Bill C-35

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada

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

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Minister of Families]

moved that the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Sherbrooke.

I am honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-35 as amended by our hon. colleagues in the other House—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member asked to split her time; therefore, she does need unanimous consent.

Does the hon. minister have unanimous consent to share her time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. minister is splitting 20 minutes, which is no longer unlimited, and then there will be five minutes of questions and comments to the minister.

The hon. minister.

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

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, I am honoured today to rise to speak to Bill C-35 as amended by our hon. colleagues in the other House.

First, I would like to acknowledge the important work and the recommendations from the Senate as we look for ways to always improve on our policies and legislation to better the lives of families in Canada, and in this case, on such an important piece of legislation. In particular, I would like to recognize the Senate sponsor of Bill C-35, who worked tirelessly to ensure its passage, and also the government representative for the Senate for liaising with the senators throughout the bill and, finally, the senator from New Brunswick who put this amendment forward in the spirit of strong advocacy for his community and his region.

To better understand the amendment, it would be useful for me to recap for my hon. colleagues the important work that Bill C-35 would enshrine in law.

First, if passed, this historic legislation would cement the federal government's role as an enduring partner on early learning and child care. It would enshrine into law the federal vision and principles of a Canada-wide system, a system where families across Canada, no matter where they live, have access to affordable, inclusive and high-quality programs and services.

This is not to mention that, in this context, it would also represent a commitment to maintaining long-term federal funding for early learning and child care.

Second, this legislation would increase Parliament's accountability in terms of the progress being made in creating a Canada-wide early learning and child care system.

Finally, Bill C-35 would establish, in law, the national advisory council on early learning and child care.

This legislation is seeking to do a lot, so allow me to break it down. Let us go back to the key principles to be enshrined in the legislation: affordability, quality, access and inclusion. What does an enduring federal investment mean for each one?

On affordability, it means that we can continue to support our federal goal of making child care more affordable by reducing fees for regulated child care to an average of $10 a day, by March 2026, and ensure that it stays affordable well into the future.

That means that parents, usually mothers, will be able to go back to work or school and achieve their full economic potential. This not only supports families, but it also contributes to building a strong economy and better gender equality. This means that children in every family, regardless of their income, can have the best possible start in life because they will be able to benefit from high-quality child care programs and services.

For high-quality child care, it means that federal investments in early learning and child care services foster the social, emotional, physical and cognitive development of young children. This leads to positive outcomes for children's future academic success and long-lasting and far-reaching positive outcomes throughout a person's life.

It means continued investment in the child care workforce. These highly-skilled educators are responsible for helping shape our future leaders. Providing better support and work conditions for early childhood educators means better outcomes for recruitment and retention.

On the principle of access to early learning and child care, it means continuity of the important partnerships with provincial, territorial and indigenous partners, and that means availability of child care services no matter where families live for generations to come.

That brings me to the last principle of inclusivity, because when we say, “all children,” we truly mean all children, including those living in rural and remote communities; children from systematically marginalized groups, such as those from Black and racialized communities; children in lower-income families; and children with a disability or those needing enhanced or individualized supports.

Obviously, it also includes children from francophone and anglophone minority communities.

That is in addition to dedicated federal investments to support indigenous early learning and child care.

It is important to note that Bill C-35 acknowledges that first nations, Inuit and Métis families and children are best supported by early learning and child care services and programs led by indigenous people, and it reinforces the Government of Canada's commitment to work in collaboration with indigenous people to establish and maintain early learning and child care systems rooted in indigenous knowledge, culture and languages and guided by the codeveloped indigenous early learning and child care framework.

Here is another of this bill's major objectives: accountability. These are significant federal investments. Accountability and transparency are essential to ensure sound management of public funds.

That is why this bill requires the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development to report annually to Parliament on the progress being made on the Canada-wide early learning and child care system.

There is a long road ahead of us as we work with provincial, territorial and indigenous partners to build this Canada-wide system. There are and there will continue to be a range of issues and challenges facing families, operators and other stakeholders in the early learning and child care sector. That is why we have the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, and it is so important. It serves as a key forum enabling us to hear from the sector as we implement this system, and its members provide expert advice needed to support continual improvement.

The Government of Canada acknowledges the successes of its provincial, territorial and indigenous partners. They are the ones responsible for designing and implementing child care services in their respective jurisdictions. They are in the best position to set their own priorities.

That said, provinces, territories and indigenous organizations clearly benefit from the greater predictability and assurance of a long-term federal commitment to early learning and child care.

Since we last examined this legislation, our hon. colleagues in the other chamber have amended clause 8 of the legislation. The legislation, as amended, and I am paraphrasing here, would acknowledge the government's commitment to providing long-term funding to early learning and child care programs and services across the country, including for indigenous people and for official language minority communities. The amended legislation continues to recognize that federal funding would be provided primarily through agreements with provinces, territories and indigenous governing bodies and other indigenous entities.

It is through the advocacy of our hon. colleagues in the other chamber that we have before us this amended legislation highlighting the commitment to long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including for official language minority communities.

I would like to thank our hon. colleagues in the other place for their efforts to strengthen this legislation.

I would like to reiterate the government's commitment to supporting and maintaining Canada's linguistic duality. We will continue working with the provinces and territories to ensure that child care is fully inclusive of the needs of all children, including children of official language minority communities.

I recognize that my time is up. I look forward to questions.

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

Madam Speaker, my first question would be about what we are seeing now, which are the stats coming out that more families with lower incomes are not accessing this program. It is actually inequitable.

Higher-income families are accessing this program. Lower-income families are not. What is my colleague doing to fix that, and why is it happening?

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

Madam Speaker, as we moved forward in building this nationwide system, undoubtedly every province and territory came to the table and recognized our core vision and principles around inclusivity and access to high-quality and affordable child care.

As we move forward and as we are now about two years into our commitments with most of the provinces and territories, we see new spots being created across the country. Having said that, undoubtedly there is a lot of work to be done to ensure that new spaces are created where they are needed, and those conversations are ongoing with the provinces and territories. We are currently at the table with many of them, working on their action plans, which include those conversations and providing those details to make sure that early learning and child care is accessible throughout this country, regardless of where one lives.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister on her speech and on her fine efforts to speak French. We always appreciate that.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill despite the fact that we feel that the federal government is once again trying to interfere to some extent with Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction. For example, family policy is not a federal responsibility; it is a provincial responsibility. It would have been so much easier to give the tools, by which I mean the money, to Quebec and the provinces so that Quebec could improve its very effective system and the other provinces could develop a system similar to the one in place in Quebec.

The predecessor to this bill was Bill C‑303. The previous bill included a provision, clause 4, that allowed Quebec to opt out of this agreement with full compensation. That is always a good way to ensure Quebec immediately accepts and supports federal government bills that encroach on the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec.

Can the minister guarantee that, despite the absence of that provision in Bill C‑35, the government still intends to respect Quebec's jurisdiction and Quebec's right to opt out with full financial compensation?

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

Madam Speaker, absolutely. Of course, as we have negotiated the agreements with the provinces and territories, there have been many conversations about the future of early learning and child care across the country and in Quebec.

If I may say so, Quebec has been held up, frankly, as a model and has done incredible work, decades ahead of the rest of Canada. We see that. We have seen the impact of that in Quebec and in women's participation in the labour force in Quebec.

Undoubtedly, I am happy to continue the work with Quebec and with my partner there. I have utmost respect for what they have been able to accomplish and are continuing to invest in and accomplish alongside us.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to work with my colleague across the way. One of the concerns that led to an NDP amendment in committee was to include the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples on decisions impacting their children. The Liberals voted against it.

We are in EI legislation and, once again, the Liberals are trying to throw out amendments that would make sure that Bill C-50 is consistent with UNDRIP.

The hon. member talks about inclusivity. I am wondering why her government continues to not uphold the rights of indigenous peoples in regard to their children.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to work with the hon. member as well.

As we were negotiating across the country, we worked very well with indigenous governments and indigenous partners. We have been really focused on ensuring that early learning and child care is provided that is culturally appropriate and led by indigenous leaders. That is continuing to roll out across the country, and I believe those conversations and that work are ongoing.

Inclusivity is certainly key, front and centre as we continue that work.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, today, while we are discussing the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, I would like to emphasize to my colleagues and, of course, to all Canadians that this bill is a significant and truly historic piece of legislation.

It follows through on the federal government's commitment to families across the country. It is a legislative measure that will enshrine in law all of the work that is being done to implement a Canada-wide early learning and child care system, a system that is affordable, accessible, inclusive and high quality, a system in which families across Canada, regardless of where they live, have access to affordable, inclusive, high-quality programs and services.

We did not get to where we are today by sheer coincidence. Over 50 years ago, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada tabled its report in Parliament. At that time, the report was already calling for affordable and accessible child care services for those who need them.

It took the advocacy of two generations of women and allies to help make these recommendations a reality. Thanks to the resilience of families and experts in the field, history has been made, and I am not just talking about child care.

We are seized with a Senate amendment that also touches on the issue of official language minority communities. This brings me back to the history of Canada's linguistic duality, as enshrined in the Official Languages Act, which is the product of the work of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.

Language rights were enshrined in the Canadian Constitution in 1982, owing to efforts to raise awareness and additional demands. We have an even stronger bill before us thanks to the efforts of our hon. colleagues in the Senate. I would like to thank the hon. senator from New Brunswick, who proposed this amendment, as well as all our other colleagues in the other place for studying this important piece of legislation and trying to strengthen it.

The amendment before us today concerns clause 8, the funding clause. This clause provides for the following: “The Government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples” and, as amended, “for official language minority communities”.

Next, the clause recognizes that funding will continue to be provided primarily through “agreements with the provincial governments and Indigenous governing bodies and other Indigenous entities that represent the interests of an Indigenous group and its members”.

This amendment acknowledges the work already under way with our provincial, territorial and indigenous partners to build a high-quality, culturally appropriate early learning and child care system that is accessible to all children in Canada. We have reached agreements with every province and territory as part of the implementation of a Canada-wide system. This also includes Quebec, although it has an asymmetrical agreement, since it already introduced an affordable child care system a long time ago.

In each agreement, each government, with the exception of Quebec, undertakes to consider the needs of official language minority committees. Here are some examples of what that actually looks like.

In the action plan under the agreement with British Columbia, the province agrees to continue partnering with B.C. Francophone Affairs and with representatives of the francophone community. Together, they have to meet the needs of young children from B.C.'s francophone families. They also have to ensure that workforce supports take the needs of francophone educators into account.

In the agreement with New Brunswick, the province underscores that francophone early childhood learning centres must follow the province's guidelines for language acquisition and cultural identity. The goal is to help protect and promote the francophone and Acadian language and culture.

In Yukon, the action plan prioritizes $1 million over the first two years for the creation of spaces for first nations, French-language non-profit child care and other non-profit programs. The action plan also highlights Yukon's three French first-language programs, as well as its commitment to supporting the expansion of minority language child care spaces.

In a national child care system, culturally appropriate child care services are paramount. Children from all walks of life need to have access to these services. For indigenous communities, this can take many forms. For example, it may involve passing on traditional knowledge and teachings or preserving indigenous languages. It must be based on indigenous priorities.

Early learning and child care contribute to long-lasting and far-reaching positive outcomes throughout a person's life. This is especially true for indigenous children and families, whose access to indigenous-led and culturally relevant early learning and child care services is crucial to laying the foundation for a child's cultural identity, sense of worth and future success. For official language minority communities, it is about ensuring that children have access to child care in the official language of their choice. This promotes language transmission and identity building.

Now, I would be remiss if I did not mention that beyond the agreements, when it comes to early learning and child care, the Government of Canada is making significant investments in official languages. The action plan for official languages 2023-28 brings our total investment in official languages to $4.1 billion over five years. This is the largest investment in official languages ever made by a Canadian government in the history of Canada. Again, this is historic.

The current action plan builds on past successes from the support for early childhood development program. This plan lays out new investments in early learning and child care. First, $50 million is being invested to create a network of early childhood stakeholders that will support cross-sectoral coordination in the implementation of specific initiatives for francophone minority communities across Canada. Second, $14.2 million is being invested to continue the development of ongoing and specialized training programs to address challenges facing the early childhood sector in official language minority communities and strengthen the skills of educators while supporting access to quality child care for children and their families in these communities.

I also want to point out that implementing this system will be no easy task. That is why the national advisory council on early learning and child care, which the bill will enshrine as a statutory body, is important. It will serve as a forum to hear from stakeholders in the sector, and its members will provide the expert advice needed for continuous improvement. Bill C‑35 would make the council a statutory body, much like the National Advisory Council on Poverty and the National Housing Council. The council will reflect the diversity of Canadian society, including Canada's linguistic duality.

The Government of Canada is clearly working hard to support all communities and bilingualism in Canada. I think it is also very clear that Bill C‑35 is crucial. I look forward to celebrating when this historic bill receives royal assent.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before we go to questions and comments, I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is rising on a point of order.

The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry to interrupt the current affairs of the chamber. I am back again, this time with a tie and jacket on as per House rules. I tried to tell you before, when I was not dressed appropriately, that I had a technical issue on the last vote being held today, which was on Bill C-273, and my intention is to vote in favour.

Therefore, I am asking for unanimous consent from the House to register my vote in favour of Bill C-273, and I apologize for the delay that this has caused in House proceedings.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are redoing a debate we had last spring. On June 19, this bill was passed here in the House of Commons and sent to the other place. Today, the debate is on the amendment to add the language clause. I will quote the government representative in the Senate, the Hon. Marc Gold, who gave a statement following a speech by Senator Cormier. He said, “I have a prepared text that I am going to read. Let me begin by saying that what I will try to do is present the government's position. The government does not support this amendment”.

I just want to know what happened on the Liberal side. Why the about-face? Why did they change their minds again? This government is apparently going to support the amendment. We are wasting time, and that is not good for official language minority communities.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is rather strange given the many years of experience he has as an MP. He is well aware that there can be many discussions between members of the House of Commons and senators during the amendment process. In this case, I think that the outcome has been very positive.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend the member for Sherbrooke for her speech. I know that she is concerned about social issues and that this is a cause that she cares a lot about.

As the minister pointed out earlier, Quebec has served as a wonderful example when it comes to child care and the day care network. This is something that Quebeckers truly value. There is one woman who was really at the heart of this movement, which spread from Quebec to the rest of Canada. I am talking about Pauline Marois, who was the Quebec education minister at the time and who later became Quebec's first woman premier.

In my colleague's opinion, what impact has this great Quebec woman had on the outcome that we are seeing here today, in other words the fact that the rest of Canada is following the example of what was done in Quebec when it comes to early childhood centres?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for his question.

When Quebec implemented the day care program, it was a major societal change. I have three wonderful boys, and my children have benefited from these highly professional day care services that offer both incredible support and outstanding educational environments. This enables each child to start out on an equal footing, create friendships and take their first steps in learning.

In Quebec, this has given women the opportunity to return to work or school and ensure that they are self-sufficient and independent. Today, we can see the positive results of this great change that was brought about by Pauline Marois.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to see this bill come back with reasonable Senate amendments and to see it move forward. I want to acknowledge the incredible work of my colleague, the MP for Winnipeg Centre, for all her work to get this moving forward.

The question I have is around the lack of a workforce strategy. Despite the ask of unions and workers across the country to address the shortage of workers and ensure they have the pensions, wages and benefits required to deliver child care in an effective way across the country, there was no follow-through. Could the member share why this was the case?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for this important question

Of course, a day care system like this cannot work if we do not have a qualified, professional workforce to provide the services. We know that these people work extremely hard.

I was in Edmonton recently, where I was able to meet people who work in the field and it was clear to us that this is a major challenge. We have agreements with all the provinces and territories to implement the system. We expect everyone to do their part to achieve very positive results.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and speak on behalf of the beautiful riding of Peterborough—Kawartha. Happy Valentine's Day to everybody watching. I hope everyone has someone in their life that they love, whether it be their parents, kids or somebody special.

I am the critic on this file. It is my job to really hone in on what is not being done. Today, we are talking about Bill C-35, which people at home may know as the infamous $10-a-day child care bill. The Liberals have run a very big marketing campaign on it, promising the moon, the stars and the sun; unfortunately, they have not delivered any of that.

I listened to my colleague across the way, who is the minister for this file, and I want to start by reiterating that the purpose of this bill was to sell a real pipe dream to Canadians. As a mom, it is an easy pipe dream to buy: access to affordable, inclusive, quality child care.

However, what I am going to outline clearly today in this speech, and when we talk about the amendments that were sent back from the Senate, is what we actually have in reality.

I would request unanimous consent to share my time with the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member no longer has unlimited time, as she is sharing her time. It is a 10-minute speech with five minutes for questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, I look forward to my colleague's speech about this. I will get into that with the amendments.

Going back to what we have seen now that this program has been delivered, the Liberals love to say it is transformational. That is absolutely true. The numbers on child care wait-lists under this program have skyrocketed. Child care centres cannot grow to meet the demand. Child care centres cannot afford to operate. There is a bias against entrepreneur-run child care centres and an open call to phase them out, which would decrease access even more. The people who need affordable child care the most are not getting it. This program is not equitable. The child is not the priority of this agreement. Instead, it is the ideology.

Parents do not have a choice. Children with special needs, the numbers of which are going up as we see more neurodivergence, are not getting the support they need with this agreement. Access to child care has decreased, which means that, instead of empowering more women, it has taken away their choice and, yes, I have the statistics to back all of this up. This is setting the provinces up to take the blame when they were coerced into signing a flawed federal contract.

Let us break this all down. It is quite easy to break down because, really, what we need to do is pick up the phone and answer the calls that have been, I am sure, flooding into constituency offices across the country. We can start with just a few quick statistics of what has happened.

We know that 77% of high-income parents access child care versus 41% of low-income families. That is the statistic right now. How equitable is that? Should we not want to provide service where the people who need it the most can access it?

The labour force participation rate for women was 61.5% in September 2023 compared to a high of 61.7% in 2015. The number of women in the workforce is going down, not up. The employment rate of female youth is on a strong downward trend since February 2023, with a cumulative decline of 4.2% over that period. This is the lowest since May 2000, excluding the pandemic.

The number of children under the age of five in child care fell by 118,000 between 2019 and 2023, which is a decrease of 8.5% nationally. In 2023, 46.4% of parents reported difficulty finding child care, which is up from 36.4%. In Ontario, the proportion of children in child care was 48% in 2023 compared to 54% in 2019. Child care deserts are affecting nearly 50% of young children in Canada.

It goes on and on, and the numbers are there. The numbers are real, but when we start to listen to the stories, that is where we really have to pay attention. As I have said multiple times in the House, there are true human consequences to the incompetence and wasteful spending of the government.

We recently heard from Andrea Hannen. She oversees ADCO, which is the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario. She represents independent licensed child care centres, both commercial and not-for-profit. We are doing a study on economic empowerment for women in the status of women committee, where she said, “we have a sector of the economy that was largely created by women. It's essential to women's equality in the workforce. It's one of the only economic sectors in the country where women are fairly represented as owners and managers, and it's being not only undervalued by government but targeted for replacement by a government-run system.”

What is even more disturbing about that testimony is that not one of the Liberal members in the committee disputed this. In fact, by their line of questioning, it was clear the Liberals were quite comfortable with the idea of arbitrarily eliminating small businesses. It seems now that this was their plan for child care. That is the reality of what we are talking about, and that is why this is an ideology-based system. They had the option multiple times to help these female-operated small business owners who are sitting at home and want to go back to work but who cannot leave their kid.

They think they are going to do two things: start their own business to be an entrepreneur and help the other women in their lives and the families they know. They are going to invite children into their homes, care for them and provide quality care. What I have heard repeatedly across the country is that these women-owned day care centres are being targeted, bleeding money and shutting down.

A woman wrote to me from Simcoe. I want to tell members that she told me that she, right now, is personally funding $20,000 to $30,000 per month just to pay bills so child care is available. She said that they are committing to helping their parents by being in this program. The program is called CWELCC, for the people at home, and it is an acronym for Canada-wide early learning and child care. She also told me that the reality is, by staying in the program, they will be bankrupt and they will lose 250 child care spaces. As well, 45 dedicated staff will be unemployed. This program will close the business that she worked so long and hard to build.

That is the reality of what this program is doing. Members need not just take my word for it. I am sure that people are sitting at home, saying that I am a critic who has nothing nice to say about the Liberals. I do not because they have a record of repeatedly showing us that they cannot manage taxpayer money. All week, the news has been about an arrive scam app that should have cost $80,000, but $60 million is the total we know of right now, and it is probably more. They spent $1.36 billion on homelessness, and I do not know if anyone has been outside lately, but there seems to be a lot more tents.

The government is famous for making people dependent upon it and then taking away what they are dependent upon and destroying them. The government did it with the media, and it has done it with so many other industries. It is doing it now with our post-secondary education and immigration for students. The government has turned off the tap. Now these universities do not know what they are going to do.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am just wondering what this has to do with child care right now. The member seems to be straying pretty far from what we were debating.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I know that this is part of debate, but I want to make sure everyone stays on the topic of the bill that is before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the Liberal members have to stand up to ask what this has to do with child care because it has everything to do with child care. That is the reality.

I will read the headlines to members. These are just from the last month: “As the Liberals' universal daycare policy unravels, Conservatives could go on the offensive”; “Burlington child care centre leaves parents struggling with one week closing [time]”; “Daycares navigate financial struggles as province aims for $10-a-day child care”; “Rolling closures highlight need for emergency actions to keep $10 a day childcare viable”; “9,200 children waiting for child care in Waterloo Region”; “Alberta daycares brace for losses as [the Prime Minister's] deal kicks in”; and “Parents have yet to get the child care they deserve”.

To the member opposite, this has everything to do with day care. People cannot go to work. That is what is happening. I will continue to list the headlines: “$10 a day daycare is a great idea, but in Yellowknife it’s hard to find a spot”; and “'My son’s daycare can’t afford to stay in the $10-a-day program. Now, we’ll have to pay an extra $800 a month'”.

Liberal-paid media is telling us this: “As a London daycare's waitlist quadruples, a desperate parent opens her own dayhome instead”; and “Child-care spaces remain tight on P.E.I. despite government initiatives”.

Shall I keep going? That is the reality of this failed program. That is what—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It is time for questions and comments.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is clearly very well informed about this program.

I would say one thing: Yes, there is some ideology behind the program. We believe that women should have the choice to go back to their careers if they want to and be able to afford that, so in that respect, I agree with the member. However, with all of the criticism you have of the program, I am curious as to why you voted for it. Could you please explain that?

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I will remind members to run their questions through the Chair. It is not about how I voted.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is ironic about the member's question is that women do not have the choice to go to work. The stats are in. That is the reality of this program.

I talked to one day care operator and somebody had asked her why she did not opt out and why she opted into this program. She said to me that she absolutely wants to provide affordable, quality child care for people who need it, but this program was rigged from day one. She thought she was doing the right thing, but she was coerced into signing this agreement and they are taking money from her and taking away the choice for families.

That is what we wanted. We wanted to provide families with choice. We put forward the amendments in committee and the Liberals and the NDP voted down every single one.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I work with the hon. member on the status of women committee, and we have gotten some things done in that committee. I appreciate that very much.

My colleague mentioned Andrea Hannen, who I know has been very critical of the national child care program, but here is the thing: Provincial licensing requirements are a floor, not a ceiling.

We know that the research consensus is that non-profit and public child care delivers high-quality care and better outcomes for children than for-profit care. We know that through research. We also know that for-profit care centres, historically, have exploited workers more so than public and not-for-profit child care centres.

We know that one of the reasons why the national child care strategy is not getting off the ground is that the Liberal government did not put in place a worker strategy with livable wages, benefits and pensions. People are not wanting to join the field.

I have worked a lot with my hon. colleague. We have differences, though, on this. I am wondering why she thinks that public money should go toward centres that are not public and not not-for-profit. Why should we use public money for that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do work very well with my colleague across the way. We, as Conservatives, supported her amendment in committee to support indigenous people, for children and parents to have that right under UNDRIP, and the Liberals did not.

I think it is really insulting to these women-operated child care centres. Why are they not included? That there is research that they do not provide the quality has been said to me repeatedly. I have been to these centres. The quality of child care is deeply diminishing under this care because they do not have the money. They cannot charge more money. Their hands are tied. The quality in these not-for-profit centres is also dropping. Kids do not have access to food. Parents are getting nickelled and dimed.

To say that they do not have the quality of care, in a small, independent, female-owned-and-operated child care centre, is not fair. I encourage members to go to see them.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I think we can see the Conservative Party of Canada ideology behind it.

Now, she talked about the work done in committee. As part of that work, the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments, including one that would have given Quebec the opportunity to opt out completely from any federal program with financial compensation.

I know that all the other parties voted against that amendment. I am a little surprised by the Conservatives' position because they are always telling us that they respect the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Why did they not stand with the Bloc Québécois in this case?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do feel that we were allies with the Bloc, and we are allies in what has happened. The Bloc got this right from day one. Keep it in the province. Why did the feds wade into this water? Why did they do this?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Peterborough—Kawartha, who does excellent work on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It was a pleasure for me to work with her on the official languages section on this bill.

It is always a pleasure for me to rise in the House to debate important issues that affect Canadians.

People who know me know that I am a staunch defender of the French fact, so I am particularly enthusiastic about speaking on official languages, obviously in French.

That is a valid question. Why are official languages mentioned in the Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act? The answer is quite simple. The current Liberal government has once again forgotten francophone minority communities. That comes as no surprise.

However, as we have already seen when modernizing the Official Languages Act, the Liberal government claims to be the champion of official languages, but lacks courage when it comes time to take meaningful action. That is what the Liberals are: all talk and no action.

Because of the Liberal government's lack of vision and ambition, the elephant gave birth to a mouse, as I like to say when describing Bill C‑13. It aims to modernize the Official Languages Act. It was the first official languages review process in over 30 years. The government turned a deaf ear to stakeholders across the country. This is yet another missed opportunity. That has often been our experience with this Liberal government, which has been in power for eight years.

There is no obligation to count the rights holders. The federal authorities' powers are diluted. There is no central agency. There is no accountability. That is how it is with the Liberals. No one is ever accountable. What about the Commissioner of Official Languages, who is still awaiting the order in council granting him his powers? It is written in the act, but who is going to table that order before the government? Is it the President of the Treasury Board? Is it the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is one of the two ministers named in the legislation, but will not even appear before the Standing Committee on Official Languages? Is it the Minister of Official Languages? Is this the Minister of Justice? Who is it? No one knows and, in the meantime, the commissioner is waiting to take action. I would like to remind the House that French is in decline across Canada. The Liberals' approach to official languages is not serious, and it shows how little interest they have in this country's bilingualism.

Bill C‑35 passed unanimously here in the House last June. Today, however, we are debating a Senate amendment put forward by Senator Cormier, an Acadian, who stood up for francophones. He wants to add the words “official language minority communities” to the first sentence of clause 8, after “including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples”; and he divides clause 8 into two paragraphs. It is not complicated. However, we are still debating that today. Wow.

The first paragraph sets out the government's financial commitment. The second paragraph outlines the mechanisms that the federal government will use to provide the funding. Adding the words “official language minority communities” after the word “including” does not detract from any rights of any other minority or of indigenous peoples, but seeks to eliminate any ambiguity before the courts. The Liberals did a sloppy job, the Senate raised a red flag and made the necessary corrections. The Liberals always fly by the seat of their pants and leave things to the last minute. There is no discipline.

We are well aware of how much work and resources official language minority communities must put into defending their language rights. Let us talk about that. Even though the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique in its case against Employment and Social Development Canada, the federation still has to fight with the Minister of Official Languages to have that ruling enforced. It is unbelievable. What a waste of time and money. However, as we saw again today, the Liberals think that money grows on trees.

Early childhood is a critical period for children when it comes to learning language skills and developing their identity. All too often, access to early childhood services in French is essential for francophone minority communities to pass on their language and culture.

These services are vectors for French learning, ensuring that children acquire the language skills they need to prepare them for an education in their own language, and facilitating their integration into francophone schools across Canada. This contributes to the implementation of the right to education, as enshrined in section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We believe that this amendment is relevant and necessary.

I would also like to point out that the references to official language minority communities already found in clause 7 and clause 11 are thanks to the Conservative Party of Canada. I was the one who introduced them. I had the support of the Bloc Québécois, but the NDP and the Liberals voted against some of the amendments we proposed. However, we were able to get some of them through. Unfortunately, some others were rejected, and we had to go through the Senate. The Conservative Party of Canada made sure that francophones across Canada were included in the bilateral agreements for early childhood services.

I would also like to take a moment to thank the folks at the Commission nationale des parents francophones and at the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada for their hard work on this file.

The Liberals are not in favour of this amendment because they had to go through the Senate. Even the Speaker of the Senate, the government representative, clearly indicated that he would not support Senator Cormier's amendment. That was the stance the Liberal government was taking. Again, the Liberals flip-flopped. Francophones are the ones who took a stand.

As I said, the Liberals were not in favour of this amendment. The government's position was that this amendment was not necessary or appropriate. However, today, out of the blue, the Liberals are saying that they are in favour of the amendment. What is the reason for that?

Every individual should have access to early child care services in the official language of their choice, and that is non-negotiable as long as our country, Canada, is a bilingual country. I want to emphasize the concept of French and English bilingualism, because it is important to remember that this government appointed a governor general who is bilingual, but who does not speak French. I would also like to add that only one province in Canada is bilingual. This government appointed a unilingual lieutenant governor who, obviously, does not speak French, because the Liberals are inconsistent. Their intentions and desires may go beyond what is set out in the laws, but, unfortunately, the Liberal government does not walk the talk.

The Liberals realized that they would lose support in francophone regions and decided to adopt the Conservative Party of Canada's common-sense position. Yes, it is common sense. As long as we are a bilingual country, we should be consistent and protect both official languages.

We saw the Liberals use this same tactic with the pause on the carbon tax in Atlantic Canada. It is so odd. The Liberals reacted blindly, in panic mode. They punished all other Canadians outside the Atlantic provinces by denying them heat pumps. That was a problem. They were just reacting.

Then the Liberals changed their minds and said that Albertans and British Columbians might be able to use the credit. Again, they were improvising. It is unfortunate. This government is a disaster. It is shameful to try to score political points off our country's bilingual identity.

In closing, my message for francophones across the country is simple: Here in the House of Commons, the Conservative Party of Canada is the only party that can truly protect their interests. We will continue to take concrete action and stop the decline of French, which is a fact across Canada. We will also protect and promote our two official languages. We will not pit French against English. We intend to protect both official languages, French and English.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague for his speech and, more importantly, for his hard work on Bill C‑13.

All parties in the House worked together to support francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec, and it was a great victory. I always appreciate my colleague's work. However, I must point out that what he says and what his party says are two different things. The ideology of the party—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member is not wearing a tie.

Now that he is wearing his tie, the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook has the floor again.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain that it was during the nine years of the Harper government that we saw major cuts to the Translation Bureau. Court challenges that we brought—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would ask you to follow and enforce the Standing Orders. We know that male members cannot speak in the House if they are not wearing a tie.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I watched him put on his tie.

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree that you would not normally have recognized the member in the first place since he was not wearing a tie. You did recognize him. We understand, but we are simply asking you to follow and enforce the Standing Orders next time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I did not realize he was not wearing a tie. I will be more careful next time.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a well-established precedent that if a member does not have a tie, but then gets a tie and puts it on the Speakers have always allowed them to continue their speech.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I say we let him go because the tie does not match the shirt. If he wants to stand in this place like that, then he should go ahead.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Personally, I think this is taking too long.

The hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am Canadian, and I am sure everyone is proud they are here today discussing important things for Canadians.

I will quickly finish my question.

I would like to acknowledge the work that has been done on this issue. I would like my colleague to talk about the importance of early child care in Canada. That is what is important here.

Francophones across Canada have missed out a lot of opportunities and have been assimilated. It is because they did not have the opportunity to receive preschool education in French.

I would like my colleague to say how happy we are today to be working together to make the major changes that needed to be made.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell viewers at home that they do not need to adjust their video, even though the tie does not match. My colleague is a colourful character and I really appreciate his presence at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. As for the tie, I will give him some fashion advice this evening.

I just want to say to my colleague that today we are talking about the amendment that seeks to include the official languages clause in the bill on child care and early childhood services. I think it is important to focus on 2024 and stop living in the past of more than 10 years ago.

We need to look what the Liberal government has done in the past eight years. Recently, it prevented a committee from doing its work because it said that translating the documents would cost $300 million. That is disgraceful. It is unacceptable. This is a parliamentary right. Every parliamentarian needs to receive information in both official languages. Who is in government right now? It is the Liberal government.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his passionate speech.

I know that he is on a mission for the Francophonie. I am delighted to serve with him on the Assemblée des parlementaires de la Francophonie. I know he cares about this.

His speech earlier sounded more partisan than pro-francophone to me. I know that in the past, his party, which he loves to talk about, actually appointed an anglophone judge to the Supreme Court, which was a bit of a black mark against it.

I would like him to tell me if there is anything good in this bill, apart from the fact that the inspiration came from Quebec's brilliant example.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières. We also have the pleasure of working together on the international scene to defend the French fact.

I would like to remind my colleague that the Conservative Party did a lot to ensure that official languages were included in this bill. We worked very hard, with the collaboration of our colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, who worked with me to try to put more in Bill C-13.

I would like to remind my colleague that I myself was at the committee. I moved amendments. Official languages are in the bill thanks to the Conservative Party of Canada.

Also, I would like to remind the House that all the Conservative senators—because there is a Conservative caucus in the Senate—voted in favour of Senator Cormier's amendment. How many Liberals or Liberal-appointed independents voted against it?

That is the question we should be asking.

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

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I want to share that I agree with many of the comments made by my colleague about the importance of Canadians having access to French-language child care and early learning.

The member was speaking about money not growing on trees and the importance of child care being effectively funded. I have frequently heard the Conservatives talk about privatized child care. We know that, when child care is public, it is increasingly accessible and available and that workers have livable wages, for example.

Could the member share his thoughts around using public tax money for privatized child care? What is the importance of funding public child care with public funds?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who recognizes that what I said in my speech is appreciated by a very large majority of people in the NDP. It is common sense. We need to put money in the right places so that our Canadian families, mothers and fathers, can go to work, create wealth and then benefit from social programs.

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

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

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

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

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

The amendment reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I had an excellent time working with my colleague on this bill.

I have two things. Number one, does the member think it was worthwhile for the federal government to interfere in provincial jurisdiction when this is a provincial matter?

Number two, the Liberals turned these amendments down. These are in the Charter of Rights. These are about official languages and encouraging funding for French and minority languages. Why does the member believe the Liberals did not want to support that, especially in committee, and are changing their minds now?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the federal government must not interfere in provincial jurisdictions, especially when it comes to Quebec. Second, I think our child care policy is a model worth following. As for the amendment, of course we must also help francophones outside Quebec gain access to day care services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to admit that with a program like this, which was born out of Quebec and was inspired by Quebec's model, Quebec has shown the results. To my Conservative colleagues, if they are questioning whether or not more women get into the workforce as a result of a program like this, they should just look at Quebec. Quebec has had a program like this in place for a number of years, and when we look at Quebec, we see that there are more women in the workforce there.

However, we are seeing a repeat of the Conservatives' position last time this was in the House. They talk it down the whole time they are here. They criticize it repeatedly, and then when it comes time to vote, they silently stand up and vote in favour of it.

Does my colleague think the Conservatives will do the same thing this time, just trash-talk it the whole time but then, when it comes time to vote, vote in favour of it?

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is actually building on what my colleague was just talking about, which is around the fact that we know that Quebec's system of affordable child care has been a model for the rest of the country.

I am wondering if the member can share with us the benefits they have seen in Quebec in terms of gender equity, of women and all parents accessing child care, and of the quality of the child care that children have been receiving.

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

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

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for her passionate and moderate speech that puts things into perspective.

Let us not forget that, in 1997, Quebec brought forward such a plan. It was the work of Pauline Marois, whose courage allowed for great strides to be made.

I also remember that in 2006, my predecessor, Paule Brunelle, took part in the debate at first reading of Bill C‑303.

I would like to ask my colleague if the current bill does Quebec justice or if, on the contrary, it distorts an idea that was the best.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will give three examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there will be agreements with the provinces. Now, there is Bill C‑35. Some say that the provinces will not get there. It may not have been their choice. Child care services are $10 a day. In Quebec, they cost less than $10 a day.

When we brought in early childhood education services, the idea was to have a reduced contribution for parents. It was $5. Now, I have lost track, it may be around $9.

My colleague says it is $9, $10. It is the principle of indexing. It is the principle of a single rate, because no matter the parents' income, it is accessible for children. It is a public program. It is a public network of early childhood education services. Federal interference in provincial programs is not what will make this happen. It is going to take the will, at the provincial level, to push for and implement social policies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed working with the hon. member at the HUMA committee on many issues, including right now the OAS and the differentiation between seniors under age 75 and seniors over age 75. That too is a gender equality issue.

I have spoken in the House many times about how fortunate I was to live in Quebec in 1998 when my first child went through child care. It was $5 a day at that time. For my second child it was $7.50 a day. That allowed me to go back to school. I say that the reason I am standing in the House right now is that there was $5-a-day child care in Quebec.

I also want to raise my hands to applaud the work that Quebec does around making sure that families have access to free swimming lessons, free diving lessons and free synchronized swimming lessons: all kinds of opportunities for kids. It is a great place to raise a family.

My question to my colleague is this. There are many provinces in this country that are not taking care of child care, are not allowing women like me to be in elected roles because they do not have access to child care. Does she believe that this is a gender equity issue, and what should provincial governments be doing to pick up the ball to make sure that women and people who look after children can have affordable child care?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is also always a pleasure to work with my colleague on things that we have in common, such as gender equality for women, social justice and many other issues related to our social policies. She is welcome in Quebec any time.

I find it sad that other provinces have not made the same choices. Some provinces have gone further than others, but what I find sad is that we have to come to Ottawa to beg with respect to provincial jurisdictions. Quebec and each of the provinces must make their own choices about moving forward in a sensible way.

As I was saying, I hope that everyone can get to where Quebec is when it comes to gender equality for women and equal opportunities for children. Perhaps this is a start that will help the provinces follow Quebec's lead. I would tell them that they really have to stand behind their social policies to move forward.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoy working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Ideologically, sometimes we do not see eye to eye, but where we do is with respect to helping to empower women.

What the member is saying about ECEs is the exact same thing we are talking about when we say “women-owned child care facilities”. Women entrepreneurs are specifically being targeted by the language of the bill. A local woman talked about this recently in committee when we were studying economic empowerment. She said, “where women [have always been] fairly represented as owners and managers and it's not only being undervalued by government, but targeted for replacement by a government-run system.” That is a quote from Andrea Hannen from the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario.

Does the member support the Liberal $10-a-day program's plan to eliminate women-owned child care businesses?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, like with any business, I certainly am not against a small business; I want to be very clear about that. However, I do believe that public monies need to be used for public, not-for-profit child care. If somebody wants to have a business, I totally support that, but if we are going to use public money, it needs to go into public institutions that are regulated. We know through research, especially when we look at a strategy for workers, that in public, not-for-profit care, workers are generally paid better than they are in private centres where the goal is to maximize profit. That is the reality of the business.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her powerful speech, yet again.

My colleague talked about the importance of a strong workforce strategy. I wonder if she can share with us the benefits of a strong workforce strategy to the little ones that she was talking about, which she enjoyed working with so much.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if this so-called feminist government wants to support women, then it has to do whatever it needs to to make sure women can work. We need a workforce strategy to recruit people, which includes money for training, and it includes transfers that ensure livable wages are paid.

This is not just a gender issue in terms of people who are working. It is also a gender issue in terms of limiting women's abilities to return to the workforce. It is a top issue. If we want to talk about affordability, women need the resources so that they can go and work. We are limited by the current national strategy because of the failure of this government to put in place a proper workforce strategy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An article states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for her speech this morning on this vital bill and vital support to constituents and to Canadians as a whole. My office is getting calls from parents saying there are no spaces available. It is great to have $10-a-day day care, but they need the spaces for the kids to be able to go there. People, at one time, would probably have had a neighbour, an aunt or uncle, or a grandparent look after the child, but the $10-a-day day care allows kids to be with kids and to enjoy that kind of camaraderie, I suppose, to a certain extent.

I wonder if she is hearing the same things at her constituency office that I am hearing at mine.

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

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

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

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, Quebec's public child care system has proven its worth. Because of this system, many women have been able to quickly return to the labour market with peace of mind. Without this program, many Quebec mothers would be deprived of rewarding careers.

Members are saying that the program the government is currently proposing is inspired by Quebec's program, which has proven to be successful over the years and even decades.

I would like to ask my colleague to explain the differences between the child care program proposed by the federal level and the Quebec program that will actually make the federal program ineffective, whereas Quebec's program is very effective and has such a good reputation.

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

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

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

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, we constantly hear across the floor how the Liberal government supports small business, yet I know in my riding and in rural Canada businesses exist for day care, and they are really struggling because they are not recognized as being valued in this whole process. They offer various hours and are in communities where shift work is a real challenge.

I would like the member to clarify again how important it is that the government take another look at the importance of being all-inclusive with its program.

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

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

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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am at a loss for words this morning.

For 25 years, we have been demonstrating that early childhood centres benefit women. It is very difficult for me to accept that my colleague is trying to find small flaws in our system.

I am beginning to wonder whether she is familiar with Quebec's early child care system at all.

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

Madam Speaker, again, I voted in favour of Bill C-35, but 2000 called and wanted its child care program back. This is not a bill that acknowledges the current economic reality in any part of our country with regard to the changes in how people work. This is a bill that was developed to provide child care in 2000, and there have been many gains made; our pluralism has grown and has changed in so many ways. This bill truly does not recognize how diverse our country is and how people work. It does not recognize the differences between urban and rural communities. It does not recognize the labour of grandparents who might be attempting to come to the country to provide child care for recent new Canadians.

The role of Parliament is to look at current economic conditions, to see where the football is going and to try to make sure government expenditures are addressing the needs of the population, not 20 years ago, but today and into the future. If we know how people work has changed, then it is incumbent upon us to ensure the program reflects that. Again, this is why it is so important for the government to track the data I mentioned.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Milton.

We all know that affordability is a top-of-mind topic, so let us consider early learning and child care through that lens. 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 a grocery store or to keep children active in sports or other activities. 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 a $10-a-day, on average, fee for children under the age of six in licensed child care.

Affordable child care means hundreds of dollars every month in the pockets of Canadians of all income levels. Affordable child care means money for nutritious meals on the table as prices at grocery stores remain high. Affordable child care means money for clothing and other necessities.

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

Let me share just a few of the testimonials parents have taken the trouble to write to members and to the government as they realize the financial relief affordable child care is bringing to them. Most are accompanied by expressions of enthusiasm and emphasis, such as multiple exclamation points or capital letters.

The first one is, “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.” The next is, “Just paid our January day care fees. Under $500! This is a 55% reduction from last year. This is going to make such a huge difference for so many families.” The third one is, “Our infant's day care fees have dropped $500 per month, and on the 26th at her [18-month anniversary], 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.”

Here is another one: “I will not benefit from this as my kids are grown and I remember paying $650/month for child care on a salary of $1,200/month back in the 80s. But I am so very, very happy that young families are benefiting from this.” The last one is, “It was absolutely surreal to see my day care 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.” It is clear from these and many other social media posts, interviews and comments that families in Canada are thrilled and, in many cases, astonished that affordable early learning and child care is finally here.

The Government of Canada has made an historic investment of nearly $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 whom deserve enormous credit for their willingness to work together to give every child in Canada the best possible start in life, and in so doing, to bring financial and emotional relief to millions of families from coast to coast to coast.

Child care fees have been reduced across the country, and by 2025-26, the average fee for regulated child care spaces across Canada would 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 the new ELCC system. As of 2025-26, a minimum of $9.2 billion would be provided every year, on an ongoing basis, for affordable early learning and child care, and indigenous early learning and child care.

The return on this investment for families with young children is obvious and is supported by evidence. Of course, we can look to the overwhelming success of the Quebec early learning and child care system, which is now ingrained in the social fabric of that province. When we speak about affordability, it is perfectly appropriate to ask whether the country as a whole can afford it. The answer is a resounding yes. This is a plan to drive economic growth, to increase participation in the workforce, especially among 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, investments that increase our economic growth and Canadians’ quality of life. Independent studies show that our early learning and child care system could raise real GDP by as much as 1.2% over the next two decades. Further, 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 early learning and child care investment.

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 a fair question. As other colleagues have said, in passing this legislation, we would 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 and caring. When we eventually leave office, we can do so with the pride and satisfaction of knowing that we were all part of this great, lasting achievement.

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

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think it is pretty obvious, with the way the bill passed the first time through the House, that the House does recognize the importance of child care in this country. We are all in agreement with the bill's intent.

However, I raised in my speech last year something that has really come to the forefront of one of the challenges with the current agreements, which is the impact they are having on the lack of labour and lack of early childhood educators, who are being pulled out of the before- and after-care programs, which help so many parents with the ability to work, in order to fill the demand for full-day day care. I know it has impacted my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I know it has impacted people even here in Ottawa, where parents who had kids enrolled in before- and after-care programs are now tied because they have to drop their kids off not before 9:00 a.m. and pick them up by 3:30 p.m. It is really hard to find a six-hour-per-day job and be able to make a living.

Has the member heard the same things in his riding?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, one thing the families in Nepean are overwhelmingly in support of is this program, because they see the benefit it brings to their family. It allows them the funds required to help children undertake some sports activities. It has helped families, especially mothers, free themselves up so they can go back into the workforce. Some of the mothers I know are using the program to help them get better educated for better-quality jobs.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to know that I really enjoyed his speech.

For years I was president of the CPE La Fourmilière, an early childhood centre, and I can vouch for the important role we played in helping women enter the labour market and our significant contribution to reducing poverty.

Early childhood centres pave the way to academic success. Children who previously had no access to education are prepared to make the big leap to regular school. Children get to interact with little ones who may have needed a little extra love or security.

I therefore congratulate my colleague, and I want all parliamentarians to know that we hope all the provinces have the same kind of experience Quebec has had.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to note that the member has personally experienced the economic benefits that educating children at a very young age bring, allowing them to grow up educated and allowing parents to contribute to the workforce generally, not only in Quebec, because of course it is something that other provinces and the federal government have learned from. I have seen it happen in other parts of the world that a focus on children's, and especially girls', education has contributed to the economic development of an entire region, entire community and the entire country. Therefore it is very important that through the bill we would be making up for what was lacking in Canada.

Again, I recognize the contributions of Quebec in bringing this forward as a national priority.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly share the importance of the $10-a-day child care for many families in my riding, but the problem of course still exists that there is not enough child care available.

I wonder whether the member would agree with me that one of the things we also have to do is make sure that those who work in the child care sector, primarily women and quite often those who are new Canadians, are properly compensated for their skills and for the hard work they do each and every day.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I fully agree with the hon. member that the people who work in child care should be adequately compensated. It is very much a requirement. This is a collaborative program between the federal government and the provinces, and authorities at all levels of government should work hand in hand to find a means of making sure it is implemented well in every single respect.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, it is a real honour and privilege to stand in the House to talk about a program that has been such an important affordability measure for young families, particularly in my riding. It has also allowed so many women, and so many parents, to get back to work a little sooner than they would have otherwise, leading to the best-ever marks on female engagement in the economy.

It has been a real landmark for Canada, and I am proud to speak to Bill C-35 from the perspective of Milton. As the House has heard us say repeatedly, access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive child care is not a luxury, it is a necessity. That is why our commitment to building a Canada-wide early learning and child care system matters so much to so many.

Since signalling our intention to create that system, the Government of Canada has signed Canada-wide early learning and child care agreements with all provinces and territories to support increased access to high-quality, affordable, inclusive child care, including supports to the early learning and childhood education workforce.

Since then, we have been working closely with our provincial and territorial colleagues to ensure that early childhood educators are the cornerstone of our child care system. I would like to recognize the outstanding contribution of so many of those educators, who continue to work so hard to care for children and support their growth and education. In particular, I would like to highlight the great work of the Milton Community Resource Centre. I visit regularly, and I talk to them about any and all issues that affect early learning and child care. It is one of the largest providers of early learning and child care in Milton and throughout Halton. Without it, there would be so many parents in Milton that would not have been able to get back to work. That impact on the earnings and the careers for members of a family is pretty profound.

When I am walking down the street, talking to neighbours in Milton, I have had so many parents come to me to say that they are saving thousands of dollars a year thanks to the early learning and child care program, which the government provides. It has been huge for a young community, such as Milton, that has so many parents and so many young kids.

Bill C-35 outlines the guiding principles for federal investments in early learning and child care. One of those guiding principles includes supporting the provision of high-quality programs and services through the recruitment and retention of qualified and well-supported early learning and childhood educator workforce individuals. That high-quality early childhood educator workforce is essential to fostering the social, emotional, physical and cognitive development of young children.

I can speak from personal experience. I am not a parent, but I have been in those classrooms with some of those kids, and I have seen how amazing the workers are. They are fantastic, and seeing the different personalities among the kids is a lot of fun every time I visit.

More specifically, international studies have shown that children who regularly participate in high-quality early learning and child care programs tend to have higher graduation rates. Later on, they make better decisions, improve their work habits and their grades, make gains in reading and math, are excited about learning and develop stronger social skills.

It is pretty clear to me that when we invest in a high-quality early learning and childhood educator workforce, we are investing it the health, well-being and success of generations to come. That is why we are putting forward this important legislation, to ensure that early childhood educator workforces are supported right across the country, so they can continue to provide children across Canada with the best possible start in life.

It all starts with our agreements with the provinces and territories, where commitments are made to, one, implement evidence-based, quality frameworks, standards and tools for early learning and child care; two, development and implement wage grids for early childhood educators; three, increase the percentage of child care workers who fully meet provincial and territorial certification requirements; and, four, increase training, professional development and other supports for early childhood workforces. These commitments are essential, not only to attract early childhood educators but also, even more importantly, to retain our high-quality workforce.

What does that look like in practice? From coast to coast to coast, the provinces and territories have been working closely to provide better training opportunities, increased compensation and more benefits to their early childhood educator workforce. Let us take British Columbia as an example. B.C. is investing in special training and development to upgrade skills in priority areas to make child care more inclusive, especially for children with disabilities and children needing enhanced or individual supports.

This training also focuses on making child care more culturally appropriate for indigenous children. We know that, in building an inclusive child care system that meets our children's needs, we must meet children where they are and support both current and future early childhood educators at the same time.

That is why the Government of British Columbia expanded its dual credit program for early childhood educators. The dual credit program allows secondary students in B.C. to take post-secondary courses and receive credits towards both high school graduation and a post-secondary program. The program covers tuition fees for the courses, resulting in more affordable training for students in early childhood education.

Let us go across the country to the east, to Prince Edward Island, where more training opportunities have been provided for both current early childhood educators and those interested in joining the early childhood education workforce. The province has also launched a one-time grant to help recruit early childhood educators back to the sector, and these investments are ensuring that early childhood educators on the island have the skills and tools they need to succeed while providing new opportunities to expand the workforce. Further, P.E.I. also increased staff salaries at early year centres across the province as part of a coordinated effort to move the province's early childhood workforce forward. Wage increases are instrumental in P.E.I.'s multi-year plan to support the early childhood sector and to encourage others to pursue a career in early childhood education.

Let us head up to the territories. In the Yukon, the territory has been investing in accelerated education pathways for early childhood educators in partnership with Yukon University. The goal of these accelerated education pathways is to enhance the level of education available for early childhood educators in the territory, which would help increase the quality of early learning and child care across the Yukon. This initiative in the Yukon is a win-win-win. It provides enhanced education, strengthens the workforce and benefits our youngest learners with the most qualified educators. Moreover, early learning educators in the Yukon will be able to customize their training plan, allowing them to continue to work in a licenced program, including in family day homes.

These are only a few of the amazing initiatives under way across the country to support the hard-working and dedicated early childhood educators. These initiatives are made possible thanks to the groundbreaking federal investments of the Government of Canada that we have made in building that Canada-wide early learning and child care system from coast to coast to coast. Our early childhood education workforce is critical to the success of the Canada-wide system, and it is key to Canada's economic prosperity. Our government is committed to building a stronger, more resilient economy where nobody is left behind. We know that access to early learning and child care that is affordable and inclusive is going to help drive our economic growth. It will enable parents, particularly mothers, to enter, maintain and re-enter the job market, and offer each child in Canada the best possible start.

This is why I encourage my colleagues to support Bill C-35 quickly so we can continue to work together to support, grow, develop and engage with the early learning and childhood educator workforce. As I said earlier, when we invest in high-quality early childhood educator workforces, we are investing in the health, well-being and success of generations to come.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-35 prioritizes child care facilities that are government run and not-for-profit. It does not prioritize small businesses and entrepreneurs, many of whom are are run by women entrepreneurs, even if those locations are licenced and regulated by the respective provincial governments. Why would a Liberal government that touts itself to be a feminist government not prioritize young women entrepreneurs in this legislation?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, our funding agreements with provinces go towards supporting not-for-profit, public and family-based child care. I can say that my experience in visiting with some of those female entrepreneurs in my riding and making sure they have the qualifications necessary to access some of those supports has been really beneficial. In working with well-experienced providers, such as the Milton Community Resource Centre, I know that some of those entrepreneurs have been able to upskill and scale up, and they have also been able to provide child care spaces for more kids throughout the day.

It is a great success, and I am glad that the Conservatives are considering supporting child care, despite early indications that they might vote against it. This is an affordability measure. It is great for the workforce, and it is also excellent for female entrepreneurs.

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

Madam Speaker, I represent a Quebec riding. Quebec's day care system has been in place for 25 years. Families really like it and are proud of it. I doubt we could make any sort of changes to it because people are so attached to the system and even take it for granted. It is a fixture in Quebec.

As for the rest of Canada, the program is under development, if I understand correctly. The government started creating the program and then introduced the bill. The program was already in the works and now the government comes strolling in with the bill.

Is this not an admission from the government and Liberal MPs that things are not going well for them and that they expect to lose a lot of seats in the next election?

Essentially, the purpose of the bill is to lock in the program they have created. Ultimately, the program could exist without a bill, could it not?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and for his interest in this program.

First of all, I must thank Pauline Marois, a leader in this sector. It is important to highlight the leadership shown by both Pauline Marois and the Province of Quebec. We can see it not only in this file, but also on the environment and the fight against climate change: Quebec is a leader. It is important to have a good example of progress in one province and to try to promote the same opportunities in the other provinces and territories.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, like that of the hon. member, my riding is rapidly growing with lots of young families. What people are finding, whether they are talking about setting up a new public sector child care centre or a non-profit, even as new entrepreneurs, is that they lack the workers.

What is the government going to do to make sure that we increase the compensation that would help attract more people into this important field?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, as we know, there is a worker shortage across the country in various sectors, and that is a challenge, but it is also a great opportunity because, where there is scarcity, I think workers tend to benefit. It tends to increase their wages and provide a bit of competition and more choice for workers. That is the context we are in.

We have very low unemployment in Canada right now, which is certainly a good thing for workers, but it is a challenging for many sectors that are looking to find a more available workforce, so ensuring that it is a competitive opportunity, that early learning and child care workers can aspire to earning a good income, is very important. I know that, when I have worked with the Milton Community Resource Centre, it is very focused on making sure it pays competitive wages. I have also seen that it is providing people with their first jobs and also providing work to newcomers, refugees and all sorts of people who are looking for that work.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House once again to speak to this bill. We do have an amendment coming back to the House from the Senate, which is why we are standing here to speak today.

What makes this interesting, based on how this bill went last time, is that my province of Saskatchewan signed on to its agreement with the federal government in 2021. I hosted a couple of town halls in January, and one of the topics that came up was child care. When we look at rural Canada, rural Saskatchewan and what is available for people who are looking to put their kids into a day home so that they can go to work, quite frankly, there is basically no capacity.

The town I grew up in had a small facility that maybe five to 10 kids could go into. Most kids were raised by a stay-at-home mom where I grew up, but in some of the other towns now, as people are looking to be working, capacity is the number one problem. When I look at the way this program has been rolled out and the way the federal government has put money to the provinces, it has definitely put an overemphasis on creating spaces in the larger cities and the larger centres. In typical Liberal government fashion, it looks like rural Saskatchewan, once again, has lost out and has been left behind.

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

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House, and it is great to be able to speak to such an important issue as what we are talking about here today, which is child care and, in particular, the Senate amendments.

I guess the fact that we are back here today goes to show, and I am sure my colleagues would agree, that there is always room for improvement when we are looking at any piece of legislation, but it is especially true when we are dealing with an NDP-Liberal government, such as we are now. That is what we tried to tell its members during the regular process of debate the first time through.

If the Liberal government decides it wants to involve itself in something, it really needs to make sure it gets things right and does not create a mess of things. As usual, it chose not to take its responsibility seriously. Instead it tried to blame us and play political games at the expense of Canadian families. It claimed we were delaying the bill, when we were simply doing our job as the official opposition.

Our Parliament is set up in certain ways for a reason. We have to consider and review what the government does carefully, or else there is trouble. Look at what happens when we do not. Was it a delay when a few months went by for senators to go through the bill and add this amendment? As a result, we are having another round of debate and a vote in the House.

In this case, that is probably a good thing. Many people from each party agree that the bill will be better for it. If we consider that it is dealing with child care, which is a complex and important issue, I think it is fair to say there are other things we also need to consider. We do not have to worry about a delay so much as the Liberal government making big announcements and rushing through legislation so it can try to look good and feel good about itself.

Canadians living in the real world have a lot of problems to face. They are counting on us to deliver solutions in the right way. Along with protecting official language minority communities, which is now reflected in Bill C-35, Conservatives proposed other amendments, which were rejected by the NDP-Liberals, including an amendment that would have basically done the exact same thing that we are debating here today with this Senate amendment, which was voted down previously by the NDP-Liberal government at committee.

The government's lack of respect for parents is quite apparent. In different ways, we have heard members of the Liberal-NDP government suggest that parents do not have the right to raise their own children. Recently, one of its members went so far as to say that there is no such thing as parental rights. There is a dangerous idea the far left has that seems to be gaining ground on that side. The Liberals think children should belong to the state and not to their parents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe we have quorum in the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

We will count the members.

And the count having been taken:

We now have quorum.

Resuming debate. The hon. member can continue his speech. He has 15 minutes remaining in his time.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, now they all come running back in to hear this marvellous speech, despite the heckles from the NDP guys over here.

Thankfully we have not gotten to the point yet where they want to get us to, but when we hear people deny the primary role of parents to raise their own children, that is the line of thinking that will start to take us in a dangerous direction.

Our approach to child care must respect parents and their choices. We cannot expect the NDP-Liberal coalition to get things right if they do not have that solid foundation to begin with.

Child care is crucial. Canadian parents know it better than anyone. As Conservatives, we want to meet the needs of families and we understand how valuable and important it is to do so. It is common sense. Especially in today’s world, which moves at a rapid pace, we need to maintain and support the family unit.

Children are a gift. Those of us who are parents know how much they change our lives. They give us purpose and direction. They bring joy and pride as they grow up, despite some of the difficulties that we sometimes have to go through as parents with our kids. Not to sound too cliché, but our kids are the future of society. That is why it is so important that we provide the right support to parents as they raise the next generation.

There are people out there looking for options that are affordable and help to build the lifestyle they want for their family.

For many, it is a struggle. I have heard about it in my own riding, which is largely rural. Last month, at a town hall in Eastend, as I was talking about at the beginning, I was asked about the lack of access and spaces in our area. It confirmed for me that not much has changed since I was part of another town hall in Maple Creek a couple years ago, where one of the prominent issues was also child care.

I would say that, as the most rural province, Saskatchewan is in a unique situation. We have so many small towns that are so spread out. There is an especially stark contrast between urban and rural. Access to child care is linked to our access to workers. Business owners in the southwest are struggling to hire, but it was not because of a shortage of applicants; it was a shortage of day care facilities where potential hires could have their kids taken care of. Unfortunately, these interviewees moved on, got another job outside Maple Creek, and left these businesses still wanting.

What is sad is that Maple Creek is just a phenomenal town. Houses are still decently affordable, the school is great and it is not too far from the Cypress Hills. It is a quick drive to some major centres in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is just an all-around great place for a family, yet people are choosing to not raise their kids here, in part because they cannot find access to child care.

We wanted to see this bill include a wide range of child care options that should be available to parents. That is what the NDP-Liberals rejected.

One of the amendments that we had proposed was to make sure we included all types of providers, private providers, home-based providers, alongside public and not-for-profit providers, just to make sure that all types of home care options were eligible.

In fact, in Saskatchewan, there are over 87,574 children under age six in our province but the majority of them are not in licensed care and receive no benefit from the implementation of the government's child care strategy.

This government has a one-size-fits-all approach for parents. This bill says to Canadians, “It is okay. Do not worry about it. Let the government take care of your kids.” That is basically it. This bill overlooks many families who want to have some other options, including stay-at-home parents. Many Canadians do not want that approach from the government; they believe that what is best for their family is that they stay home with the kids and live off one income.

By no means is it easy. I am speaking from my own personal experience. It requires determination and sacrifice but for my family, and for thousands and thousands of Canadians, the right decision is to have a stay-at-home parent.

Last time I spoke on this bill, I shared my own family’s experience with stay-at-home parenting, and I would like to touch on that point once again.

Shortly after my wife and I were married, and while our first child was on the way, we sat down and discussed how we could it make it work for my wife to be a stay-at-home mom, because that was something that she truly wanted and was near and dear to her heart. We also thought that this is what would be best for the kids in the long run. The decision to live on one income was definitely an adjustment. We got by for nearly a decade, until she went back to work in 2019, when the kids were old enough.

I would suggest that we were better off for it. We had adventures driving our old minivan. We had to make decisions on buying older, well-used vehicles, to make sure that we could make ends meet. These were definitely part of the joy, and the struggle at times, of deciding to live on one income and have my wife be a stay-at-home parent.

Yes, Conservatives supported this bill because there are Canadians in different situations who make other choices, and they are looking for support, too. Not all Canadians can survive on one income. We know that and get that, especially with the cost of living crisis spiralling out of control because of the government. However, for those who are able and choose to do so, they are completely overlooked by the Liberal government. Instead of supporting Canadians who choose to live as independently of government as possible, the government continues to throw program after program at Canadians, as if they cannot run their own lives.

Last June, the member for Milton said to me, “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.” However, I did not need him to tell me that. There are mothers who work and contribute to our economy. My point is that parents are more than just simply taxpayers. The family is the basis of society, not the government. Strong parents make stronger families and, all together, they make for a strong society. If a woman does not want to go back to work after she has kids, we should not just let her, we should help her.

For the member to consider that women are nothing more than a taxpayer is a frightening insinuation. Does the Liberal government just view Canadians, especially Canadian moms, as just a source of income? If so, that is really worrying. The state is not the be-all and end-all solution for everything. Parents do not get up in the morning and head out the door to their jobs while thinking with pride about the taxes that are going to be carved out of their paycheques, but rather about how to pay for the food that their children are going to eat or how to pay for the mortgage that puts a roof over their heads, how they are going to save enough money to hopefully go on a vacation or maybe to have their kids sign up to play hockey, to put their kids in gymnastics or to have their kids take music lessons. Those are some of the finer things we are able to do as Canadian citizens. We cannot put a dollar value on parenting, and it is certainly not $10 a day.

Parenting, for many of us, is something in our bones, what we were created for. The government is looking at Canadians and thinking about its return on investment, not bout how it can support Canadians living life the way they want to, including as a stay-at-home parent. A mother who chooses to leave the workforce is not an extra cost to society. She is not a burden or a strain or a negative, by any stretch of the imagination. Moms are not a commodity to be given a dollar value. People have tried to determine the hourly cost of motherhood, that a mom’s work is worth about $180,000 a year. The work of a mother is absolutely priceless. We cannot put a dollar value on it.

This line of thinking, with the government’s belief that women must get back to work to pay their taxes, inherently devalues that work, the sacrifice and the unconditional love that mothers give. While child care might be $10 a day with the rollout of this bill, there can never be a price put on being a mom, or a dad, for that matter. Our kids are our future, and their youngest years are the most important years of their lives. Do members not think that mom and dad should be with them as much as possible during that time frame? The role of the government is to act in the best interests of its citizens, so why are we not doing everything in our power to ensure our children have the strongest start possible?

As I said, this bill, Bill C-35, is narrow. It ignores and leaves behind other child care options. Back home, we know that many families share child care responsibilities. Family friends are all brought to someone’s house and a stay-at-home parent takes cares of them for the day. There is no government intervention, no subsidies, just community coming together to find a solution to their needs.

Canadians who rely on others for their child care, people from their church, their neighbours, their co-workers, should be encouraged to do just that. They should not be forced to put their kids into a government-sanctioned day care. For the private child care groups put together between friends, for the stay-at-home moms who choose to leave the workforce because they see the value in spending every day with their kids, the Liberal government leaves them wanting.

The government must do more to tackle affordability and to enable parents to spend time with their kids. Parents know their kids better than anyone and will love their kids more than anyone else ever will. The government should not encourage the separation of child and parent, but should be actively working toward a country in which parents can spend as much time with their kids as possible. The 53% of child care centres in the country that are unlicensed are, therefore, excluded from this legislation and so, too, are the 35% of parents whose children are not in child care as they would rather stay at home with them.

Whether one is from urban or rural Canada, Vancouver or Swift Current, Toronto or Shaunavon, child care is something all Canadians need. Whether it is private, at a co-op, maybe over at one's grandparent's house, it could be a stay-at-home parent or a group of parents who have agreed to a cycle of taking care of the kids. However it presents itself, we know that Bill C-35 before us overlooks nearly all those people, and that does not even consider the fact that this scheme does not do anything to create new spaces. It is not growing access, which for people in the southwest matters the most.

In Saskatchewan, only 10% of kids aged zero to 12 have access to day care, either full time or part time. For the ages between zero and six, the ages managed by the agreement between the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada, that is just under 18%. For example, there is one day care facility in Saskatoon that has 90 spots available in its day home. Its waiting list had 1,900 people on it, which is 1,900 kids and families who are being overlooked by the Liberal government. Sure, the government might be trying to make day care more affordable, but if Canadians cannot get their kids into the day care, where is the benefit?

Across the provinces, we see some different approaches when it comes to delivering access to education, for example. When I came here to Ontario, I heard something in the news about how the multiple school boards work. It sounds different from the arrangements we have made in Saskatchewan or from how education funding is delivered in Alberta. Each province is responsible for its own needs in that area. We need to see the same respect shown to provinces when it comes to early child care as well.

I also want to say something my Quebec colleagues might appreciate. I hope we can work together to find some common ground whenever possible. Our friends in Quebec already have their own child care system, which has been running for decades already. I have to admit that I am not completely familiar with all the details of child care in Quebec or with the discussions they are having about it in that part of the country, but they genuinely do seem to be happy with it. However, that was long before the government in Ottawa brought forward its version of a program for national child care at the federal level. The government should not take the credit for what Quebec is doing. It also should not assume that what works in one province will work exactly the same in other provinces. There are different histories, cultures and values to consider.

The choice of parents matters the most. We need to expand their choices and not limit them, including through an affordability crisis. At the end of the day, a lot of the problems they face come down to the fact that this is a country where people can barely afford to live at all. After all, 51% of Canadians are $200 away from bankruptcy. Most women in Canada are having fewer children than they want, and it is partly because they cannot deal with the economic burden that comes with parenthood. The root of the problem is not child care; it is affordability. It is the fact that Canadians are not earning enough money to raise a family. The current government should not be putting a band-aid on the problems created by the government with social programs. It needs to address the very real concerns faced by Canadians so that they can have the kids they want and that they can raise them however they want, without the government telling them exactly what it is that they are supposed to be doing.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to re-engage my friend and colleague in conversation about child care.

The member did quote one thing I said to him in this debate, I think at least six months ago. What we were talking about then was the fact that the Liberal government brought forth changes to the Canada child benefit, which allows parents the choice to go down to one income and to have their Canada child benefit fill in that gap quite dramatically. That then allows a parent to parent from home. They can take maternity or paternity leave, and they can rely on grandparent support, as my colleague pointed out. However, throughout his speech, my colleague from the Conservatives continually pointed to big government programs and subsidies, and I could not help but think he was talking about the Canada child benefit.

Now, the member talked about a time in his life when they made a decision as a family to go down to one income, and it was a bit more challenging than it would have been if both parents were working, and I acknowledge that. However, there are two things. Would it not have been great if there was a subsidized child care program available so that when it was time to do chores, shopping or anything like that, there was a little extra help of $10 a day? Would it not also have been good if, in his speech, he acknowledged the role that the Canada child benefit played in affordability?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, but this is the problem; there is no surge capacity or flex capacity in day care. Day care is not just a simple thing where one can drop one's kid off for an hour or two and hope that they will be looked after. That is not the way it works. People are struggling to even find spaces for their kids for the hours of work. To think that one could just drop one's kid off for an hour or two, that is not possible.

This is how my wife and I decided to raise our kids. We take our kids with us everywhere. It is part of the process of raising a kid. When I came home after work, I would take my turn to be with the kids and to make sure that they were either napping or that their diapers were changed. I would do all the things I could so that my wife could go and do some things she wanted to do. That is the role of having two parents actively engaged in the house. That is something this program does not take into consideration.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about his family at length. From what I understand, this worked for how they saw things in his family.

However, I have looked at the statistics, and in Saskatchewan, more than 27% of families are single-parent families. We know that single-parent families have lower incomes. It is much more difficult for these families.

In Quebec, the introduction of early childhood centres helped in combatting poverty, especially among single-parent families. I would like my colleague to tell me what he thinks of that. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to provide child care services to the entire population. Those who make other choices can go ahead and do that, but this is a good way of reducing poverty.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the member raised that point, because I do think that a part of the Canadian population that gets forgotten about probably more than any other is single mothers.

I think that if the program had been focused on ensuring that those women were prioritized, that would have been a better direction to go with a program like this. If we are going to be subsidizing day care nationally, I think that would have been a much better approach to take because that is a segment of society that is looking to get more help than people who still have two parents in the home. I think that making sure we are focused on the right groups, the right segments of society, is what the government needs to do more.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am always humoured when I see some of the Conservative males talk about the plight of the single mother. I actually was one. In any case, he spoke a lot about unpaid care work that is done by women, and primarily by women, as I would agree, such as child-rearing and looking after aging parents. One of the reasons I put forward a guaranteed livable basic income was to provide income for unpaid care work.

I know the member spoke a lot about his partner and about how the amount she should be paid is $180,000 a year. I was wondering whether he would support his wife's supporting my bill and giving her a guaranteed livable basic income so she could live in dignity and not in poverty while she raises his kids at home.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my wife gets her dignity through the fact that she is able to be a mother. She is raising her kids. She does not get her dignity through government handouts to her. That is not where she derives her value from. My wife knows that the value she brings to our family unit is from the way she raises our kids and the way we purposely sat down together to formulate that plan so she could have the best possible opportunity to go ahead.

We did that without government intervention because we do not think it is up to the government to tell us how to spend our money and how to raise our kids. Again, my wife gets her dignity not from the government but from the things she is able to do and contribute, which is raising our kids. Now she has the freedom to be able to go back to work; she has done that and continues to be the most amazing mother to our three kids.

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

Mr. Speaker, I love how my colleague speaks about his wife and his children. Knowing him on a personal level, I know how valuable his children and family life are to him.

Going back to what he was talking about with the single moms, we have the stats here right now coming out of the child care program. I will reiterate what he was saying; 77% of high-income parents access child care, versus 41% of low-income families. Does he think we should be prioritizing those people who are most vulnerable and who need this most but who are not getting access to it fairly?

It is proven through the stats that the $10-a-day child care program by the Liberals and NDP is not equitable. What does the member have to say about that?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is another excellent point, and I do need to thank the member for all of the time, effort and hard work she has put into this particular topic. I know it is something she is very passionate about, as a fantastic mother.

When the government is designing and developing programs, that is who they should be targeted to. The government should be looking after people who are the most vulnerable and people who are the most at risk. When we hear alarming statistics, such as that people whom this program should be geared toward are struggling to even find a space, let alone access to the program, that is very alarming.

There are other government policies out there that disproportionately affect and impact single mothers. One of them is the carbon tax, and there are also the clean fuel standards and the clean electricity standards the government is putting forward. Single mothers are listed as the most vulnerable to be impacted in a negative way by those standards, yet the government is plowing ahead with them anyway.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to highlight that, in my province of New Brunswick, advocates have been calling for decades for access to a public child care system. They are really excited to see the advances that our government has made. Of course, we need to be there to support providers as this transition occurs and moves us to where we really want to see access to $10-a-day child care.

Unfortunately, the member also decided to take a swipe at the most vulnerable and speak about the issue of the guise of parental rights. I would like to ask him that question with regard to what is happening in Alberta. In consideration of parental rights, what does the member say to the parents who want gender-affirming care for their children but can now no longer access it because of government imposition?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to say that the member is misrepresenting what is going on. For parents who want gender-affirming care, the government will not be standing in the way. The Premier of Alberta has made that abundantly clear.

What people do not want to see is the government forcing, swaying or moving the conversation a certain way without parents being part of the conversation. This is because parents, not the state, are the first caregivers for our children. That is the most fundamental thing that people need to know understand. We know that parents need to always be at the table when it comes to decisions for their own children. My biggest point is that parents need to be number one as the caregivers for children. That is what we are focused on.

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

Mr. Speaker, it looks like the Liberals have chosen to not continue speaking to this, so I am very proud to rise to speak on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country. I will be splitting my time with the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.

Amendments were brought forward from the Senate on Bill C-35, on child care, which is why we are here today. I would like to recognize the member for Peterborough—Kawartha and her team for all of their work on this bill, as well as for reaching out to parents and child care providers across the country. I would also like to recognize our Conservative members on the human resources committee. They brought forth common-sense amendments on this bill that were not accepted by the NDP-Liberal coalition. I will speak to that shortly.

Child care is an issue of great importance to many families in my community and the operators who run these centres, as they are taking care of our most important asset, our children. I want to thank them for the vital and important work that they do. As a working mom, I can say that child care was very important to me and our family. That was back when maternity leave was only six months.

I have unfortunately heard from many residents of Kelowna—Lake Country about the shortage of day care spaces, as well as the unaffordability of child care. I have also heard from operators, often young female entrepreneurs, of the challenges they are facing as well. If not resolved, these challenges may put them out of business for good, leaving families struggling to find a child care space that does not exist.

As the Conservative vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I am very familiar with Bill C-35, as it came before Conservative colleagues and me at that committee. We have to remember that this legislation is coming after agreements were already signed and implemented with the provinces.

Conservatives have also offered several other amendments at the committee stage to correct serious failures in this legislation. These are faults that have been apparent from the beginning of this NDP-Liberal government's approach to child care. Sadly, those amendments were voted down, and as a result, we are now seeing many of the consequences of their approach.

Parents are now facing wait-lists that have not gotten better. Child care centres are being forced to close their doors forever. The wealthy are getting access to $10-a-day child care spaces. The Liberal child care plan had no means testing. In fact, it does not even tie to whether the parent who is looking to access the $10-a-day child care even works or wants to work.

Let us look at the numbers. A Fraser Institute report, published just this month, showed that 77% of high-income parents access child care compared to 41% of low-income families. It should also be common sense that a high-income household does not need the government subsidy to access the same level to child care that a single working mother would need.

Accessible child care should be available to all working women, but many people are questioning how these government programs are good for working women and the families that need access to affordable child care. Despite the claims from the Liberals that their child care plans would allow more women to be in our workforce, that same Fraser Institute study found that labour force participation for women in September 2023 has dropped when compared to participation in September of 2015. This report also said, “There is also little evidence that the federal government is achieving its [second] goal of boosting the labour force participation of women with children.”

After eight years of high taxes, high inflation, high interest rates and more debt, we can add fewer women with children working to the NDP-Liberal government's list of accomplishments. Young women have also suffered. The Liberal's most recent labour force survey, published in January of 2024, showed that over the last year, the employment of young women has cumulatively declined by 4.2%. Outside of the pandemic, that is the lowest it has been since the year 2000, which was, interestingly, under the last Liberal government.

The young female entrepreneurs in the child care sector have been left behind. These are operators who are often working extended hours and days compared to the many large not-for-profit operators. Even if they are fully licensed from the provincial government, they operate within and follow all provincial regulations. The so-called feminist Liberals have not made them a priority to access the federal funding to bring down costs to the parents they serve. It is right in the Liberal legislation.

We have quickly discovered that these female entrepreneurs are not a priority in the NDP-Liberal government's child care plan. What they envisioned was that they could build something for themselves, a child care program that could be flexible for nighttime or weekend workers, better available to rural working families and cater exclusively to children with special needs. These are exactly the types of choices parents are asking for.

Ottawa has a role in helping build out child care in Canada, but it cannot do that if it only looks to work against the headwinds of what the real demands are and local situations are of working families.

The NDP-Liberal agreements have been opposed to the kinds of child care that often allow more flexibility, such as what women entrepreneurs provide. They may provide different availability and attainability to preferred government-run or not-for-profit centres. If these operations have challenges to staying open, the numbers of child care spaces will actually decline.

This is not the fault of any child care worker or any organization in the child care sector, whether it be private, public or not-for-profit. It is the fault of a badly designed government program.

I recently met with a well-run, not-for-profit child care centre in my community. This experienced operator was equally frustrated with the system. She talked about the bureaucracy that has been created that is making it very difficult for both her organization and parents to wade through.

The fact is that, since the Liberal government started its child care program, we have seen fewer children in child care in Canada. According to Statistics Canada, the number of children under the age of five in child care fell by 118,000 between 2019 and 2023, which is a decrease of 8.5% nationally. Statistics Canada also showed that 26% of parents of children under the age of five who were not using child care reported that their child was on a wait-list, which is 7% higher than it was in 2022. As well, 47% of infants younger than one year not in child care were on a wait-list, which is an increase of 38% compared to early 2022.

The Coalition of Child Care Advocates of BC said that there were 130,000 licensed child care spaces in the province and that 75% of children aged zero to 12 are not able to access them.

A common-sense Conservative government would bring common sense back to child care policy. Only Conservatives would fight for equal access to child care and choice for parents. We support all forms of child care, and this is something we tried to put in through amendments at the committee stage with this legislation, whether it be for traditional day care centres; centres with extended, part-time or overnight care; nurseries; flexible and drop-in care; before- and after-school care; preschools; 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; guardians who raise their own children or family members; or friends or neighbours who provide care.

The NDP-Liberal government has only brought costs, crime and crisis to families. After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, housing prices have doubled, food bank usage is at its highest, violent crime is up 32% and inflation is creating financial anxiety. There are 22 people dying each day by the opioid crisis, and our health care system is in shambles.

On top of this, in B.C., with the federal Liberals supporting B.C. drug policies, people taking their children to parks have to deal with open drug use. I spoke with a child care provider recently who told me that they often walk the kids to a local park to play, and though they scan the park before the children play, they are often terrified that they may have missed something because they often find drug paraphernalia.

I do have quite a number of articles from over the last month. I will just reference a couple because I know I am running out of time. First of all, Castanet said that the Kelowna child care crisis is being “amplified” and “not helped by government fee program.” Another headline reads “Edmonton daycares closed” due to protest. Another reads, “Child-care costs are dropping across Canada. But some families are still waiting years for spaces.” These headlines goes on on, and these are headlines from just over the last month.

Conservatives will honour the existing provincial child care agreements. However, we will work toward fixing what the government has broken, so parents will have the choice and flexibility that the NDP-Liberal costly coalition has not allowed.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives change their tone from one speech to the next. Earlier today, we were treated to an episode of Father Knows Best, where the woman stays at home and the man goes to work. There are lots of different approaches, mentalities and ways of doing things. I do not think that we should judge other people's choices.

That being said, the early childhood education program has proven its worth in Quebec. It has allowed many mothers, often single mothers, to pursue their careers and professional goals. It is also a choice that deserves respect. We should consider extending the same opportunity to all women and parents outside Quebec, so that they can enjoy the same benefits as women and parents in Quebec.

Would my colleague not agree that we can let people choose to have one parent stay home and care for the children while the other goes to work, but also offer everyone the option, to the extent possible, of allowing both parents to go to work while their children receive proper care from specialized educators doing an excellent job?

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly it is all about what is best for families. Every family will be different, whatever its choice is going to be and whatever its situation is.

I know there have been a lot of references to Quebec's system being the model. In fact Quebec has a different system than other provinces have, but I do recall hearing testimony at committee that said there are still a lot of children on wait-lists, even in Quebec. Therefore we need to work toward having the maximum amount of availability and flexibility, not only within the child care system but also for families.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her work on this file. I have a couple of questions regarding contradictions I have heard coming from the other side on the topic of child care.

The Conservatives will acknowledge a worker shortage and will acknowledge the need for choice, but they will skip over, gloss over or perhaps just not acknowledge the fact that the program is directly responsible for a couple of things: It is filling the gap for a lot of sectors that were looking for workers, and it has also led to the highest-ever female participation in the economy, which is something worth celebrating because it is all about choice and affordability for families.

Therefore, will the member opposite not acknowledge that our changes to the Canada child benefit have benefited families greatly from an affordability perspective, and that the early learning and child care program right across the country, which was negotiated with each province for individual differences, has led to great affordability changes for families right across this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, what the member is referencing is not factually correct. Statistics Canada actually shows that female participation is down, so I am not sure what old statistics he might be looking at.

We just have to look at the headlines over the last month. What we have seen is that the child care system is in crisis and that the policies the government has put together have not made a substantial difference. In many ways, when we look at the numbers, we see they are actually worse.

I will also note that I just find it incredibly interesting that the spokesperson whom the government has speaking to this very important child care bill today, which basically affects families and especially women in the workforce, is someone who does not have children himself.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, from what I understood, the member was saying that the bill would discriminate against a certain type of care. I wonder whether she could point to where in the bill it talks about this discrimination. What I understand is that the bill states there needs to be a prioritization for public over private child care, and that it would not prevent any other care from being addressed by the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of regions in the country, especially in rural areas, that may not have government-run or large not-for-profit centres, and in fact a lot of care providers are in smaller entrepreneurial-type situations and focus on cultural needs. Therefore there is a huge gap that this would not address.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to speak on Bill C-35. I want to start by addressing some of the amendments that were put forward by the other place.

In the initial part of this bill, there was no reference to official language minority communities, and it was Conservative amendments, made during the clause-by-clause review at the Standing Committee on Human Rights, that introduced these safeguards for our very important minority-language communities. We know that early child care is a crucial period for language learning and for the identity development of children. Access to French language early child care services is so necessary as a condition for the transmission of languages that have been transmitted by families over generations.

Several examples demonstrate the necessity of including these provisions in the bill. In Alberta, out of the so-called 1,500 new day care spaces announced by the government, only 19 were being allocated for francophones. That constitutes only 0.013% of all spaces, despite francophones representing 2% of the population of Alberta. It is important to protect these communities and their part in Canadian heritage that helped to build this nation, whether they be francophones in Alberta or anglophones in Quebec.

I want to talk about the great francophone heritage of my community. A gentleman, Ben Van De Walle, who is the son of the late, great member of Parliament from my area, Walter Van De Walle, who represented the great francophone communities of Morinville, Rivière Qui Barre and Legal. We have a very strong francophone identity in Sturgeon River—Parkland, and the Conservative amendments would go a long way to preserving our French-language heritage in our region.

Now that I have addressed these amendments, I want to talk about what I see as the unravelling disaster we are seeing because of the Liberal government's failed approach to child care. The proposed legislation and the current agreements made by the government with the provinces are failing to provide universal access to affordable child care and would cost far more than the government has estimated.

Small businesses are the backbone of our society, and the predominantly female entrepreneurs who are courageously trying to build businesses and build their livelihoods through providing child care are under attack by the Liberal government. The excessive red tape and regulations of the Liberal government are preventing day care entrepreneurs from opening new spaces and expanding their businesses. They cannot get the funding because the government will not fund new spaces.

This is making child care less accessible, and it is all because of the Liberal government imposing a one-size-fits-all model on a very complex sector of our economy. In the words of some child care operators, the Liberal government is essentially expropriating and nationalizing their businesses. I will use the words of one operator from Fort McMurray who said that, basically, they will “have no business” under the Liberal plan.

One of the government's tired talking points is its insistence that it has evidence-based policies. A more appropriate term would be evidence that is selective that corresponds with its ideological agenda. Let us go over some of the facts. As of the statistics published on February 6, just a short time ago, 77% of high-income parents have access to child care, and this compares to only 41% of low-income parents who have access to child care. It is a yawning gap.

I find it somewhat comedic that a Bloc MP earlier talked about how great this program is for single mothers. The University of British Columbia did a study in that province, in which it contacted all the child care centres to find out how many low-income single mothers were benefiting from this program. Across the entire province of British Columbia, it found 17 who were benefiting. There were only 17 single mothers benefiting, in the province of British Columbia, from the Liberals' failed day care policy.

Since 2019, the number of children under the age of five in child care has fallen under the Liberal government by 118,000 spaces. This is a decrease of 8.5% nationally. There was 46.4% of parents who reported difficulty in finding child care in 2023, which is up from 36.4% of parents in 2019. This is a problem that existed before the government's policy, but it is a problem that is only getting worse under the government's failed policy.

In fact, I personally know people who can only get one of their two children in child care, and they have to stay home to take care of the other children. These people are nurses and other skilled workers who cannot pursue their careers because the current government has made it more difficult for them to access any child care. It does not matter if it says it is affordable. If I could get 50¢ gas at the gas station, that would be great, but if there was never any gas at the gas station, it would not matter how affordable the price was.

Why is child care so expensive? We know that the key costs for child care, according to the operators, in order of magnitude, are labour costs, the cost of the facilities and the cost of food and other supplies.

Child care is a labour-intensive operation. The cost to create a space that is appropriate for children and the accompanying mortgage, rental costs, insurance costs and maintenance costs are extremely significant. Finally, the cost of food and other supplies has increased dramatically under this inflationary government.

What is a factor in all three of these costs? It is high inflation, which has increased the cost of labour, rent, mortgages, insurance and food at the local store. The price of food has gone up by 12%. Child care operators are not immune from these costs. They do not get some special discount at the store because they are child care operators.

The fact is that the Liberal government, through its inflationary policies, is driving up the costs to care for children in Canada. At the same time that it is driving up all of these costs, it is shortchanging child care operators by only giving them a 3% annual increase in their funding. They cannot support children when food prices are going up 12%, when wage costs are going up, and when mortgage costs are doubling and tripling, and rental costs are tripling. They cannot support these children with only a 3% increase from the government.

The Liberal government is expecting these predominantly female business owners to eat these costs. Consequently, it is causing them to shut down their business, to reduce spaces and restrict access to child care for Canadians.

In the child care sector in Alberta, we are already seeing the consequences of this inflationary agenda. Last month, parents in my riding were unable to get child care, because of closures in protest of these Liberal policies. Operators have described these agreements as underfunded and inflexible, and say that they threaten the financial viability of operators by placing fee caps and other restrictions on facilities that are struggling with these increased costs.

The owner of My Happy Place Daycare, in Stony Plain, Alberta said:

Right now, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place...Just being closed for the day has a huge impact. Imagine what would happen if day care centres across the province started closing their doors because they're going bankrupt.

I fear that because of these Liberals' ideological approach to child care, that is a future that we are seeing coming very quickly.

The proposed solution for inflation by proponents of even more government intervention in early child care is, no surprise, more inflationary spending. The government has tried to raise the wages of child care workers, but this is putting us into a wage spiral, because other groups that are competing for child care workers, such as school boards, are also raising their wages in order to compete for these workers.

In one case I spoke to a mother who worked in child care previously, before the government's policies were in place. She worked in child care because she received a significant discount for her own child's care at that facility. Once the government brought in its policies, her day care operator got rid of the discount, as it was not necessary anymore. She lost her incentive to work in child care. She has left that sector. Now there is one less child care worker.

I have spoken with child care operators who have had to pay increased rents and mortgages on their facilities. As everyone knows, mortgages and rental rates are skyrocketing after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, particularly in the last year.

Under agreements the government has signed, child care operators are limited in the costs they can bill the government toward their rent and mortgage. Since they are mandated to only charge families a fixed price, there is no way these operators can make up the difference other than by reducing other costs. What are these costs? It is food and craft supplies. Do we really want to talk about reducing the quality of the food and the quality of the programming for our children, just so these day care operators could make up the costs of skyrocketing mortgages and rents, because the Liberal government will not support them?

What is actually happening now is that they are just choosing to shut down instead. They do not want to provide subpar care for children under the Liberal policies, so they are just shutting down altogether. It is terrible to see.

The laws of supply and demand mean that the government must either restrict the capacity of day cares or dramatically increase funding beyond what it has already promised. The first option is unfair. We cannot prevent people from accessing child care. Yet, what we are seeing is that it is predominantly middle- and high-income families that are getting access, and low-income families are being left out. This is backed up by research from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which reported that the Liberal plan is not sufficient to meet the demand for child care. In fact, it will fall short in providing spaces for 182,000 children.

I said earlier that we have lost 118,000 spaces since 2019. The Liberal government is well on its way to meeting at least one of its goals, which is the reduction of child care spaces. It has reduced this number by 118,000, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer says it is going to 182,000 under the Liberal policies.

That is what we are already seeing in Alberta. Operators are struggling to stay open. They are closing down. They are reducing spaces. It is lowering accessibility for families.

We cannot continue going down this road. We need a new way to move forward. We need to support all child care operators, regardless of the model that they choose. We need to provide not only affordability for families but accessibility for families, and we are not getting it under this failed NDP-Liberal policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the member brought up grocery prices.

I am curious as to how surprised he was when he found out that a paid lobbyist regularly attends his caucus meetings in order to provide strategy to the Leader of the Opposition, somebody who is directly profiting from the crisis that people are faced with, the inflation as it relates to groceries.

If he would rather not answer that question, then I would just encourage him to pivot to something else.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid to answer that question, because, after eight years of this Liberal-NDP government, I am surprised that Loblaws even needs lobbyists, considering how much this government has given them: free refrigerators paid for by taxpayers and skyrocketing increases to grocery prices. This government has been in the pocket of big grocery stores.

As I said in my speech, it is the children who are suffering. The child care operators cannot afford to provide quality food for our children under the Liberals' failed policies.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple.

Did I understand correctly? Will the Conservatives vote against the bill on the pretext that a program like this is not perfect? They will not bother to enshrine in law something that has worked for Quebec for 25 years and that could be good for others. Is that correct?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. Conservatives are not against the principle of affordable and accessible child care for children. There is no issue with that.

The question is, how do we provide affordable and accessible child care?

There needs to be a balance. Clearly, under this government's policy of so-called $10-a-day child care, which nobody can access, particularly low-income families, accessibility has become a real problem that it is not dealing with.

We know from the province of Quebec that there are hundreds of thousands of children who are not able to access subsidized child care. It is a real problem in the province of Quebec. It is a problem across the country, and we need to deal with this accessibility problem.

Without accessibility, affordability does not matter.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke to the issues that still surround this day care program from the perspective of the people who are trying to use it.

I know that in my riding we have one community, as an example, that is rural, with a lot of people who work shift work. There are three businesses there, run by women, that do not have the opportunity to get the provisions that other organizations do.

Can he explain, possibly, to the House why it is that the Liberal government is against day cares in which women have the opportunity not only to care for children, which we are innately good at overall, but also to run a very profitable and successful business doing that?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, dealing with the challenges in rural communities and raising children in rural communities is very important. I think it has been left out by the government. I want to be clear. It is predominantly small and medium-sized enterprises that are suffering under the Liberals' day care policies. The big box day cares, the Starbucks of day cares, are not suffering.

In fact, they are actually benefiting, because when the small and medium-sized players are going bankrupt under these government policies, it is the bigger businesses with the deeper pockets that are able to make the biggest gains.

What we see is that, in rural communities, these big box day cares do not want to set up.

We are not only seeing an accessibility problem in the cities, where people cannot access care; we are seeing a complete child care desert in our rural areas. That is clearly not acceptable in a country that values its rural regions.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the arguments from our Conservative counterparts, always talking about the state of women-owned businesses. What they seem to fail to recognize is that this sector of the care economy also depends on many female workers, yet this member of the Conservative Party talked about a wage spiral, as though inflating wages, increasing the wages of workers, is somehow a bad thing.

Is it his economic theory that this sector depends on the exploitation of women workers in order to provide affordable child care?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think some of the member's outrage is somewhat misplaced. I am not against people getting the best possible wage they can negotiate to do the job they want to do, but we have to recognize that we are in an economy where there is high demand for care workers. We have demand for early childhood educators in the school sector and in the day care sector, and when wages go up in one sector, they need to go up in the other sector. What we are doing is creating a spiral, but we are not addressing—

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.

We are way over time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member for Kelowna—Lake Country's suggestion that since I do not have children I am a bad advocate or spokesperson for early learning and child care, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to table evidence of Canada's record labour force participation rate for women.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are rising today to talk about amendments to Bill C-35. All 338 of us value child care and the tremendous work of moms, dads, grandparents and other individuals who love and take care of children from coast to coast to coast.

Before I even commence my speech, I would just like to thank all the parents and child care providers from coast to coast, whether they are a grandma at the end of the street, a dad staying home to make sure their kid gets the love they want or a provider at a licensed child care centre working an extra half-hour or 45 minutes to wait for parents who are held up at work. Really, there is no more critical work than helping our children develop and become that next great generation.

I want to talk a bit about statistics, because they were mentioned earlier in the debate. When it comes to child care, the current stats from the Fraser Institute's report published on February 6 are that 77% of high-income parents report that they have access to child care, whereas 41% of low-income families have access to child care. It really strikes me that this legislation does not have any particular dedicated support for those who are most vulnerable.

Those children are not only fighting the challenges that all children are fighting, whether that is bullying or the challenges of growing up; they are also fighting poverty, and this legislation has no support for those children who are having to brave those incredibly difficult challenges that poverty brings with it. While we are giving 77% of high-income parents access to child care, we are only giving it to 41%, which is less than half, of those children who are fighting through all the additional struggles in addition to the challenges of poverty.

Also mentioned before was the labour participation of women. According to the same report, in September 2023, it was at 61.5%. Compare that to 2015 under Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives, it was at 61.7%, so the participation of women in the labour market has declined. Those are the numbers on that, so hopefully that ends the debate right there.

On top of that, according to another Fraser Institute study published on February 6, the employment rate of female youth is on a strong downward trend since February 2023. The cumulative decline of 4.2% over the period is a huge number. That is hundreds and thousands of young women who are not getting into the labour force. This is the lowest it has been since May 2000, excluding the pandemic, according to the labour force survey of January 2024.

This program is, of course, predicated on the fact that it would enable parents, both men and women, but if we call a spade a spade it is predominantly women, get back into the workforce, if they so choose, and the numbers just do not bear that out.

Some more numbers for members are 47% of infants younger than one year and not in child care were on a wait list, increasing from 38% in 2022—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just asked to table record labour force participation rates, and I was denied by the Conservatives, so I would ask that, if the member opposite—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

That is a point of debate and not a point of order. The hon. member already attempted to table the document, and there was no unanimous consent. I suggest that the hon. parliamentary secretary visit all the parties of the House to try to obtain unanimous consent before he comes back to attempt to table the document.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

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

Madam Speaker, I would say that the Liberals have actually foregone speaking times in this debate. If the member wants to jump in, he should talk to his whip.

Last but not least, Sharon Gregson of the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C. says that while there are 130,000 licensed child care spaces in the province, 75% of children aged zero to 12 are unable to access them. It does not matter how inexpensive child care is if parents cannot access it. It is a fantasy.

I have seen this in my riding of Northumberland—Peterborough South. Numerous parents have come to or called our office and said, “Mr. Lawrence, we heard through the media that there would be $10-a-day day care,” and I have had to report to them that, unfortunately, there are a very limited number of spots, and most Canadians cannot access them. That is from the parents' perspective.

Let us hear what the child care providers have had to say. This is from a report in Global News about two weeks ago:

A number of Alberta child care facilities shut their doors Tuesday, protesting what they say are problems with the $10-a-day child-care program.

The Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs said the job action is meant to draw attention to the issues that come with offering parents low-cost child care without ensuring the cost of delivery is still covered.

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

“You can’t even buy coffee and a muffin for $10 a day,” said Churcher. “We’re walking out in protest.”

We see, all the time, grandstanding from the government: big spending announcements and big plans. Although admittedly it is just tangentially related, I recently had the opportunity to ask the housing minister in finance committee about his housing accelerator program. I asked what I would have thought was a very straightforward, easy question for him to answer: How many houses has the housing accelerator built? I asked two or three times but did not get an answer until finally the minister admitted that the housing accelerator is not there to build houses. That is pretty much a word-for-word quote. The housing accelerator is great at building bureaucracy and the government is great at doing photo ops, but it is not delivering child care for Canadians and it is not delivering housing for Canadians.

I could go on, but I would like to talk about the substance of the amendment to Bill C-35. The original terms made no reference to the official language minority communities, a very important group. We need to protect our official languages. We need to make sure that French continues to grow. I attend my French classes every day because I believe it is absolutely critical we all take this seriously and help grow the beautiful French language.

The Senate proposed an amendment to the bill to include a reference to OLMCs in section 8 to eliminate any ambiguity before the courts. I will remind the House that section 8 reads:

The Government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples. The funding must be provided primarily through agreements with the provincial governments, Indigenous governing bodies and other Indigenous entities that represent the interests of an Indigenous group and its members.

Bill C-35 unanimously passed through the House last year. When it made it to the Senate, Senator Cormier, an Acadian who has stood up for francophones in the past and continues to do so, wanted to add the words “official language minority communities” to the first sentence of the section, which states, “including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples,” and he divided section 8 into two paragraphs.

The first paragraph sets out the government's financial commitment. The second paragraph outlines the mechanisms the federal government will use to provide the funding. Adding the words “official language minority communities” after the word “including” does not detract from any rights of any other minority or of indigenous peoples, but seeks to eliminate any ambiguity before the courts.

Early childhood development is incredibly critical for kids. As I said when I started my speech today, and as we heard many speakers talk so eloquently about, as a government, we need to put children first. We need to make sure that we put out solutions and programs and that we do not limit or impair the ability of parents to raise their children.

I look forward to continuing the dialogue and the discussion on this topic and to celebrating—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I apologize for interrupting. It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am honoured to rise on Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

I am proud to represent Nunavut and to be the critic for indigenous issues and northern affairs.

I thank my colleague and friend, the member for Winnipeg Centre, for her leadership in ensuring that Bill C-35 will positively impact Inuit, first nations and Métis.

Early learning and child care are of particular importance to indigenous peoples. Canada used all the resources it could to rob indigenous parents of their children. It used churches, RCMP and Indian agents. Indigenous children were sent to residential schools, and intergenerational trauma still exists because of Canada's genocidal policies against indigenous peoples. Amidst this, it has taken decades for this bill to finally reach this stage, which is so close to passing.

I thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for reminding us, in her speech, about who was instrumental in this. I echo her gratitude. She stated:

Generations of feminists, trade unionists, child care workers and advocates made this victory possible. They never, ever gave up the fight. They did not give up after the 1970 Royal Commission on the Status of Women's recommendation for a national child care program was ignored by the government of the day. They did not give up after the 1993 Liberal red book promised national child care, only for that government to pursue deep cuts to social programs instead.

New Democrats who have fought for this include the mayor of Toronto, Olivia Chow, and the current member for London—Fanshawe.

What would Bill C-35 do? It would ensure a long-term commitment of federal funding to provinces, territories and indigenous groups. It would provide the opportunity for a national system of early learning and child care. It would indeed help ensure that parents across Canada have access to affordable, accessible and high-quality child care, now and into the future.

The NDP fought hard to ensure that Bill C-35 takes a rights-based approach. Because of our work, it includes acknowledgements of the obligations that Canada must adhere to international human rights conventions and declarations.

For example, the third paragraph of the preamble affirms critical international instruments, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.

I return to the importance of passing Bill C-35. We all know that difficulty finding day care impacts the ability of parents to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I always enjoy hearing from my colleague from Nunavut; I just want to ask if she was intending to split her time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We were asking the same question.

The hon. member for Nunavut.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do plan to split my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona

As I said, Bill C-35 would open the opportunity for a national system of early learning and child care.

A 2022 Statistics Canada study found that 38% of parents were changing their work or study schedule and 37% were working fewer hours. Bill C-35 would allow more parents to get back to work to provide for their families. This would benefit women, who are disproportionately impacted without this bill. We need Bill C-35 to become law.

The NDP will keep fighting for Canadians, unlike Conservatives, who make cuts, and Liberals who are forced to act only to avoid an election.

Today, the Conservatives tried to delay the important debate on C-35. They used a report from the 43rd parliament on food security issues as a delay tactic. They only pretend to care that nutrition north is not working. If they really cared about indigenous issues, they could have used any of their last 10 opposition day motions to debate nutrition north. Instead, they are playing games by making last minute changes to the orders of the day and obstructing important changes that could benefit many indigenous peoples, as well as the passage of Bill C-35.

I am proud that Nunavut was one of the first territories, along with Quebec and the Yukon, to commit to providing $10-a-day child care. More impressively, this milestone was achieved 15 months ahead of schedule. With the youngest population in Canada, it should come as no surprise. Ten-dollar-a-day day care does exist. Coupled with the high cost of living and other challenges, affordable child care is especially important to Nunavummiut.

Much work will be required after the passage of Bill C-35. There will need to be major investments for improving infrastructure in indigenous communities. Many first nations, Métis and Inuit communities lack the facilities for early childhood education. With crumbling buildings and overcrowded homes, there is nowhere to open a day care.

It is not just early childhood education; there is a severe infrastructure deficit across primary, intermediate and secondary schools in indigenous communities. In Pond Inlet, Arviat and many other Nunavut communities, schools are overcrowded. The communities desperately need investments in new schools. I heard from Pacheedaht First Nation members, who have to bus their children for hours in each direction because there is no school in their community. Even with existing schools, they do not have the resources to provide the same level of service as schools in non-indigenous communities do.

I take this opportunity to remind the Liberal government that it must both reverse its decision to sunset Indigenous Services Canada programs and fill the major infrastructure gaps. In combination, the lack of investments will result in over $14 billion that will force indigenous peoples onto the streets in the future. It will force indigenous peoples to remain addicted to substances and to remain on the margins of society.

The federal government must make additional investments to ensure that Inuit, first nations and Métis communities can build the infrastructure they need to provide culturally appropriate early childhood education.

An amendment was later added to address a potential charter issue, as minority language education is a right under section 23 of the Constitution. As parliamentarians, we have learned that there is an increasing lack of French-language child care services outside of Quebec. The amendment to clause 8 of the bill would ensure the federal government maintains funding for official language minorities. I am sure the francophone community in my riding will be very happy with this amendment. I am glad to see the amendment pass so this important legislation can go forward without potential legal challenges.

While there are two official languages in Canada, hundreds of indigenous languages remain. In order to keep indigenous languages alive, languages must be passed on to children at an early age. Governments have obligations to meet the obligations set out in the Indigenous Languages Act.

I highlight the recent court decision on Bill C-92, which was another big win for indigenous rights. Bill C-92 reaffirms Inuit, first nations and Métis rights to make decisions regarding their own children, youth and families. This includes culturally relevant child care services in their own languages.

For these reasons, I urge parliamentarians to support the passage of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find my hon. colleague's excellent speech very inspiring. I would ask her if she would like to share with the House again her intergenerational lens on the appalling and genocidal residential school system. The defined webs of intergenerational love and caring I find inspiring. I wonder, if I have gotten it at all close to the mark, would she be willing to share that again?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am reminded of the conversations I had with my constituents, Bernadette Dean and Annie Curley, who reminded me that it is so important, as we continue to talk about intergenerational trauma, that we need to start shifting that focus to having discussions about intergenerational love. This bill is one of the opportunities to ensure we are passing on intergenerational love from parents to children and child care to children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I picked up on the member's comment earlier today when there was an attempt by the Conservative Party to prevent Bill C-35 on child care from being debated, which I know is important in all regions of the country. She has commented fairly extensively on the benefits of the program. The Conservatives tried to do that by introducing the northern food allowance and the importance of food up north. I thought that was somewhat tragic, because it is an important issue and would make a nice opposition day motion.

I wonder if the member would expand on both because it was raised a little earlier, and I know her origins are in the north.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am always appalled at question period about how many resources other parties have to address issues. When I finally get my chance to ask questions in question period, I always ask about investments that go to Nunavut and indigenous communities. However, for the Conservatives, for example, a lot of their questions are limited to the carbon tax or something that does not advance the recognition and importance of indigenous peoples.

The two different topics that we are discussing today are so important. We should not be playing games, pretending to care about alleviating poverty against providing early child care and early child care development for all Canadians. It was quite an injustice to watch this morning and I really hope the Conservatives take more care in fighting for the rights of indigenous peoples, as well as the rest of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague to speak with her colleague about what we fought for in committee. The Conservatives were the only ones who put forward and supported an amendment for UNDRIP to ensure that first nations had access to their own child care rights.

The initial version of Bill C-35 made no reference to official language minority communities. The Conservative amendments were introduced during the clause-by-clause review by the HUMA committee and they were voted down by the Liberals, which the NDP supported.

Therefore, I would ask the member to say that the Conservatives have been the only ones standing for families and parents, including indigenous peoples and first nations, to do what they feel is best with their children and to give them the choice. Therefore, why are New Democrats supporting the Liberals?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would remind the member that it has been the New Democrats who have been able to get the most results for Canada in the 44th Parliament. We are the ones who were able to get dental care. We were the ones who got pharmacare. The fourth party in this 44th Parliament has gotten the most for Canadians. We are the ones who have been ensuring that indigenous rights are being respected.

I do appreciate that the member has worked closely with my friend and colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre. She has shared that with me and I do appreciate the commitment she has to ensure the bill does pass. I hope she has the support of her party to ensure Bill C-35 becomes law.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always very difficult to speak after the member for Nunavut because she is such a force within our caucus and such a champion for the people she represents. It is an honour to be in a caucus with her.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-35 and the amendments that have been brought forward. I want to start by talking about just how vital child care is in our country and what a fundamental thing it is to provide real child care across the country in an affordable way that women and families can access.

During COVID-19, I worked with the member for Timmins—James Bay to look at ways that we could have an economic recovery after the slowdown that happened during COVID. One of the things we heard constantly, whether it be from financial institutions, chambers of commerce, or labour groups, was the need for child care and the importance of it, that child care was the best thing we could do for economic recovery.

That is one piece of it, but I am a woman and I have children. I remember the struggle of finding child care. I remember how difficult it was to find quality child care, to be able to afford quality child care, to ensure that my children were cared for so I could return to the work force. I know for so many women across the country that this was not possible.

Having child care come forward after so many years makes me think of people like Irene Mathyssen, who pushed so hard for child care. I think about the member for Winnipeg Centre who has been absolutely tireless in this fight for child care for women. I think about these champions within the labour movement who have moved this forward over decades and decades. The fact that we now are here and have this program in place is fundamental.

I am not going to lie. This is not a perfect program. We have heard from labour leaders who say we need a workforce strategy to go along with this program. We need to ensure that the workers who are working in child care centres are adequately paid, are adequately trained and are given the resources they need so that child care spaces are available. There is a lot of work to continue to do. The idea of getting child care to people is fundamental.

The New Democrats have always known how important child care is. It is why, in my province of Alberta, Rachel Notley was the first premier to pilot a $25-a-day child care. It was wildly successful, but, of course, the Conservatives were elected under Jason Kenney and they cut that. Right now, the premiers of B.C. and Manitoba, again, New Democratic premiers, are championing and prioritizing the $10-a-day child care. Therefore, Canadians in those provinces will have that program in place.

Of course, the Conservatives in my province have, once again, fumbled the ball. As we all know, Danielle Smith would rather pick a fight with the federal government—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Maybe you could remind members that we are federal members of Parliament discussing federal government policy and business.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I will remind folks of relevance to the amendment we are discussing today.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the relevance of course is that I am a representative for the people of Edmonton, which is in the province of Alberta, and I am speaking about the delivery of child care in Alberta, so it is very relevant to what we are talking about.

I understand why the Conservatives do not want to talk about this. They do not want me to bring up the fact that Danielle Smith dropped the ball on child care, that she took the money and refused to give it to the child care workers, and, in fact, that child care centres had to do a one-day strike in January to actually get the money that was owed to them because the Premier of Alberta withheld that from them. I will point out that this is the same premier who has now said that she would not support a pharmacare program, the same premier who is attacking trans kids, the same premier who promised us she would not touch our pension and is now doing that, and the same premier who for some unbelievable reason is now saying that renewables are more dangerous for our economy than oil and gas. However, that is different. I will get back to child care.

We are talking about the idea of ensuring that this program is available across the country, ensuring that every Canadian, and from my perspective as a representative of Alberta, particularly Albertans, is able to access quality child care, not in concert with our premier and our provincial government but despite our provincial government. This is the state of affairs that we are in.

Frankly, I do think that the premiers and the people of B.C. and Manitoba have a much more likely chance of getting that quality child care, because clearly the premiers in those provinces have prioritized the needs of women, families and the economy to ensure child care is available to women.

I also want to talk a bit today about the amendment that was brought forward, which talks about access to official language child care. Members will not be surprised that I am going to talk a bit about Campus Saint-Jean, which is a facility in my riding.

The French quarter of Edmonton is in Edmonton Strathcona. I am a very proud representative of the French quarter, and Campus Saint-Jean is a wonderful institution. It is in fact the only institution in western Canada that trains teachers and child care providers in French so that they can meet the obligations of the Canadian government, that we all have across the country, to ensure that Canadian families can have their children educated in the language of their choice.

Something that many in the House may not know is that Alberta has the fastest-growing francophone population in the country. More than 261,000 Albertans have some knowledge of French, making French the second-most spoken language in the province after English. I do not know if members know this as well, but Alberta has the third-largest francophone minority population in Canada, after Ontario and New Brunswick. Therefore, we have a significant French population and the training to ensure that those child care workers and teachers are trained and are able to provide that education in French in my riding. It happens at Campus Saint-Jean.

Of course, this is the same university that Jason Kenney tried to cut funding to and the federal government had to step in. Just to be fair, the federal government did step in and Campus Saint-Jean continues to give extraordinary service to our community, ensuring that teachers can have a good education to provide those services.

Today, as we stand here, I want to make it very clear that the New Democrats have been standing up for child care and pushing for it for decades. We have been working with labour leaders. We have been working with members of the public. We have been talking to our constituents.

Child care is a vital piece of our economic recovery. It is a vital piece for making lives better for families and for women across the country. It is a vital piece of ensuring that life is more affordable for people around the country.

For that, I am very supportive of this bill. I hope that we can get everybody within the House to support the bill.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the member went through the history of many of the attempts to get child care funded at the federal government level and ensured for Canadians. The member left out an important name, Ken Dryden, who was minister at the time when we developed a robust plan for child care.

I am wondering what the member's thoughts are with respect to how that was lost when Jack Layton, the former leader of the NDP, pulled the plug on that minority government. We went to the polls and entered the deep, dark ages of the Harper government, where we had to take this time to get back to a decent child care program.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier about some of those champions of child care, and I brought up some of the previous members of our caucus and many in the labour movement who have fought so hard for this. I think that those people today are very excited that we have child care.

The member is talking about a budget that happened well before my time, and so I will not comment on that. I certainly hope all members of the House can recognize the value of child care, that we can stop having the delay tactics that we are seeing from the Conservatives, and that we can actually move forward and get this passed as soon as possible.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is a pioneer when it comes to this model of early childhood and child care centres. We are truly proud of that. It has helped so many women return to work. The comments in many studies at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women confirm the need to provide child care services.

Bill C‑35 includes the principle of ensuring that francophone children and those from Canada's francophone communities can benefit from child care services in their language.

Does my colleague agree that we must pressure the government to ensure that this is more than just a nice principle in the bill, that it is truly enforced, and that money is set aside to ensure that child care services are provided to francophone children across the country?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely.

My apologies for not speaking in French now.

This is something I have stood on in the House multiple times. I raised the issue that, for minority languages outside Quebec, and English in Quebec, we need to make sure that families are able to educate their children in the language of their choice. However, in western Canada, that is very difficult to do. One of the challenges is that we do not have enough training facilities to train the child care professionals and the teachers that we need to ensure that the French language is available.

About one-seventh of those who wish to educate their children in French in Alberta are able to do so right now. We have a massive population who want to ensure that their children get the benefits of being bilingual or having a French education who are not able to access that, because we do not have the capacity to train those teachers. It is a problem and I think the federal government should work as closely as possible with different provincial governments to ensure it happens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the lovely province of Alberta.

The member brought up the point of what a lot of people are doing. We saw this and we predicted, as Conservatives, that the federal government, the Liberals, set up the provinces to take the fall for their incompetence.

On the group that the member was referencing, they were very courageous and actually walked out in protest to this failed program. They said, “We haven't been heard. These issues are not being taken seriously and we're really struggling to just keep the lights on. I'm not sure how to continue past the end of January at this time.”

The association wants a new funding model that would give money directly to the parents, and they are, in particular, talking about the federal government. To the member's point that this is a mismanagement of the province, what about all the other provinces and territories across this country that are having the exact same problem?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two points on that.

First of all, we know that Danielle Smith kept half the money back and did not give it to the child care providers. Many of them were almost on the brink of bankruptcy before they could actually access that funding from the premier. That is quite well known, and I would hope that the Conservatives recognize that.

The other thing I would say is that in my speech I referenced the fact that I think there are real challenges with this child care program. It is not that we do not need to have a child care program and not that we need to delay, but rather that this child care program needs to be improved upon. One of the ways I talked about is to make sure that we have a workforce strategy. Labour unions across the country have asked for a workforce strategy, and that is one of the ways that we could be working to improve a program, making sure that it is more accessible and that is better able to meet the needs of all Canadians.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona for her very pointed intervention. I also want to thank my hon. colleague for Nunavut for her previous intervention.

The member for Edmonton Strathcona just spoke about a workforce strategy. The current government talks about being a feminist government, yet it continues to fail to put good workforce strategies forward for professions that are primarily done by women, including child care. The majority of ECEs are from BIPOC communities and are still being forced to live with wages that are not livable, and without benefits.

Could the member share with me why it is critical to listen to leading organizations to develop a workforce strategy? The premier of Alberta's plan is to not support child care and the Conservative Party is trying to stall the implementation of a national child care plan; how are those actions anti-feminist and anti-women?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to once again thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for the incredible work that she has done on this legislation. The fact that we have this child care bill before us goes, in a large part, to the work that the member for Winnipeg Centre has done. I am so grateful for all that she has done.

However, I will say that when she asks about a workforce strategy, one of the ways we make legislation good in this place is we listen to experts, we listen to people who are experts in those fields. Child care workers have been asking for this, labour leaders have been asking for this. Those are the people we should be listening to. A truly feminist government would listen to those experts in the child care sector.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to such an important piece of legislation.

It is interesting to note the mechanisms that were used in order to prevent debate on this piece of legislation. It is fairly well established that, as a government, we have been very aggressive on the issue of trying to provide child care to Canadians. We have had a number of ministers work with different provincial entities and other stakeholders across the country in order to develop a plan that would be well received by Canadians.

Having achieved that plan, the work was then to start by working with provinces and getting agreements put into place. Many provinces actually have $10-a-day child care because of the government's proactive approach to providing good-quality child care. Manitoba is one of those provinces. In fact, it was not that long ago that we had the Prime Minister come to Winnipeg North and visit Stanley Knowles School, where he got to witness first-hand some of the benefactors of quality child care. That was in just one school in the riding of Winnipeg North. We saw children, parents and administrators of good-quality child care.

When we look at the dialogue that had taken place, see the individual efforts by the child care providers, and see the smiles on the faces of children and their parents and guardians who bring them to that facility, we get a better appreciation as to why child care is so very important.

Here is the issue I have. Virtually every member of the Conservative Party who speaks nowadays has been programmed to talk about their four priorities. The one I want to focus a little attention on is the priority they classify as “fixing the budget”. It is important that people really understand what Conservatives mean when they say “fixing the budget”. From my perspective, those are code words about a Conservative hidden agenda in terms of what a Conservative government would actually do. We need to be aware of that. The Conservatives need to start sharing what their true feelings, thoughts and policies are on very important public policy positions.

Earlier today, in the debate on this, one of the Conservatives stood up and was very critical of Bill C-35. I posed a question, asking if the member could be very clear, because the Conservative Party has not been clear on the child care issue and on Bill C-35. If we look at what Conservatives were saying during the election, the position they took was that at the end of the day, they were going to rip up the child care proposals that the Liberal government was talking about just prior to the election. That is what they were telling Canadians.

Shortly after the election, Conservatives started to waffle a little, as the government started to actually get provinces to sign on to it. Whether it was provinces like my home province of Manitoba or provinces like Ontario, what we witnessed is that from all regions of the country, provinces and territories were buying into the national program. That caused a few issues to the Conservative Party members, as they started to feel a little uncomfortable with what they were seeing during the last federal election.

Let us fast-forward to what is happening today and what we are hearing from the Conservative caucus. I asked a member who spoke on it specifically what the Conservative Party's position is on $10-a-day child care. It was pretty straightforward, but the answer was far from straightforward. It did not provide any clarity whatsoever.

That is why I say people need to be aware of the “fix the budget” bumper sticker or theme that the Conservative Party is telling Canadians. What it really means is that programs we are talking about today, programs that have the support of New Democrats, members of the Bloc and Green Party members will be on the chopping block. The Conservatives do not support them. They might say something at different points in time, but they do not support the initiative that has been taken by this government.

The contrast between the Conservatives and the government is very compelling when it comes to social programming. We have seen that from day one. When we think of how this government has been there to support Canadians, providing programs that have seen disposable incomes go up for seniors and families with children, we have witnessed the Conservative Party vote against those measures time and time again, right from the beginning.

We told families we would give the middle class a break and brought in a tax reduction for Canada's middle class, and the Conservatives voted against that. When we brought in reforms to the Canada child benefit, the Conservative Party voted against them too. We brought in measures that ultimately prevented millionaires from receiving money and gave more money to those with lower incomes, and the Conservatives voted against them. We brought in enhancements to the guaranteed income supplement, and the Conservative Party voted against them.

Let us put that in perspective when the Conservatives tell us to fix the budget. Fixing the budget, to them, means balancing the budget. In order to balance the budget and axe the tax, they are really talking about cutting programs, cutting investments we have made to support Canadians.

We had another program announced earlier today. The Minister of Health put forward yet another comprehensive program to help Canadians. Just like the child care program is going to help with affordability, we now have a national pharmacare program, a program I have been advocating for many years. I have introduced many petitions over the last number of years on that issue, asking parliamentarians to recognize the importance of pharmacare. I am absolutely delighted to see the legislation before us today, but I am concerned. Much like what we are witnessing on Bill C-35, with the Conservatives being critical of it and having opposed child care in the past, I am concerned that other social programs, like pharmacare, are going to be on the chopping block when it comes to “fixing the budget”, their priority issue.

That is something I know the constituents of Winnipeg North, and I would argue Canadians as a whole, see, understand and appreciate the true value of. These are the types of programs that I think the Conservatives need to better understand, so that when they start talking about fixing the budget they can be a bit clearer as to the types of programs they are looking at cutting.

When I listen to what they are saying on child care today and what I heard them say during the last federal election, I am concerned about child care and the future of child care. I believe that is easily justified. My colleague, the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, talked about how when Ken Dryden travelled the country and brought forward to Parliament back then, a number of years ago, a national child care program, it ultimately was defeated at that time by the coalition of the NDP and the Stephen Harper Conservatives, which brought down the Liberal government. As a direct result, Stephen Harper killed the child care program back then. When he was elected to the chair of the Prime Minister's Office, it did not survive.

Therefore, I think it is important that we question whether, under the current Conservative leadership, which is even further to the right than Stephen Harper, we really believe the child care program is going to survive, and why it is absolutely critical that we have this legislation pass, because at the very least it would make that more difficult as the program becomes more established.

Why is this legislation so important? I would suggest that all we need to do is look at one of the treasures of being Canadian, which is the Canada Health Act. It ensured that Conservative governments in the future would be prevented from getting rid of it. The longer that act was in place, the more difficult it was for future governments to not support a national health care program.

I would argue that the same principle applies here, to Bill C-35. The longer Bill C-35 is part of Canadian law, and today Canadians already understand and appreciate the importance of a national child care program, the better I believe it will stand the test of time, so that future generations will in fact have affordable child care opportunities. That is why I believe Bill C-35 is such an important piece of legislation.

I am concerned about the short term, because it is the short-term thinking of the narrow-minded individuals who make up the Conservative Party today, which is further to the right than we have ever seen it, that I believe is a great threat to a national child care program, not to mention other programs that we have already put in place. The dental program that was rolled out last year for children is being rolled out this year for seniors and people with disabilities. These are good programs that are making a difference. These are the types of programs that I am genuinely concerned about with respect to what would happen if there was a change in government. That is why I believe it is important for us in government not just to talk about these types of initiatives, but also to bring in the legislation, because in the long term I believe these types of national programs are part of the reason we are building a Canadian identity we can all be very proud of. The best example of that is our health care system.

When we think of child care itself, all we need to do is take a look at the province of Quebec, which has had affordable child care for many years now. As a direct result of that, there is a higher percentage of workforce participation by women, which I believe is attributed to the child care policies of the Province of Quebec. It is more than just a social program; not only do children benefit because of a high-quality child care program, but so do the economy and the family unit.

I do not know how factual this next statement is, but I believe it is fairly accurate because it has been cited in the past that in the province of Quebec, women's participation in the workforce is the highest in North America. I do not know whether that is still the case today, but it amplifies the fact that providing affordable child care has a very real, tangible impact. Why would people not support that?

I hear the criticism coming from the other side, saying, “Well, what about the number of spaces and what about this and that other aspect?” However, we have to recognize that, much as in health care, there is a provincial jurisdictional issue, so there are some limitations to what Ottawa can do. We have been very careful in the way in which child care has been rolled out throughout the country, which is why there has been a great deal of discussion and negotiation with all of the provinces and territories and the many different stakeholders. It is absolutely critical that we get it right.

We expect to see, and members will see in the agreements with other jurisdictions, the current stock of $10-a-day child care spots not only being maintained but also being increased. I can say, in good part because of the funding that is coming from Ottawa, that we are going to see an increase in the actual number of spots in the province of Manitoba, where we have already achieved $10-a-day care well before the targeted dates that were established. Manitoba is benefiting from the national program today.

I can tell members opposite from the Conservative Party that the agreement that was signed in Manitoba was actually signed by Heather Stefanson's government, a Progressive Conservative government. It is the same sort of Progressive Conservative government under Doug Ford here in Ontario that actually signed an agreement. Therefore the program is coming not only from Ottawa and the literally hundreds of stakeholders and thousands of parents, but also from provinces of all political stripes that understand and appreciate the true value of a national child care program that is there to support parents.

Members opposite like to talk about quotes from some parents. However, I would suggest that they talk to those who are actually in the system today receiving this, and we are talking about tens of thousands throughout the country, in all regions, who are benefiting today because of a sound, progressive policy that is universally being accepted by different political parties in different levels of government.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the speech from the member was sort of all over the place. I just want to ask him a very simple question: Is he aware of the closure of so many day cares in Alberta because of the $10-a-day program?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, what the member needs to do, along with others who have raised that particular issue, is start to get serious with the jurisdiction of the Province of Alberta. He tries to imply that the millions of dollars Ottawa is providing to Alberta is causing closures in day cares. I suggest it has a lot more to do with the ways in which it is being administered in working with the child care providers.

It is somewhat concerning in the sense that this is not just about the status quo of overall numbers. It is important that the number of spaces actually increases, and I believe that is what Bill C-35 is all about, good-quality child care and increasing the availability of spots.

Working with certain provinces, in particular the province of Alberta, and seeing what they are doing is something that is worthwhile. Maybe the standing committee can look at that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We need to allow the same amount of time for answers as for questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's comments. Quebec has been using the early childhood centre model for 25 years.

We are well aware that the role of the official opposition is to oppose, which is what it is doing. However, we know this program's value and its economic benefits. We know how much it contributes economically, and we also know its preventive benefits from a health perspective.

My question is simple. I would like my colleague to tell me, is there is any hidden reason that would explain why we should not move forward and why the Conservatives are still against it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is very concerning. That is why I highlighted in my comments the wording the Conservatives use all the time when they say they are going to “fix the budget”, because fixing the budget means cuts. That is why I drew the analogy with the Canada Health Act. It was the Province of Saskatchewan that initiated the idea, which the national government jumped all over. We got a national health care program, we brought in the health care act, and now, through time, it has become very sacred to all Canadians.

At the end of the day, let us recognize that Quebec did a wonderful thing, which has really contributed. It liberated a lot of people and is having such a positive impact. We need to try to take advantage of the Quebec idea, nationalize it, bring in the legislation and enable more people across Canada to be liberated to do the things they want to do, as a direct result of having affordable child care. That is something the Conservatives should be supporting, but I am genuinely concerned that part of “fix the budget” means getting rid of child care, and Canadians need to be told.

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

Madam Speaker, again I put on the record the Green Party's strong support for early learning, enriched child care accessible to all across Canada. I note that in Bill C-35 there would be a number of improvements, but one of the pieces is that while funding would be required, there is no particular funding mechanism mentioned.

I want to reference that I was honoured to know the amazing Canadian social justice activist and journalist June Callwood. June always argued that what we needed was a baby investment tax. She would have put it on corporations, and every corporation would be asked whether it had done its bit. Are we investing in our toddlers, our children? It is the strongest investment we could make.

Is the Government of Canada considering mechanisms to ensure strong, sustainable funding directed to early childhood education?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is the second major investment the government has put into the children of Canada. The first one was the Canada child benefit, which lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty by making substantial reforms. Today it is making child care more affordable.

I must admit this is the first time I heard the idea the leader of the Green Party put on the table, and I look forward to no doubt having more discussion on that particular issue. I do not know too much about it.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously, as Quebeckers, we have known for quite some time now how important it is to have accessible public child care.

Not only is this a feminist and forward-thinking policy, but it is also good economic policy because it gives women in particular the opportunity to return to the labour market.

Economist Pierre Fortin estimated that, in the first few years of Quebec's child care program, 70,000 women were able to return to the labour market, since they no longer had to stay home because child care costs were far too high.

I would like my colleague to tell us more about how this is a feminist, social and economic program.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is so correct. We often talk about the social benefits. I must not underestimate the impact it has on the economy itself. When we free up opportunities for wider participation in the workforce, that contributes immensely to the Canadian economy, thereby raising the standard of living for all of us. Not only, as I say, is there a social benefit to it; there is also a very healthy and strong economic benefit to it. That is why it has proven to be so successful in the province of Quebec and ultimately would be equally successful nationwide as a direct result.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, the last question was much the same, but I would like to hear more of an explanation. In Kitchener—Conestoga, I have talked to many parents to whom the affordability and accessibility of child care are very important.

At the same time, there is a labour shortage right now. I was hoping the member could expand on how early learning and child care that is affordable and accessible is not only a good social program to have but would also help get more people back to work and not have to make the decision of staying home or getting back into the workplace.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, let me give a bit of a generalized, hypothetical situation: There are many women who would go into post-secondary education at a technical vocational facility or a university shortly after having a child. Child care can be a challenge in terms of affordability. Making it more affordable enables an individual to practise what they have studied or to get into the workforce. There are so many jobs that could be filled. That is why I say it creates opportunities in many different ways, and that is just one very small example of the type of impact it could have in a real, tangible way.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am hearing a misrepresentation of what the members are hearing from this side of the House and that I know Canadians are hearing clearly: it is the people who are low-income, single moms and individuals who truly need day care, who are not able to afford it who need the $10-a-day child care supply first.

What has happened with the route the government has gone is that the $10-a-day child care is going to people who already have their children in day care. All the other people are having to wait for spaces to be developed and for new people to be prepared to teach and care for children, so this is not a good business plan. Why did the government not choose to put the funding into those who need it most? Those who can afford it could wait until the program develops further.

At the moment, day cares are having to shut down because $10-a-day care is not providing the finances that the care providers need. Therefore there are children who need care. There are parents who are poor, who cannot get the care, and there are not enough spaces. What we are saying on this side of the floor, to which the member is welcome to respond, is that the model is not being provided in the most beneficial way to Canadians and in the most efficient way for the tax dollars that are going into the program.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I completely disagree with the member. What this tells me is that the Conservative Party does not understand what is actually taking place in the agreements between Ottawa and the different jurisdictions. The agreements that are in place not only help facilitate the spaces that currently exist but also provide additional incentive to expand the overall number of spaces. The Conservative Party is all over the map on this. Pre-election, the Conservatives were going to rip up the bill. Who knows what they are really going to do?

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey Centre.

I appreciate, as always, the opportunity to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents in Winnipeg South Centre. It is timely that I have the opportunity to talk about this bill because just last week, during our constituency week, I visited Splash Early Learning Centre in my riding. It was a wonderful opportunity for me to get a tour of the facility. I noted that there were some really interesting and innovative things they were doing, and I will come back to that later on in my remarks.

As my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North has mentioned on a number of occasions today in the chamber, our home province of Manitoba has realized $10-a-day day care, and this is part of the $30-billion investment over a five-year period that is going to help benefit families, kids and ultimately educators throughout our public education and private systems across the country as a result of this investment.

A system that helps to ensure families across Canada can access high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care is critical no matter where they live. As has been said many times in this chamber, child care is not a luxury. It is a necessity. Parents should have the opportunity to build both a family and a career, and children deserve the best possible start in life. As members know, I spent a good chunk of my career as a teacher and as a principal, and there is no doubt, in my experiences working with young people and families, that when they had access to early child care and early learning opportunities, we saw the benefits of that later on in their educational journeys.

Bill C-35, which we are debating at the moment, would reinforce the Government of Canada's long-term commitment to early learning and child care. It would do so by articulating the federal goal, vision and principles for a Canada-wide system. Bill C-35 would also enshrine our commitment to sustained and ongoing funding to provinces, territories and indigenous peoples. In addition, Bill C-35 would enhance accountability through regular reporting to Parliament on the progress towards an early learning and child care system. Finally, Bill C-35 would establish in law the national advisory council on early learning and child care.

I will say that I think one of the most important and critical components of this bill is those last pieces I referenced. In particular, they are the necessity that Parliament report back on the progress that has been made in the agreements across the country and the national advisory council. I think it is critical that the input of experts from across Canada is taken into consideration.

Early learning and child care are essential needs. The early learning and child care system will drive economic growth, increase mothers' participation in the workforce, and guarantee that no parent will ever have to choose between returning to work or staying at home to take care of children.

To achieve these goals, we need to put in place mechanisms that will ensure that the early learning and child care system runs smoothly. One of those mechanisms is without a doubt the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care.

The National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care will play an important role in providing third-party expert advice and thereby complement federal expertise for designing the system. The council will serve as a consultative forum on the issues and challenges that the early learning and child care system might face. The council will represent the early learning and child care sector. Its members will reflect Canada's geographic, cultural and linguistic diversity.

I am pleased that my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and my colleagues from Quebec in the other parties are here. I think that the Quebec model is outstanding.

As my colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned a few minutes ago, there are many lessons we can learn from the Quebec model, which has had many success stories in recent decades.

I recognize there are ongoing challenges, just as there are at the beginning of any program. Of course, $10-a-day day care is a critical component. The cost is essential to ensuring that families can access this much-needed service. However, at the same time, we do need to continue to focus, and I acknowledge that, on some of the other challenges that face our system.

This would include making sure that we have enough early childhood educators, they are well paid and there are incentives, such as benefit packages, that come along with the work so that these educators do not get scooped up into the system to go on to be, for example, educational assistants.

This also means working with our colleges and universities. I am really pleased to know that, when I speak with early childhood educators and those post-secondary institutions and families on the ground in my riding of Winnipeg South Centre in Manitoba, I am seeing that this is starting to take place, but there is no doubt that there is room to grow.

One of the really interesting opportunities that are presented is the partnerships that can arise through early childhood learning centres and other community infrastructure, and this was displayed to me last week. As I mentioned, I went to Splash Early Learning Centre. What was really interesting, and I think it is perhaps something we should be talking about across party lines and across the country, is that, in this particular instance, there was a church in my riding, and the church was starting to see that the congregation was diminishing over time for a variety of different reasons.

The church decided that it was going to invest upfront and renovate a substantial portion of the space that it occupied and then, in turn, after the renovation was made, it was going to rent this out to the early childhood education centre. That is exactly what happened. This has provided the faith-based community, as this particular example is a church in my riding, with the ability to generate more revenue, which it was losing through other means, while, at the same time, making sure we can contribute to the well-being of young people in our riding by creating the spaces they need to experience quality child care.

I am not sure if I completely understand some of the arguments I have heard from colleagues of mine across the way. I come from a profession, as I have mentioned before, in education. This included working for a number of years in the northwest part of Winnipeg. This is a part of the city with large numbers of newcomers to Canada, large indigenous populations, large numbers of members of our community who are typically disenfranchised and who suffer as a result of a variety of barriers and obstacles, both historical and current, and challenges in accessing systems.

I think this is truly inspirational. I think this is truly beneficial. I think that, when we look back in the future at the investments the Government of Canada made and the laws we passed in relation to early childhood education in the country, they will be looked upon as some of the most important and most beneficial we have made in our history.

As I mentioned, when we see students by the time they get to middle school and high school, where I spent most of my time as an educator, the benefits of having access to early childhood education are very obvious. It is not only the benefits to the children that are of the utmost importance in the context of this conversation, but also what it does to the workforce.

We know that there has been a historic increase in the number of women who are participating in the workforce by virtue of the fact that they now have access in greater ways, with more opportunity, and more affordable opportunities, than they have had in the past. That has allowed for us to have more economic drivers, greater economic participation and more equity and equality across this country.

In conclusion to my remarks on this important and historic piece of legislation today, I want to note that one piece of criticism that seems to be coming from certain colleagues across the way is on the challenge of there being people who can afford child care, and this seems to be their preoccupation while, at the same time, we hear, day after day, criticisms about an affordability crisis in Canada. We are addressing that affordability crisis, of course, in a variety of different ways. One of the marquee ways in which we are addressing it is through ensuring that there is access to low-cost, quality child care in this country.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am going to make a comment and extend a question on the member's last statement about making access available. That is the whole issue here. The spaces that already existed, that are now $10 a day, were already filled, and individuals who truly need care for their children are not able to get it because the spaces are not available yet. The access is available for people who can afford the care because they are already in the system. There are people who truly need that space, and we want those people to be involved in the workforce because they are people who probably have a single income.

Why would we not work toward creating more access, as the priority, so that people are not being bumped? Institutions and day care centres can no longer afford to run their facilities because they are not getting the funding they need. The government, I know, has pushed a lot of it down to the provinces, but it is flipped backward—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We need to give the hon. member the opportunity to answer.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague across the way. I will answer it in two parts. The first is that we are. Part of the money that is being invested into the provincial deals we have signed is to make sure that we have an increase in the number of spaces, that we subsidize wages, and that we look at partnerships with colleges and universities so there are more spaces.

To the second part of the question, I do not quite understand what my colleague means when she says those “who truly need” it, as though those who do not currently have access do not truly need it. There are lots of people in our community that do not have the access. Of course, I cannot speak to the context in the province she comes from, but I know that $10-a-day day care is a critical component of supporting the needs that people in my riding of Winnipeg South Centre and my home province of Manitoba require.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that the federal government has signed a five-year agreement with the Quebec government. Regarding this announcement between the two governments, the Prime Minister suggested that the federal government would continue to help Quebec while respecting Quebec's jurisdictions.

Will the government keep its word and continue with the agreement after five years?

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, that would probably be a question for the minister.

As I mentioned a few minutes ago, Quebec has an outstanding model. We have learned a lot of positive lessons about creating a national system based on what Quebec has put in place.

Unfortunately, that is not a question I can answer on behalf of the government. It would probably be better to ask the minister.

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

Madam Speaker, child care is vitally important. We have seen the Quebec model. British Columbia has also done an amazing job. The B.C. NDP government has provided and worked on building a child care network across British Columbia.

What perturbs me about the discussion on this bill is that the Conservatives are blocking the bill, refusing to let it go through. The Conservatives are very clear about what they want to do. They have a four-point program: axe the services, build up the billionaires, fix elections and stop democracy. That is what Conservatives are all about. I do not understand, when they say they are concerned about cost-of-living issues, why they would block a bill that would help so many families. Child care is essential for raising families. Why does the member think the Conservatives are refusing to let this bill go through?

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, sometimes when we hear the same song over and over again, it is nice to hear a remake of it. I really appreciate that my colleague from the NDP provided some new lyrics to the song we have been hearing frequently here in the House of Commons. It has got a nice ring to it.

In terms of why the Conservatives are choosing to vote against this legislation, I think it is probably because they do not believe that investments in young people and in families are going to be beneficial in the long run for this country. I think that, along with my colleagues in the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party, over here on the government's side, we absolutely disagree with that perspective.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to participate in the debate on this historic legislation. Bill C-35, if passed, would indeed make history.

People may be asking why we are doing this now. Why is the Government of Canada embarking on this ambitious plan to build a Canada-wide child care system? There is no doubt that there are many other important issues to take on, and let me say that we will be better able to handle them if we make sure that women can fully participate in the workforce. Indeed, the United Nations sustainable development goal no. 5 states:

Gender equality is not only a fundamental human right, but a necessary foundation for a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world.

We cannot have gender equality if women are prevented from participating in the workforce. Let me share the story of a woman, a mother to a seven-year-old and a nine-year-old. She thanked us for the child care agreement. She said it was not going to impact her because her children were too old, but that she hopes that other women will not have to make the same choices she did. She was a spouse in a lower-income household. Putting her children into child care would have cost more than her take-home pay after taxes at the end of each month.

She stayed at home with the kids, and has been out of the workforce for over a decade. She said it was okay, but also said that she imagines what could have been, had she not had to make that decision. For her, it really was not a choice. It was something she had to do for her family's finances. That is why we are doing this. As that woman's story illustrates, affordable child care means mothers can enter, return or remain in the labour market, if they wish to do so. They could also go further in education or open up businesses.

Why now? In September 1970, more than 50 years ago, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended early learning and child care legislation, saying:

We recommend that the federal government immediately take steps to enter into agreement with the provinces leading to the adoption of a national Day-Care Act under which federal funds would be made available on a cost-sharing basis for the building and running of day-care centres meeting specified minimum standards....make similar arrangements for the Yukon and Northwest Territories.

So why now, at long last? The pandemic moved things along, so to speak. As the Deputy Prime Minister said in her April 2021 budget speech, COVID brutally exposed something women have long known: without child care, parents, usually mothers, cannot work.

The closing of our schools and day cares during the height of the pandemic drove women's participation in the labour force down to its lowest level in more than two decades. This is part of the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on women. The crisis has been described as a “she-cession”. The Government of Canada does not want the legacy of the pandemic to be one of rolling back the clock on women's participation in the workforce, nor one of backtracking on the social and political gains women and allies have fought so hard to secure.

There is broad consensus from all parts of society that the time is now. Private sector, social sector and labour leaders agree that child care is a vital part of our social infrastructure and one that was weakened by the pandemic. That is why we committed to this program in the 2020 Speech from the Throne. That is why, in budget 2021, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke of this smart feminist economic policy and pledged up to $30 billion over five years to build this child care system across Canada.

That is why we have Bill C-35 before us today. The bill echoes the recommendations made over 50 years ago in the royal commission's report. It sets out our vision for a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. It sets out our commitment to maintaining long-term funding. Finally, it creates the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care.

We have a bold goal. By March 2026, parents across the country should have access to high-quality early learning and child care for an average of $10 a day. This is because Canada is a country that believes in investing in its future. We are standing on the shoulders of the commissioners who penned the 1970 report. We are standing on the shoulders of the visionary leaders in Quebec who enacted legislation in 1997 that created a day care system similar to what we are rolling out country-wide.

At the time, women's labour force participation with young children in Quebec was more than two percentage points lower than in the rest of Canada. In 2022, it was five points higher than the rest of Canada. Women in Quebec have some of the highest labour market participation rates in the world.

In most countries around the world, the debate is no longer whether gender equality is an important objective or not, but how best to achieve it. I think that Bill C-35 is part of the “how”. It is part of the solution that will lead us to greater gender equality by supporting mothers in reaching their full economic potential. Furthermore, Canada's job gains, compared to when COVID-19 first hit, have outperformed almost all of our G7 peers, supported by an expanding workforce. The government's investment in early learning and child care is helping more women fully participate in the workforce.

The labour force participation rate for women aged 25 to 54 years has reached a record high of nearly 86%, compared to just 77% in the U.S. At the same time, a record high of 80% of Canadians, aged 15 to 64 years, are now participating in the workforce, reflecting broad-based gains in employment opportunities across demographic groups.

Making full use of the skills and talents of Canadians is a key driver of a stronger economy. It helps to address labour market shortages and increases the rate at which the economy can grow, without generating inflationary pressures. These are encouraging signs. Now we just need to pass this proposed bill so that a Canada-wide early learning and child care system can become entrenched in Canadian law and a part of our social safety net, something to make us all proud.

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

Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that access to child care is the number one issue in supporting mothers getting back to work or choosing to work outside of the home.

There are a couple of things I want to correct on the record. This bill is already in effect. It is already happening. These agreements have already been signed. What we are arguing and debating today in the House are two amendments that were put through the Senate that Conservatives supported but the Liberals did not, and now we are here.

My question to the member opposite is this. If one cannot access child care, then what is it? What we do know is what has come out of Stats Canada. Under this $10-a-day child care, 77% of high-income parents are accessing it under this Liberal program, versus 41% of low-income families. Does he support that?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me remind members that this program is just being implemented. We are also spending money on training early childhood educators. We are having municipalities develop spaces. These are sometimes spaces that require specific zoning and specific safety standards. That is why we are working in collaboration with the provinces to ensure that we have enough early childhood educators and enough spots for them.

I have been speaking to a school board in Surrey and the school board is now reinventing all new schools. Every new school that will be designed, elementary school or high school, will have a child care facility on the same campus so that when people drop off their elementary or high school students, they can also drop off their young child in the same place to make it easier.

Those are the types of investments we are making. We are working with the provinces. We are working with school boards. Unlike some of the other members who wish to vote against this, we will make this happen and we will have early childhood child care for every child in Canada.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I would like to come back to what my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou said about Quebec's specificity and respect for jurisdictions.

She said that, although the bill does not recognize Quebec's specificity, respect its knowledge or require the government to give Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation, there is a five-year agreement between the two governments.

Given that the right to opt out with full compensation is not specifically included in the bill, I do not see that as a permanent thing. To me, that sends the same message that, in five years, the government could decide to start imposing conditions.

Does my colleague agree that the government's failure to include in the bill the right to opt out with full compensation basically sends the message that, as soon as the five-year agreement is up, the government will want to interfere in an area that is under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, if anything, this bill would protect francophones across this country so there would be accessible child care in culturally and linguistically appropriate measures. However, at the end of the five years, we hope Canadians will choose a government that wants to keep child care in this country and in every single province. We trust that Canadians will make that decision and it will not have to get to that point.

These agreements are intergovernmental and we will have to work with both governments at the time.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his work.

To us in the NDP, what was really important in Bill C‑35 was that it prioritizes a public, not-for-profit, co-operative or community child care model. My colleague from Winnipeg Centre has done a lot of work on this and I congratulate her on that.

How important is it to my colleague that the private sector not be the one effectively prioritized in order to keep the prices reasonable and affordable for the families that really need it? That way we would be contributing to helping people return to work because their children could go to a co-operative or public affordable child care centre.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is going to be imperative that it be region to region, where they are able to have public child care. Like I mentioned, if school boards wanted to administer it, fund it and support it themselves, that would be ideal and probably foremost, but where they cannot, that is where the private sector would step up and give that service.

We would not want to impede availability to Canadians. The best system should prevail in every jurisdiction.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to open my speech this afternoon by clarifying a few things, especially for the member for Winnipeg South Centre and the member for Winnipeg North. They seem to be confused about how Conservatives voted on Bill C-35. The bill was voted on at all stages and received unanimous consent from every member in this House.

I will make it crystal clear to everybody now that I support the amendment, which is what we are debating. That is where I stand. I hope I do not have to answer that question later.

Today, I appreciate the opportunity to bring up and focus on the concerns I am hearing from day cares and parents right across my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I am going to back this up with data. In fact, I want to highlight that we actually need more data, specifically around the impact this program is having on before- and after-school programs across the country. This is mainly due to a lack of early childhood educators. I would encourage the government to listen and go out and seek that data, unlike what has maybe happened so far.

I have had this conversation with some of my colleagues from Quebec, which has a program that, I would argue, has been quite successful in la belle province. However, the reason it has worked is that it was implemented over time; they did not just jam it down people's throats and basically hold a gun, or a bag of money, to the provinces and territories to implement something without actually thinking out all the consequences.

The following is a quote from a speech made in the House:

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.

Who said that? It was me. I said that during my speech last spring, when we were first debating this bill. I still hold that this is what we are hearing today, right now, from day cares and providers across the country.

Let us talk about some data and news coverage that we have been hearing within the last few weeks. It was reported earlier this month that 77% of high-income parents access child care versus only 41% of low-income families. The government talks about the child care benefit, which makes sense, is something I support and is means tested. I am struggling to understand how the government has implemented a program that is actually taking away from lower-income Canadians because of the demand from people who are making $1 million a year. It does not make sense to me, personally, and I just do not understand why the government would bring something like that in.

According to StatsCan, 46.4% of parents reported difficulty finding child care in 2023; this is up from 36.4% in 2019. Also, in 2023, 26% of parents of children aged zero to five years who were not using child care reported their child was on a wait-list, which is up from 19% in 2022.

A CBC News article reads, “Sharon Gregson with the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C. says while there are about 130,000 licensed child-care spaces in the province, 75 per cent of children age 0-12 aren't able to access them.”

I am not going to use my words now, but I am going to read from emails I received today. I found out I had the opportunity to speak to this today, so I reached out to the day care and child care providers across my riding and, in hours, received pages of feedback addressing the concerns they have around this program. Some commented that they would have provided me with a lot more, but they did not have time.

One nursery school wrote, “Although we believe in the concept, the current model is not sustainable. Our school is not receiving the funding needed. It does not take into consideration inflation. Inflation funding through the Canada-wide early learning and child care is significantly lower than the actual increased costs of operation. [The] 2023 inflation funding was only 2.75%, which is a decrease from earlier at 2.1%. Non-registered early childhood educators, which fill 45% of the workforce, are completely neglected in wage funding calculations.”

It went on to state, “We have a wait-list of over 100 families. Most of the children on the wait-list will age out before they get a spot at our school.”

Another nursery school stated, “The private independent centres are not the only centres raising deep concerns over this program.” It also stated some concerns from member private centres in the Ontario Association of Independent Childcare Centres, which are currently looking to opt out of the program if they have not opted out already. In fact, 70% of these centres, which are all volunteer-led, are looking to opt out when the cost-based funding comes out.

Another comment made was that there has been a huge increase in order to meet the demands of this program and the administrative time needed. This has pulled administrators away from other classroom activities they used to be able to do. They “do not feel they can stay in the program and deliver the programming and quality of care for which the centre stands.” In one case here, and again in Ontario, where I reside, this means their day care fees will go up from $525 to over $1,000 a month, or over $12,000 a year.

According to the school, “incremental funding adjustments have not kept pace with rising operational costs”. This is “far from sufficient to cover increased expenses over the last two years”, and it is looking for more “detailed guidance and clarity on implementation.” It said that this uncertainty is just creating challenges “for providers to plan and ensure the continued delivery of high-quality care.” It continued, “Without adequate support and flexibility in funding, providers are now considering opting out of the program.”

It provided some recommendations. This is the important part. It urges “all levels of government to work together to do the following: re-evaluate the funding model to ensure it accurately reflects the rising costs of providing high-quality child care, including considering direct funding to families or continued revenue replacement for providers.”

Another recommendation is to “engage in meaningful consultation with child care providers and parents to understand the challenges and adjust the Canada-wide early learning child care program to better meet the needs of all stakeholders.”

The last of its recommendations is to “follow the Quebec lead, where families that cannot access centres in the program can claim costs separately for the child care they choose. This allows parents to choose the child care that is right for their family and ensure it is affordable. Some may want Montessori, some academic, some forest schools or childminding in their homes. Parents should have the choice.”

The YMCA is urging the additional recruitment of newcomers into the early childhood education system “by prioritizing early childhood education as an in-demand profession in Ontario and recognizing home country credentials. Ontario should increase investments in accelerated early childhood educator assistant training programs, in addition to increasing compensation levels of assistants working in the sector.”

I recognize that part of this would be implemented at the provincial level, but the feedback we are getting from the provinces and territories is that the government has not funded them appropriately. Specifically, the YMCA in my riding is short 10 full-time child care educators for its toddler and preschool programs to achieve capacity. This translates into the potential to have another 59 new children from its substantial wait-list. I am going to get into the wait-list data here shortly. It can only increase its capacity for the school-age programs if it has the necessary educators. I will get into that later.

Another child care and family education centre stated, “The increases we are experiencing in utilities, food, rents and supplies have been staggering. The funding we receive does not cover our costs.” It also stated, “It is not hard to see why our educators are leaving the sector. This program is surviving on the backs of low-paid, hard-working educators. The additional paperwork, reporting, reconciling, is adding so much work to our administrative team, who are already struggling with so many other requirements. We cannot and will not be able to meet the demand for child care. Parents are struggling to find a space to benefit from the Canada-wide early learning child care reduced rates.”

The one program currently operates with over 527 licensed child care spaces across their locations. This includes for toddlers, preschoolers and school-aged children. Their wait-list was sitting at 790 for their program as of February 15, and they guarantee this number would actually be higher if they counted the wait-list today.

Not one day goes by that they are not faced with challenges with the current program. This system should be funded appropriately and equitably if it is to succeed. Parents are faced with the reality that, without child care, they cannot go to work. Parents are angry and frustrated with this system that they did not have a proper say about.

This is from Grey County, one of my counties. Both counties provided some good feedback on some statistics. The average monthly number of children aged zero to six years receiving the reduction is 1,231. That is some good news. There are 1,231 kids who are getting some benefit in my one county. However, as of December 31 of this past year, 1,835 children are reported to be on the wait-list.

Child care operators again continue to report ongoing issues in recruiting and retaining qualified staff, limiting the ability of some of these programs to operate at full licensed capacity. Again, there are concerns over the wage floor and the delay in the implementation of the funding model.

Specifically, I had asked for follow-up about the impact the program is having on before- and after-school programs. I hinted at this earlier in my speech. They are basically operating at a lower number than their licensed capacity. In Grey County alone there are 730 licensed spaces for children six to 12 in the before- and after-school programs. However, as of December 31, there were over 166 children reported to be on the wait-lists, and the main reason the operators report that they are only operating at 60% to 75% of their capacity is that they had to move staff to the full-day program for children aged zero to six. As well, they have a problem recruiting staff because of the shift requirements around the before- and after-school programs.

They are continuing to work with the operators of the child care centres on recruitment and retention strategies in an effort to fix this, so they are trying to do their best at their level.

I want to share the impact on somebody I know personally, a single parent. Since this program was signed, they have now lost their before- and after-school program. They have to drop their child off at 10 to 9 in the morning and pick the child up every day at 3:40. How does a single parent do that? Who works a six-hour day? It is very unmanageable.

If not for the flexibility of relying on friends and other family members, they are basically left with a program where we are taking lucky or single parents who were able to go back into the workforce under this program. Again, we are still missing the necessary staff and enough early childhood educators. However, in two years, or whenever a child has aged out and their parent is now trying to look for that before- and after-school program, they have to quit work, because they can no longer keep their job. This has an even larger impact on the gig economy and shift workers who do not have the flexibility to show up from 9 to 5. There are so many workers in this country, especially lower-income workers, who depend upon that flexibility of the before- and after-school programs that were available but have been negatively impacted by this current program.

I have the pleasure of representing most of Grey County, or all but one very important part, the municipality of Blue Mountains, which my colleague from Simcoe—Grey represents. I also represent the top half of Bruce County. What Bruce County has talked about, and some of it is positive, is affordable child care. I fully agree. I think everybody in this whole House is fully agreed, because we made these statements a number of times here in the chamber.

Affordable child care is a critical component to addressing inflationary cost of living concerns, economic growth, workforce participation and declining economic conditions that have disproportionately impacted women.

However, child care providers have expressed concern about the financial viability. Additional operational funding is also required to maintain these spaces and ensure that child care operators have sustained, predictable and adequate support to continue in the program. Full funding is required. Workforce challenges remain a barrier to expanding early years in child care access. To ensure the success of the early childhood program, workforce challenges must be resolved quickly, with increased compensation and benefits to reflect the education, skill sets and value of these early childhood educators.

This is specific data out of Bruce County. The expansion in order to meet the demand of just the access and inclusion framework of 645 new child care spaces requires another 100 to 130 additional ECEs in the sector to accommodate the child-to-staff ratios. There are currently 1,243 children on the Bruce County centralized wait-list who require licensed day care.

There is some good news here: Bruce County is co-leading a Bruce Grey registered early childhood educator recruitment and retention working group, which includes membership and support from local colleges, boards of education, workplace engagement services and corporate communications to develop and implement local ECE recruitment and retention strategies. To support the need for this, Bruce County has actually partnered with Fanshawe College to offer a part-time early childhood education program, which is being offered locally in our region. In this school year alone, 32 students are participating in that program. Let us do the math. Thirty-two new early childhood educators frees up somewhere between 150 and 250 of the child care spaces that are still needed once we get these early childhood educators into the workforce, but over 1,250 spaces are needed, so it is only a drop in the bucket, and we need to do more. There is of course no guarantee that all of the ECEs will stay in the program and choose to get into this work.

As I come near to the end of my speech, I just want to highlight a few of the points I had flagged before, when we had the privilege of debating this.

Regarding access, this program is difficult to work, especially in rural Canada, if the spaces and staff do not exist. This is something that needs to be done, because otherwise parents and families out there cannot access these subsidized rates.

Respecting labour shortages, this is something that has not changed. I highlighted the data very clearly. This is great, but these lower costs do not exist if parents cannot actually get access to the programs themselves.

With respect to the rising operating costs, and I highlighted this, we knew it was coming even last year. The funding that is currently set out through the federal government to the provinces and territories does not cover the expenses of many of the organizations that are being asked to deliver this.

In conclusion, affordable quality child care is critical, but if people cannot access it, it does not exist. Again, this bill specifically would actually do nothing to address the accessibility challenge. All Canadian families should have access to affordable and quality child care and be able to choose the child care providers who best suit their family's needs. 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 the child care wait-lists or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces. Again, we see the Liberals promising what they cannot deliver.

Conservatives would support all forms of child care, including 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; stay-at-home parents and guardians who raise their own children; and family members, friends or neighbours who provide care. It would be care for all.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, since we are talking about young people and the important investments the governments have made, I was quite pleased to hear the member reference that he thought that an income-tested CCB program is having a positive impact on young people and their families in this country. I will note that it was of course Prime Minister Harper's government over a number of years that did not income-test that program. Does the member believe and agree that this government's CCB is having a more profound impact, by virtue of the income-testing component that he said he agrees with, relative to the one from the Harper government?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I was elected only in 2019, and I know the member was elected more recently, so I cannot really compare. I have not done sufficient data analysis. I am just saying that I support income testing for the program.

I know plenty of people would use it, myself included, though I likely would not meet the requirement anyway because I have the privilege of being compensated well as a member of Parliament. If I did meet it, I would never even apply for the program, because I do not think it is the government's job to support the raising of my children. That is Alex Ruff's personal opinion. I am not speaking for everybody; I am just saying I do not personally feel I need the government to help me—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I know the hon. member referred to himself, but we still do not use names in the House.

The hon. member for Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound on his speech.

Quebec is a distinct society by virtue of not only its identity, but also its choices. It was over 25 years ago now that Quebec chose to set up early childhood centres. This child care system already exists in Quebec. I really feel that we are wasting Quebeckers' time when we have to debate a bill to bring in a system that has already existed in Quebec for more than 25 years.

This morning, we also heard about a new pharmacare program, something that has existed in Quebec for nearly 50 years now.

I would like my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound to tell me loud and clear if he respects Quebec's choices and if, for these types of programs, Quebec can have a right to opt out with full financial compensation, no strings attached.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot answer a question on a bill that has yet to be fully debated or analyzed, on pharmacare. I did speak to Bill C-35 and the child care program in Quebec, and I complimented Quebec because it was able to implement something. The majority of this does fall within provincial jurisdiction.

I made the comment when I spoke to this last year that I do not even understand why legislation is being brought in on this. The agreements have been signed. There are many other things we could be addressing versus debating something that has already been signed with the provinces and territories.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague, it seems, does not have to rely on social programs to send his children to day care. Maybe he has the means to pay $60 or $80 a day for those services. However, not everyone has that kind of money. Not everyone has grandparents or neighbours who can look after their children. That keeps some people, especially women, out of the workforce.

How can my colleague consider Quebec's social programs and policies such a great success, but refuse to offer the same thing to the people he represents in the rest of Canada?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I never said that. I said me personally. I was talking about a question that I received from the Liberal member about the child care benefit, not about the early learning and child care program. I am just saying that it is something that I would not personally partake in. It is the way I was raised, that we take care of things ourselves, but I have 100% indicated the importance of the program and why it is so critical to support those in need.

I believe the government should be focused on those who need the help, not everybody in general. I believe in less government, not more government.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I understand exactly what the member is saying. I heard something incredible that the entire House needs to hear, which represents what Conservatives think.

Would you repeat the list at the end of your speech of all the different ways that we would support—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

No, I will not repeat anything.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I apologize, Madam Speaker.

I would ask the member to repeat the amazing list of all the ways Conservatives would support parents in the way they choose to raise their children, including what is being offered in the House today, but done better.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives would support all forms of child care, including 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; stay-at-home parents and guardians who raise their own children; and family members, friends and neighbours who provide that care.

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

Madam Speaker, it is clear that the member did not understand the question from the member for Winnipeg South Centre; nor did he understand the follow-up question from the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. He said he would not take the CCB. What he is not understanding is that he is not eligible for it, because it is means-tested. He would not have the option to take it even if he wanted it.

What we were trying to do is point out how that is hypocritical with respect to Stephen Harper's plan. The universal child care benefit gave cheques in the same amount to everyone. Millionaires got cheques. What we find very ironic now is—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I will interrupt the hon. member. We have been having quite a nice debate, so can we respect members who are asking and answering questions?

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, what we find very ironic now is that Conservatives are suddenly saying 77% of people do not need this. They are asking why we are providing it. Our point is that is what the difference between the Canada child benefit and the former Stephen Harper universal child care benefit is all about. It is about means-testing.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I understood the question perfectly. I said that even if I could qualify for it, I would not apply for it. Again, we are talking about something that has nothing to do with the debate today.

My question back to the member is, why is there not an income means-testing on this program? Right now, the Liberal government is basically cutting cheques to millionaires.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, someone I hold in high regard, for his speech.

Like my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, I would like him to discuss the issue of opting out with full compensation, but from another angle.

Based on what he said at the start of his speech, the key to Quebec's success is that no other government told the province how to set up its early childhood education program. Quebec had enough time to implement it properly. We agree with that.

We do not want another government telling us what to do in the future. I would like the member to tell us why the Conservatives voted against the Bloc Québécois amendments presented in committee in order to include in Bill C-35 a right allowing Quebec to opt out with full compensation.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could answer. I really take pride in trying to answer all questions. I have no idea of the logic or the rationale. It is not something I am familiar with. I will follow up with the member to try to get an answer by talking to my colleagues who are part of that committee, but I was not aware.

The bottom line is, to highlight what I did bring up in my speech, it was not even just about the fact that another level of government was telling Quebec what to do. Quebec actually took its time to implement it properly. It did not force it down anybody's throat. It took the time necessary to consider the impact, build the labour force for it and do everything needed to actually implement a successful program.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his intervention today. I really loved what he did in his speech today: He provided honest, real feedback from both operators and families from his riding, and their recommendations. One was meaningful consultation, which the Liberal-NDP government has failed to do. We have seen that repeatedly today in the House. It is giving preference only to public and not-for-profit child care centres.

I would love to hear from him again on the feedback and recommendations that people on the ground and frontline families and operators are asking for.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is hard for me to answer a question from somebody who knows even more about this than I do.

My point is that Canada is a large, diverse country. Part of the reason I got into politics was that I was tired of seeing decisions coming out of Ottawa that work great for major urban centres but do not work for every part of this great country, like at the provincial level, but mainly between the rural and urban divide.

I think consultation needs to occur at all levels, with parents and everybody, to come up with meaningful programs that work for everybody, not just for certain demographics—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to circle back on my intervention with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I still do not think that he quite gets it, because, in truth, he said even if he could, he would not apply for it. The point is that people do not apply for it. When they fill out their income tax, one of the spouses or one of the parents is going to declare the dependence of children. Then, based on the income, a certain amount will be given based on that means-testing.

It is not a program that a person can opt in to or opt out of. It is a program that is about making sure that those who need it get it, and those who do not need it do not get it. What we were trying to say in our exchanges earlier from this side was that this was—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What is the relevance? We are talking about Bill C-35, and the member opposite is talking about—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member is trying to conclude on a point that was raised before, and he has some leeway in what he says in the time for his speech.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, it certainly is relevant when I am referencing back to actual debate that took place in the House less than 10 minutes ago.

My point is that the Canada child benefit is means-tested, and people only get it when they meet certain thresholds. The program that the former Stephen Harper government had, which was basically to give everybody the exact same amount of money regardless of one's income just based on whether they had a child, was not means-tested. In fact, it was a program geared toward giving cheques to millionaires, which was exactly what happened.

I am happy to talk about this particular legislation today.

First, I just want to briefly say that it is with extreme sorrow that I learned today of the passing of Grace Eves. Grace was an incredible member of my community in Kingston and the Islands. She was extremely supportive of me throughout the years. Even in my early days of running for city council, Grace was my treasurer and helped with my campaigns. It was really hard for me to learn today, even though I had visited her in palliative care last week, that she had passed away. My deepest condolences go out to her husband, William, and to her family.

Bill C-35, and there has been criticism I have heard from Conservatives, is about entrenching this framework. I think it is important to entrench this into law because I feel that if a future government, whenever that may be, might make the decision to change course with respect to a policy like this, it is going to have to go through a legislative process in order to undo it. I think that is really important, and we have been talking about in this country for decades, talking about bringing in child care that could be a benefit to Canadians as a whole. I think those benefits are extremely important.

This is not just about investing in children, although it is extremely important to have early education and early learning opportunities for children. It is not just about empowering more people and, in particular, more women to get into the workforce, those who want to but are being held back because they are making conscious decisions about the cost of child care versus the additional income. This is also about growing our economy.

We know that a successful economy is one that is continually growing. We know that we have problems, like a lot of developed countries do, with labour shortages. This would provide an opportunity to empower people who want to get into the workforce to be able to do that, because they would not be burdened by the significant offset of child care. It would also grow our economy, and we would see economic growth through participation in the labour force, in particular, by filling those spots that quite often need to be filled.

It was brought up by a parliamentary secretary earlier that all one has to do, without even getting into the historical context of Quebec and the success it has seen, is to look at the United States, where 77% of women participate in the labour market. In Canada, that number is 86%. The parliamentary secretary said that earlier today. I think that this is already showing the results and the positive impacts of this program.

One of the concerns that have come up within the last several minutes here that I am hearing from my Conservative colleagues and, indeed a Bloc member was saying this too, is why this is important. Why do we need to do this? We already have signed deals.

We need to make this law and make this legislative, in terms of entrenching it into the laws in our country, to ensure that this is formalized. Why is that important? I think the general public should know, especially those enjoying the benefits of the child care agreements out there, that every Conservative MP who ran in the last election and, in fact, every Conservative candidate who ran in the last election, ran on getting rid of this program.

Erin O'Toole made it very clear that if he was elected, he would scrap those agreements that were made with the provinces. The current leader of the Conservatives, in the past, bragged about the fact that Conservatives got rid of child care programs that the Liberals brought forward.

It happened nearly 20 years ago, and we talked about this earlier. Ken Dryden was literally at the door with the agreements and was ready to work with provinces, but due to the unfortunate scenario where the NDP sided with the Conservatives to take down the Liberal government at the time, which resulted in a Conservative government being elected, Stephen Harper did exactly that. He got rid of those programs. This is something that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, has bragged about.

I think that Canadians are right to be concerned about the intentions of the Conservative Party, which is why entrenching this into legislation, by making this law, is so critically important. It would ensure that these agreements, this relationship and the collaboration between the federal government and the provincial governments, are sustained. If a future government decides it would like to do away with it, it would have to go through a lengthy process to do that, which would include debates in the House, votes and so on.

I do not think we have to worry about that. I do not think that the Conservatives are against it, despite their rhetoric, and they will point this out, as the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound pointed out earlier. That is good to hear. However, it is unfortunate that every time they stand up to talk about it, it as though it is one of the worst pieces of legislation that could have ever existed. This is the scenario that the Conservatives routinely find themselves in, whether it on this legislation or whether it is on scab-worker legislation. Routinely, they will speak out against something, talk very negatively about it, challenge all the work that has been done it and when it comes time to vote, they vote in favour of it.

I do not even think that Conservatives, because I think they know where the majority of Canadians are on this and how they feel about it, would ever consider touching this. Nonetheless, I would certainly feel much more confident, as I am sure my colleagues would and Canadians would, to know that this would be entrenched in legislation. That is why this measure is important.

When the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound asks the question, or when the member from the Bloc asks why we are even talking about this when we have these agreements in place, that is the reason. We need to do this to ensure that there is longevity to this and that, in order to dismantle this program, it would require a number of steps in the future.

If we want to look at the success of this program, and I have said this many times here, all we need to do is to look to the Quebec model, which happened several decades ago. I have stood up in the House many times as a proud Ontario member of Parliament, whether it is on this issue, on the environment or on other socially progressive issues, Quebec certainly led the way. We can learn from what Quebec did a number of decades ago with child care. We can see the results. We see that, in Quebec, more women are in the workforce. We knew we would be successful in encouraging more people to get into the workforce if we brought forward these agreements and worked with provinces in this manner. We can learn a lot, and indeed we did learn a lot.

It is important to recognize that there are always growing pains with new programs. I listened to the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound speak about how Quebec got it right. I am curious to know, if he went back and looked at its implementation several decades ago, if it was as squeaky clean and worked as effectively from day one as he suggests. I think that maybe it was not that great when it was rolled out because there are growing pains to these learning processes.

I understand if the Conservative angle right now is to try to highlight these growing pains as the challenges that would end the entire program. However, I have a lot more faith in our ability to deliver on this and a lot more faith in Canadians' abilities to ensure that this program lasts in perpetuity because of what we have seen in Quebec and because we have seen the success in Quebec, notwithstanding the fact that it may have had growing pains as well in the beginning. I find that so critical to look at the success of Quebec and other jurisdictions throughout the world that have taken on similar challenges.

I go back to a point I made earlier, specifically with respect to $10-a-day child care and the issue of whether child care should be means tested, as was suggested by Conservatives. We have a program in place to means-test, in terms of helping families to raise their children, and that is the Canada child benefit. That is a payment program to families with children, which is based on income. I do not receive it, and the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound does not receive it, as he indicated, nor would we if we tried to apply. It is something that we would just not get, given our level of income.

However, it is important that rather than the Conservative plan of the universal child care benefit, which just gave the same amount to every single family based on the number of children, this is a program that means-tests. The lower the income, the more a family would get from society, through the government, to help raise their children. As a Liberal, we see a value in that and in society playing a role in helping to raise children. We see a benefit to collectively coming together to make that happen and, in particular, to support those who need it the most. That is where the means testing part comes in, with respect to the Canada child benefit.

This particular program and $10-a-day child care is about making a universal standard across the entire country that absolutely everybody could benefit from. I started in my speech and will perhaps conclude with this, it is not just about providing child care for children and not just about making things cheaper. This is about providing opportunities. As has been demonstrated through Quebec, and as we can see already in Canada when compared to the United States, this is about empowering more women to get into the workforce, which is exactly what we are seeing as a result of this.

Most importantly, from my perspective, it is about growing our economy and helping to fill some gaps that exist within the labour force and the shortage of labour that we might have in this country. I am really excited to see that this has finally come to fruition. I accept the amendment that has been put forward by the Senate. I think we should pass this. This is a bill that would do great things for Canadians, just like the pharmacare bill that was introduced today.

I want to take the opportunity, as I have done before, to thank my colleagues in the NDP for working collectively and constructively on behalf of Canadians to provide programs that would genuinely impact and change the lives of Canadians. It is so incredibly important.

I would be the first to say that, because of the NDP, we have really been pushed forward in terms of our social and progressive agendas. Its members should take a lot of the credit for this, as I know they like to do and are doing. They deserve credit for being among the adults working in this room on behalf of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, to the member opposite, the member for Kingston and the Islands, I will say that I think one of the key pieces of this discussion, in solving the problems that exist, is listening to constituents.

Today a constituent of his was here in Ottawa. Kerri Kehoe was a victim. She was viciously sexually assaulted as a child. Her attacker is in minimum security. He had a parole hearing last year. He was recommended for escorted day passes, but the parole board declined him. A victim advocate determined that Kerri's rights were violated. She sought help from her MP, the member for Kingston and the Islands, and he refused to meet with her.

Why would we believe anything that he has to say, that he would even listen to the constituents who have genuine concerns about this program, when he refuses to meet with people about something as serious as this?

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

Madam Speaker, Kerri Kehoe is an individual whom I know very well. My wife is very close to her. As a matter of fact, my wife was at that parole board hearing. Kerri will always receive support from me and my family.

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

That's untrue, and she wrote this. She wrote this, and you know it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member will stop. The hon. member knows she cannot use that language in the House.

The hon. member for Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Kingston and the Islands on his speech. I think that we just witnessed something historic. I have never heard my colleague say the word “Quebec” so many times before.

This is hypocritical. My colleague is saying that the government is following Quebec's example because it is a leader in the area of child care, but when it comes time to negotiate other programs that fall under Quebec's jurisdiction, Quebec is suddenly no longer a leader. I am thinking, for example, of the dental insurance and pharmacare programs that the member just bragged about implementing. The government is telling Quebec what to do and imposing conditions on us. It wants Quebec to grovel for the money. However, the reality is that the more freedom Quebec has, the better it does. Quebec did not wait for the federal government to implement its child care system.

I would like my colleague to answer a simple question. What can a Canadian do that a Quebecker cannot?

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

Madam Speaker, I have said many times in my speeches, especially when it relates to progressive issues or the environment, that I am not here to say that Ottawa knows best. As a matter of fact, putting the program together required the minister to go out and have discussions with each jurisdiction, with each province. This is why I got a kick out of hearing the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound talking about it being one system imposed by the federal government. On the contrary, there are a number of systems across the country that have been negotiated with and are being delivered by provinces. I know that the member knows that.

I take great pride in learning from the success of Quebec and seeing how we can put that into the rest of the country. If he ever has opportunity to share with me what we should be doing better in Ontario when it comes to issues like this or the environment, I will happily sit down with him and listen, because we have a lot to learn from what Quebec has done over the years.

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

Madam Speaker, the government's approach to programs like this one has been to offer federal funding in exchange for the provinces' committing to certain standards as part of agreements. There has been a lot of discussion about the early childhood education workforce and how poorly paid it is. Could not one of the conditions of the child care agreements be around the compensation of the professionals who are instructing and caring for our children at the most important point in their development?

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

Madam Speaker, absolutely. I appreciate the suggestion by my colleague. I am always open to listening to what the other options are. At the end of the day, it is important to remember, as I indicated in my last answer, that we work with provinces. The provinces are the ultimate delivery vehicle for this program. They are going to roll it out in ways that work within their provinces and, presumably, across different ways within the jurisdiction that they represent.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to present some details on the universal child care benefit that was brought in during the Harper years. I was not here in the House, but I did go door to door later on and learned a significant amount about it. I think the means test issue here is backwards, because the reason the funding went out to everyone in Canada was that it was the most efficient way to do it. When I went door to door, there were people who would say that they did not get to keep the funding and that this was not fair. I asked them whether they owned their home and how many cars they had. I would say, “If you take that money and pop it in a savings account, you are going to have to give it back in taxes.”

However, here was the kicker: If all of a sudden someone shut down the oil field, jobs were lost and all of a sudden someone had to somehow make up that money, it was already there for that family. Now, however, with the way it is done, people have to wait a whole tax cycle to find out whether they will qualify. When the means test needs to be presented is when there are people who are low-income and need those spaces, and they are not prioritized. That is what should be happening here. One of the things we are saying could better the program is to make a means test the entry into it.

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

Madam Speaker, is the member saying that Conservatives would want to change that back? If I understood her correctly, she is saying that if a family got the money, they were basically taxed on it, so they might need to give it back. In that case, would she not apply the exact same logic to the price on pollution and the carbon rebate? That is not means-tested. That is giving the exact same amount to everybody, so if her logic is correct about the universal child care benefit, she has to apply the same logic to the carbon rebate.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether the deputy House leader would be able to give his perspective on where the Conservative Party is on the child care issue. I know in the last federal election, there were members who were saying they would rip up the agreements we were putting into place, and then they kind of waffled. They were really critical inside the chamber. I think at one point they might even have voted in favour. I have no idea where they actually are on the issue of Bill C-35.

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

Madam Speaker, if he does not know, it is because he is probably confused by the fact that the Conservatives are always doing that on so many issues. They did it on scab legislation. They were extremely critical of that, but then when it came time to vote for it, just quietly they all stood up in favour. We were actually really surprised.

It is the exact same thing with this particular piece of legislation. We hear the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, who keeps standing up and criticizing the government, routinely hammering away at the fact that this is a horrible program. Every Conservative who gets up does the exact same thing, but then when it comes time to vote, they vote in favour of it.

I will just recap that. They ran on a platform to get rid of the child care program. The Conservative leader has bragged about the fact that they have killed child care agreements in the past, and then the Conservatives get in here and are extremely critical about it, which would all lead to suggest they are against it. Then at the last moment, they vote in favour of it.

I think Canadians can reflect on that and understand and appreciate what the Conservatives would actually do if they were in government.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, just to clarify, if people have been listening to the debates, they will know that Conservatives have consistently said that we support child care, and our leader is on the record as saying he is going to honour the agreements with provinces and territories, so I do not appreciate the efforts of the members opposite to spread misinformation and disinformation.

My question for the member is this: One out of 10 people is actually being served by the $10-a-day day care program that exists now, and there is a huge need, so does the government recognize that this is the tip of the iceberg and that so much more is needed if we are really going to solve the problem of affordable day care in Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, it is not misinformation and disinformation. The Conservatives ran on getting rid of the child care program. The Leader of the Opposition has bragged about the fact that they got rid of these programs in the past, but why should Canadians not be skeptical of it, when the Conservatives also ran on a price on pollution and now are suddenly against it?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak once more to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, with respect to the amendments that were provided by the Senate.

First, let me reiterate the Conservative Party's support for child care and for supporting women entering or re-entering the workforce as they balance their family lives. We want to see Canadians have equal access to child care in the forms that fit their families. This goes far beyond the Liberals' $10-a-day day care spots to include traditional day care centres; centres with extended, part-time or overnight care; nurseries; flexible and drop-in care; before- and after-school care; pre-schools and co-op child care; faith-based care; unique programming to support children with disabilities; home-based care; nannies and shared nannies; au pairs; stay-at-home parents; guardians who raise their own children; and family members, friends or neighbours who provide care. This is what it means to make up and support community, and our children and our grandchildren are some of the most vulnerable members in our communities. They all deserve high-quality care in the chosen style of their caretakers.

However, my Liberal colleagues have been clear that they do not want to amend the bill overall to include choice for parents. This is unhelpful for a variety of reasons. So many Canadian parents are not in a position to send their children to traditional day care during conventional work hours. First responders, medical personnel, military members, truck drivers and a whole host of others must work through the nights, weekends and holidays, when many traditional day care centres are closed, and they thus require specialized care. Do they not deserve flexible options that suit their needs, especially when so many of their jobs are community focused? Anyone working unconventional shifts to provide for themselves and their families is just as deserving of high-quality affordable child care as those who work Monday to Friday, nine to five.

I have personal experience in this realm. I raised my two daughters while travelling extensively for work as a chemical engineer. I have previously in the House discussed the challenges of securing child care for them while working around my busy travel schedule, especially when factoring in the realities of travel, which include delays, changed timelines and flights cancelled altogether. Families absolutely need options that work for their individual needs. When Conservatives form government, we would honour the provincial and territorial agreements and ensure parents have the choice and flexibility they deserve to remove the Liberal ideological shackles, if they so desire.

With regard to the Senate amendment of Bill C-35, the bill already contained references to the official language minority communities, or OLMCs, when it was sent to the Senate. However, the bill did not originally include any reference to them until the Conservative amendments were made during the clause-by-clause review done at HUMA and we introduced these safeguards. The references to the OLMCs in the bill now include a provision that federal investments related to programs and services for the education and care of young children should be guided by the commitments outlined in the Official Languages Act, and the inclusion of OLMCs and indigenous peoples in the composition of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care.

We are grateful to the hon. senator from Acadia who proposed an amendment to include a reference in clause 8 to eliminate any ambiguity before the courts, and we continue to support his amendment today. The amendment would add the words “official language minority communities” to the first sentence of clause 8, after “including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples”, and would divide clause 8 into two paragraphs. The first paragraph would then outline the government's financial commitment, while the second would specify the mechanisms through which the federal government would provide funding. To allay any remaining hesitancy, under no circumstances is it the intention to create a new direct-negotiation mechanism between the federal government and the OLMCs. The amendment text is very clear on this matter. Furthermore, adding a mention of OLMCs after the word “including” would not in any way diminish the rights of any other minority or indigenous peoples.

Clause 3 of the bill explicitly states that it would not infringe upon the rights of indigenous peoples as “recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”. The amendment is simply to clarify the intent to ensure the consideration of OLMCs as stipulated in clauses 7 and 11.

There has been much study done on early childhood as a critical period for language development and the identity development of children. Access to French language early childhood services is often a necessary condition for the transmission of language and culture in French communities. These services help young children acquire the language skills they need to prepare for education, especially for children who will enter French language or immersion schools across the country. This is all upholding the right to education enshrined in section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Critically, and to assuage fears from across the aisle, this amendment does not introduce any new funding mechanism and merely aims to clarify financial commitments. Especially with Sarnia—Lambton recently receiving the official Francophone designation and with French language use in danger throughout the country, it is more critical than ever to establish and protect these services for our official language minority communities.

This amendment was adopted by a large majority of senators, who clearly understand and appreciate both the need to increase child care spaces and access to them and the need to deliver services across the board in both of our official Canadian languages. It is clear now more than ever just how important and critical child care is, in terms of both obtaining an early child care space and maintaining it if one is lucky enough to have one, for recruiting and retaining women in the workforce.

The employment rate for young women has been on a strong downward trend since last February, with a cumulative decline of 4.2% over that period. This is the lowest since May 2020, excluding the pandemic. More than 46% of parents reported difficulty finding child care in 2023, which is up from 36.4% in 2019, so more parents are having trouble finding child care now, in the era of the Liberals' $10-a-day child care, than before.

A column in the Financial Post last week alleges that the Liberals' national child care plan is proving to be “an expensive shambles, creating widespread shortages and destroying private child care businesses”. This problem spans the country, with issues from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia.

This week there has been a slate of news reports across the country, with headlines despairing over the lack of access to child care, including the Liberals' $10-a-day program. Day care operators, including the owner of Little Heroes Daycare Centre here in Ottawa, say they cannot turn a profit and are not even breaking even since opting in to the $10-a-day program, which they did out of their desire to assist their families, to their own detriment.

To further illustrate, as part of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women's current study of women's economic empowerment, the executive director of the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario, which represents independent licensed child care centres, said, “[W]e have a sector of the economy that was largely created by women. It's essential to women's equality in the workforce. It's one of the only economic sectors in the country where women are fairly represented as owners and managers, and it's being not only undervalued by government but targeted for replacement by a government-run system.”

The Liberals are undercutting their own economy once again and pushing costs onto taxpayers while denying Canadians the freedom to choose what works best for their families. What is more is that one of the main goals of the $10-a-day plan was to enable women to join the workforce in greater numbers, but a recent Fraser Institute report looking at that issue indicates there is “little evidence” whether the Liberal program is reaching its stated goals. It reads, “There is also little evidence that the federal government is achieving [the second] goal of boosting the labour force participation of women with children.”

As the StatsCan data I quoted earlier shows, the employment rate for young women is on a downward trend. It is another example of the problem of the Prime Minister's fake feminism.

I will be generous and allow that the pandemic exacerbated the issues of child care, and many well-meaning parents changed their plans and their lives to accommodate for a more precarious world, either changing work hours to watch children, changing jobs or leaving the workforce altogether. However, the Liberals owe Canadian parents and families that much more for letting them down in the first place.

Conservatives, when we form government, will put Canadians first and prioritize freedom of choice and family life, empowering parents to make the decisions that best serve their child care needs and not just what the government prescribes.

If I look over the history of my own journey with child care, I will say that it is very difficult when only one in 10 families are covered by the existing program. That is nine out of 10 families that are not. I have people calling my office asking if I can help them find child care. It is almost impossible.

I had some very wonderful child care providers and some not-so-wonderful child care providers. Ms. Betty was a school teacher who was off with her own kids. She was probably a better mother than I will ever be, so that was great. She was flexible, because I could drop the kids off at 5:30 in the morning if I had to catch a flight at six o'clock. If a flight was cancelled, late, or the kids had to stay late, she had flexibility. That is really important for a lot of workers today.

Similarly, I had Joanne, who was wonderful. She was a stay-at-home mom with her kids. Once again, she was flexible and gave excellent care. However, she moved and I was left in a cycle of trying to find child care. It started with Sarah, who was a mom at the preschool that my kids went to, but once my kids were eating cat food on her stairs, I had to find another one. Then there was the student who was smoking weed and hanging out with her boyfriend. That one went away. Then there was Karen. I should have known maybe just by the name, but she was watching soaps when I came home and found out she has let my kids go swimming with a male neighbour some place up the road. That was not so great. There was a happy occasion with Generations Day Care in Petrolia, which was a wonderful experience. It was certainly expensive, but worth it. The pinnacle was Andrea, an ECE worker who became my nanny. She was able to stay overnight if I needed, make meals if I was travelling, and do anything that was needed. When my kids got older and went to high school, she opened her own day care and they ended up working there, so that was fantastic.

There is a lot of need. We need more care and in order to get more care we have to build on the $10-a-day child care and we have to allow parents to have choices. We have to figure out how we are going to help with those, because I think that is fair.

We also need to consider that, with the inflation we are seeing, the cost of food and heating is going up, and the interest rates are going up. All of these pressures are really affecting the cost of providing child care. I know when we studied this issue at the status of women committee we looked at the Quebec model. At the time, Quebec was charging less than $10 a day for day care and the actual cost was more like $47 or $48, which would have hugely increased now. However, the comment was that there were still long wait-lists. Therefore, I do not think it is good to have $10-a-day day care if there are no spaces. We need to provide more spaces. We need to be creative in figuring out how we help people get child care and broaden their freedom of choice so that people who work weird hours can get coverage, and people who have special needs children can get the care they need. All of these things I think will be important.

I know all of the provincial and territorial agreements have been signed. I always hear the Liberals whining about Conservatives wasting the time of the House on concurrence motions, but here we are debating something where the agreements have already been signed. Why do we have everyone state on the public record that we support this program when that is the case? We should move on.

Finally, I want to reiterate some of the things that have been implied. The members opposite have implied that Conservatives do not support this program. That is not true. We do support child care. Anyone can go to openparliament.ca and see that we all voted yes on Bill C-35.

I think there is more work to be done in this area. I certainly would like to see the government come forward with something that would not only address an increase in spaces but also help those who are less fortunate. We see that 71% of people who are taking advantage of the $10-a-day day care are higher-income people, whereas only 41% are lower-income ones. That does not seem right to me. I think there needs to be a means test. There needs to be something that favours those who need the help the most, because obviously we do not have enough spaces, so we have to prioritize.

If we could work with the provinces and territories to create some flexibility, I think that would help the private day cares. We need more spaces. We cannot afford to lose the ones we have, and that is what is happening. I am hearing from day care providers that are not eligible for this program that they are struggling, and many of them are even going out of business. I have heard from the ones that are in the program that they are having issues with cash flow because of the way the remuneration works.

I think there is more work to be done on this, but certainly we need to move in this direction. We want to see more women in the workforce. I certainly experienced the highs and the lows of child care, and would rather head in the direction of highs.

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

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously with great regret that this House has learned of the passing of Canada's 18th prime minister, the Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney.

Obviously, all members join us in wishing the Mulroney family our deepest sympathy at this time as they deal with the loss of this great statesman, who has done so much for our country. I join all Canadians in offering our condolences. Out of respect, I would like to seek unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House:

(a) the motion respecting Senate amendments to Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be deemed adopted; and

(b) this House do now adjourn.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

My condolences to the family of the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney.

It being 6:23 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:23 p.m.)