Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I think that's kind of contradictory to what we heard from witnesses. If it is diversity, then why wouldn't you put diversity on the council?
I'm not sure if the clerk can chime in, but how many witnesses put forth that they wanted to see this representation on the council? I understand that the bill has said, “not for profit” and “public”, but if you don't have those voices at the table, you're not really getting a whole picture for child care in the country, because there are so many different forms of it.
I think this is just fair representation of all the different sectors of child care in the country. I definitely don't agree with my colleague. Just because it says diversity.... Right now, what we know is that there isn't diversity on that council. You're saying one thing and doing another thing.
There are a whole bunch of quotes, Mr. Chair. I'll give you just three.
“The current iteration of the CWELCC does not recognize the key role female entrepreneurs have played in the creation and development of Canada's early learning and child care sector.” That's from the briefing note from the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario.
“The current language directs funding in particular to public and not-for-profit providers, and it's much weaker than it should be.” That's from the March 31 testimony of Dr. Susan Prentice, Duff Roblin professor of government, University of Manitoba.
“Championing home child care as a...part of CWELCC would increase access to a diverse array of child care options.” That's from the April 18 testimony of Julie Bisnath, program coordinator, Child Care Providers Resource Network.
We're hearing that the Liberals want to have diversity on this bill, but then when you put forth an amendment to increase diversity, they say no.
It's just a little confusing to me, Mr. Chair.