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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-35. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

Motion in Amendment

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

moved:

That Bill C-35 be amended by deleting the short title.

Madam Speaker, I am going to start by reading what Melissa wrote to me: “I'm a healthcare worker who works long hours, currently have been trying to find childcare since I found out I was pregnant with no such luck. My son is 12 months July 1st, and I am set to return work July 4th, but no luck with childcare so not sure if I'm going to be able to return.” This is the reality of thousands of emails and messages I have read about Canadians struggling to access child care.

Tonight, we are here to discuss Bill C-35, or the universal child care plan, as the Liberals love to call it. In particular, we are speaking to the report put forth by the HUMA committee that studied this legislation. Conservatives are here, in particular, to ensure the voices of parents are heard.

This Liberal-NDP government loves to tell Canadians that it is feminist. In fact, the preamble of the bill specifically says, “gender equality, on the rights of women and their economic participation and prosperity”. How does that help Melissa, the health care worker, in improving her rights, economic participation and prosperity when the choice to go to work is taken from her?

Erin Cullen, who speaks on behalf of ECEs and ABCs in Newfoundland and Labrador, said that there is no choice for families when it comes to child care because there is none available. Erin compared the $10-a-day child care slogan to the government telling people that they get free groceries, but when they go to the grocery store, there is nothing on the shelves.

The numbers tell the story. A report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, or CCPA, highlights the child care crisis. Of nearly two million kids under the age of six eligible for the program, 950,000 are living in child care deserts. That means that there are at least three children competing for one spot. Ninety-two per cent of families in Saskatchewan are living in a child care desert. Seventy-nine per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador are living in a child care desert. Seventy-six per cent in Manitoba do not have access to child care. It is 64% in British Columbia. The numbers do not lie, and the reality is that these numbers are, in fact, real people, real families and real children who are being left behind.

There is nothing more stressful for a parent than finding quality, reliable, safe child care for their child. Affordability is important, but the reality is that this Liberal-NDP government is failing in all areas to deliver.

I will read some of the testimony we heard in committee about the outrageous wait lists. I asked Sheila Olan-MacLean:

Sheila, could you clarify those numbers you said earlier? I asked about wait-lists. You said that there were 300 per program, but there are 40 programs. That's 12,000. That seems outrageous when you only have 3,300 spaces.

Am I doing the math wrong?

Ms. Olan-MacLean replied, “When you think of a program that may have possibly 100 spaces, or less than 100 spaces, and it has 300 to 400 people—some have 600 people—on the wait-list, yes, that's probably pretty accurate.”

This is the reality of what families are experiencing, and it is destroying their mental health. The reality is that parents can expect years on wait-lists, and there is nothing in the bill to correct it.

The Conservatives put forth multiple amendments calling for choice, inclusivity, access, data and accountability, and members of the Liberal-NDP coalition voted them down. They say they care about access and inclusivity, but their actions speak louder on what they really care about, which is pushing an ideology that will decide what is best for people's children. They believe that the government should decide how people's children are cared for.

Members can listen to this story from Alberta, which was shared by Krystal Churcher, chair of the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs, in committee. She said:

I have one child care operator in a rural, under-serviced area of Alberta who has proudly operated a high-quality day care centre for 17 years. She has invested in creating 194 child care spaces for her community. When [she was] asked how she felt [about the program, which is called] CWELCC...she said that she was excited for families to finally have access to more affordable child care and optimistic that it would bring relief to families sitting on wait-lists.

Yesterday she sent a letter to all of her 194 families in her centre, plus 563 families on her wait-list, to notify them that she was closing her centre. After 17 years of successful operation, the viability of her business is gone. With high inflation, fee caps and expansion restrictions on private centres, her centre is financially [blocked]. She has had to make the heartbreaking decision to close a business that she built, because she can't take the financial risk of signing a new lease or investing further into expanding her centre with the unknown of a cost control framework looming. She writes that she is worried that the $10-a-day goal will be at the cost of quality care for children.

These are the decisions facing operators on the ground right now, who are deciding to walk away from something they have proudly created because they can no longer carry the financial burden or because they simply can't agree with the reduced quality of care to bring the costs down.

Where is the gender parity in this story?

Krystal went on to say:

The bill was introduced without adequate consultation with all industry stakeholders and without respecting how the child care sector has evolved in provincial jurisdictions across the country. What we're seeing is a program that has created a demand without the infrastructure to support it, which is causing wait-lists, a two-tiered system and undue stress to families and operators. Women entrepreneurs are facing bankruptcy and closure of businesses that have now lost all their value. The system is, frankly, not equitably accessible and is failing to meet the promises to parents and families. Operators are asking what the real cost is of meeting this $10-a-day goal. Parents are losing choice; the quality of programming is at risk; educators are burned out; and women are losing their businesses.

The Liberal government is the first to tell us that it does not support two-tiered systems, yet this bill would do exactly that.

Ms. Maureen Farris, director of Strath-MacLean Child Care Centre, testified in committee and said:

As I've mentioned, there are so many children who sit on the wait-list and do not have a space, and there are operators who have chosen not to opt into CWELCC and can therefore provide or offer spaces to those families. Yes, that would absolutely create a two-tiered system. Families who could afford to pay for more expensive care would be able to do so, and families who can't may get substandard care, unfortunately.

Nothing addresses the labour shortage, frontline staff burnout and mass exodus from this profession. Again the Conservatives put forth an amendment to fix this, which stated that annual reporting must include “a national labour strategy to recruit and retain a qualified early childhood education workforce”, but, surprise, surprise, it was turned down by the coalition.

This bill is supposed to be composed of five pillars: quality, availability, affordability, accessibility and inclusiveness. However, yet again we have proof that the Liberals want to score political points and are more concerned with marketing a sellable plan than actually offering what it is they are selling. The Liberals moved a subamendment in committee that removed the words “availability” and “accessibility”, which are the biggest issues in child care in this country. Why? Why would they do this? The reality is that Bill C-35 is about as likely to help the child care crisis as it is to win the lottery, because that is exactly what the child care system in Canada is like. Getting a spot is like winning the lottery.

The heartbreaking messages shared in Facebook groups, in the media and to us as parliamentarians need to be heard and they need to be addressed. The Liberal government needs to stop promising what it cannot deliver. It has put the cart before the horse, and the reality is it has failed at affordability, the highest use of food banks. It has failed in accessing housing. Nobody can afford a house. It has also failed in public safety. Therefore, why would Canadians trust it with their children?

Conservatives will continue to fight for those left behind and will not stop fighting for freedom and choice for families to choose what is best for their children.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, what my hon. colleague said is really important because it is for all of those reasons that we brought Bill C-35 forward. It is because there was a lack of accessibility. It is because child care was extraordinarily unaffordable. It is because we wanted to ensure high quality care, and we wanted to make sure that it was inclusive for all Canadian children. For all of the reasons that the member outlined, we brought forward Bill C-35. We brought forward the $30-billion commitment over five years to bring forward child care.

I wonder what the member opposite proposes to do without the Government of Canada's involvement and how she would solve any of those issues that existed before Bill C-35, and would be exacerbated and worse without it.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the best answer is to, of course, listen to the people who are on the front lines. They are the ones who are sharing the truth here.

Jennifer Ratcliffe, the director of Pebble Lane Early Learning, said:

The pressure to implement this program so quickly has resulted in overpayments to providers, families double-dipping, and funding methods being overlapped. Parents are stressed and providers feel like they have no help. It is clear that the provinces are scrambling as they try to prove they can do this, but they are ultimately failing. You cannot simply throw money at a problem and expect it to change.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

My question will be fairly short and simple. The Bloc Québécois is known to be a staunch defender of Quebec independence, including its areas of jurisdiction. I get the impression that Bill C‑35 has been tabled in the wrong Parliament. Nothing related to family policies comes under the federal government's jurisdiction. Once again, the Liberal Party is trying to bulldoze its way into the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. This bill shows no respect for Quebec's demands that the federal government stop interfering in its jurisdictions.

Furthermore, the requests of Quebec and the Bloc Québécois were not listened to or respected. When the time came to include Quebec's expertise in the bill, based on its 25 years of experience in child care, all of the other parties, including the Conservative Party, rejected amendments aimed at upholding exclusive jurisdiction and the right to opt out with full compensation.

Does my colleague respect Quebec's autonomy and jurisdictions?

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

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member has hit the nail on the head. We have seen this repeatedly. I touched on this in my speech. There is no respect for anyone who offers any other idea or any other solution than what the Liberal ideology puts forward. They think they know best. They do not believe in choice for families. They do not respect provincial jurisdiction. They do not respect Canadians, period. That is evident by the crisis that our country is in.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague brought up the study from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. She is absolutely right. It is called “Child Care Deserts in Canada”. I agree with her. We have a child care crisis.

One of its key recommendations in the report to address this kind of child care desert was to guarantee decent wages and benefits for child care workers. It did not recommend creating a child care system that was privatized. That was not part of its recommendations. However, it did say that one of the factors that is resulting in child care deserts is the fact that early childhood educators continue to not be afforded decent wages and benefits.

Does my colleague agree that we need to have a very clear workers strategy put in place that ensures all child care workers are paid decent wages and benefits?

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

Madam Speaker, I really enjoy working with my hon. colleague. I know she is fighting for autonomy for indigenous peoples as well, which we support.

I think what is important here is to say that we absolutely put forward that amendment. When we are looking at recruitment and retention of a labour strategy, there is nothing in this bill. We put it forth in committee, and it was turned down.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I am absolutely thrilled to be back in the House talking about Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

This is another important step on the journey to providing early learning and child care that is affordable, accessible, high quality and inclusive for Canadian children right across the country.

I do want to begin by thanking all of the members of the HUMA, who worked so diligently and so hard to get us where we are today, one step closer to making it the law of the land that the Government of Canada will be involved in early learning and child care from now on. Unfortunately, listening to my hon. colleague from the Conservatives, I really do not know where they stand on this. They seem to be quite opposed to affordable child care and to making sure that Canadians have access to it. I hope that is not the case—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There is some noise coming from the outside. Maybe the Sergeant-at-Arms can check it out, see what is going on and ask them to be a little bit quiet so we can really hear what is going on here in the House.

The hon. minister, sorry.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I really hope it is not the case that the Conservative Party of Canada has decided not to support affordable child care for Canadians, because I know that, for the hundreds of thousands of Canadian families for which this has been life changing, it would be so disappointing to know that the Conservative Party of Canada, once again, is voting against and not supporting affordable child care.

We know that, in 2006, one of the very first things the Conservative Party of Canada did when it formed government was to rip up the child care agreements with the provinces and territories. This legislation is particularly important, to make it harder for Conservatives to do that and to make it harder for Conservatives to hurt Canadian families and Canadian children. I am very pleased to say that we have the support of the NDP. I think we also have the support of the Bloc Québécois. We are just not really sure where the Conservatives are.

I will talk about what Canadian families are saying when it comes to affordable child care. They are calling it life changing. I have been across this country, to every province and almost every territory, and what I have heard from Canadian families is that this is a game changer for them. When I was in Nova Scotia, I was talking to a mom in Halifax who said that the 50% reduction in child care fees meant that, when she went to the grocery store, she was not deciding whether or not she could buy chicken. When I was talking to a mom in Toronto, she said that, because of the child care fee reduction, her family was deciding to have a second child. When I was in Vancouver, British Columbia, I was talking to a mom of three who has two kids in child care. She said that she has now put two of her three children into child care, and, because of those fee reductions, she has now gone back to work full time, which is a huge, meaningful change for her family and her family income. When we talk about child care, we are talking about choice. Despite what the Conservatives say, there is no choice if people cannot afford to go to work and to have someone to care for their child in safety and security.

This means, of course, that we are going to make sure there are enough child care spaces, so that every child in Canada who wants a space can get one. That is precisely why we have committed to creating 250,000 more spaces by 2025-26. We have already created 50,000 spaces across the country. That means there are now 50,000 additional spots.

If we had not funded this $30-billion initiative, those spaces would not have been created. Conservatives talk about families who need a space, and that is exactly why we created this initiative. Without the Government of Canada's intervention, these spaces would not have been created because the current child care market does not meet the real needs of Canadians.

As for Quebec, we signed an asymmetrical agreement because we recognize Quebec's leadership in child care. For 25 years now, Quebec has had affordable early childhood centres and day cares for families in Quebec. This has had an impact on the participation rate of women in the workforce. In Quebec, more women participate in the workforce than anywhere else in Canada. We recognize Quebec's leadership, and we have based our initiative on Quebec's efforts and leadership.

Our bill respects provincial and territorial jurisdictions, and we signed agreements with each one of the 10 provinces and each one of the three territories in this country to ensure that they can establish these child care services. We have common goals and Quebec promised to create 37,000 additional spaces with that money. We are here to support Quebec and to work together.

I will just say that, as of December, every province and territory had reduced its fees by 50% across this country, and several jurisdictions, including Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nunavut, have already reached the $10-a-day objective, three years ahead of schedule, which is making a huge and meaningful difference for families in those provinces and territories. Quebec and Yukon had already met that objective, and every other province and territory has been at 50% since December.

When it comes to quality, we know that quality cannot be achieved without a well-paid, well-respected and well-treated workforce. That is why every single bilateral agreement we have ensures that we are working with provinces and territories to bring forward a wage grid to make sure they are working on a workforce strategy. In fact, this summer, I will be meeting with my provincial and territorial counterparts, and the number one thing on the agenda is a national workforce strategy. Absolutely, our ECEs care for our children. They care for our most precious resource, and we need to be there to make sure they have the supports they need. That is all factored into Bill C-35, which would commit the federal government to making sure that we have that accessible, affordable, high-quality and inclusive child care system right across the country.

I will talk about the final pillar. When we talk about inclusion, one of the things that, as a parent, is very challenging is having a child with special needs or special requirements. Not only is it difficult to find a centre that will take their child; it is also difficult to find a child care space that has the requisite supports they need to thrive. One of the key pillars of our child care initiative, and it is here in Bill C-35, is making sure we are building inclusive child care spaces. I have had the opportunity to visit the GRIT program in Edmonton and a program here in Ottawa that have built and created space that is ensuring that children of all abilities and all neurodivergences can be there, can be safe and, most importantly, can thrive.

That is what is exciting about Bill C-35 and its complementarity to the work we are doing in early learning and child care.

I would like to say one more thing. We are a feminist government. Our government is committed to everything we have done for gender equality. We are seeing the results.

This year, we have the highest female participation rate in the workforce in Canada's history. That is due in part to our day care and early childhood centre program. We are seeing the results.

Yes, there is a lot more work to be done. Of course a system cannot be created overnight. However, we are working on it, and I hope to be able to count on the support of every member of the House. It is one of the most important and transformative socio-economic initiatives to be undertaken by a government, by Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I think real leadership is not choosing to see what one wants to see, but seeing the truth and acknowledging all of that, and this is so insulting to the families. I am going to look to Saskatchewan right now, where 10% of families have access to child care. That is 90% that do not, so it is not true that it is wonderful, great and life changing for everyone. I guess what we are looking for is what the plan is, because this is not working. So many families are being left out, and the data says that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will remind members that I am sure the minister can answer the questions; I do not think she needs any assistance.

The hon. minister.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is so typical from the Conservatives. They are saying, “Things are not perfect, so let us just do absolutely nothing.” On this side of the House, the Liberals say that, if we see a challenge, we should go forward and fix it. We should work with Canadians and their energy, and we should make sure we can do all of those things. If the member wants to see the plan, it is all public on the website. The Government of Canada has published its bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories. Saskatchewan, for example, has a great action plan. It is looking to expand child care across the country. Instead of saying we are not going to do anything and it is a problem, we are saying we are going to invest, bring forward legislation and fix it.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure working with the minister on the bill, and with other members of the House trying to improve the bill. One of the concerns I brought forward, and continue to bring forward, is about workers. I was an early childhood educator, as I have indicated in the past. Workers are fighting the same fight. We are not going to have a national child care strategy unless we have a worker strategy. Unions representing child care workers have called for the government to develop a workforce strategy to address staffing shortages in the sector. We know this is something the CCPA commented on: the child care deserts. It is not about creating spaces; it is actually about having people who will work in these spaces.

Does the minister agree we need to develop a child care workforce strategy now if we are ever going to achieve a functioning national child care strategy in this country?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her collaboration on this. I am absolutely thrilled we are here, continuing to advance early learning and child care and putting it into legislation, so I thank her for that collaboration.

Yes, we do need to address the workforce challenges. In each of the bilateral agreements we have, we encourage and work with provinces and territories for them to bring forward recruitment and retention strategies, and some provinces have done great work in that regard. B.C., for example, has done a $4-an-hour wage top-up for all workers within child care. Manitoba has brought forward a pension and benefits plan. The Yukon has put forward a minimum wage for ECEs, starting at $30 an hour. There is good work going on, but yes, we need something much more national in scope. That is why at the FPT meeting I am hosting this summer with my provincial and territorial counterparts, the number one item on the agenda is workforce, because we are not going to be able to maintain or create those spaces without that workforce.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech. I also thank my colleagues who participated in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

However, it is apparent that our requests were completely disregarded. In fact, Quebec's expertise was not even recognized.

I would like the minister to explain why her government did not rely on the expertise and the model that we have in Quebec when it comes to child care.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the contrary, we recognize Quebec's leadership. We used Quebec's experience as a foundation for our child care and early learning program.

I worked hand in hand with my Quebec counterpart on getting this bill through. We respect provincial jurisdictions.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑35.

The minister began by commending the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for its work. I want to commend the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for the excellent work that she did on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which took many hours. I also want to commend the other committee members for their work. My colleague did a great job, and she asked a very insightful question.

I will digress from the subject of Bill C‑35 for a moment to talk about the most recent budget. In its latest budget, the federal government decided to make the child care program a federal project that would encompass all of the provinces except Quebec. I will come back to that.

At that point, there was already talk about Quebec's leadership, our model and our early childhood education services. I want to specify that we are not just talking about basic child care services but about educational services. It seems as though the other provinces rely on Canada to ensure their social progress, whereas, in Quebec, these are societal choices that we made 25 years ago or more. Quebec made this societal choice to give all children an equal opportunity and to incorporate the early childhood education services policy into an ambitious family policy.

I am hearing talk of how it does not work that way in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and that we need a national strategy for workers. I can see why we are proud of our Quebec model. It has been recognized by the OECD. I myself went on a mission to the OECD regarding child care services and, at the time, Quebec attended with the minister. Indeed, Quebec as a society has chosen social progress. In our opinion, this bill meddles in provincial jurisdictions, and it is the provinces that should be responsible for implementing these social programs. It is not up to the federal government to tell them what to do and come to their rescue.

That said, we can only hope that all children will be offered truly equal opportunities. Education and learning are the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. The government cannot regulate all the social choices made in other provinces. We have taken care of ourselves.

I am especially proud of the early childhood education services. The minister talked about leadership. The Quebec model has been recognized, but my colleague is right: If that model was used then why not include it in the bill? I was a witness in some respects at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Several witnesses in committee witnessed the implementation of the program in Quebec. That is the case for Pierre Fortin, a brilliant economist who worked on this to demonstrate to us that working on equality of opportunity for our children was not an expense, but an investment.

I do not understand why this was not indicated in Bill C‑35 even though there has been verbal recognition of Quebec's work on child care services, as the international community did in 2003. I am talking about the OECD. In the study it did on child care services in Canada, it mentioned that it is “important to underline...the extraordinary advance made by Quebec, which has launched one of the most ambitious and interesting early education and care policies in North America.”

As many people know, Quebec is already investing $3 billion in early childhood education services. There are over 200,000 reduced contribution spaces. This is a public service. It is not a blend of public and private services. Early childhood education services are public services, and parents' contributions are reduced. The cost is even lower than the $10 that will be charged under the federal program. Currently, the contribution in Quebec is $8.85.

When early childhood education services were first introduced, the parental contribution was $5. More than 25 years later, the contribution is a symbolic $8.85. The contribution is the same, whatever the parents' income, because the condition of these services for the zero to five age group is to enable all children, whatever the parents' social status, whatever their socio-economic conditions, to have access to educational services. This is an important difference. Children are not simply being warehoused while their parents work. Children are learning in these environments.

This was definitely helpful in the context of a family policy that saw an increase in the number of women returning to the workforce. It was astounding.

It is all well and good if the provinces or other territories can benefit from this agreement. Everyone agrees on that, and the bill simply confirms it.

The bill should have mentioned Quebec's leadership and its model and followed that model more carefully, not just haphazardly. The government also should have recognized that this bill will not apply in Quebec, not just for the next five years, but for always, because Quebec is the model. Quebec has a no-strings-attached agreement for the next five years. There were not a lot of Bloc Québécois amendments in this model.

The government also should have recognized Quebec's leadership and the fact that the agreement provided for transfers with no strings attached. How can the government impose conditions on Quebec when it is using Quebec's program as a model for its own? That is a big deal for us.

There has also been talk about a national strategy for workers. With all due respect, I can understand. If we want to provide quality early childhood education services, then training for staff, pay and working conditions are all very important, but those are not things that fall under Ottawa's jurisdiction. They are provincial responsibilities. I do not see how the federal government can include training and qualification requirements in salary policies. I understand that the government is making agreements so that the provinces are able to provide as many child care spaces as possible at 50% of the cost in the first year and then eventually at $10 a day. That is the goal. I think that the number of child care spaces that the government is looking at in the rest of Canada is the same as or less than the number we already have in Quebec. I think that the government should have recognized that Quebec inspired the federal program. That must be recognized and it should be recognized in the bill.

We understand that the bill is there to ensure that this is not undone by another government, but it will be up to each Parliament to decide. As soon as the model is put in place, I think this will indeed contribute to reinforcing these services elsewhere. If the government's financial contribution can help provinces define or develop child care policies, so much the better. However, what I can say is that in Quebec, even though we have been using this model for 25 years, the federal transfers or the federal policies on family benefits or allowances have never offset Quebec's fair share of child care costs.

Before entering politics, I was a union leader. I was proud to be there 25 years ago when the education services were implemented. This was done in the spirit of a social dialogue in Quebec. The employers, the departments, the government, the social milieu and civil society were all involved in this big project. I am proud to say that it was the work of the first woman premier of Quebec, Pauline Marois, as minister at the time. This accomplishment is a source of great pride for us.

That is what it takes in social policy.

However, a fundamental question remains. While the federal government has social programs—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry to interrupt the member. I tried in vain to signal the member several times.

Questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for her speech.

I have enjoyed working with her and also other colleagues in committee as we go through this process. I could not agree with my colleague more. Quebec is the model that we looked to in being able to create a system that would include all the provinces and territories, and that is why we embarked on this with so much consultation with Quebec. As a matter of fact, I enjoyed really fruitful conversations with the centre of excellence for early childhood development in Sainte-Justine.

We know that a public system is the right system. It is a high-quality system, yet my colleagues in the CPC keep insisting on private care. I would like to know the member's thoughts on why a public system is the right system for our children.

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

Madam Speaker, it is because we put children first and we based this family policy around them. I remind members that this policy had two objectives: equal opportunity for children and work-life balance for parents.

If we want to have a quality system, we need quality training for all educators working with our children. To achieve excellence, we must consider training conditions and teacher-educator ratios.

Many elements were taken into account so that it would be a public system. The private child care system does not meet those objectives. A private system is there to make a profit. We know that early childhood day care services help children with their education and learning for their entire lives. When we think of children's rights, we need to invest in quality services. That is the choice we made.

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

Madam Speaker, I think there is a lot to unpack. In Quebec, there are still 70,000 kids on a wait-list. I think it is great to look to Quebec because, as I say, it is the DeLorean. We can go back to the future and learn from it.

In terms of the private sector turning a profit, I find it interesting. If we have women entrepreneurs who are just putting money back into the system, is that not what the public system is doing?

How is Quebec closing this gap of 70,000 without accessing that? How is it addressing the labour shortage?

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

Madam Speaker, I would say that Quebec has always been a victim of its own success. The number of spaces has always been an issue. There are more than 200,000 spots, yet we still come up short.

There are also certain concerns. For parents, it is important to have a space in a public child care centre precisely so they do not have to go to the private sector, where the regulations and objectives are completely different. We need to strengthen the public network by creating spaces. I think it is a decent challenge, and the model is a success.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the benefits of the Quebec child care system is that more women are able to participate in the workforce.

Does the member agree that access to affordable, quality child care is a gender equity issue?

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

Madam Speaker, I would say that it is first and foremost a question of equal opportunities for children. Of course, it contributes to women's participation in the workforce. If quality child care is not an option, women are likely to leave the workforce in order to care for their children, but it will not be by choice.

Public child care has offered vibrant and stimulating environments for children and has allowed women to return to the workforce or not lose their careers. Some may see it as an expense, but it is an investment because it is a win-win situation.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Bill C-35, the Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act.

Let me take this opportunity to first of all thank all of the advocates, experts, parents, child care providers, workers, unions and others who took the time to make presentations or write submissions to the committee. Their passion and their knowledge about quality, affordable and accessible child care shone through and helped us make the bill better. There are too many people and organizations to name, but I am so grateful for their advocacy and guidance.

I am proud that we have emerged from the committee process with an improved piece of legislation. As a result of amendments put forward by the NDP, the bill includes stronger reporting requirements for greater accountability and transparency; more inclusive language that reflects the needs of children with disabilities and those from official language minority communities; recognition that the conditions of work affect the conditions of care; and an amendment to uphold the right of indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent on matters pertaining to their children. This acknowledgement is historic, and it is the first time since the passage of Bill C-15 that it has been enshrined in federal legislation.

This builds on other important provisions included in the original bill, including an explicit prioritization of non-profit and public child care for federal funding, something the NDP fought for and won. Witness after witness made it clear that the research overwhelmingly agrees that non-profit and public child care delivers the best outcomes and the highest quality of care for children.

I hope that after Bill C-35 becomes law, we no longer see federal money being used to expand for-profit child care in Canada, as we saw several months ago in Alberta with the federal government announcing support for 22,500 new for-profit spaces. Public money should be used to expand public and non-profit child care. Public monies need to be invested in public institutions. It is better for workers and it is better for children.

The NDP supports this bill, and I urge my colleagues from all parties to pass it unanimously to show our commitment to supporting children, families, workers and child care providers. This is an important step towards building a permanent national system of $10-a-day child care.

I want to focus my remarks today on a theme that emerged time and time again in committee: We have a child care workforce crisis in this country. Child care workers receive wages that are not livable and benefits that are not adequate. They often endure difficult working conditions. Unless we address these issues, we are putting the success of a national child care system at risk.

Who are these workers? Well, more than 98% of them are women; one-third are immigrants or non-permanent residents; and child care workers are more likely than workers in all other occupations to be racialized. They perform some of the most critical work in our society, providing education during the years most crucial to a child’s development, and yet they are treated as disposable.

The wage floor for early childhood educators in Ontario, for example, is just $19 an hour. It is just $19 an hour for providing essential work. Do members know the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Toronto? It is $2,500 a month. This is outrageous. We are asking people to take on the work of looking after and educating our kids, and then we are not paying them enough to provide for their own kids. It is no wonder that people who trained as early childhood educators are leaving the profession to take better-paying jobs in other fields, or that many people are discouraged from entering the profession in the first place. More than any other factor, this is why we have a shortage of child care spaces across the country.

I know that the fee reductions we have been seeing as a result of the bilateral agreements with the provinces are having a huge and positive impact for thousands of families. I want to acknowledge that; I want to acknowledge that it is making their lives more affordable, but far too many others are stuck on wait-lists and cannot access the benefits of more affordable child care.

We can build all of the new spaces we want, but that means little unless well-trained, well-paid workers are put in place to staff these new centres.

I have often heard the situation in the child care sector described as a worker shortage, but let us be clear: This is not, in fact, a worker shortage; it is a wage shortage. It is a respect shortage. It is a dignity shortage. This shortage of dignity and respect is contributing to the shortage of affordable spaces.

Last week the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a report showing that almost half of younger children, which means those not yet attending kindergarten, live in “child care deserts”, where there are more than three children for every licensed child care space. In Saskatchewan, the number is 92%, and in my own province of Manitoba, it is 76%.

One of the key recommendations the report offers to address this situation is to guarantee decent wages and benefits for child care workers. We need immediate federal investments to provinces and territories to improve the wage grids of their child care staff. We also need this government to put in place a workforce strategy that ensures livable wages, better benefits, retirement security, adequate working conditions, and education and training opportunities.

I want to address the argument I often hear from my colleagues, which is that this is provincial jurisdiction.

We are building a national child care system. Without federal leadership to address this workforce crisis and improve pay, benefits and working conditions, this system will not be sustainable. It is not just workers who suffer from poor compensation; their working conditions are kids’ learning conditions. They are directly tied to the quality of care

The federal government can and must use its spending powers to raise the bar for workers. The Liberals know that they can do this. In fact, in 2021, during the 2021 election, they promised a wage floor of $25 an hour for personal support workers, an area that is also within provincial jurisdiction. Why can they not make the same promise of livable wages for child care staff, who perform different but equally essential roles in society?

We do not have to choose between $10-a-day child care and raising wages for child care workers. We can and must have both if we are going to have a successful national child care strategy. We can and must have both to ensure that kids get the best quality of care and that we are recruiting and retaining the workers we need to create more spaces so that parents can access affordable child care in the communities where they live.

I do not want this generation and the future generations of early childhood educators to have to make the same choice that I made: leaving a profession that I loved because I wanted to pay my bills. I want to live in a country where the work of early childhood educators is valued just as highly as the work of doctors, lawyers, engineers and all other professions.

The government cannot wash its hands of this responsibility. It has a leadership role to play in ensuring that every child care worker in Canada is treated with respect and dignity.

I ask this today of all of us in the House: Let us pass this bill. Let us ensure that the people who are at the heart of the national child care system that we are trying to build, without whose labour there would not be any system at all, are no longer an afterthought.

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

Madam Speaker, the member has accurately captured the essence of what this legislation is doing. It is in essence establishing a national program. It does not matter, ultimately, where one lives in Canada; individuals will have access to, or potential access to, $10-a-day day care. It speaks volumes in terms of how legislation can change the future of Canadians, in particular for families that have young children, in such a positive way.

I am wondering if the member could provide further comment on the significance and the benefits of a program that is national.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy we have a $10-a-day national child care strategy being put into place, but it will not be a successful program. It will not be rolled out properly without a comprehensive workforce strategy, which includes ensuring that early childhood educators are paid livable wages and benefits and have some sort of income security in retirement. If we do not respect the workers who are looking after children, how do we expect the national child care strategy to ever get off the ground properly?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her intervention. I enjoy working with her at committee and in the process of listening to witness testimony.

An amendment was put forward by the member to add “free, prior and informed consent” with respect to indigenous peoples. This amendment is very similar to what Conservatives believe, which is that parents should be able to choose what is right for their children and family. The Liberals voted against that motion.

My question for the member is this: How can she trust the Liberals when they voted against that very amendment that allows indigenous peoples to choose what is it right for their children?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it goes back to legislation. We need to negotiate a piece of legislation to enshrine it into law.

This is about law. I was very happy to see support from the Conservatives, the Bloc and members of the Liberal Party, in fact, for my amendment to include “free, prior and informed consent” on all matters relating to the children of indigenous peoples, something we know historically has not been done. It is fundamental to self-determination, and in fact it is in the framework agreement.

That is why we are pushing for legislation. That is why we need to vote for this legislation and put it in place. We need to make sure that it is enshrined in law going forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her endless important work in this area.

I wonder if my colleague can clarify this. We all know of the dismal pay that child care workers are receiving, despite a lengthy education and working so tirelessly to support our children and future generations. I wonder if the member can share with us today what her thoughts are around what needs to be done to ensure that qualified individuals will be placed in these vital positions for our children as we move forward.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think it is very simple. It is very clear. Certainly the sector leaders like Child Care Now and all the major child care organizations have been very clear that if we want a successful national child care strategy, we need to ensure that we have a strategy for workers. That includes ensuring that early childhood educators are provided with livable wages and benefits and have income security in their retirement.

We also need a strategy to train new workers entering the field, one that provides education to become qualified early childhood educators.

The solutions are there. The government just needs to listen.

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

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and speak to such important legislation. I suggest that what we are talking about this evening is historical legislation. If we take a look at it from the perspective of the Canada Health Act, the Canada Health Act has ensured that we have the health care system we have today. That is the way I look at Bill C-35.

Bill C-35 is a very powerful statement. It is a statement to all Canadians, no matter where they live from coast to coast to coast, that says the government recognizes child care is of the utmost importance. Having a national program will make a difference in a very real and tangible way.

Bill C-35 would put into place an act to ensure early learning and child care is there not only today but for future generations. It ensures that the federal government recognizes that it has a very important role to play. Not only will it be providing money, but there will be a higher sense of public accountability and transparency. It will ensure there is an affordability element to child care, no matter where one happens to live in Canada.

This is something that I believe will make a positive difference, and we have already seen some early results. When the minister talked about the bill an hour or so ago, she talked about the number and percentage of women in the workforce today. There are record numbers in North America. We have more women entering into the workforce than we ever have. That is going to continue to grow. We know that, because we can look at the province of Quebec to see how successful its program has been. We have taken what has happened in the province of Quebec and amplified it to apply across the country. Everyone wins.

I do not quite understand the Conservative Party's position. It was long ago when we attempted to do this before. That would have been 20 years ago. Unfortunately, the first thing the Harper government did was rip up the idea, the agreements and the thoughts on this. As a result, it set back a generation or two of people who would have received good-quality child care, not to mention what I suspect would have been better wages and resources for child care workers. Because there was no legislative component to this, Stephen Harper had a very easy time destroying it.

Let us flash back to just a couple of years ago, when there were 338 Conservative candidates running around in the federal election. What was the Conservative Party saying then? We did not have full agreement from all the provinces at that time, but even at that point, less than two years ago, the federal Conservative Party was saying that it did not support this and that it would also rip it up. If we contrast the Conservatives with us, it is night and day. They do not support affordable, quality child care.

What we have done since the election is accomplish an agreement with all of the provinces and territories, along with indigenous communities. That means provincial and territorial parties that are not only Liberal. They are Conservative and NDP. When I say “Conservative” I mean Progressive Conservative. I should qualify that because the current Conservative Party is a very far right Conservative Party.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member who is laughing understands exactly what I am saying. One only needs to read her comments.

I think it is a positive thing that we have been encouraged by the Conservative Party to bring in this legislation. However, from my personal perspective, even if the Conservative Party was supporting the concept of affordable, quality child care, I would still be advocating for legislation of this nature because it is good legislation.

If the Conservative Party was not so far to the right, I would be advocating for it, but with today's Conservative Party, it even becomes more important to have this legislation. I listened to the shadow minister. We do not call them critics; we call them shadow ministers. It is kind of scary when we stop to think about how the Conservatives are going to vote on this legislation. If we listen to the critic, we would think they are going to be voting against it.

I look at that, as I know many of my colleagues do, and ask who they are actually listening to. Obviously it is not their constituents. Instead, they try to give a false impression that this is broken. They then go on to talk about all the day care and child care problems, being very critical of the provinces, which have the responsibility of providing child care systems. I wonder if they have the support of the provinces to rip up things of this nature that we are proposing. I wonder if the provinces are aware of just how critical the Conservative Party of Canada is in regard to the performance of provincial governments across this country and those in the territories, because that is who its members are criticizing. We finally have a federal government, a national government, that has a vision of progress, of moving Canada forward on child care, yet we have a Conservative Party that has an attitude of “No, not here in Canada”. It does not want money being spent, which we hear constantly coming from the Conservative Party.

Yes, there is a cost to this. I recognize there is a cost going into the billions of dollars, and I think that is what offends Conservative Party members at the national level. However, let me suggest that if they open their eyes and try to get a better understanding of both the social and economic impact of a progressive policy of this nature, maybe they will do one of their traditional flip-flops, support the legislation and go against what they campaigned about on this issue. We all know the flip-flop they have taken on the price on pollution. Here is another good flip-flop for them, but a flip-flop in a positive way, where they would be supporting a national child care program. That would be encouraging to see the Conservative Party do.

Let us think of the economic advantage. We would have more people in the workforce. We would be making a more equal playing field. Many more women would be able to plan a career and not need to worry about the cost of day care, child care or early learning. These are the advantages. When they get into the workforce, they will be paying taxes, taxes that in all likelihood they might not have been paying because they did not have affordable child care. It is healthier for the economy.

There are parents who have their children in $10-a-day child care. We talk about other issues in Canada, things like inflation. This is helping families today in a very real and tangible way by putting thousands of dollars in their pockets, yet the Conservatives do not like the idea. They need to really start thinking about how society would benefit. It is not just the family who would benefit; it is everyone. All of us benefit when we have programs of this nature.

Bill C-35, in essence, ensures we will continue to have a national child care program and a national commitment to financing and contributing to the care of children. That is a good thing. I hope the Conservatives will flip-flop on this issue and support it.

I see the member is already standing to ask a question. I hope she will give a commitment to support the legislation. That is the question I would pose to her.

[An hon. member]

Bring it home.

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

Mr. Speaker, I love to hear the Liberals say the Conservative slogan “Bring it home”. It is great to hear them say it.

I received a message this morning from Melissa. Melissa wrote to me and said that she has not been able to find child care since she moved to Peterborough in August. She is looking for before-and-after care for her two kids. The wait-list is crazy. There are 75 kids on the wait-list. She was lucky enough to find a job that allows her to work during the hours her children are in school, but she had to cut down on working full time due to a lack of availability of child care.

I am curious what the member opposite would say to Melissa.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to Melissa that the Conservative Party has no ideas. It does not even want to contribute. It does not understand and appreciate what a national program is.

For the very first time, we have a national government demonstrating that it wants to contribute to addressing the issue of child care. That has been a long time coming, and part of the fear is that the Conservatives might try to get rid of that step forward.

I would suggest to Melissa that she might want to consider voting for any other political party but Conservative. Otherwise, child care would be going backward, and that would not be a good thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. However, he was very critical of the Conservatives.

The Liberal government also deserves some criticism for not taking into account the fact that Quebec is a model.

On top of that, the contract is for a period of five years. What is the government going to do after that? I think it is looking for a fight between Quebec and Ottawa.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member will recall from the comments I made that we looked at how successful the program in Quebec was and saw Quebec is leading the country on the issue. We knew if we took the idea from Quebec and applied it universally from coast to coast to coast, we would see some very positive results, like affordable, quality child care and more women being engaged in the workforce. We are already witnessing that. A number of provinces are already at $10-a-day day care, and we have the highest percentage in North America of women engaged in the workforce. This is just the beginning, recognizing that Quebec has led the way.

One of the nice things about being in a federal system is that when one province does something and excels at it, Ottawa has the opportunity to promote, encourage and, in this case, take specific action so that future generations will benefit, as with the program that was introduced by the Province of Quebec. I love the fact that the Province of Quebec brought in the program.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have sat in the chamber listening, and the Conservatives have put up speaker after speaker claiming they care about child care and talking about the urgent need for child care. They also stand in this House and talk about the very real crisis that most Canadians are finding themselves in economically. However, what are we debating in the House tonight? Anybody watching this should know that we are debating a Conservative motion to delete the short title of the bill on child care. They have 15 Conservative members speaking to their motion to delete the short title of a bill on child care. If that does not speak to a disingenuousness in getting to the real issues facing Canadians, I do not know what does. Talk about a waste of this House's time.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague can comment on that. What does it tell him? The Conservatives say they really care about child care and want to deal with the real economic issues facing Canadians, but does he think the Conservatives putting up 15 speakers to talk about deleting the short title of the bill is consistent with that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize right up front that in a minority situation it has been good to see progressive policies where the NDP and the Liberals have been able to work together so that we can ensure that this important legislation ultimately will be able to pass. The member highlights a situation that is very obvious. The Conservatives are putting up this number of speakers, because ultimately they like to delay legislation and prevent it from passing.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is funny, because I have this speech that I wrote, which I am very passionate about, even though I am Conservative. I am a mom who needed child care, and I do not even know where to begin on this, because I am listening to the men across the room telling us what it is like to be a mom and how difficult it is to seek child care. I am listening to men across there.

I am looking at a member from Saskatchewan. I have great respect for her. She is a mom who has come here and had children while on the job, but not in the chamber. She has been able to raise her children as a member of Parliament, and I just want to start by correcting the record by saying to please delete the last 15 minutes of what has happened in the House of Commons, because if we want to look at absolute mistruths, we can maybe look at the speech from the member for Winnipeg North. I am sorry about that.

I think that comes, because I just listened to him talk about a woman from Peterborough who he advised.

Maybe they can stop having their conversations over there and listen to women speak.

I was trying to talk about the fact that the member talked about a women from Peterborough and went against my colleague, who is one of the strongest members of Parliament I have seen here. He told her that her constituent should maybe vote for somebody else if they really want to care about women and everything else. I would like to say to the members I am looking across at to please recognize the work we have done and to recognize the women who are sitting in this House and the work we have done. The only reason we are here is that we are strong women. The member will please stop trying to deflate us and stop trying to mansplain to us. We get it. We are leaders who have been voted for by our communities, and not just by women.

That is why I want to share with everybody that when we are bringing these things forward, it is because our constituents do not agree with what the Liberals have brought forward. In my case, 128,000 people elected me. That is about 50%, which is happy, joyful and great for me. I am listening to them. Not everybody voted for me, but I do try my best to represent everybody there.

My opinion may be different, but I want to remind members that the people I was elected by are different as well. They are different from other constituents. They have different needs in different regions. They may have different socio-economic values. They may be new immigrants in communities. They may have started in Newfoundland and ended up in Vancouver for trades jobs, and we have to recognize that people in Canada are different.

As I was listening to speeches, I understand where the heat gets up. It is disrespect for the women in this place that I have listened to, and after eight years, I am tired of listening to it.

Let us get to my speech. Let us get to the fact that the reason there are women in this place is that we do see we need child care, and the reason I am here today is that I was able to have child care. To the New Democrats, it was important to me when I needed child care, so they should stop saying that it is already in—

[An hon. member]

Then quit delaying it.

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

It is already in place. The provinces already signed the agreement.

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

I am all good. I do not need anyone to continue to yell. Perhaps I will remind the member from the NDP sitting in the back corner that the reason they are in the back corner is that their policies are not votable by all Canadians. The fact is that he is yelling that this is being delayed. As I look across at the minister, she is proud of all of these agreements she has signed with our provinces and territories, so members can stop telling us we are delaying a bill and hurting children. It is not hurting children. The minister has said herself, time and time again, that she has signed the agreements, and the only reason we have the legislation is so that Conservatives do not get into power, which we will, and get rid of it.

The reason I said this is very important is that they are—

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Get rid of it.

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

That is exactly what I am coming to. They continue to put words in my mouth. I thank the member for Alfred-Pellan for continuing to put words in my mouth. As I have said, Conservatives are worried about child care, and I am going to continue.

I have never seen such rudeness. Were members drinking or something? Is that why they are being so inappropriate? Angelo, were you drinking?

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, from the moment the member stood up, I have not said a word. I have sat in my chair and I have been listening respectfully to the member opposite. I do not think it is appropriate to be accusing members of drinking inside the chamber. I think she should withdraw that particular comment, and continue on with her speech.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I will also suggest to members that we are here for debate. Let us have a debate, rather than just yelling at each other across the way. I think all issues that come before this House, regardless of what they are or who they are for, are important to Canadians. Let us have the debate that is on the docket for tonight, and let us be respectful of one another.

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw that comment. Perhaps we could have some more dignity and respect in this place.

As I have indicated, women have been increasing their presence in the workforce over the past few decades. According to Statistics Canada, in 2020, 47.1% of the Canadian workforce are women. That is something we should be very proud of. We know that the reason that women are in the workforce is because there are people who are able to support them.

I was very fortunate because in my own world I had parents and I had a husband, who, unfortunately, was unable to work because of a disability, who were able to care for my children. I also put them in a day care for a number of years. With five children, I have used a mix of different sources, also due to the income I had. Our family's base income was $45,000, combined, at the time that I had five children. If anyone wants to talk about children and parents struggling, $45,000, five children, it is tough.

That is why I am talking about it today. Not only is it tough, it is tough when women are trying to get in the workplace and there is no spot. That is exactly why we are bringing this, talking about it at third reading and talking about it at report stage. The problem here is that a labour strategy needs to be connected to this, and there is not a labour strategy.

The Liberal government has been here since 2015, and in 2017, when I was doing this, we talked about the wages and recognized that at $22 an hour, people were leaving this type of work because they were not able to pay the bills. At $22 an hour, there was not enough income for them to pay the bills.

People were leaving, and we know there is a retention issue. That is one of the greatest challenges. Until we have a labour force that can fill these spots, Canadian parents are being sold a bill of goods. It is important that we have sustainable child care. It is important that we have quality child care. It is important that we have choices in child care, whether it is Milestones child care, which is private, or the not-for-profits in our community, we need it all.

We need to have an entire selection, a cornucopia of different strategies so that we can deal with this. There need to be the options for parents who may be living in Toronto or my town of Sparta.

I have one constituent who wrote to me and indicated that it is a 35-minute drive for her to get child care. Getting to child care is very difficult, especially if one is looking at having almost two full hours of their day, driving there and back, and there and back again for pickup. These are the types of things that we need to consider. Accessibility for parents is one of the most important things.

Another constituent wrote to me, and I am just going to read parts of it, due to privacy, I do not want people to know her name. She was given notice to resign if she failed to return to work by the end of the next week. She had been trying to explain her situation to the manager, who was very reluctant. The issue for her was that the closest day care in her neighbourhood, the only day care in that area, had enough space for eight more children, but due to shortages of day care staff, they could not take any more children.

These are the problems. When we are talking about this, I have heard that Conservatives do not support child care. We support child care, but we want child care to be more universal. We understand that the cost of child care is exorbitant. When I said I was making $45,000 a year, $1,200 a month was going to child care. I understand when money is tight. I understand what it is like to feed bagels to my kids because I did not have a lot of money. I really want members to stop banging on us for being Conservatives.

I had another constituent talk about day care, saying there is a serious supply issue for the current demand for licensed child care access for families. Their son is nearly two years old and they have still not been offered a space in a day care facility. They put his name on the list in September 2021, for infant programs. It was clear that there will never be a spot.

Another said that her son has been on the wait list since March 2022, and he is 50th on the list. That is another email. I talked about the person who was 35 minutes away from day care. I have another person saying that there are no, spelling no with about 25 “o”s, spots in licensed centres or homes.

This is the problem here. It is great to have this program. I believe in child care. I always have believed in child care. However, there needs to be something that works for parents.

This is where I am going to put my mom hat on. For years, I always said “It is up to the family.” We just went through COVID and the fact is that, like every mom in this place, every daughter and every sister, we know a lot fell on the shoulders of women. That is why I will fight to ensure that we have a child care program that works for families and especially works for women.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the passion that is there and I appreciate my hon. colleague's support for child care. Every single one of the issues that she raised is why this legislation is important and why this program is important. All of those issues would be in place if we were not moving forward with it.

In fact, the Conservative plan has been to provide tax credits. Those do not build spaces. Those do not increase wages. Those do not build a system. I hear that the member is saying they are not here to delay. In fact, we are at report stage and the amendment proposed is to delete the short title, so I do not really understand how that amendment to this legislation is addressing any of the issues that the Conservatives are putting forward.

Will the hon. member be supporting Bill C-35? Will you put your words on the table that you support access to child care and actually do it?

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Of course, members need to make sure that they run their questions through the Chair and not ask a question directly to the member.

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

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

Mr. Speaker, finally we are getting to more of a discussion and that is part of the problem here: It has become so politicized. I have listened to speeches time and time again that are just about political wedges. I want this to be about parents and I want this to be about the children and the quality day care that they get.

I have just heard from the member from Peterborough that a child care facility that had been operating for 17 years just closed its doors to the 168 or 172 children or families who are serviced. We can do better. I just believe that the government put the cart before the horse and, unfortunately, we do not have the skills that will support this, but we do need to have a child care program that works.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a mother, as well, for me this is a very important discussion that we are having today. As someone who raised her children on a low income, child care is vital.

I am trying, with all due respect, to understand: Why are we here today debating an amendment to the short title of the bill when we could be debating at third reading this very important bill and actually seeing families receive the child care that they need and deserve? I am just trying to understand and to offer an opportunity for my colleague to clarify. Why are we not getting this done and why are we seeing delays from the Conservatives?

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

Mr. Speaker, the first thing is that when we talk about delays in this House, we have to understand the process. We know that these agreements have been signed, so the impact of this is not to the children and families whom this bill is connecting with. That is probably one of the key things that I want to point out.

We also recognize that this bill is very flawed. As I indicated, when we know that two in three children are on waiting lists and one in three children get spots, we talk about that lottery. We are discussing this because we really want there to be more of a discussion, more of what I did not see here 20 minutes ago and more of where I am seeing people want to talk about this. A lot of times, we just have too much ideology instead of more practicality.

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

Mr. Speaker, what an amazing speech that was to hear, from a woman who has so much lived experience, has worked on this file, has been a parliamentarian and who knows that balance and knows how challenging it is to find quality, reliable child care and affordability.

What we have seen repeatedly is that the reason we are here is that we are trying to ensure that all voices are heard, but, based on the amendments that were put forth through committee by the Conservatives, they were not. Therefore, it is very important that we read into the record and people hear the stories, like that of Melissa, that we have talked about and the stories that seem to be ignored. Saskatchewan is a child care desert, where 90% of families cannot access child care.

What are the member's thoughts, based on what we have seen tonight? Does she really believe that this is just a political wedge? We have heard from the minister that this is all an anti-Conservative bill, and I am curious to hear her thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, that is exactly how I see it as well. I see that there are intentions in this bill that are very positive because child care is necessary for families, to be able to go to work and provide for their families. Absolutely, I would not disagree with that at all. However, when I listened to the speeches, with respect to the minister because I know how hard she works, I counted the number of times she said “Conservative” in the first three minutes and it was a lot more than the number of times that she said the word “child”. Therefore, I recognized that we were not talking about children; we were talking about Conservatives. I was wondering what this was about, and so those were some of my questions there.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House tonight to talk about, really, such an important topic for me, for the minister and for so many colleagues in the House, including my colleagues across the way. This topic is affordable, accessible and inclusive early learning and child care.

This is a powerful driver of economic growth and social equality. We have heard that from many here tonight. We all know that affordability is a top-of-mind topic, so let us consider early learning and child care through that lens. We have talked about a lot of other lenses until now. I would like to lean into the affordability discussion.

Before I get to that, I just want to take a moment to recognize my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for their tireless work and contributions to this bill. The discussions in committee were certainly fulsome.

Before the early learning and child care agreements with all provinces and territories were finalized, daily child care fees ranged from $20 to $48 a day per child. Those dollars could go a long way in the grocery store, in keeping children active or in other activities. In the year and a half since the first early learning and child care agreement was signed, child care fees have been dropping across Canada, and we are continuing to work hard with our provincial and territorial colleagues to meet our March 2026 goal of $10-a-day, on average, fees for children under the age of six in licensed child care. We are already seeing the results. British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador have achieved 50% in fee reductions.

What does affordable child care mean? It means hundreds of dollars every month in the pockets of Canadians of all income levels. It means money for nutritious meals on the table, as the prices at grocery stores remain high. It means money for clothing and other necessities, which are so important for families.

Carolyn Ferns, the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care public policy and government relations coordinator, put it perfectly. She said, “Affordable child care is life changing for families and for our communities.” She also said, “It is great to see the collaboration between the federal and provincial governments making that a reality for Ontario families”. Of course, it is not just a reality for Ontario families. Rather, it is also a reality for every family in Canada with young children, regardless of who they are, where they live and what their income level is.

I will share just a few of the testimonials parents have taken the trouble to write as they realize the financial relief that affordable child care is bringing to them. One wrote, “My daughter on Vancouver Island found out yesterday that her daycare will be charging $10/day. This is huge for families! Thank you to the federal and provincial governments for collaborating on this excellent legislation. It truly puts families first.” Another said, “Just paid our January daycare fees. Under $500!!!!! This is a 55% reduction from last year. This is going to make such a huge difference for so many families.”

Another parent shared, “Our infant's daycare fees have dropped $500 (FIVE HUNDRED) per month, and on the 26th at her 18mnthaversary it will drop an ADDITIONAL $200 (TWO HUNDRED!!) per month. Probably one of the largest pieces of legislation to personally affect me in my lifetime.” It is about that personal impact. We have heard a lot of discussion here, but let us talk about the parents and the families who are talking about what this legislation and these agreements mean to them, family by family, across the country.

Another parent wrote, “'I won't benefit from this as my kids are grown and I remember paying $650/month for day care on a salary of $1,200/month back in the 80s. But I'm so very, very happy that young families are benefiting from this.”

I have just one more to share: “It was absolutely surreal to see my daycare fees drop from a high of $167.25. As of January, we will be paying less than 50% of that, on a path to $10 a day.” That is going from $167.25 a day to $10 a day. It is life changing.

It is clear from these and many other social media posts, interviews and commentaries that families in Canada are actually truly thrilled and, in many cases, astonished that affordable early learning and child care is finally here. The Government of Canada has made a historic investment of $30 billion over five years to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. We have done so in collaboration with provincial, territorial and indigenous partners, all of which deserve enormous credit for their willingness to work together, and I emphasize “together”, to give every child in Canada the best possible start in life. In so doing, they will bring real financial and emotional relief to millions of families from coast to coast to coast.

By the end of last year, child care fees were reduced across the country. By 2025-26, the average fee for regulated child care spaces across Canada will be $10 a day. As families across the country are realizing, there are no losers here. It is a financial win for families, regardless of their income level.

Since 2015, the Government of Canada has delivered real improvements to make life more affordable for Canadians. There is no better example than the progress we have made on this new ELCC system. As of 2025-26, a minimum of $9.2 billion will be provided every year, on an ongoing basis, for affordable early learning and child care, as well as indigenous early learning and child care. The return on this investment for families with young children is obvious, and it is backed by evidence. Of course, we can look to the overwhelming success of the Quebec early learning and child care system, which is now ingrained into the social fabric of that province, and we have much to learn from it.

When we speak about affordability, it is perfectly appropriate to ask whether the country as a whole can afford it. To that, I say the answer is a resounding yes. Actually, we cannot afford not to do this, because this is a plan to drive economic growth and make sure that our families and their children have the best start in life. It is a plan to increase participation in the workforce, especially among many young mothers who want to pursue professional ambitions or further their education to get better-paying jobs. It is one of the many investments the Government of Canada remains committed to; such investments increase our economic growth, the quality of life of Canadians and, frankly, women's equity in the workforce.

Independent studies show that our early learning and child care system could raise the real GDP by as much as 1.2% over the next two decades. Furthermore, a range of studies have shown that for every dollar spent on early childhood education, the broader economy receives between $1.50 and $2.80 in return. That would be a huge return on our ELCC investment. This is money well spent, with the data showing strong social returns from investing in our families and our children.

We are hearing loud and clear how thrilled families are that their governments have joined together to bring them significant financial relief. Doubtless, many are beginning to wonder why we waited so long. It is another fair question.

As other colleagues have said, in passing this legislation, we will be promising the best possible start in life to future generations of children in Canada. We are on the brink of making history, of cementing together these wonderful provincial and territorial agreements into an enduring testament to our commitment to caring for Canadian children, their families and our collective future.

I urge all our colleagues to give a quick passage to Bill C-35.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech; I work with her on HUMA, listening to witness testimony.

One of those testimonies was from Jennifer Ratcliffe, the director at Pebble Lane Early Learning, who said:

We are already finding that we are struggling to expand, and when opportunities arise, we have to turn them down. We are simply not able to move forward, because of the lack of funding. We've had to turn down thousands of spaces, me and other providers I know. We're just not in a position to accept them, because we can't access the new spaces funding and we are having to operate under the fee caps.

At a time when the wait-lists are outrageous, and there are child care deserts across the country, what would my colleague say to Ms. Ratcliffe?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say that this is where partnership is key. I had the pleasure, just this past year, to be in Manitoba with the premier to announce spaces in rural Manitoba. The province, together with the federal government, was ensuring that 1,650 new spaces, if I am not mistaken, would be created just from that tranche of all levels of government working together, including indigenous spaces in that part of Manitoba. I would say that there is every opportunity for child care facilities to work with the province and to work with us to build the spaces, because we know that we need them and that provinces and territories want to build them.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been nice working with the member across the way.

I know I am insistent on this, but we do not have a workforce strategy in this plan. Early childhood educators deserve respect. I remember how much I loved being an early childhood educator but how disrespected I felt. I was only making eight dollars an hour, yet I was with kids from morning until night. I was doing noble work, but I had no benefits, lousy pay and no opportunity to even advance my education because I did not earn enough to pay for training.

Can my hon. colleague commit to a workforce strategy that provides provinces and territories with the funding they need to ensure that workers or ECEs are paid livable wages and have benefits, income security as they become seniors, and training opportunities?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for Winnipeg Centre for really being a true ally in getting this legislation moving forward.

I would point out that, in the member's own province of Manitoba, there has been a commitment by the provincial government there to place spending forward from the funding it received towards training, strong wage grids and moving forward. Some provinces have put in solid wage grids. Yukon is doing $30 a day. We see across the country that provinces and territories are stepping up. Do they need to do more? Of course they do; that is why the minister is going to be doing FPT meetings this summer specifically on the workforce strategy.

We continue to be committed to working collaboratively with provinces to ensure that early child care workers are getting paid for the incredible work that they do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in my colleague's comments around affordability, because while I am no longer in the business of child care, as a Quebec resident, I certainly benefited 25 to 30 years ago from the child care that we had available at that time. That was on a needs basis only, but it permitted me to go back to school, earn an MBA and become a citizen earning a higher income to more than repay and contribute back to the system that helped me in that way.

Could my colleague comment on how not only is this program affordable for those who use it, but also, in fact, it pays for itself?

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

Mr. Speaker, the data speaks for itself. We have numbers ranging from $1.80 to $2.65 for every dollar we put in as a return on investment, which is good money well spent.

However, I would emphasize that I asked my Quebec colleagues this: How did this happen in Quebec first? Who made it happen? It was women who made it happen.

This is a feminist government committed to making sure that the choice women make is not between child care and a career. Instead, they can choose the path they want to carve out for themselves while enjoying being both a mother and an excellent part of our workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that child care is a principal concern for moms and dads across the country. Bill C-35 would establish an aspirational vision for a national child care program in Canada. Unfortunately, that vision is narrow. Child care solutions are not universal for all families. We know that parents rely on diverse forms of care to meet their own family's unique needs, just as all families should have access to child care solutions. It is also important that parental rights and choice remain at the core of our debates and the development of policy in this area.

The rejection of amendments that would have established a vision that was more inclusive and realistic of the child care landscape in our country confirms that this legislation is a marketing tool. It does not bring forward solutions to meet the existing gaps in the system. In fact, the Liberal government intentionally designed the bill to exclude and discriminate against certain child care providers. It would single out public and not-for-profit child care providers, disregarding and devaluing licensed home care providers and small business entrepreneurs. Many of them are women. It would do this despite the reality that these child care providers are critical to achieving universal access. My colleague, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, brought forward an amendment to the committee that would have included all types of child care. It was a change that would have better ensured access to child care and that would have better supported parental choice. Unfortunately, the Liberal-NDP coalition struck it down. It really is a shame.

The reality is that, while affordable and quality child care is great in principle, if a parent cannot access it, then it simply does not exist for them. If access is really a core principle, then limiting already limited resources does not make sense. Across the country, we know there are shortages of child care spaces. As members of the HUMA committee, we repeatedly heard from witnesses about the need for child care spaces across the country. We heard about the long and growing wait-lists to access the existing spaces. The director of Pebble Lane Early Learning, Jennifer Ratcliffe, told the committee, “Wait-lists across the country are growing by the thousands each month, and families are left with no one to help them. Parents need to work and if they don't have care, their only option is social assistance....Affordable child care is an empty promise to parents if it is not accessible.” Maggie Moser, director of the Ontario Association of Independent Childcare Centres, told the committee that her child care centre had 147 spaces and 24 half-time spaces. That centre was at full capacity and had 600 names on the wait-list. Sheila Olan-MacLean, CEO of Compass Early Learning and Care, told the committee that each of its centres had about 300 families on its wait-list. Those are just a few examples we heard at committee. The demand far outweighs the need across the country, but we know that in some areas, like those deemed child care deserts, it is even greater. With the existing resources beyond capacity, it defies common sense to limit the program and then create an uneven market that will then only create greater demand at the child care centres captured by the child care agreements.

It is also difficult to understand why the government is so intent on punishing child care providers that fall outside the public and not-for-profit sectors. Entrepreneurs and small businesses are the backbone of our economy and our communities. I again quote Maggie Moser at HUMA committee, who said, “Our...members are mostly women who took a risk and opened up a child care centre. They took out loans and mortgages on their houses. It's very expensive. We're talking hundreds of thousands, going into the millions, to open a centre.” Maggie Moser then went on to say, “Realistically, child care has been needed and it has been provided by these women entrepreneurs who took the risk and stepped up.” Not only does the NDP-Liberal coalition want to ensure these entrepreneurial women are excluded from the development of a national child care program, but it also wants to ensure they do not have a voice at the table.

Another amendment put forward by my Conservative colleague, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, would have ensured that the national child care council included representatives from private and home-based providers, alongside public and not-for-profit providers. This was a very reasonable amendment. It acknowledged the important role all child care providers have played and will continue to play in the development and provision of child care in Canada. The national child care council should be representative of Canada's child care landscape. The refusal to have fulsome representation at the table undermines the work and legitimacy of the council, but the NDP-Liberal coalition again struck down this reasonable amendment.

We also saw the rejection of an amendment that would have directed the national child care council to support the recruitment and retention of a well-qualified workforce, and another that would have required an annual report on a national labour strategy. We heard from witnesses just how dire the labour crisis is in this sector. Labour shortages remain a major obstacle in achieving access to affordable child care spaces. Witnesses were clear that there is a need for a specific workforce strategy and a need for better data and tracking of recruitment and retention efforts. In the rejection of these amendments, it is further made clear that this legislation is not designed to provide tangible child care solutions. The bill would do nothing to address the fact that the current programs are not targeted to supporting lower-income families; in many cases it is lower-income families that are on the outside looking in. Families who already had a child care space in public or not-for-profit care are now getting subsidized care, but everyone else is on a wait-list. If this bill passes, they would still be on a wait-list. This bill would not address the labour shortages in the child care sector. It would not direct the minister or the national advisory council to develop a plan to strengthen the workforce, and it would not present a viable path to creating the necessary child care spaces to create universally accessible and affordable child care spaces.

Like most of the policies and bills we see come forward from the government, Bill C-35 would have winners, but it would also have losers. Some moms and dads would get a boost, and others would get nothing. It is truly disappointing that the government is so unwilling and is resistant to trying to address those inequities. In fact, with the agreements already in place with the provinces, the national advisory council is already formed. What about the refusal to ensure more equitable access? This bill would really only be serving to reinforce the Liberal government's narrow vision for a national child care program and to create divisions. It is disingenuous for the Liberal government to pat itself on the back for creating accessible and affordable child care, when that is not the reality for most Canadian families and there is not a clear pathway to that becoming a reality.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will note what I felt was missing from my colleague's speech today when she talked about what was missing from the legislation. She did not seem to mention that licensed private child care providers are actually grandfathered into the agreements in terms of accessibility. In addition, what she admitted when she talked about all child care providers was that they proposed faith-based care, au pairs, nannies and unlicensed home child care. The MP for Battlefords—Lloydminster asked why we could not consider au pairs from Europe. Are Canadians really okay with public dollars going to faith-based care? With all the complaints, my colleague has not really offered a plan. We do have a plan and we are implementing it. Will the Conservatives support Bill C-35?

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess the parliamentary secretary missed the point that these agreements are already signed and in place. They are already being used. The importance of parents needing to have choice was reinforced at committee with our NDP member, with free, prior and informed consent, when we passed this. I will mention that only one Liberal voted for it and the rest voted against it, but it would not have passed if that one member had not voted for it. We believe that parental choice is important, and narrowing that option for choice is doing a disservice not only to the workforce but also to the children who then do not have access to spaces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Once again, I thank all my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for this bill.

I have a question for my colleague. We know that this bill does not provide full compensation for Quebec. However, outside Quebec, Ottawa is seen as a force for social progress.

Is my colleague concerned about the trend towards centralization when, in Quebec, we reject all forms of interference?

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I definitely believe that provincial jurisdiction is something that should be respected.

I am on record saying in this place that the government does not have a good track record when we look at carbon tax 1.0, and now carbon tax 2.0 coming in. Government members do not care what jurisdiction it is; it is their way or the highway, and if we do not agree with them, we hate everything and are opposed to everything, which is just blatantly untrue. However, the government needs to do a better job at respecting jurisdictions, specifically those of the provinces.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed working with my colleague on the HUMA committee, as a visitor.

I agree that we have a child care desert, but I have been asking the same question over and over again tonight. We have what the CCPA called a worker shortage, caused by poor wages, no benefits and no pension plan. We are not going to have a national child care strategy if we do not have a worker strategy that ensures dignified working conditions for early childhood educators.

I wonder if my colleague would agree with me that, in order to have this system work and to see this plan succeed, early childhood educators must be paid livable wages, must be given benefits and must be given a retirement plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also enjoyed working with the member on that committee. I thought we worked well together, especially as opposition.

There was an amendment brought forward that would have directed the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care to support the recruitment and retention of a well-qualified workforce. Again, that was struck down. The NDP voted against it.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to come here to this House of Commons and speak on behalf of the people of Calgary Midnapore.

Of course, I am very proud to say that I am a proud hockey mom in the riding of Calgary Midnapore, and I certainly like to have conversations with the other mothers at the hockey rink. We do that. We wait for our kids to get on the ice or wait for the practice to end, and we have conversations, and certainly we have conversations about child care. There is no doubt about it. A lot of families require child care. A lot of families are not so fortunate as to have a parent stay at home, as two incomes are required, but we also have conversations about why that is so, and we have conversations about the cost of living.

My truth, and the truth of the hockey moms I talk to, is that the words from the government about making life affordable for Canadian families are a lie, and day care is just a part of that lie. It is a cycle that the government has created.

First of all, there is inflationary spending. We have seen that excessively. We have seen excessive taxation, so there is inflationary spending and excessive taxation. This drives up the cost of living for Canadian families as well as costs for Canadian businesses. I have mentioned often in this House that I come from a small business family, so taxes on small business are very important to me and to my family.

As a result of the cost of living being driven up, Canadian families are driven into poverty. Businesses have to close and lay off workers, and Canadian families cannot afford to eat, cannot afford rent and certainly cannot afford child care.

What the government does after it has created this nation of poverty is throw little scraps out to the Canadian public, and this day care program is just a marketing plan. It is just one of those scraps.

The government threw out the rent subsidy. They said, “Here is $500 this month; I don't know what you're going to do next month, but here is $500.” The grocery rebate was $234, even though groceries are going to cost an additional $1,000 for a family of four.

The government makes life unaffordable for Canadians, and day care is just another example of what it is doing. It is creating a cycle of continuous poverty for Canadians, whereby Canadians are reliant upon the government instead of on themselves and the common sense of the common people, as we talk about. This day care scheme is just another example.

I talked about inflationary spending. We saw in budget 2023 an additional $69.7 billion that is going to be spent. This will cost each Canadian household an additional $4,200. I just came from the operations committee, where we had the president of the Treasury Board, who just added another $1.3 billion to the tab of Canadians for the recently negotiated agreements, which the Treasury Board failed to do two years previously. In a hurry to get things done, it has now finally completed these agreements. I thank goodness, because services were suffering for Canadians, but it is for the price tag of $1.3 billion.

The government has to bring down inflationary spending and excessive taxation so Canadians can have a chance. We see an escalator tax on beer, wine and spirits of 2%. Let me say that the hockey moms and I sometimes could use a nice glass of wine at the end of the day, but it is 2% more now, as a result of the government and its creation of a life that is not affordable for Canadians.

We see an increase of 40% in the cost of food with high inflationary spending, with 1.5 million Canadians visiting food banks in a single month. We have talked about these numbers a lot in this House. One in five Canadians are skipping meals, and as I mentioned, the grocery rebate is just $234, but groceries are going to cost an additional $1,065.

Day care is a part of this lie of affordability that the Liberals say they are creating for Canadians, when really they are just making everything more expensive.

The cost of shelter has doubled. Mortgages have doubled from $1,400 in 2015 to $3,100 in 2023. Rents have doubled from $973 to $1,760, and that is for a single bedroom. Life is not affordable. Again, it is a result of what the Liberal government is doing. It is taking all this money and handing out little bits, little scraps, like this fake day care plan.

The housing minister could not say what rent was in Kelowna when the member for Kelowna—Lake Country asked last week. That is an example of how out of touch the government is.

The government is raising payroll taxes on workers in small businesses. A worker who is making above $66,000 will now need to pay an extra $255 to CPP and an extra $50 to EI, and of course we have the carbon tax. The carbon tax went up 14¢ a litre on April 1. We know that the carbon tax is driving up the cost of gas and groceries, as I indicated. Those groceries have to get to the supermarket somehow. They go through vehicles, which use gas, so there is a double taxation there.

Then there is home heating, something that all Canadians need, yet the government has called Canadians “polluters” in the past. It called grannies in the Maritimes “polluters” when really Liberals are creating the cycle of poverty to make people dependent on them. An average family will spend between $402 and $847 a year more on the carbon tax.

I have talked about all of these other things. I have talked about how the government needs to reduce inflationary spending because the cycle that it is creating drives up the cost of living for Canadians and drives them down into poverty, and then Canadians are forced to accept these scraps, like this $10-a-day child care.

This $10 day care is an illusion, because if it cannot be accessed, it does not exist. It does not help thousands of families and children on the wait-lists or the operators who do not have the staff or the infrastructure. It has been said that in the future there will only be one space for every three children who need it and that a shortage of 8,500 child care workers will exist in this country by 2026. Perhaps the government could use a pink seal program, something very similar to the blue seal program that our leader has put forward for the trades. In B.C., 27% of child care centres turn away children due to a lack of staff. In Ontario, by 2026, 38% of kids will not have a space.

The thing about this is that the Liberal government has the audacity to think that it can do things better than the common people, better than Canadians. Where have we seen the failure of this? We have seen it with passports, from the very minister who is responsible for this program, and with the immigration backlog, and with the inability to negotiate a public service deal over two years.

Also, what does this say about mothers? So many moms would rather just stay home with their children, but they cannot. They cannot because the Liberal government has made us into a country of two-paycheque families. Two paycheques are needed to keep a family functioning, to keep a roof over their heads and to keep them fed.

As well, what does it say about the women who operate these day cares? They are closing them down, taking away income from families, and often it is new Canadian families.

In conclusion, the Liberal government's talk about making life affordable for Canadians is a lie. Inflationary spending and taxation drive up the cost of living for Canadians and for businesses. It drives Canadians into poverty. They cannot eat, they cannot afford rent, and businesses close. I will not even get into the natural resources sector.

The government throws scraps at Canadians. This day care program is one of the scraps. “Making life affordable for Canadians” is a lie. This day care program is one of them.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I hope Canadian women heard that speech, because the hon. member basically said that $6,000 a year in their pocket is scraps. She said that women want to stay home with their children. If they want to, that is their choice, but there are actually a lot of women who also want to have a career. I am sorry she has such an archaic vision of women in this country. I find that incredibly disappointing.

The Conservatives have gone from calling child care a “slush fund” to now calling it a “marketing tool”. I do not know if the member has spoken to the families who are benefiting from this, who are saving thousands of dollars a year, who have called this “life-changing”. The Alberta government has now created 5,500 new spaces since we signed the agreement.

Everything the member opposite said is simply false, but what I really want to know and what I think Canadian families want to know is whether the member is going to support Bill C-35? Will the Conservatives support Bill C-35 and work with us to deliver affordable, high-quality, accessible, inclusive child care for Canadians?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what this minister failed to mention is that from my meeting with Albertan operators, I know that 67% of them cannot use this program. It is absolutely true.

This is what the Liberals do: They perpetuate this false narrative. They tax us to death. They increase inflationary spending. They drive families into the ground. People cannot get homes. People cannot get day care. As I said, people have to work because they need two incomes. That is why a lot of families have to work.

If women want to work, that is fantastic. I am a poster child for that. I had an incredible career before I got here. I am happy to be here and be a mom and do both, but families cannot do that. What this minister is doing is perpetuating that lie.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I appreciated the member's animated intervention. I am a bit confused about what is going on with the debate, because we all know how important child care is and how much poverty there is in our communities, yet at this point we are debating a minor procedural matter.

I wonder if the member can explain why we are debating this minor procedural matter when we could be debating other more important ways to address poverty and ensure that children are getting the care that they need.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is the whole point. We should be debating ways to find efficiencies within the government to lower taxes and to lower spending. Instead, we are wasting our time here in this House, creating programs to make the government look good and to pretend to Canadians that it is doing something.

I absolutely agree with the member that we should be doing things that actually benefit Canadians, like decreasing inflationary spending and decreasing taxation so that Canadians can buy whatever they want in the grocery store, so that Canadians can actually purchase a home, and so that Canadians can make the choice for a parent to stay at home if they want.

The Liberals are perpetuating their lie. That is what they are doing, and Canadians are catching on to it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's passion. As a mom, I know that she knows this. What is interesting is we have heard so much tonight in the chamber, and the reality is—and we have the testimony—that this bill would actually hurt the most vulnerable, the most marginalized and the poor, which the member for Nunavut mentioned.

However, one of the things that came out of the CCPA child care deserts report, the report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, is that it is most often rural areas that are more likely to have child care deserts in comparison to urban areas with a population of over 100,000 people. It really speaks to the question of whether this is purely a political tool. Because of where all of the seats are that the Liberals win, they continue to just disregard rural areas of Canadians and not treat them fairly. I would like to know what the member thinks of that.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what really comes to my mind is the tag line we saw from the Liberal government in the first years that the Liberals were in power: the middle class and those hoping to join it. Frankly, I have seen lots of people from my riding go from the upper middle class to the middle class and even the lower middle class, so congratulations. The Liberals are doing a great job of having people join the middle class. That is what I would say about that.

Again, it is this cycle that I am talking about. They spend too much. They tax too much. They create poverty for Canadians. People get unemployed, cannot buy houses, cannot buy food and are driven into poverty. The Liberals come along as the saviours with these scraps to save them, so hurray for them. Good job.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying something from my heart, something I think we all agree on in this place: Canadians deserve and need access to affordable, quality child care. This is important for so many reasons, particularly for gender equality. While our country has made gains in various measures of gender equality, we know that women still bear the disproportionate labour costs of child care. Providing access to quality child care, and, more importantly, valuing the labour of child care are what we need to do as a society to move towards true gender equity.

The other principle that we need to understand in achieving gender equity and quality child care in the context of Canadian pluralism, and not just Canadian pluralism but also a regionally diverse country, is that we have to respect and value the labour of child care when it happens in multiple different modalities.

What I mean by that is that while it is very important to ensure that there are quality child care spaces that are affordable and available to Canadians, we also need to understand that some people may want to access child care in a private home. They may want to raise their children in a nanny share, or they may want to raise their children by bringing in parents and grandparents who perhaps currently reside in other parts of the country. Perhaps they are sharing child care duties within their own family, which is unpaid labour, because they are on shift work or because they have chosen to do things that way. The reality is that child care is not homogenous in our country, because we are not a homogenous country. We have so many different ways of raising children, and I think that is part of the beauty of our country.

Our child care policy has to be reflective of that in order for it to be equitable in our country. This bill creates a certain type of child care space. I know that there was a lot of committee testimony that said it is a step in the right direction. The concern that I have with the bill in the current format and with us having a very dogmatic debate on this issue is that we are missing that heterogeneity, that variety of child care that we see in our country, that Canadians want and need in order to raise their children in a way that both makes sense for them and also reflects their living reality.

Some of my colleagues have raised the issue of rural child care. I think this is really important. This bill does not adequately reference rural child care. I also think that it perhaps does not speak to, and the government should find ways to speak to, valuing other forms of child care, particularly unpaid labour within extended families or within a nuclear family itself.

I also think that we need to realize the fact that sometimes, in communities, there is a day home, a private day home on a street. That is not addressed in this bill.

I would just implore the minister and the government to say that perhaps more needs to be done, that while this is a step in the right direction, the concerns that have been raised in this place need to be addressed by the government.

The other reason I think it is so important to get this right, beyond gender equity, which is so important, and beyond looking at child care policy that reflects the wonderful diversity of our country, is a fact that I want to raise because it is such an important issue and I do not think it has really been raised in Parliament: Our country is facing a fertility issue.

Many other countries around the world are as well. This is such a sensitive topic to talk about, because it raises a lot of questions about the cost and benefits of bearing children, in both a societal context and in very personal contexts. It is something that we as legislators have to be seized with. The reality is that around the world, not just in Canada, the global fertility rate is dipping almost to the point of being below replacement levels. That is across the world.

In Canada, we do not replace our population. We rely on immigration to do that, but at some point in the future, based on current trends, immigration is not going to replace our population in Canada, and that has very broad impacts, both on the economy and on social policy.

One might think that people are not having children out of choice, but there have been studies done internationally that show, particularly in the G7 context, that people want to have kids, but are choosing not to because they are not attaining certain life goals. That is where the concept of overall affordability comes into child care.

When people are choosing not to have children for the express reason that they feel they cannot afford to have children, that is a deeply personal societal problem that we all as legislators have a duty to talk about in a respectful way and come up with public policy for. We also have to ensure, though, that the legislation in front of the House right now reflects this fact, as well as reflecting the fact that it is not just people who are choosing not to have children, but people who have children now and cannot afford to make ends meet. It is not just about child care in general.

I have a very diverse riding in north central Calgary. There are a lot of new Canadians. I think about women who cannot get language acquisition classes because they cannot afford or access child care. While this bill is a step in the right direction, it does not address some of the issues that my colleagues have been talking about, like the labour gap, actually getting enough people to fill the jobs, like shift work, like trying to bring parents and grandparents into the country, like valuing the labour of a broader family.

I think about my own situation. I have a stepdaughter who has a son. She had my grandson at a very young age, and raising him has been an effort of extended family, but that labour has not been valued. That is really where we get to the heart of gender equity.

I hope that the minister and the government are not so dogmatically entrenched in just what is in this bill that they keep being reluctant to acknowledge some of these issues, which I think are being brought forward in good faith and out of compassion for Canadian families, and the need to recognize that the labour of child care looks very different in many different contexts in this country. One homogenous solution, sure, might be a check in the box and a step in the right direction, but we are not there yet, and this bill does not get us there.

Solutions I would like to see proposed include a lot more emphasis on fixing immigration wait times to ensure that people who want to bring parents and grandparents to this country on things like super visas can do so a lot more quickly. I would like to see really innovative policies on how we value the unpaid labour of extended families, be it through tax breaks or other programs. That is something we should be debating here. I would like to see the government recognize that in rural Canada it is really hard to get child care, and that might mean private homes or nanny shares. Even in urban Canada, we know that happens. The government should be acknowledging that and trying to address it. The other thing I would like the government to do that it has not done with this bill is have a specific strategy to address the labour shortage in child care.

My fear is that if we do not do these things, in 10 years' time we are going to be facing such a fertility gap in this country that everybody is going to be in competition for immigration to replacing aging populations. If we have not addressed this broader suite of services, particularly ones that are related to labour shortages, we are going to be in a big societal crisis in this country, because we all know what happens when there are issues around women producing children. It is not a pretty place to be.

If the government can get ahead of these issues, acknowledge that they are problematic and deserve solutions, and perhaps add to what is being done here, I think we would have a lot more consensus and also acknowledge that our diverse, beautiful country deserves a diverse, beautiful child care solution. That is what I would like to see. All ideas should be on the table, and all issues should be acknowledged.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her thoughtful speech. She put a lot of thought into it.

I want to correct the record on a couple of things, though. The first is with respect to what child care is included in this legislation, as well as the agreements. There seems to be a misconception on the part of the Conservatives that for-profit or home day care is not included. In fact, it is, as long as it is licensed, and that is important to note.

The other part that my hon. colleague brought up that I think is important to clarify is with regard to rural child care. Manitoba and Saskatchewan are doing some really amazing work at announcing new spaces, particularly in rural communities, and we know that child care is not just an urban issue but an issue for families right across this country. I agree with my hon. colleague that this is something that needs to happen, and in fact it is.

Given her support for child care and saying that this is a step in the right direction, I would like to know if she will be supporting Bill C-35.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, with regard to the for-profit licensed child care spaces, the bill does not recognize the fact that there might be a grandma, a retired person or an aunt who stays at home specifically to care for children and who takes in other children in the neighbourhood. They may not have the means to go through the licensing process, but they are providing quality child care. It is discriminatory to value the labour of licensed people as opposed to people who are providing a valuable resource to society in these other situations. I hope the minister acknowledges that. This bill does not acknowledge that situation. That is why I find it inequitable.

The second component is this. The reality is that rural communities in Canada have a hard time retaining population and attracting labour and newcomers writ large. This bill does not address the reality of child care deserts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments, but I still have questions. I think there is a reality that she describes well: the issue of home-based child care services.

When the public early childhood education services network was implemented in Quebec, both home-based and institutional child care services were accredited, for those who wanted that, in order to participate in the same mission, the same regulations of early childhood education services.

I do not understand how a program could support child care centres without a permit if we agree that the objective is early childhood education and not just the child care services that many people can offer.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill will not meet all child care needs. What we should be looking at when it comes to child care is valuing the labour of child care no matter how it occurs, because if we do not use that as a principle, we are not as a Parliament respecting the diversity of our country, nor are we creating equity in how we value child care. That is the wrong message to send to Canadians.

I understand there will be different preferences and different scenarios, and this is one piece of the pie for sure, but if we cannot figure out how to value child care in all of its forms in a regionally, ethnically and culturally diverse country, we will not achieve gender equality, or universality in child care, or quality child care.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, to whom I always listen attentively, as she speaks so eloquently and makes a real contribution in the House of Commons.

I understand the point she is making, but what she has not really addressed is the fact that, ultimately, this bill provides more accessibility to child care, which is fundamentally important. I note that, in terms of child care accessibility in this country, Alberta ranks last. That is something, as I know the member is aware, that played out in the Alberta elections this week, when the New Democrats swept Edmonton and won most of the ridings in Calgary, in part because of the lack of accessibility to services.

The member has been eloquent in making her points, but will she admit that this is an important step in the progress that is so important for families in Edmonton, Calgary and right across the country?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course creating more child care spaces is important, as is creating equity in how child care is valued in all of its forms. I just wish we could have our cake and eat it too with this bill.

I will say that perhaps the NDP and Alberta's prospects would have been better if they understood that rural Alberta matters, too, because they sure did not do well there.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-35, labelled as an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development was reported as saying that the bill would enshrine the “principles that provinces and territories agreed to in the funding agreement [with Ottawa], including [the pledge] to cut parent fees and create more spaces.” I want to emphasize “create more spaces”, which we all know are currently lacking.

The Liberals promised to introduce the legislation by the end of 2022 in the confidence and supply agreement that would see the New Democrats support the minority government through 2025. Conservatives support affordable, quality day care. It is critical. However, if it cannot be assessed, it does not exist.

Bill C-35 does nothing to address accessibility. Bill C-35 is good for families who already have a child care space, but it does nothing to address the thousands of families on child care wait lists or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces.

James and Leah are a young married couple who just had their first child. As new parents, they were both excited and anxious about welcoming their new arrival. They tried to do their due diligence to ensure everything was in place and ready for their new little arrival. Their friends and family advised they start looking for day care immediately. When Leah was just a few months pregnant, they began the search. They quickly realized that there was, on average, a two-year wait list. They continue to look and hope something will become available for them before Leah's maternity leave is over and she needs to go back to work. How does the Liberal government expect more women to go to work when there are no child care spots available?

Bill C-35 increases the demand for child care but does not solve the problem of access to more spaces. Families, like James and Leah, are on wait lists for years. Ontario's financial accountability office projects that by 2026, there will be 602,000 children under the age of six whose families will want $10-a-day child care, and the province will only be able to accommodate 375,000. That is a shortfall of 38%, or 227,000 children. The term “child care desert” is often used to reference a lack of or inequitable distribution of child care.

A report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released just this month found:

...child care deserts to be widespread: there were an estimated 759,000 full-time licensed spaces for younger children across Canada in centres and family child care homes in 2023. Of the 1.97 million younger children who might be using those spaces, 48 per cent live in child care deserts.

That means that almost half of younger Canadian children (defined as not yet attending Kindergarten) live in a postal code that has more than three children for every licensed child care space.

The report also examined child care coverage in 50 major cities across Canada and found:

Most Canadian cities have a coverage rate below 20 per cent, meaning that in those cities, there are at least five infants for every licensed infant space. St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Ontario cities of Barrie, Guelph, Hamilton and Brampton, and Saskatoon scored particularly badly, with low availability of infant spaces compared to their population of infants. In those cities, there is less than one licensed space for every 10 infants.

We have heard time and time again that this bill does nothing to address long wait-lists. Bill C-35 is just another in a long list of Liberal promises that they cannot deliver on. This bill does not address the labour shortage. This bill increases demand, but does not solve the problem of frontline burnout or staff shortages. There are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone to staff new spaces.

The government itself projects that by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early child care workers. The minister stated that she plans to build 250,000 new spaces. Accordingly, 40,000 new child care workers would be required in order to accommodate this. Over the next 10 years, it is reported that more than 60% of the workforce already employed will need to be replaced, meaning around 181,000 will need to be replaced. Once we add those two figures, over 200,000 workers will be required. Currently, 27% of child care centres in British Columbia are forced to turn away children due to a lack of staff.

The committee heard from one child care director who oversees 13 child care programs with 350 spaces. They said, “In the past two years, we've had to close programs temporarily, whether it's for a day or two, or shorten hours for the week ... in order to meet the licensing regulations”. Conservatives know how vital affordable, quality and accessible child care is, not only to family life but also to the growth of our nation. That is why we listened to providers and those on the ground.

My colleagues listened when Dr. Susan Prentice, a Duff Roblin professor of government at the University of Manitoba, stated the following: “One thing I would like to see, for example, would be the national advisory council assured of the kind of information and data it needs, so it can track, for example, progress on strengthening the workforce.”

The Coalition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia wrote to the committee stating, “We strongly recommend the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care must...provide an annual publicly available report to the Minister on the work of the Advisory Council in meeting the goals set out in the Act”. Therefore, at committee, my colleagues sought to amend the function of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care to include supporting the recruitment and retention of a well-qualified workforce, conducting regular engagement, and a specific mandate call—

Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear. I keep hearing another conversation, and I am losing track of my speech.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I just want to make sure people in the gallery sit down when they come to visit us. I see one of our members is giving a bit of a tour. I would ask him to sit down.

The hon. member for King—Vaughan.

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

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague also put forward an amendment to the reporting clause of the bill to include the Minister of Labour in the annual reporting, and the annual reporting must include a national labour strategy to recruit and retain a qualified early childhood education workforce. This supports witnesses' testimony on the importance of a strong national labour strategy dictating the success of a national child care framework.

Our Conservative Party believes in affordable child care, but we also believe that we need to ensure that child care comes in many different avenues, and we need to make sure that we provide that for all Canadians.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech because it reinforces why Bill C-35 is important when it comes to creating affordable child care, creating accessible child care and creating more spaces.

I know that, when the Conservatives see a big challenge, they just throw up their hands to say, “We should not do anything”, but this government is different. We say, “There is a problem. Let us try to solve it.” We are going to create those 250,000 spaces. We have already created 50,000. We are getting the job done, and we are helping Canadian families.

I have two questions for my hon. colleague.

The member mentioned at the end of her speech that we should support child care in all of its diversity. Her colleagues before had talked about supporting unlicensed child care. I am wondering if she can clarify if they do in fact mean that they want to subsidize unlicensed child care that has not gone through the regulatory process.

Also, the member just said that they support affordable child care. Does that mean they are going to support Bill C-35? Right now, we are just debating an amendment to the short title.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to share an experience. I was a child of immigrants, and I had the pleasure of being raised by my grandparents. They taught me values that I still live with today.

I have seniors in my community who have had to go back to work because they cannot afford to live on their pension. For whatever reason, they are now looking for work, which they cannot find because of their age, as they are being discriminated against. However, what an opportunity it would be to have children raised by their grandparents, who will teach them the love and the tradition of what they were raised with. Why not allow that type of child care with every grandparent who has the opportunity to raise their grandchild?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for her presentation.

That said, I would like to hear the Conservatives speak a little more about shared jurisdictions. The last time I read Canada's Constitution, which, I would remind members, Quebec never signed, it stated that education, including family policies, were not a federal jurisdiction.

The Bloc Québécois will of course vote for the bill for the sole reason that it allows for the right to opt out with compensation, and this seldom happens, or happens too little with centralizing policies and bills. Quebec is exempt for five years. That is the only reason we support it, but we do not do so enthusiastically.

In committee, why did the Conservatives vote against the Bloc Québécois amendments, which mentioned Quebec's invaluable contribution to family policies?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is a provincial jurisdiction. I also believe that parents have the right to choose what child care fits their child.

As a young widow, I had no choice but to find child care outside of the licensed child care because I did not have a nine-to-five job. My job related to different hours and different shifts, and I needed to find support for my children.

Yes, it is a provincial issue, and yes we should not cross that line, but we need to diversify to ensure that the individuals who are willing to go back to work to continue their careers have the opportunity to choose the right child care for their children.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was very thoughtful.

Child care is an important issue. My own daughter is struggling to find child care for her daughter, my granddaughter.

We are here until midnight debating the bill. Actually, we are debating the Conservative amendment to the bill, which is something I assume Conservatives think would improve it, and that is to delete the short title of the bill. I am just wondering if the member can tell me, without looking, what the short title of the bill is and what Conservatives find so offensive about it?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here because we are parents. We are mothers, and we care. We need to make sure that the bill works for every mother and child in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House for the second time today, this time to speak to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, which was introduced by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development on December 8.

From the work that we did at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, it is clear that the demands of the Bloc Québécois and Quebec were not heard or respected. Throughout the study of the bill, we heard witnesses talk about how important affordable, quality child care is for early childhood development, for better work-school-life balance, for the emancipation of women and for return on investment in the economy.

Throughout the study, Quebec was lauded as a model. Although it is not perfect, the Quebec model was mentioned many times as the model that should be emulated. However, at amendment stage, when it came time to include Quebec's expertise in the bill, the other three parties dismissed that reality out of hand. The same thing happened with our amendments to include wording allowing Quebec to completely opt out of the federal program with full financial compensation.

The only sign of any degree of openness was when a reference to Quebec expertise was included in the preamble, the only place where these words ultimately have no real impact on the law.

Although Quebec will not get the option to completely withdraw from the program with full compensation, an agreement to this effect had already been reached between Ottawa and Quebec. Senior officials who worked on the bill also repeatedly stated, when questioned on the subject, that while nothing would prevent the federal government from imposing conditions as part of a future agreement, the bill had always been designed with the asymmetry of Quebec's reality compared to Canada's provinces in mind.

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

With the current agreement between Ottawa and Quebec, and with the government's expressed willingness to continue that collaboration, it appears that Canada does not intend to preach to Quebec on the child care issue, especially since it has consistently praised Quebec's model of early childhood centres. We therefore believe that another bilateral agreement would be possible, probable and necessary, since the government is taking its cue from Quebec.

I presented six amendments in committee that, as I said earlier, would have made it possible to include Quebec's expertise in the bill. I wanted clause 7 to be amended by adding, among other things, the following:

(3) Having regard to the special and unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec relating to early learning and child care in Quebec society and despite any other provision of this Act, the Government of Quebec may choose to exempt itself from the application of this Act by giving the Minister written notice to that effect, in which case that province may still receive the funding under section 8.

The purpose of this amendment was to incorporate a clause that recognizes the expertise of Quebec in the guiding principles of the bill. The adoption of my amendment would have allowed for the recognition of Quebec's jurisdiction and guaranteed Quebec a right to opt out of this legislation with full compensation. The idea is to avoid disputes between Ottawa and Quebec by recognizing from the outset what everyone here knows: Quebec is a pioneer when it comes to early childhood education and must continue to have sole control of its policies in this area.

We know that Quebec adopted a forward-thinking family policy more than 25 years ago. This policy, which can be described as progressive and feminist, has enabled thousands of women and families to benefit from better work-life or school-life balance, specifically through the creation of a network of early childhood centres. This model is an asset and a source of pride for the entire Quebec nation. In fact, it is the inspiration for this bill.

The adoption of this amendment would have confirmed the special and unique nature of the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction over education and child development by giving Quebec a right to opt out completely with full compensation.

Furthermore, this is an exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, and we believe that this amendment, like all the amendments that I moved, would have prevented squabbling between Ottawa and Quebec in the next round of federal investments in this area.

With respect to the same clause of the bill, I moved that the following be added:

Quebec retains sole responsibility for implementing, evaluating and adapting its early learning and child care policies and programs in Quebec, and therefore the Council's functions do not extend to early learning and child care, or any other related activity, in Quebec.

This amendment would have reiterated Quebec's sole jurisdiction in this area. Quebec has no desire to be evaluated or monitored by some council that answers to Ottawa, seeing as Quebec is a pioneer in this area, which falls under provincial jurisdiction. This came at the request of the office of Quebec's Minister of Families.

I also wanted the preamble to recognize the unique and leading-edge expertise of the Government of Quebec in the development and implementation of accessible and affordable educational child care services, that government having developed an innovative child care model in 1997 as part of its comprehensive family policy designed to give Quebec families a better work- or study-life balance, access to generous maternity and parental leaves, and services that are suited to self-employed workers and those with atypical hours of work.

This change in the text of the bill would have been important in guiding actions and interpretations of the bill. My amendment would have enshrined Quebec's historical capacity and expertise in its jurisdiction and family policy in the bill.

Continuing with the preamble, I wanted to read that the Government of Canada recognizes that, because of the special and unique nature of the Quebec government's responsibility for early learning and child care and the fact that Quebec developed educational, accessible, affordable and quality child care services as part of the family policy it adopted in 1997, the Quebec government need not adhere to the multilateral framework, as it intends to retain the exclusive responsibility for this matter in its territory.

The amendment that I presented was important because it would have recognized all the work done by Quebec on family policy and early childhood education over more than 25 years. The Quebec government declined Ottawa's invitation to participate in meetings to develop the multilateral early learning framework for a very simple reason. Quebec is responsible for its areas of jurisdiction and takes full responsibility for its family policy and educational framework. In this regard, it is not accountable to the federal government for its decisions.

As I said at the beginning, when it came time to include Quebec's expertise in the bill, the other three parties dismissed the idea outright. As I have said many times, Quebec is a champion in this field and a model, a model repeatedly cited by several witnesses we heard from at committee, and a model long envied by other provinces and territories.

However, Quebec does not appear once in Bill C-35. If Quebec's expertise and recognition had appeared in this bill, it would have garnered greater support from the Bloc Québécois. That said, we still support Bill C-35 in principle and will be voting in favour of it.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I also thank the Bloc Québécois for saying that it is in favour of this bill.

I want to confirm that this bill respects the jurisdictions of the provinces and territories, including Quebec's jurisdiction. The agreement we signed with Quebec is an asymmetrical agreement that recognizes its leadership on this file. I want to emphasize the fact that we see Quebec's leadership and we prepared the bill and the bilateral agreements based on the experience in Quebec, which is a leader not only in Canada, but around the world.

As far as my hon. colleague's proposed amendments are concerned, members voting against them is not the reason they were not adopted. It was decided that they were not in order because they were outside the scope of the bill. Nevertheless, we commend the leadership of Quebec and we respect its jurisdiction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her question. All of my committee colleagues and I worked really hard.

What always surprises me is that Quebec is trying to be a model and, because we are a model, it seems as though we are inconvenient. I do not understand because, when it comes to day care and early childhood education, we have been demonstrating since 1997 that children do well in day care when women go back to work. It is also about work-life balance.

I know that the minister is a trustworthy person. However, since words fade away but written statements endure, I would have liked to see it set out in writing that Quebec is a model and has special expertise in this area.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I enjoyed working with her in committee on this bill.

Tonight, this has been brought up a lot: Why are we here? What are we doing? That is important.

These agreements have been signed already by provinces and territories, but there are alarm bells being rung across the country by providers and parents. Every day, we are seeing articles in the media about the concern over this crisis that say this child care bill would not meet the demand.

Does my colleague understand the importance of this? If this is going to be as big as the Liberals say it is, forever and generational, is it not important to spend as much time on it as possible to make sure we get it right?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I think it is important to mention that, despite everything, this bill is very important for families. It is a matter of learning and development for young children. It is also a matter of well-being for both children and families.

I think that this is a step forward in creating a day care or early childhood education program in Canada. Of course, we can always do better. Let us look at what has been done over the past 25 years in Quebec. However, what is important is that we have taken the first steps toward a national child care program.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I wonder if the member can explain how this bill would support the great work of the Kativik Regional Government in Nunavik. Will it be better supported through the implementation of this important bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. There are indeed similarities. These are important communities in our ridings, after all. They also need support in terms of day cares. I think this bill will make things easier for the communities. The important thing is to always listen to the communities and their needs.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, fortunately there is the right to opt out with compensation. However, when I read that a “Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework” would apparently fall under the federal spending power, I admit that concerns me.

Am I right to be concerned?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Yes, we do have some questions, and there is good reason to be concerned.

We have to remain vigilant when it comes to this bill and future legislation. There is room for improvement, so we are going to pay very close attention to what happens with this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Before we go to the next speaker and I run off, I want to make sure that everybody prays for a bit of rain for Nova Scotia.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are all hoping and praying for rain, and sending our best, in support of all the first responders who are responding to the tragedy.

It is an honour for me to stand on behalf of my constituents and speak to Bill C-35, the legislation currently before the House. This is a bill that would enshrine in legislation essentially the deals that the federal government has already signed with provincial governments.

It is important, right off the bat, for people listening to know that the debate tonight, no matter how long it goes today or in the coming days, does not actually affect the real-time outcomes among the different levels of government. That is something I wanted to get on the record right away, anticipating some of the concerns and phony outrage that might be manufactured in a few moments from some members from other parties.

I want to start off by pointing out the fact that I have five children. I often get asked what it is like having five children, especially when we went from four to five. Having that fifth child is nerve-racking. Many of my friends and family said four was a lot, asked how we went from four to five and what it was like as a family to experience that. The great Jim Gaffigan, who also has five kids, by the way, summed it up best. He said if people want to contemplate what it is like going from four children to five children, they should imagine themselves drowning and then someone throwing them a baby. I can attest that there is a lot of truth to that.

The difference between a first child and a fifth child is very different psychologically. When my wife and I had our first child, we had all the bells and whistles, the baby monitors and that special mat that monitored everything. At the slightest sound, we would run in and check on Thomas. When the fifth child comes along, it is a little different. Parents are a little more mellow and have experienced more. When I was asked how it was going with baby number five, I would say it was pretty good, that we were getting through the night. We would put the baby down, turn on a fan on in the baby's room and close Mary's door. We would go into our room, close our door and turn our fan on. When people would ask if she was sleeping through the night, we would say we did not know, but we were. That is kind of half the battle being a parent.

I tell these stories because, for those us who have been blessed with the opportunity to have and raise children, it is a lot. It is incredibly rewarding, but it is, at the same time, incredibly stressful. People go through all the normal difficulties of life with bills, jobs and managing different relationships in their lives and then they have this being that is 100% dependent on them as parents. Every moment parents are away from that child, they worry about him or her. They ponder whether they have left their child with the right sitter, if their mother-in-law is going to forget the thing she was told about the medicine at the right time or if their dad is going to think to do the other thing. All those thoughts that parents think of are always stressful.

Child care, of course, is a major preoccupation for parents from all walks of life, from all backgrounds, from all different corners of our wonderful country, so it is not surprising that, as the Liberal cost of living crisis continues, child care costs are one of the stress points in families. As the Liberal government has devalued our paycheques by robbing us of our purchasing power, as it ballooned the money supply, washing $400 billion of new money through the system, completely devaluing the dollars that we work so hard for, it is not surprising that one of the stress points is child care, because it is so intrinsically linked.

For many families, the ability to work, to go out and earn a living, is dependent on the ability to find someone to watch their children, to make sure their children have the care they need while they go out into the world and earn a paycheque. Sadly, under the Liberal government, more and more Canadian families are having to work more and more. They have to pick up extra shifts. I know many people in my riding who have second jobs, who work a full 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and then pick up maybe an 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift at a restaurant or hotel, and they are doing that just to offset the purchasing power that the government robbed them of.

I think back to my science classes when I was going through high school. Every once in a while we would kind of look at the fallacy around a perpetual motion machine, something often seen in tropes in science textbooks when talking about conservation of energy, entropy and things like that. It is pretty much an accepted fact that we could never have a perpetual motion machine. What does a “perpetual motion machine” mean? It means the machine itself provides the energy to power the movement of the machine which then creates the energy that goes back into creating the movement. There is a perpetual loop that the energy created by the machine powers the machine to create the energy in the first place.

One does not have to be a fourth-year graduate student to understand that there is no such thing in the real world as a perpetual motion machine, but in politics there can be. That is the perpetual motion machine of government justifying its continued intervention in the economy or in people's lives. The government taxes families more and more. It devalues the paycheques of the people who pay those taxes, which creates stresses in our society. We are seeing 1.5 million Canadians visiting a food bank, a staggering number in 2023 in a developed G7 country. We all hear heartbreaking stories of families who have had their utilities cut off because they could not pay the increased costs as the carbon tax takes a bigger and bigger bite out of their paycheques and, of course, we see it with child care costs as well. More and more of those take-home dollars have to go to pay the child care providers.

The government comes along after taxing and after devaluing paycheques and says it is going to tax more and spend more to help alleviate the problem that we ourselves have caused. When I say “we” I mean the Liberal government; it is not actually the Conservative government. The Liberal government has caused this dynamic. This is what I mean by the perpetual motion machine. It is continually creating problems through government action and intervention. Then to alleviate those problems, it comes along to tax more and spend more, which creates more problems and unintended consequences down the road. Who could have predicted today in 2023 that some of those terrible Liberal policies of 2015-16 would lead to these massive inflation numbers that we see today, accompanied by staggering interest rate hikes?

The Liberal finance minister finally acknowledged that inflationary deficits cause higher interest rates. Seeing the numbers from the last little bit, we know that in April the inflation rate for Canada went up even after the Bank of Canada took all kinds of measures to fight inflation by increasing interest rates; forcing Canadians to pay more and more of their mortgage payment to the bank for interest, instead of actually paying down the principal. After that kind of news and knowing what the U.S. federal reserve has done raising interest rates, experts are predicting that there are going to be future interest rate hikes coming to Canada this summer.

The reason why I mention all of this is because this might look like it is going to help Canadians. There may be many Canadians looking at this legislation, looking at these child care deals and thinking, okay, my child care costs are getting more and more expensive but at least the government is coming along to help me with that. The point is that the unintended consequences of massive amounts of new spending requiring new taxes to pay for it or driving up inflation will undo any of the benefits that the Liberals are claiming to have today.

I also want to very briefly point out how unfair this is to so many Canadians, so many women across the country who would prefer to raise their own children, to look after their own children, and with the entrepreneurial spirit that they have, decide to become a day care operator and open up their own home, maybe finish their basement or put on an addition to their house so that they can look after children in neighbourhoods in what is being called “day care deserts” which, according to data from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 92% of Saskatchewan is in a day care desert. Rather than facilitate and enable women to become entrepreneurs, to start businesses in their communities, the government has decided to fund one narrow form of day care. That is why the official opposition is raising these kinds of concerns and we hope the government takes these concerns seriously.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, a lot of us can relate to what it is like to have a baby and that feeling of being overwhelmed, which is why child care is so important and it is so important for families to know they can send their child somewhere that is safe, that is going to provide quality development and education and that their child will be well cared for.

I need to correct the record. The hon. colleague ended by saying that if one has a home day care one is not eligible to participate in this program. That is simply false. In fact, in his own province of Saskatchewan, that is one of the ways it is increasing access to child care, through licensed day homes, particularly in rural areas.

This is typical of the Conservatives, who I am not sure have actually read the legislation or read the agreements, so they do not actually know what we are debating tonight, which in fact is an amendment to the short title of the bill. I have asked every single Conservative colleague here if they will be supporting Bill C-35. I have yet to hear a clear response.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, the minister is highlighting the importance of report stage debates because she is claiming the bill does not discriminate against entrepreneurs who want to start a business in their communities to address this.

Let me read her bill. Maybe she can go back to her department and quickly file some amendments or maybe withdraw the bill and come up with something else.

Under “Guiding Principles”, paragraph 7(1)(a) reads:

support the provision of, and facilitate equitable access to, high-quality early learning and child care programs and services — in particular those that are provided by public and not for profit child care providers —

Therefore, that is excluding all those examples I just mentioned, such as people in smaller communities—

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

It doesn't say not not-for-profit; no, it doesn't.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

The minister is shaking her head and saying that it does not.

We will grant unanimous consent right now. If she wants to withdraw this part of this bill, we will agree this second.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members they are not to have cross-debates.

On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to allow the minister to respond to that last comment.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There is no unanimous consent.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, just to clarify, the invitation was to amend the flawed bill that contradicts what the minister just said. The minister has already had lots of time—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. This is debate and not a point of order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I am always a bit concerned about is the fact that the Conservative Party members seem to believe, on the things we are all trying to fight for for Canadians, these are things they are entitled to but that Canadians are not entitled to. I have to say it is on the public record the Conservative Party of Canada actually paid for this member to send his children to a private school with a tuition of $18,000, and yet he is in this House saying that single moms and Canadians across this country, Canadians who are struggling with the cost of living, should not have access to even child care for their children while he is able to send his children to private school. How does he square that circle? It seems extraordinary to me that he thinks that is reasonable.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is making a massive confusion. Not only is it comparing apples to oranges but it is talking about what allows Canadians to have access.

The point I am making in my speech is about when the government does more and more and defines how support is going to be given out. It has created a child care program that is so exclusionary. What I am fighting for is more access, more Canadians to be able to access affordable child care. This myth that if government does not do it that it does not get done is just false. The entire course of human history in terms of innovation and a higher quality of life comes from free market competition, other kinds of non-government solutions. That is the point that was being made.

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

Madam Speaker, I love hearing stories about my hon. colleague's children and the great comedian Jim Gaffigan.

When we are looking at the Matthew effect, this is one of the criticisms that has been made of Bill C-35. For those people who do not know, the Matthew effect is where increasing public provision ends up advantaging higher-income rather than lower-income groups. That is what we have seen with the way this legislation is currently written. What does the member have to say about that?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is a great point, and I want to congratulate my colleague, who has really quarterbacked the bill for the official opposition. She has done a phenomenal job doing research and getting witnesses together to tell the story about all the flaws that are in the bill.

The member is absolutely right. There are many parts of the country where Canadians are forced to live because of low income; they are in areas where there is just not that type of access. People who live in a fancy part of Toronto or Vancouver, where there are a lot of government day care spots, may be a big winner from this, because they have the ability to live in those parts of our country. However, there are many Canadians, the vast majority of Canadians, who are going to get absolutely nothing.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to start out my speech tonight by talking about something that is related, although perhaps not directly on point, if I could have the indulgence of the House.

An incredibly sad story came out of my riding in recent days. Vienna Rose Irwin, age two, was discovered in an open well outside of a day care in my riding. She had obviously passed away. I just want to take this moment to pass on my greatest sympathies to the family and to all the people who knew her. To quote, “She was the most beautiful and sweetest little girl and in her short time here on Earth touched so many.” While not directly on point, I appreciate the indulgence to send that sympathy to her parents. She passed away just outside of a day care some days ago. I send my deepest sympathies and regards, and I am sure those of all members, to her parents and all those who knew and loved her.

We will start there. I am sorry for choking up a little. I think of my own kids. I have a seven-year-old and a nine-year-old. I heard the official opposition House leader talk about having five kids. I have only two; I am not as ambitious as the Conservative House leader. I can say that certainly even with two, some days it feels like we are drowning. I love this job. I love being here, and it is certainly my choice. However, the hardest days are always on Sunday nights or Monday mornings, when I have to leave them, knowing that I will not see them for four or five days. I am very pleased to serve the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South.

Child care is a challenge in our family, just as it is for millions across Canada. The Conservatives have raised some concerns and objections, and I think we have done it in quite a constructive way. Of course, Conservatives recognize the challenges of raising children in today's society. In fact, in a lot of ways, those concerns have been heightened over the past eight years, with the cost of inflation driving up the cost of housing and food. Food bank usage has doubled or even tripled. What is scary is that we are in fact seeing more and more employed parents having to use food banks. We recently heard testimony that it used to be that about 15% of folks using food banks would identify themselves as employed. That number is now 30%, and a lot of them are parents.

I just want to go through some numbers. In 2011, the average full-time day care cost for a child aged four or younger in Ontario was $677 a month. Even at $677 for child care, I am sure that that is not easy for many parents. Today, for parents living in Toronto, it costs more than $1,000 a month to have an infant in day care. This is an increase of 67%.

Child care costs in Ontario are among the highest in the country, and I would venture to say, some of the highest in the world. In Toronto, a full-time spot for a toddler costs around $1,600 a month, or $19,000 a year. This is just one of the costs that have risen for parents; no doubt, it is an extremely challenging one.

There are also many other issues with respect to the expenses for child care. I just want to talk a little bit about the marginal effective tax rate and participation rate for parents. I know that, in the past, when I have raised this and stated the numbers, Liberals have sighed or rolled their eyes in disbelief. However, these numbers are all cited. These numbers have all come from the C.D. Howe Institute, a respected think tank and institution, and all their math is here too. If anybody wishes to challenge it, I cannot raise the report, because then it would be a prop, but I am more than willing to table it.

One of the numbers they talk about is the participation tax rate. I will just read this to make sure that we have it correctly on the record:

[It] is the cumulative effect of all income taxes, other contributions, payroll deductions and loss of tax benefits on the entire prospective earnings from work.

For a stay-at-home parent, it represents a financial penalty that must be paid out of total derived income.

I just want to give a scenario in which we have a mom who earns $30,000 a year. The total family income is $30,000. The mother will pay federal income taxes and CPP and EI contributions, with no Alberta income tax, for a total of $1,985. The dad is now considering going back to work. He has been at home with the kids, and he is deciding to return to the workforce.

By the way, I have not heard anyone in this House say it, but I have heard it said from time to time in the community. I hate it when they say that “stay-at-home parents are going back to work.” Members can trust me: It is a vacation doing this job compared with taking care of my kids. I am first and foremost my kids' dad before I am the member of Parliament for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

We have this situation. We have a mom who is working and earning $30,000 a year. The dad wants to go back to paid work. We would think that $30,000 more in income should increase the family's disposable income by $30,000, especially as a low-income earner. Do members know how much their income would actually increase? The family's disposable income would increase by $13,350. That is all. Their participation tax rate for the dad's return to work is 56%. It is in here. I am happy to table the report.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the hon. member not to point to the report.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I know.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

If he knows, then he should not be doing it.

The hon. member.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Can I have unanimous consent to table this after my speech?

[An hon. member]

No.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Exactly.

Madam Speaker, I just want to walk members through a couple of the actual numbers. Let us say that we have a parent who is earning $45,000 and a second parent who wants to go back and earn $20,000. Their participation tax rate, as I outlined it earlier, if they live in Newfoundland and have one kid, is 38%. I have a lot of these, but I am just going to go through and pick a couple of them. In Ontario, their participation tax rate, if they had two kids, would be 54%. If they had three kids, and they were in the beautiful province of Quebec, their participation tax rate would be 66%.

If the government wants to enable parents to return to the workforce, it just simply has to stop taking their money. It is tens of thousands of dollars through the participation tax rate. I can show members the numbers, and I am happy to walk them through the numbers. That money would do a lot more than the Liberals' child care program ever would, and the parents would have the ability to spend that money how they want to.

I heard laughter when one of our members talked about grandparents raising people's kids. I have great respect for grandparents, and if it is their decision to watch their grandchildren, then God bless them. I think that is a great decision. The government should not be getting away from grandparents spending time with their grandkids. The government should be supporting grandparents.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I would like to join my voice to my colleague's in sending condolences to the Irwin family and to the member's entire community. I cannot imagine the pain they are going through right now.

The member ended by talking about grandparents taking care of grandkids. There is nothing in this legislation that would prevent a family from making their own child care choices. There is absolutely nothing that would change that. However, what I can say is that some of the people whom I have spoken to who are most excited about this legislation are grandparents. They love their grandchildren, but it is a lot to ask them in their golden hour to take care of little kids. When I travelled around this country, not only were parents excited, but grandparents were absolutely also excited about the affordable child care initiative.

I am still not sure. I have asked every Conservative member who has spoken tonight. We are just debating a spurious amendment right now. Will the Conservatives be supporting Bill C-35?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member, first off, for extending her sympathies. I appreciate that, and I appreciate a lot of the member's response, but I just want to address a couple of points.

One is that we want to enable and empower grandparents, and there is nothing in the legislation, to be clear, that would stop them from looking after kids, but if we were able to reduce the cost of living; reduce the marginal effective tax rates, which for seniors collecting GIS is always over 50%; and reduce the participation tax rate, we would empower and enable seniors to make their own decisions. Certainly we do not want to be forcing anyone who does not want to extend child care, but we also want to empower and enable those who do.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would also like to send my condolences to the family in the member's riding.

I really appreciated the member's intervention, because he seems to be taking Bill C-35 seriously and not talking only about the motion about the short title.

The bill is especially important for Nunavummiut. I do not know if members have read the Auditor General's report published on May 30 about Inuit children's and youth's rights being infringed. There are many children and youth who are in care, but who also who do not need to be in care. Preferably, Bill C-35 would help make sure that families are able to get the supports they need to use day care, rather than having their children stolen by governments.

What I do appreciate about the bill as well, and I thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for her great work, is that it includes the importance of upholding indigenous rights, because of the inclusion of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the implementation of UNDRIP. I wonder if the member agrees that it is absolutely necessary that we pass Bill C-35 so indigenous children's rights can be upheld.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that was a fantastic and fair question, and that is why we supported the amendment put forward by the NDP. We will continue to support that. Obviously, the residential schools and the stealing of indigenous children are absolutely beyond the pale, so inclusive of that or exclusive of that, Conservatives believe entirely that children should be raised as their parents and their culture want. I have had many discussions with the great chiefs of the Hiawatha First Nation and the Alderville First Nation, whose nations are located within the boundaries of the riding of Northumberland—Peterborough South, and every single indigenous child deserves to be raised with an indigenous upbringing and culture. Parents in general deserve the ability and the right to raise their children as they see fit, not how the government sees fit, through the residential schools or otherwise.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the amendments we brought forward on the Canada-wide early learning and child care system.

I addressed this many times going door to door in Calgary Centre. When we speak to people who are trying to access day care in Canada, we get an illustration of exactly what the myriad problems are that we encounter, as a society, in making sure we have this service available for Canadians. It is important that we have this service available for Canadians. I remember meeting somebody who had a three-year-old child, and she was also pregnant with her second child. She was looking at the options. She looked at how the various political parties were assessing what the solution would be. She also had friends who had day care operations in the neighbourhood, and they had different input than what she was getting from various political parties. Depending on where someone is, and the input they get on this subject, they have various degrees of understanding. They have various degrees of how they are going to access this system, how they are going to pay for the system and, effectively, how it is going to work.

One of the things in this bill that I was quite curious about was something the minister said when introducing it in December 2022. When introducing this bill, she said, and this struck me as odd, that the government must protect what we have built and make it harder for any future federal government to cancel or cut child care and undo all that we have achieved for children and families. That is interesting, because we live in a democracy, and every one of these policies we put forward in Parliament, which we hope to sustain, has to prove to be effective. At the end of the day, we are getting toward more effective policies. We try to get better with each iteration. To be stuck on something that might be difficult to amend, move forward with and progress in our society is not where we want to be. I was surprised by the minister's comments on that.

Going back to the woman I met who was assessing the child care, she also said that we need to make sure we adapt and continue to adapt, as a society, to the needs of the people who require child care.

I also looked at the issue of women's participation in society. This is the nub to me, because I belong to a generation of Canadians in which women traditionally took some seven years off, or sometimes it was nine years, as it was with my wife, to raise a family before going back into the workforce. This held them back in their career. These people are in the prime earning years of their lives and advancing their careers, and we can think about the choices they have to make because of the child care choices they have. Effectively, we see more executives at senior levels who are males because of the limitation on the years of experience women get when they choose to take that time off because of the limited options they have for child care. An effective child care system is going to advance a lot of social progress by making sure we have a balance of men and women at senior levels in both our private sector and our public sector organizations going forward. I think it is laudable goal. I think we need to achieve it.

One of the things I have always noticed about the government's bills is that they are long on narrative. We can put a big stamp in the window that says, “free $10 day care”, yet, at the end of the day, we have to execute that plan. That means boots on the ground. That means understanding where the bottlenecks are and where the hurdles are that we have to get over in order to get that done. One of the big bottlenecks in the child care system, of course, is the access to labour. That continues to be one of the main problems we have in terms of accessing day care in Canada. Where is the labour going to come from? Right now, that labour does not exist. CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, actually came up with a stat that said there is one space for every three children who need it. That is not because of physical space, like the rooms and buildings, but that is because of the access to workers. The workers are the bottleneck. We must make sure we have enough workers in place and a sustainable system that allows those workers to deliver the services that society requires of them at an optimal level.

Those are not there, because, frankly, the financial incentives are not there to make that system work better and draw more people, more entrepreneurs, into a system that provides a great service for Canadians, one that is going to achieve these laudable goals I spoke about earlier in my speech: access to child care for everybody and access for women to re-enter the workforce and participate fully in executive ranks as they progress their careers, as their husbands have done for the last generation. This needs to be fixed. Making sure that bottleneck of the labour shortage gets addressed is key in addressing this. That is what I talk about when I say that execution is different from narrative.

Accessibility is, of course, number one. I have met many people through my career who were not as advantaged, financially, as many people in society. I recall the accessibility of day care. They would actually take public transit from one end of the city to the other in order to drop off their kids. They would take public transit back downtown, and this is in Calgary, where there is a good public transit system. That, in effect, is an hour at the beginning of their day and an hour at the end of their day, in order for them to take their kid somewhere safe and then get them at the end of the day and take them home. That is a big chunk of time out of one's day. That is because of what, I have learned in this process, are called day care deserts. There is no accessibility in certain areas where these people actually need this service, close to their work or close to their home. They have to go a long way out of their way in order to get the service they require.

We have to revisit this and think about who is most affected by this. It is not people of means; it is people without means. The people who are looking for those spaces are in the more marginalized sectors of society, the more marginalized economic sectors.

The ability to access this, of course, if one is of means, is going to be better than if one is not of means. We continue to have deserts of day care. We continue to have an accessibility problem all the way through. The sister of a very good friend of mine was in the same boat. She was a day care provider and she took public transit from south Edmonton to north Edmonton every day in order to deliver the service, again, because of the day care desert. There was no day care available in the very south end of Edmonton where she lived. She was one of the day care providers, and her skills were supportable only in the north part of Edmonton at that point in time. That, again, is a one-hour commute, half an hour at each end of the day. That is a long time to add on to what one is putting in every day.

There is an issue about inclusivity. We have to make sure that this inclusivity is not just for the public and non-profit sector but also includes those people who are putting together day care spaces in our communities and getting rid of the so-called day care deserts so that we can actually have publicly funded $10-a-day day care available in the communities where it is needed, set up by the entrepreneurs who are actually willing to train the people, get the funding and get the system up and running so they can serve the clientele that lives close to where they want to provide the services. These are all types of child care we are talking about here. This is backed up, of course, through the testimony at committee, by the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario.

I think most Canadians are trying to access this day care, which is a benefit. This is going to be a low cost. We want to make sure we get this into people's hands but it is not going to be available. This is an accessibility problem. It has to be addressed first and foremost in this bill. We have to get the boots in the ground and make sure we have the ability to get people into positions before we start pretending we are delivering a service, or say we are delivering service, and not being able to execute.

Having something in the store window and being able to deliver to people are two entirely different things. That is the issue here. We have to make sure we have a system that works for the people we intend to serve via that new system.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Alberta and I have many great conversations here in the House. I was thrilled to hear that he understands how child care is really a great contributor to social growth and the advancement of women. It is certainly something I value.

He talks about spaces, and even in his province of Alberta, 1,800 new child care spaces were created under the program, through the non-profit system. He also leaned into the issue of private care. That is why the Province of Alberta, determining where it had desert spaces, committed to another 5,500 spaces, going forward.

There is a system that needs to be built. The system is being built, and I would like to know if my hon. colleague will support Bill C-35 rather than debate the title of the bill itself.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, there was a lot packed in there, and I think we addressed that a bit.

We talked about my home province of Alberta. It is a growing province. If we think about 1,800 day care spaces in a province that has had a migration influx of 50,000 people over the last year, we are talking about a need that is largely unmet. I referred in my speech to day care deserts. At the end of the day, 61% of those accessing day care in Alberta are in a day care desert.

We have problems and hurdles to overcome in order to deliver this to people. That is one of the reasons we want to make sure the bill we are talking about today addresses the concern of how it is going to meet the needs of Canadians.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, for me, in Vancouver East, the issue with access to day care centres around three things. One, it is about affordability, so $10-a-day day care will make a difference for families. The other issue, of course, is about access to spaces and the creation of spaces, which is also critical, because there is a long wait-list of people trying to access day care for their children.

Last but not least is a point the member raised. It is the issue around the attraction and retention of child care workers. The key to doing that centres around wages and working conditions. My colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, worked really hard to bring forward amendments to the bill to address this critical issue.

My question for the member is this. Would he agree that, in order to attract and retain quality child care workers, we must ensure fair, livable wages as well as good working conditions for them?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. Indeed, my colleagues on the committee informed me that they put forward these amendments to make sure there were caveats built into the system for the adjustments to labour that we talked about.

Colleagues should think about it from a supply and demand perspective. If there is no incentive to get into this business, for example through the provision of a service that is going to make sense for people, we are not going to have people entering it as a career or setting up a day care. That is why we are trying to expand access. It is to make sure it is available to all people and that the impetus is there, that motivation, to provide the labour and allow people to make a choice about what labour they are going to have so they see themselves fulfilling this career for the rest of their lives. That has to be part of this, because otherwise we are just putting words on paper one more time. Let us get something executable.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. I appreciated his economic, financial and, frankly, social analyses.

Both he and I represent urban ridings. One of the things I think we both face is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to stop the member there for a second. There seems to be a sound coming through. I am not sure if the hon. member has something on a screen or a phone. Maybe we could try again.

The hon. member for Spadina—Fort York.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. I appreciated his economic and social analyses.

Both he and I represent urban ridings, and, like him, I have heard the challenges around the labour shortage. There is no point in affordable, high-quality child care if there are no spots available. I would appreciate if you could expand on the labour workforce strategy, or perhaps the lack thereof.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The sound is still there whenever we open mikes, so maybe we will have somebody check that out, because it will be problematic for the interpreters.

Also, I want to remind the hon. member that he is to address all questions and comments through the Chair, not directly to members.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre can give a brief answer.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question. I have always been impressed with his economic analysis of these matters. He and I share a view on this about how we motivate people in society to get into where the gaps are. There has to be an incentive, which we talked about, from both a labour perspective and a space perspective. In the day care deserts, we have to make sure there is a motivation to provide that. That is why it is not only the not-for-profits and the public that are going to work here. It will have to be available for all the people who want to provide these spaces in the established day care deserts. There is a reason they are being served by other people right now, and they are jammed, so let us get those impetuses out of the way, those hurdles cleared and those bottlenecks broken. Let us get on with it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise in this late evening to once again speak about some incredibly important work to ensure that all families in Canada have access to affordable child care.

First, I want to acknowledge the work of so many in our communities who have tirelessly worked to ensure the successes and movement that we are seeing today in the right direction to provide child care.

The NDP has been carrying this torch for generations, fighting alongside families, local organizations, unions and members of our communities to bring forward legislation that finally ensures families have access to the care they need. As a matter of fact, in the 40th Parliament, prior to me having the honour of being an elected member of Parliament, NDP member of Parliament Olivia Chow introduced a child care bill. Following her, my current NDP colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe, put forward another bill on child care.

Now, in this 44th Parliament, my NDP colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, has been working tirelessly to apply the pressure needed to see movement by the government. After years and years of consecutive Liberal and Conservative government inaction, the NDP was able to push the Liberals to commit. Now we need to see the delivery for all across Canada.

In order to move forward for families that have been waiting for too long, we need to see the bill before us move forward and not continue to see delays. I fail to understand, which I was asking about earlier in questions, how hours of debate tonight about the short title of the bill, and not continuing on the debate at third reading, will help us move in the necessary direction. It is disheartening to say the least.

Regardless, I take delays like this quite personally. I am a single parent of two, one now an adult and the other a teenager. I am not quite sure how that happened so quickly. I worked multiple jobs and returned to school as a mature student to build a better future for my family.

One ongoing barrier I experienced was a lack of affordable, accessible child care. Even with the provincial subsidies at the time, many of the options remaining for my children were still unaffordable. To make matters worse, there were multiple examples where I had to choose subpar child care, which is often less reliable, and in more than one instance had outright horrendous child care options. The stresses surrounding child care meant that my children and I struggled. My hard-earned but low income directly impacted the quality of child care made available to my children.

All children need access to quality child care. Children living in low-income families should not be the exception to this rule. All I wanted, which is what everyone wants for their children, was to have the peace of mind that my children would be cared for. I could not afford to stay home with my children and I could not afford for them to go to child care. What an impossible situation this is for anyone to be in.

Unfortunately, these struggles continue to be felt by those raising children today. Constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith continue to reach out, struggling to find quality child care and affordable child care. I am disheartened to have to share with these constituents that we are seeing delays in moving this bill forward to ensure that $10-a-day child care is made a reality.

However, none of this will be made possible without a workforce strategy. Child care workers are specialized professionals in our communities. Many undertake four-year bachelor's degrees, for example, in child and youth care. In order to earn this bachelor's degree, students pay for unaffordable tuition fees, as well as the high cost of books and supplies. Despite taking four years away from the workforce to invest in a quality education and to develop the skills required to contribute endlessly to our communities and the future of our children, these qualified workers are offered positions that pay meagre wages. I am perplexed how those who provide the care for our children, those who shape future generations, would be so undervalued and disrespected in their field.

This is another example where we see a vital field of work overrepresented by women being severely underpaid. As a matter of fact, of those who work in the child care profession, 98% are women and one-third are immigrants or non-permanent residents. Also, those working in the field are more likely than workers in all other occupations to be racialized.

As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre so eloquently said, “This is not...a worker shortage; it is a wage shortage. It is a respect shortage.” Those who choose the honourable profession of caring for our children need to be paid fairly to do so, to have access to a safe working environment and to know they will have access to a retirement income and medical benefits. Where is the incentive for individuals who enter the field of child care if they cannot be assured, at the very least, that a livable income will be provided? We will never see any increases to the workforce under these conditions. We need to see the government follow through with a clear strategy to ensure an increase of those working in child care. Without them, we will never see improvements for generations to come.

Prior to the pandemic, child care was already the second-biggest expense for families after housing, and many people caring for children were forced to delay their return to work because they could not find or afford child care. Before COVID, there were only enough licensed child care spaces for one in four children under six. With COVID-19, women's participation in the workforce dropped to its lowest point in 30 years. This staggering, unacceptable fact demonstrated the dire need for child care. Businesses, child care experts and economists agree that people caring for children cannot go back to work without safe, reliable and affordable child care.

Accessible and affordable child care is also an issue of gender equity. Women are more likely to be caring for children and are therefore more impacted when quality care is not made available. Everyone should have the right to decide what is best for their families, and child care is an essential piece in providing those options.

This bill is not only about the care of children today. It is setting children up for success moving forward. We know that when children receive quality care, they are better set up for success once they enter school. These early years are vital to the future of children and child care, and for many, they are key in early learning and child care.

Child care needs to not end once a child enters school, as we all know. There are endless examples where child care remains necessary once a child enters school, like before and after school and during school breaks. In my prior role as a school board trustee for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, my fellow trustees and I worked to incorporate and embed child care opportunities, in partnership with the Province of B.C., directly into the existing public school system, and we have seen successes of exactly this in Nanaimo—Ladysmith public schools as a result.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the incredible work and advocacy of the Canadian Union of Public Employees to make possible affordable public child care, such as what we are seeing in Nanaimo Ladysmith. It makes so much sense to provide child care where the children already are, operated in-house by already qualified staff, with fewer transitions and improved care for children.

Quality care must uphold human rights, including the rights of indigenous people. This is why it was essential that this bill include the amendment to uphold the right of indigenous people to free, prior and informed consent on matters that pertain to their children. We all know the disgraceful history of residential schools, where children were kidnapped from their parents, without consent, as well as the continued abuses against indigenous families in the sixties scoop. Now we see more indigenous children in care than there were at the height of the residential school history. If we are to reconcile in this country, we must acknowledge this truth while respecting the rights of indigenous people, including the rights of indigenous families and children.

I have said this before in this House, and I will continue to say it: We need to see public money going into public services. We need to listen to experts in the field, who reiterate that public child care is the best way forward, with affordable, high-quality and accessible child care for families who need it. We also know that public child care provides better wages and working conditions for staff.

My hope is that we can stop the delays on getting this bill to move forward, so that we can see affordable child care made accessible for everyone across Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to reiterate that there is no holdup. These agreements are already signed with provinces and territories.

What is important now is a lot of what the member has brought up. There is no labour strategy, something that we put forward in committee. It was actually voted down by the NDP and the Liberals. We know how important this is.

The other issue that I know the NDP cares deeply about, and I support, is those who are less fortunate, those who are living in poverty. This bill has been criticized by many people for having a Matthew effect. The Matthew effect is basically when the government intervenes by increasing public provision, but this ends up advantaging higher-income rather than lower-income groups.

Does the member feel that the bill needs to be strengthened to ensure that those living below poverty also have access to child care?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her work in this area. I know she has been working hard in this area as well.

I am happy to answer questions around access to quality child care and income not being a barrier to accessing that child care. This is exactly the root of why my NDP colleagues and I have been pushing for publicly funded child care. We know that, through publicly funded child care, we see increases in access to child care and better working conditions for those who are working in the field. Ultimately, this helps to ensure that we have equitable opportunities for all children, regardless of income.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with great interest. I think sharing stories about our own experiences, particularly those of us who have been single mothers, is very valuable.

Comparing her situation with mine, I was a single mom in Quebec, where I had access to quality low-cost day care. This permitted me to go back to school and improve my situation. It was excellent-quality, publicly funded day care. Could my colleague comment on why she had such a difficult experience? Why did her province not have a similar system?

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

Madam Speaker, I am always happy to hear from other parents and women who have raised children or are raising children in this House. We definitely need to see more representation. I am happy to hear that the member had such a positive experience.

I think this really highlights the need for a national approach. We see differences across Canada in what is being made available to families. Quite frankly, the experience of many is that they are not being provided with the options at the cost that is required for them to access the care they need.

If we saw the federal leadership in place with the investment required, all provinces and territories would be better able to provide the care options that meet families' needs across the country.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith brought back to mind something that my colleagues in this place might find incredible.

In 1992, when I was a single mom making $24,000 a year as a self-employed contractor and executive director of Sierra Club Canada, I hired a babysitting firm. I was able to hire a caregiver for $1,000 a month. Since she made only $1,000 a month, she had 100% subsidized child care for her children while she looked after my daughter. None of it made any sense to me.

I would like to see this legislation through. I would like to make sure that every child in this country has access to high-quality early childhood education and learning and child care.

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

Madam Speaker, I so agree with the comments that were made by the member. It really speaks to the fact that we need to be working with all those who are invested in this important work, including unions, non-profits, our public schools and the provinces. We all need to be on board with this work to move forward. I really reflect on the important work to integrate child care within the existing schools that is happening in my province of British Columbia, alongside school districts. This is essential to ensure that children have the care that they need before and after.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this place and contribute to this debate on Bill C-35.

The Liberals claim that their goal with Bill C-35 is to provide affordable child care to Canadians. However, what is the point of creating a system of so-called affordable child care if Canadians cannot access it? Since this bill was introduced, we have heard from many individuals, many stakeholders, that the major issue with child care is that Canadians do not have access to it. This bill does nothing to address the issue of accessibility. It is disappointing to families across Canada that, despite the two to three decades of planning to nationalize child care, the government has come up with such a flawed piece of legislation that will do nothing to address the real issues that Canadian families are facing.

My home province of Saskatchewan, for example, has very few child care spaces. Only 17.8% of children from zero to five years of age have access to full-day or part-time child care spaces. It gets even worse when we include children from the ages of six to 12, as only 10% have access to full-day or part-time day care spaces. This bill will not create spaces to address this shortage. As a mom and a grandmother of 11, I understand the importance of having access to quality day care.

While this could have been an opportunity for the government to put forward thoughtful measures to help Canadian families get access to quality child care, the Liberals have failed to do this. Perhaps that is the issue when the elites believe they understand the problems that average Canadians face.

This bill was introduced as a part of the confidence and supply agreement, which sees the New Democrats support the Liberal minority government through to 2025. Despite the ongoing issues plaguing the government, the New Democrats have declared that they will stick by the government through thick and thin, while claiming to hold it to account. It is as though someone were telling people to put out a fire while simultaneously pouring gasoline on it. The bill was a priority for the confidence and supply deal, and it continues the government's culture of mediocrity and ineptitude. If the government had bothered to speak with average Canadian families about child care, again, it would know that the biggest issue is accessibility. We could make child care free, but if people cannot access it, it might as well not exist.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees currently reports that “in many communities there is only one childcare space available for every three children who need it, and waitlists are long.” The lack of spaces in child care is underscored by labour shortages, which we have heard about, and staff burnout. Many child care facilities do not even have enough employees to fully staff existing child care centres, let alone new spaces.

Government estimates also suggest that, by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early childhood workers. We also found, through my colleagues’ work at committee, that the government and its NDP allies are not really interested in helping families to access these child care spaces. At committee, Conservatives introduced an amendment to include all types of child care to ensure that the program was inclusive and reflected parental choice, not political ideology. Of course, this was defeated by the Liberal-NDP coalition as it sought to force an Ottawa-knows-best solution on Canadian families across the country.

Another Conservative amendment sought to amend the national child care council to have representatives from private, home-based providers alongside public and not-for-profit providers. This was supported by testimony from Julie Bisnath, program coordinator for the Child Care Providers Resource Network, who stated, “Championing home child care as a central part of CWELCC would increase access to a diverse array of child care options.”

Despite being a common-sense amendment to address one of the major issues regarding child care in this country, the Liberals and NDP voted it down. One is left to believe that they are intent on imposing their views on Canadians instead of allowing Canadians to live freely and make their own choices for their child care needs.

It seems to me that we may be seeing a pattern here that the NDP-Liberal coalition is not interested in actually addressing the labour shortage, which is the biggest hurdle, as I have already stated, to providing more child care spots to Canadians.

There was another amendment put forward by Conservatives that would directly address the labour shortage. This amendment sought to amend the function of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care and includes supporting the recruitment and retention of a well-qualified workforce and conducting regular engagement. It includes a specific mandate calling for maintaining and understanding available child care spaces, the numbers on wait-lists and the progress made to reduce wait-lists for families. It makes sense. Additionally, this amendment would have required the council to provide an annual report on its progress. That also makes sense if one is serious about addressing the real issues.

Another Conservative amendment sought to amend the reporting clause of the bill to include the Minister of Labour. What a novel idea when looking at addressing labour shortages to include the Minister of Labour in the annual reporting, and that the annual reporting must include a national labour strategy to recruit and retain a qualified early childhood education workforce. This supports witness testimony, which was again heard at committee during the study on the importance of a strong national labour strategy dictating the success of a national child care framework.

Bea Bruske, President of the Canadian Labour Congress, stated, “That would absolutely be an amendment we would support because we know that we need a robust workforce strategy to make sure that we can address the recruitment and retention issues in the sector.”

The Coalition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia, in a briefing note, wrote, “We strongly recommend the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care must...provide an annual publicly available report to the Minister on the work of the Advisory Council in meeting the goals set out in the Act.”

Those two amendments, again, were both voted down by the Bloc, the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners. It is concerning that they may have voted against them just because they were brought forward by the Conservative members on the committee or it could be that the NDP members have forgotten that they are supposed to be holding the Liberal government to account to put forward meaningful and effective legislation. Whatever the reason, voting down these common-sense amendments shows how out of touch their Liberal coalition partners are. Canadians will be stuck on wait-lists for child care for years, if they ever get a spot at all.

Ontario’s Financial Accountability Office projects that by 2026 there will be 602,000 children under six whose families will want a $10-a-day care program and the province will only be able to accommodate 375,000 of them, leaving 227,000, or 38%, without access.

For a government that claims to be feminist, it is not considering the significant impacts that its policies are having on women with young children. Families are diverse and have different needs depending on their circumstances and a rigid, Ottawa-knows-best approach is not going to help them. The lack of spots will have an effect on women in the workforce as they will tend to be the primary caretakers if there are no available child care spots.

This bill does not address the major issues in the child care system that Canadian families are facing across this country and certainly not in my province. Despite Conservative efforts to improve the bill, it is obvious the NDP-Liberal coalition is not interested in seriously addressing these major issues.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saskatchewan for her comments tonight. However, I would encourage her to actually read what is available in the public data record on agreements online. Her own province, in 2022, created 1,800 new spaces and 409 new licensed child care spaces in 41 communities. What was a child care desert continues to be an issue, but without this work, without these agreements, those spaces would not have existed. Even more so, by the end of 2023, there will be 4,000 new spaces in 31 urban and rural communities.

The member talked about inclusion. The Conservatives seem to be redefining “inclusion”, but inclusion is very clear. It is about who receives care: those with vulnerabilities, children with disabilities and so on. However, should taxpayer dollars be paying for private entrepreneurship? I do not think so from the public purse. I would like to know, if those issues are addressed, as I have clearly explained, will the Conservatives support Bill C-35?

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

Madam Speaker, it is an interesting question: if those issues are addressed. However, they are not. The bill does not address the very issues that many other members in the House have highlighted: affordability, accessibility and a labour strategy to ensure that we have a robust workforce to provide the services that Canadian families are calling for.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, many members of the Conservative Party have stood up tonight, despite the fact that this is simply a debate on the title, to talk about affordability for Canadians. However, one of the biggest challenges I have is that we see time and time again Conservatives voting against those things that would make life more affordable.

I am wondering if the member could speak a little bit about the fact that things like dental care make life affordable for Canadians and things like support for housing make things affordable for Canadians. Could the member talk about those things that would make things more affordable for Canadians and perhaps tell us, as much as she says that she likes child care and that she believes in child care, why she would not want the bill to go forward even in a flawed form knowing that it would provide child care to so many Canadian families?

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

Madam Speaker, it is not that I like child care. I mean, that is diminishing the importance of child care to say “Great, she likes child care.” Child care is important.

As a mom and a grandmother, I had to access child care. I have children who have to access child care, and when they are getting close to their maternity leave being finished, there is anxiety created, because they do not know where they are going to find child care so that they can go back to work to provide for their families.

Under this government's policy, with the support of the NDP, Canadians are struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table. Having to worry about access to child care is not something that we should be supporting by introducing a bill that would not address accessibility, affordability or a labour strategy.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked a lot about accessibility, and that is very important. I represent a very large rural riding, and there are folks there who require child care for their children as well. They have been creative and found solutions through family, friends and community members, but they are not licensed day cares and so they would get punished by this government with this policy by not getting $10-a-day child care. I am wondering if my colleague thinks that is fair.

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

Madam Speaker, families across Canada are in need of flexibility when it comes to child care. They will have different needs depending on their circumstances, particularly families, as he has pointed out, who have needs outside of standard hours of operation.

My suggestion is that this government go back and take a look at this legislation that it has introduced, review the testimony that its members have heard, and really seek to address the issues that families all across this country have highlighted to be inherent with this piece of legislation.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to rise in this House to speak about Bill C-35. In fact, what we have been discussing today, with very lively debate, is an act representing early learning and child care in Canada. What we have heard in this debate has a lot to do with affordability, and the Liberals and New Democrats have been talking about this a lot. I find it interesting that, despite child care being promised since about the 1990s, the Liberals have finally made a move on it, driven in large part by the affordability crisis that is hitting Canada.

We have first-time homebuyers who are having a very difficult time getting into the housing market, buying a home and starting a family and starting that Canadian dream. We have those who maybe have a house who are struggling to eat. We see that food bank usage is up pretty much everywhere in this country. One alarming rate that was in the news not too long ago was that first-time food bank usage was up, and that is a very startling statistic, when we think about those going to the food bank for the very first time. That is the desperation that is being felt across Canada.

Now we are discussing a child care bill that really would not do anything with affordability. I will kind of explain why I believe that is and articulate, and maybe build on, some of the arguments that were made here tonight in our speeches.

We still have the issue of the labour shortage in the child care spaces, so that is the one part of this very important puzzle that really is not addressed in the bill, and we see that labour shortage is starting to affect many other sectors of our economy. It can be in health care, child care and pretty much anywhere. I think anywhere an employer is, they are probably looking for workers. We need to address that, and it is not being addressed.

We also are looking at the ability to just access spaces that are there. In the bill, priority would go to the public and not-for-profit spaces. There is no room for those private sector spaces that are being created to help alleviate the crises, both affordability and access to spaces. Of course, if we had more choice of public, not-for-profit and for-profit in a competitive marketplace, we would actually find more options. When we have more options we have better choices to make, because competition makes everything better. We would get a better product at a better price with a better service. Everyone tries to improve with that model.

We can even go a bit further with this, in that child care spaces in a competitive market could be flexible to the very unique situations Canadians find themselves living in. Work schedules are not always nine to five. We have shift workers, students and a myriad of challenges that parents have to juggle with, and when we really limit the choices for parents, they basically get what they are given. Whether they like it and whether it works for them, it does not matter, whereas if there are more options and more choice, maybe there would be a day care, and I am sure there are many, that would adjust to the needs of very flexible schedules.

When there is abundance, there is peace. When there is abundance there is choice. The more abundance there is in any society, the happier the population. The less choice there is, the grumpier the population.

When we have the contracting of the economy and we have a space where there are shortages, we always see conflict, and that is why I think we raise this quite often. In all our speeches that I have been listening to tonight, the same points get made. We are hearing from our constituents these exact concerns over and over again, and once the government gets involved in providing a service, other competitors find themselves at a disadvantage. They have to compete against a subsidized environment, and then we start to phase out those additional spaces that are provided by the private sector, leaving only the government option, which as I mentioned just a few moments ago, is rarely flexible and often does not properly service rural communities.

Do not get me wrong. There are lots of providers in my community, and many others across the country, who are absolutely doing the best they can. I have yet to meet a child care professional who does not give their all each and every day. They are some of the best people I have ever met, and they do so because they love their community, they love their job and they want to see young ones grow up and be the best they can be. However, if people cannot access the child care spaces, it is hard to get that learning going.

It has to also be flexible. When the government oversees this level of control where only a certain selected few are getting funded, then basically it is just a proxy of government.

Money will be spent. Results will not be achieved like they could be. When we have a competitive market, we get rapid innovation. Let us think about what has been achieved over our lifetimes and those before ours and the economic prosperity that has been achieved. Things that were once only accessible to the very rich have become very affordable to the vast majority of Canadians, and that is a good thing. That is a great thing. We look back to when people used to wash their clothes by hand. Now, I believe pretty much everyone has a washer and dryer. That is a good thing because entrepreneurs, inventors and creators started to make the things that, at one time, only the rich had and made them affordable for the vast majority of people.

The same can be said for child care. When we have different ideas and different people doing different things, going back to abundance, and abundance equals peace, we can start to have a myriad of differences in the child care space. Again, that is a very good thing.

However, when the government continues to pick winners or losers in the marketplace, we get slower innovation. We see that in the energy sector and we see that in growing sectors with the government picking winners and losers in industries and expecting a better result.

I do not think there is any Canadian who is very happy with the telecom industry. There is no competition in the telecom industry. We sometimes like to pretend there is, but there really is not. People basically get what they are given, whether they like it or not. How is that working out for Canadians? We have some of the highest rates anywhere in the world. Again, when we talk about child care, it needs to include everything.

We talk about our energy industry. The government is contracting that. It has been punishing our oil and gas sector for years, and our mining industry. Forestry is hurting. The government is contracting the energy market, leaving what is available to obviously go up in price. One way it could lower energy costs is to strip away the tax. The other is to add supply. When we add supply to anything, it lowers the price. That is including food and day care too.

Since I am from Ontario, I will read this statistic out here by Ontario's Financial Accountability Office. It projects that by 2026, which is not too far away, there will be 602,000 children under six whose families will want $10-a-day day care, and the province will only be able to accommodate 375,000 of them, leaving about 38% without access. This is a major issue. Going back to what I first mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the labour part of this conversation is left out of this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, we seem to have delved into the energy sector when we are supposed to be talking about child care.

Nevertheless, I would like to remind the member that the bill reinforces the agreements. The Premier of Ontario signed their agreement. He was the last one to sign, and since signing that agreement, 33 new child care spaces have been created. It is one of the provinces that actively grandfathered in private child care operators and continues to work with them to ensure that there is growth, choice and flexibility within the province.

I do not seem to understand how we have gone from a bill that is aspirational to ensuring that we continue with this, considering the Conservatives ripped up the previous agreements from this time. Now that we are here, there are agreements and Bill C-35 is here, will the Conservatives support Bill C-35?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, just to answer the member opposite's first part, I was talking about the energy sector. My point was that, when we have abundance, that equals peace. When we have excess in spaces, we are able to lower the price and provide a range of options. When one includes public and not-for-profit as well as, yes, for-profit day care centres, it gives Canadians choice. It gives them the opportunity to go with what works for them.

Of course, we have students with flexible schedules. We have shift workers. Unfortunately, the government plan does not address that.

There is also this report here that is talking about child care deserts in Canada. It is affecting nearly 50% of younger children. It is a very concerning report talking about the lack of spaces in this country.

There was a part of my speech during which I talked about the labour part of it. That is not addressed in this legislation. I would like to see the Liberals start to focus on the whole range and take into account what we have been saying here tonight.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was just reading a report done by CCPA called The Harper Record. It says:

Giving financial incentives to businesses to create spaces has been tried before and failed. It was such bad policy that even members of the minister's hand-picked advisory group raised objections and was roundly criticized when the government's policy folks conducted cross-country consultations on how it could be made to work.

The report goes on to say, “The fallout from Harper's child care policy will be felt for years to come. Federal transfers specifically designated for early learning and child care were reduced by almost 37% in 2007-08...In 2006, only 19.3% of children five and under had access to...child care”.

The NDP and my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, had pushed the government and drove the agenda to get $10-a-day child care nationally. This bill before us would address some elements of accountability with reporting, so we can have—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I do not think the hon. member was listening to my speech. I was actually talking about how we add to the supply, and that adding is always better than subtracting.

If I heard correctly, I am pretty sure that the member from Vancouver said that she is against giving public money to companies. Does that mean she is against the billions given to Volkswagen? Do I understand that correctly, or is it just for those that the member from the NDP agrees with?

When we are talking about this child care issue, we want to see more spaces rather than fewer. That means more choice for parents because more selection and more choice equals a better product, service and price.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to join my voice to the debate tonight in speaking to this important bill, but first I want to take a moment to thank all the first responders and firefighters who are working so hard to keep people safe. I especially want to give a big thanks to all the volunteers who have opened up their hearts and homes, and all of the people who are sharing their time, talent and treasure to make all of those who have been displaced by fire feel welcome.

To get to the matter at hand, as people have probably realized, families look different across our country and across so many different spaces and places. This is such a challenging spot because there is not enough child care. While this bill has some very lofty goals in it, it has not necessarily created the child care spaces, which has created some unique challenges.

Coming from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, I have had the opportunity to speak to a number of families that have a different type of work environment than many. I have had the opportunity to meet a lot of shift workers, a lot of moms who are nurses while the dad is a firefighter, or they both work up in the oil sands in a variety of spaces and have shifts that cross every so often.

One of the biggest pieces I heard from that was that the standard Monday to Friday, nine-to-five child care just does not fit their families. They need child care three overnights a week, or they need child care six days a month because, between their shifts and their spouse's shifts, they can mostly be home with the kids, but the rigidity of the Monday to Friday, nine-to-five, Ottawa-knows-best child care, which works well in some locations, does not work well in all locations.

This is part of the problem. In the community of Cold Lake, I get to chat with so many amazing Armed Forces members who serve our country so diligently, going on deployments all around Canada and the world, not only protecting us but also standing up as part of our NATO allies and protecting peace in the world. That Monday to Friday, nine-to-five child care especially does not work for them. It makes it that much more difficult. I was chatting with one woman just last week, and she was explaining to me how they had delayed having a family, not because they could not afford it but because they were not sure how they would physically make it work, as both she and her husband serve. They were asking how they would piece this together to do something when the availability is not there.

In the past, many parents and families would have relied on perhaps a nanny or a live-in caregiver of some sort, but because of the extensive delays in immigration, that path is not as available or accessible as it had been in the past.

That is one of the overwhelming pieces I have heard in my role as the member of Parliament for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. For a lot of parents who I chat with, a lot of my friends and people in my communities, their number one ask is for flexible child care. They want to see some innovation. They want to see something that serves their family unit, understanding that it looks a lot different than perhaps the average or what used to be.

This does not seem to be addressed in this bill. I think this is part of the problem because the Liberals are solving a problem for what the average family might have looked like 30 years ago. That is not what today's families necessarily look like. That is something that I think we can and should do better on.

I am participating virtually, and I am addressing this chamber for the first time in over a month because I had a baby. The fact that we have flexibility in our Parliament to allow people to participate and still be full members, giving speeches, asking question, giving member's statements and participating in committees virtually, allows more women to be able to participate.

If we are going to continue allowing child care to just fit into this box and say that it has to be a certain way, that having a grandma look after her grandkids or having a trusted neighbour fill that role cannot be part of someone's solution, then I do not think that necessarily gets to the space.

While I was trying to prepare for this speech, I decided to call some child care operators I know. One of the child care operators I called is a friend of mine. Her name is Kyla Penner, and she owns KPSquared here in Fort McMurray. KPSquared is an amazing child care facility that has innovative child care, and it is actually expanding to have 24-hour child care. One of the coolest pieces about its child care model is that it really focuses on the family unit. It has the availability for parents to select when they need the child care. If they only need six days a month, they can pick those six days a month. If they need overnight care, very soon, they will be able to pick overnight care. This gives flexibility to a lot of families, and it is something that works for a lot of families.

Before the child care deal came into place, KPSquared was very sought after in our community, and it had a wait-list of approximately 300 people. Today, I asked Kyla how many people were on the wait-list. She said over 625, but she would need to look to get a more precise number than that. It is not access to child care if the length of the wait-list is 625 people. I talk to so many parents, and I see so many Facebook and Internet forums that talk about the fact that the reality is this: Parents are going and putting their kids on every single wait-list they can possibly find because they just need child care, and they have been promised it.

They have been told that, somehow, there is $10 child care, but we have not actually put the infrastructure into place to make this work. We have not spent the time talking to parents or child care providers to hear where some of those bottlenecks are. The bottlenecks that I have heard about are the fact that we do not have enough early childhood educators to be able to meet the demands so that we can have the staffing. We do not have enough people in those positions, and we do not have a system or a plan in place on how to educate people enough to be able to meet those needs. We also have not figured out that not all parents pick child care based on price. A lot of them pick child care based on flexibility, the proximity to work, how convenient it is for the family unit, or religious or linguistic requirements.

I have heard from many families who picked one child care space over another because they valued being able to have their children in a francophone day care, because that was very important to their family. This is all important. It is something we should value. We should be trying to see how we can expand to let a grandmother assist.

I heard the minister say earlier that it is a lot of work and that grandparents should not be expected to do that. I am not saying that grandparents should be expected to do it. That is not an option in my family. Both my parents are gone. My dad passed away this last year and my mom a dozen years ago, so that is not even an option. However, I have friends whose parents get their joy from being the primary provider of care for their grandchildren. They retired early specifically to be able to make that work for their family. For those families who have that as an option, I do not understand why we would not be supporting that.

That is going to be part of how we get enough spaces, so that the families who do not have that as an option, or do not want to use that for a variety of very good reasons, have the space available to them. What I am saying is that families look different. I am going to continue stressing this, because I think it is so important.

We need flexibility in our child care. We need innovation. We need more people like Kyla and KPSquared, because that is how we are going to solve this problem, not by creating an Ottawa-knows-best, one-size-fits-all solution.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to say what a joy it is to see our colleague again. I congratulate her on the birth of her son. I know it was earlier than expected. It is a lovely thing to be joined this evening by one of the newest babies in this Parliament family.

I want to say, with all respect, that Bill C-35 does not require that anybody give up on such options as having family members look after their babies. It just makes an opportunity available across Canada to have affordable child care. It does not demand that people accept it.

Does she have any thoughts on that?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to participate and see this innovation in this place.

No, it does not actually explicitly say that we cannot have that as an option. Some of the families I have talked to are paying their parents because they retired early. If they could have some funds to offset that cost and have the same amount of resourcing available to them, it would make a big difference when it comes to the feasibility of this. However, this is the part where the bill does not allow for enough innovation to allow families to have the space to make the choices that are best for them.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on her new family addition.

I have been talking a lot about workers. We are talking about a crisis, a child care desert, which came from the CCPA. It was very clear about what this was about. It did not say to privatize day care and put more money into private spaces. It said that we have a worker shortage, and the way to deal with it is to pay fair wages and benefits and ensure that workers have retirement savings. We know that low wages in the child care sector are gendered. We know that 98% of employees are women.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague would agree that in order to ensure more spaces, we have to develop a very clear workforce strategy that puts the rights of workers at the centre.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the interesting and amazing things I found when I was chatting with Kyla from KPSquared was that it has a really high retention rate when it comes to child care workers. Part of that is because it pays better than average. However, that is a decision KPSquared made for business reasons, and it is seeing a lot of success from that.

Something we see when we empower people to make choices is that good decisions can be made. We absolutely have to support this industry, and we have to find ways of making sure that we are not leaving people behind. However, I do not think an Ottawa-knows-best strategy for this is necessarily going to get us that solution. I think we need to empower women so that we can see more women in these positions of power making these decisions.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her new arrival. We corresponded a bit by email, but I am happy to see her on the screen and joining us in the House.

I would like to ask my colleague about the Alberta agreement, since she is from Alberta. It provided for an additional grant for operating flexible overnight child care, which is exactly what the member alluded to in terms of flexibility. In light of her comment about Ottawa knowing best, this was a case where the province decided what was best and worked with Ottawa to make that happen.

Is it really an Ottawa-knows-best priority? It seems to be driven by the agreements themselves, and the bill would simply be a framework to reinforce our commitment to child care going forward.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake can give a brief answer.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a very complicated question to give a brief answer to.

Effectively, this was something the Government of Alberta had to fight very hard with the federal government in order to get done, even though it was absolutely in the best interests of Alberta families. However, I do not think it is unique to Alberta families. It could probably help families to have innovative, overnight child care available from coast to coast to coast. Frankly, the fact that it is restricted and only allowed in Alberta is a problem, and I want to see that fixed.

Why are we pitting provinces against each other? That is exactly what the federal government chose to do, because it decided that it knew best and it was going to do this. Frankly, I do not think that is going to serve all the families across the country well.

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

Madam Speaker, I am speaking today about Bill C-35. The bill is called “an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada”. I will spend most of my time speaking about children, but I want to start with a few words about this bill.

This bill would do absolutely nothing for early learning and child care. The government has, in fact, already implemented its child care policies. Bill C-35 comes after the fact. The bill contains statements of principles and a declaration, but nothing would be changed legally or in terms of funding by putting these generic statements of opinion into legislation. Bill C-35 is a bill that simply states the government's views with respect to its own approach to child care. The bill itself would have no material impact on families and no material impact on the operations of the federal government, save for one thing. The one material change that would be brought about by this act is the establishment of a child care advisory council. This council would be paid and would consist of 10 to 18 members, with all members appointed by the government. Although the legislation says the council should reflect the diversity of Canada, it does not define what that means, and it certainly says anything about this council reflecting a diversity of opinion or experience. This council would not be elected and would thus have no democratic legitimacy. It would simply be a tool for the minister to appoint her friends, who would receive government largesse and give her advice, which would no doubt be consistent with her pre-existing opinions.

Instead of hiring and paying a council of the minister's good friends to reaffirm the things the government already believes, perhaps it should send these 10 to 18 people out to offer child care services to the many, many parents who still do not have access under its plan. That would be a much better use of resources than yet another Liberal advisory council.

On the substance of the child care issue itself, this is a subject that is deeply personal for me. I have five children, who range in age from 14 months to 10 years. Ten years ago, when Gianna was born, when I first met my daughter, I remember three overwhelming impressions. First, I have never felt the complete onset of love for another person so quickly. In most situations in life, love grows incrementally over time, but when one becomes a parent, a wall of love hits one in the face and overwhelms one completely. Second, I felt an overwhelming sense of responsibility. Bringing my daughter home, I was struck by the realization that this child had no other parents with whom we simply could drop her off when we got tired or did not know what to do. She was fully our responsibility, and for good. Third, as the weeks went on, I began to wonder what in the world I had done with all my free time before this child was born. Before having kids, I thought I was busy, but when she born, I realized I had had no understanding of what busy meant. Parenthood for me began with an overwhelming sense of love, responsibility and loss of time.

Children are expensive in terms of time and in terms of money. In a, sadly, too busy and too materialistic civilization, we count everything in terms of time and money, but these are not the things that really matter. It goes without saying that every minute and every dollar we have spent on our five beautiful children has been worth it. What, after all, could I possibly rather be doing? Children are amazing, and the measure of a good society is most fundamentally the degree to which it values and respects children, so, recognizing the immutable dignity and value of young children, the important question tonight is how a good society ought to provide for the care and education of children.

Parenthetically, it seems a lot of the government's discourse on child care starts from a different premise. When its members talk about child care, they start from what they think will be good for the economy or what they think would lead to increased workforce participation. These are fine things to talk about, but it seems to me to be starting at the wrong end. They always start by talking about what they think is good for adults instead of by asking what is good for children.

As I described, and as I think any parent will identify with, one naturally feels a deep and fierce unconditional love for one's children, which leads parents to want to sacrifice for whatever they think is best for their children. As such, I believe we should build systems of early learning and child care, and of education more generally, that always err on the side of deferring to parents and that leverage the deep, natural love parents have for their children. Do parents make mistakes? Absolutely. Parents get things wrong; I do especially, but in virtually all cases, we can count on parents to have a rectitude of intentions and a willingness to sacrifice for the sake of their children.

Many parents, myself included, choose to involve other people in the process of caring for their children. We involve grandparents, trusted friends and public and private institutions. There are very good reasons for parents to involve other people in the care of their children. Such care allows parents time to earn family income and to have necessary periods of rest, but it also exposes children to other people, experiences, ideas and role models.

I am not here to say what kind of child care or mix of approaches is best, but I would say that parents should be the ones making these decisions with sincere reference to their own consciences and with a love-driven evaluation of what is best for their children and their family. I trust parents to make these decisions. Therefore, I want to build a society and a child care model that allows parents to action the choices that they see are best for their children. If parents cannot access any external child care then we have limited the range of parental choice. If parents cannot afford to have one parent opt out of the workforce then we have also limited the range of parental choice. Right now we actually have both of these problems. We have parents feeling they need two incomes and not able to find desirable child care services.

We should be trying to build a society in which parents can freely make child care choices across the broadest range of options that reflect their own sincere evaluations without any kind of direct or subtle economic coercion to choose one option or another. Let us remove the child care gatekeepers and make it easier for parents to make the choices that they believe are right. A choice is not an end in and of itself but, given the diversity of children in families and the love that parents have for their children, letting parents make unfettered and uncoerced decisions is the best way to provide for the optimal outcomes for children.

While Conservatives have always championed choice in child care and have advocated different kinds of policies towards that end, Liberals have long preferred the one-size-fits-all model of state-subsidized and controlled traditional day care. Their approach has been to fund out-of-home day care centres, while regulating the fees that they can charge but, importantly, the Liberals have actually underfunded their own preferred model. The money cannot keep up with the big promises, even as out-of-control deficit spending already drives up inflation. Since the money cannot keep up with the big promises, we now have a situation in which some families have seen a short-term reduction in child care costs, but many families cannot access funded spaces and also, as a result of the regulated rates, many child care operators cannot afford to do the upkeep or expansion that is required.

Effectively, the government's approach has been to promise an increase in child care as a result of public funding, but instead they have pushed existing providers to lower prices without sufficient replacement funding and are thus, in the long term, undermining the operations of child care providers and threatening even the existing child care supply. The cost pressures that private child care operators are now facing will create a ticking time bomb in terms of actual child care availability as over time they will not be able to grow to keep up with demand and some will have to close.

Notably, there is no means testing associated with this Liberal program. While some parents are better off for now because they have access and some are worse off for now because they do not have access, we do not have any way of knowing if those who have the current access are the ones who needed the access the most.

This program is very poorly designed and even families who see themselves as benefiting in the short term should know that their child care access is at risk in the long term if operators are not able to access the capital that they need. A better alternative to this system would be to empower families and emphasize choice and flexibility without economic coercion, without funding some things and without using tax dollars from other families making different choices to fund families opting for traditional day care.

I just have one additional point I want to make before I wrap up.

Canada's child care policy should reflect the emerging technological reality. When my parents were raising us, my mother faced a sharp and essentially binary choice. Given the nature of her work, she could either continue to work at or near full time, or she could become a full-time stay-at-home parent. The binary of that choice was very harsh but, fortunately, today a smaller and smaller proportion of families face that kind of sharp binary. Technology has allowed an explosion in work-from-home and flexible work arrangements. It has also allowed the dramatic growth of so-called “momtrepreneurs”. My wife runs a web-based family medicine practice, offering appointments at the same odd hours that are most likely to be convenient for the women she serves. This would obviously have been unheard of a generation ago.

Workers and employers naturally have to assess the effectiveness of these kinds of flexible arrangements, but such arrangements do provide many obvious advantages, especially from the perspective of family life. People today still need child care, but they are more likely to want it in different places, at different times and in different ways, in accordance with evolving work relationships and their own considerations of the best interests of their children.

Work and work-life balance will continue to change, I believe, as technological developments continue and are deployed in different ways. The nine to five out-of-home child care model still serves some families, but an ever-declining proportion of the whole. That is why, more than ever, we need choice and flexibility today. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, built for a different technological reality, let us focus on empowering parents in 2023 to make choices that are best for their children and their families.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was most impressed by my colleague's presentation this evening and the number of choice areas that he spoke of.

Could he elaborate on the accountability and accessibility of the types of day care that we have today and how they could be improved?

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

Madam Speaker, the most important relationship of accountability for day care providers is to parents, in terms of whether they are meeting the needs of the families they are serving. If we are able to strengthen choice and flexibility and make sure parents have the resources they need, then we will have strong mechanisms of accountability in place.

As I said in my speech, we are seeing increasing diversity of the work-family balance that people are pursuing and that they are able to pursue because of all the technology. Let us put families in the driver's seat, recognizing that parents have love for their children and that they will make choices that fit with their situation and their kids.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the national advisory council, and the way he spoke about it, it was almost as though he was belittling it. The people who will be part of this advisory council are going to be the leading advocates for child care. To have them at the table is absolutely critical to make sure that we stay on the right path in ensuring that accessible, affordable, quality child care is made available to all Canadians.

My question for the member is this: If the experts should not be at the table, then who should? Should it be the Conservatives themselves?

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

Madam Speaker, that question clearly exposed the massive philosophical gulf between Conservatives and New Democrats. New Democrats think that child care decisions should be made by a 10- to 18-person council, with no democratic legitimacy, appointed by the minister. She has confidence the minister is going to choose the best experts.

I think the best experts are parents. We should let parents be their own child care advisory council for their own kids and make their own decisions. We should focus on empowering parents to make such decisions.

The member is now heckling me about the Harper plan. The Harper plan was fantastic. We gave money directly to parents, and parents had more resources—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. Members may have an opportunity to ask another question, so I would ask them to wait until such time.

I will ask the hon. member to finish his thought, so we can get another question in.

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

Madam Speaker, the universal child care benefit was so popular and so successful that the Liberals renamed it, claimed it was their idea and ran on it in every election that they have been remotely successful in.

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

Madam Speaker, that could not be further from the truth, because the reality is that the universal child care benefit that the Conservatives brought in gave cheques to millionaires. He talks about a one-size-fits-all approach. Nothing more clearly defines that than the universal child care benefit that literally gave the exact same amount of money to absolutely everybody, even those making half a million dollars a year. Of course, a Conservative would think that is a great program, because they are giving—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The ones who talked about the heckling are doing the heckling on this side now. I would ask members to please hold off. I know the hon. member is able to answer that question.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, of course a Conservative would get up and say that Stephen Harper's plan was by far the best, because it was, as they clap right now, the plan that literally sent cheques to millionaires.

Congratulations to the member opposite. He is absolutely right. That is a program that Stephen Harper would love, and I can definitely understand why the Conservative Party of Canada would get behind that program.

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

Madam Speaker, this member is from the party that gave millions to Loblaws to buy new refrigerators; the government loves sending money to the rich and famous.

The Conservative government introduced a universal child care benefit that was taxable, which meant that those who had higher incomes had to pay higher levels of tax on the money they got. We can quibble about the amounts or the proportions—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. We still have debate going back and forth, and it is not the time for that. I only recognized one individual, not two or three.

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

Why give it in the first place?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary knows better. He should be setting an example in the House.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, I must say that I am immensely enjoying this. I wonder if there is unanimous consent to extend my questions and comments for another five minutes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

The hon. parliamentary secretary has a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, the rules of the House do not allow, after six o'clock, I believe, for you to accept unanimous consent motions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

That is right, so the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has 12 seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, the members opposite may want to quibble about the proportions, but the point is that in 2015, when the Liberals formed government, their policy was to rename and adjust the proportions on a universal direct-to-parents subsidy. They took our policy because it was so popular.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate this evening on Bill C-35, the Canada early learning and child care act. I believe this issue is non-partisan because it concerns the most important element of our country: its children. I want to begin with a quick level set just so that we are all working from the same fact base.

This bill sets out the vision for a Canada-wide early learning and child care system and its commitment to ongoing collaborations with the provinces and indigenous peoples. The bill also delineates principles where public and not-for-profit entities are exclusively called out for a focus that guides the ongoing federal investments established by the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, as announced by members of the council on November 24, 2022. Additionally, the bill notes a realization of the right to benefit from child care services, as recognized in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and it contributes to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Canadian parents have long hoped for the availability of affordable, safe and stable child care. To that effect, the government brought in a national child care program that proposed to cut day care fees by an average of 50% by the end of 2022 and down to an average of $10 per day by 2026. Earlier this year, the minister stated, per the National Post, that Bill C-35 would “enshrine the principles that provinces and territories agreed to in funding agreements with Ottawa, including the pledge to cut parent fees and create more spaces.”

The government had promised to introduce the legislation by the end of 2022 in its supply and confidence agreement with the New Democratic Party. While I wholeheartedly agree that affordable quality child care is critical, it becomes moot if people cannot access it or it simply does not exist. I am concerned that Bill C-35 does not address accessibility, and I am concerned that the government is embarking on a promise that it will not be able to deliver on. Moreover, I am concerned that $10-a-day child care does little to address the serious, real child care labour shortages and the lack of child care spaces.

I suggest that Bill C-35 would be good for families who already have a child care space, but it would not help the thousands of families on child care wait-lists or the operators who do not have the staff or the infrastructure to offer more spaces. Additionally, the bill would increase the demand for child care but would not solve the problem of frontline burnout, staff shortages or access to more child care spaces. Simply put, there are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone operating new spaces. The Canadian Union of Public Employees has reported that “in many communities there is only one child care space available for every three children who need it, and waitlists are long.” That is a very sobering statistic.

Bill C-35 is also discriminatory. The majority of child care operators are women, yet the language and intent of this bill would prevent any growth in opportunities for privately run female child care operators. Also, how does the government expect more women to be able to go to work when there are no child care spots available and with wait-lists being years long?

The Financial Accountability Office of Ontario projects that by 2026, there will be 602,000 children under six whose families will want $10-a-day child care. However, the province will only be able to accommodate 375,000, leaving 227,000 children, or almost 40%, without access. That is two in five families that will be unable to access a spot. Government estimates also suggest that by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early childhood workers. This is another staggering statistic.

In British Columbia, 27% of child care centres turn away children due to lack of staff. One child care director, who oversees 13 child care programs with 350 spaces, stated, “In the past two years, we've had to close programs temporarily, whether it's for a day or two, or shorten hours for the week...in order to meet the licensing regulations”.

What then are worthy policy options to consider? I have three that I hope the government will seriously think about.

First, we must enable families of varying incomes to benefit. Based on the guiding principles of the child care framework, the government should support families that need child care most, based on their income, which in many cases is outlined within the individual provincial agreements. As well, the government should not be subsidizing child care of wealthy families that can already afford it.

Second, we should address the so-called “Matthew effect”. This is the increasing of the public provision that actually ends up advantaging higher-income families rather than lower-income groups. Even in the Quebec model, despite the gains in access, quality levels remain low when compared to the rest of Canada, with lower-income children in lower, rather than higher, quality settings.

Third, we should resolve the labour shortage. There are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone operate new spaces. I think that is a point that is important to reiterate. The reality is that we cannot create new child care spaces without staff. Not enough students enter the ECE programs across Canada to support any growth, and it remains difficult to retain staff without the financial incentive to work in the field. The reality is that in British Columbia in 2022, 45% of employers reported losing more staff than they could hire, and 27% reported turning away children because of a lack of staff.

The lack of child care spaces across our country is considerable. In Ontario, the percentage of zero to 12-year-olds for whom full-day or part-time day care space was available was 25%. For children zero to five years, it was 21.3%. There are also so-called “child care deserts”. This is where there is a lack of, or inequitable distribution of, child care spaces or an FSA, or postal code region, with a coverage rate of less than one third of the child population. According to a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report that was published in May 2023, 48% of children live in child care deserts, and the percentage of children living in child care deserts in Ontario is a considerable 53%.

What are the financial implications?

The 2021 budget pledged $30 billion over five years on a national child care system with an additional $9.2 billion annually coming after that period. The bill before us is about children, the future of our country, and we owe them a duty to ensure that we are getting the best value possible for them when it comes to our hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

In terms of stakeholder considerations, the major comments coming from child care providers suggest that Bill C-35, while a step in the right direction, is however too generic. The bill does not go into specifics. Additionally the private sector is cut out of the equation. There are also significant major labour shortages, with the majority of those who are working being overworked and understaffed. Bill C-35 would be good for families that already have a space but not for workers. The bill also would do nothing to address the long wait-lists for care across the country.

There are ways that Bill C-35 can be improved. In my province, the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario suggested the following four amendments. First was to make the bill more inclusive by deleting the reference to public and not-for-profit child care providers. Second was to consider an addition that provides some guidance to advisory council members about avoiding potential conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety arising from their involvement on the council. Third was that advisory council members may also require guidance about avoiding any paid consulting or volunteer work related to political parties or candidates during their term on the council. Finally, fourth was to add additional specificity surrounding the composition of the advisory council with respect to regional representation as well as representation by female entrepreneurs and those involved in the direct delivery of licensed child care services.

In conclusion, I hope that Canadian families needing reliable, safe and affordable child care are able to access a national system that provides a viable program for generations to come.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member and his critique of the bill.

I am wondering whether he is supportive of the bill or whether he will be voting against it. We know the Conservatives are very critical of it, but they will end up voting for it at the end of the day because they kind of have to and they know that. I am just curious whether this member would follow suit and still vote for it, despite his critique, or whether he will actually vote against the bill.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the focus of the question is not on how we can make the bill better and on the very many constructive recommendations we have heard this evening from Conservatives, NDP members and many individuals who spoke, but instead focuses on what is, unfortunately, so partisan.

This is about an issue that is about our future, which is children. I wish it were not a partisan line of attack that the member is trying to take here.

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

Madam Speaker, we have heard so much in the House this evening, and the member brought up so many great points. I know he could probably share some stories, and he did, about his own riding.

I have four reports here from the last few weeks about people ringing the bells, alarm bells, on this disaster. This is one from Matthew Lau, and it says, “Government-funded media details governed-funded child-care disaster”. He goes on to say, “Canada’s child care sector continues to go poorly. This should not surprise anyone familiar with Canada’s government-run health-care system (which is a shambles), Canada’s governmental management of agricultural output (which deliberately creates scarcity) or the track record of government economic control in general."

My question to the member would be, how can he trust the Liberals to manage child care when they cannot manage housing prices, affordability and public safety?

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleague for her question. She does raise valid points.

I want to use this opportunity to actually discuss the previous point of the member who had spoken before me, with regard to the council. I think one of the best indications of one's future actions is how they have conducted themselves in the past. I think about the housing council, which was immediately dismissed, along with recommendations by the housing minister, when it was no longer politically convenient and in alignment with what the government wanted.

That is a point of concern. I am worried about whether or not the Liberal government would truly listen to experts and their advice, and I think that is something many Canadians are worried about.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned, several times in his speech, the critical shortage of staff as one of the reasons people cannot access child care in Canada.

When I talk to child care advocates in my riding and elsewhere, what comes up again and again is that staff need to be properly paid, with decent wages. Many of these staff workers are well-trained early childhood educators, yet they are not paid wages that reflect that and they are not allowed time for professional development.

Would the member not say that this is something that should be part of this agreement: that staff must be properly paid in order to retain them and grow the industry?

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. I think one of the big gaps right now is the lack of a labour workforce strategy to ensure not only that there are staff to take care of the children, but also that they are compensated appropriately for the important work they do.

That is why one of the comments I focused on, in terms of my remarks, was that, given the labour shortage, the government should not cut out the private sector. I ask the government to please look again at section 7(1)(a) of Bill C-35 and ensure that it is inclusive of the private sector and the many female entrepreneurs operating in the child care sector.

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

Madam Speaker, we are here tonight discussing Bill C-35. I would like to recognize the member of Parliament for Peterborough—Kawartha and her team for all their work on this bill, as well as for reaching out to parents and child care providers across the country.

I would like to thank the Conservative members of the HUMA committee for their work on this legislation, as well as all those who have spoken tonight at this very late hour. I would also like to thank all those who provide child care to our children for the very honourable work they do.

To be very clear, the government went ahead and signed agreements with the provinces before developing legislation. This is quite unusual, as legislation would most often be developed by government and go through all the parliamentary processes to ensure that it is as good as it can be. There would be committee testimony from those affected, industry experts and perhaps academia. Everyday Canadians could write in submissions to be considered. There may be amendments that receive full debate at committee; the legislation then goes back to the House of Commons for debate again, and the whole process is repeated at the Senate.

However, for this child care funding legislation we are discussing here today, the government has done it backward. There has been no parliamentary involvement, no oversight and no debate. We have not heard from those affected, from experts or from the general public. The government developed policies away from Parliament and signed provincial agreements, which have been implemented.

This is happening at a time when the government is pouring fuel on the inflationary fire, making it much tougher for families. Inflation is high, interest rates are high, housing has doubled, and taxes have increased and will continue to increase. There is carbon tax 2 coming soon to a family near us, all because of policies of the government that are squeezing families. One in five people is skipping meals, and food bank usage is up over 30% in my community. I know this is very consistent across the country. Affordable, quality child care is critical, but if people cannot access it, it does not exist.

Bill C-35 does nothing to address accessibility. It is not a child care strategy. In British Columbia, a 2019 survey found that, in the greater Vancouver area, there were only enough child care spaces for 18.6% of children in the metro Vancouver region. In many rural regions in Canada, large child care centres do not exist at all or may be very far apart. This bill offers rural parents, for those who need it, no flexibility; it really does not offer them anything. It chooses to ignore the simple fact that low-cost child care is not possible if child care resources are not accessible to begin with.

I spoke to many child care operators in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, who said that there have been unintended consequences. As a reminder, this legislation is coming after agreements have been signed by the provinces. We are not talking about hypotheticals here, but results that have already been implemented.

Yes, some families are being helped and have some form of child care now. However, I have been told by providers in my community that there are many scenarios playing out. One, in particular, is where high-income families are paying for spaces while pregnant, because it is so inexpensive to hold the space for their family. The lower-income and middle-class families who need the spaces are not getting them, and the whole format of waiting lists has changed. There is serious concern about the lack of focus on ensuring that child care spaces go to those most in need instead of creating advantages for the already well off.

Conservatives recognize that Canadian families should have access to affordable, quality child care, and they should be able to choose the child care providers best suiting their family's needs. The government's focus in the child care bill on not-for-profit and government spaces, which is how it is worded in the legislation. Let me lay this out in a very practical way, on a very small scale.

For example, how would a large child care facility add 200 child care spots very quickly? Many times, these are large not-for-profits that do really good work taking care of our children. No one is disputing that. However, they are not the only kind of child care provider. They would need physical space and to have parking. They may perhaps need to move or expand. If they move, they have to ensure the local bylaws are met before building a new building. It is not that easy. Smaller, independent organizations are much more nimble. If anything, this is where the focus should be, or it should be on par with governments and not-for-profit providers, at the minimum.

Once again, the Liberal government has not considered small businesses as a priority. This legislation lists what the government's priorities are.

Small, independent businesses are once again an afterthought of the government. They are not included in the national advisory council being created by the government.

It is really a shame that, as part of this child care legislation, small business owners have really been demonized. This is how many of them feel. We saw this at committee with the way the Liberals and NDP representatives spoke about small business child care providers. One local independent small business child care provider in my riding told me how awful they thought it was that the government was making it sound like they were printing money. Those are their words. She said that they would not have opened if they were not-for-profit. She considered this years ago, however, looking into it, banks would not provide a loan to get her started. She had to open a company.

Most of these small business child care providers are women. Most of them are looking after their own children while helping other families.

What quality child care is for a child should be defined by the parents, not by the government. As a working mom myself, I knew the importance of quality child care. As well, I know kids who have not done well in large child care settings. Their parents had to pull them out due to their child's personality, anxiety or special learning needs. It is not that larger facilities could not provide good care. The kids, just like adults, are all different. Many feel more comfortable in a smaller, intimate environment. There is no right or wrong.

Instead of giving parents freedom to determine what child care works best for their children and their work schedules and their lives, the government has opened the door for a two-tiered framework of child care. We heard testimony on this at committee.

This legislation does not treat all kinds of child care equally. Conservatives brought forth a motion at committee, which was not supported. It was voted down. It was to be truly inclusive and accessible and would have allowed parents to make the best decision for their family.

The amendment read, “facilitate access to all types of early learning and child care programs and services regardless of the provider—such as those that are provided through traditional day care centres, centres with extended, part-time or overnight care, nurseries, flexible and drop-in care, before- and after-school care, preschools and co-op child care, faith-based care, unique programming to support children with disabilities, home-based child care, nannies and shared nannies, au pairs, stay-at-home parents or guardians who raise their own children, or family members, friends or neighbours who provide care—that meet or exceed standards set by provincial governments or Indigenous governing bodies and respond to the varying needs of children and families while respecting the jurisdiction and unique needs of the provinces and Indigenous peoples".

As I said, it was not supported. It would have addressed the argument between licensed and unlicensed, because it refers to meeting standards of provincial governments or governing bodies, which is quality care.

Bill C-35 is good for families who already have child care space but it does not help the tens of thousands of families on child care wait-lists or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces.

Bill C-35 increases demand for child care but does not solve the problem of frontline burnout, staff shortages, staff training or access to more spaces. The Canadian Union of Public Employees currently reports, “in many communities there is only one child care space available for every three children who need it, and waitlists are long.”

In British Columbia, 27% of child care centres turn away children due to lack of staff. We have had centres in my community reduce spaces due to staffing. This child care legislation does not address staffing or training in this legislation to meet the 40,000 workers needed now.

It is unfortunate that the government signed provincial agreements without Parliament's involvement and without hearing from the public, as we did at committee, and was so close-minded when looking at amendments that would have provided better access to child care for families across Canada.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things my colleague mentioned in her speech tonight was about the lack of discussion and the lack of dialogue that the government had with the public or with others, even the provinces, which were only given one choice when they were forced to basically sign on to this type of program.

I would like to give my colleague an opportunity to expand on her thoughts on that whole idea of the lack of choice and the lack of discussion that the federal government had on this important issue.

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

Madam Speaker, this is exactly what we saw at committee. At committee, we had a lot of testimony but also a lot of written submissions, an extensive number of written submissions. They were not all by the large groups that are quite often represented. We heard from individual child care providers from across the country. We also heard from parents. We heard about very specific, real situations that are playing out in families' lives. That is the type of input we need when we are developing legislation so we can develop the best legislation possible, try to capture the different situations and maybe try to mitigate unintended consequences.

This is a gap that happened before the government signed all of these agreements. It went ahead and signed the agreements without all of this input from parliamentarians and the public.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, there are a couple things that I really appreciate about Bill C-35: the inclusion of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as requiring informed consent, as accorded in UNDRIP. Those two provisions, in and of themselves, are very important to supporting Bill C-35, and I wonder if the member agrees with my statement.

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

Madam Speaker, yes, and we supported that at committee. In addition to that, as I mentioned during my intervention, we put forth a motion that would have captured all different types of child care providers, but unfortunately that was not accepted. Part of that did include different cultural and indigenous-type providers, but unfortunately our motion was not accepted by the other members of the committee.

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

Madam Speaker, it was great working with my colleague on the HUMA committee and listening to so much testimony.

I think the take-home message tonight is that Canadians are seeing, realizing and speaking up, and it is being covered in the media. This bill is promising something the Liberals cannot deliver. We have seen it time and time again. It is not just us saying that. Everybody is now coming forward.

I would like to know my hon. colleague's position on this in terms of her own riding. Does she have a story she can share about how people cannot access child care?

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

Madam Speaker, I will give one example. During one of our last constituency weeks about a month ago, someone from my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country met with me. She was taking about a family she is familiar with that wanted to immigrate to the area. Both parents are doctors. They have actually gone through the process and it is all working really well. However, they are having a tough time deciding whether they are going to come to Canada and come to my region, because they realize that they cannot access child care. Here we have two potential doctors who might come into my area in Canada, and they may choose not to come because they have realized there is no child care available for them.

The House resumed from May 31 consideration of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise here to represent the great people of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and speak to a very important bill.

My first question is this: Why are we debating this today? I remind all MPs that funding agreements are already in place and have been signed by all provinces and territories. The money is already flowing, and I would argue, there is a multitude of other higher priority issues around affordability that we could be debating that have yet to be addressed by the current Liberal government. Further, I would point out that Bill C-35 is not a child care strategy. It is a headline marketing plan.

Again, we see the Liberals promising what they cannot deliver. Ten dollars-a-day day care does not address the labour shortage and the lack of spaces. I will guarantee today that, if and when this strategy fails and has not delivered affordable child care for all those in need across Canada in all jurisdictions, the Liberal government will blame the provinces and territories for that failure.

I point out that back in January, during question period, the government House leader had the audacity to call these current agreements universal, as have other Liberal members of Parliament. How can these Liberal MPs say this program is truly universal when the current child care space shortfall is in the hundreds of thousands. It is not universal if hundreds of thousands of Canadians do not have access to it.

We have seen over the past number of years how increasingly difficult it is for parents to obtain child care at all, let alone affordable child care. Therefore, I can appreciate the efforts behind the bill and the idea of actually forwarding or advancing an affordable child care plan. However, if the spaces are not there, it is still not going to work. I further note that this impacts so many families across my riding, but it disproportionately impacts women. The current reality in Canada, which has been exacerbated by the current government's inflammatory and inflationary spending, is that the cost of living has skyrocketed, making all of life's necessities unattainable by many families, as it appears now. In most cases, two parents are required to work just to scrape by.

I am going to focus on three key areas of the bill, based on feedback that I received from over 20 different day cares and child care centres across my riding. The first one, as was already mentioned, centres around the issue of accessing the programs, especially in rural Canada. Number two is the labour shortages, which is an issue that is prevalent across many sectors. Finally, there is the rising cost.

I know I may get a question from the government members about amendments. I would note that our Conservative colleagues, specifically the shadow minister, put forward many great amendments during debate at committee and at report stage and, unfortunately, every single one of them was defeated.

Let us get back to my first point around the issue of access, especially as it pertains to rural communities like Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I am not going to use my words. I am going to use the words of those from the child care centres in my riding when they were talking about this program.

They said that the demand for child care has seen huge increases. Every family wants access to a $10-per-day child care space. However, they are confident in saying that they have children on their waiting list who will age out of their programs before a space becomes available. They continued that families cannot go to work if they do not have access to child care. Their local communities are suffering, and having no child care has a far-reaching impact on all rural communities.

Therefore, as I noted, the primary issue around this program is that, while the government can artificially lower some of the costs through its funding arrangements with the provinces, the demand is so great that many families will not be able to achieve or get access to those subsidized rates.

I will give one example about the limitations around this program. My brother and his wife both work for a living. One works for Bruce Power. My sister-in-law works in the health care system. They have to commute 30, 40 or 50 kilometres one way. They have two young kids, who are now in elementary school, but playing sports and trying to go everywhere. They did not have access to a program. They depended upon family members or local privatized child care opportunities to get the necessary support they needed.

The second point I want to address is labour shortages. For quite some time, all the child care centres in my riding have been raising the alarm over the issue of labour shortages. While the lower cost of child care would definitely help the families who are able to access the program, increasing the program itself is becoming out of reach due to staffing shortages. One centre in my riding offered that expansion is impossible without qualified staff. Early childhood educators are in very short supply. This child care program is very administration heavy. As well as the extra work needed in centres, there are numerous government employees being employed to monitor and manage the plan.

This program is hindered not only by labour shortages of child care educators, but also the bureaucratic burden that is being put on the program itself through the additional administration required to meet the compliance and ensure the standards.

Here is another key issue and one that I can relate to personally. It is the shrinking of the before and after school programs. What I got from my local YMCA is that workforce shortages have reduced the number of school-age programs operators can deliver, resulting in a lack of enrolment fees in school-age child care, i.e. before and after school care, and in addition to workforce shortages for this age group, there have also been program reductions as a result of ongoing school closures, the pivot to online learning and a greater population of parents working from home and managing before and after school care differently.

This is something that, as a single parent, I am concerned about. As this program develops, access to the before and after care for many single parents across my riding is going to be an issue because, again, of the lack of labour.

Another issue is the nature of the jobs themselves, which makes life much more difficult for the current employees when there is already a labour shortage. Another child care centre said that, not to mention, it is a very selfless and exhausting job, often without breaks. The burnout rate is high. It is a woman-dominated field, and the paradox is that is an essential service for parents to be able to re-enter the workforce with a young family.

My final key point is around the rising operating costs. Many of these child care centres confirmed to me that the funding set out by the current child care program does not cover expenses, with many organizations in my riding stating that the funding afforded for the program does not cover current expenses. Their utilities, food and insurance have increased by double digit percentages, and every other cost has increased. Their compensation to cover these increases was under 3%, but the math does not add up. Funding rural and urban centres equally is not equitable. They are operating with huge deficits every month, and it cannot continue.

As I mentioned earlier, Conservatives have put forward common sense amendments at the committee to ensure program flexibility, so that the families and child care centres are not punished for adhering to an “Ottawa knows best” approach. Families in my riding are increasingly demanding better access to quality child care services that fit their schedules, and it appears as if the Liberals do not understand that they cannot simply lower the price of a service that does not exist.

In conclusion, affordable quality child care is critical, but if people cannot access it, it does not exist. Bill C-35 does nothing to address accessibility. All Canadian families should have access to affordable and quality child care, and should be able to choose child care providers that best suit their family needs. This is especially pertinent in rural Canada. Bill C-35 is good for families that already have a child care space, but it does not help the thousands of families on child care wait lists or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces.

Finally, again, we see the Liberals promising what they cannot deliver. The $10-a-day day care does not address the labour shortages and the lack of spaces.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments.

As a matter of fact, the premier of Ontario and the Ontario government signed agreements with us, and this is in the member's own province. Since these agreements were signed, 33 licensed spaces have been created in Ontario, and there is a commitment for a build-out of another 53,000 spaces during the next few years.

Prior to these agreements, there were no new spaces. As we know, the former Conservative government ripped up previous agreements. Is the member suggesting that the Conservatives would not support Bill C-35 because they do not believe in building out a system that they had previously prevented from being built?

My question to the hon. member is this: Will the Conservatives be supporting Bill C-35?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to be honest, I am still kind of on the fence. I opened my speech stating that I do not even understand why we are debating this. The agreements are already in place and the money is already flowing to the provinces and territories, and the Liberals have put time allocation on this bill. There is no reason to use time allocation and limit a bill that we should be getting right.

I will go to the parliamentary secretary's comments. I think she said there were 35 new spaces, although I think she meant to say there are 35,000 new spaces already in existence, with a plan to open up 53,000 more in Ontario alone. I would like to know how many of those spaces exist in Conservative ridings or rural ridings across the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course I am going to extol the merits of a universal early childhood education program, because Quebec has made that choice as part of our social programs. We made that choice 25 years ago as part of our family-centred policy. The objectives were to reduce contributions for parents, provide equal opportunities for children and encourage work-life balance.

Child care costs less than $10 a day. It costs $8.85 a day. Quebec is investing $3 billion in its program.

I have a question. Agreements are already in place. I believe that Bill C-35 seeks to enshrine this program in law. Some say there is a shortage of spaces, but I would say that the provinces are responsible for that. What choices have the provinces made? What was there before?

The provinces will certainly have to make investments if they want to be successful. The federal government is coming in to support the delivery of services. It is a far cry from Quebec's model, which has more than 200,000 spaces. I would like to know what the situation was in each province before the implementation of this program. What has each province chosen? Are they choosing to move forward or are they choosing to maintain the status quo?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very interesting comment. We have to give credit to la belle province for being a leader in Canada when it comes to day care.

I do not disagree with the member. This is primarily a provincial jurisdiction issue. I would say the challenge with the agreements put in place by the federal government with the provinces and territories really comes down to the idea that it is almost setting different standards across this country, pitting provinces and territories against each other as they try to bid for a limited pot of money from the federal side. That goes to the second or third point I made on the rising costs and the fact that, as many day care centres have already identified, the sheer cost of this program is going to continue to increase.

Ultimately, I still do not think it is going to happen in a timely enough fashion to have these spaces right across the country. Then when the program starts failing, what is the government going to do? It is going to blame the provinces and territories.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and speak, and it is a great honour to rise and speak to Bill C-35. I am a mother who has been an advocate for affordable child care since the 1980s, and if I had to be in the House until midnight debating something, there is nothing more than this that I would rather debate.

I have been listening to people speak today, and a lot of the remarks have been read from a script. I would like to pay homage to my colleague, the leader of the Green Party, who often says we should be speaking without notes. As one can see, I am doing that because I could not recall the name of her riding.

What I want to talk about is what this bill is really about and what the opposition is saying about it. It is one thing to say we need to move forward and we need to work together. It is very easy to sit and criticize something that has been brought forward and to point out all the shortcomings, all the faults and all the things that are not being done without recognizing—

[An hon. member]

It's literally our job.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny. Someone across the aisle just said that is literally their job, but I actually do not believe that. I believe that as members of Parliament, we are all here to work together for the future of Canada and Canadians.

What we need to do is collaborate, and that is what this government has been doing with every province, territory and group to put in place the child care system we have been advocating for as women for over 50 years. Think about that. It is 50 years that we have been asking for this, and it is now coming to fruition. Rather than celebrating that fact, all we can do is criticize the shortcomings and act as though it was the fault of the legislation that certain things are not happening.

There are two basic things we hear often. I hear it in my communities, and according to what I have heard tonight and over the last few days, it is something we hear in many constituencies. There are two concerns among several. The cost of living and affordability are one and the second is the labour shortage. This bill, for all the perceived shortcomings that have been pointed out, addresses both of those of issues and addresses them well.

Child care costs some families $50 a day depending on the age of the child. This bill would bring into place child care that will cost $10 a day by 2026. I can guarantee that the young families in my riding I speak to, the parents, both men and women, are very grateful for the fact that their costs have already been cut in half and are looking forward to $10-a-day child care.

This bill is addressing the affordability crisis. We hear constantly from members opposite that this is one of the biggest concerns they have. We are putting forward legislation that addresses it, yet all we hear is criticism.

The other issue is the labour shortage. We have the example of early learning and child care and the good-quality program in the province of Quebec. In Canada, we are lucky because we have an example of what could happen to labour force participation, and in particular the participation of women in the labour force, when we have a reliable, affordable child care program.

Estimates have been provided by many private sector firms, although I will not name them, that show the return on this investment is between $1.80 to $2.50 for every dollar we spend. This is a viable economic proposition that is going to increase labour force participation and reduce the cost of living, yet all we hear is that it is not flexible enough and that there are not enough early childhood educators. Is this the fault of the legislation? No. It has been designed and implemented through work with provinces and territories, with bilateral agreements that the provinces have agreed to and wanted.

The shortage of early childhood educators existed before this legislation was introduced. If anything, increasing labour force participation is going to address the labour shortage. It is going to allow for more people to work as child care workers or anything else they want to work as, and it will help address this problem.

In some cases, I think the members opposite confuse causality and correlation. That is a very important concept. Just because something happens over a period of time does not mean it is caused by something during that period of time. We have to do significant regression analysis with multiple variables to figure out what is causing it. We hear accusations time and time again that under this government, something has happened, so it must be the fault of this government. That is not how it works. We have to look at what is actually causing things. We can look at the labour shortage, we can look at what is causing it and we can look at this bill and say the bill would address it.

We have been asked why we have to pass this bill now when the money is flowing. This is about ensuring that this program continues over time. We have had plenty of examples of good legislation being made, with good investments in Canadians, only to be overturned. We have heard several Conservative leaders say they would overturn this legislation, that this legislation is no good. For many young families in my riding, that would be a huge step backward. I believe that for all Canadians, that would be a huge step backward.

Parents today raising their families would have more choices. This bill would not limit flexibility in any way. It is up to the provinces and the child care providers. As we all know, and as the Bloc has repeatedly told us, this is not our territory. We can fund, we can provide leadership and we can provide vision, but it is up to the provinces and territories to implement this as they see fit. That is why we have individual agreements with each of them. The $30 billion we are investing to help provinces and territories provide adequate child care for families over the next five years would create over 250,000 new spaces and ensure accessibility for all people.

As a member of Parliament, as a woman with two daughters and as a woman who has helped raised six children and has grandchildren, I do not want to leave my children and grandchildren with fewer choices. I want them to have more choices, and I believe that this bill, Bill C-35, would give more choices to people. I ask members to please look at the values behind this bill, look at supporting families, look at trying to bring down the cost of living and look at addressing labour force shortages. Vote with me, vote with the Liberal Party, vote with the young families in Canada that desperately need child care and need someone to take that first step.

It has been 50 years. Let us stop talking about what is not there and let us look at what we are doing for the future of our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out that we do want the same thing. We 100% want the same thing. What is upsetting is saying we should only look at what is great. That is not what we are here to do. We are here to figure out what is not working so that we can fix it. That is the whole point. When the Conservatives are criticizing and when we are elevating the concerns of thousands and thousands of parents, it is because 29% of families have access to spaces and 50% of children are in a child care desert. I think that warrants a legitimate criticism.

Alicia Bishop wrote to me. Alicia is a mother of four, an active member in her community, a former teacher, an owner of a child care facility and a proud female entrepreneur. She said, “I would like this to have very careful consideration. Introducing $10-a-day fees to parents is an important step forward, but it must be made with very careful consideration, as it is critical that we get this right and not disrupt the private model that has been working so well in Alberta for decades. The bottom line is we need to maintain quality, innovation and incentive to make this work.”

Will the hon. member consider including private and all forms of child care so we can meet the demand the Liberals have created?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear that the member opposite and I want the same thing.

I did not say there was not concern regarding the lack of available child care; what I was trying to say is that we need to move forward, and the fact that we have other issues to deal with should not prevent us from moving forward with what we have in front of us now.

There are spaces being created; there are more than there were before. If the system in Alberta were as perfect as the member opposite says it is, then Alberta could decline to participate in this program. It does not have to sign the bilateral agreement; it can keep the program it has right now.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Indeed, having accessible and affordable day care is so important for families, and especially to mothers. We went through it in Quebec, we saw it. Quebec was a pioneer, a trailblazer, with its network of child care centres. That has provided immeasurable services to families.

The NDP is very proud to have worked on this bill to improve it. It was even a requirement of our agreement. We wanted to make sure there would be long-term funding for the provinces. My colleague from Winnipeg Centre even insisted that funding be given in priority to public day cares, as well as to non-profit day cares. I think it is a priority for us, as progressives. I would like my colleague to comment on this aspect of the bill.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is an important one.

We are working with every province to sign agreements that work for those provinces. My belief is that with public day care, not-for-profit day care, there is no profit margin. It has to be more affordable when it is delivered. I would say that would be the first priority.

I believe that what is most important right now is to get as much day care as possible out there for all families, not just for women and mothers, as there are families that have two fathers, or are single-father households, as we heard across the aisle. This would benefit all Canadians, not just women and mothers.

I am certainly in support of what the member is asking.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is not shy. It used Quebec's model when introducing this program. Many witnesses came from Quebec.

It bothers me when people just call it child care. In Quebec, we use the term early childhood education services. These services are not just there so that women can go back to work, even though women make an important contribution to the labour market. These services are also there to give children equal opportunities.

Given that Quebec is a leader in this area and the federal government was guided by our model, which is a good thing, why did the government flat out refuse to acknowledge Quebec's leadership in the bill's preamble and consequently give us a lifetime exemption from this bill?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite raised a very good point, which is that this is not just about affordability and workforce participation; it is also about giving our children a great start in life. I think the Quebec model has exemplified that through the early learning component, which is certainly something we are trying to replicate through this bill, so I give full credit for that. I believe we have often referenced what the province of Quebec has done as a great example, but each province has its own unique needs. That is why we are negotiating bilateral agreements with each province and not taking a one-size-fits-all kind of approach.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am very pleased to appear this evening from my home riding in Nunavut. I am pleased to submit that the NDP supports passing Bill C-35. The NDP has, for a long time, fought for a national child care program that is enshrined in legislation.

Before I get to the main aspects of my speech, I highlight and thank the MP for Winnipeg Centre for her great work, the MP for London—Fanshawe for the work she did on Bill C-311 in the 43rd Parliament and Olivia Chow for her work, in the 40th Parliament, on Bill C-373.

New Democrats truly believe that every parent across Canada deserves access to affordable, high-quality child care wherever they live in Canada. That is why passing Bill C-35 is so important.

My intervention tonight will focus on three areas at this stage of the bill. First, I will speak to some of the content of the bill. Second, I will highlight the inclusion of international instruments in Bill C-35 and the importance of acknowledging indigenous laws in implementing these important instruments. Finally, I will address some of the disinformation that has been shared by other members in the House.

The content of Bill C-35 is important because it would set out a vision for the creation of a national early learning and child care system. It would ensure that there are principles that guide federal investments. These are important as they will show the willingness of this Parliament to invest in children, as they truly are the future and we must do what we can to keep it secured.

Bill C-35 would establish a national advisory council on early learning and child care. This is such an important measure to ensure that policy-making and advocacy would come from experts in the field. It is truly my hope that the composition of this council would include indigenous peoples in Canada.

It is great to hear at this stage that Bill C-35 has been improved in some areas through the work of the HUMA committee One such area is the strengthening of reporting requirements, specifically in areas where the minister responsible must report to Parliament. Another is to recognize that working conditions affect the provision of child care programs, and, as such, improvements were made regarding working conditions in this area.

International instruments and indigenous laws are also important. I turn now to the incredibly great work that my NDP colleague, the MP for Winnipeg Centre, was able to do in ensuring that indigenous rights are protected and that international instruments are included in Bill C-35. Specifically, I outline the important inclusion of recognizing the rights established in both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These are meant to have Canada acknowledge Canada's international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.

Finally, I highlight the prominent place for indigenous peoples to have free, prior and informed consent on matters pertaining to children. With June being National Indigenous History Month, I take every opportunity I can to make interventions that include indigenous history. What implementing the international instruments could look like is recognizing the existence of indigenous laws surrounding the raising of children. For example, in Inuit laws, there are three areas of laws that govern Inuit. I thank Jarich Oosten, Frédéric Laugrand and Willem Rasing for editing the book entitled Inuit Laws. The content of this book is based on interviews with Inuit elders: Mariano Aupilaarjuk, Marie Tulimaaq, Akisu Joamie, Émile Imaruittuq and Lucassie Nutaraaluk. I honour their great knowledge and their sharing it for us to use. What a privilege it is to share these names in the House.

The laws described in this book are piqujait, maligait and tirigusuusiit. I describe the first two for this speech. As I stated earlier this month, these categories govern our behaviours and our relationships to each other and to wildlife and the environment.

Piqujait, translated into English, means “behaviours that must be done as directed by a person of authority”. An example is piqujait from parents to children. In today's society, piqujait can also be used by child care workers when they are taking care of children in day care settings.

Maligait is translated into English as “those that must be followed”. These differ from piqujait because they focus on the obligation to obey. A maligait in this system could be used to establish policies, regulations and instruments that could guide decision-making.

I look forward to learning, in my role as indigenous critic, more about indigenous laws held by first nations and Métis so that I may speak to them. Even better, it would be great to see more first nations, Métis and Inuit across Canada taking up the challenge of representing their peoples in the House. I encourage more indigenous people to consider running in the next federal election so we can continue to make laws that reflect our existence.

Finally, in addressing the disinformation that has been shared by other members in the House, I will talk about what has been shared mainly by Conservative members. I hope to remind Canadians of some of these issues. As I have outlined in my speech, Bill C-35 is not just about existing agreements; it is about much more than that. Conservatives have shared that Bill C-35 would not provide supports to parents to get access to child care. The Conservatives, at HUMA, introduced amendments to remove prioritization of non-profit and public child care. They argued that prioritizing these groups makes it unfair to for-profit child care businesses. This is entirely untrue. Prioritization is not elimination; prioritization is giving equity-seeking groups extra supports they have been excluded from for years. Including prioritization of non-profit and public child care would ensure that children get a more full spectrum of child care in Canada.

In support of these arguments, I highlight two testimonies that were shared at HUMA in studying Bill C-35. The first is from Pierre Fortin, an emeritus professor of economics, who said, “There is no way to escape the conclusion that private markets for child care have, unfortunately, been a quality failure. I'm saying ‘unfortunately’ because I have defended private market solutions throughout my career, but a fact is a fact.” Second, I quote Morna Ballantyne, executive director of Child Care Now, who said, “Federal public funds should be directed to expanding the provision of high-quality early learning and child care, not to expanding opportunities to make private profit or to increasing the equity of privately held real estate and other business assets.”

In conclusion, I am very excited to support Bill C-35. It gives me hope that children and parents will be better supported. With the passing of Bill C-35, decision-making would be founded on human rights and indigenous rights. Accountability and transparency would be monitored by a national council composed of experts from the field. This bill would indeed help ensure working conditions for child care workers.

Qujannamiik from Iqaluit. My thoughts are with the many Canadians experiencing the forest fires across Canada.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that the member and I share an interest in early childhood learning, but I have a question for her.

Together we visited a number of remote communities in Nunavut, places with only a few hundred people. How do we make early childhood learning work in those kinds of small communities, which abound all across this country?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, that is a great question. I think that is why this legislation discusses the importance of non-profit organizations in ensuring that public child care is also a priority.

All of the communities in Nunavut have schools. Some of them have spaces for Aboriginal Head Start programs. There are many communities as well with buildings that we need to ensure will provide access. I think that with more investments in ensuring that infrastructure exists, we could make sure that this bill could work for Nunavummiut.

Ultimately, we will also need to make sure that child care centres are being built in Nunavut.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is always very thoughtful, and I appreciate learning from her.

She did make a comment that I would like to correct on the record. I think it says it best about the difference between prioritizing and eliminating. I am going to read her a comment that Ms. Maggie Moser, director of the board of directors of the Ontario Association of Independent Childcare Centres, made at committee. She said:

Lower-income families were excluded from obtaining access to the CWELCC child care spots. Families who could already afford the fees of their centre were the ones who benefited from the rebates and discounts, while the rest were left behind on a long wait-list.

Does she recognize that the way the bill is currently written is actually hurting lower-income families?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I think that is a different type of program that she might be talking about, but it highlights the importance of Bill C-35 and why we need to nationalize child care. We need to ensure, as I have said, that those who have been excluded from accessing child care get the supports that they need.

I heard a Conservative member talking earlier about his family supporting each other in the area of child care. I question whether that member would have had that same level of support if all of their family members had been marginalized for decades, had been oppressed for decades and had been forced to experience genocide for decades. I question whether he would have had the same level of family supports that he needed to ensure child care for his family.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, by establishing an early childhood education system, we are helping women return to work and also to school. We are creating an ecosystem that supports the local economy and community support.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I think there are absolutely different views about what women can choose to do or what they do not want to do. I think raising children is such a beautiful privilege and a wonderful honour to have. I was not ever really able to be a stay-at-home mom, so I always have tremendous respect for mothers or fathers, any parent, to choose to stay at home to invest in their children's early learning.

I think that what this bill does is really focus our efforts to ensure that we are investing in children so that we can have a better Canada.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-35 and will support the bill at third reading, even though it finds the bill to be ambiguous.

The bill does not comply with the distribution of powers set out in the Constitution, which clearly states that education and family policies are not under federal jurisdiction. Although the bill states that the provinces will be able to certify child care services and determine the applicable criteria, it also states that every government in Canada will have to comply with the principles set out in the multilateral early learning and child care framework.

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

I will first go into more detail about why we will nevertheless vote in favour of the bill. Then I will explain the Quebec exception and end my speech with an historical overview.

First, the bill excludes Quebec from this federalization of family policy for the next five years. In fact, the Government of Quebec will receive $6 billion in compensation for opting out of this centralist policy. In that sense, the bill respects the will of Quebec not to have the government interfere in its jurisdictions, especially since Quebec is a pioneer in child care services and a model of success, to boot.

Nevertheless, unlike Bill C‑303, the predecessor to this bill, the current version does not contain any wording on exempting Quebec. Indeed, Bill C‑303 stated the following:

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

The agreement concluded with the Quebec government spans a period of five years. Enshrining Quebec's full right to opt out of this program would help avoid another dispute between Quebec and Ottawa in case the federal government ever wants to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions as it does so well.

Passing this bill would also enable Quebec to recover significant amounts that could be used to reinforce its network and improve working conditions for workers in the sector.

By allowing Quebec to withdraw with full compensation, Bill C-35 takes into account these two opposing trends in federal-provincial relations. That sort of consideration is rare at the federal level.

Outside Quebec, Ottawa is seen as the guarantor of social progress, which results in a strong tendency towards centralization. Quebec rejects that type of interference. It would be interesting if Bill C-35 were consistent with the previous version in recognizing that the Quebec government's child care expertise is unique in North America. In fact, the international community acknowledged that in 2003.

The OECD, in its study of child care in Canada at the time, mentioned the following:

[It is] important to underline…The extraordinary advance made by Quebec, which has launched one of the most ambitious and interesting early education and care policies in North America....none of these provinces showed the same clarity of vision as Quebec in addressing the needs of young children and families....

In short, to come back to Bill C-35, public officials said that the bill was drafted with respect for the provincial and territorial jurisdictions and indigenous rights.

They also stated that the bill did not impose any conditions on other levels of government. That was the main concern of some provincial governments during the consultation process. Any provision seeking to ensure that the provinces shoulder their share of the agreement would be part of the individual bilateral agreements signed with each province and territory, agreements that must be renegotiated every five years, as I mentioned previously.

Here are some interesting figures to think about. Access to low-cost regulated child care could lead to the addition of 240,000 workers to the Canadian labour market and a 1.2% increase in the GDP over 20 years. In Quebec, the money would also serve to strengthen the existing network of early childhood education services, which is grappling with a shortage of teachers.

After the committee completed its work, it became clear that the demands of the Bloc Québécois and Quebec were not heard or respected.

Throughout the study, Quebec was cited as a model. It may not be perfect, but the Quebec model was cited on numerous occasions as being a model to emulate. However, at the amendment stage, when the time came to recognize Quebec's expertise in the bill, we saw the three other parties dismiss this reality out of hand. The same thing happened to our amendments giving Quebec the option of completely withdrawing from the federal program with full financial compensation. The only place the other members were even remotely willing to mention Quebec's expertise was the preamble, which is the only place where those words would ultimately have no concrete effect on the bill.

Although Quebec does not get the option of completely withdrawing from this program with full compensation, an agreement to that effect had already been concluded between Ottawa and Quebec. Senior officials who worked on the bill also repeatedly stated, when questioned on the subject, that while nothing would prevent the federal government from imposing conditions as part of a future agreement, the bill had always been designed with the asymmetry of Quebec's reality compared to Canada's provinces in mind. The members of the Liberal government who spoke to the bill also mentioned several times that the Liberals intended to keep working with Quebec on this file. The current agreement also pleased Quebec since it did not interfere with any jurisdiction and gave the Quebec government total freedom to spend the money in whatever sectors it wanted.

Third, let us rewind to 2022, when Quebec celebrated 25 years of the family policy. On January 23, 1997, Quebec's family policy was unveiled by education minister Pauline Marois on behalf of the Parti Québécois government. It was a visionary policy that reflected the changing face of Quebec, including the increase in the number of single-parent and blended families, the growing presence of women in the workforce and the troubling rise in job insecurity.

This forward-thinking policy has allowed Quebeckers to benefit from better work-life or school-life balance and more generous maternity leave and parental leave, and it has extended family assistance programs to self-employed workers or workers with atypical schedules.

This model is an asset. It is a source of pride for the entire Quebec nation, as studies show that every dollar invested in early childhood yields about $1.75 in tax revenues, and that every dollar invested in health and in early childhood saves up to $9 in social health and legal services. Early childhood education services have also been a giant step ahead for education in Quebec. They help improve children's chances of success and keep students from dropping out. They have a positive effect on early childhood development, help identify adaptive and learning difficulties early on, and ensure greater equality of opportunities for every young Quebecker, regardless of sex, ethnic origin or social class.

In conclusion, we also believe that a true family policy is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Quebec and provincial governments. Parental leave, income support and child care networks must be integrated into a coherent whole. In our opinion, to be efficient, this network and all these family policies must be the responsibility of the Government of Quebec alone. The Constitution clearly indicates that education and family policies are not under federal jurisdiction.

One last thing: As the Standing Committee on the Status of Women has noted in more than one report, including the report on intimate partner violence I spoke about earlier in connection with another bill, by providing quality day care that is affordable and accessible to all, we are providing women with an opportunity to fulfill their professional ambitions without compromising their family responsibilities.

What is more, this bill seeks to enhance day care services by providing a safe and protective environment for young children and especially for mothers who are seeking to escape intimate partner violence. What we in the Bloc Québécois are saying is, let us do this with respect for the expertise, but above all, for Quebec's jurisdiction. We will be voting in favour of the principle of Bill C‑35.

I will end with an interesting economic fact. According to the work of Pierre Fortin, Luc Godbout and Suzie St‑Cerny, between 1998 and 2015, with Quebec's child care services taking care of all these young children, mothers' labour force participation rate increased from 66% to 79%. We implemented this feminist measure. Yes, early childhood education is a feminist policy that made it possible for women to return to the labour market, to become emancipated and to provide equal opportunities for young children.

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

Madam Speaker, this is not a feminist policy. It would increase taxes on women as well as on men, and it would subsidize particular choices and not others. It would create a fiscal pressure by subsidizing people who use particular kinds of child care arrangements, and it would offer no support to shift workers, those who choose to stay at home for periods of time with their children, those who are relying on grandparents or those who are making other kinds of choices. I think a genuinely feminist policy would not say there is one way to do child care; it would say that we should be giving more money and more resources back to parents and back to families, and supporting them in making their own choices, especially in this time when we are seeing more demand for flexible work, more work from home, more web-based work and more alternatives.

Why does the Bloc not support choice in child care that would give the broadest range of options to all families and that would let women, without the fiscal pressure to make one kind of choice or another, have the resources to make the kinds of choices they want with their own families?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, this whole issue of early childhood education services is a choice made by Quebec and the provinces. Quebec has chosen this model. Furthermore, this model offers more and more spaces to accommodate non-standard schedules. I am seeing more and more early childhood education centres all around me that are taking women's non-standard schedules into account. It needs to be developed further, but it is happening.

I was talking about a feminist policy. I remember very well that, during the pandemic, when women were suffering at home and I was urgently studying the pandemic's disproportionate effects on women at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we sometimes heard that women were faring better in Quebec. Why was that? It was because we had set up this service, which is designed not only to enable women to return to the workforce, but also to give very young children equal opportunities. This means greater social justice. I believe in these principles. In that sense, yes, this policy is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up with the member on that aspect. It is hard to imagine that the Conservative Party does not see the real and tangible benefits of this program, given that the Province of Quebec has had it for many years and we have seen a great deal of benefit, like more women getting engaged into the workforce. There is a wide spectrum of benefits from having this program.

I am wondering if the member could expand on why she believes the Quebec program has been as successful as it has and why it is, in fact, in Canada's best interest to try to duplicate that model nationwide.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, Canada can only gain from drawing inspiration from a model implemented in Quebec.

Earlier, I ended my speech by talking about a study done by economists who found that, in only a few years, this model helped increase women's participation in the workforce from 66% to 79%. I think those numbers are striking.

Furthermore, I would say that sadly, Conservative governments have questioned bills where the federal government was drawing inspiration from what was being done in Quebec. It was Stephen Harper's government, and it is Mr. Poilièvre himself who said that, once elected to government, he would dismantle this bill—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member that we are not supposed to refer to other members by name.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize. It is late. I meant the member for Carleton.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for another inspiring and enlightening speech. I think she is absolutely right. As I was saying, the Quebec model of early childhood education centres, the CPEs, has helped people enormously. It is a great social benefit for families in Quebec.

What does my colleague think about the fact that an agreement has been reached between the federal and Quebec governments? It improves funding to perhaps add more child care spaces.

In terms of long-term federal funding, what does she think about the fact that priority has been given to public and non-profit child care facilities, and that we are trying to ensure that families across the country have access to child care?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, I would have preferred that it be written into the bill in black and white, as it was in the previous bill. I wanted the bill to say that it took into consideration the fact that Quebec pioneered this model and that it has every right to make the choice of not running the risk, in the long term, of being subject to interference in its areas of jurisdiction and having another quarrel with the federal government.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to speak in support of Bill C-35 at this time. I could not agree more with some of the members who spoke before me, such as the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill and the Bloc Québécois member for Shefford, who gave a great speech. I always appreciate my colleagues' efforts.

Despite the fact that it is late, I would like to give my opinion on this bill. This bill does more than set up child care services. It is important to highlight the principles of this bill: It aims to provide a system of early learning and child care to promote the development of young children.

It is really important to stress the way that Bill C-35 embraces things that many of us have been working on for years, early learning and child care. This is about improving the life chances of children, because the evidence is very clear that children learn with qualified educators who are doing more than making sure the children are watched through a morning or during the day while their parents are at work.

The principles of Bill C-35 underscore that child care must be accessible, affordable, inclusive and of high quality. These are things that we desperately need to see.

In the debate over the bill, I heard legitimate concerns from colleagues, particularly among the Conservative benches. These are fair points. We cannot find enough early childhood educators for all the spaces that are being created. Child care workers should be paid appropriately, and I am saddened by the reality that the existing agreement between the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario puts in place a payment schedule for child care workers that is embarrassingly insufficient for the work that we are entrusting these workers with.

They should really be paid more than CEOs. They should be paid more, with all due respect to colleagues across the way. I know at least one of our colleagues in the Conservative Party was a very famous hockey coach. We should pay our child care workers more than we pay our hockey players.

What is more important in our society than ensuring our children have the best start in life? Our teachers, at all levels, are underpaid. Early learning and child care educators are professionals whose work needs to be recognized and properly compensated.

However, it is not an unfair point to say we cannot find enough child care workers for all the $10-a-day child care spaces that are being opened up. The point is, we will. This has just come in. The agreements with provinces are very fresh. I am very encouraged that we are going to have it in law, in this piece of legislation, that one hopes any future government could not tamper with this. We have agreements with each of the provinces and territories, and that is a huge accomplishment.

Of course, we had accomplished it back in 2005, when, speaking of hockey players, a famous former minister responsible for the file, Ken Dryden managed to accomplish inked, signed deals with every province. Then we had the election of 2005-06, and the whole program, even though funded, with signed agreements, was scrapped by the incoming Conservative government of Stephen Harper. I wish I did not have such a good memory because thinking about that transition, where we lost Kyoto and Kelowna and child care in a relatively short period of time, is painful to recall.

The advantages of ensuring that every Canadian child, whether from families, as the hon. member for Nunavut was explaining so eloquently, that have not had the same advantages and privilege, or from families from equity-seeking groups, would be able to ensure that the child care program that allows the parents to go to work is of high quality.

I want to stress that part because early learning and child care is a different prospect than child care on its own. I have heard horror stories over the years, as a single mother myself, of child care arrangements that just were not adequate. They were actually unsafe. It is critical we elevate the professionalism, recognition and respect we give to the workers who do this work in early learning and child care.

I also want to mention, because it came up when the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill was speaking, why it is I continue to proselytize the virtues of the rules of Westminster parliamentary democracy that are ignored in this place. In the Palace of Westminster in the U.K. or any of the other Commonwealth countries that use the Westminster parliamentary system, reading a speech is not allowed. It is still a rule here, but it is not only ignored, it is ignored and encouraged with handing out podiums to people so they can put the speeches they are not supposed to be reading on a podium so they can read them.

In any case, I want to spend a moment on the advantage of not allowing a written speech. In the situation we are in right now on Bill C-35, we had a complete failure of House leaders to determine what kind of time was needed to deal with this bill in this place. This happens over and over again. The hon. members across the way will know this is the game that it is played.

In the old days, and I remember the old days because I am old, a minister or a House leader would say to another House leader that a certain legislation was coming up and ask how many speakers they thought would want to speak on it and ask how much time should be allocated for it. There would be an honest and fair-minded decision made based on knowing that so and so was deeply invested in the issue and would want to speak on it and that so and so would also want to speak on it so that probably there would be x number of speakers.

Of course, if one is not allowed to read a speech, which is the case in the Palace of Westminster in London, one would basically know who was prepared to speak to it because they were among the handful of people who know the legislation and the issue well enough to stand up and speak about it without a note in front of them.

I read a very interesting article some time ago now where Conrad Black reflected on his time in the House of Lords and how he contrasted it with the Canadian Parliament. In that comparison, we do not fare well my friends. He said it was wonderful that no one could speak with notes or a written speech and had to be able to stand up and talk about the legislation at hand because out of their own knowledge they could speak to the bill. He said that was far better; I agree.

One of the other advantages of that is one cannot play the game of “we can't tell you now how many of our members want to speak to that.” A House leader of either side of the big parties can say inscrutably that they are not sure and that it is maybe five, maybe 10 or maybe 80 speakers. That is how we find ourselves here tonight.

The government side, quite wrongly I believe, uses time allocation because it throws up its hands at the impasse it finds itself in with the official opposition. This is not about the politics. One can change the colours and the same problem persists. One just plays a game of silliness and says that maybe everybody wants to speak to it. We know what happens in the lobby. Someone says, “Hey, Joe, here's your speech. You're up next.”

I know some members of Parliament for the bigger parties, individual members, have told me over the years that they have refused to do that and are just not going to do it. One can kind of tell when someone is reading a speech they have not written themselves.

My only point here is to take the time to say we could do better. This bill deserves widespread support, and I hope it has it. It will pass. It will be a law.

Thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance for believing in early childhood learning and education and thanks to the Minister of Families. Let us get this passed, but let us stop the nonsense of debating until midnight when no one here is really speaking to the bill but playing a partisan game of delay.

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

Madam Speaker, I was really paying close attention to what the leader of the Green Party said, especially when she was focusing on what could have been, had Ken Dryden's child care plan been accepted and ultimately passed through. Unfortunately, it was not. It heartens a lot of people to reflect on what impact that would have had today in terms of the number and the quality of child care spaces, the rates of pay for child care providers, and so forth.

I wonder if the member can reaffirm the support and the need for the legislation, given that if we do not have this legislation passed, there is no guarantee that the program will be there into the future. Could the member just emphasize why it is important that this legislation, in essence, be passed to protect the program, going forward?

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

Madam Speaker, I wish I could believe that passing the bill means that a future government will not repeal it. I recall spring 2012 and an omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38, which repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, repealed the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act and gutted the Fisheries Act. There were 70 separate pieces of legislation destroyed in that.

I will also say that if we had not lost Kyoto, Kelowna and child care in the 2006 election, we would not be on fire now. Canada would have reached our Kyoto targets. They were on the books and fully funded. Therefore, there are tragedies in losing that government of 2005.

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, these are not partisan games. As critic to this file, I have received thousands of messages from parents, who are screaming for help, and from operators, who are ringing alarm bells. All anybody at home has to do is google “child care” right now, and they will get article after article. These are health care workers and shift workers. They do not have access to child care. Erin Cullen is an engineer out of Newfoundland, and she is going to have to leave her province because she cannot access child care.

This is not about partisanship. These agreements are in place. It is our job in this House to ensure that things are done properly and fairly. Twenty-nine per cent of children are accessing child care, so 70% do not have access. Fifty per cent live in a child care desert. Does the member not think this warrants further investigation? Our amendments put forth in committee were turned down by the Liberals and the New Democrats.

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

Madam Speaker, when I referred to partisan games, I was merely referring to the public statements that have been made by the leader of the official opposition on the intent to gum up this place with as many obstructive tactics as possible. If he did not intend for those comments to apply to this debate on Bill C-35, I apologize to the hon. member.

I agree with her. There are many things, as I mentioned in my speech, including legitimate concerns about access and the shortage of qualified early learning and child care educators. I hope we can work together in a non-partisan spirit to ensure that the vision of the legislation is actually implemented. I agree with 90% of what the member said. It needs to be worked on, and it needs to be delivered.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her speech, although, with so much about House goings-on, it shifted away from early childhood education. This is concerning to me as a former early childhood educator who spent many years working hard for wages that were not livable.

We know the facts are on the table. Early childhood organizations are very clear. If we do not have a workforce strategy that pays livable wages, benefits and pension plans, we will not have a national child care strategy; we will continue to have a shortage of spaces. We need to focus on workers. Does my hon. colleague agree with this?

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

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with the member for Winnipeg Centre. I apologize to her for changing to a different topic. However, I think it is critical, and I thought I made it clear in my speech, that we support and respect the child care workers who deliver early learning and child care. Why do we pay CEOs and hockey players more than we pay people doing the most critical job in our society, which is taking care of our children?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be joining the debate. I am glad I caught your eye and was able to rise before my colleague from a different part of Quebec who wanted to speak as well.

Just to continue on something the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said, I hope I will not be accused of using notes. I have not used notes in many years in this place. I am sure that if we ever moved to benches, that would probably help with the use of written notes and the prolonged speeches that are perhaps prepared by others. Many members like to prepare their speaking notes way ahead of time.

This is government legislation that some of my constituents have written to me about. As I remember, this usually comes up at election time. I always have a few constituents who are concerned about access to early childhood care, and they usually mix different types of things together.

When I was growing up, my mother was a single mom and used day homes quite a bit. We are talking about quality care for children, but that was the experience for a lot of us immigrants who were newcomers to Canada and did not have many choices. We made do with what we could find. I know the government, through these agreements it signed with the different provinces, is hoping to fill that space in between, but when I look at the summary of the bill, it states:

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.

I have never had parents tell me at the door that they were looking for an advisory body to oversee something nationally. What they are looking for is someone they trust to watch their kids, where the kids will learn something new. As a single dad, that is what I always look for when it comes to my kids. They are much older now. My oldest son, Maximilian, just graduated from junior high on Monday, and I have two other kids in the Catholic school board system in Calgary. However, there was a time when that would have been one of the options that I would be looking for, because I was always trying to find something where they could learn something related to not only STEM, math or language skills but also art, getting dirty, doing things with their hands, just some hands-on learning and interacting with other kids. That was always something I looked forward to for my kids to have.

As has been mentioned in the House before by other members, the system the government is implementing here is one-size-fits-all. One of the big sticking points for my home province of Alberta before signing the agreement with the federal government was that it wanted more private care options to be eligible for funding through the Alberta government. In my area, there are a lot of newcomers and immigrants. Because their credentials are not recognized, and they do not necessarily have family support here, they are running day homes.

I know that in one family in particular, and I will not mention their nationality because they would be able to figure out quickly who they are, the mom runs a day home and is an accomplished musician. She helps kids learn different musical instruments. Maybe that does not meet everybody's expectations, but it is quite popular as a choice. It is a private day home. Because of legislation like this, and the agreement the Alberta government signed, this day home is going to have a tough time making ends meet, because it will not be one of the eligible options on the table for consideration for funding.

Some articles have talked about the potential problems and risks of the facilities that are currently running, such as the uncertainty this might create; the operator's experience, including whether they have certification to perform standard first aid practices; years of operation; the number of children the centre can accept; the ratio of children to caregivers; age group; the minimum and maximum numbers of children under care; and protocols for sick children or employees.

We often talk about the quality of care. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands talked about how important early childhood educators are and said that we should pay them better. However, if we are setting up a system where we are only paying them $10 and there is a cap, somebody has to pay. Then there is the question of who pays. In this case, it will be the federal government. Taxpayers will pay, because there is only one taxpayer at the end of the day.

In my pre-political life, when I was looking for other options that were out there, obviously, I leaned on extended family. That was always the first choice. If that choice was not available, then it was friends of the family who are so close they are essentially like family.

We all have those types of people in our lives with whom we would be happy to leave our children. Maybe parents want them to play with other children or be watched for a few hours while the parents are trying to get some work done. In many cases, they are trying to get to their shift, they are coming back late from a shift or they have irregular hours and are uncertain about how they will be able to watch their kids. As a dad with three kids, I have said this before, but it is difficult. I try to make sure I am back in Calgary whenever I possibly can be and it is my turn to watch over them.

I do have a Yiddish proverb, despite the fact that it is so late. I have Yiddish proverbs all the time, because there is always a good moment for them. I will say it in Yiddish, so I would ask members to bear with me on the pronunciation.

[Member spoke in Yiddish]

[English]

That means, “With a child in the house, all corners are full.” I am sure everybody has had this experience, especially with younger children. They have a knack for filling every single room they are in with stuff that they find, everywhere they go. I salute the people who accept kids in their homes from other families, who make the extra effort to try to teach them the life skills that they need. These things maybe do not earn them an A+ in school, but they include things like picking up after themselves, being kind to other people and teamwork, doing things in teams. They try to teach very simple things, such as basic cooking.

I mentioned this one family where the lady who was the main provider, the main caregiver, is a very accomplished musician. Providing these types of soft skills is quite useful for many people. I wanted to convey that Yiddish proverb, because it is something I think about with my kids, how they fill not just every corner in my house but every corner of my life as well.

Affordable care, which we have been talking about, is mostly a principle in this bill, because there are already agreements with all the provinces. What more could we do but talk about the principles and ideas behind the legislation that the government has put forward and that many of the members on this side of the House have already spoken in favour of? We support the bill, but we have concerns that we want to express on behalf of constituents.

There is going to be an increased demand for child care, but it is not going to solve the frontline problems with staff shortages, burnout and difficulty in accessing spaces. It does not really matter whether it is public, private or something in between, it is from coast to coast. Different provinces have different problems. When I look at those who choose to work in this field, in the next 10, 20 and 30 years, we will be facing a shortage of workers in general. It is going to be hard to convince people to retrain themselves to pursue this as a field.

When the Statistics Canada data is looked at, at the bachelor's level and above, there is essentially a job for every person who is looking for one. There are sectors where that is not the case and where it is hard to retrain someone, but at the high school level and below, there are a lot of vacancies. I do not think we consider early childhood education low skill. That is not a low-skill job. That is difficult. Put eight to 10 four-year-old or five-year-old kids in a room, and that is a full-time job. It is very difficult to get everybody on the same page, working in the same direction on the same tasks. That has to be remunerated a certain way. There has to be a total compensation package that attracts good people who want to work with children, who can be trusted to work with children and who have a skill set that lends itself very well to providing children with some of the early skills that they are going to need to succeed in school. That is important as well.

There is a high burnout rate in this area. Whenever there is a staff shortage, others are asked to do even more. This is just like the troubles we have in our school system with trying to find teachers in the early years; similar types of shortages will exist over here. Where are we going to find the people when we are already facing record shortages in multiple sectors across our economy?

To bring it back to newcomers to Canada, many will choose this as what I will call a temporary survival job, because that is really what a day home becomes. I spent my time growing up in day homes, but I know many other families depend on them, too. Many of these agreements cut those day homes out, and that is what I am concerned about. Although I support this bill, I think we should be debating the principle of the bill and the impact it will have on newcomers and others as well.

To bring it back to the Yiddish proverb, children do fill every corner of our homes and every corner of our lives. We can do better than what we have done before. This legislation, though, has faults in it that we should look at, and we should be debating the principles.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. As someone who is of Jewish descent, I always find his pondering of Yiddish proverbs interesting, to say the least.

He spoke about his home province of Alberta and the lack of flexibility and lack of understanding of the unique circumstances of families, but the Alberta agreement includes an additional grant for operating flexible and overnight child care. It is an operational grant to address spaces that are necessary for frontline health care workers, shift workers and so on, many of whom, as we know, are newcomers to Canada in various fields.

The principles of the agreement are about high-quality child care. Does the member not think that high-quality child care is the key component here and that while we have flexibility, we need to ensure high quality? The member mentioned that he supports the bill. Does that mean the Conservatives will support it?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, to go back, the person who deserves great credit for negotiating the deal was the minister at the time in Alberta, Rebecca Schulz, who was re-elected in this past election. She deserves an incredible amount of credit for holding out until Alberta got a better deal.

The problem with what the member just laid out as the deal for affordable care operators, who basically run a dual system that is part private and part public, is that they are basically being told to keep two different ledgers. Staff cannot go in between the two systems, which is written right in the agreement. It is highly complex, and for those in this space, it is hard to figure out, as a facility owner-operator, what exactly they are supposed to do. The agreement is so complicated that many have already come out in public and said that it is too complicated and that they will have to pick one or the other. Either they will do all shift workers and nothing else or they will just have the standard nine-to-five child care.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are at the report stage of the bill right now, and I noticed, looking at parliamentary publications, that we have one motion at report stage. That has been brought forward by the member's colleague from Peterborough—Kawartha. She is moving that the bill be amended by deleting the short title. Essentially, the Conservatives want to get rid of the opportunity to call the bill the Canada early learning and child care act.

I am curious. Does he understand the rationale behind wanting to delete the short title of the bill?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, procedurally it was necessary in order to have this debate tonight, which is one of the things in Westminster parliaments. We sometimes have to put forward these types of motions in order to have a debate like this. That is my understanding of why it is on the Order Paper.

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

Madam Speaker, following up on that, it is true that at report stage the only amendments that can be brought forward, generally speaking, are deletions. However, certainly the official opposition had a choice of what part of the bill it might want to delete. Is there anything the member can add as to why the choice was made to delete the short title?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, no there is not, but it has given us an opportunity to talk about the principle of the bill and to share thoughts that constituents have shared with us. I think it is an accepted principle that we do what we must on behalf of our constituents, and in this case, it has given us an opportunity to talk about the content of the bill at any level of detail a member chooses.

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

Madam Speaker, I know, coming from Alberta, that the member touched on a lot of what we are hearing from operators on the ground. In fact, many of the operators have said they may have to introduce a CWELCC fee, CWELCC being the name of the program, and may have to add food costs. This $10-a-day child care is actually going to end up being a lot more.

I am wondering if the member has heard of any stories on the administrative burden and costs on the operators in his province.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question, because we have seen the cost of living explode in this country, and the cost of groceries is way higher now.

I have not yet had residents in my riding come to me with direct stories about their grocery costs, but the Cardus Institute has done a lot of work looking at the different agreements, the quality of the agreements and the likely outcomes of them. I am sure that over the next six, 12 or 18 months, we will have more aggregated data demonstrating that, indeed, all these ancillary costs are going to be added onto all of these early childhood operators.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here this evening to discuss Bill C‑35, or what the Liberals like to call the universal child care plan.

In particular, we are talking about the report presented by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which studied this bill. One of the reasons the Conservatives are here is to ensure that parents' voices are heard.

As a Quebecker, I must provide some context about what has been happening in Quebec for years. We have our own child care system, as my colleagues know. In January 1997, the provincial government unveiled Quebec's family policy, which included five main elements: child care services and parental leave, the family allowance, the work premium, the solidarity tax credit, and the refundable tax credit for child care expenses.

This program is not perfect, but it has existed since that time, and many parents in Quebec have been able to take advantage of it. We need to take that into account in this discussion we are having here tonight.

In my riding, there is a small association that was created in recent years, shortly before the pandemic, called Ma place au travail. A woman took the initiative to start a Facebook group that ended up bringing together women from all across Quebec who are, unfortunately, still waiting for a child care space in the province. The parents of approximately 70,000 children are in that position. I hope that the $6 billion that will be transferred from the federal program to Quebec will be used to address the lack of child care spaces in the province. The situation is different in other provinces, which do not have this kind of program in place. We must therefore analyze the bill from that perspective.

I must inform the House of all the efforts that we, the Conservatives, made in committee to improve this bill with a view to implementing it at the national level. Of course, the government wants to apply Quebec's model to the whole country. No one can really be against that, but it must be done properly. The Conservatives moved many amendments calling for choice, inclusivity, access, data and accountability. Unfortunately, the members of the Liberal-NDP coalition rejected all of them.

This coalition says it cares about access and inclusivity. However, its actions speak louder about what it is really interested in, namely promoting an ideology that will decide what is best for children.

We cannot trust this coalition on this or any other matters. We had another example of this with the budget implementation bill we discussed tonight. Nothing in that bill takes into account the labour shortage, the burnout affecting frontline personnel and the exodus of these professionals. That is an important point that I believe my colleagues raised at committee. Sadly, it was not included or considered by the Liberal Party or the NDP. Those amendments were entirely reasonable. They were justified and justifiable. Sadly, once again, they were rejected.

Once again, Conservatives introduced an amendment to solve the problem. The amendment stipulated that the annual reports needed to include a national strategy to recruit and retain skilled workers in early childhood education. Surprise! It was also voted down by the coalition. Why was it voted down? We would have to ask the coalition's members. I hope they will ask me the question. I repeat that it is a very reasonable amendment. I do not think this requirement concerning annual reports would have hurt the bill. Quite the opposite, it would have enriched it. It would have been a good thing if this suggestion had been accepted.

That makes me think of the 2 billion trees that this government, three or four years ago, promised to plant by 2030. It is 2023, so there are 7 years left, and 3 years have already passed. We have not even reached 4% of that objective. There was a big show with a lot of smoke, and it is the same with this bill.

The government is making big promises by announcing its intent to roll out day care services across the country based on Quebec's successful model, but it is unable to put in place all the elements or tools needed to carry out this project. Once again, it is not surprising, coming from this government.

The bill is supposed to include five pillars: quality, availability, affordability, accessibility and inclusivity. However, once again, we have proof that the Liberals want to score political points and are more concerned about marketing a plan they can sell than about the actual supply of what they are selling. As I just said, it is easy to make promises.

Over the past eight years, the government has promised many things. Unfortunately, despite the fact that it was not a Liberal promise, the only thing families have more of are taxes. The cost of living for families never stops rising. I completely agree with my colleague who talked about increasing the wages of all these workers. However, there is a limit because, eventually, families will also have to foot the bill.

The Liberals moved an amendment to the amendment in committee that removed the words “availability” and “accessibility”, which are the biggest issues with child care in this country. They are also the biggest issues in Quebec, where 70,000 families are currently unable to find a child care space. Obviously, the labour shortage is affecting all areas of society and all types of employment. It is not just child care. To attract workers, the right plan needs to be in place, which is clearly not the case at the moment.

I will paraphrase my colleague from Peterborough—Kawartha, who is doing a fantastic job. The reality is that we have about as much chance of solving the child care crisis with Bill C-35 as we have of winning the lottery. That is exactly what child care is like in Canada, because getting a child care space is like winning the lottery.

The reality is that the Liberals want to implement a nationwide program without having the means to actually do so. Some 70% of children still cannot get a space in day care. It is a national problem.

This brings me to the subject of families. Today, compared to eight years ago, the price of homes and the cost of rent have doubled. Everything has gone up. Inflation is at its highest in 40 years, and the interest rate keeps going up. My own daughter is now paying $700 more a month for the home she built five years ago. Inevitably, the amount of money that families are forced to spend is going to reduce their ability to pay.

When my children were young, there was no program. We worked hard and paid child care workers to come to the house. Then we started sending the children to day care. Obviously these programs are an incredible help. My colleague from the Bloc was saying that it was a feminist policy. I totally agree with her. This has helped thousands of women to go back to work.

However, the reality is that today, unfortunately, 70% of families still do not have a spot. In Quebec, 70,000 children do not have a child care spot and women cannot go back to work because of the labour shortage.

I will say it again: Yes, these people have to be paid well. I think that there have been major improvements in this area in Quebec. However, the government is blowing smoke by launching a program of this scale without being able to put all the necessary effort into ensuring that it is carried out properly.

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

Madam Speaker, what is very clear is that the Conservatives do not support the program. Depending on who we listen to, whoever might be giving a speech, one could very easily draw the conclusion that the Conservatives are raising these flags as if they genuinely care about the national government playing a role in child care, when history has shown that it is quite the opposite.

The question I have for the member is this. Even though the past leader of the Conservative Party talked about ripping up the agreements and the Conservatives have cancelled child care programs, is the member prepared, on behalf of the Conservative Party, to say that he clearly supports the agreements the provinces and the federal government have entered into? Does the Conservative Party support the plan being proposed in this legislation? A yes or no would suffice.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I did not say whether I would support the bill or not. What we hope to do here this evening, as we have done since the beginning in committee, is to potentially improve this program and how it is implemented. We want to avoid using smoke and mirrors to fool Canadians without actually delivering what was promised. It is always the same thing.

The best example is the one I gave earlier, the two billion trees. The Liberals put on a big smoke show; it was unbelievable. This was supposed to save the environment. Earlier, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said that if we had implemented programs 20 years ago, there would not be any forest fires today. I think it is worth saying that that is not quite the truth.

I think that when a government really wants to keep a promise or implement a program, the plan needs to be whole and complete.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, earlier in his speech, the member complained that certain Conservative amendments were defeated at committee and then suggested that this was the result of a coalition. He said that there is a common ideology at work there.

I was at another committee recently where Liberals and Conservatives voted down NDP amendments to the air passenger bill of rights. When I voted against the new interswitching provisions, which are going to put railroad workers in Canada out of a job, Liberals and Conservatives voted together against me. I am just wondering what the common ideology was between Liberals and Conservatives and the coalition developing there, such that they decided to defeat NDP amendments together at committee.

Alternatively, would he rather say the truth, which is that sometimes parties have a common cause on certain issues and they vote together when they are working in the same direction and they vote against each other when they do not agree on certain things? Which is it?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am trying to think about the question I was just asked. As we speak, there is a Canadian political coalition. I did not draw up the deal, nor did I sign it. It is between the Liberals and the NDP. Perhaps my colleague should look in the mirror and figure out which party he belongs to. As far as I know, he is from the NDP.

The question he just asked me has nothing to do with what we are discussing tonight. He has the right to vote for whatever he wants. I am not saying he does not have that right. What I am saying is that the Liberal-NDP coalition voted against the Conservative amendments seeking to improve the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague had a thoughtful intervention. I guess my question to him would be this: Does he believe that families and parents in his riding should have access to and should be able to choose what type of child care they send their children to?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup may give a brief response.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, my response will be brief: absolutely.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to stand in the House today to give my views on Bill C-35 on behalf of the wonderful constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Of course, for their benefit, we are talking about the Canada early learning and child care act.

This bill does a few things. I will just briefly go over them. It would set out the vision for a national early learning child care system and establish those principles that are going to guide federal investments in that system. That particular part of the bill is extremely important because I have heard Conservative colleagues asking why this bill is even necessary given that all of the agreements have already been entered into between provincial governments and the federal government.

I think it is really important to enshrine those agreements into legislation so we can avoid a future policy lurch where maybe a different government in the future decides to take us in a different direction. This is an issue that is so fundamentally important that I believe that those funding agreements need to have the force of legislation to back them up so that not only current generations of young families can enjoy those benefits but also future generations.

Another commitment is the long-term federal funding for child care services provided to provinces, as well as indigenous organizations and, of course, the establishment of a national advisory council on early learning and child care, which would allow that organization to be set up and to really deliberate on the progress being made to advise the government on what else is needed in its policy going forward.

I just want to speak personally here for a little bit. I am the father of three wonderful daughters. I have twins, who are almost 11 years old, and a five-year-old. My twins were born in 2012, before I assumed elected office. I can remember during those first three years of their lives when my wife and I were both working. We did depend on child care. We also depended on my parents at times, but it was not easy.

I can remember when I first decided to run for office back in 2015. Child care was a huge election issue in 2015. The NDP ran on a platform of trying to deliver $15-a-day child care. I remember this, particularly down in the city of Langford in the southern part of my riding, the great big southern metropolis of Langford, as I like to call it, because it has been one of the fastest-growing communities in all of British Columbia. Time and time again, in the 2015 election when I was out knocking on doors, more often than not the person who would answer the door would be a young child who would then scream to their mom or dad to come to the door because a stranger was there. It just really showed that the demographics of the city of Langford, and indeed much of my riding, consisted of young families who were struggling to get by.

A lot of the feedback I received from going to doors in 2015 was that, in many houses, there was a willingness for both parents to go out and work, but what I heard time and time again was that it was simply not worth it for them to do that because the child care costs completely negated any economic advantage that that family would get by working two jobs, let alone the availability. It would usually be the mother telling me that it just was not worth it, saying, “Why would I just put my child in child care when all of the money I would earn from a second job would be going to pay for that? It's better if I just stay at home because at least my child is with her or his parent.”

Enshrining this in legislation and following up with those agreements are things that New Democrats have fought long and hard for. It is something I have been proud to run under since I was first elected to this place, and it is nice to see that our House of Commons is coming together to deliver this. This is not just one party that is the author of this. This idea has its beginnings many years ago, and I am really proud to stand in this place on behalf of the constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and show them that we are putting into place legislation that would enshrine something that is incredibly important.

Absolutely, when it comes to Bill C-35, New Democrats are proudly standing here in support.

I also want to recognize former members of Parliament in the NDP caucus, particularly former MP Irene Mathyssen, whose daughter is serving right now as the member for London—Fanshawe, and former MP Olivia Chow, who of course is now running to become the next mayor of Toronto. I wish her all the best in that. Both of those exceptional members of Parliament, former MPs of this place, did try, with legislative initiatives, to bring something into this place, similar to what Bill C-35 is trying to do.

I also want to underline the confidence and supply agreement that our party has with the Liberals, because in section 2 of that agreement, one of the main bullet points reads as follows:

Through introducing an Early Learning and Child Care Act by the end of 2022, ensuring that childcare agreements have long-term protected funding that prioritizes non-profit and public spaces, to deliver high quality, affordable child care opportunities for families.

This is a very clear example where the CASA, the confidence and supply agreement, shows how we, as a small party, are working with the government to bring something in that would be for the common good. This is a key provision of that agreement, meaning that, if it had not been met, the agreement would be null and void. It is a great example of us working together to bring something that is obviously going to benefit so many families right across the country. I do want to say that, if it were not for New Democrats, many initiatives such as this would not be seeing their rapid pace of adoption in the House, as we are seeing today.

I also want to talk a little about the history because, of course, we have had strange bedfellows fighting for child care. We have major representatives from both labour and business making the case for child care. If we look at some of comments from Canadian chambers of commerce, all the way from the national organization to their provincial counterparts to chambers of commerce of local districts and municipalities, and they all realize the benefits that child care brings to small businesses. Their most valuable resource is their employees. When they are in danger of losing an employee because of a birth of a child, that could drastically affect small business. That is why we have seen chambers be some of the most vocal proponents of putting in place this system.

At the same time, the labour movement, often at odds with the chamber, could not agree more. In fact, we have a comment here from Beatrice Bruske, President of the Canadian Labour Congress, who said, “Ensuring affordable, high quality, accessible and flexible services means we will have a Canada-wide system of early learning and child care that meets the needs of workers and their families.”

In the conclusion of my speech, I want to recognize my fantastic colleague, the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre, for her work. She worked very hard at committee with members of the government to bring forward some constructive amendments. I am very pleased to see how many of those amendments were adopted and incorporated in this bill to make it stronger and to make it into the version that we are debating today.

I also want to recognize, again, that we would not be here today if it were not for the work of many different people over many years. I want to particularly thank all the child care advocates and unions who have fought to make this legislation a reality. I want to give special recognition to parents and families, particularly those in my riding, who have kept up the pressure, kept up the advocacy and kept on pressuring members of Parliament right across Canada to bring in the change that we are seeing through Bill C-35.

I also want to recognize women because we know that a national system of affordable child care helps advance gender equality, and that is an important reason for us, alone, by itself. With that, I welcome any questions and comments my colleagues may have.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, my colleague put a lot of emphasis on thanking those people who have helped get our government to this point. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that Paul Martin had proposed a national day care strategy. Unfortunately, that Parliament was dissolved by the opposition, and an election was called, which prevented us from moving ahead with it. However, it was in our platform and it was an important promise we made to Canadians, which has been delivered today.

In his closing, my colleague acknowledged that this is an important step for women's equality. I wonder if he would like to comment on the fact that we are now at 85% of women in their working years who are in the labour force, thanks, in part, to this policy. Is he seeing that change in the demographics of workers in his own riding and in his community?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have just a quick comment on the opening statement by my colleague. I have heard Liberals mention what happened in 2005-06. What they fail to mention, of course, is that the Liberals did enjoy a majority government in 1993, 1997 and 2000. However, I digress.

I will agree with my colleague. I am, absolutely, seeing the results in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, through the hard work, by many different advocates, of pressuring members of Parliament to bring us to this point. I am very glad to live in a province that is governed by an NDP government, which sees value in putting families first and in making sure they have resources to thrive economically. I am also glad to see that the B.C. NDP government has been working with the federal government, and, of course, partnering with us, the federal NDP, to push the Liberals to this point so we can make life better for British Columbians and especially for members in my home community of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate how my colleague is advocating for the people who do have access to these spaces, but what the alarm bells are, and what we are really trying to get across here tonight, are those who do not have access. There are reports coming out that say that child care spots are available for only 29% of those who need them. That is from the Childcare Resource and Research Unit.

Particular to the member's riding, in British Columbia, 64% of children are in a child care desert. That means three children are competing for one spot. Has the member reached out to these families? Has he listened to these families? What is his solution for increasing access?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will not disagree with my colleague. There is, absolutely, a lot more to be done. If anyone thinks we are going to suddenly dust our hands off after the passage of Bill C-35 and say that all is done, that is simply beyond any reasonable thought.

I do not see Bill C-35 as being in opposition to that fact on the ground. In fact, the passage of this bill's enshrining in legislation the federal government's commitment to this funding formula is precisely the kind of action this Parliament and the leadership in this Parliament need to demonstrate in addressing the problem my colleague brought up. Therefore, I will agree with the member that there is a lot more work that needs to be done. It is my hope that, through Bill C-35, we are actually going to pressure the federal government to follow through with those agreements with the provinces. It is great that we would have an advisory council that would keep the government honest and transparent on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I do know what a dedicated father my hon. friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is. How would he reflect on the availability of early learning and child care on Vancouver Island, particularly in the kinds of areas where we both work and live?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I not only can reflect on my personal experiences before I became an elected member of Parliament, including that I had three years with my twin daughters, but I also have spoken with many members of my community. I referenced knocking on doors in 2015. Those conversations have not stopped since 2015. I have been proud to meet with many constituents in my time as their elected representative here in Ottawa. What those conversations have demonstrated to me is that there is a continued need. People need their members of Parliament to stay focused on this issue to force the government to follow through on those funding arrangements through legislative initiatives like Bill C-35.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise for my second speech tonight. It is democracy in action.

When I think about child care, I think of many stressful evenings with my wife trying to figure out where our kids are going to go and how we are going to pay for it. Child care has personally cost me a lot of money

In fact, when my son was born January 4, my eldest son Declyn, I remember joking with my wife at the time that it was going to cost an extra $15,000 in child care costs, and it did.

I was much happier when my second child Nicholas was born. He was born in November. I said it was great so I could make up some of those savings with my second child. Unfortunately, my third was born in January as well, so I will be at a loss once again.

I live in an area of Canada with one of the highest costs of living. We not only have a housing shortage, but we have a day care shortage as well. I am privileged to stand in this House. I can admit I am in the regulated system in British Columbia.

The day care facility I use, Koala Montessori in Abbotsford where my kids go, is now a regulated centre under the agreement signed with the Government of Canada. My fees went from approximately $950 for my second child down to $450.

That said, like all of us in this chamber, I am a high income-earning Canadian and I know there are monumental wait-lists to get into the facility where my second son goes. In fact, I was lucky. It was like winning the lottery, getting a spot in this wonderful day care facility.

There are so many early learning childhood educators who have had a positive impact on my children's lives. In fact, the other day, my son Declyn, who also went to Koala, and I were picking up his younger brother Nicholas. He said, “Dad, can I come in and see Ms. Elsie?” For my son to want to go in, see his old teacher and give her a great big hug is something that warms my heart; how could it not?

I am lucky that my children have access to wonderful early learning educators who have had an amazing impact on their lives. I think of some of the constituents in my riding who work there, like Ms. Jodi, Ms. Krishmali and Ms. Maria. When my son Nicholas was a year old, they took him into their arms and loved him like their own child.

How could someone not love these women who devote their time and energy to these kids? They are away from their own children in many cases to do these jobs and help our young children grow into wonderful children so they are ready to go to school.

I want to say something about Koala Montessori. Sometimes I feel like my house is chaotic. I have three kids and two of them are boys. My two boys are running around and our place is a mess.

My middle child Nicholas is going to be bigger. He is going to be more than 250 pounds when he is older. He is definitely going to be over six-foot-five. When he goes down the hallway, he is smashing every door he finds. He is hitting all the walls. He is made to play football, rugby or basketball. It is just ingrained in him.

At the same time, he will go to his bedroom, he will take his T-shirt and he will fold it so nicely together. He will want to do the dishes with mom and dad. He works so carefully to clean a cup, or pour his own cup of milk or water when he is at the dinner table. That is the impact of the early learning educators who have had such a positive role in my children's lives.

My riding is a big one. It is 220,000 square kilometres of awesomeness, but not every family has what I have. There are 31 different bands in multiple indigenous nations in British Columbia.

Boston Bar First Nation, that is part of the Nlaka’pamux First Nations. I know for some of the St'át'imc bands in the Lillooet region, the positive impact that early learning educators have had on my children is not available to them.

I think about the community of Ashcroft, in my riding, which has seen a major expansion of the inland port where the CN and CP, now CPKC, rail lines meet. There are great jobs coming into the community. Canadian Tire is investing a lot of money in building a warehouse in this small community. There is a huge demand for housing. There is more need to build homes in this community than ever before. The workers there, though, do not have access to a day care facility or early learning educators, let alone nurses and a functioning hospital.

I see the positive intent in this bill and I have seen the positive impact it has had on a select number of Canadians in British Columbia, I being among them. Although I am one of those people who has benefited from this agreement, I worry about my constituents who have not. I worry about the parents in the Facebook community group Mission B.C. and Neighbours. It is a group for Mission, the second-largest community I represent. There are parents seeking a place for their kids to go. The parents are not able to go to work because they cannot have access to child care or are now kind of put into a horrible situation where they see that perhaps a relative or a neighbour got into a subsidized facility, yet they still have to pay the market rate with a private provider.

The private providers, many of whom are now public providers, were private providers before this deal. I know that many of the private providers not covered under this deal have that same commitment to quality education and nurturing care for our children that I receive at my now publicly funded facility. They do not have access to this program. A provider might be operating out of her home. She might be a new immigrant who is finding a way to support her children by running a day care facility inside her home to provide extra income, with the high cost of living we face in communities like Mission. Therefore, although I respect the intent of this bill, I am just wondering why some providers were not provided with the same access to participate that others were.

The second point I will raise is that, while the government was quick to make arrangements with existing facilities, none of the hard work in indigenous communities was done. I reference indigenous communities because, disproportionately, there are more children being born into indigenous communities. It is one of the fastest-growing demographics we have in Canada. That is a good thing, but those resources under this framework are not available at the same level that I can access in downtown Abbotsford.

I heard tonight that over 60% of my province is a day care desert; 60% of families do not have access to the quality of care that I have. That needs to change. We have to think in innovative ways to get over that hump. Recently, a group of plumbers and business owners came to Parliament to talk about the skills and labour shortage. These people are hard-working. They are small business owners and they are faced with an incredible labour shortage right now, one like we have never seen before. They cannot keep people and they cannot hire enough, no matter what they do. In fact, there is one company in Pitt Meadows. I think it is called Pitt Meadows Plumbing, and the owner of the business came to me. In fact, his company alone trains more people than the public trade schools in British Columbia combined. He has a massive impact on the number of skilled trade workers in British Columbia. He asked me why we do not incentivize private corporations to build facilities at their offices, and why there is not more effort put into working with the private sector and building those facilities at their headquarters.

Can we imagine a young woman today who wants to be a plumber being able to go on her lunch break at a manufacturing facility in Pitt Meadows or in Mission and being able to have lunch with her children? We can think innovatively about addressing the child care needs we have in British Columbia and, indeed, across Canada, if we think outside the box a little more and maybe work with more small business owners who want to hire those workers and who want to have an environment where those workers can be close to their children and maybe share lunch together once in a while.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that my friend, the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, is among the thousands of British Columbians saving $550 or $450 a month on child care fees as a result of these investments. However, I agree that more needs to be done to increase spaces. Certainly the labour shortage across the country is not specific to child care but is in every sector.

I am also thrilled to hear that the member is an advocate for means testing for various programs, especially given the Conservatives' previous version of the Canada child benefit, which was a universal program that sent thousands and thousands of dollars to millionaire families. However, I would say that this is an education program; it is all about education. I question whether or not public schools should be available to wealthier families. I believe they should be, and I think early learning and child care should also be available to wealthier families.

How can we, in a collaborative way, increase the labour force and make sure that there are more spaces in the communities that do not have enough?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, with respect to means testing, at the end of the day, I chose to put my children in child care and chose to take on the economic and fiscal responsibility of paying for that. However, I believe that early learning and education for children has to be treated a little differently from school-age programs. I am not challenging that the government does or does not have a certain role in that process, but parents need to play an integral role in making those decisions. That is why I believe that more should have been done to address the day care shortages in indigenous communities as a first priority, because my constituents do not have access to the same programs that I do based on where they live.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke a bit about workers. One demographic he spoke about was the many immigrant families that choose to become child care workers. Some 98% of early childhood educators are women, and one-third are immigrants and non-permanent residents. More often, workers within early childhood education are also racialized. We know those systems are exploitive. We know that workers are not earning enough money.

I question the concern about this focus on public and non-profit care, because after the Liberal government came out with the announcement prioritizing that, it funded 22,500 private spaces in Alberta. I do not really understand what the hysteria is about.

I wonder if my hon. colleague—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member has used up over a minute, and I want to get to another question.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the member from Winnipeg knows, the agreement signed with British Columbia was different from the agreement signed with Manitoba, where she is from. We have to look at every agreement with the provinces individually.

The Province of British Columbia, which has an NDP government, rightly gave some of the day care workers a raise when this program went through to retain some of those workers, which I think is a positive thing. My family relies on those workers. I put my trust in those women to take care of my children and to do a wonderful job every day. They deserve to be compensated in a fair way.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon continues to amaze me given how much he is like a Green Party candidate, because it is in our platform that we need workplace child care for all the reasons the member just discussed, which I would love him to expand on.

I think Bill C-35 is consistent with putting child care spaces where people can visit their kids throughout the day. If the member wanted to comment more on the advantages of workplace child care, that would be great.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, why I love hearing from my colleague on the opposite side is that we have a Parliament to parler, or to talk and to discuss ideas. If there is agreement between political parties or an idea raised, that is what this chamber is all about. We come here to do exactly that. I do support private corporations that see a need and a way to retain workers by working with their business to provide those extra services to retain workers and train them and to give child care as well. The Government of Canada should incentivize that and encourage it.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to once again be able to rise in the House on behalf of the great people of southwest Saskatchewan.

As I kick off my speech tonight, there is a core principle I really want to get at, and that is about trust. When I speak in this House, I like to ask how much trust the government has built with Canadians and whether Canadians can actually trust what the government is doing.

Before I get into the meat of it, I would really like to talk about the actual cost. We hear a lot from the Liberals about how this is $10-a-day day care. I recognize there is a benefit to people who are currently in the system, who will be paying less up front because of the program. I am not going to deny that and I am not going to say it is not a benefit to people who are in the program and are already benefiting from it. That is great for those people.

However, a lot of people email my office and routinely ask how much this program is actually going to cost. What we do know is that over five years the Liberals have set aside $30 billion to implement this program, so that is the cost we are aware of. We heard others, through many speeches tonight in this place, about the additional costs that are starting to already creep into the system. This is the cost of meals on top of the fees people are going to be paying up front. We are already hearing of extra costs that will be burdened onto the system.

That does not even get into the fact this system we are talking about here tonight is not going to build much in the way of new spaces. It is not going to provide new access to people, which, being from Saskatchewan, and particularly being from rural Saskatchewan, to me is the crux of the debate when we talk about day care.

We know day care is a universal need. It does not matter if one is from urban or rural Canada, from Saskatchewan or Ontario, from Toronto, Swift Current, Frontier, Leader or Maple Creek, one needs access to day care. There are many different ways people realize this. There are a lot of different programs out there. Some of them are private, some of them are run through co-operatives and some of them are just in-home systems. There might be a person who has chosen to be a stay-at-home parent, and other people looking for child care might bring their child to that person and have that person provide the service to them.

A lot of what we are finding out is that this bill would not do anything for those people who are in those situations. In fact, in Saskatchewan, only 10% of kids from the age of zero to 12, whether they are full-time or part-time, currently have access to day care. From zero to six, which is what the agreement signed between the Province of Saskatchewan and the federal government covers, right now that access number I believe is a bit under 18%.

Saskatchewan is a bit of a unique case. I would be willing to say we are the most rural province in this country. I think that is a fair thing for me to say. We have so many small towns. We are a very spread out province, so the needs of people are vastly different in rural versus urban. The access to spaces is different as is access to workers. One of the fundamental issues we have is the access to workers to be able to fill these positions. That is one of the key points we have.

I did a town hall probably about a year and a half ago or maybe two years ago in the town of Maple Creek. A lot of the business owners came together and arranged this. They wanted to have me out to talk to them about what is affecting their businesses. Part of it had to do with the pandemic at the time with the programs and different things, but we also talked about things that were outside of the pandemic.

One of those issues was day care. Multiple business owners have told me they cannot hire the workers they need. In fact, there are many people who came to Maple Creek, interviewed for the job and really wanted to move to Maple Creek, but because there was actually no day care available to them, these people passed on that job and passed on moving to Maple Creek.

To me, Maple Creek is one of the greatest towns in this country. It is a phenomenal place. It does economic development really well. On the cost of living, one can get affordable housing there. There is a great school there and it is close to Cypress Hills. It is close to some of the bigger centres both in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is not terribly far away, so it is a great location and a great place to raise kids, but there are people who have a young family who are choosing to not move to Maple Creek simply because they cannot find day care.

When I talk about trust, repeatedly we do not see the government working to build trust with rural Canadians. To me, that is a problem and is again where this bill misses the mark.

I talked earlier about the agreement between Saskatchewan and the federal government. Part of the agreement that they signed only provides the subsidy for kids aged zero to six. I have a had a mother reach out, talking about both her and her husband and the hours they work. They need day care before and after school, and the agreement actually does not cover people in that situation. Therefore, those people are being left out of the picture here, yet in a community like Swift Current, that is actually a big chunk of people who are trying to utilize day care spots.

I also want to talk a bit about my own story. My wife and I have three kids, and they are fantastic. They are 12, 10 and eight years old. When my wife and I had our first child, we had a great conversation, talking about what our goals as parents were. One of our goals was something that we even talked about when we were first married; it was that my wife wanted to be a stay-at-home mom. This meant that we had to plan out a few things. We had to figure out how we were going to make that work and what that was going to look like. We had to make some big decisions, such as where we were going to live, where we could afford to live and what kind of vehicle we were going to drive.

We had to make a lot of sacrifices. For example, a lot of our friends would go on these big, elaborate trips, and we never did that. For us, a trip was driving from Swift Current to Saskatoon. That was our summer vacation, but that was because it was all we could afford with the goal of having my wife be a stay-at-home mom raising our kids. That just meant that disposable income was not necessarily there. Those were some of the sacrifices we had to make. However, the bill before us would not have any provisions for people who are choosing to stay at home and raise their own kids.

As we added more kids to the mix, it definitely changed that dynamic. My wife was a stay-at-home mom from 2011 all the way up until about 2019. Then, she was first able to go back to work, because our kids were old enough. All three of them were in school at that point in time, and she was able to find some part-time work where she could work during the school day but be home when school was over, so she could be there for the kids when they got home.

I recognize that this reality is not available for everybody, but there is a lot of sacrifice that is required to do that. Therefore, I think it is really important that we talk about the government respecting families that have made that decision. I have listened to Liberal speeches at report stage here and also at second reading, and to paraphrase them, what I heard repeatedly from that side and from some of the other opposition parties was that women are only of value if they are working; they are not of value if they are staying at home. I think that is completely bonkers. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Being a mother is a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week job. There is no break from it. As husbands, we come in and try to do what we can, but there is no replacing a mom in the house. My wife and many other moms we have talked to talk about the commitment it takes, how much work and effort go into it, and how it is more tiring and more gruelling being a stay-at-home mother and being with the kids compared with going to work. However, it is also more rewarding.

I recognize that some people are dedicated to their profession, and they have chosen that professional life, which is awesome. It is fantastic that they are doing that, and we want them to be able to do that. They should have that choice and the ability to do that, but the signalling we are getting the government is that a woman who decides to stay at home has no inherent value, because she is not working. That is the vibe we get from the government. That is the message it is signalling, and that is wrong. The value a stay-at-home parent has, even if the father does stay at home with the kids, is extremely valuable. Society, the kids we raise and the system generally, at large, all benefit from that.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, the notion that somehow anybody in this House has devalued the importance of women in parenting roles is absurd. This is all about choice. This program has helped so many women and fathers go back to work earlier as a result of this subsidy. For what it is worth, I know lots of men who are the primary caretakers and lots of women who are the primary earners in those relationships, and I think it is wonderful that we live in a country where people can have that choice.

The member, prior to that absurd allegation that our government does not value women who stay home to care for their children, which I find offensive, was talking about—

[An hon. member]

He's offended.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, I am offended. As the product of a single mother, I am quite offended by that.

The suggestion that it costs too much to provide an early learning and child care program was also false. When women go back to work, they tend to earn money and pay taxes, and that pays for programs like this. I would like the member to appreciate that.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think it is clause 7 of the bill that talks about funding, but it only talks about the not-for-profit care providers. There is no provision for moms who decide to stay at home and raise their kids. That is the problem.

What actions are the Liberals taking? I have listened to their speeches. I have not for a single speech, ever since second reading, seen one of them get up and talk about the value and importance of a parent being at home with their kids. It could be a father. It could be that the mother is the primary earner, and that is fine; no one is begrudging that. The point is that if somebody decides to stay at home with their kids, there is zero commitment from the government to make sure those people can actually afford to do that, even though a huge percentage of the population would like to do that but cannot because of the predicament the government has put them in.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I found it very shocking that the member, when referring to women who stay home with their children, said they are not working. In fact, that is probably, as a mother, one of the hardest jobs I have had. I just want to remind the member that most unpaid care work is done by women.

Getting back to respecting women, I would also like to remind the member that 98% of early childhood educators are women and they are not earning a livable wage, which is one of the very reasons we have the child care desert that the members keep talking about. When we talk to Conservatives about putting in a plan for workers that pays livable wages and that invests in robust, public not-for-profit care where workers get benefits, wages and retirement, they seem to overlook that question.

Does the member support livable wages and a workforce strategy that pays livable wages, benefits and retirement for early childhood educators, yes or no?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, obviously I support livable wages. I also support an economy where people can afford to live without having to be massively topped up and subsidized by the government. People should be able to have paycheques that actually reward them for the work they are doing.

I also said in my speech, though, that mothers or stay-at-home fathers, and it does not matter which one, are working 24-7 parenting. Whether it is the mother or the father, it is a 24-7 job. I know that my kids, when they wake up with a fever or something like that, are not calling for dad; they are calling for mom. Moms are on call 24-7. It is the hardest but most rewarding job there can be on this earth, and the government fails to recognize that.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, my question is very brief.

I know the member represents a large rural constituency, as do I, his in Saskatchewan and mine in Alberta. I wonder if the member could reflect a bit further on how rural is left out of the entire conversation when it comes to this bill and the overall approach by the government on a whole host of issues but specifically when it comes to child care.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. If we look at a lot of the day care spaces that are the beneficiaries of this program, they are largely in urban centres. Because the majority of private facilities are in rural communities, quite often it is the small-town co-operative that is left out. People are relying on grandma and relying on their aunts and uncles or friends down the road to take care of their kids for them, and this bill does not recognize that.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is 11:30 at night, and it has been a long week here so far, but I am proud to join the discussion and debate tonight on child care affordability in our country.

One of the most difficult things we do at times is humanize ourselves and, more importantly, humanize the debates we are having here about improvements, and helping Canadians and families. I do not have any children. Tonight, as we have this conversation about Bill C-35, I am thinking of my nieces and nephews Kane, Johnny, Hailey and little Evy. The best part is the title that I have is “Unkie Dunkie”. I am going to have to tell the Table here how to spell that for Hansard afterward for the record. I have the best job in the world. If we go to a family function or event, I feed the kids candy and Coca-Cola, or whatever they want. I fire them up on sugar and I get to leave at the end of the night, and my sisters, stepsisters and siblings have to put up with getting them to sleep. Therefore, I have to say I am a bit biased. I have a very good role as “Unkie Dunkie”.

I want to contribute to what has been talked a lot about here tonight, and over the course of the past few weeks, when it comes to the Liberal and NDP plan on child care.

One of the things I have said many times, on many pieces of legislation, is that the Liberals are the best in the communications business when it comes to making flashy announcements. I have always said they get an A for announcement and an F for follow-through on the realization of what they are talking about. This conversation on child care is another perfect illustration of that. Here is the problem. If we were to listen to Liberal and NDP speakers, they would make it seem that the framework for this legislation and the money allocated to it is available to every single parent and child in this country when that is not the case.

We can look at a recent headline across the country on CTV News within the last month, entitled, “New report finds child-care spots available for only 29 per cent of those who need it”. The CBC highlighted, through that same report, another important angle, that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador only has enough registered spaces for 14% of children.

We, as Conservatives, have been highlighting that this is not the be-all and end-all solution to child care affordability, because the number of families that are going to be able to tap into this program is very limited. The desert of child care spaces available in this country is very large and is frankly growing. Many advocates are saying that the problem, under the Liberals over the course of the last eight years, is getting worse, not better, when it comes to spaces and affordability for far too many families.

The other thing I want to contribute, which is a regular thing when it comes to Liberal legislation we see in the House, is that I would call this a bit of a Seinfeld bill. The issue and title of the bill are perhaps worthwhile, but not its content. The Liberals and NDP would make us think that if it did not pass immediately without debate, if we pass it no further, if we do take the time at committee and in the House to share our stories and perspectives, that the financial deals with the provinces are somehow in jeopardy. That is not the case whatsoever. Those deals were signed separately.

Bill C-35 is a vague framework, and like many pieces of legislation, it does not get into the details, but rather kicks things over to the minister in charge of the file to make decisions outside the House, and through regulation afterward.

The interesting thing is this. I have to commend my colleague, who is over my shoulder right now, which is perfect, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, who has been a fantastic voice for our caucus and our party on this. I want to talk about some of the things we tried to do to strengthen the quality, accountability and transparency of the bill to get the true record of what the Liberals and NDP claim they will be doing in the coming years.

We tried to pass amendments on two things, the wait-lists, and the labour rates and number of staffing in child care across the country. If this is going to address spaces, and not create major wait-lists to tap into the program, the government should table a report every year with respect to what the wait-lists are. It refused. The Liberals and the NDP voted that down.

When we said there should be an annual report on the labour force around child care, getting people into those jobs, into those positions, into those new spaces being created to see if the Liberals are following through with what they said they would do, they voted that down as well. That tells us everything we need to know about what this legislation and the plan will do for the overwhelming majority of Canadian families, who are not eligible or able to tap into this.

If there was not going to be a wait-list, if the wait-list was going to be decreasing and solving all the problems, if there was going to be a massive change and surge in labour to address those challenges, one would think the Liberals and NDP would be confident, saying they would absolutely love a report every year. This would show how they are doing better and making improvements. The fact that they voted it down, the fact that they denied that accountability and transparency, tells Canadians everything they need to know about what this plan would do.

I have to say, along the lines of the NDP, what will happen. I was a member of the public accounts committee, a great committee that reads through Auditor General reports. Time and time again, Liberal and NDP members are trying to explain that “A” for announcement, this amazing announcement they have about spending record amounts of money, adding to the deficit, adding more spending. Every time someone criticizes a program, they say not to worry, they have x number of dollars more. The Auditor General is concluding from her independent office that time and time again, the announcement and the follow-through are two completely different things.

As Conservatives, we will continue to fight for Canadians and families to address the root causes, doing more than what is being done here. The principle of affordable child care has been mentioned a few times here tonight. I believe it is a reasonable principle that everybody in this House shares. What Conservatives are fighting for and speaking about is that, in this legislation, in this framework and in the plan that the Liberals and NDP have, there is a lack of flexibility and choice.

I talked about personalizing this debate. I have talked about my nieces and nephews, and my nephew Kane. My sister Jill and her husband, Cody, were very blessed. As Kane grew up and was going into child care before starting school, there was Cassandra Tibben, a neighbour of Jill and Cody's just north of Iroquois, who did an incredible job in her few years with Kane. She was a home care provider just a couple of hundred feet from their place. Jill is a nurse, and Cody works in construction. Cassandra offered that service close to home with flexible hours, and it was a connection in a small town like Iroquois, like in South Dundas and like in eastern Ontario. Under the framework and program that the Liberals have put the funding envelope in, that type of home care is not eligible.

I am thinking tonight of some communities in northern Ontario. I am thinking of Blind River, Wawa, Kapuskasing and Hearst, where there would be some not-for-profit spaces. However, for a shift worker who is 45 minutes out of those towns and looking for home care, the framework that the Liberals and NDP are proposing is very rigid. It leaves out many providers and the finances of many providers, even getting assistance through this, and it leaves a lot of families with no option and no hope through this existing framework.

I am very proud of the work the Conservative caucus has been doing in talking not only about affordability but also choice for parents. Parents need that flexibility. Shift workers, people in rural areas and parents with children with disabilities need more flexibility than what is being offered. We will continue to fight in this House, in committee and across the country to let families know that every single time, these big, flashy Liberal announcements do not follow through with results. Conservatives are results-oriented, and we will keep holding the government to account for its continued failures. Child care, I am sure, through the Auditor General and through the public accounts process, will be the same; it will be another part where the rhetoric does not match the reality.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member opposite was able to personalize a little, and I can too. Last Friday, I was walking through Milton and knocking on doors. In between doors, I talked to Teddy, who was pushing his son in a little stroller. Teddy's son was driving the stroller, actually. I asked how his family was doing. I said I knew there are tough financial times right now and asked if everybody was doing well. He said the big thing is that his family is saving $500 or $600 a month on child care. The Conservatives have repeatedly called this program a failure, saying that investing in a child care program for Canadians is a failure.

I can tell the member first-hand that this is not a question for Teddy's family. Canadians are provided with the kind of support that they are demanding from us. It is saving families a lot of money. It might not be reaching every single family in Canada yet, but it is a great start, and Teddy's family is very grateful.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, Teddy is an example of where somebody is tapping into the program. If they have access to it, if they already have a space, they are able and they are eligible for it, but for every one Teddy, there are probably two or three more, right in Milton, who are not able to go into that program, who are not realizing those savings, who are not seeing those spaces, who are not seeing that increase.

Again, what the member, the Liberals and NDP fail to realize is that for every Teddy, there are multiple other Teddys who are not able to tap into this program. Their child care fees are not being reduced, and instead their taxes are going up, their financial situation, if it is their house price, their mortgage, their rent or trying to save for a down payment on a home, that has all doubled. There are many families being left behind.

It is nowhere near as universal as the Liberals and NDP claim and want us to believe.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, in Quebec, we have experience with day cares that are public and accessible to families who have less money. Is the system perfect and are there always enough day care spaces for everyone? The answer is, of course not. Is that a reason to do nothing and to leave it all up to private, for-profit day cares that cost a fortune? The answer, again, is no.

The framework must be set up, and then workers and space need to be found to create spaces for our families' children. That is how we can get ahead and make some progress.

The Conservatives talk to us about choice, but, right now, the only choice people have if they cannot access a day care that is not expensive but affordable is to stay at home because it costs more to pay for a private day care than it does to go to work, because work does not bring in enough money. That is not a real choice; it is a lack of choice.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, the choice is to do the right thing and provide the flexibility for parents to do what it is best in their family situation.

That would mean expanding the opportunity and the eligibility for assistance beyond not-for-profit and public centres, offering home care as an option that is in people's homes, a couple of blocks away, in their neighbourhood. It means providing the choice and that funding to go towards people who are shift workers in health care and factories, in rural and urban areas alike.

The problem, time and time again, and I agree with the NDP that doing something is one thing, but they are not doing enough. They are not providing the flexibility or the choice for parents to actually make a difference, using those tools and those options that work for best for their choice, not what the Liberals and NDP tell them are the best.

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

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy the member's interventions, and now I do not know that I can ever not call him “Unkie Dunkie” for the rest of his life.

What the member does so well is articulate and elevate the voices of his constituents. Are there are other stories that he would like to share with the House that really highlight the gaps that have not been closed by these Liberals and the NDP?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to. I want to add, in the name of personalization, one of my best friends, Emily Strader, a childhood friend is actually an ECE, working in Ottawa, in child care, and enjoys what she does.

I had many conversations with her and her colleagues at work about the day to day, trying to do what they can to address the massive wait-lists that they have and the frustration they have in this program.

Time and time again, they do not see the announcement, and the flashiness of what is being said, and the actual follow-through. Time and time again, it comes up short. We are seeing way too many women and men working in child care leave, because there is a broken system.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this bill that seeks to create some permanence around the progress that has been made in respect of funding child care in Canada. I want to talk first about the policy, and then I want to talk a little bit about the politics of it.

We have heard a lot of stories here in the chamber tonight. I could add personal anecdotes about the challenges of child care. I will not, because I think we have heard many, and I think we all know that these experiences are common enough that Canadians can appreciate just how stressful it is for families, both in terms of financial stress and just the stress of having child care fall through. We had our kids in home day cares and then we had our kids in centre day cares. Especially when they were in home day cares, if the child care provider at home got sick, that would often mean scrambling the night before, or the morning of, to try to find replacement care. I think that one of the advantages of investing in not-for-profit centre spaces is that they do provide a degree of reliability that one cannot always get when it is one person in their home trying to provide care. It is still a valuable service, and I was grateful to be able to avail myself of that as a parent, and my wife was grateful, but we have also really appreciated the reliability that has come with transitioning to centre-based care.

Why is it that we need public investment in child care? Again, I think we have personalized the issue well enough. The fact of the matter is that, for a lot of parents, what they earn when they go to work is not enough to be able to pay a child care rate that is sufficient to pay people what they need in order to be able to make a living as an early child care educator. It is a classic case of market failure. If it were not, then at some point over the last 40, 50 or 60 years, we would have seen very successful businesses crop up to meet demand, but demand is not being met. It has been chronically unmet because there is a structural problem in the child care market, which is that too many parents cannot make enough money going to work to be able to pay fees that provide enough salary to attract, train and retain qualified early child care educators. That is really why it has been so important for so long for government to get involved.

Of course, provincial governments across the country have gotten involved in various ways. Quebec is, I think, the best example of organized publicly funded care. It is still not perfect, but it is certainly the best that is available in Canada. I come from a province, Manitoba, that has had a lot of investment over the years by NDP governments, frankly, in child care, and we enjoy the second-lowest child care rates in the country. We are one of very few provinces to have a pension plan available for early childhood educators. That was true even before this latest round of bilateral deals, which is not, by any stretch, to say that Manitoba is some kind of child care paradise. It is hard to find a space. It is still a big expense for families. It is hard to attract and retain workers in the field. All those problems still persist, despite being in a province that, on the numbers, is functioning relatively better than some other places in the country in terms of affordability and accessibility.

We need public investment in child care because the market is not satisfying persistent, long-standing demand. Not only that, but that demand for child care comes with a number of other problems for the larger economy, and that is why I heard some members earlier tonight reference studies that have been done. I have read similar studies. They show the economic activity generated by allowing those parents who want to go into the workforce to do so, by governments investing in child care, making more spaces available and making them more accessible by making them more affordable. Women, predominantly, without any kind of government subsidy for the rate they pay, cannot make enough at work to justify paying child care costs and still have something left over at the end of the day.

The amount of extra economic activity that generates would more than pay for the program. It is an important part of satisfying the demands we constantly hear from employers who are saying they need access to more workers. This is how we do it.

One of the ways we do it is by ensuring that the parents who do want to work can go ahead, get a job and know they will be able to get a spot at a rate that empowers them to go to work, take home enough of their paycheque after child care fees, and know it is worthwhile for them to do that.

It is not that these recent deals are a panacea. They do not fix all the problems. It is just a good start to something the government should have been doing decades ago.

I remember when I first ran for office in 2015. I was very proud to run on the idea of a national child care strategy. I watched as Conservatives dismissed the idea out of hand. They said it was not the business of government to be supporting child care or funding child care. Liberals, frankly, ran against it too. They said the provinces would never agree. It was just a pipe dream, it was silly NDP thinking. I am glad to see the thinking around that has changed.

I know we are debating this particular legislation and not just resting on our laurels with the bilateral deals that were signed because of the supply and confidence agreement that the NDP has with the government. It is a CASA item. There is a reason it is there.

It is because we did not want this to be a five-year experiment that would get truncated. We wanted this to be the first five years of an ongoing commitment to building up a child care system that adequately provides for the Canadian workforce so everyone who wants to go out, get a job and provide for their family, but needs child care to be able to do it, will be able to access a space. We are not there yet. We are not even close to there yet.

I know Conservatives would like to say that somehow the New Democrats are pretending that everybody has a spot now. It could not be further from the truth. We are very aware of the problems. Incidentally, I do not know how Conservatives could be blaming this legislation for the current state of affairs. It has not even passed yet. The bilateral deals were only signed about 12 months ago.

The idea that somehow this approach is to blame for the shortage of child care spaces is just a farce for anyone who is paying attention. This approach has not got off the ground yet. I do not want to just see this get off the ground as some kind of five-year trial period, and then the federal government wipes its hands and walks away.

What I want, and why this legislation is so important, is to see this as the first five years of an indefinite program that continues to deliver spaces for Canadian workers on an ongoing basis, not just for the workers' sake, but also for the employers' sake and for the sake of their families.

Yes, there is still a shortage of space. There will continue to be a shortage of spaces for a long time because we cannot just snap our fingers and create a child care system overnight, just as we cannot snap our fingers and create enough housing overnight to meet the demand that is out there.

It is why it is so important that we not waste time debating the value of having a strategy at all and jump full on into talking about what kind of strategy we should have. It is fair game for the Conservatives to disagree with certain elements of the strategy.

For my part, I think it is really important to emphasize non-profit care. Why is that? It is because what I do not want to take hold is the corporate model of child care. There are a few reasons for that.

One is that I think we will get better value for money if we are not already starting out from the point of view that 10% or more of the public dollars that we spend on child care are going to have to go to paying corporate profits. When we look at the corporate track record in long-term care and we compare it to non-profit long-term care, what we see is an appreciable difference in the nature of the care provided. We get better care at non-profit, long-term care centres.

I believe that the same incentive structure that is there for for-profit, long-term care centres to cut corners will also exist for for-profit child care centres to cut corners, and that is why it is important that we put an emphasis on not-for-profit care.

I have more to say, but unfortunately my time is up. Hopefully I will get to more of this in the question and comment portion.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on part of the member's concerns. I am very much concerned that the Conservative Party, given its track record, has no intention of supporting the type of program we have negotiated with our provinces. That is the primary reason we see Bill C-35. It is because I do not believe the Conservatives can be trusted on the issue.

Does the member have any thoughts on the importance of this child care issue? How important is it that the agreements continue on into the years ahead?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly share that concern. As members have referenced already, we saw in 2006 that when the Conservatives had the opportunity to upend child care agreements that had been signed with the provinces, they did not hesitate for a moment; they went ahead and ripped those up. Then they instituted the $100 a month for parents, which presumably was the model they endorsed to create the kind of choice they are talking about tonight. However, we saw that this was not sufficient, and that was at a time when $100 a month went a lot further than it does now. That was not conducive to creating the kind of child care system we need in order to meet demand.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to point out for the member's riding that 76% of children are in a child care desert in Manitoba.

I just got an email, and it says, “Dear Michelle, it's 11:45. I'm sitting watching CPAC live, as you are there yourself. Please mention and ask about ECE workers that are still out of work due to vaccine mandates and would like to get back to work.”

My question to my hon. colleague is from Bonnie Bon, who is watching at home. Will he help ensure this?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the member that the vaccine mandates that put ECE workers out of work in Ontario were done by the Conservative government of Doug Ford. I would encourage her to contact her colleagues in the Conservative government there to talk about what kind of redress might be available for ECE workers who had to leave their job as a result of Conservative-imposed vaccine mandates in Ontario.

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

Madam Speaker, at a basic level, I struggle to understand the fairness of taxing all families and subsidizing some child care choices and not others. People make a variety of choices, and they have a variety of approaches to child care. Some of those reflect their circumstances, the kinds of jobs they have, their choices about the division of labour and these sorts of things. How is it fair that a family that does not use or is not able to access state day care should have to subsidize somebody else who made a different choice? Why do we not simply give support equally to all families and allow them to make their own choices and use those resources to facilitate those choices?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are two things I would say.

One is that the Harper government did do that with $100 a month, but it did not create the kinds of spaces that are required to meet demand, both for the sake of Canadian working families and for employers who want to see more workers available in the labour market.

I would add that one of the biggest beneficiaries of the child care program is actually employers. The New Democrats have been arguing for some time that Canada should not have a bottom-of-the-barrel corporate tax rate of 15%. We are quite open to the idea of having a higher corporate tax rate and ensuring that it is the employers who will be benefiting from having more workers available in the economy who are helping to pay for these child care investments.

The House resumed from June 6 consideration of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House of Commons and represent my constituents by lending my voice to debate on the various bills that come before this chamber. Tonight, we are talking about Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

I have knocked on a lot of doors as a candidate and even an activist in the past. One meets a lot of people at the doors, especially in a riding like mine, which is a suburban riding full of neighbourhoods geared toward younger parents with young families. My riding is statistically younger than the average in Canada, and it is full of homes geared toward families with children. I see a lot of parents and kids at the doors.

Parents and families are under a lot of pressure. We are in the midst of a cost of living crisis. We are in an inflation crisis, where food, transportation, housing, all these things, are ever more expensive. The government has done many things to make these things more expensive, such as the carbon tax, which basically raises the price of everything, but especially food and transportation, whether it is gasoline, bus passes or the way that transportation costs inflate everything. Child care is, of course, among the many ever-increasing expenses that parents face.

When I knock on a door, I never know what I am walking into. Every political candidate here knows the experience, knocking on doors down the whole street, when we get to a door where a young parent answers with a toddler in one arm and a couple more active kids in the house. We may be getting them in a moment of stress. They will talk about a lot of things that make life stressful for parents, such as affordability.

I do not know that I have talked to a parent at a door who said what they really need is a bill that will declare things like quality, availability, affordability, accessibility, inclusiveness and create a new board that would report to a minister. They just want to know that they have access to a child care space. More often, it is a more general sense of financial relief they are looking for; of course, child care is a big piece of this for many families. The bill that we are debating tonight does not offer much in the way of relief from the financial stress and strain that parents are facing and the ability to have confidence in knowing that there will be child care space. Saying the word “availability” does not create child care space.

If one flips through the pages of this bill, there is really not a whole lot here. There are a few pages of throat clearing, definitions and things like that. We get down to its purpose and declarations, where it boldly states the government's “vision for a Canada-wide, community-based early learning and child care system and its commitment to ongoing collaboration with the provinces and Indigenous peoples to support them in their efforts”. It goes on with this talk of goals. I suppose it is good to have goals. If I were a motivational speaker, I guess I would encourage people that way. However, just stating that one has goals is not going to create a child care space, and neither will this bill.

The funding principles that are stated here enshrine in law the government's agreements that it has already entered into with the various provinces and territories. These agreements exist separately, and this bill just talks about them and their principles.

One principle the Liberals are quite clear on is that the only model of child care they really want to address, through not only this bill but also their entire program and the agreements they have entered into, is government and non-profit child care, which would exclude many parents and many entrepreneurs, who happen to almost always be women, operating existing child care facilities.

There are many models of child care that are, at best, not affected at all by this bill, but at worst, they are threatened or challenged by this bill. That came out in testimony when this bill was discussed at the committee stage. The one concrete thing this bill does is establish a national advisory council on early learning and child care. They have created a board. I do not think that is something that will do anything to create child care spaces that do not exist.

We know the Liberals like boards. They give them an outlet for them to appoint their friends. We have seen this before. They can appoint defeated Liberal candidates, Liberal donors or any of their friends. It comes in handy for the Liberals to have their friends appointed to various boards. We see that rather shockingly working itself out with the appointment of the special rapporteur.

This bill would not do anything for Canadians who cannot access spaces. This bill would help some families who already have access, and those families are benefiting from the government's vision for child care. They are having their costs reduced.

There is an entire other set of parents and children who do not have access. We have entire provinces that have virtually no child care. They have been called “child care deserts”. It has been remarked upon how many people in Saskatchewan have no access to a child care space. There is nothing in this bill that would address that.

It may even harm some of the entrepreneurs, as I said, who have existing businesses who do not fall within this model. Newfoundland and Labrador is another province we heard, during the committee study, has limitations of space that nothing in this bill would address.

It is easy to say the word “accessibility”. It is easy to say the words “affordability”, “quality” and “inclusivity”. However, it is hard to see these spaces created and brought into existence. There are too many Canadians who are left out by this bill.

It is a shame about the sensible amendments. They may have helped modify the principles of the bill to make it more inclusive of different models of child care across Canada. That sadly did not happen. We are left with a bill that is full of promise, but short on actual substance to improve the lives of Canadian families.

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

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member, one draws the conclusion that he does not support the legislation, yet I suspect that the Conservative Party, when it comes down to it, will likely be voting in favour of it.

As much as the member was so critical of the legislation, we recognize that there are Conservative premiers, premiers from coast to coast, saying that the $10 day care and the national plan that we put into place is working. We are getting more day care spots. We are seeing the reduction to $10-a-day child care.

Is he going to vote in favour of the legislation? Does he not support $10-a-day day care?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is something of a false premise there, which is that this bill would suddenly conjure $10-a-day child care for everybody. That is not what this bill would do.

The member asked me a direct question about support for this bill, and I will point out to him that I voted for this bill at second reading. I supported this bill going to committee, where it could have been improved through committee study. It was very disappointing that members of the government caucus who are on that committee were not open to amendments. Ironically, the Bloc members, the separatist party members, were prepared to work with Conservatives to improve a bill on a national, federal program.

There were members at committee prepared to make this bill better. I continue to wrestle with rewarding the failure of the Liberal government to fulfill the objectives of the bill, yet I do support the objective of having child care that is available for Canadians, affordable and high-quality.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, what I like about this bill, and I have spoken to this a few times and have raised questions about it as well, is that it enshrines into legislation the importance of indigenous people's rights, as well as enshrining international instruments, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I wonder if the member agrees that enshrining these international instruments is very important in ensuring that our children are getting the best quality care, which they deserve?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is just it. It is about the actual care and quality of care for the children. Most parents, given the choice between a bill that enshrines principles and a day care space that is affordable, would probably choose the affordable day care space.

Again, this is what we often see with the Liberal government and the bills it introduces. The Liberals want to be rewarded for the intentions of their bills rather than their ability to execute and achieve the outcomes they state.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question. He is from the opposite side of Calgary on the diagonal, and his riding is very similar to my own. Like me, he knocks on a lot of doors during election time.

I have never heard a constituent of mine tell me that they wanted to see a bill passed that created a commission or a national council, where people would be paid to talk about an issue as opposed to addressing the issue and dealing with it directly. The member did go through the legislation, and I wonder if he could comment on that.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly my point. The member is correct that the one concrete thing this bill does is create a commission and paid positions for people to talk about child care. I do not see a specific, real, true strategy to deliver on the objectives stated in the legislation.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents, and today we are debating Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care.

I spoke on this bill at second reading, before it went to committee. After reviewing my comments from my previous speech, I do not see many improvements that would address the very important concerns I have with this legislation.

From the outset, I want to affirm that Conservatives support making child care more affordable for families. That is why, back in 2006, our Conservative government created the universal child care benefit, which put money directly in families' pockets to spend on their priorities. At the time, the Liberals claimed that families would just spend it on beer and popcorn, but they have since come around to our position with their improved Canada child benefit, which combined a number of already existing child care benefits, including the Conservative universal child care benefit, under one program.

The Liberals have moved forward with their new Canada-wide early learning and child care initiative. In budget 2021 it was projected to cost $25 billion, at least, over five years. Now, due to record-high inflation and high demand for limited, affordable child care spaces and limited professional child care workers, this number has undoubtedly become far larger.

I would remind the House that this program is being funded entirely by borrowed money, and the cost of these Liberal deficits and higher interest rates means that, for every billion dollars borrowed, they will pay an additional $45 million in interest every year.

I am very excited to see the new movie Oppenheimer. Thinking about that movie got me thinking about the brilliant Albert Einstein. Einstein is reported to have said that the eighth wonder of the world is compound interest. Those who understand it will receive it, and those who do not understand it will pay it. I do not think the Liberal government understands it because compound interest is truly a powerful force.

As the Liberals borrow billions more each year to fund their programs, that interest compounds. At the current interest rates of 4.5% for Canada government bonds, the interest cost for a plan that costs a billion a year will exceed and rise exponentially as long the government borrows year after year. These deficits are radically increasing the interest costs Canadian taxpayers will have to pay. Eventually, this debt has to be repaid. It is Canadians and the economy that will suffer because the government will either have to borrow more or tax Canadians more to pay for it.

We have always given the Liberals a hard time. We have called them the tax-and-spend Liberals, but today we have something that is far worse. We have the borrow-and-spend Liberals. At least with the tax-and-spend Liberals, they would go out and raise taxes to try to gather money to pay for their programs. With the borrow-and-spend Liberals, they conjure this money out of thin air. They create new money in the system.

This creates inflation in two ways. By competing for capital in the economy, they raise the cost of everything from mortgages to business lines of credit, which thus raises the cost of owning a home, running a business and many other things. The second way it creates inflation is when they spend that money. When government spends the money it borrowed, it is competing with consumers and businesses for goods and services, which raises the cost of everything.

The Liberal child care plan is proving to be not only an expensive failure, but also extraordinarily inflationary. I have spent the last two years, since the government brought forward this program, consulting with families and child care operators. Very few of them have anything good to say about these programs. While some families have benefited from lower child care costs, there are at least tens of thousands of Canadian children who are stuck on waiting lists. Some of them have been stuck on these waiting list for years. Their children will be in kindergarten before a spot ever opens up, if it ever does, so they will not benefit from this program.

The guiding principles under section 7 about funding in this bill say that this program must be accessible, affordable and inclusive. The program has been implemented over the past couple of years. It is still in the process of being fully implemented, but looking at the outcome of what we have seen so far, the program, as it stands, is not accessible. At least 50% of families have not been able to access an affordable care space. It is not affordable because those families that cannot access a space are still paying the full unsubsidized price for child care, and it is certainly not inclusive because these families are from all sorts of communities.

Because this is a universal child care plan, it does not matter if a family earns hundreds of thousands of dollars a year or a family is below the poverty line. There is no consideration for lower-income families or special dispensation for these families, so what we are seeing is that marginalized communities are being further marginalized by being excluded from programs. As such, on its own principles, the government is failing to achieve what it said its principles are.

The government also said under paragraph 7(1)(b) of this legislation that the bill must provide access that enables “families of all income levels, including low incomes, to benefit”. Before the implementation of the Liberal early learning and child care plan, many families across Canada already benefited from subsidy programs provided by their municipalities and provincial governments. These low-income families were paying far less for child care than the top rate that most middle-income and upper-income families were paying. These families were already benefiting from government subsidies in some form or another. However, because the government has implemented a universal system that does not take into account means testing of income, we have a flood of people from middle- and upper-income families taking spots in the system, and low-income families that could get subsidized spots in the system are no longer benefiting from these spots. Therefore, on another principle of this legislation, the government's already existing child care plan is failing.

Statistics show that the demographics of people who were already accessing child care in this country before the implementation of this Liberal plan were primarily middle- and upper-income families. Those middle- and upper-income families that already had a child care space are the primary beneficiaries, because they never had to wait on a waiting list since they already had a child care space. When the government took the $1,500 a month families were paying and brought it down to $500 a month, it was putting $1,000 a month in the pockets of primarily middle- and upper-income families.

This fails on the standard and principle of creating equity and fairness, because we know that inflation impacts lowest-income families the most. Lowest-income families spend proportionally more of their income on things like shelter and housing, transportation, food and other things. As such, when these families do not get access to child care, they continue to spend a lot of money. When higher-income families get access to these government subsidies, which they are currently, they get extra money in their pockets and spend it on things that are not necessarily shelter or necessities because they are of higher income and it is a lower proportion. They are spending money on more restaurants, a new vehicle or maybe a bigger house. As we are seeing, these are areas where inflation is really rising in this country.

This is another example that demonstrates the inflationary power of the government's legislation. The people who are being hurt the most are the lower-income families, because the prices of things are being pushed further and further beyond their reach.

I spoke to child care operators and asked what the biggest problem they are facing is, and they said labour is the biggest problem. They said to me that currently in Ontario the most they can pay a child care operator is $25 an hour. That is annualized at about $48,000 a year. There was a woman working at a day care centre who has been working there for 30 years, and she is getting paid $25 an hour. She is making less today, after inflation, than she was making when she started 30 years ago. For a high school or university graduate coming straight out of school, an entry-level job in the federal government will pay around $48,000.

A 30-year professional child care operator under this Liberal plan, which the Liberals say will raise wages somewhat, is making less than an entry-level worker for the federal government, and with competition for labour, they are losing people left, right and centre. They cannot retain people, and because of the restrictions and regulations the government has put in place under this legislation, they cannot compete for this labour. Their hands are tied and they are losing staff, which means losing capacity and increasing wait-lists. This is an unfolding disaster that families are seeing across Canada.

Finally, the child care director told me that the reason families cannot get spots is that the government has capped the number of spots it will fund. These families cannot get spots because the government is choosing not to fund them. The government is responsible for the wait-lists we are seeing in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick quotes, one from Canada's most populated province. “I'm so proud of the work we've done with our federal partners to land an agreement that will lower costs for families across the province.” This is from Doug Ford, who happens to be the Premier of Ontario. Here is another quote: “Our government is proud to work in partnership with Canada to strengthen and grow Manitoba's early learning and childcare system in all communities of our province.” This is from Heather Stefanson, the Conservative Premier of Manitoba, my home province.

The Conservatives like to bad-talk the legislation, yet at second reading they voted in favour of it. Chances are they are going to vote in favour of it at third reading.

Will the hon. member clarify this for those who are following the debate. Have the Conservatives made up their mind? Do they know what they are going to do at third reading? We understand they do not like it, but will they vote against it?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to see politicians stand up in the House and quote other politicians who are patting each other on the back about how wonderful the things they have done are. However, do members know who I really want to hear from? I want to hear from the families that have been waiting for two years on a waiting list. They are literally calling child care centres several times a week to ask if they have an opening yet. They are being told there is a 700-child wait-list.

I want to hear less from government members about patting each other on the back over how wonderful a job they are doing, and I want to hear what their constituents are telling them about these massive wait-lists, which are only being exacerbated by the government's failure.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the member is going to be upset when I quote another politician to him. He is a member of Parliament from Alberta, as I am, so I just want to flag for him that in 2021, Danielle Smith, the Premier of Alberta, wrote before she was premier, “‘How could we sign a deal like this?’.... It's not too late to change course”. Of course, after she was in the election campaign recently, that changed. She then said that she was very proud of the $10-a-day day care plan, and she in fact took credit for it. We can see how Albertans would be very confused.

I would like to know, like the member from the Liberal Party, where the Conservative Party of Canada stands on this. Are Conservatives also confused? Are we also to expect that they will say one thing when they are in the House and another thing when they are campaigning? Where do they stand on this bill? Will they support child care for Canadians? Will he support child care for Albertans by voting for this bill?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this bill will do nothing to create more affordable child care spaces for Albertans.

I think this is very interesting. The NDP comes from a philosophical place that says for those who have much to give, much will be asked for, and for those who do not have much, much will be given. I find it very odd that the New Democrats are not criticizing this legislation in the same way I am because of the inequality it is entrenching in our system.

It is the middle- and upper-income families that are statistically benefiting far more from this government subsidy than lower-income families. I would think that the New Democrats, in the spirit of wealth redistribution, which is something they claim to support, would at least have some criticism to suggest that maybe it is lower-income families that need more support through this legislation. We are not seeing that support for low-income families, and it is very surprising that the NDP is not standing up for the low-income families being excluded by this flawed Liberal policy.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his presentation.

To the comments by the previous questioners of the hon. member today, one thing that I think we fail to realize is that, while other politicians are saying the federal government has done a pretty decent job on some of this, the federal government has really only given them one option: here is the package; take it or leave it.

With the position that most of the provinces are in, there are dollars coming their way, but they are not in a very good position these days after COVID and the other things the federal government has imposed on them, like the carbon tax. People who represent those provinces only have one option, and they are bound to take the money because the provinces are all in dire straits, just as the federal government put in by the Liberals is.

I wonder if he could comment on the fact that there is only one option, and the provinces are not in a position to not take the dollars for some of these programs.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think too often in this House, it is forgotten that there is only one taxpayer. The federal government does not give money to the provinces. It is all coming from the same taxpayer, taxpayers who are residents of the municipalities, residents of the provinces, residents of Canada. With this cycling of money, we have to remember that fundamentally it comes from the same hard-working taxpayers. We need to start standing up for them for a change, because we are not seeing that from the Liberal government.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

We know Canadians are struggling. When I speak to parents about affordability, they tell me about how they cannot afford to pay the bills, they cannot afford to heat their homes, they cannot afford to put gas in the tank and they cannot afford to put food on the table. When discussing child care, it is important to address the affordability concerns that I hear from parents.

The Prime Minister's inflationary spending has created a cost of living crisis. Families cannot afford basic necessities anymore. I was just debating the recent Liberal budget, which proposes more than $60 billion in new spending, pouring even more fuel on the inflationary fire. This additional spending comes out to $4,200 per family, meaning higher costs for those already struggling to get by. This burden only makes it harder for parents to afford quality care for their children. To make matters worse, the Liberal government is tripling the carbon tax, making it more expensive for Canadian families to make ends meet.

It does not stop there. Just in case Canadians were not struggling enough, the government is implementing a second carbon tax. Yes, Canadians heard that right. The new tax will cost the average family in Manitoba over $600 additionally per year, without a rebate. The Prime Minister's carbon tax will cost families in Manitoba over $2,100 a year. Parents cannot afford these new tax hikes when they are raising families. Rural Canada will be hit especially hard by these punitive taxes, displaying the Liberal government's disregard for the rural way of life.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, everything feels broken. The Liberals have hiked taxes on Canadians while fuelling inflation through their out-of-control spending. We recently learned that Canadians will have to bear yet another interest rate hike caused by the NDP-Liberal coalition's out-of-control spending.

To trick Canadians into believing it is acting on affordability, the Liberal government has unveiled the so-called $10-a-day child care plan. Unfortunately, this proposal is nothing more than a political marketing scheme designed to deceive Canadians. The Liberal government thrives on making grand promises but fails to deliver on them.

Why should Canadians believe the Liberals about child care this time? The Liberals have been promising results on this for years. Canadian families, especially those in rural Canada, are concerned about child care. The lack of available child care is becoming the norm across the country. Canadians have heard and experienced the stories of those waiting months, and in some cases years, to find a child care space for their child.

Some Canadians add their names to countless lists, only to continue waiting, with no response in sight. This causes parents to stay out of the workforce for an extended period of time, something they cannot afford to do during this cost of living crisis. The pain and suffering that families face waiting for child care should be a top priority for the government.

In my own province of Manitoba, 76% of children live in areas without equitable access to child care. This figure gets considerably worse for families that live in rural Canada. In many communities, only one child care space is available for every three children. Canadian families need more access and more choices in child care, not an Ottawa-knows-best type of approach. Any discussion of child care needs to empower the voices of those in rural Canada, not just those in urban areas. Unfortunately for the Liberal government, listening to the voices of rural Canada is not something it has ever displayed.

During consideration of Bill C-35, the Conservatives sought to strengthen the voice of private, home-based child care providers. Supporting home-based caregivers and listening to their voices would have strengthened access for families in rural Canada. It is not just me saying this. Listen to those in the industry. Julie Bisnath, program coordinator of the Child Care Providers Resource Network, stated, “Championing home child care...would increase access to a diverse array of child care options.” Unfortunately, the NDP-Liberal coalition voted down these common-sense measures that would address the concerns of families struggling to find care.

To make matters worse, the number of skilled child care workers across Canada is in short supply. There are not enough workers to meet the needs of Canadian families who are struggling to access care.

In my home province of Manitoba, it is estimated an extra 3,000 early childhood educators will be required to fulfill the demand in the near future. Unfortunately, Bill C-35 does nothing to address this shortage.

How does the Liberal government believe Canadian families will have access to child care without the workers needed to provide that support? Once again, the government has unveiled a plan that is filled with promises but light on details.

Our Conservative team previously proposed changes to this legislation that would have addressed the worker shortage in the industry. This included a plan to support recruitment and retention of child care workers, which is an idea that has been praised by experts in the field.

Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, supported this Conservative amendment, stating:

That would absolutely be an amendment we would support because we know that we need a robust workforce strategy to make sure that we can address the recruitment and retention issues in the sector.

Once again, this Conservative proposal was voted down by the NDP-Liberal coalition.

Without a plan to address the shortage of child care workers, especially in rural Canada, we cannot fix the long wait lines for child care across our country. As Conservatives, we believe Canadian families deserve access to affordable and quality child care. Sadly, the Liberal plan will leave many families in the dark.

With the limited number of spots across this country, those who obtain a spot in a $10-a-day child care facility will be lucky. Those who are in the back of the queue will be out of luck. They will be forced to pay much more expensive fees for care, especially those on the lower pay scale.

Although these concerns were brought up in committee by industry experts, their concerns fell on deaf ears. As the Liberal government ignored these concerns, Canadian families on the lower income scale will definitely have the most to lose out of all this. Instead, the pressure to find adequate care will only build while the cost of living continues to impact Canadian families.

This top-down Ottawa-knows-best approach to child care will not address accessibility. It will not consider the lack of child care spaces and workers across this country and it will not address the desire for families to choose care that suits their needs.

Any plan on child care must address the backlog of spaces available for families, any plan on child care must address the shortage of workers and any plan should be centred on allowing families to choose the care that best addresses their needs.

In my region, parents and caregivers know what is best for their children. It is not a handful of Ottawa bureaucrats living miles away. Unfortunately, the NDP-Liberal coalition ignored these concerns throughout the debate on this bill, and it is my worry Canadians, especially those in rural Canada, will pay the price because Ottawa did not listen to their concerns.

The $10-a-day child care is only a political marketing scheme that lacks substance and details to address the concerns of Canadian families. In the end, like everything offered by the Liberal government, it will promise one thing and deliver nothing.

In closing, it is the Conservatives who will continue to speak up for the families struggling to afford child care. It is the Conservatives who will stand up for families who continue to wait for a spot in care. It is Conservatives who will bring home quality child care for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I suspect people have heard of the phrase “the hidden agenda”. The Conservatives are often accused of not telling Canadians what their real intentions are. We are seeing a very good example of that today.

They are very critical of the legislation. They are critical of the $10-a-day child care, but they will not tell us how they will vote. Twice now I have asked them a very clear question. When it comes time to vote on third reading, I asked what the Conservatives will do. My prediction is that the hidden agenda will kick in, the Conservatives will vote yes, and when it comes to it they really do not support it, but do not want to be seen supporting this Liberal initiative.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is the most frustrating thing about these bills. We try to divide them. We try to pick a side. At the end of the day, it is families and kids who are going to be harmed the most by this.

When we create a bill like this and do not listen to the industry and do not look after the people who actually need the service, there is a problem. That is what I am discussing. That was what my whole speech was about. There are huge holes in this bill and hopefully the Senate can fix it.

Right now, we are debating this. Maybe he will have a change of heart when he goes home tonight. Maybe there will be some changes that come up, but right now, this is where it is at.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raised a number of important issues. I would like to hear his thoughts on some of those issues.

He talked about the labour shortage. Is it not true that low-cost child care that enables more women to remain in the workforce does more to reduce the labour shortage than expensive child care that encourages women to stay at home with their children? When a parent stays at home and does not work, there may be other benefits, but not economic benefits.

Does subsidized child care not ultimately reduce the labour shortage?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the labour shortage is this bill does not address it. There is such a great need; 3,000 jobs are needed in Manitoba alone. The need is so great and the Liberals did not even address that in here.

There are things called “child care deserts” and I did not get to the stats on them. For every province, the stats are broken down here. According to the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives, 48% of children live in child care deserts. By province, Saskatchewan tops the list at 92%. Newfoundland, a very rural province, is at 79%. In Manitoba, 76% live in a child care desert. B.C. is at 64%. Then there are Alberta, Ontario. Quebec is at 11%. Funny, it works because you have been there the longest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was much younger when I got elected and I have listened, for many years, to Conservatives attacking child care. Now I am an old, white guy and I am pretty good at identifying old, white guys, so whenever it comes to child care, Conservatives get all their old, white guys up there to say why we do not need it, why this is a failure. It has been an ongoing gong show.

The other thing the Conservatives say is it is rural against urban. I live in a rural area and it is not the 1950s. It is the same attitude they brought to the fact that we are dealing with a climate catastrophe and not a single Conservative showed up for the forest fire debate.

Why are the Conservatives putting up all their rural old, white guys, when we are dealing with what young mothers and young families need? Mothers and women have a right to access. The Conservatives have no plan. They have never had a plan and they would do everything they can to—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to say to that. That is just a pathetic question. It is not even just a pathetic statement; it is untrue. I did not do anything to set up anybody against anything. The Liberals do forget about rural. We have a rural lens and the member knows full well that we have special concerns. Rural Canada needs to be addressed separately.

For the NDP member to sit there and say there is nothing wrong with this bill, I would say my whole speech was about holes. Why did that member not sit down with the committee and actually address the holes that were in there so it would be a better bill?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, for too long families in Canada have struggled to find high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care. Bill C-35 is a really important step to changing that once and for all. I am pleased to speak to this bill and to give a bit of a northern flavour. Bill C-35 will replace that unnecessary struggle with access to affordable, high-quality and inclusive early learning and child care.

For families, access to child care is not a luxury, but an absolute necessity. It will give children, whoever they are, wherever they live across the country, a chance at the best start in life. It will give parents the peace of mind that comes with knowing their children are in safe, skilled and caring hands. It will give thousands more parents the opportunity to join the workforce, pursue their professional ambitions and contribute to the Canadian economy.

I have a special interest, ever since being the chief medical officer of health in Yukon over a dozen years ago, where I got to learn the value to not only public health, but also the economy of subsidized early learning and child care. Therefore, this is not hyperbole, but an area where we are already seeing results. Of course, we already have the overwhelming evidence from Quebec, which has long established its own affordable child care system.

Experts agree. TD Bank has been saying since 2012 that this should be a top spending priority of a federal government. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce talked about the disproportionate effect on women and participation in the labour force as a result of the pandemic and the necessity to invest in child care.

We know now that, because of the early learning and child care agreements the Government of Canada has signed with all provinces and territories, parents have already seen child care fees decrease and child care spaces increase.

Also, we have made crucial investments to support our early childhood educators, who are the cornerstone of a high-quality early learning and child care workforce. Every single one of those agreements includes commitments that will support provinces and territories in making improvements to benefits and wages, and access to ongoing, leading-edge training for early childhood educators.

As much as time permits, I would like to focus on the territories and how the early learning and child care agreements are benefiting families in Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Yukon.

I know my colleague from Nunavut is here to participate as well in this debate.

While certainly there are many indigenous communities across the north with a pressing need for child care, the Government of Canada is working in a coordinated manner, through jointly managed partnerships with first nations, indigenous communities and the Métis Nation, to expand quality and culturally based service delivery based on indigenous priorities for indigenous families regardless of where they live. This is a separate track, funded through a dedicated indigenous early learning and child care commitment, and listeners should know this is outside of the scope of my remarks today.

Nunavut really deserves high praise for becoming the first jurisdiction to achieve $10-a-day licensed child care under the Canada-wide early learning and child care system. The territory achieved this milestone 15 months ahead of its own action plan schedule and, more remarkably, three years ahead of the March 2026 federal goal for Canada-wide implementation of $10-a-day early learning and child care. It means Nunavut families began accessing $10-a-day child care as of December last year, and joined Yukon and Quebec in achieving that goal.

In dollar terms, it means families in the territory could save up to $55 per day for each child in care. For a territory experiencing a significant rise in the cost of living, as we know how real that is, this saving provides tangible benefits.

In January last year, the Government of Nunavut and the Government of Canada signed an agreement that secured $66 million over five years to support early learning and child care in Nunavut. This investment is in addition to the nearly $13 million we announced in August 2021. That agreement includes $2.8 million to support the early childhood workforce.

Nunavut will create 238 new, licensed, not-for-profit spaces by the end of March 2026, and is already moving toward reaching that target. We may not be surprised if Nunavut gets there well ahead of 2026.

Yukon achieved the target of an average $10-a-day fee in the spring of 2021 through its own universal child care program. I am very proud of the progress Yukon made early and ahead of this federal program. Since then, with the help of federal investment, the territory has been making great strides in creating spaces and developing its educator workforce.

Since the signing of the Canada-wide agreement, Yukon has created over 200 new spaces to support parents' access to high-quality care. Federal investments of $1,200,000 have also supported the enhancement of early childhood educators' wages in Yukon, resulting in the highest median wage for this sector in Canada. I can see how much of a difference that makes when I talk to childhood educators and day care operators. That helps in recruitment and it helps in quality, and the kids and the families are happy.

Funding of $800,000 provided by the Government of Yukon and the Government of Canada supports the early learning and child care benefits program, which offers comprehensive benefits to early childhood educators working in licensed early learning and child care programs in Yukon.

With the help of Yukon University, the territory is increasing access to quality education for early childhood educators, who may enrol in the university's professional diploma pathway program, which is offering accelerated training. Just last weekend, I was there for the university convocation to watch some of those graduates at convocation proudly walk across the stage. With the help of $120,000 in federal funding, Yukon University has also embarked on an early childhood education program for educators working in rural areas. This focus on educators is a recognition that they are the heart of any successful early childhood education program.

In the Northwest Territories, the Government of Canada and the Government of Northwest Territories announced almost a year ago that child care fees for families with children up to five years of age in licensed child care would be reduced on average by 50%, and the reduction was retroactive to January 1, 2022. Since its implementation, all eligible licensed child care programs across the territory are participating in this reduction initiative. It was one of the benefits of the federal-territorial agreement signed in December 2021.

The Government of Northwest Territories has a well-defined 10-year early learning and child care strategy, and the goal is the total transformation of its early learning and child care system. As Northwest Territories Minister of Education, Culture and Employment R.J. Simpson said when he launched the strategy document, the Northwest Territories is moving toward “a robust, mature and sustainable system.”

Minister Simpson uses the word “sustainable”, and that is at the core of Bill C-35. We have all the early learning and child care pieces in place, and this proposed legislation really is the glue that will bind those pieces. In passing the legislation, we will be promising the best possible start in life to future generations of children in Canada. This will be no idle promise. We know we can do it, because we have the proof.

In the years to come, when families are enjoying the benefits of Canada's fully functioning early learning and child care system, I believe we will look back on the agreements we have made and the legislation before us today and say, “What a great system. How did it take us so long to get this?” Therefore, I urge my colleagues to give quick passage to Bill C-35.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at the committee there were amendments moved by the Conservative members of Parliament to try to improve the bill and make it better. In my riding, there are many shift workers and people who work off-hours who will not be covered by the agreement that would be entrenched into legislation through this bill.

I wonder if the member could explain why the Liberal members on that committee refused to even consider reasonable amendments by the Conservative side to improve this bill.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that dozens of amendments were in fact passed and that there was vigorous discussion, I know, at committee to achieve the best possible legislation and agreement toward that.

I also know that really what we are looking at is a framework, and it is up to the implementation and agreements with the provinces and territories to make it work.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the member for Yukon, which is an amazing place.

I would like to hear what he thinks about the implementation of this bill, which will support subsidized child care. The member spoke at length about the rural nature of his riding. How can we ensure that this program serves both the city of Whitehorse and the more remote communities equally?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and his question.

Rural-urban equity is very important. I know that is a factor the Yukon government is considering in the implementation of this program.

There are always challenges when it comes to recruitment in rural areas. Nevertheless, in general, it works because the needs have been accurately identified so as to ensure appropriate implementation.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns, and I think my colleague from the Bloc just addressed some them.

It is the access and the workers that I am most concerned about. What would the member suggest should be done for northern and rural communities where access to child care staff is not available, where child care workers are not available and where we have seen that there is a lack of access to quality child care?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, we also have to recognize that we are in an era when there are labour shortages in general all around the country, in all sectors. That is one of the challenges we are seeing with implementation.

At the same time, we have set the framework for high-quality education. The other aspect I would briefly point out is that in Yukon, early childhood educators are well paid, and that is a real benefit for both recruitment and retention.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I have four kids who have benefited from the Quebec day care, what was called in those days the $7-a-day day care program. Some studies in Quebec have shown that this program has allowed 70,000 mothers to go back to the workplace and that this has contributed to an increase in the Quebec GDP of more than $5 billion. Yes, everyone heard me right: $5 billion.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on that.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I could probably comment for an hour on that, but I think a couple of key aspects are that we knew Quebec had set the standard years ago and that this was really the standard to aim for with nationwide early learning and child care.

It also brings out the point of what a fantastic investment quality early learning and child care is. It is not just a public health investment, but an economic investment.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will note at the outset that I am sorry to disappoint the member for Timmins—James Bay, but I am not an old white guy. I am a Conservative, but I am not an old white guy.

I would also like to point out that the NDP and Liberals have once again used the draconian tool of closure to shut down debate on the bill we are debating tonight, Bill C-35. It is unfortunate that they lack the courage to have an unfettered debate on child care.

They fear that parents will choose the Conservative approach, which emphasizes choice and freedom.

They must fear that their one-size-fits-all, Ottawa-knows-best approach will be rejected once again.

I spoke on this bill at second reading in January before it went to the human resources committee for study. At that time I laid out four key principles that I thought the committee should use to strengthen the bill.

First, the legislation should find solutions that help parents in the modern economy, not just those working in nine-to-five industries; second, the bill should empower parents to make whatever child care choices best suit their needs; third, the legislation should refrain from dictating to provincial governments about how to deliver their child care services; and fourth, the committee should make recommendations to give families more financial freedom to support any child care choice they make. The government could have started by cancelling the carbon tax and reining in inflationary spending that is driving high interest rates, with another hike yesterday's, and inflation.

With that, I supported sending the bill to committee, where Conservatives brought forward several amendments to enshrine some of these concepts into legislation, but the NDP and the Liberals, as they usually do, used their coalition to shut down common-sense Conservative proposals. Those two parties ignored the call of parents who have to hope for a day care space to open up on a lengthy wait-list. They silenced shift workers, who need child care beyond the hours of operation of regulated day cares. They turned a blind eye to parents who prefer to rely on family members for child care, including many new Canadians. They forgot that indigenous parents often prefer alternatives to state-run child care institutions, given their family and historic experiences with residential schools. They ignored parents in rural and remote communities, where regulated child care is often not available.

It is true that the NDP-Liberal child care plan has helped some parents, but it is also true that the plan is leaving far too many people behind. Thankfully, there is one party in this House that represents the common sense of the common people. Only the Conservative Party supports a child care plan that is parent-driven and child-focused. The Conservative vision flows from our belief in small government and big citizens.

We respect the right of parents to make child care decisions that meet their individual needs. That begins by ensuring families have the financial flexibility they need to create the life they dream of for themselves and for their children. To do that, we have to make life more affordable with lower taxes, lower interest rates and more powerful paycheques.

I was part of the previous Conservative government that promoted income splitting for families and implemented a child care tax credit and the universal child care benefit, and we did so with a balanced budget. Do members remember those?

The benefit was universal and supported the needs of every child in Canada. Unfortunately, the vision of the NDP-Liberal government fails to meet that standard. Its legislation reflects the core belief of left-wing politicians that government is the best solution to societal problems. That is why this bill gives more power to the government to decide who gets child care support and who will provide those services. That is why the government is encroaching on provincial jurisdiction, forcing provinces to give the federal government more control.

For example, the child care agreement with B.C. will direct $3.2 billion into the child care system with one key condition, that those dollars only be allocated to run regulated day cares. I expected a more inclusive and modern child care approach from the Prime Minister, because it is 2023.

His Deputy Prime Minister promised better, when she introduced this child care plan in her budget. She said:

This is women’s liberation. It will mean more women no longer need to choose between motherhood and a career.

This is feminist economic policy in action.

This is so typical of the Liberal government: big promises, no follow-through. Instead, the Liberal government implemented a program straight out of the 1970s, when women were generally limited to typical nine-to-five office jobs.

Listen to the words of Melissa, an Ontario mother of three, an entrepreneur, who is at her wits' end trying to find day care: “I have had my son on a wait-list for three different day care spots since before he was born, so I can return to work, but I have had no success.... My husband and I both work shifts, and I have a goal of starting up my own foot care business. I would like to have full-time child care so that I can pursue that goal, but at this point, I am looking for any care that I can get. For now, I will have to work around my husband's shifts, which is fine but it makes our budget much tighter with the constantly increasing cost of living.”

If Canada really had a feminist economic policy, then striving entrepreneurs like Melissa would be able to find child care that meets their needs. Speaking as a woman who raised a family amid a career in law and politics, I can say that this program is not modern feminist economic policy.

I do not know where the Liberals have been for the past 50 years, while women have been breaking the glass ceiling of every industry and every realm of life. Women are leaders in the military, policing, medicine, aerospace, engineering, mining and resource extraction. They are on the cutting edge of research and development. They are bolstering our food supply chains as agricultural producers. They are manufacturing the cars we drive and designing the transit systems we rely on. Many women are taking up jobs in the skilled trades, helping to construct the homes and highways that we need to build up our great country. Women are thriving in industries that were once male-dominated, and they need flexible child care options that meet their needs. Instead, the Liberals and the NDP implemented recycled Liberal election promises from the 1980s, which fail women working in today's economy.

To make matters worse, the program fails to live up to the standard set by the courts. In 2010, as an administrative law judge with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, I presided over the Johnstone case. Fiona Johnstone worked shifts as a border services officer. Her child care preference was to rely on family, only available three days a week. She sought accommodation from her employer, requesting that she work full time with extended shifts. Her employer refused.

After hearing testimony from child care experts, I made a precedent-setting decision that found the CBSA discriminated against Fiona Johnstone by failing to accommodate her child care choices and needs. My decision, later upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal, protected child care choice as a right for working parents on the ground of family status in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

A modern national child care program should reflect the court ruling by supporting the child care choices of all Canadian parents. This a half-hearted effort. Most of it is inconsequential. The one thing it does is establish an advisory council. Conservatives sought to strengthen this section by including private child care service providers on the council. We also tried to include mandatory reporting on labour shortages in the child care sector to Parliament. Both of these common-sense amendments were rejected by the coalition partners.

I look forward to a day when a Conservative government will better align child care strategy in a way that respects the choices of all Canadian parents.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard the term “Conservative approach.” The Conservative approach has been to threaten to rip up these agreements, much like Prime Minister Harper did in 2006, when we had a deal in place with the provinces.

I would remind the member opposite that Conservative premiers across the country have signed these agreements with the federal government. Why does she not see the merit in these agreements like her Conservative cousins in all provinces across the country?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think my friend across the way is a little confused. He says, “some Conservatives say this and some Conservatives say that” and then he says what the Conservative approach is.

I will tell the member what the Conservative approach is. It is freedom. It is choice. It is respecting parents in their child care choices and giving them the flexibility to meet their very real needs. The modern working woman is not a nine-to-five clerical worker all the time. They are entrepreneurs. They are professionals. They are shift workers. They are people doing all kinds of work in all kinds of industries, and they need to be respected.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, one element of my hon. colleague's speech caught my attention and that is the issue of jurisdiction.

We know that one compromise of a federation is equally sovereign levels of government, each with its own areas of jurisdiction. However, what we have seen in recent years, with increasing frequency, is Ottawa interfering in the provinces' areas of jurisdiction. Social services and child care are not Ottawa's responsibility, but that of the provinces. By taking half the taxes, Ottawa takes those resources and then chooses to use them to interfere in the provinces' areas of jurisdiction by attacking their sovereignty, which is supposed to be on the same footing as Ottawa's sovereignty.

What does my hon. colleague think?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Conservatives respect provincial jurisdiction. Our country, quite rightly, is based on a confederation that has both provincial and federal jurisdiction, sometimes overlapping a bit. We reject the idea that the federal government should impose national programs and put conditions on the money it sends when it is not in its jurisdiction to do so. However, we do believe the federal government has a role to support provinces and support their choices, just like we believe in the freedom of parents to choose their child care for the needs that they have, particularly those who also want to use family members, which is very common, particularly with new Canadians. We need to give parents choice when it comes to raising their own children.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for highlighting the changing reality of the working lives of women in this country.

One thing I do want to point out to the member, gently if I could, is that she brought up the idea that we had used closure or that closure had been used to shut down debate on the bill. However, I am sure she knows the difference between closure and time allocation. The reason I am sure she knows the difference between them is that, of course, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper was in power in 2015, the Conservatives actually hit 100 times that they used time allocation. In fact, a minister at the time, Peter Van Loan, had a cake in the lobby to celebrate the 100th time that the Harper Conservatives used time allocation. So, I am sure the member knows what time allocation is.

One thing I want to ask the member about her speech is with regard to private versus not-for-profit child care. Many experts have told us that not-for-profit, publicly delivered child care is, in fact, higher-quality child care. Would she agree that this is, in fact, the case, that when it is not for profit, when we are not trying to make money off child care, it is a higher-quality child care and it is, in fact, better for children?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I said before, there are many forms of child care, and those forms can be quality. I would not like to tell the young mother running a day care in her home, who manages to accommodate her own children and the children of neighbours who trust her with their care as she provides loving care to them, who will be often shut down by this program, that she is not providing quality care. There are many places that, yes, make some money, not a great deal of money, in for-profit day care providing quality, caring and nurturing child care to children.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all of the members who are in the House today contributing to this very important debate. I am delighted to be here, representing the people of Edmonton Strathcona.

I come to this debate from a place that I think many of us do. I am a parent. I am a mother. I know exactly what it was like to try to get child care for my children. I remember going to centre after centre trying to find a space to help our family as we tried to find child care for my two children, who are perfect in every way. It is important that I mention that. We did find child care for them. We were very happy with our child care and we were very happy with the child care providers who provided that service to us, but I also know that I came from a place of privilege. I was lucky enough to be able to pay a very high price for child care. I was lucky enough to live in an urban community where child care spaces were available. The child care spaces I was able to find were in a non-profit centre and I trusted the care that my children were receiving, but I also remember getting that call two years after my daughter started day care from one of the other centres, saying they finally had a space available, two years after she started day care. Families cannot wait that long. Women cannot wait that long for day care spaces.

We, within the NDP, have been saying for a very long time that child care is fundamental. I stand in this place on the shoulders of the champions of child care who have come before me within the New Democratic Party. Olivia Chow tried to bring forward legislation to make child care a reality. I have seen members of our caucus now work so hard on this child care file. The member for Winnipeg Centre has done more to move this child care discussion forward than I think any other member of Parliament here has done. I know the member for London—Fanshawe, in previous Parliaments, has tried very hard to make child care a reality. In fact, the previous member for London—Fanshawe also tried very hard to make sure that child care was a reality. On top of those people, colleagues within the NDP are also held up and supported by the incredible child care advocates around this country, the incredible labour leaders who have been pushing for this since the 1970s, pushing to have legislation in place, because we always knew that child care was the best thing we could do for families, for women and for children.

The other thing I wanted to highlight is that this particular bill coming forward is something that I think we can all be proud of. We can all be proud that this piece of legislation is coming forward. It is a piece of the supply and confidence agreement that the New Democratic Party of Canada has with the Liberal Party of Canada. This is another one of those pieces the New Democrats have forced the Liberals to do. We would not have this legislation if we did not have that in the supply and confidence agreement.

Today was an exciting day for us as New Democrats because, of course, today the budget implementation act was passed, despite the attempts from the Conservatives to block it. The leader of the official opposition said that he would do anything in his power to stop the bill being voted on, but then it got voted on a couple of hours later. That is a different debate for a different day, but we got dental care today. That was something that New Democrats pushed for. Dental care is something that I think we all should be very proud of, and child care is again one of those things.

There are a few things that I want to discuss about child care. Many members have stood in this place and talked about the challenges with this. I agree. There definitely are challenges with making this child care a reality for every family, for every woman across this country. There is lots of work to be done. It is not going to be enough to pass this legislation, brush our hands and be done. This legislation will require the government to continue to do that very difficult work of making sure that those child care places that are available are available to people in all communities, that they are accessible and that they are quality. That is one of the things that I think are most important.

When we look at child care, we need to ensure that these spaces are quality child care, that they are quality child care positions and that they are accessible to all families. That means we want to make sure that they are available to moms who have different work realities. We want to make sure that they are available to people in rural communities, in northern communities and in communities that have had trouble finding child care workers. We want to make sure that those places are there. That is the work that needs to go into this going forward.

We also want to make sure that we are investing federal dollars, public dollars, into a public system. This is an ideological difference between the Conservatives and the New Democrats, just as how Conservatives believe in private health care and we do not. We fundamentally think that health care is better when it is publicly delivered and universally accessible, paid for not with a credit card but using a health card. We believe that on health care. We believe that on child care.

Fundamentally, we know that child care is better when it is publicly delivered, when it is delivered within the public good. It is like long-term care. During COVID-19, we all saw that it was the private long-term care centres that had the highest mortality, that had the highest pain for seniors and that had the highest level of indignity that seniors went through during the terrible time of COVID.

It is the same idea. One cannot make profit off of child care without cutting corners. It is just not possible. That is how one makes profit on child care. One pays the staff less. One cuts corners and quality of care. For our young people, that is not what we are looking for.

That brings me to my next point. I want to talk about child care workers. We have a very big concern that there is a shortage of child care workers. How do we address that? We make sure that child care workers are paid adequately. We make sure that child care workers are able to access and pay for the training that they need, that they are able to support their families and that the job they have is a family-sustaining job. That is how we get more people to be involved in child care work.

In my province, we have an unbelievable group of folks who are working on the child care file. I have met with them many times, the advocates who have been doing some of this work for such a long time. Susan Cake is one of those advocates. She is the chair of Child Care Now Alberta. She says that “while it could be great that we will have 20,000 more spaces for children in Alberta, we need a concrete plan to staff these spaces. We need a plan to educate more Early Childhood Educators and we need a wage grid, inclusive of pensions and benefits, to ensure fair compensation across the province.”

I think that is fair. We cannot look at this program without looking at the idea of making sure that child care workers and child care educators are provided with the resources they need.

We need this in legislation for one really fundamental reason, which is to protect child care from Conservative governments. I have to say it. In Alberta, we have a premier right now who said, in 2021, that signing the $10-a-day child care program was a terrible decision, that it should not have happened and that they should never have done it. She, of course, campaigned on this $10-a-day child care and claimed it as her own, but this is something that is deeply worrying. We have a Conservative Party here whose leader has actually said that he does not believe in this child care program and that he would scrap the spending that is going into it.

I have some serious concerns about what we have to put into legislation. It is not just because child care is the right thing to do. It is not just because child care is vitally important for women, for families and for children. It is not just so that we can ensure that workers are paid an adequate wage, so that quality, accessible child care is available in every place in this country. Rather, it is also to ensure that, no matter what, Conservatives cannot take child care away from families and give money to their friends instead.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I quite enjoyed hearing my colleague's speech, especially when she touched upon her personal experience. We have been hearing a lot about the Conservatives and why they feel that no plan is a good plan, why they would throw out a plan that helps many. It may not help everyone who wants to stay at home or have families take care of their children, but for many, that is not a possibility.

Those women need a sustainable centre where they can send their children. What does the hon. member think the plan will mean for women in her riding?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to point out during my speech that, when Rachel Notley was elected as the premier of Alberta in 2015, she put in a pilot project for $25-a-day child care. That contributed to cutting child poverty in half in the province of Alberta during the time she was the premier. It was a pilot, and I think $10 a day is a much more reasonable cost.

We heard from chambers of commerce and the Royal Bank. Even after COVID, we heard that the best thing we could do for economic recovery in this country was provide child care to families. For Edmonton Strathcona, for Alberta and for places across this country, it is fundamental in how it will change people's lives.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is the puzzling thing. I have a question for the NDP. It is supposed to be for the working people. It does not matter if they are male or female. When I think of the NDP, working families is its history, but it seems to have forgotten about that.

My speech was all about the holes. It was all about the things we tried to bring forward as Conservatives that were not addressed by the NDP or the Liberals. I do not understand that.

Right now, there is a system where a doctor or a nurse making six figures will get the subsidy as long as they have a day care spot. However, the parents working out there on the farms or in the trucking industry do not get it at all. How can the NDP square that off?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, boy, that is quite a question.

I spoke about the importance of protecting the workers who work within our child care centres. I talked about how this is fundamental for allowing women to go back to work or letting them go back to work.

When the member brings up a question like this, what he is really trying to ask is why there is not money for the for-profit centres. He is asking why money is not being given to the Conservatives' friends for the for-profit centres. I am not interested in answering that. He knows the answer. It is because better-quality child care comes when it is not for profit. Non-profit child care is of better quality. I want it for my family, my children and every child in this country.

It is not a very realistic question.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, economist Pierre Fortin studied Quebec's early learning centres. He found that subsidized child care centres were self-funding in the sense that they resulted in more women remaining in the workforce, earning income and paying income tax. Their income tax exceeded the cost associated with this measure.

What does my hon. colleague think about that?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an excellent point. It made me a little sad after COVID, after we were recovering from COVID economically, and that was when people were paying attention to child care. People have been saying for decades that child care is a vital piece of our economy. The fact that it took a global pandemic for people to say that this is what will restart our economy was a little sad, but it is 100% accurate. When women can contribute, when they can be in the workforce, that is an economic driver that cannot be overestimated. It is a fantastic opportunity for our economy, and any attempt to stifle that is a grave economic mistake.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour once again to rise in this House today as representative of the amazing people from the riding of North Okanagan—Shuswap.

I rise today to speak to report stage on Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, or as the Liberals love to call it, the universal child care plan. I will be speaking to some extent about how it is not really a universal child care plan; instead, it is a plan that would benefit those in areas with access to day care, especially those who already have children in day care. However, it leaves out the 50% children living in what have been called “child care deserts”.

I support anything we can do to make life better for young parents, or even grandparents or guardians, who are raising children anywhere. However, I am not sure the Liberal-NDP government does. It is a number of years since my wife of 44 years and I required child care. As I go back to those wonderful years, and all those 44 years have been truly wonderful thanks to her, I recall that there was a time when we were coming out of the recessionary times caused by a former Liberal government that had a spending problem. It caused massive inflation and skyrocketing interest rates.

During those wonderful years, we struggled to afford our home, to put food on the table and to provide the best for our daughter. We were only able to do that because we had family help. We had family members only minutes away who were able to provide child care so that my wife could return to work to help pay the bills.

The bills at that time were so inflated that we thought we were doing well when we got our first mortgage at 9.5% and a second mortgage at 12.5%. Friends had bought a few years prior at mortgage rates of 19% to 21%. That was all caused by a former Liberal government's overspending, which caused incredible inflation.

We have now come to a point where we are grandparents to a beautiful granddaughter, who has made our hearts grow more than one size bigger. I believe she is at home watching with her parents, so Grampy says hi to Ava. We are blessed, as she and her parents are, that they have access to good day care for her, because they live in a larger city.

While this bill is touted to be about universal child care, it is very clear that it will not be universal. With 50% of children in Canada living in child care deserts, it simply cannot be called “universal”. In fact, my colleagues have proposed that the short title of the bill be changed from the current title of “Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act”.

With 50% of children living in areas without government-approved day care, Conservatives have been the only ones raising the alarm bells that parents have been ringing, and that the government, in its usual fashion, has failed to listen to or understand. This is much as it failed to listen to the warnings it was given about massive deficits causing life to be unaffordable, especially for young families.

I mentioned that we had family close by. We had a caring grandmother who gave us a choice, so my wife could return to work. We had the choice of what we thought was the best day care possible for our daughter. This bill would not give parents the choice of how they want to provide day care for their children. They will not benefit from this bill if they live outside of urban centres or if they choose to have a family member or friend provide child care.

Universal child care needs to be truly universal. It needs to be universal to those in the urban centres, and it needs to be universal to those who choose to provide non-government supported child care. It needs to be universal to low-income families that do not have transportation or some of the other amenities and benefits available those with higher incomes. It needs to be universal to those living in rural areas, such as those in my riding in areas like Falkland, Cherryville, Anglemont, Adams Lake or Malakwa, all areas that could be a 30-minute to an hour-long drive to a community with child care covered by this program.

Young parents living in these communities would face long drives, fuel costs and time in dangerous winter or summer traffic conditions just to get their children to child care, instead of having access closer to home on a more equitable basis, where they may be able to carry on a home-based business or work at a local small business. They cannot do that under this program.

Witnesses testified at committee about the problems with the shortage of spaces and how it is not a universal, equitable plan. Ms. Maggie Moser, director of the board of directors of the Ontario Association of Independent Child Care Centres said:

The CWELCC program has not delivered good value for taxpayers and does not meet Canadian standards of equity. The implementation provides undue benefits to higher-income families, who are sailing their yachts on the tides of the program, while those who need it most are left drowning.

Lower-income families were excluded from obtaining access to the CWELCC child care spots. Families who could already afford the fees of their centre were the ones who benefited from the rebates and discounts, while the rest were left behind on a long wait-list.

She also talked about the association she works with, stating:

We have 147 spaces as well as 24 half-time spaces, going all the way from infant up to kindergarten. Our centre is 100% full. There is not one empty space in our centre.

At the moment, we have around 600 names on our wait-list. They are for spots in the next year and a half. It is a current list, in that we ask our families to contact us every six months to maintain their registration. If they haven't done that, we take them off the list so that we can maintain a list only of families who are now looking for the next 18 months.

I am disappointed that the Liberal-NDP coalition continues to mislead Canadians in so many ways. For them to be labelling this as a universal child care bill and program is absolutely false. It is disgusting they are misleading Canadians by failing to recognize the 50% of children in Canada will not benefit from this program, especially those in rural communities and those who are not in a program already.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have heard many speeches tonight, especially from the Conservative members, that this plan is not universal because there are those who would not like to use a day care centre or those who perhaps cannot use a day care centre. What I am curious about is in the last several platforms of the Conservative Party of Canada, I did not see any solutions as to how they would spend money to try to help families care for their children. We do have a Canada child benefit, which is very generous and goes to many families, many rural families, to help them with child care needs. That is still going to go on.

I would like to know from the member what his plan would be. I would like to see what the proposal would be in their next platform and how the Conservatives would provide child care spaces in rural Canada.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the ways we would provide better access to child care would be to provide choices to Canadians, but we would also make sure that Canadians were not burdened with the heavy costs of inflation and high interest rates. They cannot afford a home to live in, so they cannot even afford day care because of the costs the government is piling on, not just with one carbon tax, but now a second carbon tax.

People in outlying communities have no choice of transportation or public transit. Those are the people who are being hurt the most by the government, and the government is doing nothing to help those people with child care.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

Here is what I understand from his speech and the beginning of his last answer. He does not approve of a government urging people to make greater use of child care services rather than looking to other options, such as keeping children at home with a family member.

Is he saying that, if a government provides some kind of support, it should be neutral in terms of choice and there should be just as great an incentive to keep children at home as there is to send them to child care?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that parents should have the choice of where they send their children for child care or day care, whether that be in their own home with nannies or other people, even family members, coming in to provide child care in the parents' and child's own home, or through the other process. That needs to be more universal, which this program is not even close to providing.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, these debates always provide an opportunity to try to find common ground, even with my Conservative friends and colleagues. In this particular case, what I am noting is the way in which the hon. member quite rightly and aptly describes how capitalism does not value the care economy and does not value a lot of the gendered work that happens in homes and in our communities. I heard the member talk about a need for incentive, for people to be compensated for the care economy, and that reminds me of the guaranteed basic livable income. The member spoke at length about universality, and I happen to believe he is quite right.

Would the hon. member care to reflect on a universal basic income, or a guaranteed basic livable income, for caregivers, be they gendered as the mothers of the household, or the grandparents or any family members, that would allow them to take care of their children in their communities, such as the rural communities he listed in his speech?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, the way to be able to afford that and to pay those day care and child care workers to be in the homes is to have young families being able to take home stronger paycheques and more of their paycheques than the current government is allowing them to take home. The government is taxing them more and more, making it less affordable. We have seen the inflation, the high cost of groceries and the high cost of home heating, so they cannot afford to pay the bills and they cannot afford to pay—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville has the floor.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to share in the discussion of Bill C-35, or the universal child care plan, as messaged by the Liberal government.

Although long-term funding to establish and maintain a predetermined, narrow-scope national early learning and child care program through provincial agreements has already been implemented, and a National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care has already been established, with members of that council already having been announced on November 24, 2022, I will be speaking to the report put forth by HUMA, the committee that studied this legislation, which has already been implemented.

Conservatives are here to ensure that all voices, all perspectives and all needs of parents are heard, to improve and build out on the limited options Bill C-35 would provide. In addition to establishing and maintaining the needed access to child care this bill purports to provide, we have heard from those parents and providers of care who are not recognized, included or guaranteed in any way the same level of support from their federal government in caring for and educating our children. The Liberal government has exclusively indicated that its focus is on establishing and maintaining public and not-for-profit entities. It indicates as a sidebar that private programs would be eligible for funding. However, they do not and would not have the same priority for ongoing federal investments.

When the Liberal government indicates that Bill C-35 would further the progressive realization of the right to benefit from child care services, as recognized in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is also indirectly demeaning the rights and responsibilities of mothers and fathers to ensure that their children are cared for and educated according to their priorities and not necessarily according to the priorities of any particular ruling government in a democracy, or a non-democratic authoritarian body, such as an advisory council that is not accountable to anyone.

Liberals indicate that their universal program would contribute to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I know there is apprehension to some degree in the indigenous communities that prefer to care for their children according to their ways, not under the supervision of a national day care strategy that includes some, dismisses others and chooses winners and losers based on its intentions for reducing the role of parents, extended family, elders and self-determination within their own communities.

The Liberal-NDP government loves to tell Canadians that it is feminist. In fact, the preamble of the bill specifically says, “gender equality, on the rights of women and their economic participation and prosperity”.

Melissa's story needs to be told. She says, “I have 3 kids. Thankfully 2 of them are school age. I'm currently on Mat leave with my third and I have had him on a wait-list for 3 different day care spots since before he was born, and I have been actively looking for day care for my return to work, which was to be in July but I have had no success.

“Thankfully I have holidays that were not paid out and stat and bank OT that my employer is allowing me to use to extend my time off until August, which only allows me more time to look for care.

“My husband and I both work shift work. He works 12 hour continental shifts and I work 8 hour shifts and I have a goal of starting up my own foot care business, so I would like to have full time care so that I can pursue that goal but at this point I am looking for any care that I can get and still no success.

“So I have now had to drop my full time posting at work and I am going to have to work casually so that I can work around my husband's continental shifts.

“Which is fine but it makes our budget so much tighter especially with us having just moved into a bigger house to accommodate our family of 5, and the constantly increasing costs of living.

“My husband joked telling me to open my own day care, but I am actually considering it as it would help my family out and maybe others but that is not actually the ideal career choice for me.

“It's too bad the situation that parents are facing with the day care shortage and the cost of living that is affecting everyone.”

Melissa's story is the opposite of feminism. She has no choice, and her story is one of thousands across this country.

Conservatives recognize that Canadian families should have access to affordable and quality child care and should be able to choose child care providers who best suit their family's needs. Some examples of those whom we would include are those who are proud of their ethnic heritage and want their children to grow up learning within their culture, which is not an option, and those who want their children to be trained up within their faith, including Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or other faiths, to ensure that their family and faith values are respected and followed when their children are being cared for by others.

There are those who want their children to be cared for by a friend or a family member who commits to being their primary caregiver when child care is needed and, of course, needs compensation. There are single parents who want to be able to both work and be the primary caregiver for their children, so they choose part-time or off-hour work to earn a living. They do not qualify. Many families want their children cared for in their home and/or home schooled.

Bill C-35 discriminates against women. Truth be told, the majority of child care operators are women. I am disgusted that the attitude toward these women, the language and intent of the bill, prevents any growth in opportunities for private female operators, many of whom operate home day cares as a means of being with their children while providing a service to other women in the workforce. They have value. They are far more accessible to part-time or shift workers and those who simply need some after-school care. None of these circumstances many women face meet the criteria for a spot in Bill C-35's “universal” program. Affordable quality child care is critical, but if one cannot access it, it does not exist. Bill C-35 does nothing to address accessibility for these people.

The $10-a-day day care does not address the labour shortage or the lack of spaces. Bill C-35 is good for families who already have a child care space, but it does not help the thousands of families across this nation on child care wait-lists, most of whom live in rural Canada, or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces. There are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone to staff new spaces. Therefore, one has to ask what the rationale is for not championing women operators who run day cares and early learning care as small businesses. Wait-lists are years long, and we need to do more to broaden out the scope of this service. It is very disappointing as it stands right now.

As a matter of fact, Conservatives tabled amendments to better this bill. We sought the inclusion of all types of child care, but did not get the support. We did not want it to reflect political ideology but to reflect the choice of parents. We sought to have representatives from private, home-based providers alongside public and not-for-profit providers. It was voted down.

We sought to amend the function of the national advisory council to include supporting the recruitment and retention of a well-qualified workforce, having an understanding of available spaces, and progress in reducing wait-lists via an annual progress report. That was voted down.

We sought to amend the reporting clause in the bill to include the Minister of Labour in the annual reporting, which would have to include a national labour strategy. Again, that was voted down.

This Liberal child care bill prioritizes elitism over compassion. It does not enable families of varying incomes to benefit. The government should be supporting families that need child care most, based on their income. It should not be subsidizing the child care of wealthy families who can afford it with what they are making. It smacks of elitism and is anything but in line with the government's social justice rhetoric. As in the Matthew effect, increasing public provision ends up advantaging higher-income rather than lower-income groups. Even in the Quebec model, despite the gains in access, quality levels remain low compared to the rest of Canada, with lower-income children in lower-quality rather than higher-quality settings.

Of course, there is the labour shortage. There are not enough qualified staff to keep even the existing centres open, let alone staff new spaces. The middle class, and those working hard to join it, a phrase we have heard before, should be the focus of this “universal” program at this point in time. Stakeholders have indicated all kinds of shortcomings in this universal program.

When we form government, Conservatives will ensure that all voices, all perspectives and all needs of parents are heard, and that all means of providing the needed care and early learning are options available to improve and build out on the limited options Bill C-35 provides.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am hearing a lot of sad stories about those who are not able access day care spaces, but what I am not hearing are any solutions.

From what I am hearing, it seems we should do away with the spaces we are creating and the help we are providing, so that everyone ends up with a sad story and nobody has child care. The member can correct me if I am wrong. I would love to hear what her party's solution would be and how it would back that solution. Would it be paying for a system that provides day care for all Canadians, and how would it do it?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, first of all, this program would not be providing that. We need to be really clear about that. It would not be universal, and it should be.

We had a program in place and we would expound on this. Would we take away the money from the provincial governments? Let us get real; of course we would not, because it is needed and is providing growth in care for women's children. However, it is sorely lacking, especially when we get out of the big cities and go anywhere beyond them to rural Canada. There is an incredible shortage of help. I have young mothers and fathers, both working shift work at the mine, who are having to drive their kids to Esterhazy, which is 30 miles away, before they go to work another 10 miles away, at 5:30 in the morning. Those little kids are not getting home until 9:30 at night because that is how far they have to go to hold on to their spaces.

Rural Canada is the backbone of this country. It is where our GDP is created. We need to do a far better job of also providing child care through small businesses that women run incredibly well, and because they care for children. That is the route that we would go.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I listened to my colleague's speech, I wondered where she was getting her information.

In another life, I taught at a university. In a course on social policy, we took a close look at the role of child care and the child care system in Quebec. Several analysts said that the transformative impact on society was unimaginable. Women returned to the workforce, single mothers managed to find a job, children arrived at school without language delays. To hear my colleague, there could be nothing worse than having a public child care system.

I wonder if the thing that bothers her is the fact that this promotes a model other than the traditional family where the mother stays at home and takes care of the children. I wonder.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have a fairly good understanding and grasp of what is going on in Quebec, and there are good things going on; there is no question. How it is being funded is interesting as well, because Quebec is depending on a lot of transfer of funds. That being said, there are still 80,000 children on wait-lists.

When I came here in 2015 and we studied that system as this was first brought up in the House, the truth of the matter is that there were children who aged out before they ever got that care, because there were not enough spaces. Perhaps it is better now; I have not taken a look lately, but the truth of the matter is that it is a real challenge. According to the information I have from Cardus—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Cardus.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Yes, it does good research.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Did you send the research—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Please allow the hon. member to finish.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, on access, quality levels remain low compared to the rest of Canada, with lower-income children in lower-quality day cares rather than in higher-quality settings. This is something I see, and I know that if this carries on, we are already seeing that circumstance where it is the elite people who—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I will give the member for Hamilton Centre a chance to ask a question.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, when I hear the Conservatives say that everything is broken, I think that, in their world, I believe them, because they are the ones trying to tear everything down. We have a member who has spoken at length about all the problems with the system.

This is enabling legislation. One would think that a party that purports to support entrepreneurialism would see an opportunity for a government-funded program, a national program, to inject money into a sector to allow new child care to open up: new child care in the north, rural communities and in her particular riding, for instance. With all these stats that the member purports from these so-called research organizations, like Cardus, she has never once said how she would go about addressing the issue.

My question for the hon. member is this: Will she finally, clearly and definitively state how she would address this particular issue to grow the amount of child care—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville 10 to 15 seconds to answer.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, that was a fine question, but the truth of the matter is that it is not either-or; it is both-and. We are in favour of continuing on with the commitment, and it is time the member realizes there is a role in this country for small business, and women are really good at it. In our rural scenarios, it is a very good way to provide care, which this program would not do.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It being 8:30 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 6, 2023, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 12, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from June 8 consideration of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the report stage of Bill C-35.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #369

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #370

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.