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

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

moved that Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me tremendous pleasure, and it is an honour to rise in the House today to kick off the debate on Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

I want to start with a few thanks. I first of all want to thank the thousands of advocates across this country who have been waiting and fighting for this day for just over 52 years. It was 52 years ago in December that the Royal Commission on the Status of Women came out with its landmark report that asked the Government of Canada and suggested that it put in place an affordable, high-quality, inclusive and accessible child care system across this country.

Fifty-two years is a long time to wait, and there are lots of families who went through child care during that period of time. However, what I have heard from stakeholders and advocates across this country is that now is a good time to start. It is never too late to do the right thing, and here we are.

Today, we have agreements signed with 13 provinces and territories. As of December, almost all of them have reduced fees by 50%, and we have one more that is going to be making a good announcement very soon. More of those fee reductions are on their way.

What excites me about this system and about this bill is the impact it is having on families. I have had occasion to to travel to almost every province and territory across the country over the past year, to engage with families and to hear from them the stories about how this system is making a difference in their lives. I have yet to speak to a child care centre representative or a family who has not talked about the very real and tangible impact that this reduction in fees is having on their families' bottom line.

I will start by talking about one of the things that we have been doing as a federal government for a while, and that is the RESP, the registered education savings plan. For decades, we have been encouraging families to save for post-secondary education. We understand that this is a huge expense, but that it is important for all of our children across this country, for the future of our country, to make sure that they have the opportunity to attend post-secondary education.

Child care fees can range between $12,000 and $24,000 or even more per year. Multiply that by three or four or five, depending on the province they are in, and it could be two or three times the cost that the average student would spend on post-secondary education, yet we did not have any mechanism, until recently, to support families for this major expense.

It is an expense that starts right at the beginning of their family's journey, often when they have recently purchased a home or when they are just getting started in their careers. We are talking about tens of thousands of dollars. That is a huge impact and, not always but often, it results in the lower-income parent deciding to take a step outside of the workforce, because it just does not make financial sense for them to carry on.

The stories I have heard over the past year are changing that. I have been to every province and almost every territory. I meet parents. It is often a mom, I have not heard from a dad yet, but I am looking forward to that as well. However, I hear from so many moms who talk about the fact that it is because of these lower child care fees that they are returning to work.

There was the mom in Ottawa a couple of months ago who said that because of the 50% fee reduction she enrolled her daughter in day care, and she is returning to work full time as a real estate agent. She spoke of the impact that it had not only for her family's finances but also for her career development.

In Richmond, B.C. in December, in talking to a mom of three, she said that it is because of these reductions that she is able to go from part-time to full-time work, because she can now afford to have two of her children in full-time day care, with one of her children in school.

In Nova Scotia, a mom whom I was talking to said that because of these fee reductions, she is not only returning to full-time work, but she breathes a sigh of relief when she goes to the grocery store. She is not as worried about making sure that she can afford to buy healthy, nutritious food for her family because of the significant fee reductions.

Most recently I was talking to a mom in my community of Burlington, Ontario. She explained that when she and her husband saw the 50% reduction in child care fees, they decided they would not have to give up their house. Financially it made sense to keep her child enrolled in day care. They would be able to afford their mortgage and both of them could keep working.

This initiative is having a real tangible impact on families across the country, and I could not be prouder to be part of a government that is delivering this important policy.

That brings me to today and the introduction of this legislation at second reading. I hope all members in the House are going to support it and get it through committee quickly, so we can cement this important legacy for Canadian families, children and women right across the country.

Let me talk a bit about what Bill C-35 would accomplish. It would provide support for the continued implementation of an affordable Canada-wide system by enshrining the vision, guiding principles and a commitment to long-term funding. It would enhance transparency and accountability by requiring the minister responsible to report annually to the public on progress being made on the system. It would establish in law the national advisory council, which, by the way, is having its first official meeting today in Ottawa. This legislation would also build on the early successes of the Canada-wide agreements.

We are enshrining into law the federal government's commitment to strengthening and protecting this Canada-wide system.

We are enshrining into law the federal government's commitment to strengthening and protecting these Canada-wide systems while respecting provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

Bill C-35 would build on the collaborative work we have undertaken with PTs and with indigenous peoples from coast to coast to coast, and it is driven by a shared interest, and close partnerships and collaboration. It respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction and the co-developed indigenous early learning and child care framework that was jointly released and endorsed in 2018 with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council.

By enshrining these principles and vision into federal law, we are building stability into the child care system, and not just stability but also predictability and commitment.

We want provinces, territories and indigenous peoples to know that the federal government is in there for the long term. Importantly, we want parents, families, child care providers and early childhood educators to know that the federal government is also there for the long term. That is so important with Bill C-35, because we have seen in the past, unfortunately, when in 2006 then-prime minister Stephen Harper ripped up the child care agreements with the provinces and territories. It was one of the first acts the Conservatives did when they came into government. We need to ensure we are doing everything we can to make it harder for any future government, like a future Conservative government, to take that away from families, to take that away from our children and to take that away from the Canadian economy.

Let me talk a bit about the Canadian economy, because child care is one of those amazing policies that is not just good, smart, feminist, social policy, but it is good, smart, feminist economic policy. For every one dollar invested in child care, the economy sees a broader return of $1.50 to $1.80.

It is estimated that the Canada-wide system could raise real GDP in our country by as much as 1.2% over the next two decades. An OECD report shows that improvement in gender equality and family friendly policies has boosted growth in per-capita GDP by between 10% and 20%.

In Sweden, for example, when it brought in universal affordable child care, female employment rates increased by almost 30%. The IMF estimated that closing the participation gap between Canadian men and women in the workforce could raise Canada's GDP levels by 4% in the medium term. That is $92 billion.

Gender equality, ensuring women have access to economic opportunities, ensuring our children get the best possible start in life, is not just good for us as a society; that is excellent for our economy.

Let us talk a bit about what that means in real terms. We talk about the macro picture, but when we look at what that means, we have an example in Canada.

Quebec is celebrating 25 years of universal day care. Quebec went from having the lowest female workforce participation in the country in 1998 to now having the highest. In fact, some of the highest rates of women with children under the age of four are working in the entire OECD. If Canadian women join the workforce at the same rates that Quebec women have over the last 25 years, that is an additional 240,000 workers entering our workforce today. That is an impressive number. Those are workers in Canada, people who want to be part of the workforce, but for economic reasons have not been able to justify it or make it work.

As I said, I have talked to moms all across the country for whom this is making the difference. This is really exciting. As to where this is going to set us up as Canada in our future, for our economy and, most important, for Canadians, the potential is unmatched.

I want to spend a bit of time talking about the workforce. We know there is no child care system in Canada without the talented, qualified, well-trained, caring early learning and child care workforce. I want to give a big thanks to each and every one of them. During the pandemic, they went to work so that Canada could keep working. We saw what happened when child care centres were closed. It meant parents were staying home with their children.

It is pretty hard. I do not know about other members, but I was home during the pandemic for the first six months and my two and a half year old was home with me. It is pretty tricky to get work done when parents have a two year old or a two and a half year old with them. Anyone who is a parent or has been a parent of a young child can attest to that.

Those child care workers went to work during the pandemic. They went when we needed them most. We need to recognize that, we need to say thanks and we need to ensure that we have the system in place to support them with good wages and that they have an environment in which they can thrive, grow and develop their careers as well.

When we talk about child care, we talk about the economic impact and the social impact, but we also need to talk about the impact that it has on our children. Being in a safe, secure place is important, one where they feel loved, where they feel cared for, where they are well taken care of, but also where learning is part and parcel of the framework.

The Minister of Finance likes to talk about setting up a generation of super kids in the country, and I could not agree with her more. As a mom who is so grateful to the child care workers who made it possible for me to do my job while my son was little, the absolute illumination that he had when he went to day care and the explosion in learning that I saw from him is one of those things for which I will be eternally grateful.

When we talk about child care, there are so many spinoffs that are important for our society and our economy. I like to describe it as a home run, because it is good for our children, it is good for our families and it is good for the economy.

Bill C-35 is going to help us cement the role of the federal government. It is going to ensure that we are there in the long run for Canadian women, families, children and Canadians in general. It is going to ensure we are setting the country up for the 21st century to take hold of those opportunities and ensure that every child in our country has the best possible start in life.

I hope that my colleagues from all parties in this place will support Bill C-35 and move it forward so we can provide that commitment and assurance to Canadians and their families that the federal government is there in the long term, that we support our children and women, that we are setting Canada up for success.

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

Madam Speaker, I wish everyone a happy new year. It is nice to be back.

It was wonderful to hear so many positive stories, and that is great, but it is not the reality of all the other parents who cannot access child care. How many of those families has the minister spoken to? What are the answers she is giving those families that have been on wait-lists for years, those who cannot go back to work because they cannot access affordable, quality child care?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague will be supporting this bill on the advancement of child care in Canada. It is an extremely important question and it forms part and parcel of the agreements that we signed with provinces and territories across the country.

I was one of those parents who was on a wait list and was nervous about whether I would get a space for my son, so I understand what that is like. It is why we have committed, with our provincial and territorial counterparts, to increase the number of child care spaces by 250,000 over the course of these first five-year agreements that we have signed. In fact, I have been in many provinces and territories over the past year announcing thousands of new additional spaces that have been created, thanks to the $30 billion of federal investments that we have put in place. Access to these spaces is a key pillar and it forms part of our initiative.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister for her advocacy on behalf of families and child care services.

I believe it is important to support them. We are pleased to see that the government is of the same mind and has the will to take action. However, I will nonetheless point out that, in theory, social matters such as the management of day care is a provincial and not a federal jurisdiction. That is very clear.

Quebec already has a day care system and we are happy to have it. We are pleased that the government has decided to exempt Quebec from the federal government's centralizing policy on day care. I also want to point out that the government's approach is patterned after the Quebec model. That is an acknowledgment of the work Quebec has done and how advanced we are compared to the rest of Canada.

More specifically, I would like to know why, in her bill, the minister has exempted Quebec for only five years. In five years' time, Quebec's day care program will still be in place. It is already in place. This is a provincial matter, and I assume that she would like her bill to be in effect for more than five years.

Why is there only a five-year exemption for Quebec?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have an excellent relationship with Quebec when it comes to early childhood education and child care. I have worked extensively with my Quebec counterparts on this issue.

As my colleague mentioned, Quebec's child care system has been a source of inspiration for us. We want the rest of Canada to catch up with Quebec and its system. We negotiated an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec for exactly that reason.

Bill C-35 fully respects provincial and territorial jurisdictions. It is based on the principles and objectives we have set out in the agreements with the provinces and territories.

What I understand from the Government of Quebec is that they are happy with this bill precisely because it respects provincial and territorial jurisdictions. It also demonstrates that the Government of Canada will be there for the long term and will ensure that it is not just five years' worth of payments—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I must leave time for other questions.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying how nice it was working alongside the minister in the drafting of this legislation.

This is good legislation, but not perfect. One concern I have brought up many times in the House is how early childhood educators historically, and I would say even now, have been underpaid and undervalued. Noting that this is critical work, noting that this is work that is vital for women across the country, does the member support adding in Bill C-35 an explicit commitment to fair wages and working conditions for staff in this sector?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure working with my hon. colleague. I would note that she started her career as an early childhood educator, so her input has been invaluable in this regard.

It is important to reiterate that the legislation is complementary to the agreements we have signed with provinces and territories. Each one of those agreements does have a commitment to a wage grid, to benefits, to ensuring we are supporting the early childhood workforce. Of course, that is very much within the provincial and territorial jurisdictions, and provinces and territories decide what those wages are.

However, we are in constant dialogue with them and based on the last FPT meeting we had, there is a concerted interest from all my counterparts at the provincial and territorial level to ensure there are fair wages, that the workforce is included and supported, because they all understand that will be key to having a successful child care system.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying I agree with and appreciate the minister for bringing forward this legislation so early in this session, as well as how important this legislation is. I also appreciate her comments about the importance of investing in the workforce. As we have heard from our colleague from Winnipeg Centre, this is an ongoing concern.

I will speak to the specifics in Ontario. The estimates are that we will need an additional 14,700 early childhood educators in Ontario by 2025-26. In the current agreement that the federal government signed with the Province of Ontario, the wage floor is $18 an hour, rising by one dollar per year until 2025.

Recognizing the talented folks in this workforce and the need to not only retain but also to recruit at these numbers, and since it is not just the Province of Ontario but also the federal government that has a responsibility, can the minister comment on what more needs to be done to ensure we are investing in the workforce and getting wages lifted higher?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree with my hon. colleague more. We need to make sure we have a well-compensated and well-trained workforce.

In the $30 billion the federal government is transferring to provinces, territories and indigenous organizations, there is room for provinces and territories to ensure wages are keeping up and in some cases exceeding what expectations are to maintain that workforce. I will give you a couple of examples. Yukon has set a minimum wage for ECEs at $30 an hour. In New Brunswick it has been set at $23.40. B.C. has given a four-dollar-an-hour top-up to ECEs. Alberta has done two dollars an hour. Manitoba has come up with a provincial benefit plan.

There are many examples around the country of provinces and territories not only working with federal funds but also adding their own dollars to make sure that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am going to allow for one more question.

I want to remind the hon. minister that she is to address questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the members.

The hon. member for Fredericton has the floor. We have time for a brief question.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, the legislation sets out a vision for a Canada-wide system in which all families have access to high quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care, or ELCC, no matter where they live in Canada. Are there are any challenges to meeting this goal, and if so, how is our government meeting that challenge?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, of course there are challenges to meeting this goal, but we have made sure within the pillar on inclusivity that we are working with provinces and territories to reach those places where child care is harder to access, whether that is in rural communities, remote communities or even in urban centres where there are child care deserts.

There are some really terrific examples, like in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where they are doing really innovative things in rural and remote areas. I was just in Nunavut, which is doing really interesting things to make sure there are enough child care spaces in all 25 of its communities. This is an important pillar to make sure we are reaching all Canadian families where they are, with affordable, high-quality and accessible child care.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, it is in an honour and privilege to speak on behalf of Canadians and the people of my community, Peterborough—Kawartha.

Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to recognize the life and service of Hazel “Hurricane” McCallion. She was what all of us inside of the House should aspire to be, which is fierce, fair and for the people.

“Rest in peace, Ms. McCallion. You made Canada better.”

Today, we are debating Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. As a mom and as the shadow minister for families, children and social development, I cannot understate the importance and value of affordable, quality child care. However, affordable, quality child care does not exist if one cannot access it.

As a shadow minister and critic, it is my job to speak up for all Canadians and point out what is wrong with the bill. It is my job to listen to the frontline staff and parents who are directly impacted by the bill and speak on their behalf.

I do not think we will find a Canadian who does not want what is best for their children. However, we must acknowledge that it is not the government’s job to decide what is best for one's child. Rather, it is the parent, the caregiver.

Every Canadian deserves to choose what works best for their family when it comes to child care. Every family dynamic is different, and our diversity and our culture are what make Canada Canada. What works for one family may not work for another. We all have different situations, circumstances and needs.

Bill C-35 would not offer choice for families. In fact, it would exclude many Canadians from accessing quality, affordable child care. This bill speaks exclusively to those who already have a child care space with a public or not-for-profit child care operator. It does not offer anything to families who have been on wait-lists for years. It does not offer anything for families who choose to raise their children at home, use a grandparent or access a private or home-run day care.

There is no freedom to choose in this bill, and there is absolutely no mention of how to manage the frontline burnout and labour shortage of child care providers.

Bill C-35 would not solve the problem of the staff shortages and the out-of-control wait-lists to access child care across this country. In fact, the bill would do exactly the opposite. It would increase the demand for affordable child care and leave parents with no access. This bill would subsidize the wealthy instead of prioritizing our most vulnerable families who need child care.

The bill specifically says, “enable families of varying incomes to benefit from affordable early learning and child care programs and services”. In a cost-of-living crisis, why is the Liberal government subsidizing the most wealthy?

This message is from Morgan, who sent it to me. She says, “I think my story is pretty common among new parents right now. I have three children, one in school and I have to go back to work in February from my latest maternity leave. I’ve been on the waitlist since I was 8 weeks pregnant and still won’t have any care for at least another year likely.” She asks whether she is just supposed to give up her career, her income, her pension and her benefits. She continues, saying, “I’m not sure how I am supposed to provide for my family with no income. Many daycares I have reached out to say they have had to shut down some of their rooms, meaning even less child care spots.”

Here is another story from an operator in Peterborough, Ontario. She says that they have a child in their preschool program who is eligible for the Canada-wide early learning and child care program, or, as many call it, the CWELCC, and who has a sibling in the senior before and after school program who is not eligible for CWELCC because of their age. Program eligibility, for those who do not know, is only for children under six.

The day care operator says that the parent fee for the preschool child is $19.85 a day, for up to 10 hours of care. The day care is open 7:30 to 5:30. This fee includes a hot lunch prepared by their cook, as well as two snacks each day, also prepared by the cook. For the senior before and after school child, the fee is $24 a day for a maximum of three hours and 45 minutes. This includes one snack per day.

She asks where the equity is in this. Families who have children over six are not entitled to CWELCC program fee reductions and therefore are paying more for under four hours of care than families who are entitled to a full day of care with a hot lunch and two snacks.

This example points out many of the flaws in the bill. What about parents who work shift work, are entrepreneurs or who work weekends? Where can they take their kids for child care?

Second, how would the bill create more spaces when the child care operator who has written this letter is located in a school, and there are physically no more spaces to put in the school?

Furthermore, how would this bill help with the labour shortage? There is no labour strategy in this bill.

Matthew Lau’s synopsis of this bill and the Liberals' failed attempt at child care is spot-on. He writes that the challenges are the same across the board and there are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone staff new spaces.

Bill C-35 has nothing in it to fix these problems.

Andrea Hannen, the Executive Director of the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario, or ADCO, gives many examples of what we can expect with this Liberal flawed bill. She says, for example, that taxpayers and the families who use the program will wind up paying more and more for it, while all children will wind up getting less and less.

This bill, like most Liberal policy, says a lot of really nice things but gives zero details on how any of these nice things will be delivered or how they will be achieved. The Liberals love to promise unrealistic expectations, and then act shocked when they cannot achieve them. They also love to tell taxpayers to just trust them.

After eight years of this Prime Minister and seeing how badly Canadians are suffering, we do not trust them. The Financial Accountability Office of Ontario says there is a committed shortfall of $1.2 billion in 2026-27 based on the minimum federal and provincial commitment. We have barely started, and we can already see there is no sustainability plan here.

Susan Cake, chair of Child Care Now Alberta, an advocacy organization, says that there has been a giant frustration in Alberta about the lack of communication, that everybody does not know what is going on, does not know where funding is coming from and does not know where they are going to get money.

I want to take a minute right now. This is very important to listen to, because as members may have heard earlier, the minister talked about how this is such an advancement for feminism. This bill would do exactly the opposite.

Feedback from the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs said that the majority of private child care in Alberta is operated by women, with a large number being immigrant women, and that the impact of this agreement and the intention of the federal government to prioritize the business model of child care rather than the affordability, accessibility or quality of care is having the opposite effect on women. It notes that we are seeing a women-led industry targeted and pushed out of business, and that women across our province are facing bankruptcy and losing their homes because they signed on to this agreement because they wanted and advocated for affordable child care.

The association also notes the creation of a two-tiered child care system. For example, one of its directors has a centre in Grand Prairie. She had a wait-list of over 400 families, so she decided to expand even though she understood the new spaces would not have access to the affordability program. Now in her centre she has her original 120 spaces with families paying an average of $13 a day, and 86 new spaces with families paying an average of $65 a day for the same care in the same centre. This is an unintended consequence of this child care program.

The written feedback also says that there are new centres sitting empty. They are fully operational and licensed, but because of their choice to be private operators, they cannot access subsidies for families. There are centres with wait-lists of 100 families but only four children attending, because the other families need the subsidy and cannot access it in that centre. These women who have invested their savings and taken the initiative to open centres and meet the needs of their communities are going bankrupt. They likely have signed 10- to 20-year leases with personal guarantees of their families' homes and assets, but the federal government is restricting them from having access to a fair market to operate their businesses. The message this sends is that the choice of these parents does not matter and that these women are collateral damage to meeting this Liberal campaign promise in an NDP coalition.

As the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs has pointed out, we must have private child care along with public and not-for-profit centres to meet the demand and to offer the choice to fit what is best for families. However, the language and intention of this bill clearly leave private child care operators in the cold. The exact language from the bill reads that it is to “facilitate access to early learning and child care programs and services — in particular those that are provided by public and not for profit child care providers”.

How can we expect to meet the demand without private operators? We cannot. We need them, yet this bill clearly leaves out any representation from private operators on the national council. What does that say? It says the same thing the Liberals always say, namely that they will decide what is best. They will decide how to spend our money. They will decide who the representatives are at the table. They do not believe in the fair market or having freedom of choice. It is not right. It is not good leadership, and it is not a good long-term strategy for our country.

Ontario’s Financial Accountability Office projects that by 2026, there will be 602,000 children under the age of six whose families will want $10-a-day day care, but the province will only be able to accommodate 37,000 of them. That will leave 38% of children without access. Government estimates also suggest that by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early childhood workers.

In British Columbia, 27% of child care centres turn away children because of a lack of staff. One director, who oversees 13 child care programs that comprise 350 spaces, said that in the past two years, they have had to close programs temporarily, whether by closing for a day or two or shortening hours for the week.

In Peterborough, we have 4,200 licensed child care spaces in our city and county. There are 3,500 children on the wait-list. Frontline burnout is hurting our entire economy and contributing to our mental health crisis, as is not being able to access quality child care.

When the minister says that more women will be able to go to work, she is misleading Canadians. One cannot go to work if one lacks access to child care. One cannot help address our labour shortage without available day care spots. They will say they are going to create more spaces but give zero details of a plan for achieving that.

Bill C-35 does not solve these problems. It is not a child care strategy. It is a headline marketing plan.

Women are rethinking having children because of the cost-of-living crisis and because there is just no access to child care. I know many women who put their name on a wait-list before they were pregnant; now they have toddlers but no indication if they will ever get a child care spot. Accessing quality child care is one of life’s greatest stressors. Any mom or parent watching this knows that leaving their child with somebody is the ultimate stressor in life. Parents need choice about who to leave their children with. It is an indescribable stress.

Parents deserve access to quality child care; more importantly, our children deserve access to quality care. If we are not invested in our children's welfare, then what is our future? Children are our future. They are our most precious resource, and this bill does not put children first. It is a marketing plan.

The following is Meredith's story:

“I have been on a wait list for my 21 month old son since the day he was born, I have never come off of it nor have I received notice that I am coming to the top of any list, let alone some of the choices I feel would best suit our families needs. I’m now pregnant with my second and have already registered this baby on the list in hopes of having more success next time. I have spent countless hours on Facebook groups, asking friends, on paid service websites trying to find adequate care. It’s sad to me because I thought I would be choosing the center/provider that best suited our needs as a family, but it would appear that we are being forced to just accept whatever we get. I have also heard from friends who applied strictly for part time care who gave gotten calls from centres that only accept full time spots. This makes me question how many people are taking up spots on a list for full time when in reality they only require part time care? This seems like a simple issue to fix in the application process. In Facebook groups I see posts every single day of mothers and fathers desperately seeking care as their time on leave has run out and they still don’t have a reliable option. I consider myself lucky, I decided to leave my job after maternity leave and start my own business because I don’t feel I will ever be comfortable leaving my children wherever I get to the top of the list first. This has presented its own challenges as a full time parent & a full time entrepreneur, but at least I am not desperately seeking care left between feeding my family & staying home to care for my children”.

She goes on to state, “This entire thing breaks my heart as I also think that while there are certainly many dads highly involved in the search for care, it ultimately seems to fall on women who are now being forced to leave their careers and remain home with their children despite wanting to return to the workplace”.

It is really unfortunate that someone cannot be present with their children because they are so stressed out about whether they will be able to find child care and go back to work. They do not have a choice; they have to go back to work to pay for food because of inflation and the cost-of-living crisis.

In terms of poor planning, alongside not providing clear communication or details on this ideologically driven bill, we have reports coming from child care centres explaining that parents are being charged an extra fee because, as everyone watching knows, the cost of food has skyrocketed after eight years under the current Prime Minister.

As reported by The Globe and Mail, “Governments' daycare budgets didn't account for inflation, and it's affecting how kids are fed”.

Ashley Collins is co-chief executive officer of Compass Early Learning and Care, which operates 40 child care programs across Canada. She estimates that Compass has had to increase its food budget by up to 10%. She said, “There's so many multifaceted things like we need to do from an operational level – make sure that food can continue, but also our staff, being able to make sure we're still putting money into increasing wages”.

According to The Globe and Mail, “Compass programs will continue to look for sales on food and adjust menus accordingly rather than cut food offerings or add them as an extra fee”.

“How unfortunate would it be that centres are feeling like they have to add that extra fee at a time when fees are supposed to be going down,” Ashley Collins said.

There is so much wrong with this bill, and I cannot stress enough that Conservatives believe in freedom of choice for quality, affordable child care. Everybody wants that. However, this bill is flawed, and simply listening to parents, child care operators and frontline workers should have given the knowledge needed to fix it.

We just need to listen to the people who are impacted by this to know what not to do. Clearly, the Liberals believe that Ottawa knows best. Conservatives know that Canadians know best, not Ottawa bureaucrats. We are elected to serve the people, and service means listening and doing something that is better, not worse.

There are concrete policy decisions that can help families. Affordable and quality child care is critical, but if it cannot be accessed, it does not exist. It is great that we are having this conversation. It is great that we are recognizing how important affordable and quality child care is, but this bill falls very short on achieving results and details, as well as providing equal opportunities for families to access quality, affordable child care.

It is because we have listened to parents, frontline staff and operators across this country that Conservatives believe we can fix this. We do not want to leave Canadians without hope. We know how important hope is. We can offer the freedom for families to choose what is best for them.

The Conservatives will put forth strong amendments to address these glaring shortcomings in the legislation and ensure all Canadians can access affordable quality child care. Their children are important—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. The time is up.

Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her speech because she has pointed out exactly why this bill is important. All of the issues she raised are issues that have arisen because we did not have national leadership on child care. There was no system before. The system that was there was a patchwork, and it did not provide for the needs of families across this country. Wait-lists existed before and exist today. That is why we are committed to creating 250,000 new spaces. There was no affordability. If the Conservatives truly care about these issues, this is an opportunity for them to join us in supporting this bill.

Can we count on the hon. minister's support to improve this for families across Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I just got called an hon. minister, so I thank the minister for that.

The reality is there is nothing in the bill that shows any solutions. Yes, we are addressing the problems; that is what my whole speech was dedicated to doing. However, how is the government going to create 250,000 spaces when many of these day care locations physically do not have the space? How is it going to increase the labour force? There is no national strategy in this bill. Why is private day care not represented? Why is there no private representation on the national council? Yes, affordable quality child care is critical, but if it cannot be accessed, it does not exist. This bill does not cover it.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

It is clear to me that western Canada's vision is not the same as Quebec's. The member talked about parents who have to make a decision. They still have to make decisions. Let us look at what Quebec does for child care. It is really quite extraordinary, and we have been doing it for years. The impact on child development is clear both in terms of sociology and education.

You talked about private child care. How much do you think that will cost, and who in your region will have access?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member that she must address the Chair, not speak to members directly.

The hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha.

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

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to be able to examine Quebec. I think that is really beneficial for many of us.

Sometimes we need to have really hard conversations. The reality is this. What we all want in utopia is lovely, but we have to figure out the cost analysis of everything. It must have a fair market value. Absolutely, publicly licensed child care would change the lives of some children, especially those who do not have an option for anything else or something at home. This is absolutely critical. However, the bill does not meet that demand; it would increase the demand for wait-lists, and it would not close the gap. Therefore, we need that private representation.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to work with my colleague on the status of women committee. She spoke a lot about the need for for-profit care. That was a bit concerning for me because research has shown that for-profit care is not good for workers and is paid for on the backs of parents and families. I know that in Ontario, the PC government has quietly removed some of the profit caps, allowing for the expansion of for-profit care. We know this is problematic, and it is not supported by main national child care organizations, such as Child Care Now and the Childcare Resource and Research Unit, or unions, such as NUPGE, CUPE and Unifor. We see unions backing workers. The NDP has always been the party of workers, and unions are saying the workers need public, not-for-profit care.

Does the member believe that federal funds should be used to expand, as she indicated clearly, for-profit care at the expense of public non-profit care, something that has been supported by unions and national child care organizations across the country?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, and it is a pleasure to work with her on the status of women committee.

We cannot meet the demand without both sectors, and every stakeholder will tell us that. We cannot access quality, affordable child care if it does not exist.

What I would pull out of the member's comment, which is concerning, is that many of these private day cares are run by women. Some say that is hurting the workforce, but these women are trying to make a living and trying to provide for their family by offering day care. They are opening access to their communities.

We need to come to the table and find a solution, because cutting them out is not fair; it is not equal access.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member really hit the nail on the head when she asked how we can create more spaces if we do not have the labour force to back that up. I hear that in rural Canada in my riding, where mothers and parents are waiting on lists for years to find child care. However, the bill does not address the shortage of child care in rural Canada.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on what kind of strategy the Conservatives would have to help families that are in need of child care across this country, especially in the rural areas of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. There is a wild promise of 250,000 child care spaces, but I have not heard one detail on how that is going to be achieved. It is certainly not in the bill. Let us sit down and listen, especially to these places that have no more space.

What are we going to do? Well, the private sector is critical. We cannot meet the demand without both. We need equal access. We need fair access. Parents need to be able to choose, and then we need to figure out the labour strategy. There is no mention of a national labour strategy in the bill, and until that is addressed, this problem is not going to go away; it is going to get worse.

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

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in the Conservative Party. Here we have a very progressive policy for the children of our country and an opportunity for the Conservatives to reverse the position they took in the last election, when they said they would get rid of the child care program, a program that has been signed off on by provinces and territories. It is an opportunity for Canadians to have affordable child care.

The legislation we are voting on today is not meant to provide the details the member is looking for. Look at the agreements. It is in the agreements. This is the framework.

Why is the Conservative Party sticking to its election platform and throwing out a national child care program when, in fact, this is the type of program we should all be supporting? It is the only party in the chamber voting against this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the member was listening to a different speech, because nowhere did we say that we were throwing it out and nowhere did we say that we were voting against it.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I listened to my Conservative colleague's remarks, I heard a lot of objections, a lot of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do not think the hon. member will be able to hear the question if there are conversations going on with members of the government at the same time. I would ask the member to listen to the question so she will be able to answer it.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé may ask a brief question.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously I have gotten pretty good at speaking while other people are talking. This is the result of three years of training as a member of Parliament.

I listened to my colleague's speech, which raised many doubts and questions. Has she seen the progress made in Quebec since our child care programs were implemented? This goes for both private and public programs. Private day care facilities still exist in Quebec, and there are still tax credits, but in the early childhood education centres, there are also educational programs.

I had the great privilege of contributing to the creation of the early childhood education network with my own children. I invite my colleague to consider that aspect. We must not throw the baby out with the bathwater, as they say. We must vote in favour of this bill and work to improve it.

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

Madam Speaker, I guess I need to be clear. We would not be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but it is also really important to see the the shortcomings that have happened in Quebec and how many people are still on a wait-list. How do we improve? How do we do better? That is what we need to focus on for solutions, because quality, affordable child care is critical for our country, and we need to recognize that we need solutions.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member needs the unanimous consent of the House to share her time.

Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to share her time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

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

I am pleased to be back here in the House. I would like to thank my team in Val‑d'Or, Lebel‑sur‑Quévillon and Chibougamau for the work they are doing for my constituents. I also want to say hello to the people of Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik—Eeyou.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, which was tabled by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development on December 8.

If passed, Bill C‑35 will enshrine in law the Liberal government's commitment to maintaining long-term program funding for the provinces and indigenous peoples, as well as guiding principles for that federal funding. The bill contains no specific financial promises for the national program, but enshrining it in law could make it more difficult for a future government to dismantle.

As we know, 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 being able to benefit from the same service that families in Quebec have been receiving for decades. It is therefore high time that all Canadian families were able to access child care without breaking the bank.

In 2022, Quebec celebrated the 25th anniversary of its family policy. On January 23, 1997, the Parti Québécois government's Minister of Education, Pauline Marois, unveiled the Quebec family policy, which was based on five main pillars: child care services and parental leave; the family allowance; the work premium; the solidarity tax credit; and the refundable tax credit for child care expenses.

The family policy was developed as a result of changes in Quebec's population, including an increase in the number of single-parent and blended families, greater numbers of women in the workforce, and the troubling rise of precarious employment. This groundbreaking policy allowed Quebeckers to improve their work-life or school-life balance and benefit from more generous maternity and parental leave, and it 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.

Providing early childhood educational services was also a giant step forward for education in Quebec. These services increase students' chances of academic success and prevent them from dropping out, positively impact early childhood development, allow for the early detection of learning disabilities and adjustment difficulties, and ensure that all young Quebeckers start off on the same footing, regardless of their sex, ethnic origin or social class.

Considering the popular support they enjoy, the new 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.

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. Child care services provide a conduit for instilling values, culture and language. This system helps children grow and develop more healthily from an early age. This is an important principle of childhood socialization and sharing.

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.

I myself took advantage of our child care services, and my children received an education that contributed to their success in life. It is truly a pleasure to bring a child to the centre in the morning, knowing that they are safe, that they will learn something and discover their creativity, and that they are picking up life skills by making friends they can play with.

I have to say that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-35 in principle, but we think it is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, it does not comply with the distribution of powers set out in the Constitution, but on the other, it excludes Quebec from the federal family policy for the next five years.

Let me explain. The Constitution clearly states that education and family policy are not under federal jurisdiction. Moreover, although the bill states that the provinces will be able to certify child care services and determine the applicable criteria, it also states that every government in Canada will have to comply with the principles set out in the multilateral early learning and child care framework.

This framework is full of good intentions and fine principles, but it is based on the federal government's supposed spending power, which Quebec does not consider legitimate or legal. One thing is clear: This bill was not tabled in the right parliament.

On the other hand, the bill excludes Quebec from the federal family policy for the next five years. The Quebec government will receive $6 billion in compensation for opting out of the centralizing policy. This demonstrates respect for Quebec's aversion to federal meddling in its jurisdictions, especially since Quebec is not only a pioneer in child care services, but is hailed as a model for success.

Nonetheless, unlike Bill C‑303, Bill C‑35's predecessor, there is no indication of any exemption for Quebec in the current wording of the bill. This is how clause 4 of Bill C‑303 was worded:

Recognizing the unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec with regard to the education and development of children in Quebec society, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Government of Quebec may choose to be exempted from the application of this Act and, notwithstanding any such decision, shall receive the full transfer payment that would otherwise be paid under section 5.

The agreement signed with the Quebec government is valid for five years. However, giving Quebec the full right to opt out of this program would help avoid another dispute between Ottawa and Quebec City when the federal government inevitably interferes in Quebec's jurisdiction, as it is wont to do.

During the joint announcement by the federal government and the Legault government, the Premier of Quebec indicated that the federal government would continue to help Quebec and that the agreement would respect Quebec's jurisdictions. The Premier of Quebec, Mr. Legault, said that after 2026, he will expect help from the federal government.

The passage of Bill C‑35 would make it possible for Quebec to recover significant sums that it could use to complete its network and enhance working conditions for workers in the sector. By allowing Quebec to opt out and be fully compensated, Bill C‑35 takes into consideration these two opposing tendencies in federal-provincial relations, which is rare on the part of the federal government. Outside Quebec, Ottawa is seen as a force for social progress, which results in a strong tendency towards centralization. In Quebec, we reject this interference.

However, as I just mentioned, unlike its predecessor, Bill C‑303, specifically clause 4, this bill does not provide for the right to unconditionally opt out. It is essential that this be included in order to reflect this opposing view of Canada, that is centralization outside Quebec and respect for jurisdictions within Quebec.

Finally, it would be a good idea for Bill C‑35 to emulate its predecessor by recognizing the Quebec government's unique expertise on day care services in North America, as the international community did in 2003. In its study of day care in Canada, the OECD stated that it is “important to underline...the extraordinary advance made by Quebec, which has launched one of the most ambitious and interesting early education and care policies in North America....none of [the Canadian provinces] showed the same clarity of vision as Quebec in addressing the needs of young children and families”.

In closing, it is my hope that all Canadian families will one day be able to enjoy the same child care benefits as Quebec families. We know that, in addition to giving a financial boost to Canadian families, this would enable more mothers to enter the job market. It is an investment in a better future for our children, and our children are the future.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Like her, I have been able to benefit from child care for my three boys. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the excellent educators at the Carrosse-Citrouille early childhood centre for taking such good care of my children.

As my colleague pointed out, Quebec has had a universal low-fee child care program since 1997. Econometric studies have shown a positive correlation between this program and women's participation in the workforce.

I would like to know whether my colleague agrees that this enables women to go back to work or to school. We need to invest in women. It can improve their financial situation and perhaps even get them out of an abusive environment.

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

Madam Speaker, this will indeed help women return to the workforce, and it will help families support them. We know that child care is very expensive. This service will be a huge help to families, and it will also support early childhood education.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the trends we are seeing, which has really been accelerated by the pandemic, is flexible work. People are working from home and looking to be able to combine family life with work in different ways. Therefore, they are still very much needing child care, but they are looking for more creative options, which may be in their neighbourhood, may be at odd hours and may reflect the particulars of their work situation.

One of the concerns I have with the government's one-size-fits-all approach to child care is that it would fund a particular kind of child care model that is not consistent with the way many families live. As technology changes, the government's program is not keeping up with this evolution and how people are trying to combine work with family life. I wonder if the member could talk about whether she agrees that the government's approach is failing to be flexible to accommodate all families with the way the program is structured.

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

Madam Speaker, all we have to do is look at child care in Quebec. That model gives women access to better benefits and enables them to stay home. That also means better outcomes for children, so I do not agree with my colleague's point of view. I actually agree with the government's point of view because it looked at how things are done in Quebec, which sets the bar.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I hope the member joins me in congratulating all the athletes who are going to the Arctic Winter Games. I am sure she has constituents in her riding who are attending that great event as well.

I have read the bill, and it is great to see there are specific provisions not only for indigenous peoples and indigenous governance but also for implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I know that the member has huge indigenous communities, including I believe nine Cree communities and 14 Inuit communities. I wonder what the member has heard from those constituents regarding this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate all the students heading off to the athletic event in western Canada.

This bill will really help indigenous communities. We were waiting to see the document to make sure. I am sure it will help all communities in northern Quebec and in Abitibi—Baie‑James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert may ask a brief question.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I can be brief.

My colleague did a great job explaining how progressive Quebec is. It is surprising and always a pleasure to see how the federal government can follow Quebec's example, instead of lecturing Quebec as it does most of the time. Every once in a while it looks at Quebec and decides to implement the Quebec model from coast to coast to coast.

There are even more areas where it could follow Quebec's example but, unfortunately, does not. This bill respects provincial jurisdictions, which has never been the case with the health transfers we have been asking for for years.

Does my colleague not think the federal government could use Bill C‑35 as an opportunity to really respond to the provinces' requests, specifically by putting more money into the system—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have already allowed more than enough time for a short question. I would ask for a short answer, please.

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

Madam Speaker, yes, the government must provide the transfers that Quebec needs. This is very important. We must not forget this.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, my wish for my colleagues is that 2023 is a bit different than these past few years.

A few minutes ago, I heard my colleague ask if we could encourage people to get into politics and set aside partisan rhetoric on the thousands of files before us.

Today I have the great pleasure of speaking to Bill C‑35. I say bravo because we are entirely in favour in principle. I am very proud of that. I must also say that my colleague did a fine job explaining the ins and outs of everything that might be missing from this bill.

I will talk more about the pride of Quebec for more than 25 years now. Having heard the speech by my Conservative colleague, I hope to give the others a bit more of an understanding of the purpose of this bill and the need to see it through.

I want to look back because I want to talk about how proud I am. Just before being appointed, the first female premier of Quebec introduced a forward-thinking family policy that changed the lives of countless families and boosted the economy. It levelled the playing field for everyone and put children on the path to educational success, and I am very proud of that. What is more, the policy was implemented in a reasonable way that did not break parents' budgets. That is why, at the time, it was known as the groundbreaking $5 day care. Today, it does not even cost $9 a day. For us, it is still a good program with benefits that I will talk about in the next few minutes.

As the minister said earlier, in 1997, this program made it possible for children from all walks of life and all social classes to attend day care and for all parents, both men and women, who had never even considered doing so, to go back to work and become independent, to prepare to take the path I talked about earlier.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues are really bothering me. I thought we had set the stage for a minimum level of respect. They need to go talk somewhere else besides right in front of me because I am finding it difficult to keep speaking. I want to point that out.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask anyone who wants to have a conversation when someone is giving a speech in the House to do so in the lobby. All members should be shown that respect.

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, in Quebec, we call them centres de la petite enfance, or CPEs.

This has allowed parents, like me for that matter, to not have to make the agonizing choice of deciding which parent should stay home to educate and prepare children for school based on family income.

Twenty-five years ago, many women often earned less than their spouses. The child care system has not only provided equal opportunity for children, but also equality and prosperity for women. If we look at the numbers, we can see there has been an increase in women in business and in the workforce. As we know, the numbers are incredible. A quarter of a century later, and the numbers do not lie. We cannot ignore them.

Quebeckers are very proud of this model. Obviously, I am, too.

Earlier, my colleague mentioned that Quebec has been cited as an example, particularly at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In 2003, it was noted that Quebec had implemented one of the most ambitious education and child care policies. It was very ambitious when you look at North America as a whole.

Here is what I want to tell my Conservative colleagues. Studies have shown that every dollar invested in child care returns almost $2—$1.75, actually—in tax revenue. An extra dollar invested in health and early learning saves our health, social and judicial systems $9. As I said at the start, the child care system makes a huge contribution to economic development, equal opportunity and the prosperity of women who want to be in the workforce.

We also have numbers that show lower drop-out rates, and I am very proud of that.

We agree with the principle of the bill. Who would oppose giving our kids the best possible opportunity? If that is where we start from, I think we have a proposal that we can re-evaluate in five years. Quebec's child care model is not new; it has been around for over 25 years. We have numbers to prove all this. I think we might even see the Conservatives admit that helping the community as a whole has an enormous impact.

As a brief aside, I can say that one plus one equals two. If we take the necessary steps to educate people in their workplace and improve their working conditions, we could see a significant reduction in the labour shortage that exists across Quebec and Canada. The labour shortage is therefore not a good argument.

Since I have barely three minutes left, I would like to talk about what I experienced more than 15 years ago and why I am proud to have been so heavily involved. I was the president of La Fourmilière early child care centre. This was at a time when program coordinators had to be deployed to ensure that spaces were maximized and that the programs could be managed in both institutional and home-based settings. In fact, there are still home-based child care centres operating today.

This is very important to me. I want to take 20 seconds to recognize a woman who dedicated her life to early childhood education. Thirty years ago, it was called kindergarten. Then there was a program called Passe-Partout. Today, it is called the CPE La Fourmilière.

Her name is Suzie Leblanc. I offer my condolences to her family. Suzie passed away over the holidays. My sympathies go out to Véro and her entire family. This does have an impact. We cannot forget that.

Obviously, jurisdictions need to be respected. We in the Bloc Québécois keep saying that. Who could be against that? Just five minutes ago, we heard a member mention that, for once, jurisdictions were respected when it comes to the right to full compensation. I look forward to getting this bill passed. I hope things will turn around. Maybe the same will happen with health transfers. That is my biggest wish for 2023.

On behalf of our children, the next generation, the economy and women's empowerment in the workforce, I want to congratulate the minister for taking action and standing her ground. The Bloc will be there.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and all my Bloc Québécois colleagues for supporting this bill.

Quebec is most definitely a leader in this area. We have learned so much from Quebec's experience over the past 25 years. I would also like to thank my colleague for speaking about her pride in Quebec's early childhood and day care centres.

I would like to ask her the following question. Could she tell us a bit more about why a lack of access to child care is not a choice for women? Could she explain to the Conservatives what choice means?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. I thank the minister for asking it.

Here is my answer. How do we judge whether parents, who are acting out of love for their children, have everything they need based on their situation?

It seems to me that we should give everyone the opportunity to get an education in a safe setting in order to prepare children for the future. It is odd to be talking about this here, because education matters are usually discussed at the National Assembly. How can we say that the labour shortage and the lack of attention paid to the private sector mean that we are not going to go ahead and not even try it? The bill provides for a five-year timeline. Could we just try it, please?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am from Oshawa, and in Oshawa we do factory work. Conservatives believe in equal support and accessibility. I am wondering what my colleague's comments would be for people who are working shift work, whether that is overnight or in the afternoon, or people who are rural who would like to have equal access and support.

It is very important for me. My wife has her ECE. It is very important for all Canadians, but on this idea of accessibility and equality, I was wondering if she maybe has some input and advice for the government.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, anything is possible after 25 years. As I said, I worked in the forestry industry for seven years. For 44 hours a week, there were three shifts, including a night shift, so day care centres that are open non-standard hours do exist.

I would ask members not to get hung up on the wording, but instead to look at how we can seize this moment to create opportunities for those who work nights and weekends. Anything is possible. We are doing this out of love for our children and their future.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my riding we are really struggling to find health care providers. One of the things that we have heard loud and clear as the biggest challenge is child care, and a lot of people in the health care industry are women.

I am wondering if the member could speak a little about the impact this could have on women to open doors for them to enter the workforce and the very clear example we have seen in Quebec.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

That is a very good question, Madam Speaker.

Studies have indeed shown that, when education is at the heart of a community, then health care prevention is possible. When individuals are fortunate enough to be informed, to feel safe and to be educated, it has a direct impact on health care.

As I said at the outset, for every dollar we invest in health and social services, we save $9. Often, a government will invest all of its pennies in prevention, but then it still has to take a curative approach.

This bill will have positive effects, but we will not see the results right away. We need to give the children time to reach age three, four or five and start school. I can guarantee that this will bring about change, and there are statistics to prove it. That is what I wish for all of Canada, because we Quebeckers are very proud of the family policy we have had for the past 25 years.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today as the NDP's critic for children, families and social development to address this historic legislation, Bill C-35.

Finally, after so many years of struggle, we have a national child care legislation that accompanies a system of national child care.

Let me begin by acknowledging the people who made this system and the bill we are debating today possible. There are too many names to mention, but let me say this. Generations of feminists, trade unionists, child care workers and advocates made this victory possible. They never, ever gave up the fight. They did not give up after the 1970 Royal Commission on the Status of Women's recommendation for a national child care program was ignored by the government of the day. They did not give up after the 1993 Liberal red book promised national child care, only for that government to pursue deep cuts to social programs instead. They did not give up during the 10 years of a Harper government that viewed child care as a dirty word. It has been 30 years since the Liberals promised a national child care program and, as a result of their relentless advocacy, we finally find ourselves here today.

I, a proud New Democrat, along with my colleagues, am proud to stand here today in support of Bill C-35 on behalf of our party, which has always prided itself on being a feminist movement and a vocal advocate for an affordable, accessible, universal child care program.

Our party prides itself on standing alongside organizations, advocates and unions in their demonstration of courage and commitment even when the possibility of national child care seemed so unlikely. It is because of their tenacity and their refusal to quit even when the odds were against them that we are here today.

I stand on their shoulders; we stand on their shoulders.

I also want to acknowledge the role that our party and particularly women in the NDP have played in getting us to this point. Olivia Chow, the former MP for Trinity—Spadina is a child care champion. Her private member's bill, Bill C-373, laid out a foundation for an affordable, accessible and high-quality national child care system. More recently, my colleague, the member of Parliament for London—Fanshawe, built on these efforts with her Bill C-311.

I am grateful to them both for their work in moving this issue forward and demonstrating what a positive role for the federal government in ensuring that families can have access to child care they need when they need it looks like.

Finally, I wish to thank the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, the member of Parliament for Burlington, and her team for the collaborative approach they have taken with this legislation. The minister sought out our feedback and was receptive to many of our suggestions about what should be included in this legislation.

Although there are still areas where the bill can and should be strengthened, I am delighted that several of our key recommendations did find their way into the current version of the bill. I will address some of these key recommendations in more detail later, but I wanted to take this opportunity to acknowledge how I appreciated, very much, the minister's openness to our feedback.

By establishing a long-term commitment for federal funding to provinces and indigenous peoples and enshrining the principles of a national system of early learning and child care, Bill C-35 would help ensure that parents across Canada can access affordable, accessible and high-quality child care now and into the future.

In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, where the price of almost everything has increased, child care is a rare exception. Parents in many cities across the country are seeing child care savings as significant as 50%, providing real relief to thousands of families. It is vital that the target of $10-a-day child care by 2026 is not only achieved, but sustained for the long term.

I will note, however, that not all cities and provinces have met their fee reduction targets. One province in particular is Manitoba, which has conspicuously lagged behind. This is a topic I will return to later.

Nevertheless, the child care agreements are delivering significant fee reductions for parents from coast to coast. It is important this continues indefinitely, not just for five years until the agreements need to be renewed. Much like our system of universal health care, child care must be a permanent feature of our social safety net.

The commitment to long-term funding is also crucial for advancing gender equality in our country. Child care is a feminist issue. It gives working women the ability to choose when and how they wish to re-enter the workforce after having a child. The Quebec model of low-cost child care offers a powerful example of this. Indeed, Quebec's investment in a universal child care have resulted in women's participation in the workforce increasing by between 8% and 12%.

Not only has this boosted Quebec's economy, it has improved the financial security of women. It means a greater portion of household income is now under the control of women, which gives them more security in the case of separation, including in cases where they need to leave an abusive relationship. This is what feminist public policy looks like.

I often hear members of Parliament sharing stories about the struggling single parent mother trying to make ends meet. In fact, the member for Carleton, now the Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, often invokes the experiences of single moms in Parliament.

I can be certain that he has never been a single mother. If he had been, maybe he would not be so quick to oppose a national health care program, which will help thousands of single moms and children across the country have a better life.

I, in fact, was a single mom. I was very fortunate at the time to have stable employment teaching in post-secondary education. However, even on an academic salary, I often had difficulty making ends meet, paying up to $650 a month in child care expenses. This resulted in me having to take on more employment, which resulted in my having less time with my precious son. I have lasting mother's guilt about having to leave him so I could provide for him.

I am lucky to have such a wonderful son, whom I adore. Looking back, maybe if there had been a national child care program at the time, our life might have looked much different. I was exhausted, and my son missed his mother.

More affordable child care, let alone $10-a-day child care, would have changed my life and my son's life. Therefore, for any member of the House who uses the story of struggling single mothers for political gain without having been one themselves, they should vote in favour of the bill and support a system of national child care now.

Returning to the bill, beyond the long-term funding commitment, Bill C-35 contains other important provisions we pushed for and managed to have incorporated into the bill.

First is the inclusion of international human rights conventions and declarations that enshrine access to child care as a human right.

Preambular paragraph 3 affirms a commitment to further realization of the right to child care as recognized in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is something for which child care advocates have long demanded and for which the NDP have fought. Preambular paragraph 3 also affirms the commitment to furthering the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and contains important references to other international conventions, including the UN Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities and the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.

An other inclusion for which the NDP fought for was that rights-based language be included in the bill. I am pleased that this has been included.

Second and highly significant is that Bill C-35 would explicit priority to child care programs and services offered by public and not-for-profit providers as one of the principles guiding federal funding. This is a provision fought for and won by the NDP. It is is a win for parents because public and non-profit child care means affordable, quality and accessible day care for families that need it rather than day cares that make a profit off of the backs of parents.

We also know that an emphasis on public and non-profit child care means better wages and working conditions for staff in the system. Study after study, union after union have heeded these calls for a public not-for-profit child care system.

Those in the House who say they stand with workers then they need to stand with a public, non-profit child care system. Taking care of our kids should not be on the backs of parents. Kids are not a business. The focus should be on providing the best possible care at a price that parents can afford, not delivering a profit for shareholders.

While all of what I describe represents an important step forward, as I mentioned previously, there are areas where this bill can and should be improved. One of the improvements required is adding an explicit commitment to decent work for child care staff.

At this point, I will digress briefly to say that I was once, as many people know in the House, an early childhood educator. If someone had told me all those years ago that I would be in this place debating national child care legislation, I would not have believed that person.

Workers are at the heart and soul of a national child care system. For far too long, child care workers have been grossly underpaid and undervalued in spite of the fact that they perform some of society's most critical work. That is why I left the profession even though I loved the kids who I was teaching everyday. I loved the work but I could not afford to continue in a profession that did not pay a living wage or provide good benefits.

A national child care program will only be successful and sustainable if the workers who make it possible are treated with dignity and paid fairly for their labour. That is why I support the Canadian Labour Congress' call for the legislation to include a clear commitment to decent work for child care staff. All child care workers deserve to earn a living wage with benefits with which they can support their families.

As an aside, it is also vital for the federal government to develop a workforce strategy to address staffing shortages in the sector. When we talk about creating new spaces, the building is not the most important element. It is having trained staff to look after the kids in these new child care spaces, a workforce strategy that can help ensure we are continuously expanding child care options where the demand is greatest.

The bill can also be strengthened with respect to the accountability and transparency it provides. While the creation of a national advisory council is welcome in terms of the expert advice that it will provide, it does not have the enforcement power to ensure that the provisions set out in Bill C-35 are followed. It is important for the bill to include strong accountability mechanisms so that the commitments it contains are upheld.

The reporting requirements on the progress being made in establishing national child care and federal investments in this sector lack detail, stating only that the minister is required to make an annual report. This is too vague and the bill should specify the specific metrics, including new spaces being built, new child care workers being hired and other quantitative details. It is vital that members of the public and Parliament have access to this crucial information.

It should also establish conditions on federal child care funding, real accountability for when provinces fail to deliver on fee reductions or expanding public, not-for-profit care.

I am deeply concerned that Manitoba is the only province where we have not seen an average reduction in fees. Instead, the government has made changes to who is eligible for the subsidy. This is unacceptable. Also concerning is the Ontario government's decision to remove profit caps, paving the way for an expansion of for-profit care.

I know the government has said there are accountability mechanisms built into the bilateral agreements, but they are either inadequate, not being properly enforced, or both.

I am also aware that Bill C-35 does not supersede the bilateral agreements, which are legally binding, so we cannot impose new terms on top of these existing agreements. However, I am hoping the bill could be amended to provide stronger conditions that would apply on an ongoing basis, or on a going forward basis, to future agreements after the current ones expire, five years from when they are concluded. Right now, the bill says nothing about how future agreements would be enforced to ensure accountability for the funding. This is a notable gap that we should address.

While there are more opportunities to weigh in on the bill at committee and in the chamber, I want to conclude by again acknowledging the gravity of what we are discussing today. We have progressed from being a country where child care was seen as the sole responsibility of mothers, unpaid labour with which our society could not function, to a country where child care is not just an individual responsibility but a collective one. We have progressed to being a country where we will finally have national legislation underpinning a national system of child care in every province and territory.

After years of false starts and broken promises, that is something we can all take pride in. To the women, the workers and the advocates who have helped make this dream a reality, I say their tenacious efforts have made our country fairer, more just and more inclusive.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre for the really positive and constructive working relationship we have developed over the past year. I also want to thank her colleagues in the NDP for their support of this legislation. I have great confidence in what we are going to be able to achieve with this for Canadians right across the country.

I also want to thank her for recognizing the advocates and those who have worked for generations to get us to where we are today. I am hoping she can take a couple of minutes to explain to our Conservative colleagues why a national child care initiative supports women and children, and why this is really important progressive feminist policy.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, certainly I am willing to work with any party in the House that is willing to advance the human rights of children and women. Human rights should never be made a partisan issue. This has certainly been recognized by child care advocates who support feminist policy in advancing the rights of women.

One cannot support women without a robust public and not-for-profit child care system. This has been recognized by unions and lead child advocacy groups in the country, who know that for-profit care hurts families, is paid for on the backs of families and mothers, and is not to the benefit of workers. I look forward to advancing this bill, putting forward some amendments to make it stronger and supporting more feminist policy in Canada with a national child care program.

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

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, I really enjoy working with the member on FEWO.

Does the member believe that, regardless of the model of operation, if a child care facility meets or exceeds the provincial, territorial and indigenous standards of quality of care, that it should have access to the national child care framework? If not, what data suggests otherwise?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think that public money should ever be used for profit. Public monies need to be used for not-for-profit, public child care spaces.

We know the research shows that in early childhood education for-profit care often makes profit on the backs of children. We have certainly seen this in elder care, in private seniors' homes. We have also seen this in for-profit child care.

We need a national child care strategy that supports the training of workers; supports without question a living wage of workers, with benefits; supports families; and expands our current system so we end up with a national child care system that has enough spaces to support the families needing it.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent speech. For once, I am very pleased to be able to utterly and completely support a speech by one of my colleagues from the NDP.

I would like to offer a solution to allow us to work together better in future.

The bill before us includes an exemption for Quebec, which already has its own system. Over the past three years, there has been more than one occasion when I have shared essentially the same ideologies as my NDP colleagues, but ultimately had to vote the other way because there is always this centralizing tendency in national programs.

I would like my colleague to respond sincerely, from the heart. Does she not believe that we have found a model that could be used more often? We could work like this more often to advance the causes of Quebec and Canada.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member has a good question. I want to reiterate that the federal government has made bilateral agreements with provinces.

We are pushing for bilateral agreements with provinces that prioritize not-for-profit public spaces. This is something that Quebec is actually already doing. Quebec has been doing this for a million years. We know that it helps women. We know that it has improved the ability of women to participate in the workforce, should they choose. I think that is already in the bill. Again, there are areas where it could be improved.

However, I think we are on the same page in saying to let us keep child care public so we can support accessible, affordable child care for all.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to compliment the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre on her speech. Something I did not know we had in common is that we are both single mothers, and we had to manage that challenge without affordable child care. I was very blessed to be able to manage it well, and I have a fantastic 31-year-old daughter. The member and I share that.

I want to ask the hon. member this, and I promise, from my heart, that this is not intended to be partisan.

If it were not for the perverse first-past-the-post system, I do not believe for a minute that, in the fall of 2005, we would have had the Conservatives, backed by the Bloc and the NDP, bring down the minority government of Paul Martin. It had a Kyoto plan that would have worked, child care agreements signed by every single province, and the Kelowna accord, which are things we all care about. Only because of the use of the strategy that the first-past-the-post system would eventually deliver a majority government with a minority of votes, did we see the loss of those things that could have provided child care back in 2005.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and her compliments to the former finance minister, I want to let her know that indigenous people are still reeling from his cuts to indigenous programs, and when she is talking about Kelowna, with a 2% cap, would have only amounted to a few hundred dollars per nation.

We are here now. We have a national child care strategy, an initiative that has always been led by the NDP. I was very happy to work with the minister in a non-partisan way to advance these human rights and, like I said, I will work with any party in the House, and any member of Parliament in the House, to advance human rights.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start off by thanking the NDP and the member for all of their work on this issue. I know that it is a bill that is important to many on the benches in her party.

I did not get a chance to hear all of her speech prior to question period, and I wanted to know a little about how she feels this would benefit women in her riding and across Canada.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think it goes beyond me. National child care advocates, unions and families have pushed for a not-for-profit public child care system, something that the NDP fought for and managed to get in the bill.

We know that the government cannot be a feminist government, and one cannot support feminist policy, without supporting a robust national child care program that is not-for-profit and public.

I am very happy. I know that the bill is not perfect. I look forward to working with the members across the way and all members of the House to strengthen the bill, so that we can truly lift families up and provide children with the care that they so deserve.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been here many years. We have gone through many debates on this, and I thank my colleague for her leadership on this.

I remember Conservatives standing in the House and saying that this was some kind of a city issue. I represent people in rural country where a husband may have to be on the road, travelling, trucking, working the drills, and the mother is working. The idea that this is somehow some kind of rural-urban divide is a falsehood.

The impact on rural women who have to work, who have to raise their families, often without support, is a serious issue.

I want to ask my colleague her sense of what we need to do to make sure that this plan represents women across the country, and that they are not being marginalized because they are from rural areas or urban areas, the way that the Conservatives like to do to try to divide people.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very thankful that the legislation being put forward is rooted in human rights, including advancing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which includes the right for children to access accessible and affordable child care grounded in culture, tradition and language.

That is absolutely a rural issue. I know many indigenous communities do not even have early child care services. The bill certainly focuses on that, and I look forward to working with the minister to improve that.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Oakville North—Burlington.

I am so excited to be talking about child care and Bill C-35 today. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, it gives me great pleasure to rise to speak in support of this proposed legislation.

Simply put, affordable and inclusive child care is good for parents, good for children, good for women, good for families and good for the economy. It would reinforce the federal government’s long-term commitment to families from coast to coast to coast. We are working to build a system that will remain in place long into the future, so generations of children in Canada can get the best possible start in life.

Affordable child care is yet another way our government is demonstrating that we are here to support Canadians. We understand how hard life is for Canadians now and has been through the pandemic. That is why we have put forward significant benefits to help Canadians beyond affordable child care. Whether it is through the Canada child benefit, the Canada dental benefit, the doubling of the GST tax credit, the Canada housing benefit or an increase to the Canada workers benefit, we are there for Canadians.

The purpose of Bill C-35 is to enshrine the principles of a Canada-wide child care system into law. It is a system that will ensure families in Canada have access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care, and it is critical in supporting the goals of the early learning and child care agreements between the Government of Canada and provincial and territorial Governments that have been signed from coast to coast to coast.

It also supports the vision, principles and goals of the indigenous early learning and child care framework, which was co-developed with indigenous peoples and jointly released by the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council in 2018. In addition to the principles set out in the co-developed indigenous early learning and child care framework, it would continue to guide federal action with respect to early learning and child care programs and services for indigenous children, regardless of where they live.

I would like to focus for a moment on the development of the indigenous early learning and child care framework, which was first introduced in 2018, after being co-developed through an extensive nationwide engagement.

We know that culturally appropriate early learning and child care, designed by and with indigenous peoples, gives indigenous children the best start in life. The member for Winnipeg Centre has worked closely with us to ensure that those principles remain in place.

The indigenous early learning and child care framework, and the collaborative work to implement it over time, responds to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 12, which calls for all levels of government to work together “to develop culturally appropriate early childhood education programs for [indigenous] families.”

Guided by the indigenous early learning and child care framework, we made it clear that this legislation will respect and uphold indigenous rights, including treaty rights and the right to self-determination, as well as the Government of Canada’s commitment to reconciliation. The goal is to support indigenous nations, communities, organizations and governments in meeting the unique needs of their communities, families and children now, and seven generations forward.

We are investing an additional $2.5 billion over five years and $542 million annually ongoing in federal funding to get this work done. This funding will increase access to high-quality, culturally appropriate ELCC programs and services for indigenous children through indigenous-led governance. Indigenous governments are also working alongside provinces and territories to ensure ELCC is comprehensive and coordinated so all children are benefiting, regardless of where they live.

Since 2019, a total of 32 quality-improvement projects have been funded. These will continue to advance the implementation of the indigenous ELCC framework through best practices and innovation. These improvements will strengthen indigenous-centred knowledge and expertise to support all partners working toward a strong, culturally appropriate system of early learning and child care.

We have said many times that high-quality, affordable, and inclusive child care is not a luxury for families. It is a necessity. All caregivers should have the opportunity to build both a family and a career, and all children should have the best possible start in life.

As I mentioned previously, this legislation would not impose any conditions or requirements on provincial and territorial governments, or indigenous peoples.

It respects first nations, Inuit and Métis rights, and supports control of the design, delivery and administration of early learning and child care programs and services that reflect their needs, priorities and aspirations. However, the federal government has a role to play in setting federal principles and supporting provinces, territories and indigenous peoples in their efforts to establish and maintain a Canada-wide system. Indigenous peoples will benefit from a federal commitment to sustained and ongoing funding.

As a government, we will invest up to $30 billion over five years to make early learning and child care affordable, accessible and nationwide. Combined with previous investments announced since 2015, a minimum of $9.2 billion per year ongoing will be invested in child care, including indigenous early learning and child care, starting in 2025-26.

Thanks to these investment, fees for regulated child care have been reduced in every jurisdiction in Canada. Quebec and Yukon were already providing regulated child care for $10 a day or less before our Canada-wide investments. In December 2022, Nunavut joined them by being the first jurisdiction to lower fees for regulated child care to $10 a day under the Canada-wide system.

By 2025-26, the average fee for all regulated spaces across Canada will be $10 a day, and that is great news for families. Child care fees in Newfoundland and Labrador have already been reduced to $15 a day, down from $25 a day in 2021. These are not just numbers. These are families saving hundreds of dollars each month across the country.

Regardless of political stripe, governments across Canada believe in giving all children in Canada the best possible start in life, and that we can agree on. The relief this offers parents and caregivers of young children cannot be overstated.

I will conclude by offering some outside assessments of nation-wide ELCC.

Charles St-Arnaud, chief economist at Alberta Central, said, “Women feel more confident going back into the workforce because they won’t be spending their whole paycheque on child care”.

Martha Friendly, a board member at Child Care Now, said, “Some women had to stay home because either they couldn’t find a space or they couldn’t afford it. Now, people are getting child care at 50 per cent reduced fees on average and that means [they] can go back to work.”

The Financial Post, on December 5, noted that our child care policy has been a success. It said, “government policy has played a role in getting women back in the workforce...especially when it comes to child care.” Again, St-Arnaud said, “Women feel more confident going back into the workforce because they won't be spending their whole paycheque on child care”.

Families are benefiting, children are benefiting, and I encourage every member of this House to support child care across this country through Bill C-35 and its swift passage.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the previous speaker and I thank her very much for bringing forward and talking about the importance of child care. As a mother, I know how important it was when I had my five children and needed that care. The biggest challenge I had was finding child care. We have talked about these proposals, but just last week, I spoke to a young woman who was coming back to work after maternity leave. She cannot find child care.

What is the government going to do about the lack of spaces? As the population increases, it is even more important to be building more spaces. I do not see the commitment to the number of spaces that are actually needed to make sure that children do have this care the Liberals are referring to.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a single mom who arrived back in Canada in the early 2000s with an infant child, I know the fear of not having a space. I was that mom who did not know about wait-lists when I arrived from overseas. I had to actually put my career off for close to a year until there was a space available.

That is why, through each of our agreements, the total number of spaces that we have committed to creating with provinces is over 253,000. Already, as of January 30, 2023, 50,633 of those spaces have been committed to being built. I was in Manitoba a couple of months ago, where there was a joint commitment of 1,200 rural spaces in a joint planned agreement between Peguis and other rural communities to create spaces. We are getting there.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague from York Centre's speech. I am glad the federal government recognizes the importance of the child care system. We all know Quebec pioneered it over 25 years ago—not 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago, but 25.

It is a good thing the federal government is now recognizing, in 2023, the importance of having a child care system. What I am wondering, however, is how the federal government can do better than Quebec has been doing, given that Quebec created its child care system 25 years ago and has been running it ever since?

My colleague from York Centre said there are no obligations in this bill. That is not true. There are obligations for the next five years only. Plus, there is no way for the Government of Quebec to opt out with full compensation.

I have two questions for my colleague. First, does she think Quebec should have the right to opt out with full compensation because it has its own child care system already? Second, can the federal government do better than Quebec, which has been operating its own child care system for 25 years now?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have been very clear throughout this process, with each of the agreements we have signed with the provinces and territories, that we are not here to overstep on jurisdiction and that we are not here to intervene. We are here to support existing systems that are in play.

The member across the way is correct that Quebec is the model. I know stories of families that moved to Montreal, to Quebec, when child care became available. Finally, we have a nationwide system, the aspiration and the desire. This is what this legislation is about. It is about really ensuring, for the next generations to come, that the model, and Quebec led the way in this model, stays in place.

We have also committed to continue that funding for Quebec for the spaces and the system it has created. I enjoyed being in Sainte-Justine not that long ago to speak to the experts who built out this system and the benefits of it. The member can be assured that it will continue.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy we are talking about this today. My own experience as a single parent is that I was working at a minimum wage trying to make ends meet and still, despite provincial subsidies, was unable to afford child care. My daughter is turning 20 on February 2 and my son is 15. This has been going on for generations and so many families are impacted by unaffordable and inaccessible child care.

We can celebrate that this is moving in the right direction, but we also need to look at why it has taken so many generations for us to get to where we are today and to finally be implementing child care.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the simple answer to my colleague is political will. That was the question I asked my colleagues in Quebec when I went to see 25 years of care. I asked, “How did you get it?” They said it was the political will and women. Women had been demanding this for over 50 years. We are here to tell them and to tell educators, families and children that it has arrived and it will continue.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, it truly is my pleasure to be speaking today about this transformative legislation. A year and a half ago, the first Canada-wide early learning and child care agreement was signed with the province of B.C., and today the federal government has signed agreements with all provinces and territories.

Making the Canada-wide early learning and child care system a reality is a momentous accomplishment. Too many families, for too long, have lacked access to affordable, high-quality and inclusive early learning and child care. Child care is a necessity and there is no question that it helps children in the long term. Early childhood educators set children up for success. They educate and build confidence in children, setting them on a path to success in school and life. This helps families thrive. That is why building a Canada-wide system matters. Most of us know that child care is expensive. Child care fees have placed a massive strain on the budgets of many families.

More than half a century ago, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada called on the federal government to immediately begin working with provinces and territories to establish a national day care plan. We came close to achieving a national plan under former prime minister Martin, but it was dismantled by the Conservative government of Stephen Harper when it took office in 2006.

When I was vice-chair of the status of women committee in our study on the economic security of women, the number one issue we heard that was holding women back economically was access to affordable, quality child care. I'll quote from our report:

The lack of access to high-quality affordable childcare was identified as a significant barrier to women's economic security because women bear a disproportionate responsibility, compared to men, for the unpaid care of children. Witnesses spoke of societal expectations and workplace culture that assumes women are the primary caregivers for their children at home and that women be responsible for arranging childcare if they want to work.

The Committee heard that the provision of accessible, affordable childcare is a key element in promoting women's labour force attachment. Lack of access to childcare limits women's ability to seek education and training, limits women's opportunities to re-enter the workforce, hurts their ability to achieve professional goals, and leads many women to seek part-time and precarious employment.

Generations of Canadians have waited for their government to answer the call. Making the Canada-wide system a reality means we can now relieve some of the stress felt by families from coast to coast to coast.

When my son was born, it was tough financially. Back then, I got only three months' maternity leave, and when it was time to go back to work it was a tough decision. I almost did not go back, but thanks to a very generous boss I was able to. My son, Fraser, went to a terrific day care run by the Canadian Mothercraft society in downtown Toronto, in the newly opened BCE Place. It was an awesome day care, but no doubt about it, it was expensive. I do not know how families made it work financially with more than one child.

With the introduction of Bill C-35, families in Canada do not have to endure the hardship of finding affordable and inclusive high-quality child care. This is our government's commitment to maintain long-term federal funding for provinces and territories. All provinces and territories have already seen child care fees significantly reduced, and we are on track to achieve our goal of an average $10-a-day regulated early learning and child care by March 2026.

The Canada-wide early learning and child care system and this bill are the result of significant collaboration with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples. Since 2017, we have worked with our provincial and territorial partners to establish the multilateral early learning and child care, or ELCC, framework that sets out the long-term vision for child care in Canada. We negotiated bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories to increase access to child care across the country. We co-developed an indigenous ELCC framework that reflects the unique cultures, aspirations and needs of first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families across Canada, which was endorsed by and jointly released with the Assembly of First Nations, ITK, and the Métis National Council in 2018.

This proposed bill respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction, and respects and upholds indigenous rights, including the right to self-determination. We are not imposing any conditions or requirements on provincial and territorial governments, nor on indigenous peoples.

With this legislation, we would enshrine into law the federal government's continued commitment to working collaboratively with and supporting provincial, territorial and indigenous partners in their efforts to establish and maintain a Canada-wide system of early learning and child care. The national advisory council, which would be enshrined in the legislation, would provide advice to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development on this important work.

Combined with other commitments, we are investing up to $30 billion over five years to make first-class early learning and child care affordable and accessible, and we are committed to continuing to work with our partners as the system matures and evolves. Our goal is simple and clear: We want to give children across the country, wherever they live, the best possible start in life.

From the beginning of the process, the Government of Canada has maintained that early childhood educators are key to the success of a high-quality early learning and child care system and deserve to have their work valued. We know our early childhood educators are dedicated and professional people. It is in all our best interest that we give early childhood educators and those contemplating a career in early childhood education the necessary incentives to support their growth and professional development. Early childhood educators are a pivotal part of the Canada-wide system. They deserve more for the critical work that they do with our children.

This legislation is not just about making life more affordable. All parents should have the opportunity to build both a family and a career. Parents, and especially mothers, have too often been denied the support they need to finish their education, participate in training, open businesses and maintain good jobs to provide for their families. Now parents would not have to choose between raising a family and having a career.

It is not simply a matter of being able to go out to work. It is also about the impact it has on women's careers and their ability to be entrepreneurs, as well as on their long-term earning capability. The longer that parents, especially moms, are out of the workforce, the harder it is for them to get back in and advance in a career with all the social and economic benefits that that brings.

Affordable high-quality child care is a feminist economic policy and a smart economic policy that would increase Canada's GDP by 1.2%, allowing for more women to return to the workforce. McKinsey Global Institute estimates that boosting women's participation in the workforce could add $150 billion to Canada's economy by 2026.

I remember crying tears of joy when the Minister of Finance announced a national child care plan in budget 2021 because I knew how transformational it would be. I remembered the financial challenges of child care 33 years ago and the challenging decision of whether to return to work being based solely on finances. As I knocked on doors in the 2021 election, I was concerned that the Conservative Party members had said that, if they were elected, they would scrap universal child care, which would have been absolutely devastating for families in Canada.

I am now a proud grandmother of the most perfect little boy. He started day care in November and is thriving there. His parents waited anxiously for a deal with the Province of Ontario to ensure their child care costs would be affordable for them. Needless to say, our family was overjoyed when the deal was signed and their child care costs have already been reduced by 50%, which means that wee Cameron is able to grow and learn at his day care, and his mom and dad can both work in meaningful employment.

With this bill, all of us in the House have the chance to do something that is going to make a difference for generations to come. It is my hope that we can swiftly pass this bill to ensure the longevity of the Canada-wide system, which would help all of Canada access high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, my concern with this bill is this: As a young widow, I had two young children, and I had no choice but to work to ensure they had a home to live in and food on the table. However, unfortunately I did not have the type of job that was nine to five, so I had difficulties finding a day care that was open as early as six o'clock in the morning, and some nights as late as 10 o'clock at night.

How does this bill address the needs of women in my previous profession to accommodate the opportunity for them to have $10-a-day child care?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's question is a very good one. Depending on what career women have, it may be difficult to access child care. That is why we are making investments and working with the provinces and territories to find ways that we can expand child care to make it affordable and accessible for people, regardless of the career that they have.

Certainly, for those who are working in a lot of emergency services where there is a lack of child care options for women, or in careers that require people to work late into the night or to travel, it can be a challenge. It is something we are cognizant of, and we are working with our partners to ensure that our child care program would meet the needs of all women.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear about this child care model, which originated in Quebec. The early childhood centre model, or CPE, was created by Pauline Marois.

Quebec is a trailblazer. Members spoke about atypical working hours and that CPEs in Quebec already offer services outside of the usual hours of day care centres. These centres offer services to women who do not necessarily work during the day. Quebec is already providing these services. This is a system proper to Quebec and it is unique.

My fear is that in five years we will find ourselves in negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa and that this will delay money being sent to Quebec with no conditions. There is a five-year timeline, but what will happen in five years so that Quebec can continue to receive the money, so that we can continue to develop the system that we have created?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will give a shout-out to the Quebec model, which was a model we referred to when we were doing our study at the status of women committee.

I do not have a crystal ball to see five years into the future, but I would say that this legislation is so important because it would put into law the federal government's commitment to continue to support all provinces and territories, and indigenous partners. I would add that Quebec was one of the early signatories to an agreement with the federal government on the program we have implemented.

I cannot see into the future, but I would say that this legislation is an important piece of ensuring there will be funding moving forward in five years' time.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very excited today to rise in the House to discuss the bill. I had put forward Bill C-311, which is a lot of the base, I would like to think, of the present bill. I worked off of the work of many other members of Parliament, such as New Democrat women like Denise Savoie and Olivia Chow, to name a couple.

However, part of my bill, I would like to specify here, is about the workers within the child care system, these incredible people, who are often women. Some strengthening needs to happen within the bill for training and professional development, and to ensure their hours of work are protected. A lot of the unions within this field have called for that, so I would like to hear the hon. member talk about that.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member makes a very valid point, and I hope she will bring it up when the bill goes to committee. It is certainly something that is valid to be speaking about at committee and as the bill makes its way through the legislative process.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the bill before us, and I will be sharing my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

I recall when the national child care strategy was first discussed in 1993 because at that time I was pregnant with my first child. He is now the father of four children, so obviously we are still having this discussion. I recall back in 1994 putting my child on a wait-list.

Back in 1994 was the first time that I put my child on a wait-list for a child care space, which was not necessarily publicly funded, in the city of London. I was a brand new mother, 23 years old, with a job, and I was probably making between eight and nine dollars an hour working as a dental assistant. I knew that child care was going to be very critical for me to go back to work because my spouse and I were not making a lot of money and we did want to get ahead. We had student loans. We had bills we wanted to pay, and we did have a car. Therefore, it was very important, even back then, that we were both working at that, although not necessarily full time.

Now, in 2023, we are continuing to have the conversation on child care and what it looks like. As the government is putting forward this piece of legislation, I will reflect on the work I have done in Parliament as we have discussed child care and the discussions I have had with parents.

During my role from 2015 to 2019, I had the honour to work with families, children and social development, and look at the different things that we are discussing, especially child care. I recall, I believe it was in the 2016 budget, when the Canada child benefit was increased quite a bit so that it could include child care. However, we all know that today, with the exorbitant cost for families, the new child benefit does not even touch what this country is going through with inflationary costs. Although it was a program that was very important to do, I do not think the government was actually going in the right direction when it comes to the fact that it cannot keep its spending under control.

When we get to where we are today, we are talking about child care, and we need to talk about those spaces. I just had a young woman call me last week who could not return to work because she could not find a child care space. Her question to me was, “Can I get my employment insurance expanded?” She said that she needed to go to back to work. She cannot afford what is going on right now. She cannot afford her home. She cannot afford the price of groceries. She cannot afford life at this time, and she needs to go back to work because her EI maternity and parental benefits have run out.

I could not believe that I had to say to her, “I am really sorry.” I know that she has been trying for the last year to find a child care space as her child was just born, but there is not a space for that child. This is where we talk about looking at these programs and making sure that we have enough spaces.

I also recall back in 2018 one of the greatest challenges they were having in Langley, B.C. I was doing a tour there and I was at the YMCA, which was paying its child care providers $22 an hour. Now, I see in this piece of legislation talk about averages that people must make, but we have to also understand that $22 an hour in Langley, B.C. cannot keep a child care provider because of the cost of living is so outrageous. This is where we really need to focus on the labour market. We really need to focus on the cost of living. We really need to ask what is going on here.

This occupation is heavily oriented towards women. Many women choose to be child care providers. Many women also choose to educate small children, those in kindergarten through to grade eight, because of their love of children and wanting to be part of that. However, we are not getting to where we need to be because these child care spaces are not available.

In Langley, B.C. when a person making $22 an hour cannot afford to work in that profession, they are going to find another profession, which is what we have seen. We have seen an exodus from professions that may be lower paying. It is good that we are seeing a bit of an increase, but at the same time I am wondering what we are going to do to sustain this type of program, because the business model does not work when we look at this.

That is why I want to bring in the discussion of entrepreneurs, women entrepreneurs.

I like to have kids, it seems. Between my second and third child, I decided to stay home and bring in three other children. I did my very best because I am the type of person who wants to make sure that we are having the right food, that we are having the right playtimes and that we are doing some educational pieces. That was very important to me. I was able to offer child care to mothers who did not have regular work schedules, people who were working in restaurants, people who were not working a regular nine-to-five job. That is why I believe it is so important that we not only look at the public and not-for-profit but that we look at these women-led businesses that are providing child care.

The whole idea of not-for-profit seems to be the problem here. It is a business, and we should be supporting this, because even CUPE has come out and said that there will not be enough spaces if we are putting all of our eggs into one basket and expecting it to be not-for-profit or publicly funded. There needs to be space for this private care.

I also bring this up because I am a girl from Sparta, population 300. If my parents, or any family in Sparta, needed to take their child to child care, it would be a 25-minute drive. That is why we need flexibility for families.

For instance, a young woman, or a new mom, which was my case, may choose to become a child care provider within her own home. That would be seen, perhaps, as private. That is a job. The way I look at it is that it is a job and it is a way for the woman and the family to have more flexibility. She is helping out other women and helping out herself in the meantime.

When we are looking at a program that is really focused at a national scale, we need to recognize that we live in Canada. We live in a country where it is hard for us to get to Ottawa some days. It is hard for us to get to the grocery store on certain days.

When we are talking about that, I live in a very populated place, St. Thomas. I live with about 45,000 other people in my community. If we are talking about smaller populations, how are we going to ensure that they are having the same accessible, quality child care that people in urban centres are going to have? How are we ensuring that this is going to happen? How are we ensuring that every family has access to $10-a-day child care?

Let us be real and say that this is not the way it is going to work out perfectly. Yes, we need to ensure that there is child care, because child care helps our economy. It puts families and women back to work and it gives them that opportunity. For me, child care was very important, but I did not do it with public child care. It was not an option. There were no spaces. I did it through not-for-profit and through women entrepreneur-based businesses, where women were able to do this.

I am really hoping that when the government looks at this legislation, it is very focused on these types of businesses. I really hope that it recognizes that we need to be looking at all types of child care when we are looking at this. There are approximately five different types of child care that we have here in Ontario. We need to make sure that all of those are on the plate and that all of those are part of that basket, if we really want to have something available for families and children.

Before I finish, I want to switch to labour, because, as we have said, labour is an issue. I have talked about the cost of living. I have talked about how it was $22 an hour, in 2018, to be a child care provider out in Langley, B.C.

We are at a critical issue. Just as we are seeing in our health care professions and just as we are seeing with many of our frontline workers, we are seeing burnout. I must say that the people who are working in child care are doing an exceptional job, but there is burnout as well. We need to ensure that there are supports for them and that there is education for them.

However, there is a labour market issue here right now that is not going to help fulfill what the government is putting forward, and that is why we need to look at everything else. We need to look at things. PSWs, labour force issues, this is what we are seeing from the government, because people cannot afford to have certain types of jobs so people are leaving those types of jobs, which are really important. They are leaving those jobs to try to find higher-earning jobs because the government does not really have that love for jobs. Many people who are working in ECE are doing it because they love children.

I do not think the government recognizes that it should not just be one way. We should make sure that child care is accessible for all.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her speech and for her advocacy with respect to child care in general. However, I do have some concerns with some of the comments, especially when she said that the focus on non-profit child care is the problem here.

My deep concern is this. What I have heard from the Conservatives, both the Doug Ford provincial Conservatives and those here in this chamber, is that they want to put public funds into what should be non-profit supports. When it comes to child care, we know that the Ontario Conservative government has quietly removed profit caps and is expanding for-profit child care. This is very concerning to me. We also know that Doug Ford is putting our public health care funding into privatized systems.

I am curious if the member believes that we should be prioritizing for-profit instead of non-profit care?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, perhaps the member did not listen to me, because I said we need the entire bouquet, the entire plate of different options, because not-for-profit and public just do not meet the need. Rather than making this political, rather than calling Conservatives out, rather than talking about what we have done, let us talk about the children first here, because it is the children who are missing out in all of this political crap that people are talking about. That is where we are going here.

I listened to the question. It was a political attack. It was not about children. If we are talking about for-profit versus this, what we need is a system that works for parents. It is not just one type; it needs to be all of these different systems working together to ensure that we have child care across this nation.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way knows well that I am happy to talk about child care all day long.

Bill C-35 is really legislation that encompasses the agreements that have already been put in place. If we look province by province, much work was done to identify and register a wide array of child care. While, yes, there are caps on private, there is private child care that has been grandfathered in Ontario, but the idea is to create more spaces, because the market demand for spaces is there. Each province gave us a list of how many spaces it needs, and the partnership with the federal government is to commit the funds to build those spaces. I was just in Manitoba announcing $70 million for rural spaces.

I would ask the member this. Does she not understand that this is really a set of agreements under this legislation so that we continue to work together with provinces and families?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the member hit the nail on the head when talking about needing agreements with the provinces, because at the end of the day the people who are providing child care are the provinces. The federal government is supposed to be there trying to create a strategy, an approach to this. I think as we are talking about this we are so keyed in on “This is what we are trying to do.” It does not work. One type of thing just does not work for everybody. We need to make these agreements, but 67% of child care in the province of Alberta is done by entrepreneurs. It is not public and it is not not-for-profit, because that is what works in that area. Therefore, when we are talking about this, I am really hoping the government understands that spaces and private can still work together very well.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague so much for her passion and work on this file. She understands it so well and the choice that needs to be offered.

My question for her is this. Does she feel that this legislation should be eligible for the most vulnerable? Right now it is subsidizing wealthy families instead of those that are most vulnerable.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I forgot about that part of my speech. Absolutely, for me it has to be for those people who really need a hand up. That is what the government should be doing, giving a hand up. Making it so that millionaires can take the spaces of the people who are trying to get into the workforce should not be happening. Absolutely, it should be income-tested for sure.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking and congratulating my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London on her speech. I also want to thank our shadow minister for families, children and social development, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, for the excellent and extremely important work she has done on this file.

Over the next few minutes, I will have the chance to talk about the reality facing Canadian families. I wanted to speak to Bill C-35 because my wife has been working in child care centres in Quebec for many years now, so she is very familiar with the system. She witnessed its creation. Unfortunately, she has also witnessed the deterioration in services over the last few years. I think it is important to share her experience of this public system, which has existed in Quebec for over 20 years.

It is important to identify the flaws in the system, to recognize that there are still problems and look at how this Parliament can work to improve the child care situation across the country and in every province. It is also important not to put all our eggs in one basket, as Quebec has done in recent years. This would allow more families, more single mothers and fathers, more people to have access to appropriate child care across Canada.

Let us talk about the current reality for Canadian families. The cost of living has skyrocketed. We are facing interest rates that are making it harder and harder for young families to access home ownership. Food prices went up nearly 12% in just a year. That far outstrips the rise in inflation. We hear that many women would like to go back to work, especially young women who just had their first child. Young women who still do not have access to a child care system could be on a waiting list for several months, even a year.

In Quebec, in particular, when a person no longer has access to parental benefits, they may have to wait another year before they get a child care spot. It is unacceptable. This prevents many women from going back to work and thriving. More importantly, it also denies children the opportunity to access a public system that could help in their development.

At first, I was against a public child care system like the one that was implemented in Quebec in recent years. However, I must now admit that such a system improves the living conditions of many children. An educational child care system helps children be better prepared for school. Sometimes, these children come from disadvantaged backgrounds and their families do not necessarily have all the tools to help them develop before they go to preschool and kindergarten.

These services are good for children who manage to get into the system. Unfortunately, there are still many children who are unable to do so. Eight years after the Liberals made their promises, they are now introducing a bill that proposes access to that kind of system in the future. Unfortunately, based on what we have seen from the Liberals over the past eight years, we are worried that this bill is all about good intentions and that the results may not be up to par.

The Liberals want to move too quickly. They are grandstanding and trying to win political points. They are implementing a fine program to help families, but once again, they are realizing a little too late that they may not have done their homework properly and that, unfortunately, thousands of children will not have access to child care.

Why will they not have access to child care spaces? First, there is already a shortage of spaces in the system, especially in Quebec, and second, there is a dire shortage of specialized educators, so the centres cannot provide services to these children.

Day cares lack money for food. I was surprised to learn that in some day cares in Quebec, they no longer give meat to young children under the age of five because they cannot afford it. Non-profit centres can no longer afford to buy meat to feed the children. Instead, they serve plant-based proteins in the morning.

All sorts of other products are being used to try to adequately meet people's needs, but meat has been banned in the day care centres because there is not enough money, because everything costs more. There is also a glaring lack of choice. Families would have had the opportunity to access child care services, but unfortunately, Quebec has favoured subsidized non-profit day cares as currently proposed by the federal program. As a result, we find ourselves in a situation where, 25 years later, needs are still not being met.

I have some stats here about children on the waiting list. These numbers are from the Government of Quebec's ministry of families. There are 286,817 spaces in the system according to data from May 31, 2022. Quebec currently has 101,244 children in early learning centres, or facilities. There are 50,444 children in subsidized child care. There are 68,431 children in non-subsidized care, the so-called private day cares. Lastly, there are 66,698 children in home-based child care.

These child care services are offered by women, entrepreneurs who decide to open their own home-based child care service but are part of the network subsidized by the Government of Quebec. These female entrepreneurs are subsidized by Quebec to provide services to children. Unfortunately, this approach will not be allowed in all provinces, which do not all have the same agreement. This means more choice.

The big problem, despite all this and after 25 years, is that there are still 33,829 children waiting for a child care space. Some 30,295 spaces are being created, so there is already a shortfall. There are 2,500 subsidized spaces to be allocated. The facilities have not yet been developed to ensure that young people can access these child care centres or spaces. The number of children with “pending” status is 50,000. After more than 20 years of the public subsidized system, there are still 50,000 children who do not have a child care space. If you multiply that number by one for the number of mothers and by two for the number of parents, it is quite clear that there is a problem with putting all your eggs in one basket and taking just one path forward.

Fortunately, the Quebec government is providing subsidies to stay-at-home mothers who decide to open their own home-based child care. This is a way out. However, we deplore certain aspects of this bill, which is why we have some requests. We will be proposing amendments in committee to allow for more choice and to achieve the ultimate goal of accessible child care for children, and particularly for mothers who need access to a child care system.

We also have concerns about cost. If we cannot even create the number of spaces promised, will the government be able to keep its promise of creating $10-a-day spaces? That is the second big question. Based on past experience and different programs presented and adopted by the Liberal government in the last eight years, there is reason to have doubts and to ask questions.

The government does have an area of expertise that could help Quebec. Quebec is currently trying to fill 18,000 educator positions and the Quebec government would like to recruit abroad to fill these 18,000 positions. I believe that the federal government has a very specific role to play to help address the shortage of child care staff. It must work with the Quebec government and the governments of all the other provinces to expedite the arrival of these educators so that an increasing number of children, families and single parents can access quality child care services.

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

Madam Speaker, in 1997, Quebec's female labour force was four points behind the national average. However, when we look at 2021, with 25 years of good work on a model that is growing and changing, just as the Quebec population is, the women's workforce in Quebec is four points higher than the rest of Canada.

Do you not want to see other provinces and women across this country benefit from a workforce that also works for them?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will remind the hon. parliamentary secretary to address her questions through the Chair and not use the word “you”. Maybe “he” or “she” would be better.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

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

Madam Speaker, for sure I hope that everyone in this country has access to affordable child care services, but I want to give people the choice of which service they prefer and which service they need. In the end, it is better to have spaces for everyone than choosing one system that will not allow everyone to have access to the system.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable. I very much appreciated some of what he had to say.

Under the Canadian Constitution, family policies fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The Bloc Québécois did not make that up. The federal government knows nothing about any of that, but as my colleague mentioned, Quebec has 25 years of experience with its own child care network.

We know that the federal government would like to help with immigration, but, again, the Government of Quebec is petitioning to fully and completely manage its immigration system. Again, we see that the Conservatives' vision and the vision of the Government of Quebec are in opposition. Even my colleague said that he did not really support the creation of our child care services, even though they are internationally renowned.

My colleague forgot to mention the agreement that the former leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Durham, was proposing during the last election campaign. He wanted to cancel the $6‑billion agreement that the Government of Quebec had reached with Ottawa on transfers for the child care network. In total, the Government of Quebec would have lost $6 billion.

I would like my colleague to explain that today. He says he is in favour of child care networks, but his party wants to cancel the transfers to the Government of Quebec. What is the real vision of the Conservative Party?

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

Madam Speaker, he said so many things in such a short amount of time that it will be difficult to answer all of his questions. More importantly, my colleague just said some things that are far from true.

It is true that when the child care system was put in place, I was against it. At the time, I was working as a young politician and I had some serious questions. I would like to remind my colleague that my wife works in the child care system, so I have learned to appreciate its merits since then. I have learned how useful a child care system can be for children and how it can help them as they move into the school system.

I think that children deserve access to child care, and my colleagues agree. Women and families deserve to have access to quality child care that will help them move forward and put them on the right path for the rest of their lives.

However, people need to be able to access the system if they so choose. That is the main problem in Canada right now. This has even been a problem in Quebec over the past 25 years.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I always like hearing more about what is happening with child care in Quebec because we know, when we look across Canada, that families in Quebec have been provided accessible child care, and the positives have been evident for many years. Unfortunately, that has not been the experience in many other provinces and territories.

We know that this is a step in the right direction. We know that there gaps in moving forward, and that is why the New Democrats are pushing for solutions, such as fighting for child care and having explicit commitments for fair wages and working conditions for staff. Those are things we are pushing for.

I am wondering if the member could speak to whether he feels that having this explicitly listed in the bill would help move us in the right direction and address some of the gaps he was identifying.

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

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of gaps that we have to fix in this bill. One is wages and the availability of personnel.

Let us work together to improve the bill. This is not a communication exercise. This is a bill for the future of families and women in this country, so let us work together. We are open to it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Government Priorities; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Health.

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

Madam Speaker, it is such a pleasure to rise and speak to legislation that is very historic in nature. It is not too often that we see a national government taking an initiative as significant as the one we see today. What we are talking about are the core principles of what a national child care program will look like. It is the type of thing that I hope all members of this House will get behind.

Over the summer, I had a wonderful opportunity to visit Stanley Knowles School in the north end of Winnipeg. It has been providing child care and day care for the past 30 years, since its creation. What was special about this particular visit was that the Prime Minister was with me. We had the opportunity first-hand to engage with child care workers and parents, and I think he personally enjoyed being with the children.

We saw creativity around the tables as children would come up and start playing. We saw the interaction taking place between the children and staff. When we are in a child care facility and see it at work, we see a very caring attitude, one that is nurtured by love. They are not the biological parents; they are workers, but we can tell that their heart is in what they are doing.

I could also see that the Prime Minister was thoroughly enjoying the visit. I say that because I know, as we all should, that shortly after the Prime Minister was elected, he made a strong indication as a feminist that he wanted to move forward on important issues for women and others, and child care is an important issue. It does so much to ensure that we get fuller participation in every aspect of our lives.

When we think about what kind of principles there are in child care, we are talking about access, affordability and inclusivity. We are talking about high-quality child care, and that is within this legislation. It is a framework of principles. I believe it does not matter where we go in Canada; we will find support for those principles, and for the first time, we have legislation that is putting them in place. It is setting out that framework.

We have seen the degree to which Canadians have fallen in love with the Canada Health Act and the many benefits that this legislation has brought to every citizen from coast to coast to coast. It was a true, national program, and we can look at the results it has delivered to people today. We love our health care system.

Let me suggest that the principles we are talking about today, even though we are debating them, have been talked about a great deal over the last number of years, virtually from day one when the leader of the Liberal Party became the Prime Minister. We have had a number of ministers raise the issues and have dialogue with provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, child care workers and all forms of stakeholders. They have a vested interest in a topic that all of us should be concerned about.

It is the future. It is for our young ones, the children, that we are enabling, as much as possible, that quality, accessibility, affordability and inclusivity for everyone. It is interesting. When I hear comments coming from across the way, they like to plant the seeds the doubt or to be critical. Let us think in terms of the volume of dollars that are being contributed to this program. It is $30 billion over five years. That is a serious commitment to ensure that not only are we bringing in legislation, but we are also supporting that legislation with tangible dollars.

The legislation we have before us today is not the starting point. Ministers and civil servants have had what I suspect are hundreds of collective meetings in every region of our country, and working with indigenous leaders, to ensure that we are able to accomplish something that has never been done before, and that is an agreement on the principles we are talking about.

It does not matter what province or territory or community Canadians live in, those principles of child care and early learning are going to be there. That is something I know and am absolutely confident of, because I have had discussions with colleagues in our Liberal caucus who are very passionate about this, and for good reason. We understand and appreciate the true value of the legislation.

There is a place we could go to see the degree to which it has been successful, and that is the province of Quebec. For over two decades, Quebec has been dealing with early learning and child care in a far more progressive fashion or manner than any other jurisdiction in Canada. I have even heard some members say in North America, and I suspect that could be the case.

The national Liberal Party and the government of the day has said that this is something we believe in, and it is not our first attempt. We attempted to do this prior to Stephen Harper's government. We came very close. This time we believe we can cross the finish line. Once again, we have achieved something that no other government has done. We have the agreement in writing from the provinces, territories and indigenous leaders who have signed off, saying that they support the principles I am talking about. They support what the national government is doing on the issue of early learning and child care.

Even though we have accumulated a great deal of support, there is a number of us who have some concerns, if I could put it that way, in terms of where the Conservative Party of Canada really is on the issue. They are fair concerns. Let us think about the last federal election. In the last federal election, the former leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Durham, made it very clear that he would scrap the Liberal plan. That was the past leader. The current leader boasted about how his former government cancelled Liberal child care plans.

People need to realize that 338 Conservative candidates in the last election knocked on doors, handed out materials, were all over social media and had press conferences and so forth on their election platform, a platform that was not positive toward what we are doing regarding early learning and child care.

I posed a question earlier today to the critic. It would be nice to believe the Conservatives will change their opinions or flip-flop. Some of my colleagues say, no, that will not happen, but I am an optimistic person. A glass half full of water means there is water in the glass to drink. At the end of the day, I am hopeful the Conservatives will see the light on this issue and change their position.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Do you even know what our position is?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative member asked me—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There are some side conversations or questions being asked, but it is not time yet. I want to remind members there will be 10 minutes for questions and comments, so there will be an opportunity to ask a lot of questions then.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think that was a legitimate question. The member from across the floor asked if I know the Conservatives' position. I actually have a sense of what they oppose because they have said that publicly, and I have made reference to that.

The member's former leader, just so he knows, told him that, when he knocks on the door, he should tell his constituents that he does not like the Liberal plan. That was the former leader of the Conservative Party. The current leader has gone around boasting, as I indicated, that the former Harper government cancelled Liberal child care plans in the past. Do I know what the Conservative Party's position is on this, on child care? No, but in fairness, I do not think anyone knows what its policy is on child care. I suspect it has something to do with the trickle-down private sector. I do not know that, but it is my suspicion as they are quick to criticize.

The implementation of what we saw in Quebec has achieved wonders. Think of it in terms of single parents, 90% of whom are women. That is why this is a very strong feminist policy. Think about a single mom who is not able to get into the workforce because of her inability to afford child care. That is a reality. No matter what the Conservative Party may want us to believe, that is an actual reality. There are people who have a difficult time being able to afford child care. With the Province of Quebec coming in with a program that made it affordable, at the end of the day thousands, not hundreds, of women were able to get into the workforce. That is because they were prepared to take a chance in that province.

When I say thousands of women in Quebec, that is a very low estimate on my part. It could go into the tens of thousands, especially when factoring in the number of years. One could ultimately ask what the benefit to the mother or, on the odd occasion, the father, has been of being able to get out of the house, whether to volunteer, work or get additional educational opportunities, all of which could, in all likelihood, create better outcomes in terms of household income. There are tremendous opportunities created for the individual.

Collectively, I would suggest, it is even greater for society. The benefits to the individual are many, but the benefits to society are even greater. With more people participating in the workforce, especially one that continues to grow, that helps all of us in society. There are more resources generating GDP. In other words, the economy benefits. There are literally tens of thousands of jobs out there. We are very dependent on, for example, immigration policies and international workers, because there are so many jobs out there. In many ways there are people in Canada who would like to be able to work, but for a number of reasons, and the financial affordability of child care is one of the primary ones, they are not able to do that.

Let us imagine other families that have one parent working during the day and one working at night because they cannot afford child care. They are losing out on the opportunity of having more quality family time, if I can put it that way.

There are many things in society that would benefit from recognizing the principles we are trying to put in place through this legislation. Having a Canada-wide system with a federal vision would benefit all Canadians. We need to recognize that there is a long-term funding component to the legislation. There is a national advisory council on early learning and child care that would be created. We need to recognize that we would have reporting from the minister to the public with regard to ongoing progress in this area. That shows an ongoing commitment to financing.

Putting this into legislation would make taking it apart even more difficult, in particular for the Conservative Party. At the end of the day, we believe, as the New Democrats, the Bloc members and I believe the Greens do, that providing access, affordability, inclusivity and high-quality child care is in the nation's best interest, the parents' best interest and the child's best interest.

By having this legislation, taking up the framework and continuing to work with provinces, territories and indigenous communities, we would ensure that child care and early learning become a reality for more people. To me, that is what this is all about. We want to ensure accessibility and that we have these opportunities, because by doing that, whether it is the child, the parent or society as a whole, we all collectively and individually benefit.

I hope the Conservative Party will not try to give mixed messages, like saying they kind of like the legislation but will have 150 amendments during committee work.

[An hon. member]

That is what this place is for.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is about the principles. Do the Conservatives not support the principles? Hopefully we will find out.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members to wait until the hon. member is finished or until I indicate that he is done before they try to ask questions and make comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Before I begin, I want to recognize a constituent who recently passed away, Mrs. Kathie Lock. She was the secretary at my elementary school, and I graduated elementary school with her daughter. I wish her family all the best and want to express my condolences in this difficult time. May perpetual light shine upon her.

The parliamentary secretary just spoke about the feminist Prime Minister. We only need to consult people like Jody Wilson-Raybould, Jane Philpott and others who have spoken out to find out whether that is actually the case.

Does the parliamentary secretary support the fact that we should be supporting all parents, like my parents? My father was a shift worker and my mom was a homemaker. Will the parliamentary secretary commit here and now to supporting those people, not just people who work nine to five?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thought I was being very clear about the legislation and what it would do. It would put into law principles to ensure accessibility, affordability, inclusivity and high-quality child care and early learning. I truly believe that through the financial commitments this government has put in place and through working with provinces, territories and indigenous communities, we will make child care and early learning available for all.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, there was a joint meeting between the Prime Minister of Canada and Premier of Quebec on the issue of compensation. That is great, and we are happy, but why was this not included in the bill? The Prime Minister of Canada said that the federal government would continue to help Quebec, but what will actually happen in five years? Why can it not be written directly into the bill?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as we try to figure out where the different political parties are on the principles of the legislation, hopefully it will pass sooner as opposed to later. I think a lot will depend on the Conservative Party's positioning on the legislation, but it will go to committee.

The member might want to take up her question with the minister responsible for the legislation. I am sure that at the committee stage she will be able to get a more detailed answer than I would be able to provide her at this time.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, every parent should have access to quality, affordable child care when they need it.

The Liberals promised national child care almost 30 years ago, and for decades families have been struggling to afford child care, struggling to find child care and sometimes paying more than their rent or mortgage to ensure their kids are taken care of. I am so glad to see both the current funding commitments and this legislation for the future.

With the federal financial commitments, B.C. has been investing in reducing costs, creating more spaces and recruiting more early childhood educators. That is my home province. The member is from Manitoba, and Manitoba is the only province that has not seen an average reduction in child care fees.

I am curious if the member agrees that we need to see stronger accountability measures so that we actually guarantee that families are going to see a reduction in costs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the short answer is that I am absolutely confident there will be a reduction in fees in the province of Manitoba. I could not say right offhand, but I would be very surprised if that was not the case. With regard to the Liberal Party and its history, unfortunately the first time we had agreements that were signed off for child care was back in Paul Martin—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

The first time you promised it was 1993. I was nine.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I want to remind the hon. member for Victoria that she had an opportunity to ask a question. If she has another one, she needs to wait for an opportunity to ask it.

The hon. parliamentary secretary can finish off before I go to the next question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, not only do we have agreements once again with all the provinces, territories and indigenous leaders, but now today we are debating principles and putting them into legislation to ensure we are going to have them for future generations.

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

Madam Speaker, I hear calls around me of revisionist history. This is the history; I remember it like it was yesterday.

On November 28, 2005, we had signed child care agreements from every province with the federal government, stickhandled, which is a good use of the term, by Ken Dryden, who was the minister at the time and a former hockey great. That was part of a package of things that had been accomplished, including a plan for Kyoto that would have gotten us very near our Kyoto targets. We could have avoided Fiona if November 28, 2005, had not happened. There was also the Kelowna Accord. This was all agreed to, and tragically my friend Jack Layton, whom I loved, decided it was better to bring down Paul Martin's minority government and turn the country over to Stephen Harper, and we lost child care.

Martha Friendly, child care advocate, will back up every word I just said. We had been working together on it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to extend my answer a bit beyond that to the current leader of the Conservative Party. I made reference to the fact that he boasted about the cancellation of child care programs, and I suspect those are some of the child care programs he was referring to when boasting. That is why we should all be concerned with regard to what I would suggest is a hidden agenda within the Conservative Party, which does not support the type of child care that I believe, and we in the Liberal caucus believe, Canadians want to see.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, when I met with residents, I met with women and heard positive feedback. They love the child care idea. We saw that, and there are stats out there. When women get into a second career and go back to the workforce—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to ask the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I believe the hon. member for Victoria or the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, as there are some side conversations happening, to take them outside so that the hon. member for Brampton South can be heard.

The hon. member for Brampton South.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, more women are getting back into the workforce and starting their second career. I am wondering if the hon. member can expand on how this bill supports economic growth and women who are going back to a second career. Can the member explain that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, within the Liberal caucus there is a great sense of accomplishment on this particular file. We understand that there is a lot more to do, but I can tell the member that when we reach out to our constituents and talk to some of the child care workers and some of the parents, there is a high sense of excitement. That is why I believe this is sound legislation that should be supported by all parties of the House.

If we believe in the importance of accessibility, affordability, inclusivity and high-quality child care, then this is good legislation that will enshrine the principles of those things into law. We can then continue to work with our constituents to ensure that more jobs are created. Also, there is going to be more opportunity and more free time for people to get involved in the workforce, in volunteer work and in many other activities.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, our colleague across the way made reference to a situation where one parent was working during the day and one at night, and somehow their plan made for a better quality of life. Does this $10-a-day day care apply when somebody is in the home, because people who work during the day have to sleep during the night and vice versa when we have a family with parents on double shifts?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am trying to be a little sympathetic to constituents of mine who have children and are not able to afford child care. For the first time, they can now look at maybe not having as much work, where one parent has to work in the evening and the other in the daytime and they are not necessarily able to make the connection they would like with their family unit.

I am suggesting that at the end of the day, this particular program, which has been achieved through a great deal of effort with different levels of government, is ultimately going to provide more opportunities that will be for the betterment of the child, the individual parent or guardian, the child care worker and Canadian society as a whole. That is the point that needs to be emphasized.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents of King—Vaughan.

Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, sets a vision for a Canada-wide early learning and child care system committed to ongoing collaboration with provinces and indigenous people to support efforts to “establish and maintain”. Just over 52% of Canadian children younger than six years were in licensed or unlicensed child care in 2022. This bill proposes to cut day care fees by an average of 50% by the end of 2022 and down to an average of $10 per day by 2026.

Bill C-35 is a step in the right direction. However, it is too generic and does not consider or address many obstacles that parents face when accessing child care. Affordable, quality child care is critical, but if it cannot be accessed, it does not help families. Bill C-35 is beneficial 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 forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

In Ontario alone, the Financial Accountability Office says that demand for the program will exceed the number of available spaces. The FAO estimates that by 2026, approximately 600,000 children under the age of six will have potential access to $10-a-day child care, but only 375,000 licensed child care spaces will be available. Therefore, approximately 227,000 children under the age of six will be left behind, not able to access the $10-a-day child care.

Canada needs far more child care spaces than it has, and Bill C-35 would not address the need for increased child care infrastructure. The Liberal government simply offering up grants and subsidies through Bill C-35 does neither initiate nor promote operators to step up and start up centres where they are needed.

Bill C-35 also fails to address the child care labour shortage. There is currently not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity. Child care workers in Canada continue to leave the sector due to the low pay and poor working conditions. The majority of child care professionals are overworked and suffer burnout. The shortage of workers means that in many communities there is only one child care space available for every three children who need it and wait-lists are long.

According to the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Bill C-35 fails to address the shortage of early childhood educators and child care workers. Until the child care staffing crisis is resolved, the promise of affordable and high-quality child care for every family in Canada that needs it will remain unfulfilled.

One of Bill C-35's commitments is to provide more accessible child care to indigenous people and contribute to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous early learning and child care programs that focus on the languages and culture identities of first nations, Métis and Inuit communities have been found to contribute to better educational outcomes for indigenous children and help to build their language ability and sense of cultural pride. However, there is a shortage of indigenous workers trained in early childhood education in Canada, particularly because of challenges they face in acquiring training, such as cost, entrance requirements and residence in remote areas with restricted technology.

According to Statistics Canada, indigenous childhood educators and assistants and child care providers are less likely to have post-secondary education compared to their non-indigenous counterparts. Although claiming to support indigenous child care, Bill C-35 would do nothing to address the shortage in indigenous child care workers or the disparity of education between indigenous and non-indigenous child care workers.

The guiding principle of the framework for Bill C-35 heavily gives preferential treatment to public and non-for-profit day cares over small business models. This piece of the bill opens the door to a two-tier framework of child care across Canada.

Quality child care comes in all shapes and sizes. In Canada, options for child care range from nannies and home day care to day care centres, preschool programs, and before- and after-school programs. By giving preferential treatment to public and not-for-profit child care, Bill C-35 discriminates against women. The majority of child care operators are women, and the language and intent of this bill prevent any growth and opportunities for private female operators.

How would Bill C-35 assist single parents who do not have regularly scheduled nine-to-five jobs? This issue is not addressed in the bill. How does Bill C-35 address child care for children with disabilities? In British Columbia, children with disabilities are continuously left behind when it comes to child care. There is no official count on how many child care sites are accessible for kids with disabilities, because there is no provincial definition of what makes a child care site inclusive. How about grandparents who have stepped up and put their retirement on hold for their grandchildren?

The 2021 federal budget pledges $30 million in new spending on the national child care system over five years, with another $9.2 billion annually. These stats are coming from the Liberals' numbers.

Morna Ballantyne, executive director of Child Care Now, told CBC News, on the implementation of Bill C-35:

...we'd like to see...a full report on what progress has been made with respect to the system building in each jurisdiction. How many spaces have been created, where have they been created? Who's operating the spaces that have been created, what are the ages of the children being served by the new spaces?

We really think there needs to be a proper and full public accounting of how the money, the public money, has been spent.

The minister is on record saying that providing the federal government with details of the provinces' child care plans is a condition of their deals with Ottawa, but how can we trust that? This is coming from a government that has eight years of failed Liberal policy and does not hold itself accountable for it.

This is coming from the same government that spent $54 million on an ineffective ArriveCAN app and refuses to supply Canadians with a full list of all the contractors who got the money. This is coming from the same government that has $28 billion of suspicious spending and another $4.6 billion of outright waste. This is coming from the same government that failed to keep children's medication on the shelves.

Can Canada really trust the government to implement a quality child care system and ensure this federal funding is properly used? From the lack of detail in Bill C-35, I am not so trusting. Amendments need to be made to ensure all Canadians have access to quality child care.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is very fixated on details and numbers and spending. The government is supporting Ontario's efforts to grow its child care system by providing $10.2 billion over five years as part of our agreement with the Province of Ontario. In turn, Ontario has promised to create 86,000 spaces. Premier Doug Ford called it “a great deal for Ontario”. That is exactly what he said on March 31 when we announced that deal. I would like to ask if the member opposite agrees with the Premier of Ontario.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not doubting that we need to take care of our children. Our children are our future. I have no doubt of that. My question is, do we have enough staff to support these child care centres and do we have enough spaces? I have not personally seen any evidence of that. We need to ensure that all this documentation is provided to all members of this House so that we can also ensure that our children are taken care of moving forward.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from King—Vaughan, who serves alongside me on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

In several studies that the committee has conducted since I joined it, we have observed that Quebec has a really wonderful model that was put in place by a feminist. Pauline Marois created a unique model. The economic impact of early childhood centres in Quebec was clear in the study on the impacts of COVID-19 during the pandemic and how women were disproportionately affected, as well as in the study on invisible work, where this issue of child care also came up. Many economists will say it: This has allowed thousands of women to return to the labour market. This is crucial.

It was interesting to hear the member talk about jurisdiction. In my view, this falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. It is a model. If the rest of Canada wants to emulate it, that is fine, but Quebec has jurisdiction over this issue. Furthermore, any tax credit that might be put in place, as some Conservatives want, will never happen.

Let us remember why early childhood centres were created. It was to provide equal opportunities for young children and all women. Quebec's child care system is perfect. The rest of Canada should use it as a model, but the government needs to sign an agreement giving us the right to opt out with full compensation and giving us the money to manage the system we have in place.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my hon. colleague on the status of women committee. We should learn from what Quebec is doing. I have no issues with that at all.

However, we also need to ensure that, province by province, we are all different. Each province has different needs, and we need to ensure that each province will at least adhere to the principles that we know will protect our children and provide women the opportunity to make that choice, whether or not they choose to go back to work.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member was talking about discrimination against women, and I found myself reflecting on what really does discriminate against women.

We know that what discriminates against women is not having access to public and non-profit child care that provides affordable, high-quality and accessible day care for families who need it, not day care that makes profit off the backs of parents. We also know that public and non-profit child care provides better wages and working conditions for staff, who are predominantly women.

The member is clearly very much in support of child care. How can the member justify throwing away a bill that would provide national, accessible, affordable child care for families as being in the best of interests of anybody?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member understood what I was saying.

I am not against child care. The Conservatives are not against child care. However, what about the individuals like our grandparents who have to give up their opportunity for retirement to help raise their grandchildren? What about myself, when I was left as a young widow and did not have the choice of $10 day care? My hours were so irregular, the cost to me was out of this world. This bill does not help women who work shift work.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for young families across this country, child care is a principle concern. When a child is in their care or with another, parents want to feel confident that their child is being well cared for, and that they are safe and in a healthy environment that supports their development.

Canadian families across the country should have access to affordable and quality child care. Parents should also be able to choose a child care solution that best suits them and works with their family's own unique needs. The reality is there is no one-size-fits-all child care solution.

Not only is the issue of child care important for families, but it is also a significant consideration in workforce participation. Access to child care continues to be a large barrier to workforce participation, and it cannot be overlooked as we look into addressing the labour shortages we are experiencing across industries in this country.

While there is presumably a consensus on the viewpoint that there should be accessible, affordable and flexible child care for parents throughout our country, this legislation offers no real assurances to Canadian families that there will be. The families that will benefit from this legislation are those families who have already secured a child care space in a public or not-for-profit program.

However, this legislation does nothing to help the thousands of families on child care wait-lists and those whose child care needs require more flexibility. It does nothing to help those families whose child care needs fall outside the standard hours of operation. In fact, the primary problem with this legislation is that it fails to ensure that demand can be met and that supports are flexible enough to meet the needs of all Canadian families.

Affordable, quality child care is a great concept. It is a wonderful concept, but if a parent cannot access it, then it is ultimately worthless. In laying out a vision for a Canada-wide, early learning and child care system, Bill C-35 offers Canadian families a single, just one, child care solution, and by its own design, the access is limited.

This legislation intentionally ignores an entire section of the child care landscape, which is critical to meeting demand. The Liberal-NDP government is shutting private operators, who tend to be women-owned small businesses, out of its plan. It fails to even ensure them a seat at the table.

There is no representation for these women-owned small businesses in the makeup of the proposed national advisory council on early learning and child care. In addition to public child care programs, these women-owned small business operators are critical to meeting the growing demand for child care spaces, not to mention that, by limiting supports to public and not-for-profit child care programs, this will drive up the demand for child care spaces in these programs where the wait-lists already exist.

We know that wait-lists already exist because there is not necessarily the staff or infrastructure put in place to offer more child care spaces. This legislation does not solve the issue of recruitment or that of retention in the early learning and child care sector. It does not answer the pressing question of who will staff these programs.

Report after report indicates that early childhood educators are overwhelmed and burnt out, and that there is a steady stream of early childhood educators leaving the profession. There have been operators who have had to close their doors at times because there was not necessarily enough staff to operate.

To ensure that the government is delivering more than just announcements to Canadians, the government needs to deliver a tangible plan, in partnership with our provinces, to recruit and retain labour. That plan should engage all child care providers.

With limited resources, it does not make sense to shut out these women-owned small businesses from this solution, nor should the government be putting these entrepreneurs at a disadvantage. These child care providers should be able to operate in a fair market.

Without a real plan to address the existing challenges in child care, access to child care will never really be achieved. If the goal is truly to deliver universal access to child care, child care policy also needs to be comprehensive.

However, the government's vision for child care policy is limited. For one, it fails to acknowledge that not all parents have a standard work schedule. The reality is that standard child care operating hours do not meet the needs of most shift workers. Parents who work early mornings, evenings, nights, weekends, statutory holidays, casual shifts or any other irregular shifts are largely being left behind. By focusing child care supports on programs that do not offer any real kind of child care solution to families with non-standard work schedules, there is a massive gap in the NDP-Liberal government's child care policy. It is not a universal solution.

The NDP-Liberal government also purports to be addressing affordability through the creation of a $10-a-day child care program, but that is not entirely accurate either. As I have mentioned, the only families who are benefiting from the cuts to child care costs are those who already have child care spaces in eligible public and not-for-profit programs.

We are now hearing reports of operators who are struggling with the skyrocketing cost of living in the country. These operators, like all Canadians, are seeing the cost of everything climb. Many who offer food programs are now having to consider whether they are going to cut these programs entirely or charge parents additional costs to keep them running.

Either these parents are getting fewer services from their child care providers or some of those savings will ultimately be lost. Of course, for those parents who cannot access a child care space, they are not benefiting from these savings, but are still struggling under the pressures of the rising costs.

In fact, I was listening to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development's speech earlier in the debate today. She highlighted that she had heard from parents who could now afford their mortgage payment because their child care fees were reduced and other parents who could afford groceries for their family because of the reduction in child care fees. Well, she was quite proud of that achievement, and it really points to a bigger problem, a problem that is her own government's doing. Canadians are paying the price for this costly coalition's tax-and-spend agenda. The NDP-Liberal government needs to take affordability seriously.

Canada's food price report has reported that the average family of four is expected to spend $1000 more than it did last year on groceries. Meanwhile, surveys are already reporting that 52% of Canadian families are concerned that they do not have enough money to feed their families. We are now seeing record usage of food banks across the country.

The cost of basic necessities is becoming out of reach for more and more Canadians, and the Liberal government's addition of half a trillion dollars in federal debt has led to the 40-year-high inflation rates that we are seeing now. Its continued deficit spending is fuelling inflation and Canadians are paying more in taxes than ever before.

We know that parents are stretching their dollars as far as they can go, but that is becoming less and less fruitful. Those parents who are shut out of the child care program because they cannot access it or because it does not meet their needs do not share the minister's elation.

The driving force behind the skyrocketing cost of living crisis needs to be addressed to really help Canadian families who are struggling to make ends meet and, ultimately, if we want to help Canadian families with the cost of child care, we need to ensure that child care is first available. Child care is unique to each family, and a federal child care policy should reflect that.

Bill C-35 is a flawed piece of legislation. Its approach to child care is narrow and it does not provide Canadian families the assurances that their child care needs would be met. I hope that the NDP-Liberal government is prepared to make some amendments and listen to this—

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

It is time for questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion today. We have been anxiously trying to get a position from the Conservative Party on whether it supports this or not. When we imply that it does not, the Conservatives heckle from across the way, saying, “How do you know what our position is?” If the Conservatives do end up supporting this, it will be a complete about-face.

Let us listen to how the Leader of the Opposition responded when he was asked, “when you say about cutting the supplementary spending, in your view does that include the newly signed child care agreements with most of the provinces?” The Leader of the Opposition said, “We've said we do not believe in a $100-billion slush fund”. He literally referred to the child care money as a slush fund.

He further went on to tweet on November 30, 2020, “Why should Justin Trudeau”, sorry, the Prime Minister, “get to force parents to pay through taxes for his government daycare scheme, instead of letting them choose what's best for their own kids?”

Therefore, if the Conservatives do support this, it will be a complete about-face. I wonder if the member could enlighten the House on what the Conservative Party's position is.

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

Before we go to the answer, I just need to remind members not to use member's proper names in the chamber. I know the member corrected himself, so I want to thank him for that.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member opposite was using a tone that was unparliamentary. We can hear him quite fine. He does not need to yell. Therefore, I would like to make sure that he carries on with the decorum of this place.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I did not realize that this was in our procedural requirements, and that a tone would be considered something that could be taken offence to. I sincerely apologize if the tone I have is coming across as offensive, so—

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

I thank the member. I do not know what happened toward the end there, but everybody seemed to get a little off their game, so I am going to make sure the temperature goes down a bit and offer the opportunity for the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster to answer the question.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think my colleague across the way listened to anything I said. There is a portion of families who are being left out of this, and a lot of those families carried us through the pandemic: our doctors, our nurses, our frontline care workers. They work erratic hours. Our shift workers would not be able to access this.

It is typical of the government to put its fingers in the provincial jurisdiction and tell provinces what to do, and if they do not get in line, too bad so sad.

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

I am also going to remind everyone that I want to make sure everyone has opportunity to ask questions.

I also want to ensure that everyone gets a chance to answer.

Therefore, members should keep their questions and answers as short as they possibly can.

The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member began her speech by saying that early childhood educators are burnt out. We could say the same about teachers. She then said that there are staffing shortages. In Canada, there is a lot of competition for nurses because there are staffing shortages everywhere, so this is not just an issue affecting early childhood educators.

Here are some statistics. Between 1997 and 2016 in Quebec, the number of single-parent families receiving social assistance dropped by 64%. That did not happen right away in 1997. It takes time to build a system, but we have to start somewhere. No, the system is not perfect, far from it. We want the areas of jurisdiction to be very clear. I think that if we do not take the first step, then we will never get anywhere.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I did mention in my remarks that there are labour shortages across all industries in this country. We know our birth rate is declining. We do not have the population to replace the aging population. We know that immigration is backlogged by millions of cases. We know it takes, on average, 166 days for a temporary foreign worker to get a work permit.

I just think it is ridiculous that the government is throwing flowers and perfume at this, making it look all good, when we do not have the infrastructure. Provinces do not have the infrastructure. Provinces do not have the labour to do this, and it is unfair to give false hope to parents in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster implied in her comments that these national child care agreements are not going to meet the needs of parents with certain work schedules. I believe that is indeed a good concern to have. However, I want to bring her attention to a great project in northwest B.C. in the District of Kitimat, where Tamitik Status of Women is working on 60 child care spaces that are going to be offered 24 hours a day. It is the first 24-hour child care available in British Columbia.

Could my colleague share with me and with this place whether the provincial government in her home province is working on similar partnerships?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear of that project going on. My question would be: Is that project public or not-for-profit? If it is entrepreneurial, it actually does not fall under this framework.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that I am sharing my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address this House on Bill C-35, what we hope will become the act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

As the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development indicated in her remarks earlier, we now have in place a Canada-wide early learning and child care system that aims to ensure access to affordable, high-quality and inclusive child care for families across the country. The purpose of Bill C-35 is to strengthen and protect that system by enshrining its principles into law. This is a commitment from the Government of Canada to support access to affordable child care for families in Canada, no matter where in Canada they live. In fact, the new Canada-wide system is already benefiting tens of thousands of people from coast to coast to coast with fees for regulated child care having been reduced in all jurisdictions across Canada, outside of Quebec and Yukon, which already had affordable child care systems, and we are just getting started.

Bill C-35 is the result of engagement between the Government of Canada, provinces, territories, indigenous governments, and organizations and stakeholders. It builds on our collaborative work with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples. It also builds on the agreements negotiated with every province and territory to establish a Canada-wide system. The collaboration that delivered this remarkable system was detailed, and sometimes challenging, but held in an atmosphere of respect, commitment and a willingness to succeed. For sure there are similarities in the agreements, but we never expected a one-size-fits-all model that conveniently served all of our partners. We succeeded because we agreed on one fundamental principle, the thing all Canadians care about most deeply, giving children in Canada the best possible start in life.

This legislation respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction and upholds indigenous rights. All our partners in this Canada-wide effort can look forward to benefiting from the long-term federal financial commitment.

Let us talk about funding. In budget 2021, the Government of Canada made a transformative investment of more than $27 billion over five years. If we include related investments, including in indigenous early learning and child care, we have committed nearly $30 billion over five years to make quality early learning and child care affordable and accessible. Combined with previous investments announced since 2015, a minimum of $9.2 billion a year ongoing will be invested in child care, including indigenous early learning and child care, starting in 2025 to 2026. These investments are already having an impact. To date, fees have been reduced in every jurisdiction across Canada. Further, Quebec, Yukon and Nunavut are providing regulated child care for $10 a day or less.

Let us take our agreement with Saskatchewan. The province has been one of the early leaders in fee reductions. Over a year ago, Saskatchewan announced a 50% reduction that it made retroactive to July 2021. That was a year and a half in advance of our December 2022 target. Saskatchewan followed with another fee reduction, effective September 1 of last year, where fees were lowered by a total of 70% compared to March 2021 levels. This is a huge saving for families across the province.

While the province is lowering fees, it is continuing to ensure that early childhood educators are kept at the heart of the system. Last September, Saskatchewan announced that federal funding from its Canada-wide agreement is being used to establish an ECE wage enhancement grant, which will result in increased wages for the workforce that is critical to the success of the Canada-wide system, and there is more.

In early 2022, Saskatchewan announced the creation of over 1,200 new licensed child care spaces on top of the over 600 spaces the province announced in December 2021. That is more than 1,800 new child care spaces providing more children with a better start in life.

This is the Canada-wide early learning and child care system in action: lowered fees, a supported ECE workforce, more child care spaces and real results for making life more affordable. For all these families across Saskatchewan, and the thousands of others like them across Canada, this system means hundreds of dollars more each month to put healthy food on the table and to sign up kids for music, sports or after-school activities.

The federal investment not only benefits families and young children, it also benefits the economy as a whole, which means it benefits all Canadians, and here is how: It will grow Canada’s economy. Economic studies show that, with each dollar invested in early childhood education, the broader economy receives between $1.50 and $2.80 in return. The federal government's estimates predict that the Canada-wide early learning and child care system could raise the GDP by as much as 1.2% over the next two decades. It will grow Canada’s labour force. As we have seen in Quebec, at the time the Quebec Educational Childcare Act was instituted in 1997, the women’s labour force participation rate in Quebec was four percentage points lower than the rest of Canada. In 2021, it is four points higher.

The figures are telling us that investing in increased access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care is not only the right thing to do for families, but it is also the smart thing to do for Canada and our economy. It is a win for all of us.

Our colleague, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, has many times said, “access to high-quality, affordable, flexible and inclusive [learning and] child care is not a luxury—it is a necessity.” As the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance put it, “child care...is as much a piece of critical infrastructure...as a bridge or a road”.

It boils down to this: All parents and caregivers have an opportunity to build both a family and a career, and all children should have the best possible start in life.

This legislation comes with the twin federal commitments of respect of jurisdiction and a reliable funding partner. We are creating a great system together, a system we can all be justifiably proud of, and I respectfully ask that my colleagues give rapid passage to Bill C-35 so we can put this last piece in place.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the member opposite believe there should be preference given to low or middle-income Canadians over those who can afford it? The way the bill is currently written, it would subsidize wealthy families and push those most vulnerable to the back of these long wait-lists.

Where does he sit? Does he not think that we should be prioritizing child care for our most vulnerable Canadian families?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can say with great confidence that our focus has always been on prioritizing the needs of people who need it the most. The process for this system is focused so that everybody can participate in it equally and fairly, and that we give children a great start on life. That is the focus of this exercise.

We will always be able to find something to criticize, but let us address the fact that we are moving forward in a very positive way. We are doing good things for kids in Canada, and that is what we should focus on.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for not only his speech but, in fact, his support for early learning and child care. That is very important.

I remember when the first agreement was signed with British Columbia when the minister was out in B.C. It included not only organizations that believed in social justice. In fact, business organizations did support that $10-a-day day care initiative so that women could go back to work and further their career plans.

Why does the hon. member think it is so important to enshrine early learning and child care in legislation?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the principles of this House are that the values we hold high are inculcated into our legislation. An important program like this should be inculcated into the principles and fundamental values of our country and of this government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments.

As my colleague knows, there will be so many benefits from the passage of this legislation, but I would ask him to provide his thoughts in terms of the historical meaning of passing Bill C-35 and putting into place a truly nationwide program that is going to benefit children from coast to coast to coast.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we can be part of a substantial change in the values of Canada, how we stand for the values of education of children and the values of enabling women to become more active in our economy. It is an opportunity that many of us will look back on with a tremendous amount of pride.

This is a pivotal change in very important values and it is reinforcing things that are important.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that a number of the Conservative members have made good points about the need to adapt to people who have shift work or do not work nine to five. Mostly, it is moms who look after kids but it could be either parent.

I wonder if, as this legislation proceeds, we have any sense whether the government will be prepared to accept amendments at committee.

I strongly support this legislation, just to be clear, but we do have to make sure that the $10-a-day day care reaches the people who need it most, who are often those in insecure jobs in the gig economy.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we allow programs like this to mature and as opportunities or challenges face us, let us not underestimate the ability of the Canadian people to find solutions. Let us allow the program to mature. There will be solutions. We just heard about a previous program in 24-7. Let us not underestimate the ability and innovation that people present.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise today, one day after the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attack at the Quebec City mosque, I just want to acknowledge the loss that occurred on that day six years ago, the other five lives that have been taken by Islamophobic attacks in this country and the work that we all need to do as parliamentarians and as Canadians to fight against hatred and intolerance, in particular Islamophobia.

I rise today to participate in today's debate, not just because it is the first day of the session, not just because I am glad to be back in the chamber and glad to be back surrounded by parliamentarians seeking to advance the interests of our country and of our individual ridings, but because it actually reminded me of a conversation I had in 2019. That conversation was on a street in my riding in Roncesvalles Village and I remember encountering a family.

It was election time. It was the 2019 election. I was going door to door, as so many of us do every election period. I was confronted with a family. I had a very blunt conversation with the female lead of that family, the mother of that family.

She said to me that we have done so much work and that we continue to do so much work putting women at the forefront of things like international development assistance, women's reproductive rights and so many different initiatives, including a gender-equal cabinet. She said to me, quite candidly, that if we were really sincere about women and women's empowerment, we need to resolve child care.

I said to her that this was fair. I appreciated that criticism.

She elaborated. She said that we cannot really empower women's full participation in the workforce, whether as an entrepreneur, as a salaried employee in a public or private sector setting, unless we alleviate the disproportionate burden on women that relates to raising children.

My riding has a lot of families, a lot of young families and a lot of young kids, and there is a lot of financial burden that goes along with raising those kids. When I was raising my kids, who are now eight-and-a-half and 12, the fees ranged, per child, between $1,500 and $1,800. It is quite common in Toronto to hear of fees that are $2,000 a month.

What I am pleased about today's debate and the subject of what we are discussing is that, yes, after many decades of discussions, thoughts about it, and hearing about agreements that were scuttled at the last minute, etc., finally, this nation and this Parliament are moving past the obstacles in implementing positive change. I think that is critical.

I also want to acknowledge that it was not just individual constituents like mine who had spoken to me in 2019 that provided an impetus, but there was another impetus, an impetus that has become all too familiar to all of us and that is the COVID-19 pandemic. Let me remind us, there were literally families around the country who were dealing with the difficulties of, all of a sudden, shifting their workplace and their educational place for their children and, effectively, substitute day care, all within the confines of their own home, in a matter of weeks, in March and April of 2020.

That is what faced Canadians. I am being very candid here. I think, all of a sudden, it penetrated the brains, particularly, of men in the country, in terms of what a challenge it is to try to have any sort of career or profession, in a virtual setting or otherwise, and have kids running around at all hours of the day, asking about their math homework, where their history homework was, a geography lesson, name it. It was a struggle. That struggle became manifest, I think, for men like me in this country. All of sudden, the level of people's awareness, including my gender's awareness, about the pressing need for a national child care program became that much more acute.

What I like about what we are doing is that we are creating a system where one does not have to choose between building a career and raising a family. That is a false choice. No one should ever be confronted with that. Thankfully, we are now moving toward a stage where one is not. I think that is really important.

It comes with a large price tag. A massive social change and a massive social program are not inexpensive. We readily acknowledge that. When we prioritize families, children and the women who disproportionately share the burden of raising those children, we need to invest. I think that is exactly what we did when we announced this program in our 2021 budget and the $30-billion price tag that would go along with it over the course of the next five years.

What it is going to achieve is to basically take child care that used to cost hundreds of dollars a day and project it to cost $10 a day, on average, across the country by 2026.

Some provinces were very early adopters of this program. It is staggering in terms of its magnitude, in terms of what it could achieve. Some were a bit late to the game and maybe manipulated the electoral cycle for their own purposes, but I do not want to wade into that. We are now at a stage where, of 13 provinces and territories in this country, literally every square kilometre of this country is covered by a child care agreement.

In my own province of Ontario, which I am proud to call home, fees have been reduced, on average, by 50%. Something that might have cost people, doing simple math, if they had their child in child care for 10 months of the year, $17,000 to $20,000 has been cut in half. Thousands of dollars are being saved by Ontarian families in my own riding of Parkdale—High Park. That is staggering, given the number one issue that we all hear when we go door to door now, which is about the cost of living and the crisis of affordability.

If we could return thousands of dollars to families in this country in one single fell swoop, that is reason enough on its own to get behind this kind of legislative initiative. What we are doing is reducing fees in every province and territory. British Columbia, Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, P.E.I., New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and NWT have all reduced their fees by an average of 50%.

Saskatchewan, and there were some speakers from Saskatchewan earlier in today's debate, has gone beyond that target, and it has already reached, on average, a 70% reduction of the fees. I was chatting earlier with the member from Winnipeg, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. In his province of Manitoba, the fees are currently reduced by 30%, and they are on track to achieve a $10-a-day child care early in the new year. This year, Manitobans will reach $10 a day on average for their child care.

In Yukon and in the province of Quebec, which is really at the forefront of all this in terms of an initiative, regionally, many decades ago, they have had $10-a-day child care. Nunavut joined them in November 2022, three years ahead of schedule.

These are truly incredible results, and they point to what we are doing. I will give one statistic that I am perhaps most proud of. In the speech by the member for Newmarket—Aurora, he talked about labour force participation. He talked about what Quebec had done, where they were about three decades ago, about 4% below the national average for women's participation in the workforce, and that now they are 4% above the Canadian average.

What we know as of right now, in the nascent days of this fledgling program, for women aged 25 to 54, is that 85% of those women are in the workforce right now, and that is 9% ahead of our southern counterparts in the United States of America. That number is only going to grow, which puts proof to the point that was made by my constituent in Parkdale—High Park, when she said to me that if we want to fully believe and allow for women's participation and their economic potential to be increased, we need to implement this kind of program. That is what we are working towards.

It is not just about the women. It is about the children who are going to benefit from earlier formative education. Again, when I struggled with that grade 4 math class, such as it was, I realized my own limitations as an instructor. As great as parents are in this country, we do not have that formalized training and certification that early childhood educators have.

What are we doing to remedy this? As part of that funding that I articulated, nearly half a billion dollars is dedicated to the training of early childhood educators, to their certification so they are providing more, better, higher-qualified training to our young people. That is a win-win. It is great for the children's development, and it is great for the early childhood instructors, who have a better certification and higher wages as a result. Most importantly, it is better for the women, who can now make not a false choice but a real choice. Some may choose to stay at home, and that is their choice. Some may choose to start that business. Some may choose to return to work. Some may choose to stay at work.

What we are doing in this one fell swoop is empowering and unlocking incredible economic potential on the part of literally half of our country. That is to the benefit of this country. That is to the benefit of our economic output. That is to the benefit of Canadians. That is why I hope that, by legislating this initiative, we concretize it, we solidify it and, I dare say, we make it permanent in this country on a go-forward basis.

That is what Bill C-35 is about. That is why I am happy to stand in support of it.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Before I begin asking my question, I want to recognize Kendra Woodland and the whole women's hockey team that won the winter FISU World University Games. We are obviously very proud of what our women's team accomplished. I congratulate Kendra and the team.

The question for my hon. colleague is this. My father worked shift work, and my mom was largely a homemaker and then did some night courses later to go back to work. My understanding of this bill is that it would not help people who work shift work or people who work in the evenings.

While the Liberals says this would be the cure-all, the panacea, what about people who work shift work? What is going to be done for them? Should we not be crafting a bill that benefits all, rather than just benefiting some?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member opposite back to the House and wish him a happy new year.

In response to his question, I would say the details with respect to the bilateral agreements are actually quite critical in this conversation. This point was made earlier by one of his colleagues. In each province, the provincial government has the ability to dictate the terms of how the money will be spent in that given province. In my province of Ontario, it can make a determination that a certain portion of the billions of dollars we have put on the table should be made available for off hours or irregular hours for the child care that might be made available.

What we want is for people to be joining the workforce or rejoining the workforce. If that work takes them to different hours, including night shifts, day care and child care should be made available to them. The response to that type of question really rests with the particular nature of the arrangement between the B.C. provincial government and Canada in terms of signing its bilateral agreement.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He and I are both members of Standing Committee on International Trade. This morning we had a rather turbulent meeting, but all the same, it is always a pleasure to work with him. That is my way of saying that we missed each other over the break.

I think this is a good program, but we have every reason to be wary, because centralist Ottawa has a long-standing habit of encroaching on provincial jurisdictions.

From what we have read, money will be paid, jurisdictions will be respected and so on. However, we know that the devil is often in the details or even in the lack of details. Five years from now, if we want to renew the arrangement, a single missing sentence, poorly worded sentence or misplaced comma could have adverse consequences for the future.

Would the government be open to clearly stating, in writing, that there is a right to opt out with full compensation and with no strings attached?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my Bloc Québécois colleague, and his work on the Standing Committee on International Trade.

With respect to Quebec, I want to first point out that it has been a leader on this issue for decades. Second, the purpose of this bill is to formalize an agreement that we have already signed with all the provinces and territories.

It is not to invade or formally conflict with the jurisdiction of those various territories or localities or provinces; rather, it is a step taken to ensure that going forward, the necessity of having such a program is emphasized for all Canadians and all parliamentarians. Should a different government of a different political stripe dare to intervene to retract such a program, it would need to take the formal step of changing the legislation. That is a step we desperately hope no future government would ever take, but that is the reason why we are concretizing it as a bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague across the way will agree that early childhood educators and other child care workers have been undervalued and underpaid for years and years. This is something in British Columbia that the provincial government has taken some steps to rectify. There is a lot of work left to do, but really what we need is a national approach to ensuring fair working conditions and fair compensation for these educators.

Could my colleague inform the House whether he would support adding an explicit commitment to Bill C-35 to ensure that right across Canada early childhood educators earn the kinds of wages that they deserve for the role that they play in our children's upbringing and development?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's concern about conditions. I share that concern. It is a bit of a delicate situation when we are talking about the specific wages provided to educators in a specific domain. The delivery of education is something that is traditionally under the purview of the provinces, but with the bilateral agreements that we are signing, we should be emphasizing that very point.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

I want to start today by thanking child care workers for the important work they do.

In reading the government's new legislation, Bill C-35, I have to say that I am disappointed. Once again, we are seeing the Liberal government choosing to put forward buzzwords and campaign slogans rather than crafting the substantive solutions parents in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country are asking for when it comes to serving their child care needs.

To be clear, this is not a national child care strategy and not a national child care program. It is strictly to subsidize, through the provinces, some families already in the child care system using certain types of child care deemed a priority by the Liberals. It is not universal. This bill in its current form is another missed opportunity for Parliament to work toward creating and staffing actual child care spaces where families could place their children. This bill does not seek to shorten long waiting lists.

What is particularly disappointing is that it is hand-picking the types of child care that are acceptable to the government. While I am disappointed, unfortunately I cannot say that I am surprised. The promise of universal child care has long been an over-promised and never-delivered commitment of the Liberal Party. How do we know? It is because it has promised it since most members of this House were children themselves.

In 1984, the former Liberal prime minister John Turner ordered a national task force to study and implement a federal child care program. It was never created. In 1993, the then future Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien promised in the Liberal red book a national child care program, and no program was ever delivered.

In 2004, after 10 years of doing nothing on child care, the then new Liberal prime minister Paul Martin promised to spend $5 billion on a national child care program in a last-ditch effort to save his government. Despite winning the 2004 election, no program was ever created.

Canadians are not fooled by the Liberals' over-promised yet under-delivered way they manage. We will continue to hear from the government that it has lowered the cost of child care in Canada, and it has for some, but there needs to be a number of updates made to this legislation to make child care accessible and inclusive, allow parents the freedom to do what works for their family, and to actually make a difference for many. The Conservatives will be working on these.

Just as the Liberals have allowed Canada's once ample supply of children's cold and cough medicine to dwindle to levels so low that parents must now make supply runs to American pharmacies, so too have they allowed a chronic shortage of child care spaces across Canada over the past eight years of their time in government.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees studied the shortage and found that, “in many communities there is only one child care space available for every three children who need it, and waitlists are long.”

The Quebec child care system, the model from their provincial cousins that the federal Liberals have long said they wish to copy, at last count had a wait-list of 51,000 spaces. We know, listening to those operating private child care centres, that many have the resources and space to take more children, but they are continually hampered by the same labour shortage issues repeatedly ignored by the current government in many sectors of our economy and social support networks. Looking again at British Columbia, we see stories of day cares of all structures reducing their hours and turning away new children because of staff shortages.

The House resumed from January 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country.

Just as a reminder, I am splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

I will lay out some of the issues with the Liberal child care bill, Bill C-35, that will need to be addressed.

I thank those who work in the child care system and who look after our children.

To be clear, this is not a child care strategy. In my province of British Columbia, a 2019 survey found that the greater Vancouver area, represented by several cabinet ministers in the Liberal government, had only enough child care spaces for 18.6% of children in the metro region. That is bad enough in urban areas of our country, but in many rural regions of Canada large child care centres do not exist at all. This bill offers rural parents or those who need flexibility nothing. Again, it chooses to ignore the simple fact that low-cost child care is not possible if child care resources are not accessible to begin with.

However, the rural-urban divide is not the only issue with this legislation. There is a serious concern about the complete lack of focus on ensuring that child care spaces go to those most in need instead of creating advantages for the already well off. After all, affordable child care should be prioritized for those who otherwise cannot afford it.

There is no means test. Under the current Liberal proposal, someone who works on Bay Street with children already in day care will get access to $10-a-day child care the same as a lower-income family. People who do not need to work have the same access as a family who needs to work.

There is no flexibility for families who are not working the weekday office job hours and who currently have different types of child care options that work for their shift work or their schedules. That is because this legislation dogmatically preferences not-for-profit and government child care over operators working and running child care centres in the private sector. These are people, most often women, who work in their homes, who have small businesses and who often have young children.

When my son was a baby I found someone to come into my home part time. That was back when maternity leave was only six months, and it was hard to work with such a young baby. Having someone come in was expensive, and I was not making a lot at the time. However, it was the only option I had at the time as few child care centres took infants that young or would allow me flexibility with part-time needs and hours. Christina became like family.

Anyone who has this type of scenario would not be applicable in this legislation. When my son was a toddler he was in the home of a wonderful woman, Pauline, who had a group of kids. Because I needed flexibility in child care due to the type of contract work I was doing at the time, the larger, structured child care centres did not work for what I needed.

The scenario of in-home small business child care does not meet the priorities of the government's legislation. Instead of giving parents freedom to determine what child care works best for their children and their lives, the government has opened the door for a two-tiered framework of child care. Under the government's plan, only not-for-profit and government child care spaces have open access for parents to utilize the Liberals' program as the legislation states is the priority. That is not universal access and the legislation does not include strategies to address spaces or labour.

We know there are labour shortages. About a year ago, in Kelowna, it was announced by one centre that they had to say goodbye to about 24 children, because they could not find the staff to meet the government licensing requirements. That left families scrambling with little ability to find a new location with waiting lists being long.

A Vancouver operator of 300 spaces said, “In the past two years, we've had to close programs temporarily, whether it's for a day or two, or shorten hours for a week”. A report on child care recruitment published in January 2023 found that in British Columbia, 45% of child care centres are losing more staff than they can hire, and 27% of child care employers turned away children because of a lack of qualified staff.

To adequately staff the Liberals' proposed plan in British Columbia, they found that 12,000 new child care employees were required. Still, current recruitment and retention programs are failing with several thousand employees behind target.

When the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development put this bill forward, she said its purpose was to enshrine the Liberals' record on children and family into law. However, their record on this file is something that they are not strong champions of. Canada was once ranked 10th among the OECD for the well-being of children, but under the present government, Canada has fallen sharply to 30th place.

We will work on this side of the House to try to make this legislation better and more accessible to parents who want and deserve the freedom to decide what kind of child care works for their family. Looking beyond this, a future Conservative government will work hard on ways to increase child care workers and spaces and to ensure there are stable, good-paying jobs for families to keep more of the money they earn in their pockets.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to greet all my colleagues who are here this morning.

I ask the hon. member from British Columbia this: Would she not agree that it is a seminal moment in policy and for Canadian families and children that a national early learning and day care agreement has been put in place? Would she not agree that families from coast to coast to coast, including in Kelowna, are saving literally thousands of dollars today on day care fees, which is helping out with affordability and giving children the best start they can receive in their lives and for their futures?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, there are some people who are able to access this, but it is not universal, and the government is hand-picking the exact types of formats that will work for this. There are many families who do not fit within that traditional format of putting their children in a not-for-profit or government-run facility. There are many people who have their children in smaller locations, such as in families' homes, and all of this is left out. Therefore, it really does not allow for flexibility and freedom, and it is actually likely going to gridlock the current systems that exist right now in the not-for-profit and government systems.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised to hear the official opposition questioning so many things when the Quebec system, which has been in place for 25 years, works. It also works well in the fight against poverty. I am receptive to my colleague's argument that it is those who already have money who will benefit. However, that is not what we have seen in Quebec.

Here is a statistic: The number of single-parent families on welfare dropped by 64% from the year the child care system was created to 2016. That is also because more women had jobs. Child care in Quebec was not built overnight. We began by laying the foundation and then continued to build up services, which are delivering results in the fight against poverty.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sure, there have been results, but the reality is that in Quebec the program has existed for over 20 years. As of right now, there are over 50,000 children on waiting lists to get into child care.

It has seen some results, but there is still a lot of work that it obviously needs to do because it does not have complete universal child care, and not everyone who needs a child care space has it in Quebec.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House given the support that we in the NDP have given to this important legislation.

We know that work needs to be done to improve it, but it is really hard to take anybody from the Conservative Party seriously who is critical of moving forward toward universal, affordable child care. It is a party that, when it was in government, waged a war on women. It cut the status of women department, cut programming when it came to women, refused to implement an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women, and did nothing to advance the desperate need for child care that women face in our country.

This legislation is critical to lifting Canadian women up. Despite the rhetoric from the Conservative leadership, let it be known to Canadians today that the Conservatives do not want to lift Canadian women up and ensure that there is affordable, accessible child care in our country for all of us.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member finally came back to referring to what the legislation is. The member mentioned universal child care. This is not universal child care. The government is hand-picking the types of organizations that are applicable for this. That was the whole premise of my speech, and I would ask the member to go back and listen to my intervention again.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, in the speech the member just gave, she criticized this legislation for not being means-tested. I would remind her that when she ran in the last election under the leader from Durham, the Conservatives' plan was to get rid of this universal child care and replace it with a tax credit. A tax credit would be the least available option if one were looking to means-test a program. Can she somehow explain to the House how it is she ran on a tax credit, which by no means would provide a means test, and is now suddenly critical of that specifically?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada if we had not had hundreds of thousands of people laid off in the resource sector who had very good-paying jobs, if we did not have 40-year inflation where people can barely buy food and groceries, maybe it would not be such an issue that they would not be able to afford their basic necessities and not be able to afford child care.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if a couple, Fred and Martha let us say, living near Hoadley, Alberta in a rural area, have incomes that are close to or just above minimum wage, would they get the pleasure and privilege of paying for day care for millionaires in downtown Toronto or downtown Montreal while their taxes are not going to provide any benefit because there will be no government-sanctioned day care spaces in a community that only has a couple of hundred people?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the government does not have any money. The government takes money from its citizens and then gives it back, and so the scenario is in fact playing out as the member has said. The government is hand-picking who it is giving the money back to. In fact that person maybe does not have access to a lot of child care facilities where they live in a rural area. Absolutely, because the government is hand-picking who it is going to be giving this money back to.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this place and contribute to the debate on Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

As a mom and a grandmother of 11, I understand the importance of having access to quality child care, and I join my colleagues in recognizing those who work in this sector and the very important work they do, and I thank them for it.

With all of the fanfare that this two-to-three-decade plan in the making to nationalize child care has been given, this bill falls flat when it comes to providing a solution for the issues that currently face families who need these programs. As part of their confidence and supply agreement that sees the New Democrats support the minority government through to 2025, the Liberals promised to introduce this legislation by the end of 2022.

With that deadline fast approaching, the Liberals introduced this bill last December. While the bill sets out to establish a vision for a Canada-wide community-based early learning and child care system, it lacks substance in charting a path to get there. Not only does it not address the problems that already exist, but it creates even more.

In declaring their goal to support the establishment and maintenance of a Canada-wide early learning and child care system, where families have access to affordable, inclusive and high-quality early learning and child care programs and services, regardless of where they live, the Liberals have included one proviso that has many families and child care providers concerned.

That condition is found in paragraph 7(1)(a), to "facilitate access to early learning and child care programs and services—in particular those that are provided by public and not for profit child care providers”.

To start, it favours or gives preferential treatment to public and not-for-profit providers over any other type of child care program that exists. Only public, non-profit child care spaces have open access for parents to utilize the supports of this program. If a family chose a new, privately owned centre or one that has recently expanded to meet the demand, it cannot access the subsidy it needs at that centre, therefore limiting the child's ability to access quality child care.

Families are diverse and so, too, are their circumstances. The federal government should not be dictating what child care is best for families. Conservatives recognize that Canadian families should have access to affordable and quality child care and believe they should be able to choose child care providers who best suit their families' needs.

Second, this bill does nothing to address the wait-lists of thousands of families needing child care. For example, the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario projects that, by 2026, there will be 602,000 children under six whose families will want $10-a-day care and the province will only be able to accommodate 375,000 of them, leaving 227,000, or 38% of those children, without access.

Third, it does not address the concerns of operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces. Currently there are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone staff new spaces. Government estimates also suggest that, by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early childhood workers.

In British Columbia, 27% of child care centres turn away children due to lack of staff. One child care director who oversees 13 child care programs with 350 spaces says that, “In the past two years, we’ve had to close programs temporarily, whether it’s for a day or two, or shorten hours for the week…in order to meet the licensing regulations”.

There are also concerns of inflation increasing operating costs. Many child care centres that offer food programs are now considering seriously cutting back on the programs or eliminating them all together.

The cost of inflation is putting pressure on child care centres, and they need to lower costs because the funding they are receiving is not reflecting the drastic rise of inflation. They are now faced with cutting down costs in drastic ways.

In a Globe and Mail article, an owner of a child care centre in Calgary stated, “If we've got to start jettisoning expenses...do we start cutting back on our food program, or even eliminate it in its entirety over time?” Once again, the Liberal government is not taking into account the inflation crisis it has fuelled when implementing new policies.

While we would see the demand for child care increase as a result of this bill, it would not solve the problems of lack of access to more spaces, frontline burnout, staff shortages and rising costs. Affordable, quality child care is critical, but if people cannot access it, it does not exist, as I have already stated. Bill C-35 would do nothing to address accessibility.

In the time that I have left, I want to focus on the clause that will create a national advisory council, which has already been appointed. Clause 9 states, “A Council is established, to be known as the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, consisting of no fewer than 10 but no more than 18 members, including the Chairperson and the ex officio member.” That ex officio member would be the deputy minister.

The chairperson, and up to 18 members, would be appointed by the minister for three-year terms. The members of this council would, of course, be paid with the remuneration to be set by the Governor in Council. These members would be entitled to reimbursements for travel, living and other expenses incurred for their work on the council, including the deputy minister.

They would also be deemed to be employees for the purpose of the Government Employees Compensation Act, and to be employed in the federal public administration.

Here is the thing. While this bill appears to put a focus on respecting and valuing the diversity of all children and families, and respond to their varying needs, the national council would have zero representation of entrepreneurial providers at the table.

In provinces like Alberta and New Brunswick, the majority of stakeholders are private, and there are a large number of them, in fact. It is 67% for Alberta and 80% for New Brunswick. There would be no one who will bring to the table the views of those female entrepreneurs who have stepped up and made investments to meet the need for child care in this country.

The government is not taking into account the realities of families who have access only to private child care providers. The national advisory council should have representation for the different options of child care offered across this country. Canadians need a solution that is flexible enough to fit their varying needs, not an Ottawa-centric, one-size-fits-all solution. That starts with representation on the national council for entrepreneurial child care providers.

In conclusion, I find that this bill is superfluous to the child care issue. It would do little but create a council of bureaucrats with full benefits and compensation to dictate to Canadians the Liberals' view of what the provision of child care should be across this country. This bill needs to be amended, and many of my colleagues have already noted that. It is flawed, narrow in its approach and does not address the issues facing this sector and the families who desperately need it.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back and I welcome all my colleagues back to the House of Commons.

Over the course of the break, I had lots of time to knock on doors. I talked to lots of my neighbours. Milton is one of the youngest communities in Canada demographically, so I overwhelmingly heard from my constituents that they were thrilled about the amount of money they were saving every month on child care.

While the Conservatives ran on a promise to tear up those agreements and remove national child care from my community, it would be devastating for my community. They have been talking a lot about affordability, but the $450, $500 or $600 a month that my constituents are saving on child care fees is really supporting them.

What is the Conservative plan to support families and their young children in those early years?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I too have communities in my riding that have very young demographics, and they do not have access to the kind of child care the current government is proposing to fund exclusively.

At a time when families are struggling, when they are already worried about how they are going to pay for their mortgage, feed their families or heat their homes, they should not have to worry about access to child care, which many already are, because this bill does nothing to improve access for people who do not have it right now.

Bill C-35 is providing Canadian families with a single solution to which access is limited. It is critical that we open up not only this debate but our minds to the reality that we need those small, privately owned child care spaces, most of which are operated by women, to meet the demand of young families.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to begin by wishing you a happy new year.

In response to my colleague's speech, I think it is important to emphasize that child care is not just a business. It is not just about tax credits. It is also a place where children learn.

I would like my colleague to tell us more about the provinces' role and that of indigenous peoples in delivering early learning programs and services. Is that not a priority? What kind of conditions do we want to create for our children?

This is not just about giving them four walls and a safe place to be. We also have to think about their development, and that means creating a robust public system.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to speak to the first issue the member raised around provincial jurisdiction. We know that while this bill does not make financial promises, the government has already signed framework agreements with all the provinces, and indeed it has cited the framework agreements as a reason for why it has not put very much detail in this bill.

We know that if the goal is really to deliver universal access to child care, it needs to take into consideration the very real and diverse needs of parents today and all of the options that are available out there. It should not shut out those small, female-owned and operated child care programs that are so desperately needed. I would encourage that member and his colleagues to consider all that is not contained in this bill and the implications that it has for young families across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remember when I first ran for office back in 2015. I think of the city of Langford in my riding with so many young families, and this is such a desperate need.

I have heard my Conservative colleagues talk about freedom of choice. My constituents did not have that. Conservatives put a lot of value in the private sector, but the private sector has not met the need. It has not stepped up to the plate, not in the availability of spaces or the affordability of those spaces.

There is a need for the government to get involved in this. The Conservatives talk about government dictating the program, but the private sector has been dictating the parameters of the program and it has not met the needs of my constituents or the needs of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Again, my question for the hon. member is this. If the private sector has so obviously failed to meet that need, why do the Conservatives put so much stock in continuing with the status quo? There is such an obvious need for the government to get involved in this program to meet the needs of my constituents and Canadians right across this country.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely reject the premise that the government is not already involved in funding public, not-for-profit child care programs. Conservatives understand that we cannot meet demand without both the private and the public sector.

We also need a national labour strategy. There is no mention of a national labour strategy in this bill, one that will definitely need to be addressed if we are going to move forward in creating more spaces. Until something is done about that labour shortage, it is going to get worse. The families that will benefit from this legislation at this point in time are those that already have secured child care spaces in a public, not-for-profit program.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in September 2020, the Governor General delivered the Speech from the Throne that outlined our government's intention to create a Canada-wide early learning and child care system with provinces, territories and indigenous partners. That was the start of our journey to transform the way child care is delivered in this country.

This is why I am standing in the House today, and I will be sharing my time with the member for Hamilton Mountain.

What we had at that time was a patchwork system that strained family budgets, left early childhood educators underpaid and left many children without proper care.

Our government's vision for a Canada-wide system recognizes that high-quality early learning and child care enrich children's cognitive, emotional and social development, which has the potential to deliver long-lasting and far-reaching positive outcomes throughout a person's life. Child care is also an important support for parents, families and communities as it enables parents, particularly mothers, to reach their full economic potential, which contributes to a strong economy and greater gender equality. That is why we are committed to supporting the establishment and maintenance of a Canada-wide early learning and child care system, including before- and after-school care.

Through budget 2021, we committed a substantial investment of up to $30 billion over five years to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system in collaboration with provincial, territorial and indigenous partners. We have already seen great results. We now have agreements with all provinces and territories to reduce fees, build high-quality spaces and ensure early childhood educators are better supported.

Since the signing of the Canada-wide agreements, all provinces and territories are seeing child care fees significantly reduced, and we are on track to achieve our goal of an average $10-a-day licensed child care by March 2026. This really is a significant accomplishment. As the hon. Minister of Families, Children and Social Development has said, we want to ensure that future generations of families across Canada can count on the progress we have achieved so far.

Bill C-35 builds on the incredible work that our government has already done. From day one, our government has been making life more affordable for Canadian families.

In 2016, we introduced and implemented the Canada child benefit, which gives more money, tax-free, to nine out of 10 families and has helped lift nearly half a million children out of poverty. From August 2021 to August 2022, in my riding of Surrey—Newton, nearly 28,000 children have been supported through $103 million in benefits due to the Canada child benefit.

Our Liberal government is committed to ensuring that families have access to affordable, inclusive and high-quality early learning and child care no matter where they live.

That leads us to the legislation before the House today. Bill C-35 was first tabled just over a month ago, and today I am honoured to speak in support of this bill.

British Columbia took the first steps with us towards creating a Canada-wide system of child care when it was the first province to sign an agreement in July 2021. Less than two years later, in December 2022, British Columbia announced an average of 50% reduction in licensed early learning and child care fees. Spaces in the $10-a-day program reduce the average cost of child care from $1,000 a month for full-time, centre-based infant care to $200 a month for the same service, saving families an average of $800 per month, per child.

I also want to point out that by the end of 2022, because of federal and provincial investments, British Columbia had nearly doubled the number of spaces in its $10-a-day program, from 6,500 to over 12,500 spaces across the province.

I am also very encouraged to see that more people are choosing to pursue studies in early childhood education in British Columbia. Building on the province’s work to introduce another wage enhancement, I look forward to seeing additional measures under the Canada-wide system that will support the recruitment and retention of this essential workforce.

It is worth noting that cutting child care fees is one way we can put money back in people’s pockets, at a time when inflation is making life more expensive. This much-needed support will dramatically help reduce the cost of living. The relief that these savings offer parents of young children cannot be overstated. It means that thousands of dollars can be used for energy bills, additional groceries for their families every month, or other essential matters.

This legislation makes it harder for any future government to cancel or cut child care and undo everything that we have achieved for children and families, together with the governments and jurisdictions across this country.

Passing Bill C-35 would build on the amazing journey that has seen transformative co-operation between the federal, provincial and territorial governments and indigenous partners. Through individually tailored agreements with the provinces and territories, we carefully stitched together this system and created a Canada-wide early learning and child care system that is accessible and affordable. It is worth building on into the future. That is what this bill will allow us to do, through an ongoing partnership approach. It does not impose any conditions or requirements on provincial and territorial governments, nor indigenous peoples. Bill C-35 is not a top-down approach. It is an act of partnership, building on the collaborative work with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples.

I am keen to support this legislation because it will serve to strengthen the Canada-wide child care.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you and the other members had a very merry Christmas. I wish all members, and of course the residents of Surrey—Newton, a very happy new year.

During my conversation with members of my riding on the ground they were asking me to support a system like this, child care that benefits families that need it. I respectfully ask all my colleagues to ensure the swift passage of this bill, giving Canadian families enduring access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I am seeing come out of this debate is that there seems to be an inability to see the word “and”. The Liberals and the NDP love to put the word “or” in their policy and legislation.

My question for the member opposite is this. Does he not believe that all families have different circumstances and different needs, that this policy or legislation excludes so many families that are on wait-lists and so many women entrepreneurs who cannot access this and therefore cannot provide the day care needed for those people on wait-lists, and that it does not provide a labour strategy to help with frontline burnout?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can say that the system we are building is an affordable and inclusive system. I gave the example earlier that in British Columbia alone, the capacity has gone from 6,500 to 12,500 spaces across the province, and I am sure other provinces are following the lead that British Columbia has taken and are creating those spaces.

However, I want to remind my hon. colleagues on the other side that we need Bill C-35 because I know the record of the Conservative government. When Prime Minister Harper took over, Ken Dryden had formed an agreement with all 10 provinces and territories on universal child care and early learning, and what happened? When the Conservatives came in, child care cuts were made. With respect to the Kelowna accord to help our indigenous partners, do members know what happened? It was gone. Regarding Kyoto on the environment, after the Conservatives came in, it was gone.

This is why this bill is even more important, so that our future generations will have a system that is inclusive, affordable and universal.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my colleague's speech, I would see that he certainly understands all the benefits of affordable educational child care.

However, in the previous version of the bill, Quebec's exemption was right there in black and white. After all, Quebec is a success story. I would like to know why that was not included in this bill. If it were clearly stated that Quebec could opt out with appropriate financial compensation, I think another Quebec-Canada fight could be avoided.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has led the way for many, many years when it comes to child care, and I have to give it credit. We continue to learn from the Quebec model on this particular issue. We are glad that the other provinces and territories are now following Quebec's lead by partnering with us and continuing to build the early learning and child care system.

Moving forward, I am sure that we, as Canadians, along with Quebeckers, will continue to bring in a system that works for all and helps our children and families moving forward.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I really appreciate this bill because it would incorporate into legislation the importance of implementing UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples., as well as make sure that all children are being taken care of. It would create a system to ensure that children are being taken care of.

What I also like about this bill is that it would create a national advisory council on early learning and child care. I wonder if the member agrees that this new advisory council must also include indigenous experts in the area of early child care, so we could make sure there is true reconciliation, something we need to see more of. I wonder if the member agrees that we need to ensure indigenous membership on that council.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nunavut has said it all. I support her on this one, and I am sure the advisory council would be very diverse in its background and would also be inclusive with indigenous membership.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is so nice to be back in the House with friends and colleagues. I would like to take advantage of the very end of the statute of limitations to wish everyone a very happy new year. I particularly wish the residents of Hamilton Mountain a happy new year.

It was so great to be back in the riding over the holidays, but I am thrilled to be back in the House today to stand to speak in support of Bill C-35, which we hope will become the Canada early learning and child care act. This bill would enshrine into law the Government of Canada’s commitment to working with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples to build a Canada-wide system of early learning and child care, a system that would help ensure families in my riding of Hamilton Mountain, and families across Canada, can access high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care, no matter where they live.

In my riding of Hamilton Mountain we have many early learning and child care centres that provide access to high-quality early learning, such as Today’s Family, YMCA, YWCA Hamilton, and Umbrella Family and Child Centres, and I have been proud to tour some of those facilities with the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. Centres like these not only benefit our children, but they also benefit parents who can afford to go to work knowing their children are being cared for and educated.

As a mother, I wholeheartedly agree with all of those who say that child care is not a luxury. It is a necessity. My friend and constituent Ala Mohamed is a child care worker at YWCA Hamilton. Her heart has been melting with joy since just before Christmas, when a barrage of parents started calling because they could not believe the child care refunds they were getting, just in time and when they needed them.

There were parents who could suddenly afford Christmas gifts and stop struggling to meet their mortgage payments, mothers who could finally go to work to help support their families and parents who could start planning higher education for their children. Ala said that parents are happy that child care costs dropped, while the quality of that child care has been enhanced because of renewed support for registered early childhood educators.

We believe parents should have the opportunity to build both a healthy family and a healthy career, and that children deserve the best possible start in life. As part of budget 2021, the Government of Canada made a transformative investment designed to give them that start, an investment of up to $30 billion over five years to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. Combined with previous investments announced since 2015, a minimum of $9.2 billion per year, ongoing, will be invested in child care, including indigenous early learning and child care, starting in 2025.

We are already seeing results well ahead of schedule. Women’s participation in the workforce in Canada is near an all-time high of almost 85%. The Bank of Canada credits the early learning and child care plan, saying “This increase in the participation rate of prime-age women has expanded the labour force by almost 100,000 people, helping ease firms' labour shortages and hiring challenges.” This means mothers are already finding they can afford the choice to find full-time work.

In November of last year, Nunavut became the first jurisdiction in Canada to reduce fees for regulated child care to $10-a-day under the Canada-wide system, joining Yukon and Quebec in delivering an affordable child care system to its residents, and doing so more than three years ahead of schedule. This is a tremendous achievement, one that will make life more affordable for families that use regulated child care in the territory, and while families in Nunavut are enjoying the benefits of this system to their fullest, they are not alone.

Every other province and territory that has not yet achieved $10-a-day care has announced fee reductions to parents under the Canada-wide system. This is a first and critical step toward our ultimate goal, which is regulated child care that costs an average of $10 a day across Canada by March 2026.

The Canada-wide early learning and child care system is becoming a reality. The legislative measure that is before us today will strengthen and protect this system so that it remains a reality for future generations.

The Canada-wide early learning and child care system is becoming a reality, and the legislation we are considering today would help strengthen and protect that system to ensure it is a reality for generations to come.

Here are some of what this legislation would work to achieve. It would provide support for the continued implementation of an affordable Canada-wide early learning and child care system by enshrining the vision, the guiding principles, and a commitment to long-term funding. It would enhance transparency and accountability by requiring the Minister of Families, Children, and Social Development to report annually to the public on progress being made in the system. It would also establish in law the national advisory council that would provide third-party expert advice on issues and challenges facing the ELCC sector in Canada.

This legislation is critical. As we build on the early successes of the Canada-wide agreements, we want to set the foundations for success over the long term. We are doing this by enshrining into law the federal government’s commitment to strengthening and protecting this Canada-wide system.

This bill is the result of collaborative efforts between the Government of Canada and its partners and stakeholders.

Bill C-35 builds on the collaborative work we have undertaken with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples from coast to coast to coast. This is not a top-down process. It is not imposing anything. It is driven by shared interest and close partnerships and collaboration.

This legislation respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction and the vision and principles of both the 2017 multilateral early learning and child care framework developed with provinces and territories, as well as the co-developed indigenous early learning and child care framework, which was jointly released and endorsed in 2018 with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council.

By enshrining these principles and vision into federal law, we are building not only stability into the child care system, but also predictability and commitment. We want provinces, territories and indigenous peoples to know that the federal government is in this for the long term, that our commitment to ensuring access to affordable, high-quality and inclusive early learning and child care from coast to coast to coast is one they can count on, one that will endure.

That is why I am supporting Bill C-35, and I would urge the Conservatives to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course quality, affordable child care is what every Canadian wants for their child. There is not a parent or person watching who does not want their child to have the best, to have access to the best.

In the member's speech, she said that this program enhances child care. We have seen that the Liberals did not account for inflation. In fact, as quoted in The Globe and Mail, many child care facilities are having to decide whether or not to cut their food programs. The Liberals did not account for inflation and, in fact, it is not enhancing the child care experience.

What is the member's rebuttal to that?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I know and have heard from constituents in the riding of Hamilton Mountain is that this child care system is working. Parents are getting the relief they need and the child care system is getting better for them.

I have heard directly from my constituents that this is something parents needed and that childhood educators have been clamouring for. They are so grateful to this government for creating a system so parents across this country, not just the parents in Quebec, have access to an equitable, affordable, high-quality child care system.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague opposite on her speech and particularly for saying a few words in French near the end. That is always appreciated. It was very kind. I thank her for that.

We have heard this before. Quebec already has a child care system that has been in place for a long time. It was implemented by Pauline Marois, who was the Quebec education minister in 1997. This is not the kind of thing that can be set up overnight. It is something that is built up and improved over time through trial and error. We are improving our system from year to year.

If there is one thing that Quebec does not want to see with something like this that is working relatively well, it is federal interference. There are several recent examples of that with passports and employment insurance. Those are well-documented fiascos.

We also do not want to see the federal government put its big paws all over Quebec's child care system. The federal government and Quebec reached a financial agreement that would enable Quebec to opt out of the system with full compensation. That was good to see. It would enable Quebec to use that money for other things. However, that was in the previous version of the bill; it has not been included in Bill C-35.

Does my colleague agree that the bill should be amended to specify that Quebec can opt out with full compensation? What are her thoughts on that?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for the question. I really enjoy working with him at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Here in Canada we are very proud of Quebec and the system that was created there. The entire country has learned from Quebec's system, which respects provincial and territorial jurisdictions.

It has the parameters to be able to continue to grow and to enshrine the principles while still respecting the jurisdiction of provinces and territories and to learn from them, as we have already heard this morning. We will continue to learn from the Quebec system and continue to improve.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for mentioning Nunavut a few times in her speech. Indeed, I am quite proud to stand as an NDP member and to have created so much interest in Nunavut.

I have seen a record number of MPs come to my riding. Indeed, the minister came to my home community of Iglulik to make the announcements about the day care program, and we are seeing the positive impacts of this program that started.

My grandson, of whom I am very proud, and my daughter have seen positive impacts. However, they have also seen a bit of a negative impact, and that is in the administrative burden that is being caused.

Could the member talk about the administrative burden that may be alleviated through the positive implementation of Bill C-35 to make sure that this day care system that they are so excited about does not create more of an administrative burden for the child care providers in the communities?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I have enormous respect for the member for Nunavut, and I absolutely appreciate her intervention. I would say that the government has every intention of getting this legislation right, and I would invite any input she has into helping alleviate that administrative burden.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my enthusiastic colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Yesterday, my colleagues from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and Laurentides—Labelle spoke to Bill C‑35. Today, I will be delivering a somewhat complementary speech, and I want to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of this bill.

In 2022, Quebec marked the 25th anniversary of its family policy, which ushered in an integrated family allowance and a parental insurance plan and provided for the development of affordable educational and day care services. This is just one more development for Quebec society that confirms the distinct and unique nature of our nation. The objective of this progressive plan was to ensure equity through universal support for families and increased financial assistance to the most vulnerable families, to make it easier for parents to achieve work-life balance, and to promote child development and equal opportunity.

The architecture of the child care system and its success stories have been commended by many experts in education and in public policy development around the world. The OECD described Quebec's system as “one of the most ambitious and interesting early education and care policies in North America” and added that “none of [the] provinces showed the same clarity of vision as Quebec in addressing the needs of young children and families”.

Others have made similar comments. We have been hearing them for more than 20 years. Quebec is most definitely and without question a distinct society, and its child care program is another example of what makes it different. Naturally, the Bloc Québécois is pleased that the federal government is adopting our model 25 years after it was implemented. It is noteworthy that other countries, such as Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Australia, adopted it as a model before the federal government did.

I also want to talk about the introduction of early childhood centres, or CPEs, and what they helped Quebec women accomplish, as well as their role in poverty reduction.

Quebec is second in the world for the best integration of women into the labour force. The Research Chair in Taxation and Public Finance of the Université de Sherbrooke compiled the OECD data, and the employment gap between men and women aged 25 to 54 in Quebec is the smallest of the 32 OECD countries. For 2019, the employment rate for women 25 to 54 was 83.4% whereas for men in the same age range it was 86.8%. In Quebec, the gap is therefore 3.4 percentage points. In comparison, the average gap in OECD countries is 17.1 percentage points, or five times greater than the gap in Quebec.

The employment rate among Quebec women rose from 65.5% in 1996 to 83.4% in 2019. Only Sweden performed slightly better, and only by half a percentage point. In practical terms, this means that women were able to take up positions related to their training or even advance to positions that otherwise would have been out of reach without the child care system. In single-parent families, women were able to enter the workforce without fear of “breaking the bank”, as we say back home. More generally, women could actually see themselves having better work-life balance, pursuing graduate studies, and so on.

Now I want to talk about poverty. In 2023, providing affordable child care services in a public system is also a very effective way to fight poverty, and everyone wins. After child care services were introduced in Quebec, the number of single-parent families on social assistance dropped by 64% between 1997, the year the system was set up, and 2016. With more women in the workforce, more income and consumption taxes are paid, so the system helps finance itself, to some extent.

This bill will help move Canadian provinces toward true work-life balance. With more than 1.8 million single-parent families in Canada, it is not surprising that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce believes that the number one barrier to career advancement or a career change, whether chosen or imposed, is the lack of affordable child care. This was examined in an article in The Globe and Mail last spring.

We need to tell it like it is. Do not forget that women still tend to be responsible for the children, for the household. There has been some progress since I had children, but more needs to be done.

In this case, the statistics are clear. Current child care costs are so high that one parent's take-home pay, often the mother's, is almost entirely allocated to child care. That does not make sense. On average, fees seem to be $1,600 per month in Ontario, according to recent research done for 2022. This reality impacts mothers, as well as the availability of labour and everything else that revolves around that, including the local economy, personal growth, professional growth, tax revenue for the government, the socialization of children and much more.

Quebec, an authority known the world over as a forward-thinking pioneer in family policy, will not participate in the federal program and will receive full financial compensation. The opposite would certainly have been unacceptable. However, we want to see it written in black and white: Quebec can fully withdraw from this program with compensation. This would prevent a potential fight between Quebec and Canada.

One caveat though: although Quebec is way ahead of the Canadian provinces, when it comes to setting up such a major program, they should be wary of some of the choices made by Quebec governments that came after the progressive Parti Québécois because some of those governments were not quite so progressive.

Bloomberg recently published two articles on Quebec's early childhood centres. The title of the first, dated December 31, 2018, is “Affordable Daycare and Working Moms: the Quebec Model”. It analyzes the reality of the hybrid child care system and delves into why the provinces should guard against allowing the private for-profit sector to play too great a part.

Here is a quote from the article: “Unfortunately, the private for-profit non-subsidized sector has not been as good for child development. The parents/users who are in this part of the system, the private, non-subsidized sector of the program, have on average low-quality care, as opposed to the subsidized centres, which have a very high level of quality.”

That is what Bloomberg found in its research. The economist who made that statement was echoing the sense of unfinished business expressed by Pauline Marois, who headed up the initiative during her time as education minister.

The second article, published in April 2021, is entitled “Lessons from Quebec on Universal Child Care”.

His analysis involves the exceptional maintenance of public child care services in Quebec during the pandemic. He warns us about the market-based model used in the rest of Canada and the United States, even with the various tax arrangements.

Allow me to paraphrase: Even in the best of times, advocates of this market-based approach consider it a tenuous business model for child care, which requires heavy staffing to meet even basic safety requirements, and the children lose out as well. I think we should be aware of this, because quality child care is an “intangible good”. Its quality is more difficult to assess, so market-driven programs compete on cost rather than quality.

I will end with this. Earlier, I mentioned Pauline Marois. The family policy developed while she was the minister of education under a Parti Québécois government is decidedly the policy that changed everything for millions of women and families in Quebec. It was nothing less than a revolution for women with families. I am certain that several generations of Quebeckers recognize this. It is an exceptional political legacy. I heartily thank Ms. Marois.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. Her words are always well-thought-out.

I would like to take a moment to address the official opposition’s opposition to this bill. It says that it cannot support the bill because the system or framework being created does not meet all child care needs. What we are creating is a system, a base to which we can add more flexibility later on.

At the time the elementary and secondary school system was being created, had the government used the argument that it could not create large schools and a Quebec public school system—since that is under provincial jurisdiction—we might not have an elementary and secondary school system today.

What does the hon. member think about that?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who is the chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I am a member of this committee.

He is absolutely correct. I totally agree with him. To borrow a well-known saying, Rome was not built in a day.

Implementing a major policy takes time. It cannot be done overnight. Major policies take time, and we need to take the first steps. We need to lay the cornerstone, otherwise there will be no building.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I served on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we looked at the situation in Quebec. I was told that there were problems with new families being unable to find a space for their children.

Are there any recommendations for improving the situation in Quebec?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that there are problems. It is not all perfect. After the Parti Québécois and Pauline Marois put the system in place, successive governments did not always do the right thing, so to speak. Those governments were not as progressive. We need to be careful of that.

That is exactly what the Bloomberg analysis says. We need to implement a system that is sustainable and improved from year to year.

I heard many speeches by my opposition colleagues. They talked about a lack of staff. It is true that there are staffing shortages everywhere, so I am going to suggest a solution that will attract workers, and that is unionization. If child care workers are unionized, then we will not have so-called cheap labour.

According to what I have read, the wages of non-unionized workers tend to be much lower, often close to or just over the provincial minimum wage.

If we want to attract workers, then we need to think about giving them decent working conditions and wages. I would like to remind the House that 98% or 99% of child care workers are women.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased that the Bloc Québécois will be supporting what is essentially an NDP bill.

The Liberals have been promising a public child care system for 30 years now. It is the NDP and the hon. member for Burnaby South who have made this bill happen, a bill that will finally deliver on the promises that have been broken for 30 years.

The child care system in Quebec has influenced and inspired other parts of Canada. British Columbia currently has the best child care system in Canada. We are very happy about that.

However, I am concerned about the deterioration of the child care system in Quebec. TVA Nouvelles revealed this week that parents are saying that it is a bit of a child care lottery and that everyone else is being left behind. Many parents cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel. Many Quebec parents are worried about the deterioration of the child care system in Quebec.

Is my colleague prepared to criticize the CAQ government for this deterioration of the child care system in Quebec?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes, the NDP members make it sound like they deserve the credit for everything.

Quebec's child care system has been in place for 25 years. The problem is not the system itself, but accessing it.

As I said earlier, there are some political parties that followed the example of the Parti Québécois, which was very progressive, and others that did not do what the creator of the day care system, Pauline Marois, would have wanted.

The decisions that negatively impacted the system are not those of the most recent government, but those of previous governments and a certain Liberal Party.

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

The questions and answers are far too long.

Some members have not had the opportunity to ask questions, like the Green Party members.

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Repentigny that this bill is really important. I would like her to speak more about the need to invest in the workforce.

I spoke with people at the Three Rivers YMCA in my community, and one of their concerns is that it is difficult to hire and retain early childhood educators. That is understandable, because the federal government, along with the Province of Ontario, has set a fairly low wage floor of $18 an hour. As the Association of Early Childhood Educators of Ontario likes to say, without child care workers, there is no child care. It is seeking a salary scale starting at $25 an hour.

Could the member for Repentigny give the federal government some advice on how to fix this problem?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have a hard time giving the federal government advice on how to do more in an area of provincial jurisdiction. I will not be giving any advice.

The advice I can give to everyone would be to promote unionization in the provinces. A unionized workplace has a higher rate of staff retention and workplace satisfaction. What is more, it offers better salaries, better social benefits and better workplace practices. Under those circumstances people are more motivated to work.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Repentigny for her excellent speech. I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑35, which enacts development funding, maintenance and strengthening of child care services throughout Canada.

Quebec has its own way of building the services it delivers to the public and organizing its commitment to responding to the realities facing young families. It was the Parti Québécois under Pauline Marois that gave us this network of child care services that the rest of Canada dreams about today. The development of the model for early childhood centres stems from a strong network and the skills of their managers and educational staff; it is the envy of many around the world.

I would like to discuss what is involved in developing a child care system. It is not an easy task. It involves many stakeholders in our communities. Most of the tasks fall to the provincial and territorial governments. In Abitibi—Témiscamingue, the shortage of child care spaces and the shortage of early childhood educators are hindering our economic development. The money given to Quebec will undoubtedly help advance new types of projects in the coming years. For example, Adria Power Systems created spaces for its employees. Child care services are at the heart of a strategy to attract and retain workers.

The development of child care services, like that of health care services, involves many stakeholders at the provincial level. Many sacrifices were made in Quebec to allow for the development of our child care system. It is a tall order. It takes a lot of effort to open up a space in a child care centre. I would like to remind members that, to create spaces, we must compete for the same resources as the rest of society. We need project managers, architects, engineers, entrepreneurs, plumbers and electricians, every type of construction tradesperson and professional. It is important to understand that there is a labour shortage in that sector, which results in delays and increased costs.

When we open day care spaces, we have to think about getting a sufficient number of staff members to provide and maintain services for the thousands of parents who are waiting for a space that will enable them to get back to work or to school. The labour shortage has an impact on every part of society. Consequently, predictability in such an ambitious project is also a factor for success. We need to train as many people as possible who want to work and have a career in child care. We must have the wisdom to recognize and value the professions that revolve around children under the age of five. Educators are an important factor in early childhood development, and we need to recognize the value of their work by developing quality training programs in our CEGEPs and universities, while providing adequate funding. I commend these educational institutions for their contribution.

The quality of the curriculum is just as important as the quality of the care. The curriculum in Quebec has gone through several iterations and has evolved over the years. It keeps pace with the children's development and takes advantage of their interest in play to spark a desire to explore, create, reflect, learn and advance through the stages of socialization. That is the way to educate the next generation. Quebec still has to complete its network and secure the funding it needs to adapt and innovate in the area of services for special needs children. To do so, it will need to develop even more specialized care, which is desperately needed.

At this stage, the Bloc Québécois is willing to support Bill C-35 in principle so that it can be studied in committee, where witnesses will shed light on the intent and scope of the bill. The Conservatives would rather send families cheques, and we cannot fundamentally change their minds, but they will come to see that there are many benefits to developing a high-quality, accessible, flexible, inclusive and even universal child care network.

We also have some qualms about the bill. It is not a bad bill, but it bears thinking about. Our concern is that the bill fails to respect the distribution of powers set out in the Constitution. The Constitution clearly states that education and family policy are not under federal jurisdiction.

Every Quebec government has challenged the legitimacy and legality of federal spending in provincial jurisdictions. However, the framework proposed by the federal government in this bill involves the application of the so-called federal spending power. In its current form, the bill would require all provincial and territorial governments to comply with the multilateral early learning and child care framework. We will have to check whether the text is acceptable to them when the bill is studied in committee.

In the case of Quebec, the framework exempts it from the application of the federal family policy for the next five years and gives Quebec $6 billion in compensation for opting out of this centralist policy. After that, however, there is a good chance that the federal government will have a fight on its hands. Still, the framework does respect Quebec's opposition to federal meddling in its jurisdictions, especially since Quebec is not only a pioneer in child care, but a model of success as well.

However, the Liberal government added a nuance to Bill C-35, and we would like to understand why. Bill C-303, a precursor to the current bill, was tabled in the House in 2006. Clause 4 of that bill recognized Quebec's unique jurisdiction and would have allowed it to opt out and receive a transfer payment instead, if it so chose. As members of Parliament, we will have the responsibility of moving an amendment to that effect during the committee study.

The current agreement with the Quebec government runs for five years. However, the inclusion of a full right to opt out for Quebec would forestall another quarrel between Quebec City and Ottawa over the federal government's meddling in Quebec's jurisdictions, which it does so well.

Maybe the government is afraid that future governments will decide to back out and switch to another payment model for families. However, it is also true that, if we have to keep battling over funding, as we do in the case of health care, this bill will not settle anything.

Quebec's stance in its relations with the federal government is that it must have a full right to opt out with compensation. The social progress in Quebec that the federal government is looking to emulate today should not be used as a pretext for once again violating Quebec's right to hold a certain political view of its relationship with the federal government.

I would also like to point out that we can see other political movements brewing in Canada's western provinces, and those provinces seem to be starting to understand Quebec's position better.

It used to be harder for us to explain to Parliament what makes Quebec different and to get members to understand that centralization is not the solution to everything. There are plenty of reasons for wanting the federal government to stop meddling in the provinces' jurisdictions. This might be an opportunity to strengthen ties between the provinces and Quebec.

I sincerely hope that we can solve this problem. To be clear, I would like the bill to be amended by adding clause 4 of the former Bill C-303 as tabled in 2006. It would be a good idea for Bill C-35 to follow its predecessor's example by recognizing the Quebec government's unique expertise in North America when it comes to child care, as the international community did in 2003.

The passage of this bill would allow Quebec to obtain significant funding that would enable it to complete its child care network and enhance working conditions in the sector. Now that would be something to be proud of.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, and I serve on the industry committee, and he is an excellent member of that committee.

He raises, very astutely, the issue related to the labour shortage. From my experience in my area, health care, especially public health care, has been one of the things that we can attract continued investment in and also challenge U.S. massive subsidies to corporations, where the subsidy goes to individuals and their support of health care. One of the reasons we support dental care as well is that it is going to retain jobs. Child care is also going to be an important feature with this.

Could he reflect on the testimony we have had over the last year about the labour shortage issue? Not only is this an opportunity to protect investment and jobs in Canada and Quebec, but it will also propel another level of younger employees who will have great experiences, skills and qualities that we will be able to retain for generations.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Windsor West for his kind words. Naturally, I return the compliment.

One interesting aspect to the labour shortage is that, when young parents are forced to stay home with their kids because they cannot find a child care spot, they become workers who are not working anymore. The lack of child care spaces therefore has the side effect of impeding access to the labour market.

Legislation would allow the provinces to guarantee a spot for those people so they could access the labour market. There are certainly men and women who are at home with their children who could set up a child care service or even become early childhood educators. However, one important aspect of an early childhood centre, for me, is the question of having qualified, trained employees. People do not want to entrust their children to just anyone, to someone who is simply going to put them in front of the television and have the television educate their children. That is not how education works. Screens are not the answer; interaction is. Educating and socializing our children is an absolutely fundamental aspect.

There are elements there to combat the labour shortage. We need to better educate our children, but we also need to better train our educators.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone agrees that affordable, quality child care is critical, but if one cannot access it, it does not exist.

I come from Oshawa where we have a lot of shift work. People require it for different opportunities. Some people work on the weekend. My colleague, the member for Windsor West, talked about the labour shortage.

Could my colleague discuss options for people who just do not fall into the nine to five option? The bill would do absolutely nothing for this accessibility issue. Does he have some ideas for the government to improve the bill?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to me, this is one of the most important points. The solution is very simple: Set up a robust public system. The private sector is incapable of offering solutions that are accessible to everyone. One of the big dangers right now, one of the big challenges, is access to child care spaces. That holds true just about anywhere.

With a robust public system, resources will be available with more flexible hours and they will give parents what they really need.

Again, I say that a robust public system is the solution.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to wrap my head around the Conservative Party's approach to this. I have asked members of that party this question several times but they have never answered it. Maybe the Bloc member has some insight into this.

The Conservatives seem to have a newfound interest in ensuring that programs are means tested, but we know that their default, whenever it comes to any program, is to have a tax credit. There could not be anything that is less means tested than just a standard tax credit that applies equally to everybody. It was their signature move under the Harper government. Everything was a tax credit, which we know only benefits wealthier Canadians. Those particularly in need do not have the same kind of ability when it is just a tax credit.

I wonder if the member from the Bloc has some insight into this newfound desire of the Conservative Party for things to be means tested.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with several points in my colleague's analysis of the Conservative position.

At the same time, I would like to point out that perhaps the federal government should mind its own business, respect provincial jurisdictions, lower its own taxes and let the provinces raise theirs. It is not the federal government's place to dictate a national framework of principles or values to be imposed on our children. Why is there so much money just lying around unused in Ottawa?

There is an inequity here. The government is reaching into people's pockets. It is our money. Transfers always have conditions attached, as we see in health care, as we see in child care. Clearly, the system is not working.

The federal government has a responsibility to give this some serious thought and perhaps take a step back.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from York region, the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

It is great to return to Ottawa after several weeks in our constituencies where all my colleagues heard issues and concerns from our residents and to ensure their voices were heard here.

I do wish to give a quick shout-out to the residents of my riding, Vaughan—Woodbridge, and that the new year is proving to be a healthy, productive and prosperous one for them in all tangents.

It is a pleasure to rise this morning to speak to legislation that reflects the core values of our government in building a more inclusive Canada; a Canada where Canadians know that their government has their backs; a Canada that gives the best start for our children from coast to coast to coast; and a Canada we know we want, one that is a leader in the rights of children and their families.

Bill C-35 is important legislation as it would establish an act respecting early learning and child care. Affordable and inclusive early learning child care is an essential driver of economic growth, socio-economic activity, and today is making life vastly more affordable for Canadian families in all our ridings.

The purpose of Bill C-35 is to strengthen and protect the system by enshrining its principles into law and also help guide future federal investments into this great program, which is benefiting so many families, literally thousands and thousands of families across our beautiful country. Frankly, the legislation marks a historic milestone in our government's commitment to ensuring that families across Canada have long-lasting and enduring access to affordable, inclusive and high-quality early learning and child care.

Bill C-35 is the result of engagement between the Government of Canada, the provinces, territories, indigenous governments, organizations and stakeholders. It reflects the core values of our government in building a Canada that is inclusive for everybody and in building a Canada where we see inclusive economic growth, a strong and growing middle class and assisting those who wish to join the middle class.

Many of us here who are parents of little ones know the exorbitant and sometimes unreachable cost of day care that Canadian families have faced for generations. However, we know that the introduction of early learning and child care plan is a transformational one for Canadian families.

For example, it has brought the cost of day care for families in the province of Ontario down by literally thousands of dollars, thousand of dollars that are back in the pockets of hard-working families in Ontario and, of course, across this blessed country.

As many of my colleagues know, my family was blessed with a surprise during COVID. Leia is now 15 months old and attends day care in the heart of my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. Leia is truly a blessing from God to our family and has made life so much more special. She is awesome.

I want to thank the early learning childhood educators at my daughter's day care, and all the day care centres across Canada, who are taking care of our kids, nourishing their souls and their bellies. A special shout-out to the folks at my daughter's day care, the team headed by Nenza and ECE staff Isabella, Christine and so many others. I thank all the early learning child care educators across this beautiful country.

The agreement on early learning and child care is having a significant impact on the pocketbooks of Canadian families. I will give an example of this, and it truly reflects how we are helping Canadian families with affordable, high-quality day care for their children.

Prior to the Christmas holidays, families at our day care centre were informed of the new fee schedule and for children like my daughter Leia the reduction of monthly day care fees was approximately $760 a month or on an annual basis, $9,400. Those are after-tax dollars. If we do the math, that is approximately $14,000 in before-tax savings for families. That is $14,000 savings for families just in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. That is money back in the pockets of families in Vaughan—Woodbridge and in every other riding across the country.

We have signed agreements with all provinces and territories. This is how we put in place measures to help our economy, to help Canadian families and to give the best start to children across our country. That is real change. That is helping Canadian families. That is why Canadians have elected us to come here and do the good work to help them.

For hard-working Canadian families, whether in Vaughan, Halifax, Vancouver or anywhere in between, saving over $10,000 on child care fees means real savings. These savings can be used for clothes, sports activities or however parents wish to utilize these funds. It is real change, and it brings real relief to Canadian families.

Since 2015, whether it is in offering the Canada child benefit or the Canada workers benefit, increasing old age security by 10%, doubling the GST, raising the personal expenditure amount to $15,000, reducing taxes for millions of hard-working, middle-class Canadians or supporting students, helping Canadian families by providing real relief from increased costs for their daily necessities has been a paramount concern and objective for our government. Frankly, we have the backs of Canadians. We will always do so.

The goal of the Canada-wide early learning and child care system is for families to have access to community-based, high-quality, affordable, inclusive and early learning child care. It should be there no matter their socio-economic standing or racial identity, whether their children have disabilities or require needs-enhanced or individual support, or where they live in Canada.

Our government has committed nearly $30 billion over five years to make high-quality early learning and child care affordable, and yes, accessible. We have worked with the provinces. We have instituted best practices, and we will continue to do so.

Combined with our previous investments announced since 2015, a minimum of $9.2 billion per year, ongoing, will be invested in child care, including indigenous early learning and child care, starting in 2025-26.

Economists know that affordable and high-quality day care results in increased participation, primarily of women, in our labour force. For example, we know that in Quebec's situation, women's labour force participation went from 4% below the average to 4% higher than the average. That is good policy.

I applaud la belle province for instituting a child care system before the rest of the provinces did and before the national program. We are looking at best practices. That is what we do as a government. We will continue to do so.

In addition, it is estimated that the early learning and child care system will raise the Canadian real GDP by as much as 1.2% over the next two decades. This would primarily reflect the increased labour force participation rate of women and people entering the labour force, as well as the lower cost and greater affordability of child care for Canadian families.

Inclusive child care is a win for Canadian families, a win for the economy, and most importantly, a win for children. That is a path that we must continue to institute for Canadian families.

This is a seminal moment, I believe, for legislation that we have introduced as a government. For decades, we have been talking about a national system of child care for Canadian families from coast to coast to coast. Well, you know what, Mr. Speaker? We have done that.

With Bill C-35, we have delivered for Canadians. That is why they sent our government here. Bill C-35 is a next step to enshrining the principles of the early learning and national child care agreement.

Bill C-35 would enhance and provide further transparency and accountability. I am all about transparency and accountability.

The act would require reporting by the federal government on the progress made to establish a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. The act would also enshrine in law the national advisory council on early learning and child care, which would provide third party expert advice to the Government of Canada and serve as a forum for engagement on issues, challenges and specific challenges facing the early learning and child care sector.

The legislation commits to maintaining long-term funding for provinces, territories and indigenous peoples for ELCC and enshrining the principles of a Canada-wide early learning and child care system.

In my last minutes, I would like to say that the early learning and child care system across Canada is already delivering results. If we read the Bank of Canada's “Monetary Policy Report” for January, we have already seen indications that the labour force participation rate of women with young children has increased by several points. The Bank of Canada concluded that approximately 100,000 individuals have now entered the labour force because of the measures we have made to assist Canadian families from coast to coast to coast.

It is the right thing to do. We started it with the Canada child benefit, which now delivers approximately $26 billion a year, tax-free, to Canadian families in all our ridings. We all know the differential that is. This is now the second piece, where we have an early learning and child care system.

I know the benefits for the families that go to the same day care that my family sends little Leia to. We see the benefits. Yes, we are blessed as a family. I can only imagine the difference this is making for families across the country where they are seeing literally thousands of dollars of savings.

I will say this: There is nothing like seeing a bunch of young kids who are 15 months old playing together—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton; I congratulate her on her wedding.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, I am a happier member this year.

Madam Speaker, my question for the member opposite is actually about ideas to add to what has been put in place here. Organizations like CUPE are saying that there are three times more spaces needed than have been created.

When we studied this issue in the status of women committee, it was clear that one size did not fit all. There are people who work odd hours. There are people who, from a cultural point of view, prefer to have an aunt or a grandmother look after the children. What is the government's plan to augment what it has already put forward?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, through you, I wish to say congratulations to the member for Sarnia—Lambton on her nuptials and wish her and her partner all the best in the years to come.

With the agreements that we have signed with the provinces, there is built-in funding in place to expand the number of day care spots as we go forward. We obviously need to attract and train as many ECEs as are necessary as we see the demand come forward. That is going to be a good-news story, I believe, where we see more parents saying “hey, this program works for me”. We are going to help them and be there for them as we collaborate and work together with all levels of government because the regions are involved in the province of Ontario, and of course the province is involved. Therefore, it is so important that we are there, ear to the ground, on these issues.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time figuring out what the government is thinking these days. Most of the time, the feds seem to be telling Quebec how it should do its job. Take Bill 21, for example. The feds say Quebec does not have the right to pass a secularism law, that it is ridiculous and that the way Quebec is using the notwithstanding clause is just wrong.

They are doing the same thing with Bill 96. They say Quebec does not have the right to do that, and they are going to stop it. Here in Parliament, the feds say they want to protect French, yet they want to undo Bill 96. They say Quebec does not know how to handle health care, so they want to tell it what to do. They will send the money, but they will tell it what to do with that money.

Then all of a sudden, the government comes out with this bill and says how amazing and fascinating and inspiring Quebec is and how we should do exactly what Quebec did because it works and Canada can really learn from Quebec.

What exactly is going on inside the federal government's head?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very interesting question. It is very important to us to focus on child care.

We are concentrating on creating a system that gives the best quality of child care to children across Canada and allows them to have the best start in life so we know they can all have bright futures, whether the child is in the member's riding or in any other member's riding across this beautiful country.

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

Madam Speaker, I really want to underline how important this measure is for the economic security of families in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. When I first ran for office in 2015, families were saying that they would love to be able to go out and get a second job to advance their economic interests, but all the income from that second job would go to paying for child care. That is how expensive it was at the time.

This idea does not belong to any one party. There have been decades of work from the labour movement and from activists fighting for this through successive Liberal and Conservative governments. Some political parties have fought harder than others; yes, it is true. However, I invite the member to maybe pay some tribute to those decades of work from the labour movement and from activists in finally getting to the point where we are today.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's very sincere question because we do need to tip our hats to people who have sat in this House before us. We should tip our hats not only to those people but also to individual activists through the decades who have pushed for social policy changes and have pushed for social justice to make this country more inclusive, to make this country more fair and to give every child the best start that they can have in life. We are doing that, working together collaboratively with all levels of government and obviously in this case with the provinces to bring them on board, ensure the proper funding and ensure that children have the best start in life in this beautiful country that we all get to call home.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vaughan for sharing his time.

It is a pleasure to be here in the House today. It really is an exciting day for me to be speaking on Bill C-35. There are many reasons I am excited to be speaking on this bill today and to be representing my riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. Many residents in my riding could benefit greatly from this bill, and it is with great pleasure that I am here to support it.

We have already heard many members speaking about the benefits of the early learning and child care system. Members from the Bloc Québécois have illustrated the benefits it has given to Quebec society, and we are very grateful la belle province has gone ahead with this.

In the rest of Canada, it is not for want of trying that we are without a program. We have been trying for decades. Rather than going through all the economic benefits of this program, I would like to spend a couple of minutes on personal stories and history. This is not only about our economy and families or affordability, although it is about all those things; it is also about women, their choices and their ability to make those choices.

It concerns me greatly when I hear members opposite talking about the freedom of people to make these choices. I think back to my mother, who raised four children. She had a career in nursing, and she and my father both wanted a family. In the sixties and seventies, when my mother was raising her family, there were few choices for child care. If one was not lucky enough to have a mother or a mother-in-law live nearby or have a community association or maybe an organization in a church basement, one stayed home and raised one's family.

While I know my mother valued that, and we all do, I also know that she would have loved to stay in the medical profession. I imagine my mother would have continued her training, and she would have gone on to be a doctor and work in the medical field, contributing not only to her family but also to the larger society. When I think about my mother in the sixties and seventies and the history in Canada, I must give a nod to all those who have worked on this over the years. It has been over 50 years.

For those who do not remember, the first time this was recommended was in the 1970 report from the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. The commission was headed by Florence Bird under the government of Lester B. Pearson, and one of the recommendations was universal affordable child care to address key issues on gender equality in Canada.

It was not until 1982, in the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, that under Judge Rosalie Abella and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's government, there was another urge to implement a national affordable child care program. Around that time, when I was working with the National Action Committee on the Status of Women at the University of Toronto, I was thinking about my career. We did not have child care. I was looking ahead and thinking about how I could balance the kind of career I wanted with raising children. I did not think I could. I waited quite a while to get married and have children.

I am very fortunate to have a wonderful family. I have enjoyed being part of that and helping to raise children, but at the time, it was not a clear and easy choice to make. For women across this country, many of us made choices over the decades that we might not have made if we had affordable, quality, accessible child care. For the women of Canada, for the women in my riding, this bill is incredibly important.

I do not want to overlook the other issues I mentioned. Bill C-35 is not just about women. It is about Canadian values. It is about equity and inclusion. It is about supporting families, and very importantly right now, it is about affordability. It really makes me wonder why people are in opposition to this bill at this time. There are certainly some concerns. We have all heard that there are things needing to be worked out.

However, I would suggest that any member who is concerned about this look at the agreements that have been negotiated between our government, the provinces, the territories and our indigenous partners, recognizing those jurisdictions and the needs and concerns of those organizations, read the differences between these agreements and understand that it is in partnership with our partners that we are moving forward on this and not forcing anything on people.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It seems there is someone online who has their mike on, and I would just remind members to make sure their mikes are off.

The hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could not understand what they were saying, but I am sure they were agreeing with what I was saying, so that is okay.

These measures that we would be enshrining in law in Bill C-35 are so important right now. Regarding affordability, in my riding I know there are families that are struggling. The hundreds and thousands of dollars these families would save would make a difference in meeting their mortgage payments and ensuring they can take care of their children.

When we look at the caregivers, the people who are taking care of not only children but seniors, and the stresses they have been under, the mental health challenges, we can think about how alleviating some of that stress would affect these people, who are still primarily women, although I am very happy to see there are more and more parents of other genders who are now participating in child-rearing.

This is also going to allow more people to enter the workforce. We have a labour force shortage right now. We have been talking about the need for more child care workers. By allowing more parents to be fully engaged in the workforce, we would be increasing labour force participation. This would help with our shortage, and it would also help with our economy. In fact, the Royal Bank study that was done recently had some really interesting facts and figures about the increase in our GDP that we would see as a result of these increased numbers. We can just compare our workforce participation with that of Quebec to see what difference that would make, and I believe the number was about $92 billion, in terms of increase in our GDP.

It would help our economy. It would help our workforce participation. It would help women, and it would help children. We all want children to have a great start in life, and we know that this affordable, quality early learning and child care program would give children an equal start. This kind of equity and this kind of fairness are Canadian values. These are things we all agree on.

We have a historic opportunity right now to all support a bill that would move us forward as a society, increase inclusion and equity, benefit our economy and address the immediate problems of affordability. I so hope that everyone here will join me in voting for this bill.

I have so many facts, figures and statistics I could share, but I know that all of us who are interested in this subject have read them and seen them, so I just want to reiterate that I am so proud of this government, of all the members in this House who are supporting this initiative, of all the people who have worked to make child care a reality and to make this program actually possible, of the provinces that have sat down and negotiated with this government, and of the will of this government to lead, to not stick with a broken system that has not worked in the past and continue to do that, but to look forward, to be progressive and to take chances, as opposed to just sticking with what we did in the past.

Although some question the expense, I say we cannot afford not to move forward with this program at this time. The reality is that it has been over 50 years since the Royal Commission on the Status of Women first urged our government to put in place a program like this. The national early learning and child care program reinforces key Canadian values and helps build an economy that works for everyone.

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

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the part of my hon. colleague's speech about her mom being a health care worker and providing for her children.

I cannot stress enough how important quality, affordable child care is. Conservatives believe in that wholeheartedly, but what is missing in this legislation is the operators who do not fall under what the Liberals think is best. Does the member opposite believe that if operators are meeting or exceeding all provincial standards, licensing and guidelines, they too should be eligible for the program?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad the member is supportive of this initiative. It is really wonderful to hear that some members of the bench opposite will be supporting us.

I would also say that these agreements have been negotiated province by province, territory by territory, and with indigenous partners. If members go to Canada.ca and look at different agreements, they will see the different provisions that have been made. In fact, in Ontario regulated child care providers would be able to continue to participate. The funding would go primarily for the not-for-profit sector, but 92% of the child care centres in Ontario have signed up for this program, including for-profit centres.

Each province or territory was able to negotiate what it wanted to do given where it is right now and what it saw as the needs and as the best way to move forward to ensure that all its residents have affordable, quality child care.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague with whom I am very pleased to work on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

An economic downturn is looming. However, many scientific studies have shown that a market-based approach does not work for child care services.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Why does she think that some members are opposed to affordable government-funded child care services?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her hard work at the environment committee.

I would like to say that we are certainly not opposed to a publicly funded system. In fact, I believe we are encouraging that. However, there is great need across the country right now for quality child care spaces. I believe we have to use everything that is there as we move forward to build the system.

We cannot start and address every issue out there. I would just say to those members who are looking at what is missing or what is not good about this program to step back and look at the entire program and at the progress we are finally making. These individual issues can be addressed. In the framework, we have clearly stated that publicly funded day care is a positive thing, something that we support. However, we want to ensure that spaces are there for people and that people can send their children to child care and take advantage of this great opportunity to have 50% less cost.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I have also been hearing concerns about government oversight or government interference in this system that would help ensure that children are getting the care that they need. I wonder if the member could elaborate a little more on the importance of the national advisory council on early learning and child care that this bill would develop.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe the national advisory council that is being established in Bill C-35 is very important in moving forward and addressing some of the concerns and ensuring that we learn from what is happening and that we are addressing individual needs in different areas. I do believe that this, the accountability and the funding are all important parts of this legislation, enshrining what we are doing in law to ensure that another government cannot come and undo the hard work that has been done over these decades.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be back in the House of Commons debating legislation. I will be sharing my time today with my friend, the member for Calgary Midnapore.

When I heard the minister talk about Bill C-35, it was like it was the panacea of child care. One can imagine my surprise when I looked at it. The agreements have already been made with all the provinces and territories, and the $6 billion for the $10-a-day child care has gone out the door, so why do we need this bill?

The bill says it would do a few things. It sets a vision out, but if we look at the vision, it is all common-sense stuff, like we want an early childhood learning system that should be diverse, flexible, accessible and affordable. That is not visionary; it is pretty simple. Then it sets out the government's commitment to long-term funding, which it has already signed up in the contracts. Again, why?

Then it sets out the principles that guide the ongoing federal investments. If we look at the details, it says we are going to go with what the provinces have said. However, it would establish a national advisory council on early learning and child care. Why do we need a national advisory council on early learning and child care, when there is such a council in every one of the provinces that we just signed contracts with? Is this just another opportunity to hire a bunch of Liberal insiders to do work that is already being done?

I want to be clear for members opposite who are always saying that the Conservatives do not support this bill. The Conservatives support child care. Let me start with my own experience. One can appreciate, for a chemical engineer flying around the world, with flights out of Sarnia leaving at six in the morning, how easy it would be to find somebody to take the kids at 5 a.m. What if the plane gets delayed, which of course never happens with Air Canada? What if I do not show up until 11 o'clock at night to pick up my kids? Who is going to want to be that child care provider for any length of time?

I had some amazing child care, some at home and some more public in nature, but I also had those bad experiences. There was the one who had her boyfriend over all the time while she was watching my kids. There was the one who was smoking pot while she was watching my kids. There was one who let the kids go swimming with the guy next door without accompanying them because she was watching soap operas. Then there was the day I showed up and my kid was eating cat food sitting on the stairs because she had not had lunch. I would certainly like to emphasize in this House that I really support good-quality child care, and it is not easy to come by.

That said, it is clear that we are trying to echo the system that exists in Quebec. When I was on the status of women committee, we did many studies, and one of them was on unpaid care, with child care as a specific focus. We made recommendations to the government, and I will read what they said:

That the Government of Canada, in partnership with Quebec and the other provinces and territories, with the goal of ensuring that all families in Canada, regardless of geographic location or immigration status, have access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive childcare options, work to:

adequately and sustainably fund, through transfers to the provinces and territories with the rights to retraction with full compensation, an affordable and culturally appropriate national early learning and childcare system; and

ensure that this national system includes options for Canadians such as, sufficient public childcare spaces to meet demand, or sufficient financial support to Canadians who wish to care for their children at home.

That was in 2020, so it was not that long ago.

Absolutely, when it comes to wanting child care options, this is a place to start, but CUPE has said there is three times the need for spaces. Even if we look to the Quebec system, there is a two-year waiting list there. People who have family members who are already in the day care system in Quebec can get another kid in from their family, but new families cannot get in the door. What do they do?

In addition to what the government has put forward, there are going to be additional solutions needed. We have to have flexibility. When we think about this from a cost perspective, I have seen many studies that show that if we want more women in the workforce, we need to provide this kind of child care.

Let us say, according to the members who spoke previously, that we are giving $14,000 to each person as a subsidy for their child. After taxes, some of that goes back to the government. In addition to that, somebody is going out to work and they are paying taxes. There are ECE workers who are watching the children and they are paying taxes. Many studies have said this is a cost-neutral exercise that will result in more women in the workforce, and that is what we want.

However, we have to make sure we are flexible enough for those who work long hours, like nurses. My one daughter is a nurse and they have 12-hour shifts. Finding day care for that is not going to be covered by the current system the government has designed. There are many places where people prefer to have a grandmother or aunt watch the children. What is the financial incentive to make the system fairer there? I leave it to the government's creativity, but there is definitely something to be done there.

There was a promise a few years ago to make 42,000 child care spots available. I think that was a 2018 promise from the Liberals. I am not sure how many of those actually happened, but when I did the math and divided up 42,000 spots among 338 ridings, it sounded like fewer than 200 spaces per riding, which is nowhere near what was needed. Again, there is the problem of not having enough spaces.

There has been discussion about the labour shortages. There are definitely labour shortages in every business I am hearing from in my riding, but specifically with respect to ECE workers. I hired an ECE worker in 1989 or 1991, and I was paying $1,200 a month. Think about what that is in today's dollars and how much it would cost to pay them, but the pay for ECE workers is really not that good. A lot of them, although they get the training, do not end up staying in the business.

I think there is something to be done in terms of making the wage attractive enough to get those additional workers in the jobs. We see the same thing with PSWs in the health care system where the wages just are not good enough or the hours are not enough for somebody to live on. I definitely think there is something to be done there.

With respect to the actual bill, there are some suggested amendments that have come from associations. The Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs suggests it has a problem with the committee makeup of this national advisory committee, which I am not sure we really need. If we have one, we should have representation from both private child care centres and the not-for-profits in order to hear all the voices.

The Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario wants to make the bill more inclusive by deleting the reference in the bill to public and not-for-profit child care providers, so that we could have the flexibility that some of the members have indicated they would support. Different provinces are going to want to allow a combination of private and not-for-profit child care. I think that would be good.

Another thing missed in this bill is that not every day care is the same. Depending on the location, there are needs. For example, let us talk about food programs. There are some places where child care and day care are providing meals because that might be all the food these kids get. In the model that has been put forward, there is no allowance for that. Either those day care facilities are going to have to charge money on top of it, which goes against the whole point of this bill, or they are going to have to stop feeding the kids, which is the wrong answer.

At the same time, there is an administrative burden of applying for all of this funding, and people are already busy watching tiny, busy bodies, so they do not necessarily have the wherewithal for the complicated government applications. Something that could be looked at is to streamline those as well.

All in all, it is a step in the right direction. We need more child care so we can have more women in the workforce. This will certainly create a great number of spaces. I look forward to the government expanding in terms of flexibility and some of the other things I have outlined in my speech.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin my question, I would like to congratulate the member on her recent nuptials. We need that joy in our personal lives as we do hard work here in the chamber.

The member is from Ontario, like myself, and Ontario was the last province to sign the agreement because it took a lot of time and care in terms of grandfathering in private child care. The premier himself also said it was a great deal for Ontario.

Since the province worked with us to determine what would be best in terms of making an agreement that would serve families and day care providers in the province, has the member actually spoken to the province and to her counterparts to understand that they lead these agreements? Their input makes these agreements work for Ontario and Canadian families.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, I have actually spoken with both the premier and of course my MPP in my local area, and it is a good deal for Ontario to begin in this way. Clearly, neither the province nor the federal government has enough money to fully fund what eventually will come forward. I think some people need to see the proof in the pudding, that the net benefit is not going to be a net cost. There is a lot of belief that this is just a subsidy they will never get back. They forget about the people who are actually going to work and paying the taxes that are offsetting some of these things. Hopefully as we go along we can expand the programs. I certainly would advocate for that in Ontario.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, when my Conservative friends get an idea in their heads, it is always a rather sad spectacle.

Quebec's child care system has been working very well for the past 25 years. People come from all over the world to see how well it is working.

My colleague from Repentigny spoke about it earlier. The child care system enables many single mothers to get out of poverty. It is working very well.

I have a very specific question for my colleague. As part of the agreement that the federal government signed with Quebec, $6 billion from Quebeckers' taxes will be sent to Quebec over the next five years. If a Conservative government gets elected in the next six months, will that $6 billion stay in Ottawa?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question.

Is it possible for us to spend $6 billion to create spots for children? People currently have to wait two years to get a child care spot.

I encourage Quebeckers to create more child care spots.

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

Madam Speaker, I love the personal component of my colleague's sharing her day care stories. We all have them. As parents, we all have those day cares, or babysitters, but we do not like to use that word. We are looking for quality child care, and I thought she did a great job in her speech and intervention.

What I love the most about my colleague is her ability to see the pragmatic, numbers side of this. She has put forth a few solutions that could strengthen this bill. What would she suggest with respect to that cost analysis? How do we make this sustainable?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her leadership on this file.

I definitely think we have to address problems that would cause existing child care facilities to go out of business. We do not want to create fewer spaces, so the issues of meals and the administrative burden, how would they be dealt with?

Then I would say we need to ensure we are inclusive with all types of day cares that exist or could be created and to consider what we would do to incentivize spaces created in homes that are currently in the business, either those of family members or other alternatives.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be in the House to share my thoughts. Today, I rise to speak to Bill C‑35.

As much as I Iike being here and as proud as I am to represent the people of Calgary Midnapore, I want to start today by talking about the greatest pride and joy in my life, my son, Edward. He is just the best guy ever. I will never forget when my husband brought him around the green curtain after I delivered him, and showed him to me. I know at that moment I made the decision to do whatever I could to give him the best life possible. He is a great guy. In addition to doing well at school, he also plays piano, begrudgingly. In addition to that he is a great hockey player. Go Wolverines. He is a good little centre forward. As well, he is a cub scout where he learns all sorts of amazing life skills. He is a good little guy. As much as I love this place, he is my one pride and joy. I know my wonderful husband, James, feels the same way.

I know that every mother out there, every parent, feels the same way about their sons or daughters. There is just nothing we will not do for those little people. We want them to have the best lives possible. We want them to get the best care possible.

When we started out we had to put Edward on a waiting list when he was very young, but we were very fortunate. We got a space at a good facility near us. That is the reality in this day and age. Parents have to put their children on waiting lists.

This bill actually has unnecessarily been brought forward in this House, given the agreements between the provinces. Nonetheless, it is still here. It is unfortunate, because even though I am talking to people here today, this program may not be for them.

Are people like me? Perhaps they have full-time jobs and husbands or partners with full-time jobs. They have two parents or caregivers working. They have to get their children into some care before the work day starts, so may need something that starts early. People cannot always pick them up at three o'clock, four o'clock, or some days even five o'clock. People need flexible hours even after going through all the effort of packing them up with their blankies and snacks. Maybe the hours just are not flexible enough for them with this type of program.

Maybe people are like me, parents with partners who are doing their best in this world with two full-time jobs. There are holidays when at times the facility is closed and people have to figure out care. Maybe people are like me. Maybe they are in a situation with two parents working. Unfortunately, this program is not for people like them.

Are people like my friend Chris? My friend Chris is a flight attendant. She does not know what her schedule is going to be. Sometimes she does not know when she is going to be called in. She might be called in for a three- or four-day shift back and forth across the country or maybe to some exciting destination. Maybe she has to start really early in the morning. Maybe she gets in some weird time at night. She has a very flexible schedule that changes all the time. There are thousands of parents like Chris across this country. If someone is like Chris, this program is not for them.

Are people like Armeen? Armeen runs a day home in her house. She has five children herself, so there are always lots of kids the children who are there can play with. She loves staying home. There is always a delicious smell of whatever she is cooking in her kitchen. Her home is a warm, inviting place but her day home does not qualify necessarily for the national program. If people are like Armeen trying to run day homes out of their houses, this program is not for them.

Are people like my mother-in-law, Anita, so happy to become grannies, nanas, omas or dandis? They know they want to be an important part of their grandchildren's lives when they are born. The best part of their day is when their grandchildren are dropped off. They are just so excited to see each other.

They gave up their part-time work and maybe gave up their volunteer work, but that is okay because that is what they were willing to do as grandparents. That grandchild in their life was important enough for them, and their life is complete and worthwhile as a result of taking care of that grandchild. However, guess what. Unfortunately, this program is not for them.

If someone is like my friend Misty, they are a single mother. Her ex is in the trucking business. He is up at 7 p.m., drives all night and then goes back to bed to do it all again another day. Her two kids are at different schools and she has a full-time job with some flexibility, but it is still a lot to manage between the two parents' schedules. She is constantly trying to communicate with the other parent, figuring out who can get which child when. Of course, her two children are in extracurricular activities as well, and she is adjusting to life on her own in addition to adjusting to her children's schedules and the schedule of her ex-partner. Perhaps this program is not for her.

Is anyone like Shelley? Shelley is new to a community. She moved there not long ago. Her husband got transferred from his job, so it is a new place for her and her family is not there. When her daughter was born, she put her name on a waiting list, but that was in her former community. In her new community, Shelley does not have a space. She has put her name on the waiting list for the national program, but in the interim she is trying to cobble together some type of care for her daughter, who is three years old now. Spaces are filled up, so she is on the waiting list once again. Is anyone like Shelley? If they are, guess what. This program is not for them.

Is anyone a child care business owner-operator like Krystal, trying to meet the needs of the community but unable to find enough staff to meet the demands of children coming in? The nutritious food they serve, which might be the only good meal that a child gets in a day, is no longer covered by the government's allocation as a result of inflation and prices going up. The profit framework means that some centres have some families paying a certain amount and other families paying up to four times more. That is the reality of the situation. They might even have to shut down their operation because costs go beyond what is considered reasonable by the government.

Maybe some people are like Krystal: They are an owner-operator who is trying to run their business, and as a result of the rigidity of the government's day care program, they are not only unable have a business as a woman, but are unable to provide a much-needed service to the community. In the case that someone is like Krystal, guess what. This program is not for them.

My name is Stephanie Kusie. I am the member of Parliament for Calgary Midnapore and I am a mom, but this program is not for me.

Is anyone named Chris, Anita, Misty, Shelley or Krystal? Guess what. This program is not for them. The government can call it whatever it wants, including $10-a-day child care or universal child care, but that claim is a lie because this program is not for them.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member across the way for sharing her experiences. I, too, as a—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I do not remember calling out anybody with a male voice. I gave the floor to the hon. parliamentary secretary and she has a female voice. I would ask others to please hold on to their thoughts until I recognize them, should they decide to try to be recognized.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know we are all very excited to talk about child care in the House.

I would like to thank the member across the way for her comments. I, too, as a single mom, arrived here with my then two-year-old daughter and had to wait for a spot. It is a universal story for many families in this country, which is exactly why we have signed agreements with every province and territory in this country over the past year to ensure that we build more spaces.

The member said a lot about flexibility for shift workers, and I would like to share something with the member and the House directly from the text of the agreement between the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada. It says, “[A]n additional grant for those operating flexible and overnight child care will also be provided under the operational grant. These spaces are necessary for those in various industries and for frontline shift-working parents.”

Has the member read the agreement? Perhaps if she would like some briefings on it, we would be more than happy to share them.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, clearly the member does not know that I was the campaign co-chair for the former minister of children in Alberta during the time that she negotiated this agreement.

If the member wants to talk really big about what is in the agreement, I will note that I was communicating with the minister of children at the time on a pretty regular basis, and I think I have the inside track as to what is going on. I think the line that I was left with was that no one wanted money to be left on the table. What that says to me is many of these provinces felt pushed into these agreements. They felt they were left with a lack of flexibility and no other options.

Let us figure out who knows whom first and who is talking to whom, and then after that we can talk about the finalities of the agreement, which, again, I do not think anyone was excited about. Everyone felt pushed into it, forced into it, and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague listed some cases of citizens, parents, mothers who do not meet the criteria and are not eligible to receive a child care spot. The proposal to send a cheque to everyone and tell people to figure it out themselves will not create more child care spots in Quebec or anywhere else.

I think that the solution is to fund existing services properly. That is what is going to help in hiring qualified people to take care of our children in the child care centres. That is what is going to help create more spots.

I think my colleague and I agree on one thing: Bill C-35 is full of good intentions, but it may be a step too far into areas that should fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

Does my colleague not think that it would be best to send money to the provinces and Quebec and allow them to take care of this?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I do not think that.

I am from Alberta, so what Ottawa does with the money we send it is not our problem at the moment, but I hope it will be someday.

My colleague also talked about the number of child care spaces. That is a problem. I think this program will result in more problems with spaces. Lots of parents are going to want a space, but there will not be enough workers for all those spaces. I think there is a problem with the money and how it is distributed as well as with the number of child care spaces.

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

Madam Speaker, vis-à-vis the exchange that the member had with the parliamentary secretary, I would like some clarity.

Would the member agree with me that the bill does not tie down child care to any particular hours, that everything is to be negotiated province by province and that, regardless of the status of her insider knowledge of the Alberta agreement, it would be up to the Alberta government, just as it is for the Ontario government, to negotiate with the federal government to ensure early childhood education is available to as many parents as possible right across the country?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know. There is a lot on television and in movies about power struggles where someone gives someone money and the person who receives the money usually has to do whatever the person who is giving the money says. I think that would qualify here as well.

It is not as simple as that. It is nice to think it would be like that, but it is not. Someone is giving the money and the money has strings, and that is the way it is with the government.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House today to speak to Bill C-35, which is an important and crucial piece of legislation that would make a real difference in making sure that our kids get the best start in life.

I am the dad of a beautiful young boy who will hopefully go to day care in about a year or a year and a half. As we think about our circumstances and the circumstances of many of the other folks in my riding of Vancouver Granville, making sure they have access to quality, affordable child care is critical. We know that affordable, universal and inclusive early learning and child care is absolutely essential. It is essential for families, it ensures women's participation in the workforce and it helps grow our economy.

Do members know who said this best? It is the Hon. Rebecca Schulz, the former Alberta minister of children's services. She said, when Alberta signed its child care agreement:

Today is a good day for parents and families in Alberta. We've listened to families, child care operators, and business leaders to develop an agreement that gives us flexibility to truly meet the needs of and make life a little easier for even more families in Alberta.

This certainly sounds like somebody in government who was quite excited about signing a child care agreement, as were many of the other governments, and indeed all provincial governments, across this country. The reason they were excited is that, at a time when the global economy is facing serious challenges, Canadian families are feeling the impact, and this is one immediate way that Canadian families can look forward to a better future.

Affordability and the rising cost of living are top of mind for families in my riding of Vancouver Granville and across the country when it comes to groceries and buying staples. Over the past few months, we have introduced critical supports to ensure that families have what they need to survive and thrive. However, when it comes to early childhood education and child care, this is an investment in the future. This is an investment in the future of young people. It is an investment in the future of Canadian families. It is an investment in the future of communities. It lays the groundwork for making sure that young people have the start they need. It also makes sure that caregivers, primarily women, have the option, if they wish, to return to the workforce without having to worry about quality child care for their kids.

For far too many families across B.C. and across Canada, the lack of crucial access to high-quality early learning and child care has been a problem for many years. I am proud to say that as of December of last year, licensed child care fees for families with children five and under in B.C. have been reduced by an average of 50% across the province. Parents across B.C. can now save an average of $550 more per month for every child they have in licensed care. That is about $6,600 in annual savings.

These types of savings make a real difference to the average family from an income perspective and from a family budgeting perspective. These results mean something to people. They make it easier for caregivers to work outside the home if they choose, as I said. The fact that B.C. just announced yesterday that more than 725 new spots are joining the $10-a-day ChildCareBC program starting in February is a huge step. It is great progress. It is the type of progress that must be enshrined into law. Progress only works if we know that the system is going to be in place long into the future.

What Bill C-35 would do is make sure that families in this country can count on quality, affordable child care for generations to come. They would not have to worry about who the government of the day is. They would not have to worry about whether or not someone is going to rip back a benefit that is important. It is something they know they can count on for the future, and that is a really important step.

However, it is not a step that comes carte blanche. It is a step that comes with structure. It is a step that comes with a meaningful strategy. It is a step that allows us as parliamentarians and as Canadians to look at this with a sense of confidence knowing that it will be well executed.

First, what the legislation would do is reinforce a long-term commitment to early learning and child care by articulating a goal, a vision and principles for a Canada-wide system. It builds on the investments that were made in the 2020 fall economic statement and budget 2021, which made building such a national child care system a reality. The vision itself reflects an early learning and child care system that enriches children's cognitive, emotional and social development. It is a system that will leave a positive imprint on all of our kids while giving vital assistance to caregivers present in a child's life.

Most importantly, it underlines the necessity of culturally appropriate early learning and child care for indigenous people, which is an important step on the path to reconciliation. It acknowledges that first nations, Inuit and Métis families and children are best supported by ELCC services and programs led by indigenous peoples.

Second, it enshrines our dedication to maintaining sustainable, ongoing funding to the provinces, territories and indigenous communities, because making sure that provinces and territories can plan for the future is important. This is where that sustainable funding comes into play, because making a real difference in the lives of children and in the lives of families has to be sustainable change.

Third, we are enhancing accountability through federal public reporting on our progress toward a sustainable and effective early learning and child care system. This is important. It would make sure that the minister could report to Canadians every year on how our progress is going and making sure that Canadians could have a clear vision and a clear understanding as to whether we have been achieving our goals with respect to early learning and child care. Those are accountable and measurable results in action.

Fourth, to make sure that we are always at the forefront of best practice, we are establishing a national advisory council on early learning and child care. An advisory council like this would provide the government the advice it needs to make sure we understand what is the best practice, what the challenges are that are being faced in this sector and to make sure we are always doing our best to serve children and families.

We know that investments in early learning and child care make good economic sense. Studies that have been quoted in the House before show that for every dollar invested in early childhood education, the broader economy receives between $1.50 and $2.80 in return. There are Nobel prize-winning economists who say that it goes up as high as $15, $16 or $19 in some cases. There is not a study out there that says if one invests in early learning and child care, that one would not have a positive return on one's investment.

That is because people who understand the importance of early childhood education know that giving children the best start they possibly can has an important, positive outcome for the future of any country. It would make sure that caregivers, particularly moms, who are disproportionately impacted by the burden of child care, have the ability to use their skills if they choose to go back into the workforce and to do that in a way that gives them confidence and security.

Child care is good for the economy. It is good for families. It is good for the future of the children of this country. It is just the right thing to do. We need to be able to look at one another and say we have done the best possible work that we could to ensure that everyone in society has the ability to use the skills that they want in order to be able to contribute to building this country.

Thinking about constituents in my riding, I knocked on doors before this was something that was a reality. I knocked on a door and a young man, about my age at that time, answered the door. He asked me why I was there and we chatted a little bit. I heard a child crying in the background. I asked if was he was taking care of his child, if she was home from day care and what was going on. He said that his wife had a great job at the bank, so she went to work every day. He had to quit his job because he could not afford child care. He said he stays home every day with his daughter and it is a great blessing, but he had to give up what he used to do as a landscaper. He said he could not make enough money to afford child care.

That stayed with me, because I realized that those are the people we need to help. I fast-forward to 2021. I was knocking on doors and I came across a constituent who said to me that they were so glad we are doing child care, because after they had had their child they had to have a discussion as a family about what was going to happen. She was proud to say that her husband could keep running his small business, and she could go back to work at UBC as a researcher.

Think about the impact on families like that. It is important and it is essential that everybody in the House gets behind this legislation. It is going to set the foundation for the future that our kids need, that our families need and that the economy of this country needs.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is one thing that we have not heard as an answer from the government on this bill. It claims that it is a national day care plan. A national day care plan should address the needs of everyone needing child care in the nation, but it has not explained to us yet how this is going to address the needs of a single parent who works as a nurse doing night shifts. It has not explained how it might address the day care needs of someone working at a coffee shop as a baker who has to start at three o'clock in the morning and does not fit into the usual nine-to-five time slots of these day cares that the program is aimed at.

Can the member tell me how it is going to address the needs of those who are working those shifts in remote communities?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the things about this legislation is that it requires us to work with the provinces to ensure implementation is done in a way that addresses many of these needs. It would make sure provinces are part of the conversation and would make sure when we are talking about implementation the federal government is not only imposing a solution but working with others. That is the way to get to the outcome I know the hon. member and many of us would like.

The quote I read from the minister in Alberta is a clear example that it gives the flexibility to the provinces to find the right solutions. We are there to be supportive, as the federal government. However, when the implementation is happening on the ground, that is when these types of answers become critically important. We are going to keep pushing to make sure those questions are answered.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier I asked another member a question. I will ask the same question, but put it a little differently.

My colleague clearly explained how Bill C‑35 will actually help women, children and families. We know that the system has worked very well in Quebec for 25 years.

The federal government says that it will let the provinces manage their own child care services. It will send a cheque and let them manage this file as they wish.

Health care helps the same people: women, children and families. At present, emergency rooms are overflowing in Quebec. However, when it comes to health care, the federal government is saying no. It claims that the provinces do not know how to manage health care and it has to tell them what to do and how to spend their money.

How can the same government have two different approaches to similar issues where the same problems have to be tackled when trying to help the same people? I am trying to understand this.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would remind my colleague that we are here today to talk about child care. In this particular case, it is clear that we have a model that works well in the province of Quebec, one that is an example for the rest of the country to follow. We can use this model to improve our country.

When it comes to health, it is important to acknowledge the problems facing the provinces. We need to work together to come up with solutions.

As a government and indeed as Canadians, it would be irresponsible to believe that if one system works a certain way, all systems will work the same way. It would be irresponsible to believe that if one model works for one province, it could work for all the other provinces and territories.

That is why it is important for us to figure out how to ensure success in health care and child care.

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

Madam Speaker, we heard a lot of discussion today about the themes of freedom and choice, but a lot of families, particularly in my riding, do not have that option under the status quo. I remember speaking to a lot of families in my riding who said they would love to be able to go out and get a second job to advance their family's economic interest, but the entire income from that second job would go to pay for child care because it was simply too expensive.

We need to remember this kind of program is about giving families a choice. It is about giving them the choice to get that second job, because they know their kids will be looked after at an affordable rate and then they can advance their interests. I would like my colleague to underline that aspect. This is another measure to help families get ahead.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is absolutely correct. If we think about these economic times and the challenges people are facing, if we can reduce one burden from them by ensuring they know they have affordable, accessible child care, then it gives them the ability to be able to get that extra job or take extra shifts if they need to. Most importantly, it makes sure they have that sense of security for their family that they do not need to make a grave economic decision as to whether their child is going to be able to do something as simple as get child care. He is absolutely right, and we need to keep working together to advance this.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the land that we are on. It is the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. Since today we are debating Bill C-35, the Canada early learning and child care act, as we acknowledge the land we are on, it is important that we acknowledge the ongoing injustice that indigenous people face.

We pause not only to remember and honour the indigenous survivors who were impacted by residential schools and the children who never made it home, but also we must collectively commit to a future where there is justice for indigenous people and where every child matters. A piece of this is supporting indigenous-led child care programming, committing to a future where every child matters and where indigenous children have the opportunity to experience high-quality, culturally rooted early learning and child care programming.

Bill C-35, the Canada early learning and child care act, has been a long time coming. I thank the child care advocates who have worked tirelessly for decades to make this happen. I say tirelessly because their advocacy has continued despite decades of broken promises. However, it is also important to note that so many of the people who have been pushing for national child care, who are parents, grandparents and educators, are tired.

Parents have been struggling to afford the unbelievably high costs of child care, paying monthly child care fees that are as much as or more than their monthly rent payments. They have been struggling to find child care spaces. They are struggling, and many parents, especially moms, have told me they would like to return to work. However, because of the impossibly high costs or because they cannot find a space, it is impossible for them to return to their careers.

I have spoken with grandparents who are generously stepping in to provide care, but who have worked hard their whole lives. While they are stepping up as much as they can, they are tired and they do not want to be full-time caregivers. I have spoken to educators, who give so much to our children, yet for decades have been underpaid and undervalued. There are educators who are leaving the field, because they cannot afford to make ends meet without a living wage.

Their stories highlight some of the reasons this piece of legislation is so important. I am glad the government is committing to funding. We are beginning to see that funding make an impact in my home province of B.C. The B.C. government has been reducing child care costs, creating more spaces and recruiting more early child care educators. Every parent and every child deserves access to high-quality affordable child care.

The bill would enshrine this vision into law and commit the federal government to long-term funding for provinces and indigenous peoples.

New Democrats pushed the government for this legislation. It is one of the 27 commitments outlined in the supply and confidence agreement. We were able to successfully push the government for the prioritization of public non-profit care, which would mean affordable, high-quality and accessible day cares for families who need them. That would ultimately mean better wages and working conditions for staff.

We also pushed to make sure the bill would contribute to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and for the inclusion of a commitment to the right to child care, as recognized in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I want to give a shout-out to my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, for her tireless work on this file.

There are also ways the bill could be further improved, and as New Democrats we will not only be supporting the bill but also working alongside child care advocates, educators, unions and other experts in the field to strengthen it at committee.

We know that one of the major barriers to the expansion of affordable child care is staffing. We have been echoing the calls of unions representing child care workers that call for a workforce strategy that addresses staffing shortages in the sector. Early childhood educators in Canada continue to leave their profession due to the low pay, the lack of benefits, the lack of supports and the lack of decent working conditions.

Enticing new people into a field when they are facing these conditions is extremely challenging. The federal government must take a leadership role, commit to a workforce strategy and support amendments to this bill that outline explicit commitments to fair pay and decent working conditions for staff.

CUPE, which was my union before I became an MP, and also the union that represents over 12,000 workers in the child care sector, has stated clearly, “Until the child care staffing crisis is resolved, the promise of affordable and high quality child care for every family in Canada who needs it will remain unfulfilled.” It is constantly advocating for its members, reminding us that child care workers are highly skilled, trained individuals whose work is important. These are the people who are caring for and educating our children. They deserve respect and fair wages.

We will continue to push for a more unequivocal commitment in this bill for decent work for child care staff. We need clear language that explicitly mentions fair wages and working conditions.

We are also going to be pushing for stronger reporting requirements. The current language in the bill has a vague promise that the minister will report on progress, but there should be requirements to report on the number of new spaces built, the number of new child care workers being hired, and a detailed breakdown of federal spending.

We will also be pushing for stronger accountability mechanisms to ensure the provinces are spending child care money for its intended purpose. This is particularly relevant when we see in Manitoba the average cost of child care not going down, and when we see Ontario opening the door to and prioritizing the expansion of for-profit care.

Our New Democrat team is putting forward constructive proposals to improve the accountability and reporting mechanisms in the bill to ensure costs are reduced, child care spaces are created and child care workers are being hired, but we are also pushing for a workforce strategy and a clear commitment to decent working conditions and fair pay for staff.

A study that was released last year by the Childcare Resource and Research Unit provided the dos and don'ts when building a universal child care program. The researchers drew from studies both in Canada and internationally and concluded that, based on the best available evidence and on all we know about building the foundations for a publicly funded universal child care system, the best way for Canada to build an affordable, accessible, inclusive, flexible, equitable and quality early child learning and child care system is to use our public funds to prioritize non-profit and public child care.

That is not to say that we ignore or exclude the current for-profit child care providers. Instead, it argues that the most constructive way forward is a three-point plan. The first point is to maintain funding and the existing supply of regulated public, non-profit and for-profit child care. The second is to ensure more vigorous, publicly managed regulation, including affordable provincial parent fees and wage scales that ensure decent staff compensation. The third is that any future public funds aimed at the expansion of the supply of child care should prioritize public and non-profit providers, while simultaneously pursuing new public strategies for developing early learning and child care services for when, where and for whom they are needed. This is the road map to a national child care system that provides parents, children and educators with the support they need.

I want to end with a few comments about the gendered impacts of our policy decisions. We know that a national system of affordable child care helps advance gender equality by making it easier for women to re-enter the workforce after having children on their own terms. Unpaid household and family child care responsibilities disproportionately fall on women, and investing in affordable, accessible and inclusive child care is essential if we want women to have equal opportunities.

It is important to note that there is little data on the particular challenges faced by racialized women in accessing child care. If we want to ensure that the most marginalized women do not slip through the cracks of a new child care system, it is essential that we bring the voices of under-represented women and gender-diverse people to the forefront of these policy discussions.

It is also important to remember that, professionally, the child care sector is one of the most feminized job sectors in Canada, and early childhood educators are some of the most undervalued workers, with low pay, low retention rates, low levels of job satisfaction and, unsurprisingly, labour shortages. Investing in affordable, accessible, high-quality child care, where child care providers are paid a fair wage, is good for gender equality, good for the economy and good for our children. Let us make a more prosperous, equitable, affordable and inclusive Canada for all.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Province of B.C. has received $3.2 billion through to March 2026 for child care funding. This is in addition to, I will admit, sizable investments made by the Province of British Columbia since 2018. However, during the debate over the last two days, the federal NDP does not seem to be in line with one of the key policy tenets of the provincial program, namely, that private, for-profit care has access to the $10-a-day child care program in B.C.

I would like the member's comments on whether or not private, for-profit care, which currently has 12,700 Canadians enrolled in it, should receive access to the $10-a-day program.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do hope the member was listening to my speech when I outlined the research showing a three-point plan with the current funding agreements. It makes sense to maintain and fund the whole spectrum of our child care system.

Moving forward, when we are talking about future agreements with provinces, if we want to make decisions that are based on evidence and the best available information we have, it means investing in public, non-profit child care in the future. I recommend the member check out the research. It was released last year. It is a powerful document that outlines the dos and don'ts of creating a national child care program.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, the 2021 federal budget included $30 billion in new spending over five years to fund this new national child care system. It also projected an additional $9.2 billion ongoing. That is a lot of money.

At the same time, predictability is the key issue. As much as we want to get this system in place, we also want it to be robust and reliable. What kind of impact do we think this will actually have? How will this $9.2‑billion investment impact Quebec? Can we expect to see long-term agreements?

The government has not reintroduced the clause from Bill C-303 from 2006, so I am worried about predictability and the impact this will have on Quebec.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this issue.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned a few things, one being the cost of the program. On the one hand, we have to acknowledge that investing in child care is an economically sound policy. It is good for our economy, and it is good for equity and taking care of our children, but it also means people returning to the workforce, which is good for our economy overall.

We also want to make sure the government is making the right kind of fiscal decisions, meaning taxing the wealthiest corporations, the people at the very top, so that we can invest in programs that support everyday Canadians with things such as child care, health care and affordable housing.

To the question of how this would impact Quebec, I am going to admit that I am not an expert on that. I do think that there is flexibility built into this legislation that would ensure that provinces such as Quebec, which really are models when it comes to creating affordable child care, can direct funds in ways that best serve the province.

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

Madam Speaker, what I like about Bill C-35 is that it embodies, in recognizing the importance of early learning and child care, true Canadian values. Not only do we have agreements with the different provinces, territories and indigenous communities, we also have the substantial funding of $30 billion over a five-year period of time. This legislation would embody the commitment from the federal government to ensure there is a strong role going forward.

I would ask the member to provide her thoughts on the significance of this historic piece of legislation.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, this legislation is so important. It is unfortunate that the Liberals have been promising child care since 1993 and it took three decades to get here, but it is critical that we move forward together. That is why New Democrats have pushed the government to ensure this legislation is passed, that it moves forward. This is critical for our country as a whole when it comes to our economic success. It is critical for gender equality. It is critical for the future of our children.

I want to thank all members in the House who are supporting this legislation and fighting for the rights of women.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, it is a great opportunity to stand in the chamber to speak to the importance of child care, which is what Bill C-35 is all about. The aim is to establish, through this legislation, a national early learning child care system.

This is something that is not a new discussion in Canada. It was this government that was able to get it done, but the discussion, as members know, goes back to 1970 when a national child care program was called for by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada. Ten years later, in 1980, the Canadian commission for the international year of the child said the same thing. In 1986, a federal task force made the same recommendation. One year later, in 1987, it looked like the Mulroney government was going to get it done, but they were not able to. Its aim was to invest $4.5 billion toward the creation of 200,000 child care spaces.

The efforts of Prime Minister Paul Martin and the social development minister in early 2006 have to be lauded. There was an incredible effort made by Ken Dryden at that time to establish a national system, but unfortunately, it was not to be. Politics got in the way. Politics has not come in the way this time. We have been able to collaborate across the aisle. We have been able to collaborate with the provinces to establish a national system, and this legislation would enshrine that so any future government could not change it.

There are many benefits. This legislation stems from the fact that we have carried out enormous consultations with Canadians across communities across this country. The benefits for children are very clear. Child care programs play a critical role in children's development.

This is not to say that child care programs are the only way to foster and to nurture the development of the child. It is up to parents to decide how they wish to raise their kids. They still have the choice under this system. However, those who choose to put their children in child care will absolutely see obvious benefits, including the ability to interact with other kids, language development, cognitive development, the motor skills that come with these programs and other basic skills. This is something that I have seen up close, in my own experience.

My daughter Ava is now 16 months as of yesterday. She goes to Arbour Glen in London, where the incredible staff have worked with her in really important ways, which I cannot even begin to describe. These are early childhood educators. That is what they are. It has been disappointing to hear the word “babysitter” sometimes used across the aisle, as it is not appropriate.

They are early childhood educators, as important in our communities as teachers, nurses and others who carry out public-facing roles in support of the community. Whether it is Arbour Glen, where Ava is, or KidLogic, London Bridge Child Care Services, Oak Park Co-operative Children’s Centre or so many other child care centres in the city of London, parents have the option, more so even now. I talked about choice before. They have even more of a choice now to enrol their children in these outstanding programs.

What is the result? The result is not only important for the development of the child. The result is also important in terms of a community focus. TD Bank made clear just a few years ago that, when it comes to government investments in child care, “for every dollar invested, the return ranges from roughly 1.5 to almost 3 dollars”. A more important point from the study, which bears enormous emphasis, and I cannot repeat this enough, is “that the benefit ratio for disadvantaged children [is] in the double digits.” This is not from some far-left organization. In fact, my Conservative friends will like hearing this, as this is one of the big banks coming out in favour of national child care.

One might ask in what ways the enormous benefits would flow. The research is clear that children who do partake in child care programs see higher graduation rates. It is something that promotes lifelong well-being. Future earnings are in fact impacted by this. On average, those children who are involved in child care do tend to see higher earnings, and equality levels rise as children spend time with one another. For children from different socio-economic, ethnic and religious backgrounds, there is a very positive impact, in the long term, on equality.

Furthermore, the economic impact, which I have touched on just briefly, flows into something else and that is gender equality. In fact, it is quite relevant. Just a few days ago, Statistics Canada's labour force survey came out. This was in early January. It is made clear that 81% of Canadian women aged between 25 and 54 were working during 2022. That is the highest number recorded on record in this survey.

Mothers with kids under six are employed at a rate now of 75% of the 2022 figure. We will see but it is even more likely to increase in 2023 as a result of this program. The 2022 figure that I Just cited is a 3% increase from 2019. As I say, I expect that number to grow in the coming years.

There are a number of reasons for this. The pandemic has seen a more flexible approach to work being embraced by employers. I will not say that remote work patterns are the norm but they are becoming more regular in work places. We are seeing Parliament move in that direction as well. In all of this is the importance of national child care.

Now that every province and territory has signed on to this system, it is a natural consequence that there is a rising number of women in the workforce. That is not only good for the economy but also good for the goal of gender equality. Women now have more of an ability, if they wish, to work in a pursuit of what matters to them, to pursue their creative interests and to pursue work that they find meaningful. As we all know, that is a central goal of gender equality.

In relation to the economic impact, on GDP we can look to the province of Quebec where an excellent child care system has been in place since 1997. Since that time, the province, just because of its program alone, has seen a 1.7% increase in GDP. That is something very important with respect to planning for future social programs and other laudable aims that governments in that province have presently and will have in the future.

Finally, let me touch on the savings for families, particularly at a difficult time as Canadians grapple with the effects of inflation. Let me do so by touching on my own community's experience.

In London, 92% of licensed child care providers have signed on to this national program, which is a huge number. It even caught me by surprise. This number goes back to November. It could even be higher at this point. It speaks to the structure of this program, the fact that licensed providers have found it enticing to sign onto. Of course, the results are not just good for child care providers and their employees but also for everyday Canadians; in my case, everyday Londoners.

In 2018, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives put out a landmark study, a very important study that made clear how much the average family was paying in child care costs city by city. In London, that cost ranged between $1,000 to $1200 a month, depending on the age of the child. That could be a mortgage payment. It is a very expensive cost. Sometimes it was even more than $1,200. I spoke to a Londoner this morning and said I would be doing a speech on Bill C-35 on a national system. That individual was paying upward of $1,500 to $1,600 a month until this program came into being. Now those costs have been cut in half.

At a time when Canadians and Londoners continue to face the challenges of inflation this is a very important development. We can look at how it complements the other suite of measures that this government has introduced, such as the GST tax credit and the ways we are helping through the rental benefit and the dental benefit.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks to the NDP.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my friend in the NDP wants credit. We worked with members of the NDP on that, so he gets credit. We worked with them and it was this government that got it done. I am sure he will give credit to the Liberal government for getting it done.

We have great legislation here. I hope all colleagues support it.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions. The main question is on the member's thoughts on the bill the way it currently stands and whether his party would be open to amending the national council.

In the past we have seen the Liberal government appoint people it thinks are best rather than have a fair representation that serves all Canadians. Currently in the bill there is zero private representation. Entrepreneurs and small business owners will not be on the national council. Would he be open to amending this?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member does not give evidence as to what the government apparently has done, in her view, with previous advisory councils.

It is important for an advisory council to exist, and the bill would open the door to exactly that. However, if the member has suggestions that she wishes to raise, I would be open to looking at those. It is for the government to make the ultimate decision of course.

I see an excellent bill with an advisory council built in to it to provide that critical feedback to the government on how the legislation progresses in the short and long term.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak again about the multilateral early learning and child care framework, which states that the systems will “recognize the unique needs of French and English linguistic minority communities”. Would this be a way for the Liberal government to circumvent Bill 101?

The Liberals are already interfering by investing in a provincial jurisdiction, and now they also want to recognize the unique needs of French and English linguistic minority communities.

Where are anglophones in the minority? In Quebec, as we know. Is that not a way to circumvent Bill 101?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the subject today is not Bill 101, but Bill C‑35. In my opinion, Quebec has an excellent model for Canada.

In fact, that is exactly what we have seen, a government that has looked at the Quebec model, looked at other provinces and opened the door to ongoing discussions that ultimately led to agreements.

I mentioned Quebec before, with nearly a 2% increase in that province's GDP since 1997. There is a lot to learn from the Quebec model. This country and this government will seek to do better, and the Quebec model is instrumental in all of that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member knows quite well that we have had to compete really hard for manufacturing jobs and to sustain economic development, especially new ones. The green technology in the auto sector in London is affected by this for sure. As well, health care in those structures has actually played an important role to retain those jobs, especially when competing against Alabama, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and other places.

I liked his reflections on how child care would also be an important instrument to not only retain jobs but grow them. There is a bit of concern in Ontario with the fact that we are looking at more private health care from the Ford administration, which will undermine that competitive advantage. In the meantime, how will this child care policy enhance our overall economic competitiveness as we face these challenges?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I have enjoyed a very good working relationship over the years. I have a lot of respect for what he does in his community, and no doubt his constituents do as well as they have returned him to the House many times.

On the question, if we have an affordable child care option, we give people choice. If we give people choice, they will take it.

We have seen, as I cited in my speech, a huge number of women now in the workforce. I have cited the Statistics Canada Labour Force Survey that shows that 81% of women aged 25 to 45 are working. That is not entirely due to the child care program that the government has introduced, but it is part of the explanation.

If we give people that option, they will take it, and we need to provide that option to make Canada more competitive. We have to ensure that this is the case. When we do, it is only natural that we will see a number of metrics increase, including GDP. As I mentioned before, Quebec has seen a very significant increase in its GDP. That is expected to rise in Canada, and that is the TD Bank talking among other banks.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, speaking to parents of young children, this debate on Bill C-35, the Canada early learning and child care act, is about them and the type of support they need from their government while their children are preschool age. They will find the Conservative caucus and the majority of the House supports the legislation at this stage, but they will also find two competing visions for the future of child care in Canada.

The Conservative vision flows from our belief in small government and big citizens. We respect the agency of parents to make the child care decisions that meet their individual needs. That means we must ensure families have financial flexibility to create the life they dream of for themselves and their children. To do that, we need to make life more affordable, lower taxes and leave more of their hard-earned dollars in their pockets.

I was part of the previous Conservative government that promoted income splitting for families, implemented a child care tax credit and the universal child care benefit. We did so with a balanced budget.

The child care benefit was a direct cash transfer to Canadian families that gave them more flexibility in their child care choices with no strings attached. It was so well received that when the Liberals came to office, they decided to keep it in place and rebranded it as the Canada child benefit. The benefit was universal and supported the needs of every child in Canada.

Unfortunately, the vision of the NDP-Liberal government fails to meet that standard. Bill C-35 would not help every preschooler in Canada, not by a long shot. The legislation flows from its core belief that government is the best solution to societal problems. That is why the bill would give more power to the government to decide who gets child care support and who will provide the services.

What the government is offering is an Ottawa-knows-best solution, forcing provinces to give the federal government more control over their jurisdiction. For example, the child care agreement with B.C. will direct $3.2 billion into the child care system, with one key condition: that those dollars only be allocated to run regulated day cares.

That means families that choose to have a parent take time away from work to focus on the most formative years of their child’s life will not benefit from this spending. Parents working shifts beyond the hours of operation of regulated day cares will not receive any further support. Parents who prefer to rely on family members for child care will not receive support. This includes new Canadians, many of whom are waiting for the arrival of grandparents to help with their child care but are stuck in the Liberal-made backlog at the immigration department, which is well over two million applications long.

Many indigenous parents who distrust child care institutions, given their family experience with residential schools, will not receive support when they arrange child care alternatives. Parents in rural and remote communities where regulated child care is often not available will not get a nickel of support. For those who are able to align their schedules to benefit from this program, they may need to wait years on a wait-list.

That said, the child care agreement with British Columbia will help some families, but far too many are being left behind. After eight years, I expected an inclusive child care approach from the Prime Minister, because after all it is 2023. His Deputy Prime Minister promised better when she introduced the child care plan in her budget. She said:

This is women's liberation. It will mean more women no longer need to choose between motherhood and a career. This is feminist economic policy in action.

This is typical of the Liberal government: big promises but no follow-through.

Bill C-35 and the related child care agreements fall demonstrably short. Instead, the Liberal government implemented a program, frankly, straight out of the 1970s, when women were generally limited to typical nine-to-five jobs.

Speaking as someone who was a single mother for four years following the death of my first husband and as a woman who raised four children with a career in law and politics, this program is certainly not feminist economic policy.

I do not know where the Liberals have been for the last 50 years, but while women have been breaking the glass ceilings of every industry and every realm of life, have they really noticed? Women are leaders in the military, policing, medicine, aerospace, engineering, mining and resource extraction.

They are on the cutting edge of research and development. They are bolstering our food supply chains as agricultural producers. They are manufacturing the cars we drive and designing the transit systems we rely on. Many women are taking up jobs in the skilled trades, helping to construct the homes and highways that we need to build up our great country. Women are thriving in industries that were once male dominated, and they need flexible child care options that meet their needs.

The idea of a national child care program is a recycled Liberal election promise from the 1980s, but it does not seem to have evolved with the times. John Turner promised the program in 1984 and 1988, but could not win a mandate. Jean Chrétien made a similar promise in 1993, but failed to deliver the program despite having successive majority governments.

Liberal leaders ever since, including Martin, Dion and Ignatieff, all made similar promises but never got it done. The current Prime Minister copied and pasted the program into their election platform, but failed to modernize it for women working in today’s economy.

To make matters worse, the program fails to live up to the standard set by the courts. In 2010, as an administrative law judge with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, I presided over the Johnstone case.

Fiona Johnstone worked rotating shifts as a border services officer. Her child care preference was to rely on family to care for her children, but her family was available only three days a week. She sought accommodations from her employer, the Canada Border Services Agency, requesting that she work full time with extended shifts over those three days. Her employer refused her request, believing it had no obligation under the Canadian Human Rights Act to accommodate her personal choices around child care.

After hearing testimony from several child care experts on availability and quality, I made a precedent-setting decision that found the CBSA discriminated against Fiona Johnstone by failing to accommodate her child care request. My decision, which has since been upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal, protected child care choice as a right for working parents under the ground of family status in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I would hope that a national child care program would reflect the ruling of the court by supporting the child care choices of all Canadian parents. Sadly, it falls short. In fact, the bill itself is a half-hearted effort. After eight years, when the Liberals could have gotten it right, most of it is inconsequential. A lengthy preamble, a declaration and some guiding principles make up most of the bill.

The one thing the bill would do is establish an advisory council to advise the minister on child care going forward.

I have four pieces of advice for this council to consider in order to help families take control of their child care choices. The first is to find solutions that help all parents in the modern economy. The second is to empower parents to make child care choices that suit their needs. The third is to refrain from dictating to provincial governments how to deliver those services. After eight years, it is difficult for other orders of government to take the federal government seriously when it cannot even issue passports or process visa applications. The fourth is to find ways to give families more financial flexibility to build the lives they want.

The Liberals can start by axing their plan to triple the carbon tax. They can rein in government spending that is driving high interest rates and inflation, which is the cruellest tax of all. To conclude, Conservatives will vote to send the bill to committee and will seek to amend it with a clear objective, which is to make sure the national child care program respects the choices of all Canadian families.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I could be wrong, so I stand to be corrected, but I believe I heard the member say that we replaced or continued on the universal child benefit with the Canada child benefit and we basically just copied what the Conservatives had and continued on with the same thing. If that is what she said, it could not be further from the truth. The universal child benefit was universal. Everybody got it. Millionaires got it. Everybody got the exact same amount. That was the former Conservative plan. Our plan, what we brought in, the Canada child benefit, gave more to those who needed it. It was means-tested. That is the fundamental difference between the two.

Can the member confirm whether I heard that correctly? If I did not, how is she able to make that claim given the huge discrepancy between the two programs?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am always delighted when the member gets up and asks a question, because he does it so often and he gives us a chance to clarify the record.

I did not say what he says I said. What I said is that the concept of a universal child care benefit was something we, as a Conservative government, brought in. It was continued by the Liberals, albeit in a different form and format. What is interesting about these comments is that there is no means test in Bill C-35. The very people the member claims we helped the first time around with a universal program are going to benefit from putting their children in $10-a-day day care.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I hear some conversation going back and forth while the hon. member had the floor, and that is not very respectful. If members want to be recognized, they should stand and wait until then to say their piece.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-35 is being introduced at a time when many family day cares have recently closed their doors and there are concerns about the labour shortage.

Under such circumstances, I do not find that the Conservatives' solution to just give a tax credit is very helpful. We need to take action at some point. A tax credit benefits those who pay taxes; however, not all parents earn enough income to do so.

How are we going to help the less fortunate members of our society? I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives promote a suite of approaches so that parents can make the best choices that make sense for themselves and their families, that make sense for their cultural differences, that make sense for their age differences, that make sense for those in situations like the Fiona Johnstone case I talked about. She was a border services guard who was on rotating shift work.

Child care has to be made available for people to get some help and support with early child care and education that fits their needs. Tax credits are one way to do it. Income splitting for families who have children under the age of 18 was one of our previous suggestions that was rejected by the Liberal government. There are a number of ways to approach this.

As I said, I hope the advisory council will look at comprehensive ways to help all parents in Canada.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I have been hearing a theme from the Conservative members that the choices about child care are being taken from parents. I wonder if the member could explain specifically where in Bill C-35 that choice is being taken away from parents.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I never said that. I do not know what other people have referred to.

What we are saying is that what is being proposed here does not go far enough, that there are too many families it would not help and that there is a very narrow group of people it would help. Even in a successful program like they have in Quebec, there is a two-year waiting list. There are some 40,000 people on that list.

What we want to see is something that respects all child care choices so that parents have flexibility.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I know that during my question about means testing, I started to get heckles from Conservative members about opening the door. I am not going to disappoint them, and I am going to jump right in and address that point. This is not to worry them that they will not get any answers, because I have a lot to say about that narrative that is being led by Conservatives throughout the debate on this yesterday and today.

Before that, I want to talk about this program and how it has had an impact in my community of Kingston and the Islands specifically. I think the YMCA is considered a well-rounded organization. We get all walks of life in the YMCA. Socio-economic backgrounds of visitors to the YMCA vary wildly. I always gauge the YMCA as being one of those not-for-profit organizations that genuinely has its finger on the pulse of what is going on.

I want to read a quote from Rob Adams, who is the CEO of the YMCA of Eastern Ontario. In particular, he works out of the Kingston location. He said, “As Canada’s largest not-for-profit child-care provider, the YMCA is delighted to hear of the additional child-care spaces. There is nothing new in stating that child-care fees place a financial burden on families, and extra spaces at affordable rates will have a meaningful impact locally.”

I appreciate the incredible work that Rob does at the YMCA. Our son Mason, quite a few years ago, had the opportunity for a couple of years to use one of the child care spaces at the YMCA. The quality of care the YMCA provides in those young developing ages of children truly needs to be applauded, so I thank Rob and all the folks in Kingston.

I heard the Conservatives talk quite a bit about this means testing and their sudden new-found interest in means-testing every program. I find it quite ironic for starters, because the default go-to with Conservatives is tax credits. We can look at Stephen Harper's former Conservative government, and everything was a tax credit. There was a sports tax credit, and everything was a tax credit. There was no means testing involved in any of that, so the Conservatives find themselves in a very difficult position right now.

Quite frankly, they know they are going to support this. They have to support this. This program is wildly popular. In Ontario alone we heard from a parliamentary secretary that 92% of day cares have already taken it up. Every Conservative premier in Canada has signed on to this. It is a wildly popular program. Conservatives are going to support it, so they are left in this position of asking how they can critique it, and they are going after an angle, talking about the fact that certain people cannot access the child care program. They are trying to cloud and smokescreen using that narrative.

The reality is, and I have heard it time after time coming from Conservatives asking this question, that it is up to the provinces to work with the federal government to develop the framework through which they want to have the child care spaces administered and delivered in their provinces.

I hope my colleagues from Alberta know that the very framework agreement that Alberta set up with the federal government specifically references individuals who work shift work and individuals who require non-traditional forms of child care. It is being addressed.

This is the only thing we have heard from Conservatives. The only critique they have been able to make of this is trying to cloud something and convince people that the program the federal government has put in place, working with provinces to develop that framework, is a program that is absolutely necessary for us to do to work with the provinces. I will spare my Conservative colleagues the need to ask me the question. The issue is addressed. It is in the individual framework agreements. Alberta has it in its agreement. I encourage the Conservatives to go back and read the agreement. We ask ourselves why the Conservatives would have to take this narrative. I think of this quite a bit.

I cannot help but go back to a tweet from the now Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, who said, on November 30, 2020, “Why should [the Prime Minister] get to force parents to pay through taxes for his government daycare scheme, instead of letting them choose what's best for their own kids?” This is what the Leader of the Opposition said only two years ago. We know the Conservatives support this bill now, though my sense is that we will not be voting on it until June, but whenever they do let us vote on it, the Conservative leader will vote in favour of it, despite this. It is a complete about-face. That is what it is.

The reason he is doing this is that, as I previously said, he knows the program is wildly popular. He knows that he has no choice but to go along with it. Conservatives do what Conservatives do, and they will try to find any other angle to smokescreen and cloud the issue so that Canadians are somehow fooled into believing that the program is something it is not.

The member for Carleton was asked a question by a reporter at one point. The question was, “When you say about cutting the supplementary spending, in your view does that include the newly signed child care agreements with most of the provinces?” How did the member for Carleton, the leader of the Conservative Party, respond? He said, “We've said we do not believe in a $100-billion slush fund.” The member for Carleton, the leader of the Conservative Party, who will vote for this, whenever we get around to voting for it, calls the program a “slush fund”. That was his response to an individual reporter when asked about this program.

This was before we were able to sign deals with every province and show the Conservatives how successful this program could actually be. This is the problem. That is not leadership. Leadership is not sitting on the sidelines and making commentary, saying one does not support something and then completely changing direction on it when realizing how successful the government has been at working with primarily Conservative premiers to bring this program to fruition.

Here we are, in this position, where the Conservatives are somehow fumbling around the issue, trying to figure out what their narrative will be, when it is very clear on this side of the House to the NDP and the Bloc. With all due respect to my Bloc colleagues, I cannot think of a program so national in its scope that the Bloc Québécois ever voted in favour of, but they are going to vote in favour of this because they see the benefit of it. They know the benefit of it.

We do not even have to look outside this country to see how successful this program could be in getting people, in particular women, into the workforce. We just need to look to Quebec, the neighbouring province to Ontario. Quebec has had it in place for a number of years and it has been wildly popular and wildly successful. If we look at the statistics, more women have entered the labour force and a higher percentage of women have participated in the labour force since Quebec started this program several years ago.

I know that we will eventually get to a point where we can enshrine this into law. That is incredibly important, because provinces, territories and, indeed, families looking to grow their families or individuals who are looking to start a family want to know what their options are. If we have a program that can be so easily removed and discarded because it is only temporary in nature, at least in terms of the budgetary impacts, then we do not have that security. That is what this bill, Bill C-35, would do. It would enshrine these agreements that have been made with provinces into legislation so that any future government, any political party, will have to go through some pretty significant steps in order to remove it.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague will recall, in the last federal election there were 338 Conservative candidates who went around espousing what the former leader of the Conservative Party said, and that was that he would rip up a national child care agreement, just as we were proposing it.

Could he provide his thoughts on what many might see as a bit of hypocrisy?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, indeed 338 Conservatives did run in the last election to scrap the plan we are here to enshrine into legislation today. As a matter of fact, in a French language debate, the member for Durham said that there would be a transition, over one year, from this plan to a tax credit.

As I said in my speech, what we see happening routinely with Conservatives is that their default program is a tax credit. All they want to do is provide a standardized universal tax credit because they think that is the only solution.

Conservatives find themselves in a very difficult situation now. They are trying to wrap their head around how they can be critical of a wildly successful program that the federal government has set up and, at the same time, try to show their support for Canadians who genuinely want to see this. What we will end up having is pretty much a unanimous vote in favour of this bill. The Conservatives will do an about-face from what their position was in the last election, and they will see that this is, in fact, an extremely important program for Canadians.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, clause 8 of Bill C-35 discusses funding commitments. It states that the Government of Canada would engage with “Indigenous governing bodies and other Indigenous entities that represent the interests of an Indigenous group and its members.” When the previous child care agreements were signed, they were done between the provinces and territories and the federal government, respectively.

Is the government really prepared to engage with first nations communities who want more jurisdiction over their child care needs? This is a monumental task, and I am not sure whether the Department of Indigenous Services Canada would be able to complete this in two to three years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that, if this government has proven one thing when it comes to that very important relationship, it is that we do want to see indigenous communities have the autonomy to make the decisions that are required to properly care for, in this case, children.

I strongly believe that, even though the member might find the timelines to be tight, it is important for this to be discussed at committee. I think that this speaks to why this needs to get to committee, so that the discussions can be had. Questions that he has can be posed to the department officials and those responsible to get to the bottom of it, so we can deliver on this very important part of the agreement.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by agreeing with the member for Kingston and the Islands that this bill is incredibly important and it will benefit parents in my community, just as it will for those in his.

That being said, I do want him to know that child care providers in my community, such as those at the YMCA of Three Rivers, are concerned about hiring and retaining talented early childhood educators.

As I am sure he knows, the federal government's deal with the Province of Ontario only provides a wage floor of $18 an hour, at a time when the Association of Early Childhood Educators Ontario is calling for one of at least $25 an hour. This is at a time when we need almost 15,000 new childhood educators in Ontario alone by 2025.

Could he talk about measures that could be put in the legislation, or other actions he and the governing party could take to address this significant gap?

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

Mr. Speaker, the responsibility for paying individuals and child care professionals would largely fall under the purview of the provincial government, but there is, to his point, an opportunity within the framework of the legislation to enshrine some measures to encourage the growth of the sector.

He is absolutely right when he says that our communities will benefit from this tremendously. My understanding is that 92% of child care facilities that are eligible in the province have already signed on. The YMCA of Eastern Ontario and Rob Adams, the CEO, as I said in my speech, commented specifically about how important this program was. I am looking forward to the implementation and the development of the program in future years, and so is the minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is imperative for our country that every person in this place agree on one thing: We have to equitably value the labour of child care in all its forms. It is through that principle that I believe people in this place should be considering amendments to this bill.

I want to speak about why this bill gets us part of the way but does not talk about the equitable value of the labour of child care. We need to do better. Better can always be achieved.

This bill does not address the lack of child care spaces across the country in an adequate way. We have to look at how we can work within the confines of our regionally and demographically diverse nation to see how child care is being undertaken and to see how we can incentivize people to undertake that activity. For example, not every person has access to a spot that would be considered under this bill. Some people look to extended family to provide child care or private home day cares, and some people would not have access to that with this bill.

As I have been listening to the debate, many colleagues have raised concerns about people who do shift work or who are part of the gig economy. Their hours do not neatly overlay with the way these child care spaces would be structured. I believe one of my colleagues from the NDP raised issues this morning about whether this bill adequately addresses indigenous child care needs, which are sensitive. This bill does not really address any of those things.

If we are going to talk about child care, we have to do more than just look at one frame of reference. That frame of reference is important for sure, but if we are only talking about that frame of reference, what happens to the people who are planning to have children or who are looking for child care right now, are struggling and do not necessarily fit in the very prescriptive box this bill puts together? They do not feel like they are part of the bigger vision. That is why we need to amend this bill, and I hope that happens.

There is another context this bill needs to be studied in. We say “affordable child care” or “affordable day care”, but the reality is that life is not affordable for many Canadians right now. I want to take a slightly different approach to explaining how the cost of living crisis could seriously affect our economy and where child care fits into this.

Right now, Canada's national fertility rate, when we factor out immigration, is about 1.4, and the natural rate of replacement of a population is about 2.1. This phenomenon is not unique to Canada or to any country in the world. In fact, we are seeing a rapid global decline of fertility rates across the board.

For example, I believe China now has a 1.1 fertility rate. China's fertility rate is actually lower than Canada's rate. When people are looking at China's long-term economic growth forecast or the ability of China to maintain its continuous growth, the lack of children is factoring into the economic equation. We have the same issue here in Canada.

The other phenomenon we see in Canada is that immigration is very important to our country, and we need to ensure we have adequate processes to incentivize immigration, to welcome people to Canada and to integrate them into our social and economic fabric. However, we are also seeing over time, through studies out of the U.S., that immigrant populations that have traditionally bolstered fertility rates within countries are seeing declines in their fertility rates as well.

When we are looking at child care affordability and the cost of living, we have to understand that people make a decision to have a child based on a wide variety of factors. It is a very sensitive topic, but affordability and the availability of child care is one of the big reasons. If we are just putting child care into the box we have in this bill and are not seeking consensus to look at valuing the labour of child care in all its forms, we are missing the plot here for people who need child care right now. We need to be talking about very urgently as a Parliament how we incentivize people to have children without leaving women behind and while progressing on issues of gender equity.

This is a very tough, very emotionally charged subject that many people will have a lot of feelings over based on their frame of reference and the personal experience in their lives. Frankly, the decision to have a child is about one person and one person alone in the context of a family. If we want more people to have children, we need to incentivize people so that when we are looking at all of the factors that somebody considers when deciding whether they are going to start a family, those factors are taken care of.

One of the things this bill does not consider, which I hope this place will sensitively and from a cross-partisan perspective look at, is the failure of our immigration system to process parents and grandparents' applications. Right now, I believe the wait time in that particular stream is over 38 months. That is just the service standard; we know it is a lot higher. We know there are a lot of Canadians who want to bring extended families here either through that stream or through a super visa in order to provide child care. I hope the committee that studies this bill looks at that as well. We cannot be talking about child care in a country as diverse as ours without looking at ways that we can make it easier for people to have their family engaged in that if they choose to be.

We also need to make sure that we have affordable child care spots, as this bill starts to lay out. However, we need to look at how those spaces affect people who cannot access them due to their work schedules. That is something this bill does not address.

The other thing this bill does not address is the fact that, at the same time that we are looking at child care and looking at a decline in fertility in our country, we have an aging population. On one hand we have people of a certain generation who are trying to figure out how to have child care, and at the same time, they are starting to ask the question of how to care for aging parents.

We cannot have the conversation about child care without talking about elder care for all of the reasons that have already been raised in debate, particularly around the issue of staffing, burnout and early child care educators. It is not just early child care educators who we are lacking. It is also people who are willing to be caregivers in the broadest sense of the word. We need to talk about labour and valuing the labour of child care. Again, this bill is a start, but what it does is put our perception of the response to this crisis into very narrow terms. We need to be looking at this a lot broader.

I also believe that for us to allow for gender equity and allow people to look at starting a family, should they so choose, we cannot do that without understanding that not everybody in this country will want to access programs under this system. That does not mean people should not have access to that system. It should not mean that these people are left in the dark without a solution. It should not mean that their labour is not valued.

I know somebody very close to me who chose to have a child at a very young age. They made that decision because people circled around them and made child care happen. How do we value the labour of those people? We understand that our country is diverse and is not homogenous, so how do we meet this need, particularly in the context of the fertility crisis that our country is facing?

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

Mr. Speaker, what is significant is that in Bill C-35, we are establishing a fundamental, universal early learning and child care program that would be a first in the history of Canada. We are saying that in working with provinces, territories and indigenous communities, there would be public, non-profit child care that is affordable and provides the type of quality care that Canadians want. This will enable women in particular to get into the workforce if they choose to do that, or volunteer or upgrade their educational opportunities. All sorts of wonderful opportunities would be created here, and it is modelled off what we saw in the province of Quebec.

Would the member not agree that this is an absolutely critical aspect of furthering, in a very significant way, child care and enabling women in particular to get more opportunities in the future?

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

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that women should have more opportunity and that overcoming barriers for women to participate in society, writ large, is something this place should be urgently seized with. However, I take issue with the characterization of this bill as providing universal access to child care, because it does not. Not every Canadian who wants to get a spot would get a spot under this program. The fact that this program has not been means-tested is something that should be considered in a committee study.

We should not be trying to say that this is universal when it is not. If we are going to use the term “universal”, we have to understand that we must value the labour of child care no matter where it happens, be it in a state-sponsored space, in a private home or by parents providing it at home. Those are all labours of equal value, and they are all legitimate choices that should be open to all Canadians. Framing this bill as universal when it is not is the point we need to move on in order to improve it.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the member said, which I have heard other Conservative members say today, is that the bill would impose a particular way of doing child care. They particularly reference shift work and things like that as somehow being excluded from the bill. However, I was not able to find anything in the bill that prescribes a particular time of day that child care is to be offered by the centres that may receive federal funding through this legislation or the agreements.

In fact, one of the guiding principles in the bill, at paragraph 7(1)(c), says:

(c) support the provision of early learning and child care programs and services that are inclusive and that respect and value the diversity of all children and families and respond to their varying needs

As a New Democrat, when I read that I think it is a very obvious nod to shift work and families with parents who have different types of jobs and who are underserved by the current system. The way we are going to get this done is to have a strategy that incorporates those things.

I see language in the bill that talks about the need to meet those varying and diverse needs, so I wonder if the member could please point me to the part in the bill where the straitjacket that she and some of her caucus colleagues have alluded to exists. I cannot find it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the paragraph my colleague just alluded to would benefit centres that currently operate on a regular nine-to-five schedule. That is just the reality. If we look to where most of the funding would go, it would be to those centres. If my colleague is concerned and actually wants to address this concern with members of the House, he should suggest an amendment at committee stating that a portion of these funds should go to something that provides spots for shift workers.

As much as the member is saying there is a straitjacket, the way the funding mechanism works right now is that funding will largely go to traditional state-run day cares, and I believe we need more flexibility to acknowledge a changing workforce and changing economy. I know how bureaucracies work. Funding would go to the system that is set up. We need to be incentivizing innovation and meeting the diversity of our country by spelling out changes that need to happen.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today for the first time in 2023 on behalf of the good people of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. I hope you have been able to have a very restful holiday season with your family, and that all members of the House have been able to do the same and come back recharged for what I am sure will be a very busy session.

Over the course of the last month, I had an opportunity to connect with my constituents, being away from this place and being at their places, at their doors, and hearing what is top of mind. Not surprisingly, one of the things that is top of mind for most people is affordability challenges right now, with the cost of housing and groceries going up. This is putting a real burden on families.

For many years now, one of the largest costs for families has been child care. In a riding like my own, one of the fastest growing in all of Canada, and particularly the Sea to Sky region, which has grown by about 20% over the last five years, this is a big concern. For example, in 2021 there were 5,100 children under 12 years old in the Sea to Sky region who were in need of child care, and there were only 1,100 child care spaces.

I often hear of families waiting for two or more years to get a spot. Meanwhile, the cost of child care ranges between $85 and $100 per day in many cases. Even with the income-tested Canada child benefit we brought in, which puts up to $7,000 per child back in the pockets of Canadians, families are still being stretched. As a result, many families in my riding are forced to pay up to $1,800 a month for child care or balance dual workdays caring for their children while trying to earn a living. This is a burden that negatively impacts not only the economy and the parents but the children as well.

This is why our government created the Canada-wide early learning and child care system through budget 2021. To highlight how much of a priority it is for my province, B.C. was the first province to sign on to this agreement in the summer of 2021. Just last month, we were able to announce that child care fees have already been reduced by an average of 50% to $20 a day in B.C. and will average $10 a day by 2025-26. This is already saving average B.C. families $6,000 a year per child and will help them save over $9,000 per year per child by the end of 2025-26. Given how families are now being squeezed by global inflation, this relief could not come at a more important time.

However, it is not just about the cost of child care. Access is just as important, particularly in fast-growing areas like my own. It is important to note that 40,000 new spaces will be built through this agreement with B.C., and in fact over 12,000 have already been built. Budget 2022 invested an additional $625 million to accelerate this process.

The benefits of this policy are wide-ranging. By allowing both parents to return to the workforce, we are unlocking the economic potential of thousands of parents, most of them women, who have not been able to participate fully in the workforce due to an inability to access quality affordable day care.

Independent studies have shown that this, alone, can help the economy grow by as much as 1.2%, in addition to improving the quality of life for families. A range of studies have also shown that for every dollar spent on early childhood education, the broader economy receives between $1.50 and $2.80 in return. Just about all leading economists agree there is no measure that would increase our GDP more than this.

I am excited there are already a number of child care facilities in my riding now offering $10-a-day child care. On the Sunshine Coast, there are ESPRIT Daycare and Huckleberry Childcare in Gibsons, Little Scholars Child Care in west Sechelt and Sunshine Coast Tiny Tots day care in Sechelt. Just last year, Sea to Sky Community Services in Squamish began offering $10-a-day care. In West Vancouver, the owners of KidiKare told me that they are excited to offer $10-a-day care, among many other facilities that are now offering the same.

There remain major challenges in delivering the child care people need. In areas like Squamish and Pemberton, spaces are an issue, and we need the province to deliver more spaces there under our agreement. In fact, spaces are so slim right now that I have heard stories of folks driving 40 minutes from Squamish to West Vancouver just to put their kids into day care.

In other places like Whistler, the Sunshine Coast and West Vancouver, ECE workers are badly needed, so we need to continue to work with educational institutions like Capilano University on the north shore to graduate more ECE workers and to bring in qualified ECE workers from around the world.

Clearly, this policy is already making a real difference for families in my riding and across the country, but we know we are living in an uncertain world right now. With the spectres of ever-worsening climate change and international conflict, many people are concerned about the future. With the rising cost of living all around the world, I know many young people who are thinking twice about having children.

It is important that, as parliamentarians, we provide peace of mind about what the future holds. Bill C-35 is so important because it would assure current and future parents that they would not be left in the lurch with high child care prices. In fact, it would do the same for provinces, territories, indigenous peoples, child care operators and others.

The legislation sets out our vision for a Canada-wide system where all families have access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care, no matter where they live, today and into the future. It would enshrine the principles of the Canada-wide early learning and child care system into federal law and commit to maintaining long-term funding for provinces, territories and indigenous peoples. It would make sure the government remained accountable for continuing to follow through on this promise by creating an independent national advisory council to provide expert advice to the government on all matters related to early learning and child care. It would also require the federal government to publicly report on all federal investments and progress being made towards a truly Canada-wide system.

While I do not have kids, I want to end by discussing a story of someone who does: my sister, Berkley. She and her husband, Sean, have three boys: my six-year-old nephew, Haiden, and my twin two-year-old nephews, Sawyer and Beckham. I love these three boys to bits. Members can imagine what it is like to have three young boys running around and all the chaos that comes along with that, but it is also important to think of the cost that it would create for three young kids to be in child care. If someone is paying $1,800 a month per child, like many parents are in my riding, then the cost of child care alone exceeds the average income of a British Columbian. Things like these have led many parents in my riding and across the country to leave the workforce, which also greatly impacts our economy.

The announcement last month that fees were being cut in half, on average, has been an absolute game-changer for my sister and her family. Instead of paying $2,200 a month for the twins to access child care, she is now paying $1,260. She has been able to go back into the workforce, and not only that, but also to now pursue her dream job. Just as she has always been there to look after and care for me in my life, she is now working as a postpartum doula so that she can care for other new parents throughout the region.

Not only has this made a huge difference in her whole family's life, but now, she is also able to help other families. The presence of other doulas like her is alleviating the burden on our health care system. These doulas are reducing stress, depression and the number of physical injuries among expectant and new parents, who are going through major changes, some of the most emotional in their lives.

This is just one very personal example of the impact of affordable and accessible child care. Through Bill C-35, we would ensure that families would not be at risk of having access to child care cancelled by government, now or in the future. More and more spaces would be created, and more spaces would become $10 per day. Throughout the process, there would be transparent oversight of the implementation of this agreement.

I can see my time is running out here. I look forward to the questions from my colleagues, and I look forward to having this bill passed through this process into committee so we can move it a step forward in becoming law in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed working with the colleague across the way when I was under the shadow minister of tourism. We talked about the wait-lists. This legislation would help a lot of families that are currently in day cares and signed up for this agreement, but there are still wait-lists that are years long. One of the issues is having access to private day cares. We must have entrepreneur or small business-owned home day cares to meet the demand. Parents need to have choice.

Does the member opposite believe the legislation should be strengthened to have representation from small business owners or entrepreneurs on the national council? As it stands right now, in the legislation, there is zero representation from that sector; I believe it is greatly needed to meet the demand of parents.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question, because we know it is not just about the cost of child care. It is about the ability to access child care. Particularly in fast-growing regions it is a huge challenge. Part of it is the creation of spaces, but the other thing we need to talk about is making sure we have the workforce to do that. This is a challenge that there is no silver bullet or easy solution for. As we move ahead with policies like these, we need to consult broadly and to make sure that we do get the best ideas.

As we implement this new system, we will be working very closely with all of the provinces, territories and indigenous groups to make sure that it is fit for purpose and that it meets the needs for what the system is today as we look forward to the system that we want in the future, which is a publicly accessible system of non-profit operators. As we move in that direction, we need to work with all those working in it and make sure that we have the best system in place.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech.

Unfortunately, I have to remind him again that anything to do with family policy and education falls solely within provincial jurisdiction.

This bill is full of good intentions, but the Liberal government should stick to issues under its jurisdiction. Why does it not manage its affairs properly, instead of coming to meddle in our jurisdictions yet again?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague's question.

We know that child care has to look different in different parts of the country. We need to work with the provinces to implement the system that works best for them. That is under their jurisdiction.

That said, the federal government has a role to play in assisting the provinces and making sure that people have access to the care they need. That is why we looked at the Quebec model, which is a good one. Each province is a little bit different, and that is why we have different agreements in place across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats welcome any movement forward on child care in Canada. We have been pushing this for the last 30 years, ever since the Liberals started promising it.

I wonder if the member could comment on the benefit not only to young families and women trying to enter the workforce, but to businesses in the community. In my riding, one of the main problems in getting labour for businesses is housing. If we can access a labour force that already has housing, for instance women at home who need child care to enter the workforce, it is a huge benefit to the economy as a whole.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, much like the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, I have enjoyed working with the member in the context of tourism as well. Both of our ridings have a big tourism industry, and just like housing is important to have a workforce employed there, it is similarly important for ECE workers. We need to make sure that as we move forward with this agreement there is adequate housing in place. If we do not have that, then of course we are not going to be able to house the people we need to work in the spaces that we are creating.

Absolutely, I see these two tracks moving simultaneously. That is why we developed the national housing strategy, so that we can deploy the type of housing that we need in the country and we are able to solve the housing challenges, particularly for frontline workers and those who are so critical to making sure that our economy and our country function.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have sensed in this debate a misunderstanding across the aisle of the difference between child care, as in anyone possible available to look after the kid, and the concept underpinning this act, which is early learning and child care on enhanced childhood development.

I wonder if the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country would care to comment on this.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been lots of misinterpretations about this piece of legislation, about what is in it and what is not.

What this is really about is making sure we are providing high-quality, affordable, inclusive and accessible child care right across the country. It looks very different in each place. That is why I think it is really important that we get this right.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I love being in the chamber probably more than any professional activity I have undertaken, but I am actually at home in my community because I am celebrating the birth of my daughter, Launa Grace, who joined us on January 18, not even two weeks ago. I am pleased to announce that I have a healthy baby girl. She is the new joy in my life.

Over the last two days, I have very much appreciated a very comprehensive debate from all political parties on a very important subject, a subject that, for every parent, is probably the closest to our hearts, and that is the well-being of our children. Like many of the speakers who have shared personal stories, I have my own as well.

I have a three-year-old son in a licensed, registered day care facility. Since the agreement with British Columbia was signed, my fees went down approximately $450 in December. I know that many of my constituents are very appreciative of the decrease in fees, because the cost of living is almost insurmountable for many of them. I acknowledge the benefit, that the contract signed with the Province of British Columbia in July 2022 has made a moderate improvement for many young families struggling to make sense of the challenges they face today.

Indeed, child care is challenging. Many families do not have access to the type of facility that I do, and many who do, many parents who work in shift work, understand that raising a child is not only nine-to-five. It might be relying on neighbours, like I have to rely on my neighbours to come over in the mornings when my wife starts work at 6 a.m., and the nanny I have to employ at times when I am in Ottawa and my wife is left alone with our children or has other professional commitments. It is the grandparents as well, who play such a vital role in the upbringing of many children in many families across Canada. Also, it is the wonderful early learning and child care staff, who are so important to my kids. In fact, this very morning, my son Declyn and I went to his old child care facility. He was able to give a hug to one of his old teachers, because that relationship is so important to Declyn.

All that said, I am still at a loss as to why the government is putting forward Bill C-35 when the funding agreements have already been reached with the Province of British Columbia and the other provinces and territories in Canada. I looked through the bill quite comprehensively yesterday, and I figured, to add to the debate so far, I would point out a few of the discrepancies or points I believe the government should look at a little more closely once the bill gets to the committee stage and is studied in further detail.

The first point I would like to raise relates to indigenous participation. In July 2022, the Government of Canada actually reached a $40-billion settlement with indigenous people over past discretions of the Government of Canada failing to meet its obligations to indigenous children in respect to Jordan's principle.

Bill C-35 states that any future negotiations would include separate negotiations to uphold the nation-to-nation commitment to reconciliation. On that point, I would encourage the government members to look specifically at the preamble and paragraphs 5(a) and 5(b), and whether the government would actually be able to uphold its commitment to reach individual agreements with each respective first nation, Inuit and Métis community or entity.

The second point relates to the funding commitments. In clause 8, there is no specific dollar amount actually outlined for the future negotiations of agreements between provinces, territories and indigenous communities. I reference this because the government states in the bill that it would undertake negotiations on a nation-to-nation basis. If the government actually wants to divest responsibility, finally, as many indigenous communities have asked to have control over child and family services, which I understand would include child care, the government needs to get to work today, because it would not be able to reach those responsibilities accordingly.

The third point I would like to raise is about geographic equality or, I might add, inequality. In paragraph 6(a), under “Declaration”, the government commits to inclusive and high-quality early learning and child care programs and services where one lives. In many rural and remote communities and indigenous reserves, child care simply does not exist.

My constituents in rural communities do not have access to the government program that I do in Abbotsford and Mission. That is problematic. In fact, one young mother in the community of Boston Bar stated that she is effectively going to have to cut back on her small business because she is having a child and none of the government programs being discussed here today are accessible to her and her family. We need to do better. If the government is really serious about the universality it spoke about when it first introduced these agreements, it needs to spend more time looking at the availability of child care in remote and rural communities.

One aspect of the bill that I am very perturbed about is clause 9, which would establish 18 new federal government positions on a national council, with salaries that will be decided at a later point by the Governor in Council. In my opinion, the creation of a new council undermines the role of provinces as the primary level of government responsible for child care and, second, it undermines the valuable contributions of public servants at Employment and Social Development Canada. Many public servants worked for years to reach these agreements. They have connections with the provinces and stakeholders across Canada. The public service has the ability to do what a national council would and to provide the requisite advice to the minister in advance of future negotiations in 2026.

What I am fearful of is that the creation of this new advisory council is just another attempt by the government to create plum positions for Liberal partisans to get paid by the government and appointed solely by the government. We should not undermine the valuable contributions of the public service to provide the necessary advice in advance of future negotiations by the Government of Canada and the respective provinces and territories.

Finally, I will end on a note regarding the nature of child care for so many families. As a politician, I have to admit that my wife takes on many of the primary responsibilities that relate to child care due to the nature of my job and the time that I am away. This Christmas season we were sitting down with another family that had a similar experience. We also shared a song by Dolly Parton and the movie about working nine to five. My wife quipped that actually she is working more like five to nine. That is the experience of many women across this country. Their jobs start the moment they wake up in the morning and a lot of them are working until the moment they go to bed.

We need to ensure that child care programs and facilities give women the choices they need that account for shift work and the nature of professional work today so that they can participate in the economy in the way they feel best for themselves and their children accordingly.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the member and wishing him the best with the new addition to his family.

I am from a Mi'kmaq reserve, a first nations community. The member talked a lot about the need to ensure that when we talk about child care from coast to coast to coast, it also includes indigenous communities. I agree with the member that far too often when we talk about these great deals with the provinces, the provincial premiers kick it back to the federal jurisdiction to handle.

Does the member not agree that, first of all, we should be ensuring that even a first nations community is able to access $10-a-day child care? I would also say to the member that when he is talking about first nations communities, it is important not to get confused and say that these are nations. First nations communities make up part of our nations. I am part of a Mi'kmaq nation of 35 different communities and each of those communities is not a specific nation, but rather a first nations community that belongs to a greater nation.

I wonder if the member would comment on those two points I have raised.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the points by the member for Sydney—Victoria. Indeed, I represent multiple first nations and 31 indigenous communities, and I appreciate his pointing out that very important difference.

One of the key points I want to make today is that the agreement between the Province of British Columbia and the federal government excludes many of the indigenous communities that I represent from participating in this program. In fact, it is almost as if there is a have and a have-not nature of what is child care today. I, as a high-income earner, get access to a government program that is not available to my indigenous constituents in their respective communities in a way that I believe it should be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on the birth of his baby girl on January 18, a little Capricorn who will be quite a character, I am sure.

Anyone thinking about child care will look to Quebec's example. Its system has been in place for 25 years. Early learning is essential, and that goes for all children, whether they are Quebeckers or Canadians.

I know that the provinces already have child care set up by the government, but that is not the case everywhere in Canada.

Why does the Conservative Party get all up in arms about the Quebec model and say it is not equitable?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I ever said that the model in Quebec was not equitable. I did visit La Pocatière this summer and I actually went to a child care facility when I was in the province. As in British Columbia, there are some in the provincially regulated programs and some outside. In many cases, the families outside of the provincially regulated programs want into the regulated programs because it would mean a material difference in their monthly budget. In some senses, unless we can actually say with 100% confidence that the program is in fact universal, there is a level of inequality between those who have access and those who do not.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to give my congratulations to my colleague for the addition to his family. What a joyous occasion. I would also like to tell him that I will likely be singing Dolly Parton for the rest of the day. I am not sure if that is a blessing or a curse.

My colleague spoke at the beginning about whether we needed this piece of legislation. The leader of the Conservative Party has made it very clear he does not support child care. He has embedded incel tags within his social media. He has voted time and time again against women's issues and things for women. Would Canadians not have every right to be worried that the Conservative Party, if it became the next government, would dismantle this child care program?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is actually an interesting point. First, I would disagree with the member for Edmonton Strathcona that the leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Carleton, does not support child care. In fact, one of the first things he mentioned as new leader of the Conservative Party was the benefit that his children get from their child care facility and their ability to do so in the French language.

With respect to the bill itself, if we want to look at strengthening it, if the Liberals were actually serious about making this a comprehensive bill, under clause 8 on funding commitments, they would have actually put something concrete in the bill. However, they did not, because this bill is a communications exercise by the Government of Canada, without real teeth.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we continue, I think I can speak on behalf of all parliamentarians and the Parliament of Canada in congratulating the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for the new addition to his family.

Before I continue, I want to call everyone to order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, the Environment; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Taxation; and the hon. member for Nunavut, Health.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Richmond Hill.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise for the first time in the House in 2023 to talk about the very important bill for the second reading debate on Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Like many of my colleagues who spoke before me, I would like to take on the theme of Ontario, which is the province of York region and Richmond Hill, the region and city that I am so proud to represent.

I unequivocally support this bill. Really, I do not see how anyone could even think about opposing Bill C-35. Opposing Bill C-35 would be like opposing one's own constituents, opposing one's own fellow citizens and opposing the people one represents, in this case the people of Richmond Hill.

These people are mothers, fathers and children. They are early childhood educators and service providers, including support workers. They are students, employees and employers. These people are in each and every one of our ridings.

Child care is critical, not just for families, but for the whole economy and, for that matter, for everyone. Everyone would benefit from the Canada-wide early learning and child care system we are building with provinces, territories, and indigenous communities and partners.

It would be an important support for parents, families and communities. It would enable parents, especially mothers, to reach their full economic potential and contribute to a strong economy and greater gender equality. In other words, the Canadian economy is at its strongest when every parent who wants to work not only has the opportunity but also can work.

The Canada-wide early learning and child care system is working everywhere, in every region, of this amazing country. It is working right here in Ontario. In fact, let me tell us how it is going to work in this province.

It was in March 2022 that the governments of Canada and Ontario announced an agreement that significantly improved early learning and child care for children in our province. Through various investments, we are working together to improve access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care programs and services in Ontario. The goal is to give Ontario families access to licensed child care for an average of $10 a day by March 31, 2026.

Here is what was planned: The Canada-Ontario agreement planned to reduce child care fees in licensed settings that enrolled in the Canada-wide early learning and child care system for children aged zero to five by 20%, retroactive to April 1, 2022. We estimated that doing so would save Ontario families an average of about $2,200 per child in 2022.

The agreement also planned that by the end of 2022, fees would be further lowered. That would result in a total reduction of 50%, bringing fees down to an average of $23 per day. That could save Ontario families an average of about $6,000 per child per year.

We might ask how things are going. Are things going according to plan? I would like to respond by saying, overwhelmingly, yes they are.

Already, fees have been reduced by an average of 50% across the province compared to 2020 levels. We are talking about fees for families with children under the age of six at licensed child care operators in Ontario that have enrolled in the Canada-wide early learning and child care system.

It really makes a difference for parents in Ontario, and I am not the only one saying that. Experts are also saying it.

I will give a couple of examples. Martha Friendly is a policy researcher and board member of an advocacy group called Child Care Now. She said that before the initiative parents in downtown Toronto paid about $1,800 a month in fees. She also said, “Some women had to stay home because either they couldn't find a space or they couldn't afford it.” She added that with the reduced fees people can go back to work.

Spyros Volonakis is the executive director of Network Child Care Services, which operates 19 child care centres across Toronto and the GTA. He said, “This is a very positive development in the early years and child care field. It supports family without compromising quality”. He also talked about how, “Parents need to have a peace of mind that their children are safe and are supported so that they receive the necessary programming within the early childhood education.”

We also heard from many parents. They said, too, that it has made a real difference for them. On Twitter there have been many positive reactions. A mother of two from Toronto tweeted, “It was absolutely surreal to see my daycare fees drop from a high of $167”. She mentioned, “As of Jan, we will be paying less than 50% of that, on a path to $10” per child per day.

Also from the GTA, a dad thanked the federal government because his toddler's day care fees went down to $36 a day. Another mom, this time from Ottawa, tweeted, “Just paid our January daycare fees. Under $500!!!!! This is a 55% reduction from last year. This is going to make such a huge difference for so many families.”

Now, it is great to have reduced fees, but we are also well aware that the challenge now is to make sure the number of spaces keeps up with increasing demand. Increasing the number of spaces also happens to be part of our plan. In total, Ontario is aiming to create 86,000 new licensed spaces relative to 2019. These new licensed spaces will be predominantly among non-for-profit, public and family-based child care providers.

To support the creation of these new spaces, we are also planning investments to support existing and attract new early childhood educators. Funding is available to Ontario to recruit and retain registered early childhood educators. This includes investments that provide a wage floor of $19 per hour for registered early childhood educators and $21 per hour for registered early childhood educator supervisors in 2023. Funding will also support an annual one-dollar-per-hour wage increase, until 2026, up to a maximum of $25 per hour.

I made myself clear that the Canada-wide early learning and child care system is actually working. It is working in Ontario. It is working everywhere in Canada. More and more families in Canada benefit from affordable early learning and child care. It is a great help for many feeling the pinch of the high cost of living, and it is a great help for the country's economy.

Opposing Bill C-35 would be like throwing a spanner in the works. It would be like standing against Canadians who have been working so hard to deal with the cost of living, who have been working so hard to make it and who have been working so hard to give their kids the best start in life. Again, I do not see how anyone could even think about opposing Bill C-35.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question to my colleague is really about the challenges with the program. It is talked about as being universal. However, there is one private facility in my riding in Owen Sound, the Queen of Hearts, which has unfortunately needed to opt out of the program. If it were to opt in, it would need to either cut services such as food programs for the children it takes care of, cut spaces or go bankrupt.

Further, even municipal-run child care centres are needing to cut services to school-aged kids to meet the staffing requirements for the demand for those under the school age. Could the member expand on the challenges with this program and how it is not universal at all if the spaces do not exist?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that I did not talk about universality, despite the fact that many members on the opposite side constantly refer to this program as a universal program.

Having said that, I think the program we are proposing, which is for not-for-profit, public, family-based child care providers, is a great base to make sure we provide the supports that are needed. It is in its early stages, and I do not see the concern the opposite member is raising as a challenge. I see it as an opportunity to work with the provinces, territories and indigenous communities to ensure that, as the program is rolled out, we roll it out and make it available to all in a very equitable way.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Happy new year, Mr. Speaker. I am happy to see you again.

I am glad the rest of Canada is following Quebec's example. Quebec's approach to child care and early learning was groundbreaking. It took the government 25 years to take action and understand that this is a progressive legislative measure. Nevertheless, I am very happy, especially since Quebec's jurisdiction will be respected.

In my colleague's opinion, how long will it take the rest of Canada to realize that secularism legislation like Quebec's is progressive and groundbreaking and to implement comparable legislation of its own?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish a happy new year to my colleague. It is good to see him back in the House. I am looking forward to continuing the great work we are doing here.

I would like to commend all the MPs from Quebec. Yes, they have had a very progressive child care program, and it is a program the Government of Canada looked at very closely and learned about as part of the consultation. The opportunity it provided is a great base for other provinces, territories and indigenous communities to be able to benefit from, so I commend Quebec.

This is a model of partnership and co-operation. Yes, there has been a program in Quebec. It has been very effective, and we will look forward to working with Quebec in other areas we could complement to ensure that the program is rolled out well. The program will be rolling out until 2026, and we look forward to making sure of not only that all the provinces, territories and indigenous communities have signed into it, but also that they have also successfully implemented it.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague in the far opposite corner made some good points, and I think over all this is a program, at least in my home province of British Columbia, that is being well received. The partnerships that the legislation empowers are already creating change in communities that is very positive. The issue I wanted to speak to is one of the conditions of work for early childhood educators, who are critical to ensuring these child care programs are rolled out in a good way and that our children benefit from them in the best way possible.

Does the member see a pathway for us to amend this legislation to create national standards for the work conditions and compensation for early childhood educators, who are so integral to the success of a national child care plan?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague across and far away, regardless of where we are sitting in this House, we are working very closely with each other to make sure important bills, such as Bill C-35, are passed.

Let us pass this bill, get it to the committee and make sure that every opportunity that is relevant to this bill, and the success of support for the whole program, specifically the educators, are considered and debated.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. The purpose of this legislation is to try to solve the issue of high child care costs in Canada.

This legislation does not address the serious economic challenges of implementing a Canada-wide early learning and child care agreement. I believe that this proposed legislation and the current agreements made by the Liberal government with the provinces will fail to provide universal access to affordable child care and will cost far more than what the government has estimated. In fact, I found it quite shocking that the Liberal speaker who came just before me admitted that this is not a universal program. He is right and he admitted the truth: It is going to be a two-tiered program where families who are lucky enough to get a child care space will benefit immensely while an estimated 182,000 families, according to the PBO, will be excluded and not have access to an affordable child care space.

Child care in Canada is provided by several mechanisms, including for-profit and non-profit models, parental care and care by other relatives. For the past several decades, the wages of average working families have not increased significantly while the demands on family finances through taxes, housing, food and child care have increased substantially. In the last few years alone, the costs for families have significantly outstripped wage growth.

The cost to provide child care varies based on age but is a minimum of $1,000 per child. Lower-income families have traditionally had access to subsidies, but these benefits vary across the provinces. Having one parent stay at home with a child is becoming unaffordable for many families and is far easier for families with higher incomes. Access to day care is already limited in Canada, with wait-lists. According to reports out of Quebec, there are an estimated 50,000 children waiting for access to an affordable care space. The price of child care in Canada is too high for most families, and access to affordable care is limited.

Why is child care so expensive? The key costs for child care according to operators, in order of magnitude, are labour, the cost of the facilities and the cost of food and supplies. Child care is a labour-intensive operation and wages vary. The cost to create a space that is child appropriate and the accompanying rental, mortgage, insurance and maintenance costs are significant. Finally, the cost of food and other supplies has increased dramatically.

What is the common factor of all three of these costs? They have all been severely impacted by high inflation. Inflation has increased the cost of labour and the cost of rent and mortgages dramatically, and as everyone can see at their local grocery store, the price of food has gone up by 12%. Child care operators are not immune from these costs. The fact is that the Liberal government, through its inflationary policies, is driving up the cost of child care in Canada.

The government's solution to this problem, a problem that it created, has been to sign agreements with the provinces to subsidize the cost of child care and to implement cost controls on wages, facilities and food in order to regulate a price for families that will eventually reach $10 a day. Unfortunately, this is unsustainable because since it is government spending that caused the inflation in the first place, more spending will only increase inflation further. The result will be an inflationary spiral that will further increase the costs of child care and the costs to maintain this program. Given our current deficit, the government will either have to raise taxes on Canadians or take on more debt to sustain this program.

What are some examples of this inflationary spiral? Speaking to child care operators in Alberta, I have already heard a number of significant challenges that the government has failed to address. Child care workers in Alberta can be paid up to around $23 an hour, but due to regulations under these agreements, operators cannot raise their costs by more than 3% annually. According to Statistics Canada, private sector wages rose by over 5% last year. Government regulations prevent child care operators from paying their staff even enough to keep up with the rate of inflation.

There is also intense competition for child care workers. School districts can often afford to pay $30 an hour with benefits. I have been told that schools are even poaching staff from day cares because they are in desperate need of these workers as well. Under the government's agreements, day cares have been put at an economic disadvantage in attracting workers, which will lead to a significant loss in day care capacity, meaning less access to child care.

The proposed solution for this inflation by proponents of even more government intervention in early child care is, no surprise, more inflationary spending. By raising wages even further for child care workers, school boards and others will also try to compete by raising their wages even further. This will result in an inflationary cycle where taxpayers will need to pay much higher taxes as schools and early childhood care centres compete for limited workers.

I have spoken with child care operators who have had to pay increased rents and mortgages on their facilities. As everyone knows, mortgages and rental rates have skyrocketed under eight years of the Liberal government, particularly in the last year. Under agreements the government has signed, child care operators are limited in the costs they can bill the government toward their rent and mortgage. Since they are mandated to charge families a fixed price for child care, there is no way for these operators to make up the difference other than by reducing other costs, such as food for children; shutting down their capacity by letting go of workers; or shutting down altogether, which we have started to see.

The laws of supply and demand mean that the government must either restrict the capacity of day cares or dramatically increase funding beyond what it promised. The first option is unfair, as it is going to leave many families out, and the second option is financially unsustainable. This argument is backed up by research from the parliamentary budget office, which reported in February of last year that the Liberals' plan is not sufficient to meet the demand for child care. In fact, it estimates that it will fall short in providing spaces for 182,000 children. That is 182,000 children who are being left behind by the Liberal government, with no plan in this legislation to provide their families with an affordable child care space.

What we are talking about here is essentially a more focused application of the wage and price controls implemented under the Anti-Inflation Act passed by former prime minister Pierre Trudeau in 1975. In seeking to combat high inflation at the time, the government passed legislation to control increases in prices and wages. The results were economically disastrous and the policy was rescinded shortly thereafter.

Today, the Liberals are trying to implement wage and price controls through their early learning and child care agreements. Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman put it better than I ever could by comparing this kind of policy to putting a kettle full of water on a hot stove. When the boiling water begins to push off the kettle lid, the appropriate thing to do is take the lid off and turn down the heat. Well, what the government is doing is putting a brick on top of the lid and letting the kettle explode. The result is that the pot will explode and this policy will collapse on itself. It is true for this child care policy.

The Liberals claim that this policy will reduce the effects of inflation on families, but the reality is that it is only meant to cover up, to mask, to hide the symptoms of inflation while doing nothing to solve the underlying issue of inflation. It is not a cure for inflation, because as the government continues to spend more, it will drive up inflation, and the cost of this program will continue to rise dramatically in order to maintain the fixed price of $10 a day. Demand from families will build up and eventually the program will collapse on itself.

Universal access to affordable child care is the stated goal of this legislation and the early learning and child care agreements, but the current plan fails to meet objectives. I believe that this plan will lead to a further loss in child care capacity as operators close down from unsustainable cost increases and the inability to find labour to fill their positions. The result will be a two-tiered day care system where those who are lucky enough to get their child into a regulated, affordable child care space will reap the benefits and save tens of thousands of dollars a year, while many families will continue to have to use expensive, unregulated child care or make arrangements with family.

The families that will benefit the most from this system are those with the highest incomes. Research from the OECD indicates that the vast majority of children in regulated child care come from those with the highest incomes. Children from low-income families are disproportionally under-represented in child care spaces. In its efforts to implement an absolute, across-the-board, no matter what one's income is price of $10 a day for all families, the government has failed to take into account the need to provide equity for low-income families. Consequently, the benefits of this Liberal program will disproportionately benefit those with higher incomes, who often already have and can afford a regulated child care space.

Ironically, it was the Liberals who ran attacks against Conservatives claiming that our universal child care benefit gave benefits to millionaires. The fact is that the Liberal plan benefits those with the highest incomes, including millionaires, far more than it does low-income families.

In conclusion, making child care more affordable is an important economic and political goal, but the current plan by the Liberals will fail to do that. It is unacceptable to leave 182,000 children out of the system, and it is unacceptable to put this debt burden on Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke at great length about how he is opposed to the program the government has put together, but he fell short of saying that he will be voting against it. I am saying this because after hours of debate on this bill with the Conservatives not committing, this afternoon we started to hear a couple of Conservatives commit that they were voting in favour of it.

It is obviously quite normal for different members of the same political party to vote differently, but could the member confirm whether he will be voting against this particular bill?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the program is flawed. I have demonstrated how clearly it is flawed.

It is my job as a parliamentarian and as a member of the opposition to call out the government on the flaws in its legislation. That is the purpose of our Westminster system of Parliament. Opposition parties hold the government accountable in order to get better outcomes for Canadians.

I look forward to seeing this bill at committee. I look forward to hearing from witnesses. I look forward to seeing concrete proposals come forward to make child care more affordable for families. However, the current plan put forward by the Liberals has tremendous risk and tremendous challenges, and the Liberals are not being honest with Canadians about those challenges.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent intervention. Facts and data are really important when we are having this conversation, because quite frankly, it is a very emotional conversation. The welfare of our children is very emotional. We want our children to have access to the best quality care. I really value the facts and data the member has put forth today.

What does the member see as one thing we could do through a strong amendment, which we could bring forth as Conservatives, to better this bill?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her advocacy on this issue.

We need to look at the free market and how free market mechanisms can be complemented by limited government intervention to provide more supply when there is a need and demand. There is a huge demand for child care in this country, even before $10-a-day day care is brought in and even before government subsidies are brought in.

How do we create that supply? We need to look at regulations that are preventing people from starting a new child care operation. We need to look at getting more access to workers, whether that is through visas for people working abroad or getting people's education upgraded here in Canada so that we can increase the pool of available workers who can provide child care. We also need to look at the inflationary spending of the government, how it is driving up the cost of food, rents, mortgages and the cost of labour and how that is impacting child care operations across Canada.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, and I thank him for his speech.

We are talking about a provincial jurisdiction. Once again, it is exclusively provincial. Quebec will be fully compensated, the equivalent of $6 billion over a five-year period. We are talking about $30 billion in programs over the next five years.

Is this amount of money acceptable to the Conservatives? Basically, will my colleague be voting in favour of the bill?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I outlined in my speech, one of my greatest concerns with this legislation is that the government cannot give us a full estimation of what the program is going to cost. If the government is going to provide child care for the 182,000 families the PBO has estimated would be left out of the program, how many billions of dollars more would need to be added to the program to maintain it? How has the government projected the cost of inflation from the increased government spending and increased government debt? Has the government projected what taxes would have to be increased to maintain this program?

I am very concerned. We have not been given a straightforward, clear fiscal plan from the government on how it is going to maintain the program. Frankly, it is shame, because it is going to be a two-tiered system where low-income families are left out in the cold and high-income families, disproportionately, are going to get the benefits.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to be speaking on Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

This bill is one of the most significant pieces of legislation before this Parliament. It is something that I have been working on since I was first elected. It is one of the key issues that I have heard from my constituents.

I have spoken with mothers who wanted to return to work after their 12-month parental leave, but they could not because they could not find affordable child care, so they stayed out of the workforce longer than they intended to.

I also know of families where the mother, who made less money than the father, realized that almost all of her income from working would go to child care. She ended up making the choice to stay out of the workforce, even though that was not what she would have preferred.

This legislation is giving families, and particularly women, their choices back to be able to decide when and how they want to re-enter the workforce and to have their families. We all know that in these kinds of cases, even today, this definitely impacts women more than it impacts men.

Bill C-35 is absolutely vital to gender equality. When I chaired the Special Committee on Pay Equity during the 42nd Parliament, we heard over and over again that women earn, over the course of their lifetime in Canada, about 74¢ for every dollar that men earn over their lifetime.

This is not just because women are paid less. It is also because women are more likely to interrupt their careers for caregiving responsibilities. That results in lower incomes throughout women's lifetimes. When women retire, they end up having smaller pensions because they are based on fewer years worked and lower salary.

We have heard in this House today that one of the key recommendations for the last 50-plus years has been that in order to reduce the wage gap between women and men, we need to provide affordable child care, so that women and men can make the choice to stay in the workforce if that is what they want.

Bill C‑35 will enshrine the principles of a Canada-wide early learning and child care system into federal law. These principles are access, affordability, inclusiveness and high quality. Because these principles will be enshrined in law, it will be much more difficult for any future government to reverse them.

Canadians have already started feeling the impact of the $30-billion, federal-provincial-territorial, multilateral early learning and child care framework.

In Ontario, in my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean, child care spaces have seen a fee reduction of 50% at the end of December. This saves families in Ontario, on average, about $6,000 a year. By March 2026, we will reduce fees to $10 a day. In addition to this, we are creating 250,000 new, affordable child care spaces, including 86,000 in Ontario.

In the past, what we have seen is federal-provincial agreements simply being cancelled after a change of government. What this legislation does is enshrine in law accountability, transparency and reporting, long-term funding and a national advisory council on early learning and child care.

This will allow families in Canada, and those who are considering starting a family in the future, the assurance that affordable child care will be available to them in the long term. It also provides predictability and planning to the provinces and territories that know they can rely on sustained federal funding, while fully respecting the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces.

I have been talking about the importance of child care to equality and values. What is often overlooked is that it is also a vital economic strategy. During the pandemic, 1.5 million women either lost their jobs or left work to take care of school-aged children who were home because of the pandemic. Many of them are still struggling to return to the workforce.

At the same time, our economy is now facing a labour shortage. Ensuring that we reduce the barriers to full labour force participation of women, the main barrier of which is lack of affordable child care, is key in overcoming our labour shortage and allowing businesses to find the skilled workers that they need in order to grow and thrive. Countries with high labour force participation of women have higher GDP growth and, therefore, access to early learning and child care is one of the key drivers of economic growth in Canada.

Studies have shown that investing in child care has one of the greatest returns on investment. For every dollar invested in early childhood education, there is a return to our economy of $1.50 to $2.80. We cannot afford not to do this.

At a time when the cost of living is rising due to global inflation and supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic and the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Putin, it is even more important to provide assistance to Canadians.

Reducing the cost of day care by thousands of dollars a year will also considerably help families with children who are struggling to make ends meet. That is only one of our affordability policies, and it is a very important one for families with young children.

I would like to talk a bit also about the principle that is in this law about inclusivity. We want families to have access to early learning and child care no matter where they live. Bill C-35 would build on the work done with indigenous peoples who have co-developed the indigenous early learning and child care framework, which is culturally appropriate and led by indigenous peoples.

I also know that women with intersecting identities, racialized and newcomer women, those living with disabilities, single parents and families in lower socio-economic conditions, face even greater challenges in finding good quality, affordable and reliable child care. This legislation would enshrine the principle of inclusivity into law. I hope that in the future we will elaborate this so that we can provide more supports to parents of children with special needs, to those working shift work or in precarious employment and to others who face additional barriers.

I would also point out that many child care workers themselves are women. This legislation would have the additional benefit of providing long-term funding and increasing the number of regulated child care spaces, creating more secure and higher-paid employment for those in this industry.

I am also very proud to say that my mom was a kindergarten teacher. I grew up in a house where I was given all the benefits of creativity, stimulation and learning from the very earliest age, but not all children are lucky enough to have a mother who is a Montessori teacher. That is why we are calling it “early learning” and child care. It is not just babysitting. This is a program that is designed to give children the best possible start in life.

We know that, traditionally, child care responsibilities are disproportionately shouldered by women. However, I hope that this law and evolving social norms will also help ensure a more equitable division of child care responsibilities between men and women.

I know that Bill C-35 is not the complete solution. It does not address caregiving responsibilities that many people, especially daughters, face for aging parents or responsibilities for caregiving for adult children with disabilities. I hope that this legislation is only the beginning of a wider societal dialogue about what we value as a society.

Caregiving has too long been invisible work done primarily by women in the unpaid economy. Our society has pushed the burden of caregiving from society onto the individual and, in particular, onto women’s unpaid care work. However, the pandemic has made visible many of the divisions and pressures in our society and I hope that it is allowing us to challenge the status quo of what we consider to be valuable work and to realize that community is important when raising families.

While Bill C-35 is an important first step, we need to ensure that we continue working to build a more equal and more prosperous Canada.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I posed a question to one of the member's colleagues from the other side and did not get an answer back, so I will pose it to her this afternoon. Hopefully, they have had the time to provide an answer.

The Liberals speak about a national day care program that should look after all its citizens who are looking for child care. I asked the question: How does this program assist those who do shift work, such as a single parent who is a nurse and works the night shift at the hospital, a baker in the coffee shop who has to start at 3 a.m. or a resident in a rural area where there is no formal day care? How does this program assist those people who need day care?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague will recall that in my speech I addressed the fact that this is a bill that is not going to necessarily solve forever every single complex problem about caregiving in our society. First of all, I hope it is going to have an enormous impact on many families, in the member's constituency as well as mine.

However, we need to rethink caregiving in our society. We need to look at what we value in our society with respect to work and come up with very productive solutions to those exact kinds of problems, such as people in precarious work or shift work, and those who are raising children with special needs. I also mentioned those who are caring for aging parents, because it is an equal burden that falls primarily on women in our society as well.

I hope the member will work with us in this Parliament to make sure that we continue to address those difficult questions. I look forward to working with him and others to make sure that we address all the issues and needs of Canadians and Canadian families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member brought up the topic of the effect this would have on the labour force. Many businesses in my riding and across the country are looking for workers. In my riding in particular, and in many others, they cannot find workers because there is no place for new workers to live. The housing crisis has made it very difficult for them. One of the obvious solutions to that is to provide a better, more inclusive, more affordable, more accessible day care system that will allow the people who already have a place to live to get back into the workforce, which would then help these businesses move on and succeed in today's world.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for raising that issue because this is very much an economic policy as well. The fact is I have heard the same thing. Businesses in my riding have told me they are struggling. Some who are nearing retirement are saying they are just going to close the doors because they cannot find people to work in their businesses. This is one of the greatest ways that we can make sure that women who want to be in the workforce, but have a barrier because of child care, are able to contribute and participate fully. Up to $2.80 goes back into our economy for every dollar we invest in child care, so I agree 100% that we cannot afford to not do this. It is an equality issue, but also an economic issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Ottawa West—Nepean for focusing so clearly on the issues of early learning and child care. There are high-quality benefits to early learning and child care. The literature on childhood development points to very clear advantages. As she has worked on this issue for a while, I wonder if she would perhaps contrast that with a program that is solely about somebody looking after one's child somewhere.

Of course this program does not preclude someone who is lucky enough to have a grandparent who provides whatever kinds of supports a mom or dad needs by having access, at a parent's choice, to early learning and child care, with the priority being, as I see in this legislation, on high quality, which brings to mind my concerns about how much child care workers are going to be paid.

The difference is important. I wonder if the hon. member would comment on that.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not realize until I was grown how special it was that I had a Montessori teacher as a mother, because we did get that quality kind of engagement. That is why I said that this is not just about babysitting. This is not just about making sure children have someone to look after them. It is about the formation, the development, sparking that creativity, the learning, and making sure that by the time they get to grade 1 they already have the socialization and the ability to absorb and learn information. I very much appreciate the part about creativity, because that was something I had at a very early age, and I want every child in Canada to be able to access that same kind of childhood.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2022, Quebec celebrated the 25th anniversary of its family policy. On January 23, 1997, former premier Pauline Marois, then education minister for the Parti Québécois government, unveiled the Quebec family policy. This family policy was developed as a result of major changes in Quebec's population, including an increase in the number of single-parent and blended families, a greater number of women in the workforce, and the troubling rise of precarious employment.

Quebec's family policy had three basic thrusts: the implementation of an integrated allowance for children, the development of early childhood education services at a reasonable cost and the implementation of a parental insurance plan to provide adequate income replacement during maternity and parental leave.

This policy made it possible for thousands of Quebeckers to go back to school, as my wife did when our first child was born. It also enabled thousands of Quebeckers to improve their work-life balance, which was the case for us when my second child was born. It also enabled them to benefit from more generous maternity and parental leave, which was the case for us when my third child was born. My family really benefited from these progressive programs that are in place in Quebec.

The policy had three objectives: to ensure fairness through universal support for families and additional help for low-income families; to help parents balance their parental and professional responsibilities; and to promote children's development and equal opportunities for all. This policy was forward-looking, just like Quebec.

It was in the same spirit that the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development of the Government of Canada introduced Bill C‑35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, on December 8, 2022. This bill is full of good will and good principles. I can admit when that is the case. However, it is too bad that these good principles stem from the federal government's infamous interfering power. Pardon me, I meant to say the federal government's spending power. It seems to me that the federal government did not introduce this bill in the right Parliament, because I get the impression that we are once again facing the age-old problem of federal interference in provincial matters.

Let me explain. If passed, Bill C‑35, will enshrine in legislation the Liberal government's commitment to providing long-term program funding for the provinces and indigenous communities, as well as the principles that must guide that federal funding. The idea is to make it more difficult for a future government to dismantle the program.

This bill is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, it does not comply with the distribution of powers set out in the Constitution, which clearly states that education and family policy are not under federal jurisdiction. I wanted to remind the federal government of that because it tends to forget. On the other hand, it exempts Quebec from the application of the federal family policy for the next five years, with compensation. I will not deny that the Bloc Québécois is very happy with that second part. That said, it is too bad it took the federal government 25 years to follow Quebec's lead. This is not the first time that the federal government has dragged its feet on an issue.

Should Canada ever decide to take a page out of Quebec's playbook in other areas, such as the environment or energy production, it certainly would not hurt. We must not kid ourselves. Quebec has always been ahead of the curve in almost all areas compared to Canada. When it comes to child care services, Quebec is a pioneer, not only in North America, but in the world, and above all, it is a model of success.

In its preamble, Bill C-35 outlines the beneficial impact of early learning and child care on child development, on the well-being of children and of families, on gender equality, and on the rights of women and their economic participation and prosperity. Of course, I was not surprised when I read this. As I said earlier, this system was created on January 23, 1997, by Pauline Marois, then minister of education in the Quebec government, as a network of non-profit child care centres and home-based child care agencies. Based on the recommendations from a report entitled “Un Québec fou de ses enfants”, which highlighted the importance of early childhood stimulation, especially among children from more vulnerable families, the network upheld the principle of access to child care for all.

In Quebec, the mission of educational child care is threefold: to ensure the well-being, health and safety of the children receiving care; to provide a child-friendly environment that stimulates their development in every way, from birth to school age; and to prevent learning, behavioural and social integration problems from appearing later on.

This child care network has greatly contributed to making the workforce much more accessible to women. In just one year, yes, one year, it encouraged nearly 70,000 mothers to get a job in Quebec, which is a big deal. That was in 1997. No one in the House will be surprised to hear me say that there are many things that make me proud to be a Quebecker, and that is one of them. Another is the fact that Quebec has always been well ahead of Canada in a number of ways. I wonder if, by following Quebec's example, Canada will soon also have its own secularism law. That will come some day. When Canada realizes that every policy in Quebec bears fruit, then maybe it will stop dragging its feet and its governments will do the same. I will not talk about the federal immigration department because I have too much to say about that and not enough time.

What I can say is that Quebeckers have quite a lot of good ideas, and we are seeing that again today. Even the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development says so. I will stop there because I can tell the House of Commons is feeling a little uncomfortable. Everyone knows I like to take shots at members of other parties because there is always a way to have a little fun even while we are working. We must never forget who we are working for, though. As I have said more than once, as elected representatives, we work for our constituents. We serve the people—the citizens, workers, mothers and fathers—who placed their trust in us.

For that reason, I could not say to the Liberals that Bill C‑35 is not a bill. Even though it interferes in provincial jurisdictions, I like their bill because we were able to obtain compensation with no conditions for Quebec. It might be advisable to take what was done with Bill C‑35 and apply it to health transfers. Why can the government give money to Quebec with no conditions for child care, but when it comes to health, it wants to set conditions? Do the Liberals believe that children are less important than the health of the rest of the population? I would not go that far.

I like the bill, but I liked it even more when the Parti Québécois introduced it in the late 1990s. My wife and I were 23 when we had our first child. My wife was in university, and because this Quebec law existed, she was able to complete her bachelor's degree. We were 26 when our second child was born. This law helped us buy a house and become homeowners. We were 31 when our third child, Simone, was born. Once again, we were lucky to share our parental leave and to have day care centres.

I will close by saying that I support this bill, despite the federal government's interference. It is a good bill for the provinces of Canada, children and their parents. I do not want members to worry. I will pass the message on to Pauline Marois that the Liberals, the House of Commons, this government and all members of the House are saying thank you to her today.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish this bill had passed when my kids, Kyle and Cassidy, were younger. It would have provided my husband and me with a lot of relief for our mortgage and for bills as well.

What this bill would do is enable more parents like those today to make the choice to enter the workforce for the first time or in some cases to go back to work. Studies have shown that for every dollar invested in early childhood education, the broader economy receives between $1.50 and $2.80 in return. Therefore, can my hon. colleague agree that this bill would make a significant improvement in our economy?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will certainly have a major impact on the Canadian economy but especially on the well-being of families. My colleague mentioned that she wished she had had access to this type of service. Life would have been much easier if the governments of the other Canadian provinces had followed Quebec's lead 25 years ago. Quebeckers were very lucky compared to people in the rest of Canada, because we dared to implement progressive legislation.

Once again, I urge my colleagues to follow Quebec's lead right now when it comes to being progressive, particularly with regard to Bill 21, the state secularism law.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is difficult for me because I understand why the member from Quebec does not like everything about this bill. However, I am a member from Alberta, where we have a Conservative government. That is very important. I would like the member for Lac-Saint-Jean to understand why I want conditions imposed on the Government of Alberta, particularly when it comes to language.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand the question.

One thing is certain. Quebec did not sign the Constitution. Even though I am a sovereignist, I am going to defend the Canadian Constitution. That is not something that happens very often. The Canadian Constitution is clear about jurisdictions. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois always has to be the one to make sure that the Liberals understand their own Constitution. They cannot understand that the Canadian Constitution clearly sets out separate areas of jurisdiction. The federal government is always infringing on provincial jurisdictions because it does not like the provincial governments that are in power.

I understand why my colleague is unhappy about the government that is in office in Alberta, but the work that needs to be done must be done at the provincial level in keeping with the Canadian Constitution. If the government does not want to abide by Canada's Constitution, then all it has to do is reopen it. Then maybe Quebeckers will want to get involved in the whole debate around the Constitution.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is around the Quebec model. We have heard a lot about it today and the success it has had, but we know that everything needs improvement. There is an opportunity here to learn from the data that has been accumulated over the years in Quebec and what could be done to improve it.

What shortsightedness has happened in Quebec that the member thinks we could use on a federal level to improve legislation to make affordable quality child care accessible to all Canadians?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood the question correctly, my colleague wants to know what can be done at the federal level to improve services that fall under provincial jurisdiction.

My answer is simple. What happens at the provincial level has to be dealt with in the legislatures of the other provinces and the National Assembly of Quebec, when it comes to Quebec. The federal government has no business interfering in the services the provinces provide to their constituents. That is the provinces' business. That is what we keep saying ad nauseam in this Parliament. Every time we arrive here in the morning, we know we will have to talk about jurisdictions. When we leave in the evening we feel discouraged, because it seems that the message is not getting through. It goes in one ear and out the other.

Areas of jurisdiction have to be respected. I hope that one day federal jurisdiction will be a thing of the past because Quebec will be a country. Then all these disputes will be over.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great pleasure to stand in this place to represent the constituents of Edmonton Strathcona. It is my first time standing this session, so I want to wish everyone a late happy new and welcome them back to the House of Commons.

I am quite delighted that I get an opportunity to stand today to contribute to this debate. It is one of the most fundamental pieces of legislation that we could be looking at. Providing affordable, accessible, high-quality child care for families across this country is so very important. Many people here have talked about their own personal experiences. I am a mother. I have two children, Maclean and Keltie, and they are perfect, as all our children are. They are 15 and 17 now, so they no longer need child care. I will have even more to say when the debate is on post-secondary tuition.

I remember the challenges of trying to find child care, and trying to ensure the child care we had found was adequate. We were so lucky that we found spots for our children at Fulton Child Care Centre in Edmonton Strathcona. It has fabulous staff, and they worked incredibly hard to provide a learning environment for my children. We were very lucky. However, well before I was involved in politics, I recognized the challenges that faced families, and disproportionately faced women, as they looked for child care spaces.

There was one child care centre I had applied to for my children when they were young, and I got a phone message when one was eight years old to tell me that there was a space available. That is how long the waiting list had been for that child care centre. Of course, we need to make sure that child care is accessible. This is such an important piece of work for this Parliament to do.

We have to look back over the 52 years since the 1970 Royal Commission on the Status of Women to see how long people have been fighting for child care in this country. We need to take time today to acknowledge those advocates who worked tirelessly to ensure that this became a reality. We have to look at the labour movement, the champions like those in the CLC, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and the Alberta Federation of Labour. So many of our labour movements have been calling for child care for a very long time.

I also want to thank the leaders within the New Democratic Party because we, as New Democrats, have also been calling for child care for decades. Ed Broadbent was one of the very first members of Parliament to bring this forward. Jack Layton spoke extensively on the need for child care and how it would fundamentally change the lives of families, particularly women, across this country. More recently, the member for London—Fanshawe and Olivia Chow both brought forward legislation, in the 41st Parliament and the 40th Parliament respectively, to bring forward child care. This legislation is built on the extraordinary and hard work that has been done by advocates within the NDP and throughout the country.

This was a recommendation in the 1970 Royal Commission on the Status of Women. It should never have taken so long to make this law. It should not have taken a pandemic. It should not have taken the corporate sector to say that there would be no recovery from COVID without child care. We should have been able to hear why this was so important for gender equality much sooner than this.

I want to talk about the Alberta context as well. Some of the information is coming from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives on child care costs. Before $10-a-day child care, in Edmonton the median monthly child care fee for preschool-aged children was $925, while the median monthly fee for infants was $1,050 a month and $950 for toddlers.

This is important to keep in mind, because in my riding of Edmonton Strathcona, parents were paying, on average, over $1,000 a month. Then the UCP in our province decided to cut what Rachel Notley had put in place, which was a program that had reduced child poverty in half: the $25 child care. That pilot program was cut.

In Alberta, we have a desperate need for child care. We have a desperate need for investment in child care. In fact, I will read a very important quote from Bradley Lafortune from Public Interest Alberta. He said, “This is a once-in-a-generation chance to make a massive difference in the lives of so many of Alberta's citizens. We need to work together to ensure that this agreement is a step towards a universal system of child care that truly works for everyone.”

I do not have quite enough time to tell members all of the ways that I think this would impact women and families across this country, but I will say that we will work within committee. Our party is very interested in improving the reporting and accountability, improving the working conditions for workers and making sure that there is a workforce strategy to make sure that we do have enough people who can take that spot.

There is a lot of work we can do, and I do not think this is legislation is perfect, but I am so happy that it has come forward. I am so happy that we are going to have a universal child care program in this country. It is vitally important, and it is very overdue.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a bit about Jack Layton and the NDP and the words that they spoke about child care. I could not help but reflect on the fact that Ken Dryden, a former minister, actually had a deal in place with the provinces and territories. It was a signed deal ready to go. However, it was indeed the NDP that took us into an election, and as a result scuttled that whole deal. Stephen Harper ripped it up and got rid of it.

I wonder if the member could reflect on where this country may be today had the NDP not forced that election 15 years ago? How much further ahead would this child care program be, had it had 15 years of history at this point?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to think about just how far social programs could have gone in this country if an NDP government had been in place.

Of course, this government has been in place for seven and a half years and so one would think it would be able to put that in place. I would also like to raise the thought that when I have spoken with folks like Cindy Blackstock, they mentioned that the agreement was, in fact, fully insufficient in bringing forward child care for indigenous children across this country. Even then, the Liberals had a lot of work to do, and certainly they have had ample time to deal with it since then.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way for her speech and, as a mom, sharing her thoughts about this legislation. As I mentioned a few times, as the critic to this file, it is a very emotional file. We all want this access to quality, affordable care. It is very challenging to do this.

Is the member opposite open to amendments that would ensure that the people who are most vulnerable get priority? Right now, the way it is written, it would be creating two-tiered child care, in that people who are wealthy would be getting access or priority before vulnerable families.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I am not at the committee. As the committee works through that, I know that our critics will be working very hard to make this a stronger piece of legislation.

I think that one of the things that every one of us in the House is looking for is a way to make sure that every family, every parent, particularly every woman across this country has access to good, quality, universal child care. I am supportive of all the things that will make that happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that the subject matter of Bill C-35, child care and early learning, is very important, whether in Quebec or across Canada. We also know that this bill includes some key elements such as the benefits of early learning and child care on children's development, as well as the role of the provinces.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion. What does she think about respect for provincial jurisdictions in this area?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that question was something that I tried to ask one of her colleagues in my very clunky French, so I understand why maybe it was not understood adequately.

I actually do believe that there is a role for the federal government to have strings attached to ensure that there is equitable quality of care across the country. Something she might be particularly interested in is that I think there should be linguistic ties to our child care agreements. I think we have a charter obligation to ensure that French child care is available across the country, including in Alberta, and that this is something that is possible, because 15% of my population is francophone. They have every right to have child care in French.

I think there should be some strings attached to the funding coming from the federal government to the provinces for things like that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 1, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the chamber you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m. so we could begin private members' hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.