Debates of May 4th, 2006

Criminal Code

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canada Transportation Act

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Divorce Act

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (access for spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition).

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to table this bill to amend the Divorce Act. It would allow terminally ill or critically ill parents the right to see their children one last time. It adds a section to the Divorce Act.

I hope, when this comes back to the House for debate, that I can get all party support on this issue.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Income Tax Act

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-253, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill which would amend the Income Tax Act to make contributions to an RESP deductible from the contributor's taxable income.

Students are facing some difficult concerns with rising tuitions, as well as the importance this spells for the future prosperity of our country in terms of a skilled and educated workforce. We certainly do not want post-secondary education to become the purview of only the wealthy.

The bill would provide a regulatory regime similar to the one governing registered retirement savings plans. It is hoped that the passage of this bill will assist more Canadian families to save for their children's post-secondary education. I look forward to the support of all members of the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Code

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-254, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda).

Mr. Speaker, I want to table, for a second time, my private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda.

The purpose of the bill is to expand the definition of an identifiable group under the hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code to include any section of the public distinguished by its gender. The way our current law is written, it is prohibited to propagate hate against an individual because of colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. However, it is not against the law to propagate hate against individuals because of their gender.

By enacting this change to the Criminal Code, Parliament can begin to address the serious issue of promoting hatred and violence against women or men. This is an amendment that should have been made long ago. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues on all sides of the House will support this worthy and overdue initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Income Tax Act

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-255, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (herbal remedies).

Mr. Speaker, as we know, many people are allergic to sulpha-based drugs or are unable to take them for medicinal purposes. The bill asks that anyone prescribed a herbal alternative by a licensed physician be allowed to claim that as a medical expense.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-256, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (physical activity and amateur sport fees).

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill I first introduced in 1999 and will continue to do so.

The bill would give true tax relief for all those involved in sports and physical activity. Basically it says that if a person or any member of his or her family is a member of a gym, or if the kids are part of sports groups, the entire fee, for example, if it were $400 or $500, should be claimed as a tax deduction, similar to that of a charitable donation, without any limits.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canada Labour Code

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers)

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to table this bill, seconded by my colleague for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

The purpose of this bill is to prohibit strikebreakers, which will end the disparity between the labour codes of Canada and Quebec.

I am proud to table this bill today because many workers in Quebec are victims of the fact that there are two classes of employees in Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois has submitted similar bills nine times in the hope of ensuring that workers subject to the Canada Labour Code have the same rights as those subject to the Quebec Labour Code.

During the last Parliament, the Bloc Québécois' bill was defeated by only 12 votes. The Bloc hopes that the new Parliament will make it a priority to act in workers' best interests.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Citizenship and Immigration

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today to present to the House.

In the first petition, the citizens and residents of Canada want to draw to the attention of the House that undocumented workers play a vital role in Canada's economy and are usually employed in highly skilled jobs and needed professions and their removal would significantly damage Canada's economy.

The petitioners, therefore, call upon Parliament to immediately halt the deportation of undocumented workers and to find a humane and logical solution to their situation.

Child Care

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition concerns child care.

On November 2, 2005, the Government of Canada signed a full funding agreement with the Province of Ontario that would have created 25,000 new licensed child care spaces by the end of 2008 and would have increased per annum funding for child care in the province by 69%.

The residents of Ontario call upon the Prime Minister to honour the early learning and child care agreement.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition by parents who are calling upon the government to reconsider its position on child care.

They are asking that parents have choices in early child care, that true choices necessitate options and that the deal the premier signed with the Prime Minister did create those options. They are asking the government to reconsider that agreement.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House this morning to present a petition that has been signed by many concerned Canadians who are calling upon the government to honour the early learning and child care agreement.

In November of 2005 the Government of Canada signed a full funding agreement on child care. Today, 84% of parents with children are both in the workforce and 70% of women with children under the age of six are employed. This petition calls upon Parliament to recognize that child care is an everyday necessity in this country and that there is an urgent and immediate need for additional child care spaces.

Human Rights

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning.

The first petition has to do with a very serious matter that is quite disturbing. The petitioners want to bring to the attention of the House that recent evidence has shown that there is a concentration camp in Shenyang City in China expressly for Falun Gong practitioners.

They also point out that no one has ever come out of this concentration camp and that the practitioners have been killed for their organs which have been sent off to various medical facilities. This has apparently become a very large business. There are numerous reports from witnesses and family members that organs in fact were missing from the bodies of dead family members.

The petitioners urge the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to condemn the Chinese Communist regime for crimes against Falun Gong practitioners, in particular this concentration camp. They ask us to speak out at the UN to mobilize an investigation and rescue.

Child Care

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is most appropriate for today's motion before the House concerning early learning and child care. These petitioners from my riding of Mississauga South understand that choice is necessary and that we need spaces in fact to have real choice.

They point out that the previous government established agreements with the provinces, a number of which had full funding agreements for the five year period. They also point out that a very substantial proportion of families have both parents working and children under the age of six. As well, they point out that this is an everyday necessity in our country and that we need policy to deal with it, such as the policy of creating early learning and child care spaces.

The petitioners call upon the Prime Minister to honour the early learning and child care agreements with the provinces.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion--Child care

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

moved:

That the House recognize that an effective, Canada-wide early learning and child care system requires both continued vigorous effort to provide supports for family incomes and proactive intergovernmental activity to create a sufficient number of high quality, universally accessible, affordable and developmental child care spaces to meet the broad range of needs of Canadian children;

that the House observe that the present government has made, in both these tasks, significantly less progress than its predecessor, which had provided income support programs for families with children totalling more than $10 billion per year and had negotiated child-care space-creating agreements with all provinces valued at at least an additional $1 billion per year; and,

therefore, that the House urge the government to increase substantially its activities in this regard in order to provide Canadian families with the early learning and child care facilities that they need and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this motion because Canadian families face a genuine crisis caused by the shortage of quality child care and early learning services in this country.

This government has torn up federal-provincial agreements that would have created up to 350,000 day care places over the next five years. It replaced this plan with a cash allowance that offers only minimal benefits and that in no way allows for the creation of places in early learning and child care services.

I want to begin by asking, what is the role of government? The role of government is to govern. It is not to use administrative tactics to pander to its supporters as they exist. This is about the future of the country. The future of the country is about our aboriginal people, about post-secondary education and research innovation. The future of the country and the planet is about climate change, but the real future of the country in terms of human capital is our kids.

Today, this motion is about why the Prime Minister of the country would agree to not cut and run on the people of Afghanistan, but is prepared to cut and run on our kids. It is extraordinary that ideology has replaced evidence based practice and real research on what will underpin the future of our country in terms of social justice and what will underpin the future of our economy as a country in a globalized world.

That being said, in 20 years as a family doctor, I cannot imagine that there was one time, as I delivered a baby, that the parents or family did not have a huge understanding of the challenges facing them as parents and the choices that they would have to make in terms of being the best parents possible and offering the best possible opportunity to their children.

There were some families that actually did have choices. There were two parents, one at least with a fabulous job such that there was a choice. One of the parents could stay home. Even in that situation, there were situations where that parent that was able to stay at home needed the support of a community drop-in centre where there was some help in terms of the kinds of things that could happen.

Some of those children may have had special needs and special concerns. Some children may have had autism where it was virtually impossible for those stay at home parents to give the kind of care that they would want 24/7. But for those families there was a real choice in terms of a parent being able to stay at home.

For the other parents there was a choice, as well, and they had to decide whether with two incomes they could actually support their child in a better way and perhaps move out of a certain neighbourhood, or change a balcony for a backyard. Those were parents making the best possible decision for their children.

I think it has been extraordinarily unfair to be fanning the flames of a fight between those difficult choices that those sets of families have had to make in our country and to pit one choice against another choice as a better choice, or indeed to say that parents did not know what was best for their kids and could not make the choices that were best for their children.

Today's motion is very much about the people who have not had choices, who know they have to go to work. They know that they need affordable early learning and child care spaces in order for them to do what they have decided is best for their child. For those families whose children are still on waiting lists and therefore have no choice, this is the insult of this government plan. It is referred to as choices in child care. In fact, it is a family allowance that has absolutely nothing to do with early learning and child care, and is indeed the most insulting thing that I have heard in a very long time.

There is too much misinformation out there and I think that it is extraordinarily important that the government understand how it is flying in the face of the public's understanding of the importance of the best possible experience for kids in their early years.

Statistically, 94% of Canadians know that the most critical years for brain development are in the first six years. Regardless of a family's background, 89% believe that poor quality child care hurts a child's development. Some 79% believe that child care providers who have had more training provide better care. Child care services have passed some important hurdles. It is extraordinarily important that the parents who need to go into the workforce do so and 94% of Canadians believe that child care is essential to allowing that decision. Approximately 90% know that it is important in assisting a child's education and 78% see it as important to developing stronger community ties. We all know that isolation is one of the most important determinants of poor health.

It is important as we go forward that we not deal with ideology. We should deal with the facts and the research that is there. In fact, province by province in this country, in determining what would be the best for the children of those provinces, elected to sign on to an agreement with the Government of Canada to use the $5 billion in a way that was completely flexible and best for the families in their province in order to go forward.

Three of the 10 agreements were fully funded before the NDP decided to sellout and help force the unnecessary election. In Ontario alone, 25,000 new spaces would have been created in the first two years, including investments in training in quality programming.

In Quebec, the aim of the agreement was to allow the province to reach its objective of 200,000 spaces in licensed services this year and improve both the quality and availability of training in all regards.

The Manitoba agreement, meanwhile, placed special emphasis on creating spaces in rural and remote areas, in stark contrast with this government's insistence that the Liberal government's early learning and child care strategy catered only to urban families. Quite clearly we have heard from many people in Manitoba how important this is in terms of protecting the family farm for those spouses who have had to come into town to work in a bank or a hospital in order to be able to keep the family farm. Those families know they need affordable quality child care, like in small-town Ontario, and this government does not seem to understand that.

Quite frankly, I am convinced that the Prime Minister and his caucus have never actually read these agreements, because it was so clear how carefully the provinces had designed what would be best for them. Other provinces had detailed plans. I think the members from Saskatchewan should understand that cancelling the full universal preschool program for all four year olds in the province of Saskatchewan is devastating to those people who thought those children would be going to school this fall, those people who thought they would be going into the workforce.

Alberta focused on training because in Alberta almost 80% of early learning and child care is done in the private sector. Those operators wanted to have those funds to be able to go back to school so they themselves could qualify as regulated child care space operators, with the understanding that parents have much more confidence in a place that knows the public health requirements and those kinds of things around exercise, nutrition and the training of those workers.

Last week the Leader of the Opposition and I were able to visit the Andrew Fleck Child Care centre here in Ottawa. It is one of the examples of the kind of quality child care that helps children get the best possible start in life. There is an exciting range of programs offered there, programs that are inclusive, supportive, flexible and fun for children. This is a centre that provides all kinds of care, including flexible hours, drop-ins and playgroups for families where a parent is able to stay at home. It is inclusive programing that meets the needs of today's diverse families, including those with special needs.

The Andrew Fleck centre is also designed to offer caregivers answers to questions with information about programs and services that are available for young children, and an opportunity to talk to early year professionals as well as other parents and caregivers in the community. It is a truly integrated service for Ottawans and their children and has been since the early 1900s.

It is what will happen to that centre that is the issue of today's motion. The two story building next door currently has 30 children and the funding the centre was to receive from the early learning and child care agreement would have been used to renovate the whole building and create an additional 34 spaces, including integrated spaces for those special needs children and especially those children with extraordinary special needs, children with autism, in order to help those families. Because the funding was lost, the centre cannot renovate. The building is now so old that there will be no spaces in the building. Essentially the loss of funding means the loss of 64 child care spaces for Andrew Fleck alone.

Meanwhile, this government's plan offers the vaguest of promises to create child care spaces. The government has backed away from the tax incentives as a solution because it now understands that it would not work and it is just not evidence based. There were seven pages in the plan for discussion of the new family allowance, yet less than a page for the discussion of creating spaces; it was funding starts only and costs only. There was nothing for the ongoing costs of service delivery and nothing to ensure the quality of care. It is the same approach that failed under Mike Harris, and here I have to say as a member of Parliament from Ontario that we cannot let the Prime Minister do to this country what Mike Harris did to Ontario.

The government keeps saying that giving parents money gives them choices. They cannot choose what does not exist. All families can benefit from child care and early learning services. I remember in the very early days of prenatal education how it was very important for people to understand that the community needed to help those expectant mothers and their families understand the best they could about how to become a parent.

Nobody would question the need for communities to support prenatal education. We are now saying that with extended parental leave and all of the exciting things that we as a Liberal government were able to do, it is a necessity to have parent-child drop-ins in communities, and it is important to have licensed child care, early learning activities and after school programs. We have to get around the rhetoric of this government, which continues to explain, as though we do not know, that parents are the experts.

Of course parents are the experts in terms of raising their children, but some of these experts, as parents, have come together in boards to put together what they think is the best for the community and their needs. Those parents now sit on those boards and are making sure that the experience of those children is the best it can be in terms of the best possible start in life.

The real catastrophe, however, is the fact that the plan gives little to those who need it most. Taxing the allowance based on the salary of the parent with the lower income means that low income families will keep only part of the allowance, while those better off will keep the most.

It is astounding that the $249 young child supplement is being eliminated so that wealthy families can have their share. Those on waiting lists will continue to wait. As we have said, there is the single mom who will not be able to go back to school and also what have seen on so many of the petitions, such as the nurse who thought she was going back into the health care sector but who will not be able to go back because her child will stay on a waiting list.

I thought that “a hand up, not a handout” used to be a Conservative mantra. What happened? How are single parents struggling to get off social assistance and get jobs or the training for better jobs going to do it if there is no one to look after their children? It has often been said that the real measure of a civilized society is in how it treats its most vulnerable. If that is true, then this so-called plan represents a giant step backwards. What happens when parents cannot read to their children?

As members know, Fraser Mustard has been studying this for a very long time. It is appalling that the government would not understand his extraordinarily seminal work in understanding what other countries around the world are picking up on, whether that is India, China or South America. It is going to be extraordinarily important that children have the capacity in terms of literacy to be able to compete in a globalized world, to be able to partake of a post-secondary education. We know that starts at the earliest possible time and that we actually must do this in order to compete economically in a globalized world. Besides, it is just the right thing to do.

There is huge evidence that money invested in early learning translates into savings down the road, both socially and economically, and in health care, social services and correctional services. We know that is the case. We know from these programs, particularly in Vancouver, that by having an early learning and child care program we can identify at the very earliest stage a child with FASD and be able to help that mom, who may herself have had FASD, get the kind of help that she needs for her dependence on drugs or alcohol, and for her then to have that kind of intervention so that she does not have a second, third, fourth or fifth child affected with FASD. If her first child had not been identified in a program such as this, she would go without those really important services.

I am offended that the minister, who knows that she is abandoning the most vulnerable of Canadians, would kind of deflect this by pitting families against one another, fanning the flames of this extraordinarily important choice that every family in this country makes in terms of what is the best choice for their families, also understanding that by taking away the choice for our most vulnerable families, she is putting our country at risk and she is flying in the face of basic Canadian values of social justice.

I am thankful for being able to articulate today how much the people of Canada support what was the Liberal plan. On January 23, 63% of Canadians supported a party that supported the Liberal plan for early learning and child development. It is extraordinarily important for us to understand that 89% of Canadians have been clear that it is important to offer the same level of services to everyone. Eighty-nine per cent have said it is important to make quality child care available to everyone. Eighty-eight per cent have said it is important that child care be inclusive for children with special needs. Ninety per cent have said it is important to make quality child care affordable for everybody.

It is so important now as we go forward to understand that the choices have to be real choices. There cannot be real choices if these families do not have a place in their community to take their children to if they are staying at home, to get the kinds of services they need or to be able to make a choice of re-entering the workforce and being confident every day they are in the workforce that their children are getting the best possible experience and the best possible start in life.

I cannot say strongly enough how proud I am of the Liberal record on this, how proud I am of how quickly after the member for LaSalle--Émard became Prime Minister that our minister was able to go across this country and negotiate these 10 deals with the provinces, because it is so important to those families and those communities.

We call upon the government to substantially increase its activities. Please listen to the research. Please do not hide behind individual little payouts and handouts. Give the vulnerable families in our country the handout they really need.

I hope we will see some changes. We cannot wait to see this approach dealt with properly in committee.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned autism a couple of times in her speech. I have a 10-year-old son with autism. Like many families in this situation, we made a decision to have one parent stay at home. My wife, who was a teacher, has stayed at home for 10 years. For us, that probably equates to roughly $400,000 in income that we have gladly given up to do what we think is best for our child.

Many families who have kids with autism make that same decision. The Liberal day care plan does absolutely nothing for families in that situation.

My questions relate to another family in my riding, a family with five children. I mentioned the Matychuk family earlier in a speech I made in the House. One of the things I pointed out was, if they were just starting out now, if their first child was born now and they went through the 15 years, that would take their last child to age six. Under the Conservative plan, that family would receive $36,000 after tax.

The family has one income. Jeff, the father, earns $39,000 a year and the mom stays at home with the kids. They drive a 12-year-old minivan. They have a simple house without a garage. They have made these decisions because they feel they are best for their family. I admire the family. Their kids are among the most well adjusted, incredible kids who I have ever met.

First, I believe they would receive absolutely nothing from the Liberal day care plan. Could the member confirm that?

Second, under the Liberal plan, this family would pay through their taxes to send their neighbours' kids to day care. Why is that fair?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite him to go to the Andrew Fleck centre to which I referred. That program would have assisted children with autism. Many families have acknowledged they cannot do this at home 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This is an extraordinarily difficult situation.

I had a patient whose twin grandchildren suffered from autism. I know how much help that family needed in terms of support from the community.

I also remind the member that some of the most poignant letters have come from his riding. One letter states:

I am totally opposed to the program proposed by your government. Quite frankly, $1200/year for my youngest daughter, taxable to boot, does nothing for me. I have been extremely involved with my daughters' childcare centre for the last 4 1/2 years and can assure you that this province's childcare system is in crisis.

The letter goes on:

As if the lack of qualified staff, lack of funding and astronomical costs weren't bad enough, our daycare centre faces additional challenges in that it is the only French daycare centre in Edmonton and one of only two in Alberta. Yes indeed, I am a francophone and my husband and I have chosen to raise our children in French, which is still one of Canada's official languages.

These are the kinds of letters we are receiving from across the country about this ideology overriding the kind of flexibility and creativity that the minister had negotiated with every province, Alberta being number one. The member should be ashamed.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Paul's talks about flexibility. I would like to remind her that child care is an integral part of family policy. In our opinion, it is most definitely a matter of provincial jurisdiction and thus a matter for Quebec.

As everyone knows, Quebec has its own, well integrated day care system. I will come back to this later.

The opposition motion talks of a Canada-wide system. This is blatant meddling in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction.

I would like to put the following question to the member. Would she be prepared to allow Quebec to opt out unconditionally with full compensation?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to recognize provincial jurisdictions. However, it is also very important in our opinion to recognize that all Canadian children must get the best possible start in life.

We have tried to help Quebec achieve its objective of 200,000 spaces this year in licensed services, and I think that our federation would have benefited nation wide from the best of the Quebec model.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once upon a time there was a famous Liberal red book. It first unveiled itself in 1993. It promised to create thousands of child care spaces. Children across the land rejoiced and their parents celebrated and waited for the service for their children to descend upon them. Their children grew bigger by the day and working parents, desperate for support, waited. The Liberal minister said that child care spaces would be available only if the growth rate was 3%. When the parents checked, they noticed that the growth rate was 3%, and they pointed that out. Various Liberal ministers said that creating child care spaces was a very serious business and told the parents to wait until 1997.

The Liberals made more promises in the 1997 election. Children grew older and no longer needed child care, but then their younger brothers and sisters came upon the earth and they needed it. The parents were told they had to wait until the 2000 election. In that election campaign another promise was made.

What did the hon. member do in 1993, 1994 all the way to 2004, when children and working families across the land waited in vain for child care? Their dreams and hopes for child care were completely dashed. What has she been doing?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to explain the hon. member's misinformation on just about everything. That party brought down the government in November and as a result, there are no spaces available at Andrew Fleck this year.

The member knows perfectly well that in 1993, when child care was in the red book, it was a cost sharing agreement. The member knows better than anyone else that we did not have a partner in Alberta nor did we have one in Ontario. It was only when the hon. member for LaSalle--Émard became prime minister that Liberal women's caucus and the caucus as a whole were able to persuade the provinces. A unilateral $5 billion was put on the table that they could take or leave. We asked them to work with us to build child care, and we abandoned the proposition of cost sharing, which had failed. Therefore, we were able to put all of this in place.

The hon. member and her party should be ashamed, now that these waiting lists continue to grow. They support a government that clearly has no plans for early learning and child care.