I was disappointed that Mr. Lake's amendment was ruled out of order. I thought he was very insightful in coming up with a very well-worded description of the bill—and hearing if there was any interest around the table. I know a lot of us have heard different intentions of why the bill is here. I think everyone comes from different perspectives on child care.
One thing I've raised a lot at the table is the fact that I was concerned that Dalton McGuinty really took it to the children of Ontario when this government gave him $97.5 million in the most recent federal budget for child care and he decided to only spend $25 million on it.
Part of my concern with this bill was that it simply gave another government the same tool to do what Dalton McGuinty did, and said, “I want to abandon the children, I want to abandon child care.”
I'm not sure, Ms. Chow, or anyone else, if there is a way to incorporate that in the title. I realize you come to this from a different perspective, but maybe part of the title should include the provincial Liberal tax on child care, because I think that's why Ms. Savoie originally came to this position.
I'm not sure what the wording would be--certainly not as eloquent as Mr. Lake's title--but whether it's worded to prevent Liberal assaults on child care—I'm still against this bill, because I worry that on a federal level they'd use this as a tool to gut child care. But realizing where you're coming from, it might be a nice gesture to include in the title “preventing Liberal premiers from attacking child care from the very generous contributions given by the Conservative government to child care”.