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.

Pharmacare Act

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have risen three times today because I was so eager to speak.

I am pleased to speak today at third reading of Bill C-64. We have been debating this bill for a long time. Clause-by-clause study took place last week, but we do need to wind up the debate at some point.

Before continuing with my speech, I would ask my colleagues to respect my right to speak and not talk over me.

First, to make things clear, if they are not already, the Bloc Québécois's position has not changed one iota: We are against Bill C-64.

I would like to remind my colleagues of the purpose of the bill. Obviously, a bill can have several different purposes, depending on which side we are on. Sometimes it may seem like a bill has a noble goal, but that may not be the case.

I would like to talk about something that is totally obvious to me but that people tend to forget when we get into these debates. Bill C‑64 addresses one of the 27 items in the agreement that the Liberals reached with the NDP in 2022 to stay in power by forming a sort of coalition with the NDP. This may have been in the NDP's best interests, although maybe it will want to argue that point.

I would like to remind the House of the wording of the second item in this agreement: “Continuing progress towards a universal national pharmacare program by passing a Canada Pharmacare Act by the end of 2023”.

They want to “continu[e] progress”. We often hear similar phrases in the House, phrases like continuing to move forward, continuing progress or continuing to do something. That is all very vague, in my opinion. I would imagine that pretty much anything we do is progress, even the bill we are currently discussing. Perhaps that covers the disagreement there was between the Liberals and the NDP on this issue.

As members know, the Liberals dragged their feet on introducing this bill. This bill was in the works for years. They were talking about it in 2022. It was introduced on February 29. They could not agree on the cost of the measure. Of course we would like to see a pharmacare act, but perhaps not at all costs, if my colleagues will pardon the pun.

This bill was introduced on February 29, at the very last minute, to save the agreement and to save the Liberals. I might add that it was also to save the NDP. I must say that I did not hold my breath at the time.

A moment ago, I talked about the purpose of the bill. I think that this bill was introduced purely for the purpose of garnering votes. It could have been introduced sooner, but there was an agreement. The NDP would not want to bring the government down. That is why I was not surprised when the bill was introduced this year, one year away from the election, just before the budget.

I also get the feeling that it may have been because the government is short on ideas. I have spoken many times about the government's lack of vision. It has been eight, almost nine, years since the government came to power. It will have been 10 years by the time the election comes around.

I have noticed that the House is copying the debates taking place south of the border. Take the debates over contraceptives and diabetes medication. It is not that I am not happy to see my colleagues across the aisle and next to me tackling the official opposition, to use a soccer term, here in the House over a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body. I was not unhappy about that. However, it is being done for the purpose of gaining votes. There is one party in the House that wants to limit women's rights. This may resonate with some people, even me, but it should not be done for that purpose alone.

In fact, maybe it was entirely arbitrary. The government did not know what to do, what to propose. It desperately wanted pharmacare, but it had no idea what it really wanted to do, so it thought about what could help it win votes. It figured that it could take certain debates from the U.S. bipartisan system and copy them here to pit the good guys against the bad guys.

In short, I am not saying that these billions of dollars that will be spent by the government are a form of pre-election advertising, but that is what it looks like. Again, Quebeckers and Canadians need to be aware of the partisan agenda hidden behind this bill. There is a hidden objective.

I think it takes a certain kind of courage to oppose a bill that seems virtuous. That is what we are being told: If we do not vote in favour of the bill, it is because we are against it. I, of course, am 100% in favour of a woman's right to choose and all methods of contraception. I am a member of the Bloc Québécois. I speak on behalf of Quebec. I am not against the provinces' positions. I do not mind if they decide that the federal government can interfere in their jurisdictions. That is their choice, and I respect it. At the same time, that is not what I want for Quebec. That is why the Bloc Québécois proposed the following amendment in committee:

Despite subsections (1) and (2), a province or territory may elect not to participate in national universal pharmacare, in which case that province or territory remains unconditionally entitled to receive payments in order to maintain the accessibility and affordability of the prescription drugs and related products already covered by its public pharmacare.

Our amendment concerns the ability to opt out with full compensation from the pharmacare program. It was not debated because we could not debate it in committee during clause-by-clause study of the bill. It was not rejected either. I would say that what happened is even worse: It was ruled inadmissible. I wish I could avoid talking about the reasons the committee chair ruled the amendment inadmissible, but I think it is important to go over them because this is just another clear demonstration of bad faith, in my opinion, and the federal government's disregard for the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec.

It was argued that the amendment required a royal recommendation, which is false. What we were told is that it will generate additional costs and that, since we are an opposition party, it requires a royal recommendation. I hate to say it, but that is absolutely false. The amendment did not require a royal recommendation, because the funds had already been committed by the government. The Bloc Québécois's amendment was therefore legitimate and admissible.

This is not the only time that government members have made arguments that do not hold water and that are merely a pretext to interfere in Quebec's jurisdiction. The government did the same thing in the case of Bill C-35, which deals with the child care program. As far as I am concerned, this is not only a sign of disrespect toward Quebec, it is basically an insult, because over the decades, Quebec has built a social safety net that is the envy of North America. We have pharmacare, as well as dental coverage for young people. We have free education and early childhood centres. We have made some huge social advances.

In this case, the federal government is digging in its heels and refusing to allow Quebec to opt out unconditionally with full compensation. As I see it, Ottawa is refusing to recognize Quebec's decades of leadership in this area. The same thing happened with child care centres and Bill C‑35. What is more, the federal government is doing all this without having jurisdiction over this area or having any expertise in care and social services. Quebec is being denied something we have every right to request by a government that lacks both expertise and jurisdiction. The government has no compunction about turning us down, but at the same time, it has to follow our example with a view to “continuing progress”, as they put it so eloquently. I have no problem with the federal government continuing progress, but I do not want this progress to come at Quebec's expense.

As I said before, Quebec already has a public pharmacare plan for part of the population that the government introduced nearly 30 years ago. I need to repeat this because I think some people have trouble hearing it. This is not the case with everyone, but in the House, it is true of nearly the majority. As far as Canada is concerned, it is trying to catch up. It is behind by 30 years, so now it is encroaching on our jurisdiction. It may be more. We also have a private plan offered by employers, to which workers contribute as well. No one in Quebec lacks pharmacare coverage. People need to stop spreading falsehoods.

The choice was made by Quebeckers. It was not Ottawa that made this choice, it was Quebec. Our plan is also paid for by Quebeckers. The federal government did not give a red cent for this plan. We know what is right for us. We do not need someone else to tell us. We are capable of taking care of ourselves. We do not need paternalistic Ottawa trying to manage a pharmacare plan in Quebec without expertise, without legitimacy and without experience.

I keep thinking that what the Bloc Québécois is asking from the federal government is simple and it makes sense. We are asking the federal government to take care of its own responsibilities, such as foreign affairs, defence and fisheries. It seems to me that the federal government has enough responsibilities. It has more than enough things to take care of.

Perhaps that is not sexy enough for the government. I should ask that question. Is that sexy enough for the government? Health and education are the two areas that affect people the most. Of course, health is a matter of major importance. We talk about the things we care about. If we are not alive, then nothing else matters, obviously. Health is important. These are the two budget items that are most important for Quebec.

The government knows that, for years now, its health transfers have been insufficient. They are shrinking down to nothing. It knows all that. If the government reduces the transfers, the burden will fall heavily on Quebec and the provinces. Who gets the blame when there is a shortage of care and services? Quebec and the provinces, obviously.

Jean Chrétien understood this well. He bragged to the G7 that all he had to do to balance the budget was reduce health transfers. He said that Canadians would look for someone to blame, but that they would not blame the federal government, because health is under Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction. They are the ones who would be cutting health care and education. For him, it was simple: Canadians would take it out on the provinces. The federal government would be able to achieve a balanced budget, and no one would hold anything against it. The provinces would pay the price, both literally and figuratively.

It always comes down to this, unfortunately, but as a separatist, I have no other choice. I am a separatist and I am pragmatic. It always comes down to the fiscal imbalance. The federal government collects more money than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, while the provinces and Quebec are not collecting enough to manage their own jurisdictions. They are short of money, which gives the federal government an opening to spend money on things under Quebec's and the provinces' jursidiction.

It is unbelievable. It is like the federal government is stealing from the provinces and Quebec. It is strangling them. If they meet certain conditions, it will back off and let them breathe again.

We would not thank anyone who is strangling us for stopping. We understand that interference is always done with a purpose. I mentioned this earlier, but it is still the same thing with the government and its minions.

The federal government swoops in like a saviour, slapping its flag on cheques, which it tosses around like confetti, and the cavalry of government members run around, trumpets blaring, trying to solve the problems it created itself. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like that image. It has definite educational value. However, although we may be laughing over it, it is a hard fact.

While the government is gaily running around, it has forgotten why it was elected. Perhaps it does not know. Perhaps it has forgotten. When a government has no vision, it may take a peek in the neighbour's yard, looking for direction.

Again, interfering in areas of provincial and Quebec jurisdiction has a purpose for them. In fact, the purpose is twofold in this case: one, to keep the government in power, and two, to prepare for the next election.

Until we gain independence, Quebeckers will have to fight to make sure this government respects us, respects our expertise and experience and gives us what is ours, meaning our money and, of course, control over our own jurisdictions. It will also have to respect the fact that we have our own pharmacare program.

Quebeckers are capable of discussing amongst ourselves, at home, and improving our pharmacare plan with our experts, based on our experience and our wishes. It is not up to the federal government to tell Quebeckers what to do. We refuse to let our own tax money be used against us and at our expense.

One way to respect us is to vote down Bill C‑64. I may be a member of the Bloc Québécois, but I am not the only one who says so. The Quebec National Assembly has said it too. Christian Dubé, Quebec's health minister, pointed it out the day before the bill was introduced. We do not want this bill. We do not want the federal government to encroach on areas of Quebec's jurisdiction. I would remind the House that the National Assembly alone speaks for all Quebeckers.

In closing, I would therefore like to let the voices of Quebeckers be heard through the unanimous demands of the National Assembly for compensation to be paid to Quebec. That is what the Bloc Québécois has asked for, because the Bloc Québécois speaks on behalf of Quebeckers. The motion unanimously adopted by the National Assembly on June 14, 2019, reads as follows:

THAT the National Assembly acknowledge the federal report recommending the establishment of a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan;

THAT it reaffirm the Government of Québec's exclusive jurisdiction over health;

THAT it also reaffirm that Québec has had its own general prescription insurance plan for 20 years;

THAT it indicate to the federal government that Québec refuses to adhere to a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan;

THAT it ask the Government of Québec to maintain its prescription drug insurance plan and that it demand full financial compensation from the federal government if a project for a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan is officially tabled.

That was back in 2019, so the Quebec government made its position clear quite some time ago. Today, I am still trying to be a voice for the National Assembly. I hoped that the federal government would respect Quebec's decision to refuse to join the federal plan, for example, in the motion put forward at the committee studying Bill C‑64. We respect the provinces that want to take part in the program set out in the bill, since coverage is rather inconsistent across Canada, but in Quebec, everyone is covered by a pharmacare program.

It is up to us to decide what we want to do next. It is not up to the federal government.

Second reading

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I do not live in the world the member lives in. It is another dystopia. The last time I listened to the member go on in a speech in that vein was on Bill C-35, the child care bill. She went on and on arguing against it and then, at the end of the night, she voted for it. In fact, every single member on that side voted for the bill.

I am wondering if it is going to be the same story with the pharmacare bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

March 19, 2024

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 19th day of March, 2024, at 6:04 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ken MacKillop

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada and Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I have good news today. We have announced a whole bunch more homes being built in Canada. We have reduced taxes on the middle class and increased them on the one per cent, and those guys voted against it. The budget is the best in the G7, and we have a great record on reducing poverty. All these things are well in hand without the bad track record of the previous government.

Later today, we will have the final vote on the motion regarding the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. Tomorrow will be an allotted day.

When we return following the constituency weeks, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. On Wednesday of the same week, we will continue debate on the motion relating to the Senate amendments to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. Tuesday, March 19, and Thursday, March 21, shall be allotted days.

Carbon Pricing

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 2.3 million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty since this government took office and started caring about Canadians by putting supports in place that those guys had spent all their time cutting. Families throughout Canada have seen their child care fees slashed, in many cases down to $10 a day, thanks to this government and Bill C-35 that we are getting ready to pass today.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly, this government has done more for families and women than any other government in history, and I am incredibly proud to be part of that government and that work. This legislation, Bill C-35, is, rightly put, just one piece of the hard work we have done to support women and families.

I look to the Canada child benefit, a program that families can rely on each and every month, like clockwork, to support them and deposit funds into their bank accounts for whatever their families may need that month, whether it be additional shoes for Johnny, extracurricular activities or saving for their post-secondary education. We have been there for families and have demonstrated that, not only with legislation but also with others, such as the Canada child benefit, which was pointed out, and many other programs. I would point to the most recent Canada dental benefit and pharmacare, which was just recently announced.

We continue to do the hard work to introduce incredible social policy that is also really smart economic policy, enabling parents to get into the workforce by supporting them in their day-to-day challenges because we all know that raising kids is not easy work.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for her important responses.

It really is quite unfortunate that the Conservatives are using tactics to avoid important debate on Bill C-35. What I very much appreciate about Bill C-35 is that it takes a rights-based approach. I wonder if the member could share with us why the Conservatives would avoid ensuring that the bill passes so that rights could be respected.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today is the day we were supposed to be talking about the Senate amendments to Bill C-35, and the Conservatives have brought forward a concurrence debate with respect to food security in the north, which of course is an extraordinarily important topic. The issue, though, is that the Conservatives are using this as a tactic to delay a very important debate with respect to child care. The way I know this is that the Conservatives have had 10 opposition days when they could have brought forward the issue of nutrition in the north, and they have never chosen to do that.

In fact, when Stephen Harper was our prime minister, I believe that Pam Palmater, one of the indigenous experts, said that the Conservative government had actually set back indigenous relations 100 years in the 10 years that it had been there.

Why is the Conservative Party of Canada so eager to stop women from coast to coast to coast from being able to access child care, something that we know we need for women, for families and, frankly, for our economy?

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to that question here today. Obviously, Bill C-35 is a bill that is critically important to families, to children and to our partners, our provincial, territorial and indigenous partners across this country.

The bill has been thoroughly studied, both at the House committee and at the Senate committee. I would add that there have been numerous days of debate here in the House, as well as in the other place, both recently, in the winter, and back in the fall. I would also point out that, at the time, all parties voted unanimously to continue to support this work.

The member opposite has proposed that the system is in chaos. I would rebut that. I would tell the member to ask the families who are benefiting from this program, thousands of families across the country who are accessing care now, at least at 50% of the rate, if not at $10 a day. For those families, it has been incredibly impactful.

Rome was not built in a day. As we do this work together with the provinces and territories, more spaces are coming in line, and there will be 250,000 new spaces as we continue to build this out with our partners.

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

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of the motion respecting the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, I move:

That debate be not further adjourned.

Notice of Closure Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, with respect to the consideration of the motion relating to the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.

Public Services and Procurement

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful if we just moved on from the slogans written in the leader's office for one moment while I address another issue that would actually help Canadians. On the Order Paper is Bill C-35, which would guarantee lower child care costs for every single mother and father in this country. That could pass on a voice vote today.

Will that member, instead of taking his orders from the leader, walk down to the leader's office and tell him to pass Bill C-35 to bring down child care costs for Canadians?

Government Business No. 35—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is what I can say: Every time we bring a bill to this House for debate at second reading, it does not really matter what it is. It could be called the “the sky is blue act”. The Conservatives would pose dilatory motions. For Canadians who are watching this, what the Conservatives do is they move concurrence on a committee report from six months ago that no one has talked about since. They bring aimless and pointless questions of privilege to the floor, things that prevent us from getting to the work we have to do.

The member voted for child care. I will put it to her right now: Will she go to her leader and ask that we be able to put Bill C-35 to a vote today, at all stages, so that Albertans can have access to the child care they deserve?

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would first like to thank my hon. colleague and his colleagues in the official opposition for finally letting Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, come to a final vote. That is good news for Canada and our Ukrainian friends, with whom we stand in solidarity.

As for the business of the House, we will continue to have ongoing discussions that would see us dealing with Bill C-62, medical assistance in dying, next week. We are, of course, well aware of the deadlines that are looming. I remind all members of this House that there is a March 17 deadline attached to this very important legislation.

I would remind the House that we wanted to allow all parties in the House, as well as in the Senate, to participate in a process that could guide the government's choices on medical assistance in dying. We produced a report that resembled a consensus, and the bill reflects that consensus.

We will also give priority to bills that have been examined and amended by the Senate and are therefore now in the final stage of debate in the House. These include Bill C-29, which would create a national council for reconciliation, and Bill C-35 on early learning and child care in Canada.

As I said at the outset, we will continue to consult with the opposition parties. My door is always open. If necessary, we will make adjustments so that the House can continue to work in an orderly fashion.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill with an amendment to which the Senate desires the concurrence of the House of Commons: Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Copies of the amendment are available at the table.

I also wish to inform the House that because of the delay, pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), there will be no Private Members' Business hour today. Accordingly, the order will be rescheduled for another sitting.

Online News Act

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

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

The NDP-Liberal coalition has been as sly as a fox and as slippery as an eel with this piece of legislation known as Bill C-18, the online news act. This is yet another Liberal attempt to control the online content available to the people of Canada. The government will pick winners and losers among our various media outlets with this faulty legislation if it passes.

When this bill was before our House of Commons' standing committee in December, the government cut off hearing from witnesses who wished to voice their concerns about the fairness for media outlets. These witnesses and media stakeholders who wanted to put forward their concerns were simply shut down. After hastily being pushed through the standing committee, Bill C-18 came back to this place, where the censoring Liberals called time allocation after just three hours and 20 minutes of debate. What utter disregard for the many journalists and media outlets whose livelihoods will be weighed in the balance should this law pass.

The NDPs who supported the Liberals, when their blushing brides wanted to rob witnesses of the opportunity to testify at committee, backed them again by shutting debate down and rushing to get this bill passed here and sent off to the Senate. This is what we have seen time and time again with these partners in crime when it comes to legislation that supports their socialist agenda.

Legacy socialist legislation, like Bill C-11, Bill C-21 or Bill C-35, routinely gets pushed through this House with no regard for the views of stakeholders, ordinary Canadians and the opposition party.

What is wrong with Bill C-18, one might ask? Why are we using our resources to oppose this legislation? How is it bad for the Canadian public? How is it bad for small and local and ethnic media? How is it bad for journalists who want to maintain their independence?

I will tell us a little bit about that.

While this bill was in our House standing committee, the Liberals' court jester, the Minister of Heritage, deceived the committee with fake stats. He claimed that news outlets are destined for extinction. He cited a study that showed that 400 news outlets had closed since 2008. The conniving part of this testimony was that he left out a very important piece, also outlined in that same report, which was that hundreds of new outlets had opened during that exact same period, yet the jester claims that this bill is about supporting local media and building a fair news ecosystem. Nothing can be further from the truth.

This bill will favour darlings of the costly coalition like the CBC. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that more than 75% of the money generated by this bill will go to large corporations like Bell, Rogers and the CBC, leaving less than 25% for newspapers. Very little of that will be left over for local and ethnic media after big newspaper businesses take the lion's share of that 25%.

According to the PBO, the Liberal claim that this bill will help sustain local newspapers and ethnic media is completely false.

That is why Conservatives tried to fix this grave injustice at committee but the NDP-Liberal coalition, and the Bloc, voted against the amendment.

Conservative senators tried to amend this bill to stop state-backed broadcasters like the CBC from competing with private broadcasters and publications for this limited money when they already receive secure funding from taxpayers' dollars.

According to the PBO, this bill would generate $320 million, and of that amount, $240 million would go to the big broadcasters: CBC, Bell and Rogers. They would be entitled to more resources than they can possibly use, to help them increase their market share, while smaller outlets like the Toronto Star could disappear, heaven forbid.

Bill C-18 is another greasy attempt at online censorship. It walks hand in hand with Bill C-11. The other place sent this bill back to this place with amendments made by its independent senators, while amendments proposed by Conservative senators have been completely disregarded. Witnesses at the Senate committee painted a grim picture for most journalism in Canada, but that testimony was disrespected and trashed, along with the amendments that arose from it. The Liberal government is determined to control what we see online. According to witnesses from The Globe and Mail, News Media Canada, La Presse, Le Devoir, CANADALAND, The Line, and Village Media, this bill would create enormous risk for the independence of the press, for the bottom line of news outlets and for the future of digital media across this country.

The government has disguised its eagerness to control what news can be shared online with its appearance to want to straighten out big tech, like Facebook and Google, and to protect small media. Does that sound familiar? The same Minister of Canadian Heritage used these exact same tactics with Bill C-11 by touting his protection of Canadian content; however, at the same time, he cut small media's global revenue streams.

The government is enlisting the help of the CRTC to determine what is news and what is not. When something is created to share information about something new, otherwise known as “news”, it would be up to the CRTC whether it can be seen online in this country. Who asked for this bill? Legacy media asked for this bill, and the Liberal government has responded. The bunch on that side of the House will make sure that their story, their narrative, their agenda and their propaganda get out, and that opposing viewpoints are silenced. That is what this is all about. The government will use this legislation to choose winners and losers in the information world, and if it does not match its socialist agenda, news will not see the light of day. Good journalists and independent news media risk falling by the wayside if this legislation receives royal assent.

Conservatives will fight censorship and stand up for freedom of the press, which is now much broader than what it once encompassed. This is a new world, and a new approach is required to fight censorship. Censorship can be easily enacted in the online world without anyone ever suspecting it. On this side of the House, we stand for freedom and for protecting the public from legislation which would restrict the news content they would see. This bill to protect legacy broadcasters would drastically impact what news Canadians can see online, and Conservatives will not go on the record as supporting it. Censorship is censorship, however one slices it, and I will not vote for a bill that supports it in any way.

To conclude my remarks, my thoughts are with my colleague from Lethbridge, who, in my opinion and in the opinion of many of my colleagues, has been censored. She has been treated unfairly. It rushed to my mind as I was speaking so much about censorship. Hopefully, my colleague will receive justice.

Bill S-8—Time Allocation Motion

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday shall be an allotted day.

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

The Economy

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

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

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

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice and Human Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will just give one or two of the recommendations:

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

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

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

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to such an important piece of government business on the hybrid system we have adopted and have been using in the House over the last number of years.

In some of the last discourse, we heard from Conservative members in an exchange that came from a question from the NDP about members not using the technology and tools we have in place for the right purpose. This is given that we witnessed just days ago the abuse of hybrid Parliament, whether it was on Zoom or with the voting application, and the manner that was utilized by Conservatives to delay the vote and use it as a procedural tool.

We saw Conservatives who were voting and coming online through Zoom, and it was obvious they were sitting in the opposition lobby or perhaps had the beautiful stonework behind them from this place. They were doing this intentionally for the purpose of delaying the House. Why was that so obvious? The only members who seemed to have problems from a technical perspective at the time were Conservatives, so it was pretty clear there was an abuse of the system.

Therefore, I would tend to agree with Conservatives when they say that we need to ensure that the system and the tools we have are not abused. I think that we saw a lot of that on those two particular days. I think it was a Friday and a Monday when we saw that happening.

Nonetheless, I reflect on just some of the most recent votes. On Monday, June 12, which was just yesterday, we had a vote that was related to Bill C-33, where 70% of my Bloc colleagues and 66% of my Conservative colleagues used the voting app, according to the records that we have. When Conservatives talk about having consensus to use the hybrid Parliament, I would suggest to them that consensus comes through their basic agreement with and use of the technology.

Also on Monday, we had a number of other motions. We had the Bloc opposition motion, and 50% of the Bloc members, on their own motion, used the app to vote when we voted on that yesterday. Clearly the Bloc members favour using this technology that we have, given the fact that half of them, one out of every two Bloc members, used the app to vote on their own motion just yesterday, while 36% of Conservatives used it.

When we had Bill C-35 at report stage, 74% of Bloc members, almost three out of every four of them, used the voting application that we have adopted. Therefore, when the Bloc members get up, as I have heard them do both yesterday and today, to say we should be doing things based on consensus, I think that we have consensus is pretty darn clear when they are using the technology to the fullest of its ability.

We should be concerned that Bloc members might not be in the House, but it even gets worse than that. By the third reading and adoption of Bill C-41, 80% of Bloc members used the voting app. That is four out of every five of them. I do not think that we need consensus from the Bloc members that this is a good tool. They seem to be using it in great earnest.

It goes on. The Conservatives, although their percentages are much better, have been using the application and the tools just as much as everybody else.

I am reminded of just very recently when a Conservative member, a new mother who had just given birth days before, was participating in a House of Commons debate while holding her newborn. I remember it very well because she was speaking softly, and I remember that feeling of having a newborn, especially when they are sleeping, and wanting to let them sleep because we know what it is like when they are not sleeping. The member was speaking softly while sitting in her kitchen. The lights were dimmed, and she did not want to wake the baby. She was giving a passionate speech. I thought to myself, “Wow, look how far we have come in the short period of time since we started bringing on these new provisions.”

We have a new mother who is able to participate in a House of Commons debate literally days after giving birth. Let us imagine trying to convince people in this place 100 years ago that this would one day be the reality, or even 10 years ago, or even just five years ago. The idea would have been foreign.

As a society and as a country, we go through experiences. We went through a horrible experience in the pandemic. A lot of people suffered. There was a lot of financial hardship. There were a lot of people who, emotionally and from a mental health perspective, really struggled, but I think that we also have to realize that we discovered things and perhaps came across opportunities during the pandemic that could improve the quality of life for people who wish to be part of this process.

This House is not what it was decades ago. This is not a House filled just with male lawyers. Let us be honest: When this House was first established, it was lawyers and it was men, and that was it. Over the years, we have seen that evolve. My predecessor was a scientist, Ted Hsu, who came to this place. We have seen other people come here who were activists or people who were really passionate about certain fields of work and who did not particularly fall into that mould of what a parliamentarian used to be.

As my NDP colleague pointed out in a question that she asked about the under-representation of women in this place, she is absolutely correct. I am trusting that her number of only 30% of the members in this place are women is accurate. How do we get that to a better place?

It is funny. I had dinner this evening with a senator, and we had a really interesting conversation. He was commenting to me that he believes the Senate has changed so much because half of the senators are women. He said it brings a certain decorum to the place, and that the decorum might be from the fact that those who are not being more collegial and using decorum are highlighted. I would be the first to point out, as already happened today, that I am not by any means putting myself in the category of those who always demonstrate great decorum.

I do not want to get off the very important point here. The point is that we need to create a place that does not just represent Canadians. I know the former answer to a question from a Conservative was that this place does represent Canadians. Well, it might represent Canadians in the sense that there is a mix of different backgrounds, but I do not know if it genuinely represents Canadians in terms of gender parity. I think that in particular there is an impediment to many women who have to make the decision of whether they want to get into this line of work, given that it requires so much time in Ottawa.

When we look at the tools that we have been able to develop, test and rely on confidently during the pandemic, why would we not take those tools, if we see them as a way to make this place more suitable, to better represent Canadians, including and in particular as it relates to a gender balance in this House?

I have heard some of the arguments against this. I have been listening and following the debate. I think I have addressed the Bloc's concern over consensus. I hear the concern that comes quite a bit from my Conservative colleagues. I heard the Conservative House leader say that they would be in support of all of this if there was a sunset clause. The way he described it was that one year after the next election, we would have to review and then make a decision on whether or not to move forward. He is trying to phrase it so that rather than making a decision about getting rid of it, we would have to make the decision about keeping it.

I would say that is a nuance. Whether the government of the day wants to bring forward a new motion to change the Standing Orders back to the way they were or whether the government of the day brings forward a motion to keep the Standing Orders as they are, the point is irrelevant. It is going to be exactly the same debate that takes place.

People's positions on things would be pretty much the same. I do not think they would particularly change. The important thing is that I do not think it should be a deal breaker for anybody that would make them just say they cannot support this because they really wanted a sunset clause.

This is my personal opinion. I preface it by saying that it is my opinion. I certainly do not know this to be fact. I would say probably the majority of Conservatives like the tools that we have. They certainly use them a lot, as do my Bloc colleagues. I think this is a bit of partisanship. I think this is about positioning oneself and positioning a particular party to try to put a narrative in place that people are not working, to say that when they go back home, they are not really working and doing their work.

From listening to the speech from the House leader for the government yesterday, we know that anybody who is in this job is working 24-7. When members walk into a store in their riding, how often does somebody bump into them and want to talk to them? Then they are working. That happens all the time.

This is not a nine-to-five job. We will be here until at least 1:00 a.m. tonight, and that is fine. That is part of the job. I think we all accept that, and I certainly accept it. If we can put tools in place to make it even more inclusive, I think we should be doing that.

In preparation for this speech, I was looking back at some references in Hansard for this Parliament. I reflect back to March 28, when my Conservative colleague, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, was giving his speech. If I have this correct, it was from a city council chamber in his riding. He was commuting to the airport to come here, presumably. He wanted to give his speech and was able to set up a temporary spot to give his speech from a city council chamber. He said:

As we know as members of Parliament, things can change and develop quickly in this job. This has led me to be making a speech from a bit of a unique location. Having seemingly come down with the flu over the weekend, I was delayed in my return to our nation's capital. As a result, I was not able to get on my Sunday afternoon flight, which is my normal commute. Therefore, if you would indulge me, Madam Speaker, I am in a unique location that I would like to highlight.

I am giving my speech from another chamber, actually: the town council chambers of the community of Drumheller. This is the second-largest community in Battle River—Crowfoot in this beautiful area of east central Alberta, and I am proud to represent it.

He goes on after that. I am not saying this in any way to say, “See, I told you so. You love hybrid Parliament and you are using it.” I am bringing it to everyone's attention because I think it is unique and important that the member was able to participate. He clearly could not come to Ottawa because of an illness. When he got better, he was on his way here, but he really wanted to participate in debate and made other accommodations to be able to do that.

As much as this motion about adopting a hybrid Parliament might be able helping a newborn's mother participate, it is also about helping people who have come down with an illness, who are on the mend and who might be on their way to Ottawa, as was the case with this individual. On Friday of last week, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan gave a virtual speech on Bill C-41. He is another Conservative colleague of mine.

What I am trying to point out is that we are all using this technology. We all see the benefit in the technology, and it is genuinely allowing us to participate in debate when we otherwise may have been limited. Most of us in this chamber, especially those elected in 2015 and after 2019, know what it was like to not be able to do that. This has given much more opportunity for people to participate by providing another way to participate. We do not have to physically be here. I think it is worth keeping in that regard.

I heard a criticism from a Conservative who spoke before me. It was specifically about accountability, and I heard his comments about accountability in two regards.

In the first regard, he spoke about accountability in terms of ministers answering questions. I know I heard him say that he was speaking specifically about accountability as it related to ministers speaking on Zoom to a committee. However, I do not think that is appropriate, and I can tell members that on this side of the House, and it should be quite obvious from question period every day, no minister answers a question on the screen. No minister answers a question virtually. If a minister cannot be present here in question period, a parliamentary secretary or another minister answers the question. That is not a rule established anywhere, but it is certainly a rule that the leadership on this side of the House has put in place in order to preserve that accountability. Question period is probably the part of the proceedings here that the public watches the most, and certainly that is the time that there has to actually be a physical presence in the House.

The other area of accountability the member mentioned is accountability in terms of individuals who are participating by Zoom in a committee and whether or not they are accountable. Well, we are accountable: We are accountable to the individuals who send us here. If the individuals determine that we are not doing an effective job, they will stop sending us here. We are accountable because we will go into an election at least once every four years.

No two MPs, in my opinion, approach this job in exactly the same way. Everybody develops their approach to the job in how they deal with constituents, how they deal with casework, how they deal with the House proceedings and with committee, how they deal with everything in the spectrum. If our electorate decides “Hey, you have not done a good job in terms of how you are handling your participation and how you are representing us”, it is up to them to hold us accountable. It is up to them to decide if they want us or somebody else. In that regard, I certainly believe that we are accountable. I think we will always have that accountability to people.

We are not like the Senate; senators are appointed, and they are appointed for a set period of time. We have to go back to our electorate on a regular basis and ask for their continued support. That is really, in my opinion, the most important thing.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that I think this is a good motion. I do not believe that putting a sunset clause on this motion can be a deal breaker. It is just as easy for a future government, after the next election, to say that it does not want this and that this is how it should be done.

I also do not believe that the Bloc is against this motion, based on the fact that there is no consensus. Its members have by far, as a percentage of the political parties, used the voting application the most. They clearly enjoy using it, and I think that if the motion does not pass, many of them would probably be upset that we were not going to continue using it.

I will certainly be supporting this motion. I think it is a way to get so many more people interested in this place and to get so many more people to put their names forward. It is a way to continue to build on the diversity in this House, and particularly, in my opinion, to build on the kind of diversity that will bring us closer to a gender balance.

Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing a bit of a theme tonight, whether it is will Bill C-35 or Bill C-33. It is “let us do nothing”.

I have not heard a lot of opposition to what is in the bill. Generally, I am hearing that there should be other things in the bill; there should be additional stuff. That is sad to see. The opposition's purpose is supposed to be to hold the government to account, but it seems like they will oppose anything for any reason, not valid reasons, because right now they just say that more needs to be done. I hear the member on that, but what is in this bill is good stuff. It is a step forward, and I urge the member to support this piece of legislation.

I also heard the member complaining that the legislation does not address labour disputes at the ports, and I want to understand that better. Is the member trying to imply that he would prefer to intervene with collective bargaining and the ability of unions to do that? Is that what the member is saying? I ask because oftentimes Conservatives say they stand for the little guy.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, inflation is a global phenomenon. It is good that Canada is below the OECD average. It is also below the G7 average, the G20 average, the U.S., the U.K., Spain, Germany and many other countries. Of course, that is not good enough. We have to continue to lead and do everything we can. That is why I am so proud that this House just adopted a budget with critical measures to help Canadians in every corner of this country with affordability, because we are not going to fix the problem of global inflation by slashing support to the most vulnerable.

After passing the budget, this House has important work to do over the next two weeks.

It will start this evening as we resume debate on Bill C-35, on early learning and child care, at report stage. Once that debate is done, we will resume debate on Bill C-33, on railway safety. Tomorrow, we will debate Bill C-41, on humanitarian aid. On Monday at noon, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C-48 concerning bail reform, and then we will go to Bill C-35 at third reading after question period. On Tuesday we will call Bill S-8, on sanctions, at report stage and third reading.

On top of this, priority will be given to Bill C-22, the disability benefit, and Bill C-40 regarding miscarriage of justice reviews, as well as our proposal to implement changes to the Standing Orders, which were tabled earlier today, to render provisions with respect to hybrid Parliament permanent in this House.

Furthermore, I have a unanimous consent motion that I would like to propose in relation to the debate tomorrow.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, in relation to Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts:

(a) the amendment in Clause 1 adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which reads as follows:

“(a) by adding after line 26 on page 1 the following:

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who carries out any of the acts referred to in those subsections for the sole purpose of carrying out humanitarian assistance activities conducted under the auspices of impartial humanitarian organizations in accordance with international law while using reasonable efforts to minimize any benefit to terrorist groups.

“(b) by deleting lines 15 to 19 on page 2.”

be deemed within the principle of the bill; and

(b) when the bill is taken up at report stage:

(i) it be deemed concurred in, as amended, on division, after which the bill shall be immediately ordered for consideration at the third reading stage,

(ii) not more than one sitting day or five hours of debate, whichever is the shortest, shall be allotted for consideration at the third reading stage,

(iii) five minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders that day, at the conclusion of the five hours allocated for the debate, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall be deferred pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022.

Bill C-35—Time Allocation Motion

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech. There is still one thing missing from Bill C-35, and I would like to hear her comments on that.

It should be pointed out that the early childhood centre model and the vision of offering education to children who are not yet of school age was implemented in Quebec. That is where the model comes from. That expertise is even recognized throughout the world.

Quebec's contribution was recognized in black and white in a previous bill. This bill, Bill C‑35, currently mentions a five-year period. What will happen after five years? Will the federal government start another dispute over Quebec's right to opt out with full compensation in recognition of its expertise? Why was this not included in black and white in this bill? For now, it is all right, but what will happen in five years' time?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the hon. Minister of Families for her work, her non-partisan spirit, and the fact that from day to day, frankly, she inspires me, so she may be annoyed to find that I cannot vote for time allocation on Bill C-35, because we need to stop using time allocation in this place as if it is routine.

I protested it when it was done to us time and time again when the Conservatives were in power. In a majority government under former prime minister Stephen Harper, it was used abusively. I knew then that if it happens once, it keeps happening, so now it is being used abusively by the Liberals.

I know there are good reasons and serious provocation behind why the governing party wants to do this. I would say to my dear friends across the aisle that it does not help when the leader of the official opposition tells the Canadian media and the Canadian public that the Conservatives are going to use every sneaky trick they can to gum up the works.

The truth of the matter is that if this place used our rules, which would be that no one is allowed to read a written speech, or if every member in this place did not fill up all the time by forever giving speeches that are not always truly inspiring but definitely take up the time, we could make this place work better.

I appeal to all sides in this place to let good legislation like Bill C-35 move through this House properly without time allocation.

A gag order is not a good idea, regardless of the party in power.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the NDP members as well as the Bloc Québécois members for their support, because we are going to be able to move forward with Bill C-35 despite the delay tactics of the Conservatives. For all of the reasons he mentioned, it is important to move this legislation through the House so that we can ensure Canadians have access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive child care.

When it comes to the workforce, British Columbia is doing some excellent work. It has instituted a $4-an-hour increase for all child care workers. It will be coming out with a wage grid soon. We are going to continue to work in partnership with British Columbia and in fact all provinces and territories to make sure the workforce is well compensated and well respected right across this country.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her collaboration on Bill C-35. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with her on advancing this bill. We have had many conversations, and I share her deep commitment to ensuring that workers are fairly compensated and have the supports they need to thrive as child care workers.

Workforce supports are indeed part of each of the bilateral agreements and action plans. I will be meeting with my provincial and territorial counterparts this summer to come up with a more comprehensive workforce strategy.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say through you to the member and those moms that this is exactly why Bill C-35 exists. It is so typical of the Conservatives to say there is a problem, throw their hands up and do nothing. What Bill C-35 would do is commit the federal government to long-term funding to create additional spaces to make sure there is that access right across the country. In fact, included in the legislation is a comment specifically about rural child care. The member should talk to the provinces and territories, because they have really good access plans when it comes to increasing access to child care.

However, if it were not for this legislation and those agreements, none of those problems would be solved. We are working to do that.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that the substance of Bill C‑35 falls squarely within federal jurisdiction. It does not impose conditions on the provinces and territories. This bill is exclusively federal in scope.

We have an excellent relationship and an excellent agreement with Quebec. It is an asymmetrical agreement with the Province of Quebec recognizing its leadership on child care and early learning.

Since we are debating Bill C‑35, I will stop there.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is one that stumps all of us.

During the report stage debate, the Conservatives kept saying that they care about child care, yet they were doing everything they could to delay the advance of Bill C-35. We believe very strongly in making sure this legislation is in place.

As my hon. colleague was referring to, one of the very first things that former prime minister Harper did when he formed government in 2006 was rip up the child care agreements with provinces and territories. We hope that Bill C-35 would make it harder for a future Conservative government do just that. Conservatives would have to justify to Canadians why they do not actually believe in providing them affordable child care.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just got off the phone with a child care provider who was in extreme distress because she has been in this program now for 15 months and she does not see any light at the end of the tunnel. The reality is that parents are sounding alarms, and 50% of children are living in child care deserts. These agreements under Bill C-35 are provincial and territorial agreements that have already been signed; they are in the works.

We went to committee. We have tried to raise the alarm bells to ensure that every child is included and that parents do have choice. We see a rush by the Liberal-NDP government to push this through instead of making it right. They say they want to enshrine this for generations to come, so why would they time-allocate this so it is not being done properly? Is it not better to get it done right to ensure that all parents have choice? Right now, we have someone like Erin Cullen, who lives in Newfoundland and Labrador. She has no access to child care. Seventy per cent of those folks need access to child care facilities that are private. Why rush something, if they really care about all children and all parents?

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

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and the five hours provided for the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-35—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the following: report stage and third reading of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the bill.

National Strategy for Eye Care Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to see the clock at 6:30 p.m. so that we can begin Government Orders with Bill C-35 at report stage.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, in relation to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Red Dress Day

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

Mr. Chair, one of the things that I think is really critical in this discussion is giving back the power that was taken away. When we look at victims, the biggest thing is that power is taken away.

We were actually studying Bill C-35 in committee, which is on child care, and we just wrapped it up today. My colleague for Winnipeg Centre put forward an amendment looking at free, prior and informed consent and giving indigenous peoples the choice to choose what is best for their children, and I could not agree more.

I think that is what we need to do as leaders in Parliament: give back power and autonomy to the indigenous communities. They know what to do. They do not need the government to tell them what to do or how to do it. They know exactly what their people need, and they should be in charge of deciding what is best for their people.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to bring the discussion back to the budget.

This budget is certainly not as strong a budget as one that an NDP government would table, but I am supportive of portions of it, and those portions are very important to Canadians. Because of the NDP, this budget includes structural, social supports that will increase the well-being of Canadians forever. It will strengthen the health and safety of Canadians with the biggest investment in health care in over 50 years. I am talking about the dental care program.

NDP members of the House are proud of their work to bring a universal dental care program to Canadians. Already, the Canada dental benefit has helped more than 240,000 children in this country. In 2023, by the end of this year, coverage will start for uninsured Canadians under 18, persons with disabilities and seniors who have a family income of less than $90,000. This is important.

There were 700 people in my riding in the month of March alone asking for more information about this dental program. Seniors who were in my office just a few weeks ago talked about the pain they have been in for over two years and could not afford to have a root canal and dental surgery. This is a very important program for Canadians.

I would note that the largest day surgery for kids in this country is for the treatment of cavities. It is just not fair. If there was preventative care, we would have a lot fewer surgeries, and we would have a lot fewer children having to go through those surgeries at such a young age.

Second, there are the investments in health care in this budget, which we can thank the NDP for. There is an immediate $2 billion Canada health care transfer to address immediate pressures on our health care system. Canadians want this. We are an aging population. Canadians are worried whether they are going to be able to access care.

I am from Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra in B.C., and residents are in my office many times asking about health care and finding a doctor. People are concerned. They want to know that when they need health care, it is there for them. I am happy to see those transfers here, and this budget is important for those transfers.

I want to take a moment to talk about the feminist lens on this budget and how important health care is to women in this country. It underpins the economy and has for a very long time. We talk about the fact that nursing is a very gendered profession. We know that long-term care and child care are very gendered professions.

I also want to take a moment for a shout-out to my NDP colleague for Winnipeg Centre who is fighting right now for decent wages for health care workers as we work through Bill C-35. It is because of their gender that women have been underpaid, undervalued and under-respected in the health care system in this country, and it continues today.

As well, I will take a moment here to shout out to immigrant women who underpin the economy and have underpinned the economy in the health care sector and in child care. They are undervalued, underpaid and under-respected. I really hope that this government will take some action on making sure that there is status for all of these immigrant women who have come here to support the Canadian economy, but have not had access to the benefits and status that they deserve.

We would be supporting this budget on those things alone, which are so important. However, I want to add the piece on murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, again, to put that gender lens on this very important budget.

This budget makes important investments in implementing the national action plan to end the tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, including increased funding for indigenous-led projects, for safer communities, helping families access information about their missing or murdered loved ones, ensuring that families and survivors are at the centre of implementing the national action plan, and establishing a standing federal, provincial, territorial indigenous table on murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, which will provide a specific forum to take action on areas of shared roles and responsibilities, including prioritizing a red dress alert system. This was also an initiative of the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre.

This budget should be supported because we need to support indigenous communities and murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. I will mention today on this budget that the member for Nunavut was in the House yesterday talking about the need for more investments for indigenous, Métis and Inuit women in this country. It is not acceptable that this budget has not prioritized more housing.

For all of these investments, the NDP will be supporting the budget, but it does not mean that we are satisfied with it. Despite NDP wins, the Liberals continue to drag their heels when it comes to making other important investments. I refer again to indigenous housing. There is a serious lack of investment in housing for indigenous communities in this budget. The Liberals have not tackled the housing crisis at all in this budget. They have not taken it seriously.

It has been mentioned in this House that reforming employment insurance and modernizing the system is missing in this budget, as is truly addressing disability poverty. As the critic for disability inclusion, I will share this message with the government as I am standing in the House today. It was devastating news to the disability community that the Canada disability benefit did not have financial supports for them in this budget.

As I talk about what is missing in the budget, I want to revisit the feminist lens on employment insurance. Employment insurance reform is not in this budget. When employment insurance was first visualized and imagined, the employment rate for women was less than 50%. Employment insurance was built for men; it was not built for women. Now employment rates for men and women are the same in this country, yet women continue to be discriminated against through the system, and it is just not acceptable that a feminist government would not have brought modernization to employment insurance.

I want to go to poverty and disability poverty. We know that almost a million people in this country with a disability are living in poverty. I know there is a one-time grocery rebate in the bill, and the Liberals talk about how it is something that the disability community should be able to rest on. That is not true. It is not acceptable. A one-time grocery rebate is not a structural change in addressing poverty in this country, but the Canada disability benefit is. The government needs to get serious about that income support and reducing poverty among persons with disabilities in this country. We see it happening in our communities every day. More people have to go to food banks.

There was a study out recently on women with disabilities and their ability to earn an income in this country. They are disproportionately marginalized from adequate employment because of their gender and the intersection with their disability. The government needs to get serious about the Canada disability benefit and lifting people with disabilities out of poverty.

I am going to close with the biggest gaping hole in this budget, which is housing. I have mentioned the investments in indigenous housing, but as my colleague, the member for Nunavut, has said over and again in this House, it is only a tiny chip on what we need in this country with respect to housing. I would say, as the government is sitting here, that housing also needs infrastructure. We have this market-driven lens on housing that is all about how many units of housing we can build and ensuring that the developers are making money. I understand we need a housing supply in this country, but we need infrastructure investments as well so we can get adequate housing built all across the country.

I will close by saying that Canadians will benefit from this budget. The NDP will be supporting it, but let us get real about housing and indigenous housing in this country.

Opposition Motion—Rising Inflation and Cost of Living

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be more than happy to explain the math. In the province of Ontario, the federal government came to an agreement with the Province of Ontario to implement a national day care accord. The first reduction was a 50% reduction by the end of 2022, which was done. Now we will work toward a $10-a-day reduction.

Is the member opposite forgetting that the Conservative Party just voted for Bill C-35 to support the national day care plan or are you going back on that already?

Child Care

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I was really delighted to be in Edmonton last week to make that important announcement of an additional 20,000 child care spaces, which are going to be created in Alberta. That is in addition to the 42,500 that were already announced when we signed the agreement. This means that we are delivering more affordable child care for families in Alberta and right across the country. This is good news for Alberta families and the Alberta economy.

I am so thrilled that we can move forward with this, just like we are moving forward with Bill C-35, which would protect child care for generations to come.

Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act

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

Madam Speaker, I had a slogan suggestion for his leadership campaign as well. It was “Get high in the polls”, but anyway, I will carry on with my remarks here. I wish my friend well, but I will not be supporting his bill.

This bill is about a review of our pandemic preparedness and comes out of the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, which, it is sort of cliche to say but it is obvious, is the seminal event in all of our lives that has had so many dramatic consequences. There are the health consequences for so many people, but also the social and cultural consequences of the pandemic that have deeply shaped us and will continue to shape us. Most of those consequences, quite frankly, are negative and require a reaction to the social and cultural damage that has been wrought as a result of the divisions that have been created through this pandemic, some of them maybe just incidental or unintended, but some of them very much intentionally sown.

It is right that we, as politicians, as leaders but also as a society in general, should be evaluating and reviewing the effects of the pandemic and asking what happened here, how we got some things so badly wrong, what were the things that we got right, and how we could approach future pandemics in a better way. In principle, I agree with the idea of having a postpandemic review and having in place provisions to ensure that there is a plan for future pandemics. I do not regard this bill, sadly, as a serious approach to those things.

I will just mention some aspects of this. One is that Liberals love to put forward new advisory councils appointed by government ministers. We saw this with their child care bill, Bill C-35. We are seeing this again with Bill C-293, where they are saying they have this issue they have to think about and therefore they are going to have an advisory council that is going to be responsible for advising the government about it. The minister responsible for that area is going to appoint the advisory council. By the way, the advisory council should be, in certain respects, diverse, reflective of different kinds of backgrounds, experiences and so forth.

However, what guarantees diversity of thought in an advisory mechanism is diversity in the appointment process, that is, bringing in multiple voices in determining who are the right people to sit on this advisory council. If a minister chooses who sits on the advisory council, then obviously they are going to be tempted to appoint people who share their pre-existing philosophy and who are not necessarily going to dig into providing the kind of criticism that is required of the government's approach.

Various members have put forward proposals in terms of the kind of broad-based, genuinely democratic postpandemic review that we would need to have. Many of those conversations are already going on. There should be a mechanism within the government to have this kind of review. I know various provinces are looking at this already. There should be international mechanisms around pandemic review. All these things are important, but those review processes should not be a top-down, controlled whitewash. They should be authentically empowered to hold governments accountable, to ask whether we got some big things wrong in the context of the pandemic, why we got them wrong, and how we could ensure we fix those issues.

In the time I have left, let me highlight some of the things I think we got badly wrong about the pandemic, and some of the ways we need to think about how we go forward.

There were a lot of things that we did not know about COVID-19 when it started. Let us acknowledge that it was probably inevitable that we were going to get some things wrong, but at a basic level we should have had the stockpile of PPE that was required. This was coming out of past pandemics, so that people could eventually come to conclusions such as to what degree certain kinds of masks limit, or not, the spread of the virus. At the very beginning, before we knew anything, it would have been a good kind of default to say, let us make sure that we have protective equipment in place and that we have that stockpile available so that it could be available to people.

It was out of the discussion after the SARS pandemic a couple of decades ago that we created the Public Health Agency, which was supposed to help us be prepared for these things. We were not prepared. We did not have the stockpiles of PPE. In fact, we sent away PPE at a critical juncture early in the pandemic. There was a lack of preparedness, particularly around having the equipment that was required.

Members will recall, and it is important to recall, that the leading public health authorities in this country and in the U.S. said not to use masks and that masks are ineffective or even counterproductive. That was the message at the beginning. Likely, part of the reason that message was pushed, in a context where doctors and nurses were using that equipment but the general public was told not to use these things because they are counterproductive, was that there was a shortage of supply. The government could have been more honest about acknowledging the fact that there was a shortage of supply and that it had failed to plan and prepare for that reality.

This speaks to another point. There is the lack of preparedness in terms of having the PPE available, but also we would have been much better off if governments and public health authorities had been more willing to openly acknowledge the things they did not know. I think early discussions around masking were a good example of the tone we had. People were told that if they were for masking when they were supposed to be against masking, they were anti-science and they were pushing an anti-science message. Later, there was the revision, in terms of the government's messaging.

Our public health authorities and governments could have shown a greater degree of humility right at the beginning of the pandemic and said that there were just things they did not know and that masking was a reasonable precautionary measure. However, it was a very assertive approach that carried itself throughout the pandemic with respect to any diversity of opinion in terms of pandemic strategy. If people were disagreeing with the prevailing consensus, then they were supposedly anti-science. As members have pointed out, the way science progresses is through some degree of open debate and challenging presumptions. The reality is that public health bodies and governments were expressing certainty about things that they were less than certain about.

Let us acknowledge that throughout the pandemic there were various revisions. I recall, for example, that when vaccines first came out the government's message was to take the first available vaccine. Then the government said not to take AstraZeneca and recommended Pfizer or Moderna but not AstraZeneca. At the same time as the government was not recommending AstraZeneca for Canadians, I had constituents who did what the government told them to do with the first shot, and now it was telling them that they were supposed to have a second shot of a different kind, which was apparently totally fine in Canada, whereas other countries were saying that people needed to have two doses of the same kind. I understand that as the science is unfolding there are going to be things we do not know, but if the government had been willing to acknowledge in a more honest, transparent way throughout that process that there were some things we did not know, we would have been much better off.

I want to conclude by saying that I am very concerned about some of the social and cultural impacts of this pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, we were already seeing trends where there was sort of a breaking down of traditional community and a greater political polarization. People were less likely to be involved in neighbourhood and community organizations, community leagues, faith organizations and these kinds of things and were becoming more polarized along political lines. Those existing trends were dramatically accelerated through the pandemic, where the restrictions made it difficult for people to gather together in the kind of traditional community structures that had existed previously, and we have seen a heightened political polarization, with people being divided on the basis of their views on masks and their vaccination status.

As we evaluate what happened in the pandemic, and this is more of a cultural work than a political work, we need to think about how we can bring our communities back together, reconcile people across these kinds of divides and try to rebuild the kinds of communities we had previously, where people put politics aside and were willing to get together and focus on what united them.

Child Care

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating and welcoming my newest colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore to the House.

I am thrilled to talk about Bill C-35 and the important work that it is going to do to ensure to Canadians, to families, to children, to women, to day care providers that the federal government is there for the long term. I have no doubt that his constituents in Mississauga—Lakeshore voted for him because they know that he is a hard worker and that the Liberal government is going to be there in tough times.

I am glad for the support of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. I hope the Conservatives will reverse their position—

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to stand before the House for the first time. Earlier today, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development led off a debate on Bill C-35 to enshrine the Canada-wide early learning and child care system into law.

My constituents all know so well how important access to affordable and inclusive child care is for our economy and women's empowerment.

Could the minister please update the House on how Bill C-35 will ensure that affordable and accessible quality child care is here to stay?

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-35 would enshrine the Canada-wide early learning and child care system in law, ensuring a future government could not unilaterally cancel the agreements. Bill C-35 is necessary, because we know Canadian parents are counting on us to have affordable child care available to them, and they are planning their family budgets with this in mind and their futures. Our government is committed to delivering affordability measures to help Canadians, and affordable child care is a hallmark of that commitment.

I invite all members—

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development introduced Bill C-35 in the House to enshrine a Canada-wide early learning and child care system in law. On this side of the House we know just how important access to affordable, quality and inclusive child care is for the economy and women's empowerment. Last Friday, the Prime Minister announced in Richmond that British Columbia reached its target to reduce child care fees by 50%.

Could the parliamentary secretary for family, children and social—

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for the question.

Quebec has led the way for 25 years in what good, affordable, high-quality child care means to Canadian families. I am pleased that every province and territory in this country has now signed on in understanding how affordable child care is needed and demanded by families across this country to give our children the best start in life.

Bill C-35 respects the jurisdictions of every province and territory in how they run their affordable child care systems. We continue to learn from Quebec. We are so happy that provinces and territories have signed on board.

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

Madam Speaker, Quebec's early childhood centres are a child care model that is unique the world over. Quebeckers are right to be proud of these centres. Not only do they foster children's socialization exceptionally well, but since they were created, they have enabled millions of Quebec women to have better access to work. Quebec's child care centres are universal, egalitarian and beneficial to Quebec, which is crazy about its children.

Can the minister commit to respecting the expertise of this Quebec model of child care in Bill C‑35?

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

Madam Speaker, child care is not a luxury; it is a necessity. That is why our government is establishing a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. All families should have access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care, no matter where they live, today and into the future.

As a single mom of two kids, I know from personal experience what a universal child care system means for a parent's ability to start a career, provide for their family and contribute to their community.

Bill C-35, introduced yesterday by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, would enshrine the principles of our Canada-wide system into federal law. Families and child care educators like Anna Care, the director of Blaydon day care in York Centre, have been advocating for a national child care system for decades.

I encourage all my colleagues from all parties to join me in passing Bill C-35 quickly so that we can continue to work together to make life more affordable for families and give every child in Canada the best possible start in life.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day. This morning I introduced Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. Our child care plan is working. Fees are being reduced across the country, new spaces are being built and women are getting back to work. This legislation matters.

Let me remind the House that the leader of the Conservatives boasted in 2015 that his government had proudly cancelled Liberal child care agreements, and in the last election, every Conservative candidate ran on a promise to cancel affordable child care for Canadians. We are not going to let that happen. On this side, we are going to support children, families, women and our economy.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be sharing my time with the very hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I am very pleased to join in today's debate on the issue of the higher cost of living. It is one that is top of mind for our federal government and also for the residents of my riding of Davenport. It is also the top economic challenge facing our country right now.

We have been speaking with Canadians and know the real uncertainty they are feeling today. First, we have experienced a once-in-a-generation pandemic. We turned the Canadian economy off and then turned it back on. Then Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. Now we are dealing with inflation. All of these things are related, of course. Global inflation has not been created by the decisions of any one government alone. Global inflation has been created by the combined aftershocks of two and a half years of historic tumult.

Fortunately, Canada is faring better than most other G7 countries in these very difficult times. However, that reality does not change the impact on Canadians when they are looking at their grocery bills or their gas receipts. Our federal government knows how challenging these past several months have been, and while inflation is down to 6.9% from a peak of 8.1% in June, it is still too high. It is also no comfort that Canada's inflation rate is one of the lowest of all G7 countries.

Affordability and covering the costs of everyday living will continue to be a top issue. It will continue to be a difficult time for a lot of Canadians, friends, families and neighbours. Our economy will slow, the same as economies around the world, as central banks continue to act to tackle inflation, as we heard from the Bank of Canada yesterday. There will be people whose mortgage payments will rise. Businesses will no longer be booming in the same way they have been since we left our homes after the COVID lockdowns and went back out into the world. Our unemployment rate will still be low but will not be at its record low.

We know that Canadians are worried about the higher cost of living and are also wondering when it will all end. For the Canadians who need it the most, namely those who are the most vulnerable and those who feel the bite of rising prices most acutely, our federal government is there with measures in our affordability plan right now, this year.

Our affordability plan has been providing up to $12.1 billion in new supports throughout this year, with many measures continuing after this year to help make life more affordable for millions of Canadians. Let me go through some of those measures.

We have doubled the GST credit for six months, which is providing $2.5 billion in additional targeted support to roughly 11 million individuals and families who already receive the tax credit, including more than half of Canadian seniors. Many received this additional payment last month.

The second thing we are doing is enhancing the Canada workers benefit to put up to an additional $2,400 into the pockets of low- and modest-income families, starting already this year.

We also increased, on a permanent basis, old age security by 10% for seniors over 75. That began in July. This increases benefits for more than three million seniors and provides more than $800 in the first year to full pensioners.

In addition, we have a $500 payment this year going to 1.8 million Canadian low-income renters who are struggling with the cost of housing through a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit.

We are also cutting regulated child care fees by an average of 50% by the end of this year. I am delighted that we have introduced Bill C-35, legislation that will protect access to affordable, inclusive, high-quality early learning and child care now and ongoing. This legislation will make it harder for any future government to cancel or cut any child care in the future. I am very happy that this is happening and is currently under way.

We are providing dental care for Canadians without dental insurance who are in households earning under $90,000 and have children under the age of 12. They are getting up to $650 this year and up to $650 next year.

We are also indexing benefits to inflation, including the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.

All of these measures mean that Canadians are getting more money back in their pockets when they need it most. Also, when it comes to pollution pricing, we know a national price on pollution is the most effective and least costly way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and putting money back into the pockets of most Canadians.

I would like to take a moment to further highlight two other measures in this plan in more detail.

First, in the fall economic statement, we set out a plan to further improve the Canada workers benefit, in addition to already expanding and enhancing it in budget 2021 to reach up to three million Canadians who do important jobs but do not get paid very much. The federal government currently delivers the Canada workers benefit through tax returns. That means eligible Canadians need to wait until the tax year is over to receive the money they have already earned.

However, bills need to be paid throughout the year. That is why in the fall economic statement, we set out a plan to further improve the Canada workers benefit. With the changes proposed in the fall economic statement, the Canada workers benefit will reach up to 1.2 million additional hard-working low- and modest-income Canadians through advance payments that would be made in July, October and January based on a worker's income in the previous year. This means that in total, the Canada workers benefit would top up the income of up to 4.2 million Canadians. They are among the lowest paid Canadians, and no one who works 40 hours a week should have to worry about paying the bills or putting food on the table.

The second measure I would like to underscore is our federal government's investments to support early learning and child care. Child care is not just a social policy; it is an economic policy too. Affordable, high-quality child care will grow our economy, will help give every Canadian child the best start in life and will allow more women to enter the workforce.

I call this policy a game-changer. In fact, just last week, Statistics Canada reported that almost 82% of women in their prime working years had jobs in November, the most on record, as our implementation of the Canada-wide early learning and child care system continues to close long-standing gender gaps in conjunction with a tight labour market. At a time when the cost of living is top of mind for so many, the investments we have made are having a real, tangible impact on what is often one of the biggest monthly expenses for a family.

This is very popular among residents in my riding of Davenport. They love this national child care plan. They are absolutely using it. They very much appreciate the additional dollars, especially during months like December, when there are some additional family gatherings and they need additional dollars.

In budget 2021, our federal government has made a historic investment of $30 billion over five years to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. In less than a year, we have reached agreements with all 13 provinces and territories. As I mentioned earlier, by the end of this year, regulated child care fees will be reduced by an average of 50% by 2025-26. Child care fees will average $10 a day by then for all regulated child care spaces from coast to coast to coast.

Today, that means parents across British Columbia can now save on average up to $550 more per month for each child they have in licensed child care, representing up to an additional $6,600 annual savings. This is on top of the existing savings of up to $350 per month introduced by the ChildCareBC plan in 2018, for a total of almost $900 in savings per month on average.

As we continue to work with the provinces and territories on the implementation of agreements, we are also creating an early learning and child care infrastructure fund. Through an investment of $625 million, this fund will enable provinces and territories to make additional child care investments, including for the building of new facilities, all with the goal of making high-quality child care across Canada more accessible and more affordable.

When it comes to ensuring Canadians will get through this challenging economic time, we are providing inflation relief, through our affordability plan, to Canadians who need it the most: the most vulnerable, who are most exposed to inflation. We, of course, cannot support every single Canadian the same way we did with emergency measures at the height of the pandemic. To do so would only make inflation worse and more persistent. In saying that, I note we have been responsible with our spending, we are being compassionate and we are going to continue to have the backs of Canadians who need it the most, both now and moving forward.