workforce participation measures the proportion of people who want to work while the employment rate measures the proportion of those people who are actually working. Therefore, people who choose not to work are not considered unemployed. They are considered not in the labour force. People are considered unemployed if they are in the labour force, that is if they wish to work, but they are not able to find a job. Again, people are not in the workforce if they are choosing not to be in the workforce, and people are unemployed if they are choosing to be in the workforce, wanting to work, but are not able to find a job.

Clearly, we should seek to minimize the unemployment rate. We should seek to have as low as possible the number of people who want to work and who are not working. We want as high an employment rate as possible, but it is not obvious to me that we should always aim for the highest possible workforce participation rate. There are many good and legitimate reasons why people might choose not to be in the workforce. It could be because they are studying, retired, of sufficient means and would rather spend their time volunteering, or attending to the needs of their families. All of these are, of course, forms of work, but they do not formally count as being in the workforce. That is that they are not forms of work that are commodified.

There is nothing wrong with people making these kinds of choices to opt out of the workforce. We should not be so narrowly mercantile as to suppose that the only way for a person to live a good and productive life is by generating income and paying taxes. Rather, we should focus on the advancement of overall happiness and well-being on the discovery of the true, the good and the beautiful, and on facilitating this by trying to build a society in which people have the prosperity and the freedom to maximizing their own happiness and well-being with choices.

I do not see any reason why we should set a goal of public policy to achieve the greatest possible participation in the formal workforce. If someone has well-considered reasons for not working inside the formal commodified marketplace, such as the ones I described earlier, I do not see a problem. Why should the state seek to push or incentivize someone to move in a different direction than they wish to go when it comes to workforce participation? Ideally, I would like to see people be able to study if and when they want, to take time off work if and when they want, to retire if and when they want and to stay home with their children if and when they want.

For plenty of practical reasons, this is not always the case, and personal preference is not the only factor that shapes our lives, but why should the state aim for the highest possible labour participation rate by increasing taxes and subsidizing those choices that involve higher workforce participation? Why tip the scale in this direction?

The state should aim to allow people to make their own choices, presumably choices that they believe will maximize their own happiness and the happiness of their families. If a woman or a man, having the means to do so and with a view to their own assessment of what is best for their family, decides that they want to work part time or not work at all for a period of time for the sake of being with their children or for some other purpose, I do not understand why we in the House of Commons should presume to tell them that there is something wrong with that choice, nor should we in the House of Commons presume to tell a dual-income family that there is anything wrong with their choice.

However, the government's policy is to use higher taxes to subsidize certain kinds of families to make certain kinds of child care choices over others. Increasing taxes to subsidize certain kinds of choices over others does not advance freedom or choice.

The Conservative policy of offering direct support to families allowed parents to have the means to freely make their own choices, motivated by love for their children and unfettered by economic coercion. It is support for all families without tipping the scale.

Regardless of the particulars of the child care policy, nobody has made the argument in this place, as far as I have heard, that higher workforce participation is a good in and of itself. Presumably, existing retirement and post-secondary support programs are an acknowledgement that higher workforce participation is not always desirable. If the government cancelled existing retirement supports, I suspect workforce participation would then go up, but this would still be a bad policy, because it would limit the ability of the retirees to choose to leave the commodified workforce during their golden years.

Of course there is a gender dimension to this workforce participation discussion. Statistics suggest that women are more likely to opt out of the workforce for some portion of their child-raising years. I suspect that we would find women are also more likely to opt out of the workforce for post-secondary education, since right now women are attending university at much higher rates than men.

Certainly, we should seek to ensure all people are able to make their choices freely, without any kind of coercion. Regardless of the reasons or the circumstances that lead people to want to opt out of the workforce, we should seek to maximize choice and flexibility for everyone, but it seems to me to be grossly paternalistic for the state to presume some kind of false consciousness operating in the choices that many women make in this respect. The state should seek to promote prosperity and freedom; how people then choose to use that prosperity and freedom inside or outside the workforce should not be the business of the state.

I want at this point to highlight some of the key points I made previously in this debate.

Number one is that this bill substantively does nothing, other than establish an advisory council. All of the agreements are already in place; this bill is merely an active self-congratulation by the government.

The government has put in place a system that is not effectively achieving its own stated goals. In fact, what we see with the current system is that by subsidizing child care but in fact not sufficiently to align with the promises it has made, and at the same time by regulating prices, it has put a great deal of strain on child care providers.

The people one would expect to be most enthusiastic about this program, child care providers, have actually been in many cases the most vocal in expressing concerns about it. What they are saying is that combining subsidies, at the level they are, with price regulation makes it very difficult for child care operators to invest in and grow their business and offer those additional spaces over time.

What we are seeing is a kind of ticking time bomb created in the system: The government is over-promising at the same time that it is imposing enormous strains on those who are actually providing child care services.

I would warn the parents who feel they are benefiting in the short term, because some families have seen reductions in their costs while many families are still on waiting lists and many families are paying higher taxes because of the current government, those who are experiencing short-term reductions in costs, that the structural damage the government is doing to the child care system, by putting strains on child care providers, is not going to allow child care to deliver in the long term.

One of the speakers on the government said that this is about establishing a generational long-term promise. Not at all. What the government is doing is using deficit spending to underfund while over-promising child care operators, who now face enormous strain, cannot bring in new staff, cannot expand, and creating a system that is simply not going to work over the long term. It will not fulfill the promises it has made. We have seen this in many aspects of this government's record, the over-promising and under-delivering. I would encourage those who are following this debate to listen to child care providers to hear from those who are working in the system.

When we raised these concerns with the minister, she asked why we were so negative. She said that Conservatives are always criticizing and being negative about the things the government is trying to do. I think our job in this place is to tell the truth, even if telling the truth about the trajectory of government policy involves pointing out that there are flaws and risks. We hear this accusation a lot from the government by the way. A couple of years ago, when our leader was talking about how overspending was going to lead to inflation, the Liberals said we were being negative, but it was true.

We will continue to speak truth to power and highlight the problems of the child care approach.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a tremendous honour and privilege to stand in this place and to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the constituents of Lethbridge, whom I represent. Tonight, I have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-35, which has to do with universal child care.

I think what we will discover in this conversation tonight is that, actually, it is not universal, even though we like to use that term; I will get to that in just a moment. However, I would like to point out that, as a member of His Majesty's loyal opposition, it is in fact my job in this place to talk about the legislation that is before the House in such a way that I highlight, yes, some of the good but, more importantly, the opportunities to make it even better. I will be doing that tonight.

Some in my riding have expressed support for this legislation. Others have no support for it and have been very opposed. Still others fall somewhere in the middle; they like parts of it, but they see flaws in other components.

To be clear, in many ways, Bill C-35 is not actually a child care strategy, which is what the Liberal government would like it to come off as. Rather, it is more of a marketing plan. It is something that these Liberals use over and over again in their talking points, but when we actually ask them for substantiated evidence of a program that has been rolled out with great productivity and provision for Canadians, they are not able to actually show us that. This is problematic, because it is over-promising and under-delivering. Ultimately, at the end of the day, it is Canadians who suffer.

I would like members to imagine that they are taken on an all-expense-paid shopping trip. I believe this is most women's dream. They are told that they can look through all the shop windows and have anything they wish. They arrive on Fifth Avenue in New York City and get to work. They look around, and a shop window attracts the attention of an individual. She walks over to the store and tries the door, only to find that the shop is closed. She takes another look around and finds another shop window that has another outfit she thinks is quite nice; she goes to the shop door and tries to open it, but it is closed. This poor woman repeats this over and over again, only to find that the stores are all closed. The promise was great and exciting, but it did not deliver. This is exactly what the Liberals have presented us with: a promise without a premise. A promise without a premise is absolutely worthless, which is what so many Canadians are facing with the bill before us.

The reality is that affordable, quality child care is critical, if we can find it. It is needed for many families in this country; there is no doubt about that. Many families need to have two individuals working, and many are single parents who need to work. In these cases, they would need child care of some sort. Now, the problem with the bill is that it actually dictates where that child care needs to be found. It cannot be a family member, a neighbour or friend. It has to be a state-run or non-profit day care, which is a problem, because—

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech because in it she points out all the reasons why Bill C-35 is important. As my colleague in the NDP had said in his last question, when we had a market-driven system these issues existed before, and they are only going to be fixed with intention and with purpose. Therefore, I am glad to know that the Conservatives are supporting Bill C-35. It is funny to me that the member is calling this a divisive bill when this has passed every stage so far unanimously. There actually seems to be much more agreement than my hon. colleague is letting on.

There is, in fact, nothing in this bill that is looking to divide Canadians, or divide women for that matter. In fact, there is nothing that would limit choice in this legislation. I am glad to hear that the member is supporting this bill. I am glad to hear that Conservatives support child care. I hope that we can count on the member's support at third reading as well.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak, especially to a bill as critical as Bill C-35, which would truly play a big role in determining the future of our nation.

I just want to take a moment to recognize the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, who I think has done an incredible job of giving a voice to so many mothers, fathers, parents and entrepreneurs, many of them women and many of them new Canadians, who needed their voices heard here in the House of Commons. I congratulate her and her team, who are ensuring that we can get the best bill possible, not only for women and families, but also for all Canadians.

I am going to go through three things in my speech. I am going to provide an overview of some of the points many of my colleagues have laid out. After that, I am going to give some testimony from the many Canadians we have heard from across this country. I will then conclude with perhaps the most challenging and disappointing aspect of this bill, at least for me, as a woman and as a parliamentarian.

I will just review some of the points my team has outlined. Affordable, quality child care is critical, but if someone cannot access it, it does not exist. We have said this time and time again. Frankly, the number of spaces that currently exist, or that are forecasted to exist, just does not meet the demand. Even though there are many Canadian families that want this service, this solution, as provided currently by the government, would not address the issue.

Bill C-35 is not a child care strategy; it is a headline marketing plan. Again, we see the Liberals promising what they cannot deliver; $10-a-day day care does not address the labour shortage and the lack of spaces. I alluded to that in my last comment. We have seen the government, time and time again, promise the sun, the moon and the stars, but it consistently falls short. Unfortunately, we are very concerned that would happen with day care spaces under Bill C-35 and that this would continue to happen.

Conservatives recognize that Canadian families should have access to affordable and quality child care, and should be able to choose child care providers that best suit their family's needs. We have heard from many Canadians that this one-size-fits-all approach does not necessarily suit many Canadians and the needs of many Canadian families. I just want to reiterate that.

Bill C-35 is good for families that already have a child care space, but it does not help the thousands of families on child care wait-lists, or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces. I certainly recall that, as a mother, I was very grateful when my husband the foresight to put our name on a list. I think it was probably two years ahead of our son's requiring that space. This is a very tangible problem, and we will see it exacerbated as we see this program implemented throughout time. Bill C-35 would increase demand for child care but would not solve the problem of frontline burnout, staff shortage or access to more spaces. I think this is a very critical consideration, given the labour shortage we have seen since the pandemic, and we truly need to consider this as we consider implementing Bill C-35. There are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone to staff new spaces.

Bill C-35 would discriminate against women. The majority of child care operators are women. The language and intent of the bill would prevent any growth or opportunity for private female operators. How does the Liberal government expect more women to be able to go to work when there are no child care spots available? Wait-lists, as I mentioned, are years long. Ontario's Financial Accountability Office projects that, by 2026, there will be 602,000 children under six whose families will want $10-a-day day care, and the provinces will be able to accommodate only 375,000 of them. That leaves 227,000, or 38%, without access.

Government estimates also suggest that by 2026 there could be a shortage of 8,500 early child care workers. That is an astounding number. In British Columbia, 27% of child care centres turn away children due to lack of staff. I know my colleagues from B.C. have certainly been very adamant in expressing this shortage. One child care director, who oversees 13 child care programs with 350 spaces, said, “In the past two years, we've had to close programs temporarily, whether it is for a day or two, or shorten hours for the week in order to meet the licensing regulations...”

We also talk about the child care deserts that exist across this country and that is very much a problem. I have here, as I said I would, some commentary from Canadians who have written in, expressing some of these problems which I have outlined. Katie writes, “Finding people who start at 6 a.m. or end at 11 p.m. is impossible. More flexible hours for people who work shift work. Adequate child care is a huge barrier within health care.”

Cheryl writes, “Something that many of my co-workers and I have talked about many times is how beneficial a day care that had extended hours or was nearer the hospital would be. So many health care workers struggle to find child care that is available for the shifts we work. I have been raising my granddaughter for 14 months now and have spent so much time and energy finding child care that will work for us. It has been incredibly stressful and I am so grateful for the care provider we have now who has worked in the health care field and takes Ava at 6:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. for me.”

Both of these individuals writing in to us indicated that this one-size-fits-all approach does not work for them and that day care solutions and solutions for families do not come in a box; they have to be flexible. Therefore, in bringing forward amendments for this bill, we were trying to improve the bill.

Let us see who else. Shannon writes, “I'm going back to work full-time in July. I put my daughter on six day care lists and have heard it takes years to get into a licensed day care. I think start times are an issue as well. At most day cares, the earliest start time is 7:30 to 8 a.m.”, which is a challenge I remember, as a mother. Shannon continues, “...and I start work at 6:30 so I need something earlier than that.”

Again, the government is looking at a one-size-fits-all approach.

Laura writes, “Before- or after-school care.... The reduced fees have been welcome for my 20-month-old, but the cost for my six-year-olds' before- and after-school care are now more expensive than full day care and this comes with a reduction of the CCB, so my family is now spending more on care as my children get older and my children attend school.”

There we see some Canadians who have written in saying that this one-size-fits-all day care does not work for them. As members can see, I have outlined many challenges with this legislation.

I will get into what is the most problematic thing about this bill, which I do not even think is necessarily addressed through the policy within this House. I believe that this bill is a tool that has been used as a divider. I believe that this bill has been used to divide rural versus urban. I believe that this bill has been used to divide those mothers who want to stay at home versus those mothers who want to go to work. I have seen on social media, very unfortunately, women judging other women. Why would the government put forward a piece of legislation where women are put in a place to judge other women?

That is where Canada is at today. It is broken. Household debt is at a record level. Inflation is at a record level. Interest rates are at a record level. This country is in crisis and the current government really thought it had us with this bill in dividing us further. However, the good news is that when the leader of the official opposition becomes the Prime Minister of Canada, this hateful division would end and Canadians would once again be united. It starts with our supporting this bill and improving this bill.