Debates of Jan. 30th, 2023

Question No.1145—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

With regard to the special immigration measures for Afghan nationals: (a) broken down by current country of residence and stream (people who assisted the government of Canada, humanitarian, extended family of former interpreters, and the special program to sponsor Afghan refugees without UNHCR status) and the year of the application, (i) how many applicants have been assigned a unique client identifier number, (ii) how many applicants have been assigned an application number starting with the letter G and are awaiting to come to Canada, (iii) how many applications are awaiting to have their biometrics completed, (iv) how many applications have biometrics completed for all applicants and are awaiting a flight to Canada, (v) how many applicants have satisfied all the requirements such as medical, biometrics, security checks, etc.; (b) what are the average processing times for a successful application; (c) what is the average waiting time for successful applicants to be assigned a flight destined for Canada; (d) how many applicants are still awaiting departure to come to Canada; (e) how many applications have been rejected under the special measures because they do not have a valid visa or expired visa in the third country; (f) how much funding has the government allocated to the International Organization for Migration (IOM); (g) how many IOM housing units are funded by the government of Canada; (h) how many Afghan nationals under the special measures have (i) been assigned to an IOM housing unit, (ii) are waiting for a unit, (iii) are being asked to pay back housing costs; and (i) for Afghan nationals under the special measures being asked to pay back housing costs, (i) how much are they being asked to pay on average, (ii) what is the timeline for repayment?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Public Health Care in Canada

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am requesting an emergency debate concerning the state of public health care in Canada.

In the coming days, the Prime Minister will be meeting with premiers from provinces across the country to discuss health care and to finalize an agreement for long-term funding of our health care system. However, this comes at a time when a number of Conservative premiers are putting forward plans to privatize our health care system with for-profit private health care investments, which is deeply troubling given that the outcome would be less care, higher costs and a worsening of the current crisis. If we do not make decisions this year, the current crisis will determine not just the following years but the following decade of care that Canadians receive.

Given how important it is that we make the right choices now to invest in a public health care system that all Canadians can access and that we take a strong stance against the American-style for-profit private delivery of care, I am requesting an emergency debate on this matter in the House today.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank the hon. member for Burnaby South for this intervention. However, I am not satisfied that this request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders at this time.

Public Safety

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am requesting an emergency debate in this House on the unprecedented levels of and sharp rise in violent crime across Canada, especially in light of the recent violent attacks plaguing the Toronto Transit Commission in our nation's largest city.

Since the government took office, we know that violent crime has increased by 32%. In the last 10 days, there have been reports daily of violence on the TTC, including random stabbings and shootings. Premiers, police unions and chiefs across the country have called for bail reform to put an end to repeat offenders who threaten the public safety of our country's largest city with impunity. That is a direct result of the federal government's catch-and-release version of public safety.

Millions of people use transit daily in Toronto, and over 10,000 people are employed by the TTC. All of them have no choice but to use public transit, and it is at their own risk. Every Canadian has the right to safe streets, safe neighbourhoods and safe communities, and it is our job as leaders and parliamentarians to provide them with that.

With that, I believe an emergency debate is necessary to provide justice to the victims of these attacks and to ensure that every Canadian feels safe to go out in public and ride public transit. Thoughts and prayers are not enough. We have to act now.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I thank the hon. member for Thornhill for her intervention. However, I am not satisfied that her request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders at this time.

We have a point of order from the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Happy new year, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I would like to raise a point of order regarding an amendment to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). As stated on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

The amendment in question, G-4, would amend clause 1 of Bill C-21, and the New Democrats have been clear in expressing our opposition to this amendment. The amendment seems to target those who use guns for hunting, for protecting farm animals from predators and for supporting safety in the backcountry. What is more, we have all heard from indigenous people that the amendments would not respect treaty rights nor the duty to consult.

Bill C-21 was originally intended to limit the number of handguns on our streets. Before the amendment was introduced, there was every reason to believe that Bill C-21 was on track to passing through this House before Christmas, but instead, the amendment was introduced at the eleventh hour with no ability to question witnesses about its impacts. It is a more than 200-page amendment to what was originally a 44-page bill. In our view, that constitutes an abuse of process. We are not asking the Speaker to judge the merits of the amendment. Instead, we are bringing forward a very important procedural point.

We believe, contrary to the committee's findings, that this amendment seeks to expand the scope of the bill as established at second reading since it addresses a new idea that was not considered at second reading.

The amendment is out of scope because the original Bill C-21 was meant to implement a handgun freeze. This amendment would drastically expand the definition of “prohibited firearm” in the Criminal Code to cover all sorts of long guns, including those commonly used for hunting and farming and by indigenous communities. This House never had a chance to debate this measure at second reading.

When the amendment was moved on November 22, 2022, the committee chair deemed that it was not beyond the scope of the bill. This decision was appealed, and the committee voted in favour of the committee chair's decision.

However, as we saw in the very clear Speaker's ruling on November 16, 2022, regarding amendments to Bill C-228, the ultimate decision on the scope of a bill rests with the House itself: “The Chair would like to remind members that the scope of a bill is not determined by its sponsor, by the government or even by the committee considering it, but by the House itself when it adopts the bill at second reading.”

In this situation, the committee adopted amendments that the Chair ultimately struck from the bill during consideration at report stage, because you, Mr. Speaker, ruled that the amendments were beyond the scope of Bill C‑228 as passed by the House at second reading. Although we realize that the Speaker usually does not rule on a matter that is still being debated in committee, we believe that in this particular situation your opinion is necessary and important.

The committee has been stuck for weeks debating this amendment, which is, in our opinion, out of the scope of the bill. It is possible that you would rule the amendment out of order at report stage, which would make the hours of debate at committee completely unnecessary. It would be in the interest of all parliamentarians to avoid the waste of time and energy spent debating an amendment that would ultimately be removed from the bill.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would like to thank the hon. member.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I also have pending amendments with respect to Bill C-21 before the House. We know that the events, as described by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, are absolutely what occurred, and I would support the request.

I know it is unusual for the Speaker to have anything to do with procedure at the point of clause-by-clause consideration in a House committee, but in this instance, I think what is happening is almost unprecedented.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I appreciate my hon. colleague raising this matter. Of course, the official opposition has many concerns with the bill, both with respect to its substance and its procedural aspects.

My understanding is that this point was raised at committee. The Liberal chair of the committee ruled the point of order out of order and allowed the committee to continue to proceed with the setting of the bill. I understand there was a vote to challenge the chair's ruling on that. I was wondering if the hon. House leader for the NDP could tell me how the NDP members voted on that question when the chair's ruling was challenged, a vote which would have done exactly what he is now asking the Speaker to do.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I think we are starting to get into debate. The hon. member made his point. I think we will just leave it at that.

This is an interesting one. The bill is still at committee. It is not the practice that the Speaker rule on what is going on at committee until it comes to the House. Then, when it is something we can deal with here in the House, we will take care of it.

At this point, I will not be interfering with the committee's work. We will leave it where it is and see what comes out of it. I trust the committee members will work together to bring us something that is acceptable to the House, and this is something the House will decide upon when it gets here.

I thank the hon. member for bringing that up.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to compliment the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre on her speech. Something I did not know we had in common is that we are both single mothers, and we had to manage that challenge without affordable child care. I was very blessed to be able to manage it well, and I have a fantastic 31-year-old daughter. The member and I share that.

I want to ask the hon. member this, and I promise, from my heart, that this is not intended to be partisan.

If it were not for the perverse first-past-the-post system, I do not believe for a minute that, in the fall of 2005, we would have had the Conservatives, backed by the Bloc and the NDP, bring down the minority government of Paul Martin. It had a Kyoto plan that would have worked, child care agreements signed by every single province, and the Kelowna accord, which are things we all care about. Only because of the use of the strategy that the first-past-the-post system would eventually deliver a majority government with a minority of votes, did we see the loss of those things that could have provided child care back in 2005.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and her compliments to the former finance minister, I want to let her know that indigenous people are still reeling from his cuts to indigenous programs, and when she is talking about Kelowna, with a 2% cap, would have only amounted to a few hundred dollars per nation.

We are here now. We have a national child care strategy, an initiative that has always been led by the NDP. I was very happy to work with the minister in a non-partisan way to advance these human rights and, like I said, I will work with any party in the House, and any member of Parliament in the House, to advance human rights.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start off by thanking the NDP and the member for all of their work on this issue. I know that it is a bill that is important to many on the benches in her party.

I did not get a chance to hear all of her speech prior to question period, and I wanted to know a little about how she feels this would benefit women in her riding and across Canada.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think it goes beyond me. National child care advocates, unions and families have pushed for a not-for-profit public child care system, something that the NDP fought for and managed to get in the bill.

We know that the government cannot be a feminist government, and one cannot support feminist policy, without supporting a robust national child care program that is not-for-profit and public.

I am very happy. I know that the bill is not perfect. I look forward to working with the members across the way and all members of the House to strengthen the bill, so that we can truly lift families up and provide children with the care that they so deserve.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been here many years. We have gone through many debates on this, and I thank my colleague for her leadership on this.

I remember Conservatives standing in the House and saying that this was some kind of a city issue. I represent people in rural country where a husband may have to be on the road, travelling, trucking, working the drills, and the mother is working. The idea that this is somehow some kind of rural-urban divide is a falsehood.

The impact on rural women who have to work, who have to raise their families, often without support, is a serious issue.

I want to ask my colleague her sense of what we need to do to make sure that this plan represents women across the country, and that they are not being marginalized because they are from rural areas or urban areas, the way that the Conservatives like to do to try to divide people.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very thankful that the legislation being put forward is rooted in human rights, including advancing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which includes the right for children to access accessible and affordable child care grounded in culture, tradition and language.

That is absolutely a rural issue. I know many indigenous communities do not even have early child care services. The bill certainly focuses on that, and I look forward to working with the minister to improve that.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Oakville North—Burlington.

I am so excited to be talking about child care and Bill C-35 today. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, it gives me great pleasure to rise to speak in support of this proposed legislation.

Simply put, affordable and inclusive child care is good for parents, good for children, good for women, good for families and good for the economy. It would reinforce the federal government’s long-term commitment to families from coast to coast to coast. We are working to build a system that will remain in place long into the future, so generations of children in Canada can get the best possible start in life.

Affordable child care is yet another way our government is demonstrating that we are here to support Canadians. We understand how hard life is for Canadians now and has been through the pandemic. That is why we have put forward significant benefits to help Canadians beyond affordable child care. Whether it is through the Canada child benefit, the Canada dental benefit, the doubling of the GST tax credit, the Canada housing benefit or an increase to the Canada workers benefit, we are there for Canadians.

The purpose of Bill C-35 is to enshrine the principles of a Canada-wide child care system into law. It is a system that will ensure families in Canada have access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care, and it is critical in supporting the goals of the early learning and child care agreements between the Government of Canada and provincial and territorial Governments that have been signed from coast to coast to coast.

It also supports the vision, principles and goals of the indigenous early learning and child care framework, which was co-developed with indigenous peoples and jointly released by the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council in 2018. In addition to the principles set out in the co-developed indigenous early learning and child care framework, it would continue to guide federal action with respect to early learning and child care programs and services for indigenous children, regardless of where they live.

I would like to focus for a moment on the development of the indigenous early learning and child care framework, which was first introduced in 2018, after being co-developed through an extensive nationwide engagement.

We know that culturally appropriate early learning and child care, designed by and with indigenous peoples, gives indigenous children the best start in life. The member for Winnipeg Centre has worked closely with us to ensure that those principles remain in place.

The indigenous early learning and child care framework, and the collaborative work to implement it over time, responds to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 12, which calls for all levels of government to work together “to develop culturally appropriate early childhood education programs for [indigenous] families.”

Guided by the indigenous early learning and child care framework, we made it clear that this legislation will respect and uphold indigenous rights, including treaty rights and the right to self-determination, as well as the Government of Canada’s commitment to reconciliation. The goal is to support indigenous nations, communities, organizations and governments in meeting the unique needs of their communities, families and children now, and seven generations forward.

We are investing an additional $2.5 billion over five years and $542 million annually ongoing in federal funding to get this work done. This funding will increase access to high-quality, culturally appropriate ELCC programs and services for indigenous children through indigenous-led governance. Indigenous governments are also working alongside provinces and territories to ensure ELCC is comprehensive and coordinated so all children are benefiting, regardless of where they live.

Since 2019, a total of 32 quality-improvement projects have been funded. These will continue to advance the implementation of the indigenous ELCC framework through best practices and innovation. These improvements will strengthen indigenous-centred knowledge and expertise to support all partners working toward a strong, culturally appropriate system of early learning and child care.

We have said many times that high-quality, affordable, and inclusive child care is not a luxury for families. It is a necessity. All caregivers should have the opportunity to build both a family and a career, and all children should have the best possible start in life.

As I mentioned previously, this legislation would not impose any conditions or requirements on provincial and territorial governments, or indigenous peoples.

It respects first nations, Inuit and Métis rights, and supports control of the design, delivery and administration of early learning and child care programs and services that reflect their needs, priorities and aspirations. However, the federal government has a role to play in setting federal principles and supporting provinces, territories and indigenous peoples in their efforts to establish and maintain a Canada-wide system. Indigenous peoples will benefit from a federal commitment to sustained and ongoing funding.

As a government, we will invest up to $30 billion over five years to make early learning and child care affordable, accessible and nationwide. Combined with previous investments announced since 2015, a minimum of $9.2 billion per year ongoing will be invested in child care, including indigenous early learning and child care, starting in 2025-26.

Thanks to these investment, fees for regulated child care have been reduced in every jurisdiction in Canada. Quebec and Yukon were already providing regulated child care for $10 a day or less before our Canada-wide investments. In December 2022, Nunavut joined them by being the first jurisdiction to lower fees for regulated child care to $10 a day under the Canada-wide system.

By 2025-26, the average fee for all regulated spaces across Canada will be $10 a day, and that is great news for families. Child care fees in Newfoundland and Labrador have already been reduced to $15 a day, down from $25 a day in 2021. These are not just numbers. These are families saving hundreds of dollars each month across the country.

Regardless of political stripe, governments across Canada believe in giving all children in Canada the best possible start in life, and that we can agree on. The relief this offers parents and caregivers of young children cannot be overstated.

I will conclude by offering some outside assessments of nation-wide ELCC.

Charles St-Arnaud, chief economist at Alberta Central, said, “Women feel more confident going back into the workforce because they won’t be spending their whole paycheque on child care”.

Martha Friendly, a board member at Child Care Now, said, “Some women had to stay home because either they couldn’t find a space or they couldn’t afford it. Now, people are getting child care at 50 per cent reduced fees on average and that means [they] can go back to work.”

The Financial Post, on December 5, noted that our child care policy has been a success. It said, “government policy has played a role in getting women back in the workforce...especially when it comes to child care.” Again, St-Arnaud said, “Women feel more confident going back into the workforce because they won't be spending their whole paycheque on child care”.

Families are benefiting, children are benefiting, and I encourage every member of this House to support child care across this country through Bill C-35 and its swift passage.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the previous speaker and I thank her very much for bringing forward and talking about the importance of child care. As a mother, I know how important it was when I had my five children and needed that care. The biggest challenge I had was finding child care. We have talked about these proposals, but just last week, I spoke to a young woman who was coming back to work after maternity leave. She cannot find child care.

What is the government going to do about the lack of spaces? As the population increases, it is even more important to be building more spaces. I do not see the commitment to the number of spaces that are actually needed to make sure that children do have this care the Liberals are referring to.

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

Madam Speaker, as a single mom who arrived back in Canada in the early 2000s with an infant child, I know the fear of not having a space. I was that mom who did not know about wait-lists when I arrived from overseas. I had to actually put my career off for close to a year until there was a space available.

That is why, through each of our agreements, the total number of spaces that we have committed to creating with provinces is over 253,000. Already, as of January 30, 2023, 50,633 of those spaces have been committed to being built. I was in Manitoba a couple of months ago, where there was a joint commitment of 1,200 rural spaces in a joint planned agreement between Peguis and other rural communities to create spaces. We are getting there.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague from York Centre's speech. I am glad the federal government recognizes the importance of the child care system. We all know Quebec pioneered it over 25 years ago—not 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago, but 25.

It is a good thing the federal government is now recognizing, in 2023, the importance of having a child care system. What I am wondering, however, is how the federal government can do better than Quebec has been doing, given that Quebec created its child care system 25 years ago and has been running it ever since?

My colleague from York Centre said there are no obligations in this bill. That is not true. There are obligations for the next five years only. Plus, there is no way for the Government of Quebec to opt out with full compensation.

I have two questions for my colleague. First, does she think Quebec should have the right to opt out with full compensation because it has its own child care system already? Second, can the federal government do better than Quebec, which has been operating its own child care system for 25 years now?