Bill C-35

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada

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

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

moved that Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, it gives me such tremendous pleasure to rise on the occasion of third reading of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Today is another historic step toward having federal legislation with regard to early learning and child care. I have spoken numerous times in this House about the benefit of early learning and child care. I have talked about the life-changing experiences it has led to for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

We are coming up on the two-year anniversary of signing the first agreement with British Columbia, and since then, as members know, all 13 provinces and territories have signed on. That has meant 50% fee reductions as of December 2022 in every single jurisdiction. Six jurisdictions, Quebec, Yukon, Nunavut, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, have already achieved $10-a-day child care in regulated spaces, which is well ahead of schedule, and we are on track to meeting our objective by 2026.

We understand that what is important is making sure that all Canadian families have access to affordable child care, so we have also committed to increasing the number of spaces by 250,000 in that same time period. About 52,000 have already been created with the provinces and territories. It is so incredible to be at a groundbreaking or to hear from families that now have access to affordable child care.

Of course, we cannot do this without the talented and qualified early learning and child care workforce, which is the backbone and beating heart of child care in Canada. We recognize those tremendous workers, who go to work so the rest of us can go to work as well.

Having quality, inclusive, affordable and accessible child care is exactly why we are here at third reading debating Bill C-35, moving it through the legislative process and hopefully continuing to get the unanimous support of every single party and member in this House to move forward and do something that is truly historic and truly transformative for Canadian families.

Do not just take it from me. Since I have spoken a lot about the benefits of child care, what I would like to do tonight is share the voices of Canadians and share what Canadians across this country are saying about our Canada-wide early learning and child care initiative.

Candice from Burnaby, British Columbia, said, “we paid $455 for TWO kids to be in daycare for the month of December. Is this real life? Three cheers for your hard earned tax dollars being put to our use. I love you all.”

Katie from Ottawa, Ontario, said, “Just paid our January daycare fees. Under $500!!!!! This is a 55% reduction from last year. This is going to make such a huge difference for so many families.”

Greg from Kelowna, B.C., said, “My daughter's daycare fees have dropped from $1200 to $500 per month as well. It sure reduces the stress, including the strain on us grandparents.”

Ben from Toronto said, “Our infant's daycare fees have dropped $500 (FIVE HUNDRED) per month, and on the 26th at her 18mnthaversary it will drop an ADDITIONAL $200 (TWO HUNDRED!!) per month. Probably one of the largest pieces of legislation to personally affect me in my lifetime.”

Alana from Ontario said, “This is incredible work—I am so grateful as a mother to benefit from this and see my children thrive, as a RECE to feel hopeful for the future, and as an advocate to contribute to building this system.”

Amil said, “We are finally FINALLY seeing real reductions in our daycare costs. It's genuinely life-changing to see fees reduced by just over 50%—this is how you support families, this is how you achieve real equity in the workforce.”

Jocelyne from B.C. said, “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 gov for collaborating on this excellent legislation. It truly puts families first.”

Isabelle from Toronto said, “It was absolutely surreal to see my daycare fees drop from a high of $167.25. As of Jan, we will be paying less than 50% of that, on a path to $10. Two kids, non-profit centre, Toronto.”

Clay from Nova Scotia said, “I remember when my grandmother who raised me on her own received $20 a month baby bonus & how much it meant to her. The Liberals did that and improved it every time they formed government. I can't imagine what a $10 dollar a day childcare would be single moms today.”

A tweet from someone in the Snuneymuxw territory said, “Thank you and your party for every one of these steps forwards for Canadians during these very challenging times. Though I'm not a member of any political party, I admire the progress made by @liberal_party despite the official opposition's grandstanding and obstructionism.”

Karen said, “Early '90's I paid $900/mo for 1 preschool[er] and 2 after-schoolers. Thank goodness families today will have a better chance of getting ahead.”

A parent from Alberta said, “I paid a lot in daycare costs, and I didn't have a choice. I am more than okay with families getting help with costs. It benefits us all when parents are able to join the workforce.”

Another person said, “My highest daycare bill for 2 kids was $2100. That's now over for me but working families should not have to pay that much. A break was much needed.”

The principal from Ataguttaaluk Elementary School in Igloolik, Nunavut, said, “It helps students prepare in a more formal setting for school, kindergarten, grade one and up. When you can introduce students at the young age of three, four to a routine or a program I think it benefits them years down the road in their education.”

Meghan from Winnipeg said, “I can't bring my baby to work. $10 a day childcare has been absolutely fantastic.”

A parent from P.E.I. said, “This is great news! This helps families, and will result in better outcomes for kids—the more support we give to early learning and childcare centres, the healthier and happier children are. The economic ROI is huge—and parents can choose to return to the workforce!”

Amy from Nunavut said, “I work in the field of ELCC in Nunavut and their multilateral and coinciding bilateral agreements with all P/T's have allowed for crucial initiatives and programs that otherwise would have been impossible.”

Let me tell members what Myra said. She said, “Thank you, Minister Gould. As a minority member of the society, I've witness[ed] friends and family members who struggle to keep up with inflation and high interest rates. This will surely help families, especially children and women.”

Sam said, “I just found out yesterday my daughter was accepted for a full time spot!! We'll be paying just 22$/day! This is a MASSIVE help to our budget, we would have been paying 59$/day if not for this program.”

Quinn said, “Affordable child care most importantly allows for my children to grow and develop in a safe, loving, and nourishing environment. The early years are so [important] and without the affordability, so many people were missing out on the perks of a licensed child care facility. They are shaping our little people into who they are going to be in the future. Secondly, it allows moms to work who may not have been able to before due to the high cost of childcare. For myself, I work in this field as well and the benefits for all my families in my centre are huge. This has been such a blessing all around!”

Finally, Natalia says, “This reduction in feeds has meant that I can go back to work. I'm a mother of 2 boys, a 3.5 year old and a 16 month old. If the fees would have continued to be so unaffordable, I would not have been able to afford childcare for my children and would have had to stop working outside of the home for a number of years to care for my little ones. This means that as a woman I can continue to have a professional life while being a mother. It means that we can afford a better life for my family and most importantly, it means that I feel happy and productive because I want to work and have a career.”

These are just a few examples of what Canadians are saying across this country about what the Canada-wide early learning and child care agreements and this legislation mean to them. I think that last point is really important. It is really about choice. When someone cannot afford child care and cannot afford to work, they are not really making a choice. What we are offering Canadian women, Canadian families and Canadian children is a real choice, the choice that they can be a parent and can also be in the workforce.

The stats are backing that up. In the past year, from April 2022 to April 2023, unemployment among women over the age of 25 dropped 10% in Canada. That means that the participation of prime-age women in the Canadian workforce has expanded by almost 100,000 women. We have reached an all-time high of Canadian women in the workforce, and the Bank of Canada points to our early learning and child care initiative as one of the key factors.

Twenty-five years ago, Quebec established its child care system. Today, 85% of Quebec women over age 25 with children under four years old are in the workforce. That is the highest rate in the world.

Quebec economist Professor Fortin attributes this high percentage to Quebec's child care system. We know that making sure high-quality, affordable and inclusive day care centres are available is a powerful economic driver.

It is a strong economic engine for our country, for our society and, most importantly, for our families. What it means is that they now have that extra bit of disposable income to pay what they need to pay for, to make sure that they are providing the best start and the best quality of life to their children.

Debating Bill C-35 here is an exciting opportunity for us to enshrine in Canada, in federal legislation, the role of the federal government to ensure that future generations will not have to worry about the cost of child care. They will not have to worry about making that impossible choice between whether they want to continue to pursue a career or whether they want to stay home and raise their children, because they will actually have the opportunity to make that choice.

We know there is a lot of work ahead when it comes to affordable child care in Canada, but we would not be able to do any of this work if we had not put those bilateral agreements in place and if we were not bringing forward this legislation.

That does not mean that we do not see challenges and it does not mean that there will not be bumps along the road of implementation; that is what happens when we build a brand new social program, the biggest and most important social program in this country in probably 50 years. It means that we should keep pursuing that objective and keep building that new system, that transformational objective that is going to have such a positive impact on families across this country.

Indeed, those stories that I read into the record show that it is already having a positive impact, so I hope I can continue to count on the support of all members in this place to keep advancing this legislation so that we can keep working together to do what is right for Canadian families, for Canadian children and for our economy. This is smart economic social policy that I think is going to have a truly transformational impact on our country, and members do not have to take it from me: This is what Canadians are saying right across the country.

With that, let us move expeditiously through third reading. We have gone unanimously through second reading unanimously through report stage. Let us get unanimously through third reading and send this over to the other place. Let us deliver affordable, accessible, high-quality, inclusive child care for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I have an opportunity to speak as the critic and offer the other side to a lot of those positive stories. I think it is important to have that on the record also.

I would like to have on the record the minister's prediction of how successful she thinks this program is going to be in five years' time. Particularly, by how much does the minister think wait-lists are going to go down? I would like it read into the record today.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, in contrast to the Conservatives, I am an optimist, and I believe that when one works hard, develops good policy and does things that actually help people, it is going to make a difference. We have already seen the creation of over 50,000 new spaces in our country, in provinces and territories and in communities big and small.

We are committed to creating another 200,000 spaces. Those are the commitments of the federal government, but provinces and territories, if they want to, can also create additional spaces. I believe strongly that in five years' time, this is going to continue to be a success and that we are going to have even more stories to read into the record about how transformational this initiative has been for Canadian families, Canadian children and particularly for Canadian women.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister not just for her speech but for the incredible amount of work that went into this. It cannot have been an easy task to go to every jurisdiction throughout the country to negotiate the various different deals and arrangements she was able to accomplish in a relatively short time span, given what would have been involved in it.

I note that despite the continuous objections from Conservatives when they come into the House and downplay the legislation, at the end of the day they ended up voting in favour of it. What I also find to be extremely remarkable is that this seems to have been, at least outside of this chamber, in the engagement with the rest of the country in provinces and jurisdictions, a non-partisan issue. Conservative premiers embraced the concept throughout the country.

I am wondering if the minister would like to comment on that process.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, it was a very interesting process, and at times a challenging one, to negotiate with the 13 different provinces and territories, but as my colleague alluded to, regardless of political stripe, in the end, every single province and territory signed on to the initiative and are now moving forward enthusiastically. In fact, the current Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, campaigned on $10-a-day day care in the most recent provincial election, and Alberta was one of the last jurisdictions to sign on.

However, what the premiers have come to understand and what they have seen borne out is that this is not only an extraordinarily popular program with parents but also an incredible economic driver. The return on investment to our economy is huge. The prediction is that anywhere between $1.80 and $2.60 will be returned to the economy for every dollar that is invested. There is a prediction that there could be an increase to the GDP of 1.2% over the coming years.

These huge contributions will take place because of additional people in the workforce, and we are already seeing that with the labour stats that I cited in my speech.

This is a tremendous policy that is having a tremendous impact on Canadians across the country.

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

Madam Speaker, this program is not about choice. It gives money to certain people in certain situations who are not necessarily those who need the support the most.

The minister cherry-picked quotes that she had received. I would like to share and put on the record a quote from a child care operator in my riding, and I would like the minister's response to it. This person wrote to the HUMA committee, saying, “The child care industry in Canada is in crisis today as a result of the federal government's overreach through this program, and I fear that Bill C-35 does not sufficiently recognize that Canada's current child care system still depends on thousands of private operators, despite the directional preference for the not-for-profit business model.

“The on-the-ground experience of private operators reflects that this model is currently not meeting its promised intentions for affordable, equitable, accessible, high-quality child care for families as wait-lists soar around the country, creating inaccessible and inequitable access to the promised affordable child care, which is preventing parents from re-entering the workforce.”

Further on she stated, “While both levels of government made flashy announcements about how they were creating affordable child care for families, small businesses, often run by women and new Canadians, are being forced into bankruptcy and staff face extreme burnout, while frustrated parents are, in fact, unable to access the promised affordable, equitable and accessible child care the governments have announced.”

Why did the minister not read that quotation as part of her motivation for this bill?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing that the Conservatives focus on the negative instead of focusing on how we are trying to work to improve this bill. At the end of the day, they did vote in favour of the bill, so I hope they will continue to do that.

What is also important is that while the Conservatives keep saying that private operators are shut out, that is just not true, particularly in Alberta, where we have negotiated an increase in private for-profit operations of 22,500 additional spaces in the for-profit sector. They keep focusing on it and they keep saying it, but it is just not true. We want to see that increase in child care spaces. We do say that we want to prioritize not-for-profit growth because these are public dollars, but private operators are absolutely not shut out. In fact, all existing private operators across the country are grandfathered in.

I did not say there would not be challenges. We are building something new. We have never had a child care system before, but instead of saying “Let us do nothing; those challenges exist, so we should rip the bill up”, I am saying we should continue to work on this and build a better system that works for everyone.

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

Madam Speaker, we know how important child care is. I have spoken in this House many times about the impacts on constituents in my riding. I wonder if the minister could explain the plan a little more for moving forward to ensure that we have skilled and qualified people in these positions.

We know this is not a workforce shortage but a pay shortage, a benefit shortage and a retirement income shortage. How are we making sure that we have qualified people in these positions and that they are paid appropriately so that children in Canada get the quality care they deserve?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that important question.

We will not have a high-quality, accessible, affordable, inclusive child care system without the workforce to deliver it. Of course, the workforce forms the backbone and the heart of our child care initiative. With every agreement we have signed on child care, we have ensured that the provinces and territories have to do a couple of things to access those funds, the first of which is to create a wage grid and make sure they are paying an adequate wage to our ECEs. They have work to do when it comes to building a workforce recruitment and retention strategy.

We have seen provinces and territories engage in different activities across the country. For example, Manitoba has brought forward a provincial pension and benefits plan for ECEs. B.C. is doing really important work on increasing the wages of ECEs and is working on new ways to ensure it is bringing qualified ECEs into the workforce.

I could go on and talk about every province and territory, but a lot of work is happening in that space.

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

Madam Speaker, I had a conversation yesterday with an intended mother who was telling me about the difficulties when it comes to surrogacy and the lack of time that surrogate mothers and fathers have with their children after the baby is born. She also talked about how this difficulty is compounded because they have a shorter amount of time to access child care, as they only get nine months of leave.

I am sure the minister knows that I have a private member's bill, Bill C-318, that would address this issue for adoptive and intended parents. My question, through you, Madam Speaker, is this: Is the minister willing to lobby at the cabinet table for a royal recommendation for it so that intended and adoptive parents do not have to wait to have time with their children? In essence, we know there are still wait-lists when it comes to child care, and this bill would give them that extra time. Is the minister willing to assist with the royal recommendation for Bill C-318?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for bringing forward what I think is an important private member's bill that is going to address an important need.

I think she is raising a really important issue that is affecting thousands of people across this country, so I look forward to having more conversations with her and with others on this bill.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier the member for Kelowna—Lake Country got up on a point of order with respect to the proceedings on Bill C-22 and said she was dismayed that the Green Party was excluded from having a speaking spot.

I think there has been some confusion over a long-standing opposition by the Conservatives to including Green Party members in UC motions to provide for extra speaking spots. If that has changed, I would ask that a Conservative rise in his or her place to affirm that change so that we can include Green Party members going forward.

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

I think that would be approaching debate. That has been addressed by the chair occupant.

I will give the floor to the hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a real privilege to speak to child care in this country and to be the critic for families, children and social development. It is obviously a great honour to rise and represent my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha.

Tonight, we are in what is called the third reading of Bill C-35. For people at home, this means that after this reading, we will vote on it and see what happens. There has been a lot of study and a lot of debate on this bill. There has been a lot of opportunity to meet with stakeholders and operators and to listen to parents and colleagues across the way in committee.

The reality is that the Liberal government loves to promise the moon and the stars but not deliver. Therefore, it is not very surprising that this universal child care bill is no different; it is not universal. As critic to this file, I am here to elevate the alarm bells of parents and operators who are being silenced about the shortcomings of this bill. Do members know the ratio of private versus publicly funded child care in Newfoundland? It is 70%. Seventy per cent of Newfoundland relies on the private sector. Therefore, why would the Liberals purposely leave them out of Bill C-35?

Here is the exact language of the bill. Under “Guiding principles”, paragraph 7(1)(a) says:

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

Therefore, Conservatives put forth an amendment in committee, which read as follows:

(a) facilitate access to all types of early learning and child care programs and services regardless of the provider—such as those that are provided through traditional daycare centres, centres with extended, part-time or overnight care, nurseries, flexible and drop-in care, before- and after-school care, preschools and co-op child care, faith-based care, unique programming to support children with disabilities, home-based child care, nannies and shared nannies, au pairs, stay-at-home parents or guardians who raise their own children, or family members, friends or neighbours who provide care—that meet or exceed standards set by provincial governments or Indigenous governing bodies and respond to the varying needs of children and families while respecting the jurisdiction and unique needs of the provinces and Indigenous peoples....

That is a pretty well-rounded amendment, and it really speaks to what Conservatives have been saying from the beginning: The bill should deliver choice and flexibility and include everyone. The Liberals and NDP voted “no”. Why did they vote “no” to that amendment? This is where the politics and ideology really come into play. They have an agenda, and it does not include everyone. They really believe in public and not-for-profit; they really believe that they can decide what is best for people's children. That is just the opposite of what Conservatives believe.

They think they know what is best for people's children. However, in reality, this bill would actually exclude 50% of children. Fifty per cent of children in Canada are living in a child care desert. The Liberals are quite talented, actually, at coming up with marketing slogans. What sounds better than a $10-a-day day care? It sounds wonderful. The out-of-control cost of living created by the Liberals, with their inflationary spending, has made life unbearable for most Canadians. However, what they love to do is come in from the side, bring a distraction and say, “Do not look at that; we are going to make life more affordable for people. Here is $10-a-day child care.” They give faulty solutions to the big problems they have created.

Therefore, it is really important to break down this $10-a-day day care plan. Let us break down the fine print and the very important details that the Liberals conveniently forgot to mention. They will tell people we are negative. We would like to tell them that we elevate the voices of the people who speak to us, because that is what we were elected to do.

This marketing campaign instantly and drastically increased demand. Of course it would do that. As a mom, I know that affordable child care is critical. However, if people cannot access it, it does not exist. The reality is that there are no systems or infrastructure in place to meet the demand. The children and the parents are then the ones who suffer. The quality of child care is being compromised because of this poorly thought-out and poorly executed bill. One operator told me that Bill C-35 is like putting a Band-Aid on a sinking ship.

How many people are familiar with budget airline service? This is the concept where the customer pays a lower fee but is nickel-and-dimed for all the basics. For example, one pays $200 for a flight but then one also has to pay maybe 50 bucks for a seat, another 50 bucks for luggage, more money for food and so on. Members get the idea. By the time all is said and done, there is really not a deal, because the money has to come from somewhere. That is what is happening with this child care bill. Centres are being forced to charge parents extra fees to cover food, administrative costs and more. One operator told me they are 15 months into their provincial agreement, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel; this means that they do not know how they are going to manage the extra costs.

Erin Cullen is an engineer with a beautiful new daughter. She lives in Newfoundland and Labrador, and she cannot access child care. I think she really summarized it best when she compared the Liberal child care program to the government telling Canadians they are getting free groceries: “Everybody's getting free groceries. You get free groceries, and you get free groceries.” The problem is that when we get to the grocery store, there is no food on the shelves.

I think the worst part about this bill and the story the Liberals want to sell is the promotion of gender equity. How is not having a choice equitable? Erin is one of many who has no choice. There is no choice because she, like many health care workers, shift workers and other workers, cannot go to work because there are no child care spaces available. Erin has said they have to leave the province. They have to leave her home. How is that equitable?

Jennifer Ratcliffe is the director of Pebble Lane Early Learning. She testified at the HUMA committee when we studied this bill. I want to read into the record what she said, because I think it is really important. For those watching, I note that CWELCC means Canada-wide early learning and child care. Many children require additional support right now. They are still reeling from COVID. There are so many special needs kids out there.

Ms. Ratcliffe testified:

Currently, the CWELCC excludes disbursement funding that is used to hire support staff. Without this funding available, we have to turn away children who require additional support in our programs. This must also change, so that we can meet the needs of all children.

She went on to say:

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

Wait-lists across the country are growing by the thousands each month, and families are left with no one to help them. Parents need to work and if they don't have care, their only option is social assistance. This doesn't seem right. Affordable child care is an empty promise to parents if it is not accessible.

Providers are doing everything they can to accept as many families as possible, but there are simply not enough spaces. Demand is increasing at a level that we have not seen in years. New spaces must be created in order to meet demand. Private operators need to be able to expand, but being excluded from funding for new spaces means they cannot afford to. The fee caps mean we are restricted when negotiating leases and working out operating expenses.

I really want the NDP members to listen to the testimony of this next woman who testified. This is what the NDP fight for, quite frankly, and I think it is important. Maggie Moser is the director of the board of directors, Ontario Association of Independent Childcare Centres. She said:

The CWELCC program has not delivered good value for taxpayers and does not meet Canadian standards of equity. The implementation provides undue benefits to higher-income families, who are sailing their yachts on the tides of the program, while those who need it most are left drowning.

Lower-income families were excluded from obtaining access to the CWELCC child care spots. Families who could already afford the fees of their centre were the ones who benefited from the rebates and discounts, while the rest were left behind on a long wait-list.

That is the reality of this bill, because if people already have a spot, they are going to take it up. Then there are people who need maybe a part-time spot, but they cannot access it; people are holding their own spots because they are so scarce. It is the people who have the lowest incomes, the most vulnerable, who are most negatively impacted by this.

I asked Maggie about her current wait-list, how many child care centres she oversees and how many spaces there are. Maggie responded:

We have 147 spaces as well as 24 half-time spaces, going all the way from infant up to kindergarten. Our centre is 100% full. There is not one empty space in our centre.

At the moment, we have around 600 names on our wait-list. They are for spots in the next year and a half.

That is the sad part. By the time some of these people are able to access this spot, their child has aged out of it. We have people who are thinking about having kids and putting their names on a wait-list.

I want to acknowledge to the minister and to everybody that, yes, for the people who were lucky enough to get a spot, this is helping them. I will not dismiss that at all. However, it is like winning the lottery. This plan is saving them money, if they are lucky enough to win the child care lottery. That is what this is. However, the money is also being taken in other spaces, such as food, gas and mortgages. I just think it is really important that we recognize where all of the gaps are.

One problem is all the women who have messaged me, because they cannot choose to go back to work. Kathryn Babowal, who operates Les Petite Soleils Inc., made a written submission to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I want to read it into the record: “From what I can see happening today as a result of the CWELCC program, and what will inevitably continue to happen through Bill C-35, many private child care centres will not survive this transition and the investments made by private, tax paying citizens, will be instead replaced by not-for-profit child care centres that will be funded through hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money in subsidies and supports.” Kathryn says, “There are private childcare operators ready and willing to make the investments in their communities to create childcare spaces with no cost to taxpayers, but they are unable to access a free market and thus the families that choose these private centres are unable to receive the affordability support of the CWELCC Program. There are also substantial administrative costs being incurred by taxpayers to offer incentive grants to not-for-profits and to staff government positions to manage the use of funds, claims and audits. As a Canadian, as a tax paying citizen, and as a child care entrepreneur who has invested thousands of dollars and hours into building the best child care program I possibly could to support the parents and children in the community...[I find] this...extremely disheartening.” Her voice matters too.

This email is pretty powerful: “My name is Rebecca and I am [a] lawyer practising in St John's Newfoundland and Labrador. I have an 11 month old and I am currently on leave from my position.” Rebecca says, “The federal government brought in a subsidy so that parents could avail of $10 a day daycare. Daycares collect 10 dollars a day from parents and collect the rest from the federal government, however the federal government only pays on a quarterly basis and often late. As such daycares end up operating at a loss with...minimal cash flow and many have had to shut down as a result.” This part is so important: “The intention of the 10 dollar a day daycare was to allow women to access affordable childcare but it has had the very absurd result that women are being forced out of the workforce entirely with no income at all because they made the choice to have a child.”

Many of these people, when they phone me, say, “Michelle, I am a Liberal” or “I am an NDP supporter.” When we talk about partisanship, the child should be at the crux of this discussion, but it is not, because it is political. This is part of the supply agreement that the Liberals and the NDP signed together, and they checked it off. When we look at the political implications of this, at where the child care deserts are the highest, with Saskatchewan at 92%, how many Liberal seats are in that province? There are zero.

They know that. They have created a bill to try to divide us and, unfortunately, pit women against each other. I am not buying into that. I am here to elevate the voices of parents and operators.

It is urban versus rural. That is what this bill has done. It has left more people out. The reality is that so many people in rural ridings cannot access a centre. That is not how it works. One has to rely on one's friends, family, neighbours or grandma. It is not in this bill. If they really cared, they would have added that amendment. They would have said, “Yes, we will put that amendment in.”

This is a political game, because they are failing as a government in all areas, including housing and the cost of living. This is a distraction. They say, “We are giving out $10-a-day day care.”

This place is so upsetting. I really think that everyone in here came with the intention to help people. I believe that, and it is the biggest question we get asked, but this is the reality of what we are dealing with. It is just upsetting because one thinks that people come here to make a difference and to listen, but one gets sucked into these political games.

When the Conservatives asked the Liberal government in a written Order Paper question how it could back up its claim that Ontario had 92% of licenced child care providers sign on to the CWELCC program, and that almost all of them had reduced fees by 50%, it responded, “The specific implementation of these ELCC [or Early Learning and Child Care] agreements falls within the legislative authorities of the provinces and territories, in accordance with their own unique ELCC systems.” This is the proof I am talking about.

The Liberals are setting it up so that, when this fails, it will be on the provinces' backs. They are going to be the fall guys for all of these shortcomings, which everyone is ringing alarm bells about. It is not just Conservatives. Members can Google child care, and every single day there is an article about this.

The minister, in effect, will say, “Oh, the Conservatives say to do nothing”. That is not what we are saying. We are asking the government to include everybody. We are asking the government to offer choice. That is what we are saying here, and I would ask for collaboration on this.

Conservatives put forth concrete amendments to the bill for the national advisory council to track data on the implementation of the child care program, including the availability of child care services, the number of families on wait-lists for child care places and any progress made in reducing the number of families on wait-lists. It is accountability and tracking. How do we measure success if we are not tracking it? Do members know what happened to this amendment? It was voted down. How are we going to track success if we are not measuring it?

I want to put into the record, because I think it is pretty powerful, something from Christine Pasmore. She wrote that she had a family share with her that they had to send their children back to a third-world country to live with their grandparents as they could not find any child care options in Grand Prairie. She said that families are being discouraged from moving there on Facebook because of the lack of child care in the area, and families are moving out of Alberta.

She also wrote of how they had two YMCA after-school care locations announce that they will be closing permanently as of July 1, 2023, as they are unable to staff them. This will be a loss of a 127 after-school care spaces there. Parents are not enrolling their children into the education system for kindergarten because of the lack of child care options. Instead, they are leaving them in day care full time. She said that this is the first time in the 17 years she has been in child care that she is seeing this happen.

I will speak to another letter that was really important. We do talk about moms a lot, but I had this one dad write to me, so I want to give a shout-out to the dad, Curt. He said that he was writing in reference to a post and that he does not usually speak up, but affordable child care does not exist for most. He is a father of two children, ages six and eight and, unfortunately, they have been in day care since they were babies because both he and his wife have full-time jobs.

He says that they have been very fortunate to have always been able to find work and, until a few years ago, they have not struggled financially. Because of their jobs, they have to have their children in after-school programs. He describes how now, with the new rules for affordable child care, to recover costs for younger children, because the real cost of care does not go down simply because someone wants to, the fees for school-aged is going up. To add to the frustration, the amount of tax credits for child care for school-aged children is also decreasing. For Curt, it is getting to the point, like it is for so many other families, where the cost of child care is so great that one of them will have to quit their job. He said that he had no questions, and he knows it is the reality and there is nothing I can do, but he just wanted to make sure that I was aware of these unfortunate facts. He said that, like all the other things the current government is doing, it seems designed to break this once great country.

The reality is, we will honour the agreements that are signed by the provinces and territories, but I want it loud and clear and on the record where all the gaps are.

Conservatives will continue to fight for choice and freedom. We believe that parents are the best people to make the right choices for their children, and we believe that there should be access to all forms of child care. We believe in freedom, choice and flexibility, and we will fight to remove the ideological shackles from the bill.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, there was a lot in my colleague's speech that was simply untrue.

Conservatives talk about fighting for choice, and there is nothing in this legislation that prevents parental choice about what kind of child care they choose to pursue. That is very much a Conservative ideological point.

There is nothing in this bill that divides Canadians. I really do not understand where the Conservatives are coming from in saying that child care is a divisive issue. In fact, when we talk to Canadians and hear from them, they are exuberant about this. It is cross-generational. It is not just folks who have little kids right now. It is, in fact, all generations.

After such a down and negative speech, why are the Conservatives voting for Bill C-35 if they are so against it?

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

Madam Speaker, I really think it is important to say that this is not down and negative. It is reality. There is a very big difference between telling everybody that everything is great and telling the reality that 50% of kids are left out.

Why would we vote in favour of this? It is because the toothpaste is out of the tube. We do not want to punish the families that have benefited from this. What we want to do when we are in government, and we will be, is fix this. Right now, there is no flexibility. There is no choice. There are ideological shackles on both the provinces and parents.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's work on child care. There is a lot to be said for parents collaborating together to implement real solutions for families and children.

One area that the member highlighted quite frequently throughout her speech, and this is similar to the question I asked the minister, was the gaps of people who are getting paid appropriately to work in the field. This is an ongoing issue in provinces and territories across Canada, where, in order to offer the spaces, we need trained, qualified people in these positions.

Could the member share her thoughts with us today on what steps need to be taken to ensure that people are in the positions that we need?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. There is no national labour strategy.

We have seen it. We saw it in the Order Paper question that this is what the Liberals are doing, but they are not going to track it. They are not going to measure it, and they are not going to include the labour minister.

That is the reality of what we have been pushing for. That is what I would say. I would say it is not being addressed. The government is not going to just pull people from the sky for these positions. In fact, there is a mass exodus from these positions. Early childhood educators are incredible humans, just as are all the people who care for our children in safe environments.

However, there is no national labour strategy, which we put forth as an amendment. The Liberals voted it down and unfortunately, so did the NDP.

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

Madam Speaker, as Conservatives, we did move an amendment at committee.

It was to amend the function of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, which would include supporting the recruitment and the retention of a well-qualified workforce, conduct regular engagement and specific mandate to call out to maintaining and understanding the available child care spaces, the numbers on wait-lists and the progress made to reduce wait-lists for families.

I am wondering if my colleague could elaborate on why the NDP and the Liberals voted against having this workforce strategy, and an accountability of the federal government and council, so people would be identifying the gaps, and making plans to fill those gaps, to have an adequate workforce for our child care.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a fierce advocate and mom who has had two kids during Parliament. She has a wealth of knowledge. She also lives in a child care desert of Saskatchewan and knows wholeheartedly the real struggle of this. She sat on the HUMA committee with me.

I would love to tell the House something great. I would love to look into the camera and tell everybody at home that there is some great reason why they would do that. At the end of the day, it was because Conservatives put it forward. They have created some narrative that Conservatives hate child care. That is what they love to tell people.

The reality is that most of us women on this side are moms, too. We are not pitted against other women in this House. We are supporting everyone. We support women who breastfed for the first time. To the minister opposite, I say good for her. We support women and men of the NDP bringing their babies in here. We support everybody. That is what we are trying to say, over and over again. That is why we are trying to elevate the voices of all the people who are ringing the alarm bells.

Why did the NDP and the Liberals vote it down? The member would have to ask them.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech. I am a father, and my wife and I have three daughters, one of whom is in day care. We have seen the reduction in day care fees in the province of Ontario, and it is also great to see the provincial minister responsible for this area go out on literally a weekly basis to celebrate the child care agreement put in place in Ontario. This has been called for for over three or four decades. It is helping parents in every riding in every city in the province of Ontario, and it is saving them thousands and thousands of after-tax dollars. It is helping women re-enter the labour force and increasing women's participation rate.

I was wondering if we could not acknowledge the major benefits happening under the child care agreement, which we have signed with all provinces and territories from coast to coast to coast.

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

Madam Speaker, to the member opposite, I was very clear about that in my speech, and I will say it over and over again: There are lots of people who have benefited. There are tons of people, but we already have news articles coming up, headlined, “Should Alberta reconsider its child care funding agreement?” Most of these provinces were given no other options. They were bullied into it. If they had not signed, they would not have gotten any money.

On the record, for the hundredth time, I will say to members to wait and see, because there are tons of people benefiting from this, but there are just as many who are not. How is that inclusive? It is not, so until it is fixed, we are not going to say it is wonderful and great, because it is not.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to get up twice. I really appreciate that.

I want to follow up again on the labour discussion we were having. Conservatives moved an amendment at committee regarding the reporting clause of the bill to include the Minister of Labour in the annual reporting, and to say that the annual reporting must include a national labour strategy to recruit and retain a qualified early childhood education workforce. This was voted down by the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Bloc, and I just do not understand why, especially when the NDP members keep getting up and saying that we need a workforce strategy and a labour strategy.

I am just wondering if my colleague could maybe elaborate on why those parties voted against having this put in the bill, to make sure there is an accountability measure, when it comes to the labour force and workforce.

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

Madam Speaker, “accountability” and “Liberals” are two words that do not go in the same sentence, and the reason I say that, today in particular, is that it is extra deflating today. We have a Minister of Public Safety who knew for three months that the worst criminal in Canadian history was going to be moved from maximum security to medium security. He did not tell the victims' families.

There is no accountability, and this is a pattern of behaviour. I wish it was not true, but the longer I am here, the more I see it. There is a pattern of behaviour. There is no accountability because the Liberals are immune and because their Prime Minister does not do anything, so that is the reality of what we are dealing with.

Why would those parties sign on to an amendment that would put in accountability? They do not want that because then they would have to do something.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am so very pleased to speak to Bill C‑35 this evening, especially since I prepared my speech by running the statements I am about to make by my colleague from La Prairie, who is an economist. They call him “the big softy of La Prairie” now because he is so nice. It makes a change from his former life in Quebec City, where he was known as the “butcher of Sanguinet”. That was my little introduction.

Why am I so pleased? It is because, in my former life, I taught a course on social policy to social workers, in which we discussed Quebec's family policy extensively as one of the best examples of a successful social policy. As we know, Quebec's family policy encompasses a number of measures, including child care services and parental leave, which were introduced by Pauline Marois.

When explaining to students how to grasp the scope of a social policy such as child care, I always began by identifying the different ways of looking at society. The fact that there are multiple ways of looking at society gives rise to ideological debates. We are seeing these ideological debates play out this evening. I find that a good way of distinguishing between the people I would call social democrats and those who espouse what might be called classical liberalism—or conservatism, as I should call it for the benefit of people here—is to look at how social policies are articulated.

I would define a progressive as someone who fights for individuals to be able to define themselves on their own. That is what progressives try to do. Why is that? As we know, there are people who are stuck in a predetermined social position. Here is a simple example: People whose parents are on welfare have a tougher time at school because they have fewer resources. They are at risk of becoming stuck in a predetermined position that they do not want, but that was assigned to them by their circumstances, because they were born into families with limited resources, or because they were born into a social group where education was not valued. These are people who are assigned to a predetermined social position.

As I see it, a progressive is a person who clearly knows that people born into favourable circumstances have enough social capital to achieve social fulfillment. Equal opportunity takes this into consideration and creates mechanisms that allow less advantaged individuals to experience upward mobility. The concept is nothing new. The member for La Prairie explained to me that this is the very basis of Keynesianism.

According to the liberalism of John Maynard Keynes, a free market is not enough. We also need a social safety net so that every individual can participate in society. We know what this social safety net is. Our social safety net is access to education and health care. This allows for greater equity and gives people in less enviable social circumstances the chance to fulfill their potential. That is how I would describe a progressive.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that this is the role of the market, that this is the role of the individual and that, if the individual puts in enough effort, they will succeed. That is what we call a meritocracy. I was basically trying to explain to students that these are two very different visions of society. My goal at the time was not to participate in ideological polarization, but I did point out that, generally speaking, it is the more progressive people who will have a positive vision of social policy, and therefore a positive vision of a measure like $5-a-day child care.

We are seeing that tonight in the House. My Conservative colleagues' speeches reminded me of the ones I heard in Quebec 25 years ago when child care was first introduced. Some people said that parents are in the best position to make decisions for their child. No one is in a better position to choose than the parent. No one is saying otherwise. No one is saying that it is not up to parents to decide what will happen to their child.

People also said that the lack of child care spaces was creating inequality. It was not just for the mother who wanted to send her children to a day care that had no more spots, and it was not just for the mother who wanted to keep her children at home either. To me, this is just rhetoric that does not offer any solution and just advances a political agenda, but does not account for specific situations experienced by individuals.

I say that because history has not vindicated those who supported this point of view. After Quebec's family policy was brought in 25 years ago, we realized that there were more women in the workforce. That was Pauline Marois's initial goal when she introduced this policy. We also realized children started school with fewer language delays. They will succeed academically because they are not starting at a disadvantage. We know that when a child enters school with language delays and has trouble integrating into the school curriculum, that child has less of a chance of moving up and succeeding than a student who has supportive parents. A child who is sent to a day care that provides good services could have those delays sorted out. That truly is what happened, looking back, 25 years later, at the benefits of Quebec's family policy.

This means that a successful social policy is one that takes into account a multitude of factors. Quebec's decision to introduce a child care system was about more than just enabling mothers to enter the labour market. It was also about enabling mothers to escape poverty. It was about enabling children to have initial contact with education, learn how to be independent and embark on a path towards an undoubtedly brighter future. As we have seen, it worked, because Quebec is a progressive society.

Let me provide a few examples. Not to be petty or mean-spirited, but Canada's family policy is 25 years behind, unfortunately. It happens. The federal government sometimes lags behind. The same can be said of medical assistance in dying. We are not blaming the federal government. It is slightly delayed, which is normal. It is also the same thing with secularism. In 25 years, perhaps the federal government will realize that a law on secularism is also progressive. However, that is a different debate that I do not necessarily want to get into.

It is important to understand how a social policy fits in. It is also important to realize that there is an ideological struggle going on between the two visions. That is what we are seeing tonight. However, the ultimate goal is to do good. The ultimate goal is to ensure that every child has access to quality services and will eventually be able to thrive and escape from conditions in which they could be trapped. As I was saying, a child born into a bad environment is more likely than others not to have access to education and, ultimately, to have a bleaker future.

Quebec has shown what successful day care services look like. I was saying that the federal government is lagging behind, but it will eventually catch up. All of this is fantastic, and it means the Bloc Québécois will likely vote in favour of Bill C‑35. However, I would not be true to myself if I did not point out the fly in the ointment.

The fly in the ointment goes hand in hand with the disease that is eating away at federalism. It is a disease called the fiscal imbalance. I have no intention of reopening the debate on health care funding. However, as will be shown, the logic is undeniable. What does the federal government do all the time? I call it predatory federalism. It encroaches on jurisdictions that do not belong to it. Once inside these jurisdictions, it proposes policies and then it pulls out. In the process, it creates a sort of dependency and obligations. Then it avoids paying the costs associated with these obligations. This is what we saw happen in the health care system.

If we look back to the early 1960s, we will find that under the legislation that created the public health system, for every dollar invested in or spent on health, 50¢ came from the federal government and 50¢ came from the provinces. That was in 1960.

Over the years, health transfers went through a series of reforms. The 1970s was when the first change was made to substantially reduce the federal contribution to health care.

In the 1990s, Canadian-style neo-liberalism arrived with Paul Martin. At that time, transfers were slashed outright, and Canada's budget was balanced on the backs of the provinces. If I can use 1996-97 and 1997-98 as benchmark years, the federal government repeatedly cut transfer payments by $2.5 billion a year, if I remember correctly. This created intense pressure on the provinces.

In one of his occasional moments of lucidity, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien told his colleagues at a G7 meeting that he could balance the books at any time without paying a political price, because it was the provinces that had to deal with the financial difficulties he created.

A child care system is now in place and Quebec will be given $6 billion over five years. There are no guarantees, however. The government is currently in a minority, which is good. The NDP is supporting it, barely. That is good because it means the Liberals cannot do everything they want. Sooner or later, there will be a financial reckoning. That makes the Conservatives' mouths water. This is what gets them excited, like a kid in a candy store. Sooner or later, we will have to return to a balanced budget.

When the government loses its alliance with the NDP, it will have to propose measures to return to a balanced budget. What will it do? Will it cut its own spending? Technically, it will be tempted to lower the payments it makes to the provinces. The despicable thing about all of this is that, generally, the government does this after having previously set standards.

As we have seen, the government wants to impose health care standards. The government is telling the provinces that if it sends money back to them to reinvest in health care, they will have to invest it in specific services, such as long-term health care or mental health care. The particularities of each province are not even taken into account. The federal government does not have the expertise, but it is telling the provinces how to behave. It is doing it with health care, and there is no guarantee that we will not see the same thing with child care.

The $6 billion announced in 2021 by the Prime Minister and Premier Legault is fantastic. However, there is no guarantee that when the government goes back to its old ways and wants to balance the budget, it will not slash these transfer payments and make the provinces bear the brunt once again. The provinces will have to bear the brunt and face their residents as services are cut and access to services becomes more difficult.

This is the blind spot with child care and Bill C‑35. We cannot totally agree with what the government is proposing. We know very well that, in the future, when the federal government intrudes on our areas of jurisdiction, that could translate into Quebec and other provincial politicians paying the price. They might have to deal with the federal government's predatory federalism reflex, which leads it to encroach on jurisdictions and then to pull out, refusing to pay the political price and instead foisting it onto others.

I say this because that is generally what happens. In my opinion, my Liberal and Conservative colleagues resemble each other in this respect. Ideologically speaking, they are willing to provide certain services to the public, but when the time comes to pay, they are much more tight-fisted.

The political instinct is to secure their own future, without thinking of the future of provincial politicians or the people's needs.

In my introduction, I said that I considered Quebec to be a progressive society. As we can see with child care, Quebec is 25 years ahead of the federal government. That 25-year head start is also reflected in the federal government not being ready right now to meet its obligations, at least when it comes to health care.

The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑35 with all due reservations. I urge my Conservative colleagues to stop using the sterile rhetoric about how they want to defend everyone's freedom to choose whether they want to send their children to a public day care or keep them at home. It is not constructive at all and it does nothing to combat the fundamental problem of poverty in all advanced western countries.

Whenever we look at poverty indicators, who tops the list? It is single mothers. That is how it is in Quebec and every other province.

The best way to support these individuals and get them out of the disadvantaged conditions they are in is to have proper child care services. However, let us remain vigilant, because if the past is any indication, I am convinced that in five, six, or seven years, we will see a Liberal or Conservative government ready to cut the financial support currently offered to the provinces.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it was interesting that the hon. member who just gave his speech set up this binary situation where either children are taken care of at home or they are in a publicly funded day care. The reality is that folks do a whole gamut. Whether it is family members who take care of their children while they work, it is a neighbour or it is a church community, who knows how it all is? This system would fund just one of those possible options to the exclusion of the others.

That is what we are talking about as Conservatives when we say that this would not allow for the choice that happens. Whether it is a grandmother who comes in to take care of the children or the kids go to the grandmother's house, those kinds of situations are not recognized by this program. That is what we are dealing with. Does the member not recognize that?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is no different than if I asked why we bother to have a state-run health care system. Why do we go to a hospital for care? Why not go see a grandmother? Why not go ask a friend for treatment?

We know full well that that would not work. It would be completely ridiculous to tell a person with cancer to go ask their neighbour for help. As everyone knows, that is not how it works.

All major social policies require resources, and those resources are controlled by the government. It is not possible to create a national policy and assign part of it to the neighbour, another part to the church, and the last bit to the schools. That is not the way it works. This is the Conservatives' vision of society. What they really want, without being too obvious about it, is for women to stay at home and raise their own children. They want a traditional family unit, where the woman stays at home, nice and quiet in her private space, while the man goes out to work in the public space.

I get a sense they are trying to keep that under wraps a little.

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

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition stated previously that the Liberals think it is up to the federal government to decide how children should live and how their care should be delivered. The Bloc members think the Government of Quebec should have this responsibility. However, the Conservatives realize that the issue of child care is neither a federal nor provincial jurisdiction; it is a family matter.

Does my colleague from the Bloc agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he claimed that the Government of Quebec has no business being involved in the administration and delivery of child care in Quebec? He does not seem to, but I just want to check.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, the same criticisms we are hearing now were expressed by certain politicians in Quebec 25 years ago. I can guarantee that there is not a single soul in Quebec, not one Quebec politician, who would be prepared to stand up and say that the child care services we now have should be discontinued.

As for what the Leader of the Opposition said, this is not the first nonsense I have heard from him. He has claimed that people are asking for medical assistance in dying because they cannot afford to eat. These ridiculous comments reflect poorly on the member and damage his credibility, to the point that anything else he says will be tainted by his lack of judgment. I say this without malice.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, although, at the end, I was somewhat hurt by the fact that he did not talk about the possibility of an NDP government in five or six years. I will try to rise above that this evening.

I completely agree with him that Quebec led the way with its accessible public child care program. That program changed the lives of tens of thousands of Quebec families. It is good that the rest of Canada is finally following Quebec's lead today. We, in the NDP, insisted that accessible public child care be subsidized by the government or provided by non-profit organizations.

I would like to ask my colleague a question about the matter of choice that the Conservatives have been talking a lot about. When a parent is forced to stay at home because private child care services cost $50, $60 or $80 a day and it would cost them more to go to work, that is not a choice. What the Conservatives want is a lack of choice where a parent has to stay at home because private child care services are too costly. That is what the Conservatives want.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, rarely do I agree with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, but it has happened tonight.

The proof is in the indicators from the 25 years that followed the implementation of Quebec's family policy. Quebec is among the societies in the western world with the highest number of women in the workforce and a steady decline in the number of single mothers living in poverty. This means that something we are doing must be working.

As for the beginning of my colleague's question, I apologize if I did not raise the possibility of an NDP government, but I did raise the possibility that, 25 years from now, this assembly will realize that secularism is also progressive.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed working with the Bloc in committee on this. I just want to say, for the record, I am a Conservative woman and I am not at home raising my kids, but it would be fun if I could be home with them at the same time. He did make reference that Conservatives only want women to stay at home, so I just want to have it on the record that is not the truth.

I was curious about his term “predatory federalism”. I thought that was kind of an interesting term when we look at overstepping jurisdiction and wading into waters that are not the federal government's. I am curious to know his thoughts. I know they are supporting. I know Quebec has been a champion in child care, and it is progressive in many regards, but does he think the Liberals have overstepped with this bill?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was talking about predatory federalism simply to point out the dynamic that has been in place since the establishment of the health care system. The federal government does not respect the division of powers, which dictates that anything that has to do with social matters should be left to the provinces. It does not respect that; it creates provincial dependency with a much larger tax base, and then it strangles the provinces by cutting transfer payments without paying a political price for it.

This approach may sound very cynical and sinister, but we heard it straight from a former Liberal prime minister. Jean Chrétien once candidly admitted that this was the trick that he used to achieve balanced budgets without ever paying a political price. That is what I call predatory federalism.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have four children, and they are all grown up or almost. The younger ones are 13 and 15 years old. The oldest is 24, and she started day care about the time that the program was created. My children were in different types of day care, which were all subsidized. They were in day care centres or in home day care. Those were the options.

I would like my colleague to speak a little more about the options in Quebec for people with atypical schedules, for example, those working nights, whether they are pilot projects or permanent programs.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that in the early days of Mrs. Marois's family policy, there were a number of issues due to a shortage of day care spaces. Let us look at what is available now, however. A woman who works nights has access to child care. Child care services are being seen and developed in workplaces and universities. I know that there are some early childhood centres currently in universities. There are many different ways that child care has been made available over the past 25 years.

Not only that, but there is now even a college program to train early childhood educators. This training is essential for those looking to work in an early childhood centre.

We have a policy in place that meets the population's wide range of needs. We have a well-developed educational service with trained staff. This explains the policy's success over the past 25 years. Credit is owed to Pauline Marois, who had the genius to do this at the very time when the federal government was making the worst possible cuts in transfer payments to Quebec health care.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to share my time.

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

I have received notice from all recognized parties that they are in agreement with this request.

The hon. member for Burnaby South.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.

Today, I am speaking in favour of Bill C-35. It is something that New Democrats are proudly supportive of. It is a bill that establishes a national early learning and child care system.

Why this bill is so important is because it is transformative. It is another example of New Democrats never giving up. We fought hard for years alongside many advocates who said that we needed affordable child care. Affordable child care really is a transformational thing in the lives of people. Let us think about the reality for families right now and look at what people are going through with the cost of living so high, mortgages so high and the cost of groceries so high. A lot of families who want to have children look at the costs and say that there is no way they can do it, especially if they both cannot continue to work. That is a reality for many families. Many women who often fall into the role of having to be the primary child care provider want to get back into their careers and continue to work. When they look at the cost of child care they say it is simply impossible. To ensure that families across this country can have affordable child care is literally a transformational thing in the lives of so many. We believe this is so important.

Bill C-35 represents a long-standing commitment of the New Democrats to see national child care introduced. That is why we included this as a requirement in our agreement. This is a specific element we forced the Liberals to include in our confidence and supply agreement to legislate it and make it permanent so we do not rest on the whim of a one-time negotiation, but that we forever in this country have child care that is available and affordable for families. That is exactly what New Democrats do. We commit to fighting for people. We fight for people, we never back down, and we continue to fight until we win, and we deliver for Canadians. This is an example of New Democrats delivering. We promised to deliver permanent child care. We delivered it using our power in this minority government and forcing the Liberals to include this in our confidence and supply agreement.

I want to also acknowledge my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, for all of the hard work she did on this file. It took a lot of work. She has been a strong advocate for child care generally and she played a crucial role in the shaping of this bill.

One thing that is really emphasized in the bill is that it not only provides an opportunity for investing federal dollars into child care but to also build the type of child care we want for the future. The choice is, like many choices when it comes to providing services for people, whether we allow a for-profit system to continue to grow or we make it clear through legislation that New Democrats believe this is our opportunity to build up the public and not-for-profit sector. That is exactly what this legislation does. It prioritizes public and not-for-profit child care, which builds child care that is of the highest quality, where every dollar goes toward the care of our children, and does not provide an opportunity for rich corporations to make more money.

The NDP fought hard to have public, not-for-profit child care prioritized in this bill. We know that this approach means affordable, high-quality child care that is accessible to families who need it, not child care that puts profits first to the detriment of parents and children. This means better salaries and better working conditions for child care workers, who play an essential role in our children's development.

I also want to make a clear contrast here. While we used our power to force the government to legislate child care to ensure that it will be there moving forward, we have seen the Conservatives oppose this bill every step of the way and say they want to scrap it. As the member from the Bloc mentioned, in Quebec there was a time when there were people like the Conservatives who said we needed to get rid of child care, but it is so clearly beneficial to families that no one in Quebec would dare oppose it. I dare the Conservatives, once millions of families are benefiting from affordable child care, once people in their constituencies are benefiting from it, to try to remove this bill and try to fight against child care.

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

The hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure why the member is telling the House that Conservatives are not supporting this bill. That is not true.

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

That is not a point of order. The hon. member may ask a question in questions and comments and refer to it then.

The hon. member for Burnaby South.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party made it very clear that he would scrap this bill and that he is opposed to it. New Democrats are very clear on our position: We are here for people. We are not here to protect the profits of billionaires. We want to ensure that families are able to get access to affordable child care, and that is what we are delivering here.

The NDP worked with experts in the sector to strengthen this bill during committee stage. We presented constructive proposals to improve the provisions in the bill on reporting and accountability. We also fought to get a commitment on decent working conditions for child care workers, who deserve to be treated with respect. I am proud to say that our amendments were agreed to and they strengthened the bill considerably.

I am proud to say that one of the things New Democrats always bring to the table is a focus on workers. We know that to ensure that the highest quality of care is delivered for children, we need to make sure the workers are respected and have good salaries and good working conditions, and that is something that we are really proud we were able to deliver in this bill.

Every parent in our country deserves access to high-quality, affordable, accessible child care. That is what we are focused on and that is what we are committed to delivering. This bill would enshrine that vision in law. It would commit that the federal government will continue to deliver long-term funding to provinces and indigenous people. It is a victory for parents, and it is a victory for workers and for all the advocates who have fought for years to see national child care established. It is a step toward gender equality and toward a solid economic recovery plan that ensures that more people can participate in the labour force.

We have come a long way and we are proud of that. There is still a lot more work to do, but we will continue to fight for better wages, better benefits and a workforce strategy for child care. We will continue to fight to make sure that these investments go toward building up a public, not-for-profit sector. We can build a child care program across this country that Canadians will be proud of. It will be a testament of the commitment we have to take care of one another. That is the vision New Democrats have. We are stronger and better off when we look out for one another, and that is the vision of this child care legislation.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the New Democratic Party and the entire NDP caucus for their collaboration and for their support of Bill C-35. This is something that all parliamentarians can be extraordinarily proud of. It is historic and it will transform this country.

We have heard the Conservative leader of the official opposition call the support that the federal government is providing to families through child care a slush fund. Tonight the Conservatives said this is just slogans, meaningless and a false promise, although, as I mentioned, thousands of Canadian families are directly benefiting from this program already.

I am wondering, first, what the leader of the NDP thinks about those comments and, second, how he thinks Canadian families take those comments when they are seeing thousands of dollars returned to their pockets every year.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are already seeing some of the benefits. I have already spoken to families that are seeing that child care that was once $30-plus a day will be $12 a day come January. We are already seeing that families are looking forward to the benefit of this legislation. It is going to lower their costs. Some families could never have afforded child care before, and that meant that some close friends of mine said they were never going to go back to work until their kids were old enough, because they just could not afford child care.

This law is going to literally transform so many lives. We have already heard from people, and the fact that the Conservatives are attacking this bill shows they are not committed to ensuring people are able to get back to work and they are not committed to families being able to have access to affordable child care. This shows the Conservatives' values, and their values are not in line with Canadian values and are not in line with the thousands of families that need access to child care. This shows how out of touch they really are.

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

Madam Speaker, I find this really interesting, because as I said in my speech, the NDP often advocates for the most vulnerable, which is wonderful, but we have on record Ms. Maggie Moser, who has said in committee that:

The implementation provides undue benefits to higher-income families, who are sailing their yachts on the tides of the program, while those who need it most are left drowning.

Lower-income families were excluded from obtaining access to the CWELCC child care spots. Families who could already afford the fees of their centre were the ones who benefited from the rebates and discounts, while the rest were left behind on a long wait-list.

How does the member reconcile that?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is fair to point out that the program needs to ensure that we are responding to the needs of those who are most vulnerable, and that is something we need to work on. If there are problems with the implementation, those are things we can work on, but we made the commitment to ensuring that families have access to affordable child care. We have a relationship with provinces to make investments to lower the cost of child care and to ensure that when we make those investments, they go toward public and not-for-profit child care spaces. That is the type of work that is needed to ensure that lower-income families are able to access this program.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the NDP for his inspiring speech. It is true that, in Quebec, early childhood centres and public child care has been accessible for 25 years. This program should help fathers as much as mothers, but because of the inequity in family-related and domestic tasks, this kind of program is more advantageous to mothers.

Economist Pierre Fortin even estimated that, in the first years of the program in Quebec, 70,000 women were able to return to the labour market thanks to these accessible, public and universal child care centres. According to the NDP leader, what are the benefits for families in Ontario, British Columbia and just about everywhere else in Canada?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, this will allow the rest of Canada to enjoy what Quebec already has. It is wonderful, and something that we want to share. It is one of the areas where Quebec has been a trailblazer. Lessons can be learned from the way that Quebec implemented this program, which has had an enormous impact on peoples' lives.

My colleague said that it should help fathers too, but that mothers will benefit disproportionately in light of historical inequities. I am glad he raised this positive point. For the time being, we need this program. It will help a lot of families and a lot of mothers. I am proud that we forced the government to introduce this bill. We are going to pass it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak in the House in support of a historic piece of legislation, Bill C-35.

I want to begin by acknowledging the hard work of my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who has worked tirelessly on this bill and who has worked alongside our team to push the Liberals to create a stronger version of this bill on behalf of children, families, Canadian women and all of us.

For me, child care hits close to home. As many of us know, and as my constituents certainly know, I am the proud mother of five-year-old twins. I, like many mothers in Canada, faced real challenges when it came to accessing child care after I had my kids.

I was on a waiting list for child care in Ottawa for over two years, and then, of course, as soon as COVID hit and, knowing that our child care needs had entirely shifted to my constituency here in Manitoba, I was again on a waiting list, and of course, like all families, I faced the insecurities and disruptions caused by the pandemic.

Many who may have tuned into our online sittings throughout that time would have seen one or even both of my children popping up on Zoom during working hours, because that is what it was like to work from home with kids at home without access to child care.

While I treasure the time with my kids, as many mothers know, juggling all of that without access to child care when we want it and when we need it can be a real nightmare.

The reality is that the lack of access to child care in Canada has absolutely held women back and held families back. This legislation is an important step in standing up for women in our country, for families and for a better future for all of our children.

As I begin this speech, I want to say that this victory would not have happened without the decades of activism, of work that has been done by women across our country.

I want to acknowledge the groundbreaking work of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, with leaders like Judy Rebick. I want to acknowledge the many activists involved in the national action committee throughout the country, including people like my mother, Hariklia Dimitrakopoulou-Ashton, who has certainly shaped who I am and who was part of an organization that made it very clear that equality for women and justice for women means child care.

I also want to acknowledge the many women in the labour movement who have tirelessly fought for decades for access to universal, affordable not-for-profit child care. They include leaders like Barb Byers, Vicky Smallman and Bea Bruske, the current CLC president, and her team.

I want to acknowledge women across the country who have made it their aim to speak and fight for child care. In B.C., they are people like Sharon Gregson. Many women here in Manitoba have been part of this fight. Martha Friendly and many more have fought for child care for decades. They and many others are the reason we are standing here today.

I also want to acknowledge a former colleague who is in the news a fair bit right now and who I think many of us hope will soon be the mayor of Toronto, former New Democrat MP Olivia Chow, who, when she was in Parliament, fought tirelessly for child care. She was the first to propose an early learning and child care program for Canadians. Her leadership created the framework for a universal, high-quality, affordable and not-for-profit national child care program.

New Democrats have long called for universal early learning and child care in this country, and it has been a long road to get the other parties on board. I am thinking of long negotiations just to include this in the supply and confidence agreement with the Liberals. Our demands that this be implemented by the end of the year are the reason we are here, and I am proud that due to NDP pressures, we will see this bill adopted before the end of 2023.

Let us look at the figures. Roughly half of Canadian children under six years old do not have access to either licensed or even unlicensed child care. This impacts primarily women, delaying their capacity to return to work at a time of their choosing. Of the women in families that do not have access to child care, 42% end up postponing their return to work.

This is unacceptable. Our current piecemeal system leaves far too many women without the choice to decide for themselves, ourselves, when we can go back to work. Those lost years mean less income for women and fewer opportunities for promotions and furthering careers. It means being punished for starting families.

Every day that we do not have an early learning and child care program in Canada is a day when Canada shows the extent to which it devalues women and how little it wants us to succeed. Let us be clear. The provinces know this. Everyone in the House knows this. We have had commission after commission and report after report. Over half a century ago, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women identified publicly funded universal child care as one of 167 recommendations. For over 30 years, we have heard Liberal promises around child care. It was just around the corner, red book after red book and often heard about during the election, only to have the Liberals complain how hard it was to enact when they got into government.

Far too many women are waiting for far too many men, and some women, to figure out how to treat us with basic dignity and respect. Whether it is our earning power's resembling that of our male counterparts, our capacity to live safely and without fear of violence, equitable abortion access in communities in rural and northern parts of our country, or access to child care, women in Canada are tired of having to prove their basic humanity.

This bill is important, and no one should diminish that. Every parent across Canada deserves access to affordable, accessible, high-quality child care. This bill would enshrine this vision in law and would commit the federal government to long-term funding for provinces and indigenous communities. This bill sets out the vision for a national early learning and child care system and the principles guiding federal investment in that system.

Speaking of funding, we need to be clear. There needs to be long-term, sustainable core funding directed at not-for-profit, accessible and universal child care programs. We need to make sure that ECE workers, who are incredible individuals and amongst the most patient people I know, make a living wage and beyond for the work they do. We need to make sure there is investment in infrastructure. I am thinking of indigenous communities here in our region, with some of the youngest populations in our country, that do not have access to adequate day care spaces. We need to make sure the federal government works with first nations, with Inuit communities and with indigenous communities across the country to make sure adequate child care centres are being built.

It is important to acknowledge that this bill would establish a national advisory council on early learning and child care and set out reporting requirements on the progress being made regarding national child care and the federal investments being made in the system.

Finally, it is meant to contribute toward the realization of the right to child care services, which is recognized in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill acknowledges Canada's international obligations under the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, as well as that a national child care system must respect the rights of indigenous peoples as affirmed by the Constitution Act of 1982.

Today's work in Parliament and the passing of Bill C-35 is nothing short of historic, but we need to make sure that subsequent governments live up to their obligations in this bill and ensure that there is adequate funding to invest in our most prized resource: our children and our future.

I end by thanking those who have come before us: the feminists, the women, the many people who fought for this day to be a reality and who will continue to fight to make sure that children, women, all of us, get the chance and the support that we all deserve.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I had our babies around the same time, so I experienced a lot of the same challenges she did, although I had just one, whereas she had two at the same time. I commend her for that.

I really want to thank her for her support of this bill, and I really want to thank her for talking about all the advocates who have come before us, because, really, we stand on their shoulders, and this moment is the result of their hard work. I could not be more appreciative of those advocates who have fought for literally decades to get us to where we are today.

I also want to thank her for speaking accurately about the bill. Unfortunately, when the Conservatives were speaking, they said that there was no reporting requirement. However, as my colleague just mentioned, the bill actually already outlines annual reporting requirements by the government to Parliament, and I am grateful for that.

I am just wondering if she could elaborate on how this is impacting families in her community already and what difference this is going to make for families in Manitoba and across the country.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the minister's work on this critical piece of legislation. I know it has been very important for us to work with the minister and make sure the government lives up to the vision that, as the minister pointed out, so many advocates have fought for for years.

We are, absolutely, already seeing positive impacts when it comes to investment in child care. In fact, just a couple of months ago, my neighbour across the street, also the mother of twins, ran over to tell me that her family was one of the ones that were going to be able to get reduced child care fees as a result of our actions in Parliament. I was so proud that this was already making a difference here in Manitoba, in the north, where our child care needs are significant. We are known as being in a child care desert here, given the demands of our communities.

I also want to acknowledge that much work needs to be done when it comes to making sure there is adequate child care in indigenous communities, some of the youngest communities in the country, with a real lack of infrastructure. I am looking forward—

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

I have to give another member the opportunity to ask a question.

The hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I did not know she had twins. That is a great fact. Sometimes when we are sitting around the House late at night, we learn great facts about our colleagues, and twins are definitely a blessing.

I want to talk about what we did in committee when we were studying this bill. I brought this forward to our leader, and he agreed with me. Conservatives brought forth an amendment to ensure that lower-income families were prioritized and that Bay Street lawyers were not getting priority. It was voted down.

What are her thoughts on that?

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

Madam Speaker, if the member had been here during the first two years of my twins' life, she would have seen them in the House as well, prior to Zoom.

For us, in the NDP, what is really important is universal access and that we make sure all families have access to affordable child care no matter where they live. We obviously need to have special recognition of the barriers facing low-income families and women who are facing economic hardship. Today's legislation is an important step in that direction.

We need to make sure there is adequate funding, which also involves making sure ECE workers, many of them also mothers who need child care, have a living wage, and we need to make sure we are making the necessary investments in the program.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to touch on the issue of fair wages and working conditions being essential. As we know, part of the challenge we face with child care is the inability to attract and retain child care workers, early childhood education workers, in the sector.

What do we need to do, as government, to support early childhood education workers getting into the sector, and how do we retain them?

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

Madam Speaker, clearly, we need to work very closely with early childhood education workers and the sector to make sure fair wages are prioritized. We need to ensure there is dedicated funding for that and that there is oversight of this very important fact. We also need to invest in ECE education and make sure we are attracting and retaining the best. For the people who are already doing this work, we need to make sure we are continuing to invest in—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and talk about substantive legislation that would have a profound impact, not only for today but also for future generations.

I think we would have to go back quite a way to find a government that has been so progressive in providing advancements in a wide spectrum of areas to support Canadians. I often hear, whether from the Prime Minister or one my colleagues, that the issue for us is that we want to see an economy that actually works for all Canadians. We often talk about Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it, and how we could develop policies and initiatives, and take the budgetary measures to advance that. That is what Canadians expect.

Through the last number of years, we have heard the Conservatives focusing on other things, outside of what is important to Canadians. Today is a good example. We see a government that is listening to what Canadians are saying and delivering on that in a very tangible way. For example, an hour or so ago, we were talking about Bill C-22. It is historic legislation. For the very first time, we are saying that Canadians with disabilities need to have support that would ensure that there would be fewer people with disabilities living in poverty. This would be as a direct result of Bill C-22, a wonderful, progressive piece of legislation.

Now, we are talking about Bill C-35. In many ways, Bill C-35 would have such a positive impact, no matter where, what region, in Canada one looks at. Getting these agreements is not necessarily an easy task. The current minister has reached out and contacted provincial and territorial stakeholders, not to mention, as she made reference to in response to a question, numerous advocates. In a very humble but accurate way, the minister acknowledged the input of those advocates who have been working, trying for years to put in place what Bill C-35 would do.

In some of those years, we have experienced a great deal of frustration. I have talked about the Conservative hidden agenda. Let me tell the House why there is a Conservative hidden agenda and why Bill C-35 is so critically important. Members across the way might recall the Stephen Harper days.

I would not say “hear, hear” to that.

With respect to child care, the first action former prime minister Harper took was to get rid of child care agreements, 15 years or so ago.

I want members to imagine, if they will, what would have happened had Stephen Harper and the Conservative government at the time recognized the real value of what Paul Martin, Ken Dryden and the Liberal government had put into place. It was a substantial, extensive program. I know that Ken Dryden, in particular, put so much effort into it in terms of working with some of the advocates the current minister has no doubt had to deal with. That plan was put into place, approved and signed off, and provinces were onside. Then the Conservative government, led by Stephen Harper, cancelled it outright, on day one. What was the cost of that policy decision?

A couple of years ago, after we made many other initiatives that have been really important to Canadians, we took the bold step to bring this thing back in a very real and tangible way. Once again, we have a national minister recognizing that there is a role for the federal government to ensure that we have child care from coast to coast to coast.

All one really needs to do is to take a look at what is happening in the province of Quebec. Quebec has had this model for many years, and we see the benefits to Quebec society as a direct result in terms of things that have been achieved, whether it is women engaging in the workforce far more than in any other jurisdiction, from what I understand, in North America, to providing an improved, quality standard of child care to ensuring that there are more equal opportunities, not to mention how the economy benefited by it.

We understood this many years ago, and now we are forwarding it. However, it is because of the goodwill and support from Canadians from coast to coast to coast that we were able to work it out with the many different stakeholders, in particular, the provinces and territories. I believe Ontario was the last one to sign on board back in March 2022. By Doug Ford's signature, we had a true, national, coast to coast, child care program, and that is something we should all be very proud of.

As a Liberal caucus and as a team, we understood the benefits of the program, and it is an issue we promoted. In fact, as my colleagues will recall, we only need to take a look at the last federal election. We had 337, 338 candidates going door to door talking about the importance of child care, and that if we were re-elected into government, we would materialize a child care program.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, said that they would tear it up, that they did not believe in what we were doing. So, when a Conservative member stands up and says “Well, we're voting for the legislation”, I encourage members to read some of the speeches that were given by Conservatives. Look at what they did on the first run. This is why we need the legislation. We do not want a potential Conservative cabinet 15 years from now making the decision to get rid of the program. We want this program to be there for future generations, because by making that sort of commitment, we know that society here in Canada will benefit greatly.

We cannot trust the Conservative Party, quite frankly. It has demonstrated that time and time again when its members talk about progressive policies for the betterment of Canadians, and I do not say that lightly. I actually sat in the chamber and listened to many of the Conservative MPs speak on this legislation, and I could not tell how they were going to vote. I think someone put their finger up in the air and felt the political wind and thought, “Oh, jeez, it might be tough for us to vote against this, so let's support it.”

Some might use the word “delusional”, but I would suggest, after 30 years of being in Parliament and watching the Conservatives at play, that it is more of a reality issue. I would suggest to members that the Conservatives actually recognize the true value of this program. They should be bold and go against their own leadership if need be and make some of the statements that are really important in recognizing the value of this program. They will say that, yes, they want to give more child care dollars to a certain degree, but they are not talking about the same sort of child care program that we are talking about.

What does this program do? It provides $10-a-day day care, which is life-changing. It is going to enable so many people the opportunity to afford, for the first time, child care services and the educational program that goes along with it.

I was really encouraged, and I think it was back in September, when the Prime Minister came to Winnipeg North and we went to Stanley Knowles School and visited the child care facility. We could see relief in the faces of the individuals who are recipients of what we are talking about today. It was relief, joy or just appreciation that there is finally a government trying to do the things that are important to citizens.

Winnipeg North is not the only riding the Prime Minister has visited. As he has gone through the country, he has attended town halls in other constituencies and has spoken to parents and been there with the children. I always enjoy the playful attitude the Prime Minister has toward the children of Canada because it is so genuine.

We have a Prime Minister who is committed not only to providing $10-a-day day care but who understands the needs of our young people. He is there to talk, answer questions and listen. As a result, whether it is him, the Minister of Families or my caucus colleagues, they take a look at the issues that come up in our constituencies and bring those issues to Ottawa so we can develop the budgets and the legislation necessary and that is going to make a difference in the lives of Canadians.

What are the issues today we often hear about? Inflation has to be one of them. I feel a great deal of empathy and sympathy for what Canadians need to overcome as a direct result of inflation, even though Canada is doing quite well on inflation compared to the U.S. and many of the European countries, our allied countries, and so many others. This is not to mention other economic indicators. It does not take away from the fact that as a government we still need to do what we can to help Canadians at a time of need.

With this program, we are talking about hundreds if not thousands of dollars every year that are going to be left in the pockets and purses of Canadians from coast to coast to coast as a direct result. That is action. That is going to make a difference in a very real and tangible way.

On other actions to support our children, remember the dental program. The Conservatives actually voted against this particular program. As we implemented the dental program, the first thing on the agenda was children under the age of 12. We do not want to recognize, by their smile, a child who is not able to get the dental work they require. Far too often children are going to hospitals to get dental work because their mom, dad or guardian do not have the financial resources, for some reason or another, to bring that child to a dentist.

Again, through this program, we are seeing literally dollars going into the pockets of families to assist children in being able to get the type of dental services that are necessary.

I started off by talking about national programs. I talked about the historic program of disabilities. Then I talked about children. Now I am making reference to dental work. I would challenge any member of this House to demonstrate any government before this government that has developed and put into place programs to support Canadians. It has been a wide spectrum of programs and I want to spend just a bit of time to emphasize that. It clearly shows why Bill C-35 is a part of a larger plan that is very comprehensive and shows Canadians that, whether it is a legislative measure or a budgetary measure, this is a government that has the backs of Canadians in a very real and tangible way. We have a government that has now negotiated, for example, an incredible $200-billion plan to ensure that future generations of Canadians are going to have a health care system that is based on the Canada Health Act.

We have a government that, within the first couple of years, understood the importance of retirement and worked with all the provinces, as it has done with the three programs I have just mentioned, and had CPP addressed, which is something that Stephen Harper completely ignored and said that he would not do. Before he was the leader of the Conservative Party, he advocated getting rid of the CPP. We as a government worked with the different provinces and stakeholders, including small business and labour groups and were able to get the agreement on CPP.

I say this because, like Bill C-35, these are initiatives that really make a difference in the lives of Canadians. That is why I am encouraging members opposite to change their attitudes toward the way in which government spends its money. Let me give a specific example by using Bill C-35.

The Conservatives have this mindset: If they spend a dollar, it is a bad thing if it is government dollars. It is cut, cut, cut. One day, I even had one of the members suggest that we could always cut money from military defence. I can say that when the government invests in programs, more often than not we get a pretty decent return. For example, yes, the child care program is going to cost a lot of money; there is no doubt about it. However, if we recognize the value of that investment and start acknowledging some of the benefits, we quickly find out that it is not costing as much as one might think.

For example, specifically as a direct result of Bill C-35 and the budgetary measures by this government, there is no doubt that we will see an increase in the workforce. We are going to see more, in particular, women participating in the economy. As a direct result of that, when more women are participating in the economy, more taxes are generated. When members say that there is a cost for child care, there is a cost benefit that also needs to be factored in. That is not to mention the other benefits that I have already cited: to the community, to the family unit and to the child receiving that quality child care.

In conclusion, I would encourage members to realize the benefits of not only saying they are voting for this particular legislation, but I am going to be looking to see the Facebook and social media commentaries coming from the Conservative Party, saying how wonderful this program is, and be—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up. Perhaps he will be able to finish up during questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, at committee, and even in the House, we have heard the minister and the parliamentary secretary bragging about the pillars of this legislation: equality, affordability, availability, accessibility and inclusiveness. I think we would all agree in the House that those are very important measures that should be taken into consideration, especially when this is a piece of legislation that is supposed to include all children in the country.

What is very interesting is that at committee the parliamentary secretary intended to remove two of those pillars from one of the clauses in the bill. They were affordability and accessibility. Would the member not agree that it would be absurd to remove accessibility and affordability when we have a lack of spaces and the majority of children in this country are on wait-lists?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the legislation we have before us this evening would put in some fundamental pillars that would make a difference in the lives of Canadians. Even for Canadians who do not have children, there is going to be an impact on society as a whole, and that includes the issues of affordability, accessibility and so on. We know that, and we recognize that.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is why we brought forward the legislation, and we look forward to being able to see the reality, as we witnessed in the province of Quebec, which clearly demonstrated the benefits of a $10-a-day day care.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that she had an opportunity to ask a question. I am not sure if she was thinking out loud or if she was heckling the member, but I would say, if she is thinking out loud, she may want to jot things down for the next question and comment period.

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is nice that the member for Winnipeg North mentioned a variety of programs, including dental care.

Did anyone know that in two days it is going to be the two-year anniversary of when the Liberal Party voted against Jack Harris's Motion No. 62, which was first seeking to bring in dental care? I am glad that as New Democrats we have forced Liberals to see the value in such programs, and I am similarly glad that, through our confidence and supply agreement, a bill such as Bill C-35 is a part of that agreement. I would agree with the member that we are delivering programs that are going to be hugely important for Canadians.

I would like to know from the hon. member, when it comes to a bill such as Bill C-35, could he talk about why it is so important to put in a legislative commitment so that we do not suffer from any possible future policy lurch? This bill would really guarantee that the funding would be there for future families and their needs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will provide a quick comment on the dental issue. I appreciate all the types of support and encouragement, whether it is received from New Democrats or many of my colleagues. I know I, for one, have been a very strong advocate for the pharmacare program. There is still work for us to focus attention on, such as dental and pharmacare. Let us not just sit back because we have already accomplished a great deal. We have many more things we would like to explore and work on, to see if we can improve them in some ways, as much as possible, and this is whether it is New Democrats or Liberals.

I have a friend who says that a New Democrat is a Liberal in a hurry. I would suggest that it is good if we can work together for the betterment of Canadians. I am game to do that, and I will try to answer the member's question in the next question.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, at the beginning, the member took us back in time when he talked about Ken Dryden and the work he did to create universal child care back then. When he was doing that, I worked for a little organization called the YMCA, and we had a huge child care program under our watch. I was very excited about that potential and really disappointed to see it collapse under the Conservatives.

I am wondering if the hon. member could maybe contemplate what it would have been like today if we had been able to get that universal child care in place.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, let me attempt to answer both questions with the same answer.

The member is right that Ken Dryden had a wonderful program. It was universal and all the provinces and territories were on side. That is why I say to please not trust the Conservatives on this because the first thing Stephen Harper did was he got rid of the program. It is unfortunate we were in a minority government at that time, but I will not comment on what happened with the NDP or the Bloc.

At the end of the day, this legislation would prevent a potential Conservative government 15 years from now from being able to decide in cabinet, without a thorough debate, to get rid of a fantastic program. Had it been put in place back when Ken Dryden brought it forward, we would be so much further ahead. One only needs to look at the province of Quebec and the impact it has had on its workforce. In particular, there are more women engaged, as a percentage, in the workforce.

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

Madam Speaker, the YMCA was brought up. I have a letter here from Christine Pasmore, a day care provider, who talks about two YMCA after-school care locations that will be closing because of this bill. I thought I would tie that in.

The hon. member brought up trust. Tonight we have breaking news that the Prime Minister's Office also knew about Paul Bernardo's transfer three months ago and did not tell the families.

Housing prices have doubled. We have a cost of living crisis, and public safety is eroding rapidly, so how could we trust the Liberals with our children and child care?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is because, when it comes to child care, there is only one party that has been in government that has demonstrated a genuine interest and is taking the initiative to put child care in place. There is also only one political party in this chamber that tore apart a national child care program.

When the member talks about trust, I would suggest no one can trust the Conservative Party. If anything, Stephen Harper is more of a centrist compared to the current leader of the Conservative Party because the current leader of the Conservative Party is so far right wing that everything could potentially be on the table. No doubt, it has to be the genesis as to why this legislation is so important and why I am hoping members of the Conservative Party will talk about it glowingly on Facebook. After all, they say they are going to be voting in favour of it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very strongly in favour of Bill C-35, but I think we had better not ignore the concerns that we are “Not Done Yet”. That is the title of a report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, co-authored by economist David Macdonald and Canada's leading champion for early childhood education Martha Friendly.

We have child care deserts in this country. We have areas where children are not yet in kindergarten and parents have no hope of getting their child into a child care space because there is only 20% coverage for children in those communities. The worst in Canada is Saskatoon, then Kitchener, then Regina, then Vancouver. There is 24% space availability for the 100% of children who need a place.

Is the government open to reading this report, accepting its recommendations and working hard to provide the incentives and decent wages for early childhood educators to create the spaces for the children whose parents are going to benefit from $10-a-day child care?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the Green Party is supporting the legislation, which is a good thing, but the leader of the Green Party needs to recognize that there is jurisdictional responsibility. We have a national government that says it wants to ensure there is a child care program that is affordable and accessible across Canada, from coast to coast to coast, but we need to work with the provinces. The provinces, in many ways, are the ones who have to play the lead at the level the member is referencing.

We can all individually encourage our respective provincial governments to go even further in supporting the children of our country.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to note I will be splitting my time this evening with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

We know, and there is no doubt, that child care is an important conversation to be had. We know it is a conversation that parents are also having on a regular basis across this country. Child care needs can look different, not just from one region to another, but also from family to family.

Public policy and the development of a national program should respect and take into consideration those differences. It has been very disappointing that, throughout the deliberations of this bill, whether in the chamber or in committee, the approach of the NDP-Liberal coalition has been narrow and exclusionary. The Liberal government has sought to divide and disparage child care solutions outside of their own prescribed form. This is even more disappointing given many reports would suggest in some regions, such as Saskatchewan, most families do not have access to child care.

The demand for child care remains far greater than the available spaces. Child care providers, in all streams right across the country, have long wait-lists. Access remains a main concern when it comes to child care, but it is not solved by the existing agreements, nor is it resolved in Bill C-35.

We have heard accusations from members opposite that Conservatives have tried to obstruct this legislation. In reality, Conservatives have been working to elevate the voices of parents who are raising serious concerns with the government's child care program.

We have articulated those concerns from child care providers. It is completely disingenuous to suggest that this, in any way, is hindering the delivery of the Liberals' program. The facts are that the child care agreements are already signed with the provinces, and the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care is already formed.

If anything, this should be an opportune time to examine the delivery of the program so that we can understand its shortcomings and take stock of its limitations and its potential reach. However, that was never the goal for the Liberal government. It put forward this legislation to pat itself on the back.

However, the bill, like many of the policies put forward by the Liberal-NDP government, creates winners and losers. The Liberals' self praise is an insult. It is an insult to the moms and the dads who are left out. They are left out in the cold and find themselves on the outside looking in with no spaces for their children in child care facilities.

Let me highlight some of the testimony and voices the government seems very eager to ignore. This includes voices of child care providers who find themselves excluded from the program and the Liberal government's vision for child care in Canada.

Amélie Lainé, representing indigenous friendship centres in Quebec, told the HUMA committee, “funding is only administered through indigenous political institutions, and it does not give service organizations like the indigenous friendship centres in Canada access to funds to develop early childhood and family services.”

Krystal Churcher from the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs told the committee, “Bill C-35 does not sufficiently recognize that Canada's current child care system still very much depends upon thousands of private operators despite directional preference for the non-profit business model.”

With wait-lists surging across the country, it is only logical that we use every tool at our disposal to meet the needs across this country from coast to coast to coast, and that we not purposely shut out child care providers who are providing quality care currently. In fact, in the study of this bill, the HUMA committee heard about how the exclusionary structure of the program could actually be to the detriment of the quality of care. We heard about a parent who felt that she now had to choose between the quality of care for her daughter and more affordable costs. It is a decision that she was faced with because her preferred care provider falls outside of the current agreements and would not be captured by the vision laid out in this bill.

The rollout of this program has not even provided much of a choice for many families and more often even less of a choice for lower-income families. We heard in committee that more often lower-income families that cannot afford child care costs are wait-listed because they do not have children enrolled. Excluding child care providers is in the exact opposite spirit of achieving accessible, affordable, inclusive and high-quality child care for all children.

To really tackle child care in Canada, our approach should be comprehensive. The passage of my private member's bill, Bill C-318, would support that goal. Allowing adoptive and intended parents equal access to EI leave to care for their new child would give those parents more time to bond with their child and more time to find a child care solution. It could also help to alleviate some pressure on the child care system. I would hope that, if not the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development would herself see the merits of her government's keeping its promise to these parents and offering the royal recommendation that is needed for Bill C-318.

It is also clear that any hopes of making real progress toward accessible, affordable, inclusive and high-quality child care for all will require a labour force strategy. There is a clear crisis in the childhood educator workforce. There needs to be a plan to recruit and retain labour. The success of a national child care program will depend on this. We cannot flick a switch to create more spaces if there is not a workforce to handle it.

That is why it is particularly frustrating that the NDP-Liberal coalition rejected amendments put forward by Conservatives in committee to address these particular shortcomings. They rejected an amendment that would have explicitly directed the national advisory council to support the recruitment but also the retention of a well-qualified workforce. It would have given the council the mandate to track availability, wait-lists and the progress made in improving access, which is one of the pillars of this bill. It is not clear why the NDP-Liberal coalition would oppose this being a core function of the council. Similarly, the NDP-Liberal coalition rejected an amendment that would have explicitly required the minister to report annually on a national labour strategy.

The rejection of these amendments tells parents and those in the child care sector that the Liberals are not taking this workforce crisis seriously. It certainly does not give them confidence that the recruitment, education and retention of early childhood educators are a priority for them. Just as the recommitment to their exclusionary vision for child care does not give parents on wait-lists hope that universal access is within reach, the rejection of these amendments to include all types of child care providers in the program and to have a more fulsome representation at the table ensures that there will continue to be winners and losers. The reality is that there will be parents who receive no support and there will be qualified and quality child care providers who will continue to be vilified because of their business model by the NDP-Liberal government.

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

Madam Speaker, if someone were to come into this House, sit in the gallery and listen to the speeches on this debate, they would leave with no conclusion other than the fact that Conservatives are against this bill. However, when it comes time to vote for it, they will vote in favour of it, all of them. I personally think that is because they have done the political calculation on it and know there is absolutely no way they can afford to vote against it because it would be so detrimental to them politically.

Can the member explain to the House why Conservative after Conservative gets up to speak, including the member, to talk negatively about the bill but then they will ultimately vote in favour of it?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for respecting me on this side.

This whole process has been very frustrating for me. I am the mother of four children. I have a 10-year-old, a seven-year-old, a three-year-old and a one-year-old. I have had two of those children while elected to office. I know the real struggles of trying to find child care. My husband and I have really had to balance, and we know that it literally takes a village.

It is so frustrating to me that when we have parents and child care providers coming to committee explaining and pouring their heart out about the real struggles that parents are dealing with, we have partisan games.

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

Then vote against it.

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

Madam Speaker, honestly, we should just listen to the parents whom this model does not work for. It does not work for them, and it is unfortunate that the Liberals just want to play partisan games instead of actually making it inclusive for everyone.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I do not know if the parliamentary secretary was thinking out loud, but he had the opportunity to ask a question. I do not think he wanted to heckle, but if he did, he knows that he should not be doing that.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I respect everyone's views in this place. We all bring stories. I am the father of three daughters. My eldest twins were born in 2012, before I was elected, so my wife and I are also familiar with the struggles of raising children and trying to find care.

The situation the member described is one that has existed for many of my constituents before we had child care agreements, before Bill C-35 even came into being. I do not see how those particular issues could not be helped by the bill. It is trying to enshrine a payment system, a funding system, that is trying to address the very issues that she raised as concerns in her speech and that are affecting constituents right across this country.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a five-year limit with the agreements, so this is not forever. That is one thing to make note of.

Bill C-35 does not create new spaces. Sure, there are parents who already have their kids in a child care centre or use whatever model is accepted by their province and works for them. However, if they are not already in there, too bad, so sad; they are still on a wait-list.

The Conservatives moved a motion at committee to recognize labour, as we need a labour strategy. The NDP voted against it, so I would ask the member why his party voted against the labour force strategy for child care educators.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really admire my colleague from Lloydminster, who sits beside me. I am a father of four. We brought in the universal child care benefit back in the Harper days.

I was listening across the way to the disinformation that we do not care about child care on this side. We absolutely do. We ran on it.

It was obvious from the member's speech that the Conservatives care about child care, but I think for the audience watching out there, can my colleague from Saskatchewan explain why the Conservatives do care about child care?

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

Madam Speaker, it is funny that the member asked me that question. I got involved in politics because the current Prime Minister's 2015 platform negatively harmed my family in how we wanted to raise our children.

Absolutely the Conservatives care about families. We care about children and we care about parental choice.

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

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to have the opportunity to once again speak to this bill.

I think I can sum it up with a question I was asked following the last time we spoke about this bill, at report stage. It was a question that came from a Liberal member. His question was very simple. He asked, “Why do Conservatives hate child care so much?” I was dumbfounded, because I really thought perhaps he missed my speech, although he was sitting in the chamber for it. I thought, “Oh my gosh, somehow there is an entire void here.”

I want to continue with all of the great work that my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster talked about, because she is on the front lines of this, not only being a member of the HUMA committee, but also being a mother, just like so many other individuals here who have young children and who need care for their children.

Yesterday I was reading the Oxfam report, which looks at care in Canada. I wanted to look at both unpaid care and paid care. One of the biggest things it talked about was that, yes, we have this new child care program and all of the benefits, but the problem is that at the end of the day, we are losing people in this sector. I remember this is exactly what the member for Peterborough—Kawartha talked about. The fact is that we cannot retain people in this sector for a good length of time.

I talked about seeing $22 an hour in Langley, B.C., just five years ago. That is not keeping people in this sector. Let us be honest. The cost of living is making it so that the people who have chosen to do these jobs, which at one time may have seemed lower income, are not being respected for their great work, and now they cannot afford to do something that they are passionate about and love to do.

What I want to do today is read some articles into the record, because the member for Peterborough—Kawartha said that every single day, we are seeing a brand new article on this from the media. What I did when I was thinking about this speech is I popped “child care in Canada” into a search, and it populated all of these stories. It does not matter what part of the country we are from, whether it is Nunavut, for which I will have a media mention, or other parts of the country. They are all talking about the same things: child care spots and labour. Sometimes the labour issues create the spot issues and vice versa.

When the government came forward with the bill, I recall the minister saying that they wanted to enshrine this in legislation because of the Conservatives. We know it was all about political intentions; it really was not to do with children. It is because of those political intentions that they wanted to enshrine it into law, but they did not take the time to do the work.

A lot of the time when we are playing political games, we do not look at the consequences of our mistakes, so when we try to move amendments in committee, we are too busy trying to play partisan games. Then simple things like a labour force strategy are denied because of the individual who has put it forward. It is really common in the House that if we do not like the individual who sponsors something, we are not going to support it. That is what we see in the House of Commons.

As I indicated, I have a number of articles that I would like to read, because this is exactly what we talked about. These articles were not written by Conservatives. They were written by journalists, people who are going around and reporting on what is happening in Canada. Looking at where some of the articles are coming from, these are not Conservative journalists but people who are looking on the ground and addressing these issues.

The first article I want to bring forward was published on May 8 and written by Natasha O'Neill, a writer with CTV. I will read it into the record:

A new report details a lack of child-care spaces is at a crisis level in Canada and why it has worsened.

The report, published in April 2023 by the non-profit Childcare Resources and Research Unit, shows just one spot in a child-care setting was available for 29 per cent of children who need it.

Holy schnikes, that is just horrific. That is one spot for 29% of children.

“I think one of the things that's driving the shortage of licensed spaces is that child care has been in the news a lot.” Morna Ballantyne, who is an advocate, said that. Anyone who has been working on this can talk to her. She has talked about the fact that, yes, there is a huge demand, but what we see is that the demand is not keeping up with what the government has put in place.

Why are the Conservatives supporting this bill? As we said, we are supporting it because it is about child care. However, we have seen this being used as a political wedge each and every time.

That is why all I have ever heard is that Conservatives are voting against this. I am not voting against children. I am voting for families. I am voting for women so that they can go to work, members of the families can go to work and men can go to work. Everybody in that family unit can ensure that their child has a place. Many times, I speak as a women's advocate. I think it is because, at 8:59 a.m., when a person is trying to get off the road to go into work and their child is sick and they need to find that last minute child care, because they are trying to balance getting to work and having that job and keeping their children safe and cared for, who are they going to call? I say thanks to my mom, by the way, for all those times. She is always available for those 8:59 phone call moments.

As I indicated, Ballantyne had said that the crisis is not new. She said, “Particularly getting access to licensed child care [is a problem].... Governments for decades now have essentially relied on individuals, organizations, whether they be for profit or not for profit, to set up child-care centres.”

That is the reality of it. I think we have to ask why they do that. That is because we are in Canada. We cannot look at this incredible nation we have from coast to coast and not look at the diversity, the diversity of communities and population.

I spoke to my friend from Saskatoon. To get from one edge of his riding to the other is 20 minutes. I can say that, for some people who are in Toronto, that might be five minutes, maybe walking, definitely not by car. That would be 20.

In some of our ridings, it is eight hours from door to door, to get from one end to the other. To put that into perspective, we can think about what that looks like when it comes to populations in child care and how one can find something that is going to be successful.

That is why families, businesses and many women have come up with business plans and business models, so that they can support their community. It does not have to look like this or that, but they are filling in that gap. That is why we are cautiously supporting this. We know that there are still gaps, and these gaps have to be filled by other things.

I want to turn to another piece, because I found this one to be really interesting. This was written by Mike Crawley on CBC. It was posted on March 14, 2023, and it gives the following subheading: “Average ECE leaves sector after 3 years [indicates the] regulator”. According to this article: “Becoming a registered ECE,” which is an early childhood educator, “requires at least two years of post-secondary education, with training in child development. However, compensation has lagged behind that of other sectors that also require a post-secondary diploma because the work of child care is not valued, according to advocates. ‘We are not babysitters,’ said Maxine Chodorowicz, a registered ECE and supervisor of child care at the West End YMCA in Toronto.”

I worked on a child care board back in the nineties and early 2000s. I think this goes back to the fact that, at one time, we saw people who were ECEs making rates that, at $15 and $16, although low, could still pay the bills. Now, we are talking about the costs of mortgages, interest rates and everything else, as well as the cost of living and carbon tax. When we add all these things together, that $16 an hour may have been okay at one time; now, it is so far from it. That $22 an hour in Langley, B.C., does not cut it anymore.

After eight years under the government, life has gotten so unfriendly to Canadian families, because the cost of living just continues to explode. It does not matter if we are buying something at the grocery store or anything that we touch. There has been a huge increase in cost because of the Liberal government and its horrific policies, which continue to affect Canadians.

I want to say one last thing; this was also something that I found in the newspaper. It is a headline that says, “Ontario could be short 8,500 ECEs [by 2026]”.

We have a problem here. If we do not have a labour strategy, if we are not going to figure out how we are going to do this together, we are not going to impact the children's lives that the government is trying to impact. We are not going to make it easier for families.

I want to say we can do better. Let us start listening and working together.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from across the way and I always have very meaningful conversations when it comes to women's issues, families and children. I always value what she has to add to the discussion, including tonight. However, let us be realistic. The demand for child care spaces existed far before. It was already there. Frankly, tax credits do not build spaces, and they do not build a workforce. The former Conservative government ripped up agreements. That happened previously under the Stephen Harper government from when Minister Dryden did them.

We have to build the system. This legislation is about enshrining those values to make sure that there are federal dollars and a federal commitment to continuing to build that system. Does she not value that?

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to say happy 20th birthday to my son, Christian Vecchio. He is out there today. The reason I say this is that his older brother is probably still on that wait-list I put him on in 1994.

That is the concern that we have here. During previous Liberal governments under Chrétien and under Martin, all these different things were promised continually, time and time again. Dakota never got into that child care, and now he is 29 years old. It just continued to exist.

The government has been here for multiple years, eight years, and it is getting worse.

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot wait for interpretation to email my colleague for the spelling of “schnikes”.

I appreciated that she talked about the conditions of work for early childhood educators. My mum was an early childhood educator, and my sister-in-law is an early childhood educator. We do not pay early childhood educators nearly enough. It is not only that the cost of living has gone up but also that we did not pay early childhood educators enough 10 years ago, and we still do not.

There is language in the bill, thanks to an NDP amendment, that references the conditions of work as being essential to ensuring the success of this program. Could the member help me understand if there are other ways that this bill could be improved to ensure that early childhood educators are properly compensated for the important role that they play?

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that, because I recall looking at agreements back in the nineties. At the time, the city of St. Thomas was being compared to the city of Woodstock. We were looking at the cost of living and trying to work out what the rates should be.

When we want to talk about a labour strategy, with all due respect, I know that there was an amendment put in there. I have heard from my colleagues. We have talked about a labour strategy amendment that was denied by the government, the NDP and everybody else.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague touched on something. We were both elected in 2015. There are partisan games played around this place when good ideas are presented. It should not matter whether they come from the Liberals, the NDP, the Conservatives or the Greens if ideas benefit Canadian families. Some of the amendments that we proposed at committee were rejected by the NDP-Liberal coalition.

Should it matter who proposes amendments to make legislation better, if Canadian families benefit?

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

Madam Speaker, to my colleague, it has been wonderful working here with him for almost eight years, with all the things that we have seen. When we talk about partisan games, this is exactly what we see. We have seen good things being brought in by other parties, specifically, the party that I am proud to be a member of, the Conservative Party. Because we are Conservatives, it is bottom line; people come up to me saying I must be a Liberal. No one owns being in one party or another. The Conservative women have great ideas, and we know that we can work collaboratively with everybody so that we can get this going and work for Canadians.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend from York Centre.

It is always a pleasure and privilege to rise in the House and speak on behalf of my constituents in the wonderful riding of Brampton East. I want to thank the hon. members who have spoken before me to this very important bill, Bill C-35, the Canada early learning and child care act. Their messages, stories and questions have proven that Bill C-35 would have lasting beneficial impacts across our country. This is a bill that would improve the lives of Canadians, their children and future generations to come.

I would like to stop and thank my wife, my mother-in-law and my mom for helping to take care of my two daughters so that I can be here today. I am lucky to have that family support, but there are many in my riding who do not have that support and are utilizing our $10-a-day child care strategy to save money and enrol their children in child care. When I speak to constituents in my riding, I hear stories first-hand, but I also hear about the added stress they have to endure just to find affordable, accessible and quality child care. I can hear the frustration in their voices. I can also hear that they share a common goal, which is being able to provide for their children and give their children the best start in life. This is a straightforward and simple goal that every parent has, but when one's entire paycheque is going towards child care fees, that goal can start to become out of reach. Our government has a plan in place to help parents give their children a better start in life; this is a plan to nurture their minds and help elevate them to their fullest potential.

Let me tell members about my constituents Matthew and Jennifer, both of whom are full-time nurses. They welcomed their first child, Sebastian, into the world in 2021. When the time came to consider child care options for Sebastian, they quickly learned that their options, like those of many parents, were very limited or beyond their means. Paying for child care meant that Matthew and Jennifer's goal of home ownership would have to be put on hold, but not anymore. With our $10-a-day child care strategy, families in Brampton East who used to pay upwards of $1,300 a month per child are now paying roughly $700 a month. Being able to save families like this one over $5,000 a year is very important because it helps with the cost of living and helps them to buy groceries or put money toward housing.

Another constituent I spoke with remembers, as a child, seeing one parent in the morning and one at night every day because they worked opposite shifts to be able to save money versus spending it on child care. She mentioned that this would sometimes come up in conversations when she was older, and her parents even said that they would not see each other until the weekends; that was very tough on her upbringing. This constituent told me about the leaps and hurdles her parents had to navigate through, back in the early 2000s, just so she was cared for. The only opportunities she had to participate in organized early learning were through free programs that were offered by the local high school, which facilitated ECEs as co-op students. This is another reason why having access to affordable, high-quality and inclusive child care is vital.

One of the guiding principles of Bill C-35 is that it would enable families to have access to child care. Parents would not have to work opposite shifts to make sure one of them is home, and they would not have to initiate the difficult conversation of considering putting one of their careers on hold because the cost of child care is too high or inaccessible.

As I mentioned before, within its guiding principles, Bill C-35 encapsulates that all Canadians have access to quality, affordable and inclusive child care. This is a lasting commitment built on a collaborative framework approach with provinces and territories across Canada. Within this commitment, the Government of Canada recognizes that first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families are best supported by programs that are culturally appropriate and led by local communities. This recognition extends to our neighbours in Quebec, who have successfully led the way for over two decades, with the development and implementation of their provincial child care plan. Our government will continue to learn from Quebec's system to improve our Canada-wide child care system. Our government is grateful to be able to reference Quebec's example of how to lead a government-funded child care program successfully.

I also want to highlight some of the impacts that Bill C-35 would have on the Canadian economy. While many people, including me, consider Bill C-35 to be smart social policy, it is also policy that makes good economic sense. When we invest one dollar into early learning and child care, the broader economy will see roughly two dollars in return. This could help raise our real GDP by over 1% in the coming years. Some of my hon. colleagues may have already mentioned these numbers, but they are worth repeating.

The $27-billion investment made through Bill C-35 over a period of five years will help boost our economy, provide real and beneficial growth and help parents, especially women, enter or re-enter the labour force, a sector that we all know is experiencing shortages throughout various occupations and fields within Canada. Empowering women who want to enter the workforce and stay is good social and economic policy that helps eliminate gender inequality. Women, who statistically are more likely to take on the duties as the primary caregivers, will no longer have to choose or bear the burden of choosing between a career and caring for their children. Bill C-35 is empowering women to have the benefit of a choice, without being forced into making one.

As the hon. Minister of Families, Children and Social Development so powerfully put, Canada has the potential to gain an additional 200,000 workers entering into the workforce, should this trend have the same trajectory of involvement that Quebec experienced when it implemented its child care program roughly 25 years ago. Our government is adding additional options and opportunities for parents to make smart financial decisions and not limit their aspirations of career advancement.

When I speak with constituents at the doors, child care has always been a recurring topic that has come up from time to time. Even before parents have welcomed their new baby into the world, they are already researching various child care options to see if centres have space available, or how long the wait-lists are to get in, and calculating costs to figure out if they can afford it. Hon. members in this House have attested to their own experiences when trying to find child care for their little ones and how stressful this process can be.

Constituents in Brampton East are excited to hear about our government's agreements in place with our provincial and territorial partners to increase the number of child care spaces by over 250,000 in the next five years. Constituents are relieved to hear that active steps have been taken toward meeting this target: Roughly over 50,000 spaces are already committed to being built. Significant progress is being made, and the passing of Bill C-35 would mean that none of this progress would be lost or reversed. This legislation is meant to be multi-generational and will continue to operate and improve via the oversight mechanisms put in place to ensure accountability, transparency and sustainability.

Reporting on our government's progress has always been a key factor with Bill C-35, because transparency and accountability are critical components when analyzing the need for improvement and sustainability. The National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care comprises 16 individual experts who offer their invaluable knowledge and expertise within their respective fields.

The importance of having members who reflect the diversity of Canada is a key consideration, because this legislation will help all Canadians, no matter their background or beliefs. Having this third party expert advice creates a forum to help address the challenges that are currently being faced within the early learning and child care sector. We are also held accountable by our partners, and Canadians as a whole, to get this right. The annual reports to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development will help our government enhance its efforts.

Bill C-35 is multi-generational. It is a long-term commitment to Canadians, and it gives families the assurances they need, knowing that their children, grandchildren and future generations will be able to enjoy the same benefits as children today. This is another reason why having the proper oversight and mechanisms in place that provide transparency and accountability is so crucial to Canadians.

When this bill passes, and I have every hope that it will, I can provide constituents and their families the comfort of knowing that this legislation cannot simply be cancelled or taken away. In those same conversations, I can reassure parents that more spaces are being added to help shorten wait-lists. I can also tell them that Bill C-35 will bring a sense of financial security through savings of thousands of dollars a year for their families to help with affordability.

Parents are already seeing the results of a Canada-wide system with significantly reduced fees across provinces and territories. These reductions are in line with our goal of achieving an average of $10-a-day licensed child care by March 2026.

As I conclude today, this legislation respects the notion that child care is not a luxury, but a necessity. The bill is a necessity that respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction due to its collaborative approach with a shared commitment to strengthening and protecting this Canada-wide system for future generations. I trust that the hon. members of this House will do same to continue to support women, children and families through this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the point about certainty for the long term.

The Liberal government has run up more debt in its period of office than the country has in its entire history up to that point, and is continuing to fund these and other promised expansions of social spending through deficit spending. The fiscal context actually leaves a lot of Canadians uncertain that any of these kinds of programs would be there in the future, not because of political debates or the positions of any particular individuals but because of the fact that the Liberal government is making promises on the basis of deficit spending, promises that would in fact continue to cost more. This is in a context, by the way, where many Canadians still do not have child care.

I wonder how the member could justify his claim that this is providing multi-generational certainty, when in a substantive sense these programs are not funded?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, this bill is about certainty. I would ask the member opposite what Conservatives would place in this bill to ensure that there is certainty?

Roughly two years, that same party was stepping up their campaign pledges to cancel this very program. They stepped up to say that we do not need to be there for families. I remember when Ken Dryden, our member in a previous government, brought up a plan, and the Conservatives were the ones who stepped up and cancelled it.

We need to ensure that families are given that certainty. It would not be fair to future generations should the Conservatives decide to cut this program in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Obviously, we in the NDP support Bill C‑35. It is a good idea. We have been saying for a long time that child care is needed. The strange thing is that the Liberal Party has also been saying that for a long time. The first time they put it in their election platform was in 1993. I was still a student at the Université de Montréal. It took them 30 years, but it is better late than never.

However, I do want to stress one point. While the Conservatives say that it is incredibly expensive, it is an incredible rebate for families who will be able to access day care at an average cost of $10 a day. This will save them money. When a family is paying $50 or $60 a day in child care costs, no tax cut will be able to put as much money into the family income as access to $10-a-day child care.

I would like to hear my colleague comment on the fact that this is a program that puts money back into the pockets of families.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am still working on my French, and hopefully one day I will be able to answer in French.

When we are talking about savings for families, we know things are tough right now. Families need more support, and through our CCB program and through this child care program, we are saving families money. I will give an example. Ajit, who was paying $1,300 a month is now paying $700 a month. He is able to take that additional savings and put it towards his mortgage or his grocery costs.

It is very important that we are still there and we are always going to be there for families who need help with affordability right now.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the speech given by my colleague, who works very hard and obviously has command of the issues, including this one.

Could the member elaborate on the points raised relating to the economy? He said that not only is this good social policy, but it makes very good economic sense.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank member, who does hard work in the House, for his very important question.

When we talk about the economic value this could add to Canada, the program would give back to Canadians in many ways. Women would be able to re-enter the workforce. Our economy would benefit from the added value. Our GDP would go up. We will see that the program pays for itself in terms of economic returns to Canada.

I am in full support of this program. I know a lot of Canadians in my riding are in full support of this program.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise here. The hour is getting later, but nevertheless, we are in the third reading of what is historic legislation, Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

There are child care advocates, families and women who have been waiting for this for over 50 years. We need to pause and really reflect on that, because for over 50 years families, women and child care providers in this country have known what we needed to do to give our children the best start in life. They have known what we needed to do to ensure there was gender equality progressing in this country, where women could enter the workforce when they wanted to, how they wanted to and in the careers they wanted.

I think of Anna Care, who is the director of Blaydon day care in my riding of York Centre. When I went to visit her, she showed me a picture of her demonstrating at Queen's Park in the seventies holding up a sign demanding for this to happen. Here we are today in the third reading of Bill C-35, where we know that for Anna and for families and children across this country this will remain the future. It will be the future for women to continue to support themselves and their families and to set an economy that will just grow and flourish, from our youngest generation to the women who are holding the steering wheel on this today alongside our partners in this chamber.

It could not have happened without the collaborative nature of this work between the federal government and the provinces. Every province and territory in this country signed on to this agreement. The $30-billion investment we as a federal government made in partnership with provinces and territories and indigenous peoples is making a difference. We know this because we are seeing the fee reductions that are putting money in pockets of families from coast to coast to coast.

The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development shared so many of those amazing stories earlier in the evening. We know what that means to them. It is tangible and impactful on an individual level to each and every family who participates in this program. It is more money to buy groceries, to purchase school supplies and so many other essentials when affordability is an issue right now. We know we are making a difference.

Many of my colleagues tonight have talked about the good value of this investment, where every dollar we invest in our children and families is $1.50 to $2.80 back into the economy. That is good money well spent. We know this. We know it by the expansion of the women's workforce. The data shows it from January of this year.

We know we are on the right path for building a Canada-wide system that takes the planning, care and thoughtfulness of these agreements and enshrines these principles and values, so when the next round of agreements come forward, when we evolve to the next stage of this amazing Canada-wide system, we know, Canadian families know and Canadian children will benefit from knowing no one will be left behind.

The provinces and territories are already showing that collaborative work, and they have announced more than 50,000 new spaces since the first Canada-wide agreement was signed in British Columbia. The work continues. We have a goal, which is 250,000 new regulated early learning and child care spaces, supported by our federal investments, by March 2026.

The Conservatives asked why we are doing this. They said that we could cut cheques to people or give tax credits. Tax credits do not build spaces. Tax credits do not create a workforce. Federal investments, investing in our workforce, and investing children and families is what makes the difference.

The principles in Bill C-35 are creating the progress of that ultimate goal, which is a system that provides children in this country with access to affordable, inclusive, accessible and high quality early learning and child care no matter where they live, today but also for the future. It is for future generations, because this is a generational nation-building project that every family in this country is impacted by.

We are providing our children today, and in the future, in this country with the best possible start in life. This is not just about the big numbers we are talking about such as the $30 billion or the 250,000 spaces. It is about how we are supporting Canadians on an individual level, family by family, community by community, urban and rural, across this country and the direct benefit they are seeing. We have heard many of those stories tonight.

The real-world differences we are making with the system are impacting the lives of Canadians, particularly when it comes to rural communities and space creation.

For example, Nova Scotia has announced 1,500 spaces since signing its Canada-wide agreement, and more than half of them are in communities outside of Halifax.

In the town of Bridgewater on the South Shore, there are eight new infant spaces that will be made available this summer. Infant spaces are the hardest spaces to come by.

This summer in Hubbards, six new toddlers and preschoolers are being welcomed to the Through the Years Early Learning Centre, which is near the intersection of Lighthouse Road and Highway 3, for those who are from our Nova Scotian community.

In Lunenburg County, there are 16 new family homes with the Family Matters home child care agency, and eight new licensed spaces for infants will be available later this summer in the Lunenburg Day Care Centre.

Step by step, communities are stepping up, provinces are stepping up, and the federal government has stepped up for our children.

These new licensed spaces are making life easier for hard-working families across this country, particularly in our rural communities. Members do not have to take my word for it. They can ask Yvonne Smith, the CEO of the YMCA Southwest Nova Scotia, who said the expansion will “make a real difference for families in this community. There is a significant need for infant care in rural communities across Nova Scotia, including the South Shore.”

These spaces are already making a difference, and with more to come by 2026, more Nova Scotian families will soon see those benefits as well.

As we cross the country and hear more of these stories, I can share thoughts from Manitoba. Manitoba has seen more than 2,800 new spaces since it announced the signing of its agreements. Similar to Nova Scotia, Manitoba focused its efforts to support families where the need is the greatest. That is the whole point.

Here in the chamber, we have heard a lot of “Ottawa first” talk about how the federal government is directing this. No, the provinces are working collaboratively with us. They are identifying needs in their communities. Each province is unique, and they are facing these challenges head-on and working with us in partnership to make sure that we meet the needs of families and our children.

More than 1,600 new spaces, half of Manitoba's total thus far, have been announced under the province's innovative Ready-to-Move child care project. I was there for the announcement of the 1,700 spaces in rural communities. Multiple levels of government worked in partnership to provide land, do the build-out and provide services, including the indigenous first nation community of Peguis.

The point is that it is a collaborative effort of all levels of government and communities to make sure that these spaces are created over time. They are identifying them with us, and we are working together to build them, because new spaces do not get built overnight, they do not get built by tax credits and they do not get built by cutting cheques to millionaires. They get built by the will, by the work, by the planning that goes these systems to build an infrastructure province by province.

Families in first nations and rural communities have the greatest need, as we know, and they will be the first to benefit, just like the Peguis community, with these spaces all expected to be operational in Manitoba by the end of this year. We went decades without work being done to create spaces, and by the end of this year, 1,700 new spaces will be created in Manitoba.

Armand Poirier, the mayor of the Rural Municipality of Taché, put it like this, “The new child-care spaces in our rural municipality open up opportunities for our community members, enabling them to put their children in daycare close to home and fully participate in the workforce.”

We are building rural communities. People can work close to home and grow these rural communities into places they want to stay in and thrive in. There is added value in every level for families, children and the communities themselves, because these investments are supporting and strengthening our rural communities in Manitoba.

In B.C., the first province to sign, its ChildCareBC strategy is really the one to watch. Just last month, ground was broken on a new project in Invermere, the hub of the Columbia Valley, a project that will see a brand new child care facility built that will include 148 new licensed child care spaces, including 100 preschool spaces.

Investments like these are where we are going with this legislation, from Taché to Lunenburg. Every member of this House should be joining us in building that vision.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am so glad the member started with British Columbia, because last fall the provincial government said it was going to open 237 new spots in Central Okanagan, specifically in Kelowna. Guess what? Over 200 spots are said to have been closed because private day care was not facilitated. In fact, private day care operators said that because of the confusion and the regulatory environment, they decided not to continue their operations.

When the member says it is all roses and sunshine for day care, can she see how pushing only certain types of day care is actually taking away spots that are important to families in the Central Okanagan?

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

Madam Speaker, I am quite familiar with the member's riding and the area in the Okanagan Valley.

That is simply not how the agreements were designed. Private child care providers were grandfathered into these agreements. B.C. made the decision to incorporate them into the agreements to keep those spaces and to work with them and make the investments, but when it is taxpayer dollars, good stewardship of federal dollars means public spaces and high-quality, licensed child care to ensure that our children get the best start in life.

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

Madam Speaker, obviously, we are delighted with the bill, even though, as I said earlier, it took the Liberal Party 30 years to get there. Our confidence in the Liberals was so low that we were careful to include this in the 27-point agreement we negotiated with the minority government.

We pushed hard for this, and my colleague from Winnipeg Centre fought to ensure that accessible, public, non-profit child care was given priority. We also stressed that child care educators had to receive good wages and good working conditions.

I would like my colleague to speak to the importance of having high-calibre, trained professionals care for our children.

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

Madam Speaker, we have been very clear. We know how valuable our early child care workforce is in making sure that our children get the best start in life. That is why every agreement has very specific wage grids, retention plans and recruitment plans to ensure that we are growing the workforce over time and to make sure that we have the best people in place to give our children the social skills and developmental skills they need.

It takes time. We know that there is more work to do, but we are fully committed to it, and that is why good work across the benches is what is most important for Canadians. I am glad that we value it together.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier in her speech, my colleague mentioned that the previous government was giving out credits and that this government is giving out cheques.

Can she elaborate on that? What are the advantages and disadvantages?

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

Madam Speaker, just to be clear, in building a Canada-wide, early childhood, high-quality, affordable system, we are not simply doing what the Conservatives did in cutting cheques to every family across the country.

[An hon. member]

You cancelled that.

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

We cancelled that. That is right. We cancelled it because we know we need to invest in families over time, and investing in that way means investing in their children through an evidence-based, high-quality system that works for every family.

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

Madam Speaker, in reference to the child care workforce, the member said we have to have the best people in place to raise our children.

Does she want to elaborate on what she meant by that?

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

Madam Speaker, time and again science shows us the evidence that placing children in publicly funded, high-quality, licensed child care gives them the best start in life for good social skills and good developmental skills and helps us raise the kind of children we want in Canada, a country that is diverse, open and inclusive for everyone.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Midnapore.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents of King—Vaughan. It allows me the opportunity to speak about Bill C-35, which is labelled an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development said that the bill would create more spaces. Conservatives support affordable, quality day care; it is crucial. However, if we cannot access it, it does not exist, and Bill C-35 would do nothing to address accessibility. The bill is good for families who already have a child care space, but it would do nothing to address the thousands of families on child care wait-lists or operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces.

James and Leah in my riding are a young married couple who just had their first child. As new parents, they were excited and anxious about welcoming their new arrival. They tried to do their due diligence to ensure that everything was in place and were ready to go back to work once they could locate a child care spot. Their friends and family advised them to start looking, because there are not a lot of spaces available. So, when Leah was just a few months pregnant, they began the search. They quickly realized that there was, on average, a two-year wait-list. Maternity leave is not that long. However, they continued to look and hoped that something would become available for them before Leah's maternity leave was over and she needed to get back to work.

The bill would do nothing to address labour shortages. The bill would increase demand, but do nothing to solve the problem of frontline burnout or staff shortages. There are not enough spaces in the system to help run the facilities; they are at full capacity. The government itself projects that, by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early childhood workers. The minister stated that she plans to build 250,000 new spaces. Accordingly, 40,000 new child care workers would be required in order to accommodate.

Over the next 10 years, it is reported that more than 60% of the workforce already employed will need to be replaced, meaning that around 181,000 will need to be replaced. Once we add those two figures, we will need over 200,000 workers. Currently, 27% of child care centres in British Columbia are forced to turn away children due to a lack of staff.

A news article quoted a child care provider who stated that “In the past two years, we've had to close programs temporarily, whether it was for a day or two, or shorten hours for the week in order to meet the licensing regulations....”

The Conservative Party supports affordable child care and recognizes quality care in many forms, unlike the bill before us. Who better to nurture our children than their grandparents? I cannot think of a better solution to kill two birds with one stone.

Seniors are struggling to make ends meet due to the big rise in inflation the government has created over the last eight years. What a wonderful opportunity this could be to provide an income to struggling seniors while reducing the wait-lists and nurturing our children in a healthy environment.

I was one of the luckiest children in the world. I had the benefit of a loving and caring environment, provided to me by my grandparents. I was taught not only the facts of life and the value of hard work, but also that it does not matter where people come from; Canada is the land of opportunity for everyone. I consider myself to be a really good cook. My grandmother not only taught me the facts of life, not only taught me about math, and not only taught me about history; she also taught me how to live from the land. I would come home from school, and she would turn her garden into a playground for us. She explained the benefits of, and how to grow, fresh vegetables, and how to nurture one's children with one's own hands. She also taught me the importance of volunteering. If we had neighbours in our area who were ill and needed our assistance, my grandmother would take our hand, walk us down to the neighbour's home, and we were there to help each other.

That is what community building is like. That is what children need to learn. They need to learn that at a young age, so that when they develop into grown-ups, adults, they can teach their children to help, the way I was taught to help. My grandparents instilled that in me and ensured that I would grow up to be a responsible adult. We are not going to get that from anyone else. They taught me all the things I needed to do and all the things I needed to be, and that is the woman I am today.

As a young widow with two small children, I found day care very challenging, given my work schedule. I was fortunate that I had a job that could support my children. However, when my husband passed away and two incomes were reduced to one, there was no choice but to find affordable child care. I did not have a nine-to-five job. I did not have the luxury to have day care and to make sure I got there on time to pick up my children.

My question for the Liberal-NDP government would be, why can we not implement the beauty of allowing the flexibility for parents to choose their child care, so that their children can have the same opportunities I did? We could have our parents nurture our children, and reduce the wait times, because right now, there are no wait times because there are no places to put children. Let us look at some of the amendments our party put forward, and let us try to implement them, amending Bill C-35 so it could accommodate more children.

Marni Flaherty of the Canadian Child Care Federation testified at committee. She said, “We would like to see strong language in the bill that promotes sustained investment in a national strategy for the recruitment, education and retention of the early childhood educators workforce.” This led my colleagues to put forward such an amendment. However, it was voted down by the Liberal-NDP coalition. As I said in my opening remarks, Conservatives recognize that affordable, quality child care is critical, but if it is not available, it does not exist. This bill would do nothing to help James and Leah find affordable, accessible day care when the time comes for Leah to return to work. This is not a child care strategy; it is a headline marketing plan.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that, when the member was growing up, she had the opportunity to be cared for by her grandparents, but we know that for many people in Canada, that is just not an option. They do not necessarily have family nearby or a family that is able to do that, so having access to affordable child care is really a lifeline for most parents in Canada.

When the member opposite talks about this bill not creating spaces, she is absolutely wrong in that. We would create 250,000 additional spaces. Already, 56,000 spaces have been created, over 30,000 in Ontario. That number is set to grow in Ontario, to 86,000. She talks about the fact that there needs to be consistent, sustainable funding in this legislation. This legislation says that there would be consistent, sustainable funding from the federal government to provinces and territories.

I hope that the member will support this legislation, because it would help thousands of parents and families in her community. I also hope she recognizes that, at third reading, there are no more amendments. I hope we can count on her support.

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

Madam Speaker, I spoke today to a constituent in my riding, and maybe the minister could help me understand how I can explain to this single mom who has been on the wait-list for a year. She has to get back to work. If she does not get back to work, she will lose her job. If she loses her job, she has to go on employment insurance. The minister said there were more spots created in Ontario. I live in a very populated community, yet this woman cannot find child care.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, notwithstanding some provincial efforts in subsidies, and I think Quebec stands out as a particular exception, we have largely had a market-driven child care system in Canada for as long as anyone can remember. We have had non-profit operators operate in that space and we have had for-profit operators operate in that space, yet, despite consistent demand over decades, the market has not provided the number of spaces needed in order for families that want child care to get it.

We have largely had a market approach to child care for a long time, and we have seen an incredible and persistent market failure. How does the member make sense of that market failure, and what does she think are the causes of that market failure?

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

Madam Speaker, I would say that everybody jumped on the bandwagon for $10-a-day day care, but here is the problem: Everybody jumped on it. There are no spaces, so people are waiting and waiting. Why not make it flexible and allow parents to choose who will raise their children? It would avoid the need for a lot of those spaces.

There are seniors in my community who are still healthy enough, but, unfortunately, due to age discrimination, cannot go back to work. Why not allow them to work for their children and nurture their grandchildren, which would reduce the wait time for everyone else?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, what the member for King—Vaughan brings up is exactly why we brought in the universal child care benefit. It was to respect parents. Some are professionals but chose to have the husband or wife stay at home to take care of the kids. It was a career decision. Nevertheless, we supported both. We supported everybody in their decisions.

Can the member speak to the amendments we brought forward, when we tried to offer child care benefits to both types of families?

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

Madam Speaker, we proposed amendments to ensure that the child care opportunities were available for everyone. The Liberal-NDP coalition turned them down.

I do not normally talk about this, but I was a foster child, and I babysat so I could save money to go back to school. I was not registered, but I was a damn good caregiver for children.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

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

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

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, all the government has left now is to divide, whether it is by pitting region against region or sector against sector; maybe it is gender or religion. One need only look at the social media on the bill to see that it has stoked division, unfortunately, and Conservatives are here to unify.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, as a proud representative of a rural riding, I beg to differ. When I first ran in 2015, child care was a huge topic in that election. I can remember knocking on doors throughout communities in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I have heard Conservatives talking about choice; there was no choice. I frequently met parents who were desperately wishing that they could afford to get a second job, but all the money from that income would have just gone to the extremely high child care space costs.

I would just like to ask my hon. colleague to reflect upon that. There was no choice in the beginning. This is an attempt to resolve that, to enshrine these funding agreements in place. I am just not sure where she is getting the division from. I see this bill as a positive step to addressing a long-standing problem; this has been called for by child care advocates for more than 50 years now.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I actually think that the member and I agree in that, here on this side of the House, we are looking to make this program as inclusive as possible. In this way, it can fit families of all shapes and sizes, and all providers will have the opportunity to participate. Right now, that is not the case.

We have said that we will honour the provincial agreements, but we want to improve upon them. We just want to allow as many families and female entrepreneurs as possible to participate in this program.

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

Madam Speaker, the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario has spoken about how female entrepreneurs are cut out of this program. What is my colleague's analysis of why that might be the case and, perhaps, how changing that could actually make this program more accessible and readily available?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to serve on the executive of the IMF-World Bank parliamentary network with my colleague. As he can imagine, the economy is always on our minds, whether locally, domestically or globally; I am glad he is thinking like that. I think that the government and the minister should think like that as well. We should be thinking about everyone prospering within Canada, not just a subset that works for the government in this program.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to say right off the top that I will be splitting my time with the member for Lethbridge.

I note that this has been a long debate and that we are here late at night. I want to note that as well.

I think that this bill is one in which the issues that we are discussing today are being framed in the wrong way. The issues are being framed as what the government is proposing. This is the prerogative of the government, and this is often the challenge that we find ourselves with as the opposition. The government frames the issue, and we as the opposition must then respond. We end up with an issue that is already framed and we end up debating inside that issue.

The government is identifying a problem, and I would generally say that it is narrowcasting the issue. The issue is that Canadian families are struggling, and they are struggling in a whole host of ways, but then that also is borne out in the fact that they cannot afford child care.

That is a narrowcast. One of the band-aid solutions that the government comes up with is to just say that it will pay for the child care situation directly. It will just hand out money to child care operators, and that will reduce the cost of the child care.

That is a solution, but it does not bear on the broader issues that we are seeing in Canadian society. We are seeing that everything in Canada feels broken and that Canadians cannot afford to live their lives right here in Canada.

That is one of the things. The other thing is around the whole idea of family policy. In doing some research on this, I ran across an organization called Cardus and a gentleman named Peter Jon Mitchell, who has written a lot about this idea.

I would like to quote extensively from an article that he wrote called “Canada Needs a Family-Formation Policy Framework”.

He had some very interesting things to say about this. He says:

The promotion of $10-a-day child care as economic policy illustrates the problem with Canadian family policy, which is that we don’t have one. Yes, we have substantial direct cash benefits to parents, generous parental leave, and plenty of funded services. Yet we still lack any coherent strategy for encouraging strong, stable family life. As University of Windsor political scientist Lydia Miljan writes:

“Generally speaking, family policy in Canada may be characterized as an uncoordinated hodgepodge of policies, based on assumptions that are not always clearly recognized or even consistent, and delivered by an assortment of institutions including not only agencies of all three levels of government but also privately-run organizations like provincial Children’s Aid Societies, Big Brothers Big Sisters, family planning clinics, and so on.”

A new Cardus report, Envisioning a Federal Family-Formation Policy Framework for Canada, argues for a clear-eyed vision for Canadian family policy. Canadians value family life, but for complex reasons are partnering and marrying later and having fewer children than they say they would like. While all stages of family life are important, Canada needs to pay [particular] attention to the transition into partnership and marriage, and to having children.

These are Peter's words, not mine.

The federal government is only one actor among state and civil society institutions that can help families. Even as one of the most distant actors from daily family life, by reforming current programs and pursuing innovative policy options, the federal government can increase opportunity for family formation by removing barriers.

The hodgepodge collection of policies affecting families are often directed toward individual family members rather than respecting that families make decisions as a unit. For example, an expressed intent behind national child care is to increase the number of mothers in the workforce, while paternity leave in Quebec is intended to nudge fathers toward a larger share of caregiving. These may be laudable policy objectives, but families make these decisions as a unit, not as individuals. Families are social institutions that form their members, and they act in the collective interest of those members. Individuals negotiate their interests within families, but do so with consideration for the family as a unit.

Individuals negotiate their interests within families, but do so with consideration for the family as a unit.

The tension around the role of the state in intra-family decision-making is most noticeable in how the state directs public policy towards children. Political scientist Jane Jenson and her co-author Caroline Beauvais describe two paradigms for Canadian public policy. The family responsibility paradigm identifies families as the primary authority in determining the well-being of children. Policy approaches under this paradigm maximize flexibility for family decision-making. Direct government involvement is reserved for situations where children’s well-being is in danger. The second model is the investing in children paradigm, focused on early intervention through services that come around children and their families. Parents are important, but the paradigm emphasizes the expertise of state and civil-society actors.

The preferred approach [for most Conservatives] is to empower families as the primary caregiving community around children, with the authority and obligation to ensure the well-being of children. Institutions can best help children by working in partnership with children’s caregivers. In most cases, public policy should maximize flexibility that allows families to make decisions best suited for the family.

That is an extensive quote from this article by Peter Jon Mitchell. It lays out what are probably the major discussion points or the differences that we see between what the Conservatives and everybody else in this place really feels, that the family model is what we need to note.

Even the CBC is noticing this as an issue across the country. A CBC headline coming out of British Columbia, posted in March of last year was, “Young B.C. families are having fewer children, opting out of parenthood as cost of living skyrockets.”

Once again, the bill we are debating today is only tackling one of the many issues that Canadian families are having. This is also having an effect on family formation. Again, what Peter Jon Mitchell was calling for in his article was a strategic and thoughtful family policy rather than a social policy or an economic policy.

It was very interesting to me when the member for Winnipeg North was up on his feet, talking about this bill. He noted that this also happened to be good tax policy in the fact that if we had more people participating in the workforce, there would be more taxes for the government.

This is what we have seen from the Liberal government, over and over again. It comes forward with a policy proposal that it says is one thing, and in reality it is another thing. On his part, the member for Winnipeg North actually said that quiet part out loud when he said that this is actually tax policy, that the government wants Canadians to be able to pay more taxes. It is precisely the opposite of what Conservatives are about.

Conservatives are about making sure that Canadians pay the least amount of taxes possible. Conservatives, particularly on tax policy, say that we have a country to run, what are the things we need to pay for in order to run the country? When we have the list of things we need to pay for, we ask how we are going to pay for them and how are we going to collect taxes.

The Liberals have a completely opposite theory or policy around taxation. Their policy is, how much tax money can we wring out of Canadians, and then where can we spend all this cool tax money that we have collected. That is the fundamental difference between Conservatives and Liberals. I think the member for Winnipeg North kind of said the quiet part out loud when he said that this policy would increase the tax revenue to the federal government.

That seems to me to be the focus of everything that the Liberal government does, it is to increase the tax revenue to the federal government. They also have a carbon tax, which does the same thing. It does not affect the environment at all, but it creates tax revenue for the federal government.

With that, I would like to thank folks for listening tonight, and look forward to questions and comments.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, on the tax revenue part, I think that is actually secondary.

The member skipped a step, because in order to get that increased tax revenue, there would actually have to be an increase in income. That is why we have seen groups like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and its provincial affiliations all throughout Canada, strongly support this kind of a policy, as well as labour. I do not think there are many policies out there where we see both business and labour onside. They recognize that a policy like this allows more women, more parents to enter the workforce to increase their family's income and to actually provide a better life for their family.

This is about giving choice, about giving freedom of choice for those parents to make more income if they wish. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the fundamental point of the first part of my speech was about Canadian families struggling, and because they are struggling, they are choosing to have fewer children than they wish they could have.

People are getting married later and having fewer children than they thought they would when they were younger. This has been well documented. Even the CBC recognizes this in the article I referenced.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that the member has the most adorable children, one of whom is here with us tonight in the House. He is adorable. It is nice to see all the children who are often brought to Parliament as we include our kids in it.

I think the member has talked about this, but it is nice to put it on record because it is what Conservatives have been advocating for. How do we close that gap and that need? Ultimately, the demand went through the roof when this was announced, but the infrastructure and systems are not in place. How do we close the gap without including private child care operators as well?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is precisely the question we have been asking about this bill the whole way through. I would also note that this bill would not do a whole lot. The most substantial thing about this bill is that it would set in place a board or council, which would just be another group of people advising the government on this. I am not opposed to that per se, but that is about the extent of what the bill would tangibly do. All of the other things mentioned in the bill are already in place. The government has already signed deals with the provinces, put in place frameworks across the country and now it is asking for an endorsement of that in this bill, so it is more of a motion than a bill.

However, what Conservatives have been calling for is a child care system that respects the different choices families make.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, what the Conservatives are actually calling for is the cancellation of child care. We saw in their last platform that they said families do not need child care, they need tax credits to help them with the cost of child care, but we know that does not create spaces or help families.

I would like to know if the member is going to support this legislation today and our federal child care program.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have been fairly clear that we are opposed to the way the Liberals have outlined their child care system. We want one that is flexible for all Canadians, no matter the choices they make.

What I would also note is that the only tangible thing this bill would do is create a committee or council. We will be voting for this bill to recognize the creation of this council, and we will see how the rollout of this system goes, the impacts and unintended consequences this bill would have.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I think somebody forgot to shut their mike off a while ago. It is taken off now.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the point is that ultimately, at the end of the day, Canadians do desire choice, and unfortunately this bill just does not make that provision.

I will point out another flaw that needs to be pointed out in this bill, and that is overall access. We know that already there are many individuals who, when they know they are expecting or oftentimes even before they know they are expecting, but perhaps anticipating, will put their family on a wait-list in hopes of being able to have a spot, but what we know with this legislation is that it actually favours those who already have a child in care.

As such, rather than being able to provide for those who would be entering into the need for care or those who would be most vulnerable or most in need, this legislation favours those who already hold a spot. Who are those who are most likely to already hold a spot? It is often those who already have a bit of money or wealth behind their name, because they have already secured one or maybe even two spots for their kids ahead of time and now they have a spot for the next child as well. That is a problem, because it is actually those new parents or the most vulnerable who need to be able to access those spaces. That is what has been promised by this legislation, but it is structured in such a way that it is not what actually what ends up being delivered at the end of the day.

I think it needs to be said that, certainly, making sure that a child is looked after in a caring, loving and kind way is top of mind for parents, and it is probably one of the things that stresses in particular moms to the greatest extent. It matters, but in order to be able to provide parents with that peace of mind and that security, one has to not only provide the accessibility, but also there has to be a provision of choice. A parent needs to be able to make that decision on their own, knowing that they are entrusting their child to the person or entity of their choice. Again, this is where this legislation simply falls short, because it does not provide for that.

There is a lack of accessibility and a lack of choice. Right there, we have two fundamental problems or massive flaws with this legislation.

One mom shared this: “I would love to see initiatives ... that support kids being raised in their own homes with their parents past maternity leave - it doesn't feel like much of a choice right now, the government is only focusing on 'one type' of parenting model. Not all parents want to place our kids in childcare or schools so young but with the lack of support, we can feel we have no [other] choice.” In other words, sometimes parents do want to pick an elder, a grandparent, a friend or a neighbour, but under this legislation, what this woman is expressing is that she does not feel she has that option.

The question also needs to be asked: What about those who work shift work? Maybe a parent goes to work super early in the day, or maybe they work super late into the evening. Then, what are their options? Again, this legislation fails to address that. Further to that, many of those who are indigenous in my riding have come, talked to me and said they would like their children to be cared for by an entity that takes their culture into account. Again, this legislation does not actually provide for that.

What about those who come from a religious background or a faith background, who want their children cared for according to their values or according to their ways of life? Again, this legislation falls short. Instead, it is a one-size-fits-all approach, and it just simply does not work.

I could talk a bit more about the fact that there is this tremendous amount of burnout that takes place in this sector; I could talk about the fact that there is a massive labour shortage in this area as well; and I could talk about the fact that my colleagues at committee actually brought these concerns forward and asked for them to be addressed, and the government ignored them.

Again, it is legislation with a whole lot of promise but no premise. It is an over-promise and an under-delivery. It is altogether disappointing.

The fact of the matter is that we have seen this in many ways from the government. In eight years we have seen it blunder one budget after another and drive our economy into the ground. We have seen what it has done with health care; we have seen what it has done with folks who are dying from the opioid crisis; we see that consistent mismanagement across our country across different sectors.

Why would child care be any different? It will be an abundant number of promises and an under-delivery of services. Canadians will be left in the cold.

I should also highlight that it did not need to be this way. My colleagues offered several helpful amendments around protecting choice and making this accessible. My colleagues stood up for parents and for their needs. Unfortunately, the NDP and the Liberals voted against my colleagues, which is sad and is to their shame.

When people say the Conservatives do not really support child care, that is not true. We support the principle. We just believe that it should be rolled out a whole lot better. When we form government, we look forward to doing this much more efficiently, much more effectively and in a much more parent-centric way than what it currently is.

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

Madam Speaker, when we look at the country overall, the poorest population is senior women. I find it interesting how many people at the doors I have knocked on in my riding and how many people who come into my constituency office have talked to me about them being women and the fact that by the time they pay for their child care, they hardly make anything. It seems to me that we have a cycle.

Does the member not agree that by creating affordable child care, not only will it support families, not only will it support women having the ability to make choices about their futures in terms of employment, but it will also address the issue of poverty as women age?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know that I fully understood the question. It seemed to have a lot to do with aging and I did not hear a lot to do with child care.

Nevertheless, I will highlight that when this bill was brought forward to committee and was studied there, we received extensive testimony on the fact that the bill, in its current form, actually hurts those with lower incomes and benefits those who are wealthier.

Amendments were brought forward by my Conservative colleagues at that committee in order to make sure the most vulnerable were given priority. Unfortunately, the member who just spoke, who is an NDP member, as well as her colleagues and our Liberal colleagues, voted against that very common-sense amendment, which would have stood for the most vulnerable. Shame on them.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her thoughtful and common-sense speech. I know she comes from a riding that I am sure she has stories from. She started off the beginning of her speech by alluding to them a bit. I am wondering if there is anything she wants to share in the House about constituents in her riding and how this bill affects them.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I come from a riding of incredibly hard-working, common-sense individuals. They are people who value family, value freedom and value their faith in many regards. These individuals simply want two things. They are actually quite simple. Number one, they want those in leadership to function with integrity. If they make a promise, deliver on the promise. Number two, they want choice. They want to make decisions for their families according to what their needs are as individuals, rather than having something put down their throats by the government according to its agenda.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, on that last part about choice, I could not agree more with my colleague. Of course families want choice. However, I have to go back to an earlier point. When I first ran in 2015, parents were complaining to me about the lack of choice in the private system. They did not have choice because the costs were too high, and it was not economical for them to go out and get a second job to further the economic interests of their families.

By lowering fees and creating a legislative framework to ensure funding, we are giving families choice where it did not exist before. I speak from personal, first-hand accounts from my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Choice did not exist before. This initiative is going to create choice for families and I am proud to be supporting it.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, if someone wants to know about choice, they should always ask a socialist. That is a good place to start. I will leave it at that.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was a great response by the hon. member. I would note that at least in capitalism, the bread lines up for us. That is one of my favourite lines in the debate between socialism and capitalism.

I just want to recognize the hon. member and her work in this place. We were elected at the same time and I call her a friend. I want to thank her speech on this as well, and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Can the hon. member just ask the question? We are running out of time.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Let us just call it a comment, Madam Speaker.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thanks, Madam Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I may be having a technical problem with my microphone, just to—

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

We cannot hear the hon. member. I think the hon. member is on mute. No, the hon. member is in a car, which is very difficult for sound.

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know we just passed a motion with respect to supporting hybrid, but I do not think it is appropriate for someone to participate in a hybrid debate while in a vehicle. I do not know if he is driving or if he is a passenger.

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

He is not driving. It is only the sound that could be an issue. As well, the hon. member's headset is not the one accepted by the House, from what we are being told by technical services.

I cannot hear the hon. member.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are here to discuss Bill C‑35.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It being 9:29 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, March 6, 2023, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded vote please.

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

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 19, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:20 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-35.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #385

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)