Debates of May 31st, 2023

Motion in Amendment

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this bill will not meet all child care needs. What we should be looking at when it comes to child care is valuing the labour of child care no matter how it occurs, because if we do not use that as a principle, we are not as a Parliament respecting the diversity of our country, nor are we creating equity in how we value child care. That is the wrong message to send to Canadians.

I understand there will be different preferences and different scenarios, and this is one piece of the pie for sure, but if we cannot figure out how to value child care in all of its forms in a regionally, ethnically and culturally diverse country, we will not achieve gender equality, or universality in child care, or quality child care.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, to whom I always listen attentively, as she speaks so eloquently and makes a real contribution in the House of Commons.

I understand the point she is making, but what she has not really addressed is the fact that, ultimately, this bill provides more accessibility to child care, which is fundamentally important. I note that, in terms of child care accessibility in this country, Alberta ranks last. That is something, as I know the member is aware, that played out in the Alberta elections this week, when the New Democrats swept Edmonton and won most of the ridings in Calgary, in part because of the lack of accessibility to services.

The member has been eloquent in making her points, but will she admit that this is an important step in the progress that is so important for families in Edmonton, Calgary and right across the country?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course creating more child care spaces is important, as is creating equity in how child care is valued in all of its forms. I just wish we could have our cake and eat it too with this bill.

I will say that perhaps the NDP and Alberta's prospects would have been better if they understood that rural Alberta matters, too, because they sure did not do well there.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-35, labelled as an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development was reported as saying that the bill would enshrine the “principles that provinces and territories agreed to in the funding agreement [with Ottawa], including [the pledge] to cut parent fees and create more spaces.” I want to emphasize “create more spaces”, which we all know are currently lacking.

The Liberals promised to introduce the legislation by the end of 2022 in the confidence and supply agreement that would see the New Democrats support the minority government through 2025. Conservatives support affordable, quality day care. It is critical. However, if it cannot be assessed, it does not exist.

Bill C-35 does nothing to address accessibility. Bill C-35 is good for families who already have a child care space, but it does nothing to address the thousands of families on child care wait lists or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces.

James and Leah are a young married couple who just had their first child. As new parents, they were both excited and anxious about welcoming their new arrival. They tried to do their due diligence to ensure everything was in place and ready for their new little arrival. Their friends and family advised they start looking for day care immediately. 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. They continue to look and hope something will become available for them before Leah's maternity leave is over and she needs to go back to work. How does the Liberal government expect more women to go to work when there are no child care spots available?

Bill C-35 increases the demand for child care but does not solve the problem of access to more spaces. Families, like James and Leah, are on wait lists for years. Ontario's financial accountability office projects that by 2026, there will be 602,000 children under the age of six whose families will want $10-a-day child care, and the province will only be able to accommodate 375,000. That is a shortfall of 38%, or 227,000 children. The term “child care desert” is often used to reference a lack of or inequitable distribution of child care.

A report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released just this month found:

...child care deserts to be widespread: there were an estimated 759,000 full-time licensed spaces for younger children across Canada in centres and family child care homes in 2023. Of the 1.97 million younger children who might be using those spaces, 48 per cent live in child care deserts.

That means that almost half of younger Canadian children (defined as not yet attending Kindergarten) live in a postal code that has more than three children for every licensed child care space.

The report also examined child care coverage in 50 major cities across Canada and found:

Most Canadian cities have a coverage rate below 20 per cent, meaning that in those cities, there are at least five infants for every licensed infant space. St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Ontario cities of Barrie, Guelph, Hamilton and Brampton, and Saskatoon scored particularly badly, with low availability of infant spaces compared to their population of infants. In those cities, there is less than one licensed space for every 10 infants.

We have heard time and time again that this bill does nothing to address long wait-lists. Bill C-35 is just another in a long list of Liberal promises that they cannot deliver on. This bill does not address the labour shortage. This bill increases demand, but does not solve the problem of frontline burnout or staff shortages. There are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone to staff new spaces.

The government itself projects that by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early child care 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 this. Over the next 10 years, it is reported that more than 60% of the workforce already employed will need to be replaced, meaning around 181,000 will need to be replaced. Once we add those two figures, over 200,000 workers will be required. Currently, 27% of child care centres in British Columbia are forced to turn away children due to a lack of staff.

The committee heard from one child care director who oversees 13 child care programs with 350 spaces. They said that in the past two years, they have had to close programs temporarily, whether for a day or two, or shorten hours of the week in order to meet the licensing regulations. Conservatives know how vital affordable, quality and accessible child care is, not only to family life but also to the growth of our nation. That is why we listened to providers and those on the ground.

My colleagues listened when Dr. Susan Prentice, a Duff Roblin professor of government at the University of Manitoba, stated the following: “One thing I would like to see, for example, would be the national advisory council assured of the kind of information and data it needs, so it can track, for example, progress on strengthening the workforce.”

The Coalition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia wrote to the committee stating, “We strongly recommend the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care must...provide an annual publicly available report to the Minister on the work of the Advisory Council in meeting the goals set out in the Act”. Therefore, at committee, my colleagues sought to amend the function of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care to include supporting the recruitment and retention of a well-qualified workforce, conducting regular engagement, and a specific mandate call—

Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear. I keep hearing another conversation, and I am losing track of my speech.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I just want to make sure people in the gallery sit down when they come to visit us. I see one of our members is giving a bit of a tour. I would ask him to sit down.

The hon. member for King—Vaughan.

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

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague also put forward an amendment to the reporting clause of the bill to include the Minister of Labour in the annual reporting, and the annual reporting must include a national labour strategy to recruit and retain a qualified early childhood education workforce. This supports witnesses' testimony on the importance of a strong national labour strategy dictating the success of a national child care framework.

Our Conservative Party believes in affordable child care, but we also believe that we need to ensure that child care comes in many different avenues, and we need to make sure that we provide that for all Canadians.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech because it reinforces why Bill C-35 is important when it comes to creating affordable child care, creating accessible child care and creating more spaces.

I know that, when the Conservatives see a big challenge, they just throw up their hands to say, “We should not do anything”, but this government is different. We say, “There is a problem. Let us try to solve it.” We are going to create those 250,000 spaces. We have already created 50,000. We are getting the job done, and we are helping Canadian families.

I have two questions for my hon. colleague.

The member mentioned at the end of her speech that we should support child care in all of its diversity. Her colleagues before had talked about supporting unlicensed child care. I am wondering if she can clarify if they do in fact mean that they want to subsidize unlicensed child care that has not gone through the regulatory process.

Also, the member just said that they support affordable child care. Does that mean they are going to support Bill C-35? Right now, we are just debating an amendment to the short title.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to share an experience. I was a child of immigrants, and I had the pleasure of being raised by my grandparents. They taught me values that I still live with today.

I have seniors in my community who have had to go back to work because they cannot afford to live on their pension. For whatever reason, they are now looking for work, which they cannot find because of their age, as they are being discriminated against. However, what an opportunity it would be to have children raised by their grandparents, who will teach them the love and the tradition of what they were raised with. Why not allow that type of child care with every grandparent who has the opportunity to raise their grandchild?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for her presentation.

That said, I would like to hear the Conservatives speak a little more about shared jurisdictions. The last time I read Canada's Constitution, which, I would remind members, Quebec never signed, it stated that education, including family policies, were not a federal jurisdiction.

The Bloc Québécois will of course vote for the bill for the sole reason that it allows for the right to opt out with compensation, and this seldom happens, or happens too little with centralizing policies and bills. Quebec is exempt for five years. That is the only reason we support it, but we do not do so enthusiastically.

In committee, why did the Conservatives vote against the Bloc Québécois amendments, which mentioned Quebec's invaluable contribution to family policies?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is a provincial jurisdiction. I also believe that parents have the right to choose what child care fits their child.

As a young widow, I had no choice but to find child care outside of the licensed child care because I did not have a nine-to-five job. My job related to different hours and different shifts, and I needed to find support for my children.

Yes, it is a provincial issue, and yes we should not cross that line, but we need to diversify to ensure that the individuals who are willing to go back to work to continue their careers have the opportunity to choose the right child care for their children.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was very thoughtful.

Child care is an important issue. My own daughter is struggling to find child care for her daughter, my granddaughter.

We are here until midnight debating the bill. Actually, we are debating the Conservative amendment to the bill, which is something I assume Conservatives think would improve it, and that is to delete the short title of the bill. I am just wondering if the member can tell me, without looking, what the short title of the bill is and what Conservatives find so offensive about it?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here because we are parents. We are mothers, and we care. We need to make sure that the bill works for every mother and child in this country.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House for the second time today, this time to speak to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, which was introduced by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development on December 8.

From the work that we did at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, it is clear that the demands of the Bloc Québécois and Quebec were not heard or respected. Throughout the study of the bill, we heard witnesses talk about how important affordable, quality child care is for early childhood development, for better work-school-life balance, for the emancipation of women and for return on investment in the economy.

Throughout the study, Quebec was lauded as a model. Although it is not perfect, the Quebec model was mentioned many times as the model that should be emulated. However, at amendment stage, when it came time to include Quebec's expertise in the bill, the other three parties dismissed that reality out of hand. The same thing happened with our amendments to include wording allowing Quebec to completely opt out of the federal program with full financial compensation.

The only sign of any degree of openness was when a reference to Quebec expertise was included in the preamble, the only place where these words ultimately have no real impact on the law.

Although Quebec will not get the option to completely withdraw from the program with full compensation, an agreement to this effect had already been reached between Ottawa and Quebec. Senior officials who worked on the bill also repeatedly stated, when questioned on the subject, that while nothing would prevent the federal government from imposing conditions as part of a future agreement, the bill had always been designed with the asymmetry of Quebec's reality compared to Canada's provinces in mind.

The various members of the Liberal government who spoke on the bill also repeatedly said that the Liberals intended to continue working with Quebec on this issue. The current agreement also appealed to Quebec, since it did not interfere in any area of jurisdiction and left the Quebec government free to spend the money wherever it wanted.

With the current agreement between Ottawa and Quebec, and with the government's expressed willingness to continue that collaboration, it appears that Canada does not intend to preach to Quebec on the child care issue, especially since it has consistently praised Quebec's model of early childhood centres. We therefore believe that another bilateral agreement would be possible, probable and necessary, since the government is taking its cue from Quebec.

I presented six amendments in committee that, as I said earlier, would have made it possible to include Quebec's expertise in the bill. I wanted clause 7 to be amended by adding, among other things, the following:

(3) Having regard to the special and unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec relating to early learning and child care in Quebec society and despite any other provision of this Act, the Government of Quebec may choose to exempt itself from the application of this Act by giving the Minister written notice to that effect, in which case that province may still receive the funding under section 8.

The purpose of this amendment was to incorporate a clause that recognizes the expertise of Quebec in the guiding principles of the bill. The adoption of my amendment would have allowed for the recognition of Quebec's jurisdiction and guaranteed Quebec a right to opt out of this legislation with full compensation. The idea is to avoid disputes between Ottawa and Quebec by recognizing from the outset what everyone here knows: Quebec is a pioneer when it comes to early childhood education and must continue to have sole control of its policies in this area.

We know that Quebec adopted a forward-thinking family policy more than 25 years ago. This policy, which can be described as progressive and feminist, has enabled thousands of women and families to benefit from better work-life or school-life balance, specifically through the creation of a network of early childhood centres. This model is an asset and a source of pride for the entire Quebec nation. In fact, it is the inspiration for this bill.

The adoption of this amendment would have confirmed the special and unique nature of the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction over education and child development by giving Quebec a right to opt out completely with full compensation.

Furthermore, this is an exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, and we believe that this amendment, like all the amendments that I moved, would have prevented squabbling between Ottawa and Quebec in the next round of federal investments in this area.

With respect to the same clause of the bill, I moved that the following be added:

Quebec retains sole responsibility for implementing, evaluating and adapting its early learning and child care policies and programs in Quebec, and therefore the Council's functions do not extend to early learning and child care, or any other related activity, in Quebec.

This amendment would have reiterated Quebec's sole jurisdiction in this area. Quebec has no desire to be evaluated or monitored by some council that answers to Ottawa, seeing as Quebec is a pioneer in this area, which falls under provincial jurisdiction. This came at the request of the office of Quebec's Minister of Families.

I also wanted the preamble to recognize the unique and leading-edge expertise of the Government of Quebec in the development and implementation of accessible and affordable educational child care services, that government having developed an innovative child care model in 1997 as part of its comprehensive family policy designed to give Quebec families a better work- or study-life balance, access to generous maternity and parental leaves, and services that are suited to self-employed workers and those with atypical hours of work.

This change in the text of the bill would have been important in guiding actions and interpretations of the bill. My amendment would have enshrined Quebec's historical capacity and expertise in its jurisdiction and family policy in the bill.

Continuing with the preamble, I wanted to read that the Government of Canada recognizes that, because of the special and unique nature of the Quebec government's responsibility for early learning and child care and the fact that Quebec developed educational, accessible, affordable and quality child care services as part of the family policy it adopted in 1997, the Quebec government need not adhere to the multilateral framework, as it intends to retain the exclusive responsibility for this matter in its territory.

The amendment that I presented was important because it would have recognized all the work done by Quebec on family policy and early childhood education over more than 25 years. The Quebec government declined Ottawa's invitation to participate in meetings to develop the multilateral early learning framework for a very simple reason. Quebec is responsible for its areas of jurisdiction and takes full responsibility for its family policy and educational framework. In this regard, it is not accountable to the federal government for its decisions.

As I said at the beginning, when it came time to include Quebec's expertise in the bill, the other three parties dismissed the idea outright. As I have said many times, Quebec is a champion in this field and a model, a model repeatedly cited by several witnesses we heard from at committee, and a model long envied by other provinces and territories.

However, Quebec does not appear once in Bill C-35. If Quebec's expertise and recognition had appeared in this bill, it would have garnered greater support from the Bloc Québécois. That said, we still support Bill C-35 in principle and will be voting in favour of it.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I also thank the Bloc Québécois for saying that it is in favour of this bill.

I want to confirm that this bill respects the jurisdictions of the provinces and territories, including Quebec's jurisdiction. The agreement we signed with Quebec is an asymmetrical agreement that recognizes its leadership on this file. I want to emphasize the fact that we see Quebec's leadership and we prepared the bill and the bilateral agreements based on the experience in Quebec, which is a leader not only in Canada, but around the world.

As far as my hon. colleague's proposed amendments are concerned, members voting against them is not the reason they were not adopted. It was decided that they were not in order because they were outside the scope of the bill. Nevertheless, we commend the leadership of Quebec and we respect its jurisdiction.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her question. All of my committee colleagues and I worked really hard.

What always surprises me is that Quebec is trying to be a model and, because we are a model, it seems as though we are inconvenient. I do not understand because, when it comes to day care and early childhood education, we have been demonstrating since 1997 that children do well in day care when women go back to work. It is also about work-life balance.

I know that the minister is a trustworthy person. However, since words fade away but written statements endure, I would have liked to see it set out in writing that Quebec is a model and has special expertise in this area.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I enjoyed working with her in committee on this bill.

Tonight, this has been brought up a lot: Why are we here? What are we doing? That is important.

These agreements have been signed already by provinces and territories, but there are alarm bells being rung across the country by providers and parents. Every day, we are seeing articles in the media about the concern over this crisis that say this child care bill would not meet the demand.

Does my colleague understand the importance of this? If this is going to be as big as the Liberals say it is, forever and generational, is it not important to spend as much time on it as possible to make sure we get it right?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I think it is important to mention that, despite everything, this bill is very important for families. It is a matter of learning and development for young children. It is also a matter of well-being for both children and families.

I think that this is a step forward in creating a day care or early childhood education program in Canada. Of course, we can always do better. Let us look at what has been done over the past 25 years in Quebec. However, what is important is that we have taken the first steps toward a national child care program.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I wonder if the member can explain how this bill would support the great work of the Kativik Regional Government in Nunavik. Will it be better supported through the implementation of this important bill?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. There are indeed similarities. These are important communities in our ridings, after all. They also need support in terms of day cares. I think this bill will make things easier for the communities. The important thing is to always listen to the communities and their needs.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, fortunately there is the right to opt out with compensation. However, when I read that a “Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework” would apparently fall under the federal spending power, I admit that concerns me.

Am I right to be concerned?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Yes, we do have some questions, and there is good reason to be concerned.

We have to remain vigilant when it comes to this bill and future legislation. There is room for improvement, so we are going to pay very close attention to what happens with this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Before we go to the next speaker and I run off, I want to make sure that everybody prays for a bit of rain for Nova Scotia.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are all hoping and praying for rain, and sending our best, in support of all the first responders who are responding to the tragedy.

It is an honour for me to stand on behalf of my constituents and speak to Bill C-35, the legislation currently before the House. This is a bill that would enshrine in legislation essentially the deals that the federal government has already signed with provincial governments.

It is important, right off the bat, for people listening to know that the debate tonight, no matter how long it goes today or in the coming days, does not actually affect the real-time outcomes among the different levels of government. That is something I wanted to get on the record right away, anticipating some of the concerns and phony outrage that might be manufactured in a few moments from some members from other parties.

I want to start off by pointing out the fact that I have five children. I often get asked what it is like having five children, especially when we went from four to five. Having that fifth child is nerve-racking. Many of my friends and family said four was a lot, asked how we went from four to five and what it was like as a family to experience that. The great Jim Gaffigan, who also has five kids, by the way, summed it up best. He said if people want to contemplate what it is like going from four children to five children, they should imagine themselves drowning and then someone throwing them a baby. I can attest that there is a lot of truth to that.

The difference between a first child and a fifth child is very different psychologically. When my wife and I had our first child, we had all the bells and whistles, the baby monitors and that special mat that monitored everything. At the slightest sound, we would run in and check on Thomas. When the fifth child comes along, it is a little different. Parents are a little more mellow and have experienced more. When I was asked how it was going with baby number five, I would say it was pretty good, that we were getting through the night. We would put the baby down, turn on a fan on in the baby's room and close Mary's door. We would go into our room, close our door and turn our fan on. When people would ask if she was sleeping through the night, we would say we did not know, but we were. That is kind of half the battle being a parent.

I tell these stories because, for those us who have been blessed with the opportunity to have and raise children, it is a lot. It is incredibly rewarding, but it is, at the same time, incredibly stressful. People go through all the normal difficulties of life with bills, jobs and managing different relationships in their lives and then they have this being that is 100% dependent on them as parents. Every moment parents are away from that child, they worry about him or her. They ponder whether they have left their child with the right sitter, if their mother-in-law is going to forget the thing she was told about the medicine at the right time or if their dad is going to think to do the other thing. All those thoughts that parents think of are always stressful.

Child care, of course, is a major preoccupation for parents from all walks of life, from all backgrounds, from all different corners of our wonderful country, so it is not surprising that, as the Liberal cost of living crisis continues, child care costs are one of the stress points in families. As the Liberal government has devalued our paycheques by robbing us of our purchasing power, as it ballooned the money supply, washing $400 billion of new money through the system, completely devaluing the dollars that we work so hard for, it is not surprising that one of the stress points is child care, because it is so intrinsically linked.

For many families, the ability to work, to go out and earn a living, is dependent on the ability to find someone to watch their children, to make sure their children have the care they need while they go out into the world and earn a paycheque. Sadly, under the Liberal government, more and more Canadian families are having to work more and more. They have to pick up extra shifts. I know many people in my riding who have second jobs, who work a full 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and then pick up maybe an 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift at a restaurant or hotel, and they are doing that just to offset the purchasing power that the government robbed them of.

I think back to my science classes when I was going through high school. Every once in a while we would kind of look at the fallacy around a perpetual motion machine, something often seen in tropes in science textbooks when talking about conservation of energy, entropy and things like that. It is pretty much an accepted fact that we could never have a perpetual motion machine. What does a “perpetual motion machine” mean? It means the machine itself provides the energy to power the movement of the machine which then creates the energy that goes back into creating the movement. There is a perpetual loop that the energy created by the machine powers the machine to create the energy in the first place.

One does not have to be a fourth-year graduate student to understand that there is no such thing in the real world as a perpetual motion machine, but in politics there can be. That is the perpetual motion machine of government justifying its continued intervention in the economy or in people's lives. The government taxes families more and more. It devalues the paycheques of the people who pay those taxes, which creates stresses in our society. We are seeing 1.5 million Canadians visiting a food bank, a staggering number in 2023 in a developed G7 country. We all hear heartbreaking stories of families who have had their utilities cut off because they could not pay the increased costs as the carbon tax takes a bigger and bigger bite out of their paycheques and, of course, we see it with child care costs as well. More and more of those take-home dollars have to go to pay the child care providers.

The government comes along after taxing and after devaluing paycheques and says it is going to tax more and spend more to help alleviate the problem that we ourselves have caused. When I say “we” I mean the Liberal government; it is not actually the Conservative government. The Liberal government has caused this dynamic. This is what I mean by the perpetual motion machine. It is continually creating problems through government action and intervention. Then to alleviate those problems, it comes along to tax more and spend more, which creates more problems and unintended consequences down the road. Who could have predicted today in 2023 that some of those terrible Liberal policies of 2015-16 would lead to these massive inflation numbers that we see today, accompanied by staggering interest rate hikes?

The Liberal finance minister finally acknowledged that inflationary deficits cause higher interest rates. Seeing the numbers from the last little bit, we know that in April the inflation rate for Canada went up even after the Bank of Canada took all kinds of measures to fight inflation by increasing interest rates; forcing Canadians to pay more and more of their mortgage payment to the bank for interest, instead of actually paying down the principal. After that kind of news and knowing what the U.S. federal reserve has done raising interest rates, experts are predicting that there are going to be future interest rate hikes coming to Canada this summer.

The reason why I mention all of this is because this might look like it is going to help Canadians. There may be many Canadians looking at this legislation, looking at these child care deals and thinking, okay, my child care costs are getting more and more expensive but at least the government is coming along to help me with that. The point is that the unintended consequences of massive amounts of new spending requiring new taxes to pay for it or driving up inflation will undo any of the benefits that the Liberals are claiming to have today.

I also want to very briefly point out how unfair this is to so many Canadians, so many women across the country who would prefer to raise their own children, to look after their own children, and with the entrepreneurial spirit that they have, decide to become a day care operator and open up their own home, maybe finish their basement or put on an addition to their house so that they can look after children in neighbourhoods in what is being called “day care deserts” which, according to data from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 92% of Saskatchewan is in a day care desert. Rather than facilitate and enable women to become entrepreneurs, to start businesses in their communities, the government has decided to fund one narrow form of day care. That is why the official opposition is raising these kinds of concerns and we hope the government takes these concerns seriously.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, a lot of us can relate to what it is like to have a baby and that feeling of being overwhelmed, which is why child care is so important and it is so important for families to know they can send their child somewhere that is safe, that is going to provide quality development and education and that their child will be well cared for.

I need to correct the record. The hon. colleague ended by saying that if one has a home day care one is not eligible to participate in this program. That is simply false. In fact, in his own province of Saskatchewan, that is one of the ways it is increasing access to child care, through licensed day homes, particularly in rural areas.

This is typical of the Conservatives, who I am not sure have actually read the legislation or read the agreements, so they do not actually know what we are debating tonight, which in fact is an amendment to the short title of the bill. I have asked every single Conservative colleague here if they will be supporting Bill C-35. I have yet to hear a clear response.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister is highlighting the importance of report stage debates because she is claiming the bill does not discriminate against entrepreneurs who want to start a business in their communities to address this.

Let me read her bill. Maybe she can go back to her department and quickly file some amendments or maybe withdraw the bill and come up with something else.

Under “Guiding Principles”, paragraph 7(1)(a) reads:

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, that is excluding all those examples I just mentioned, such as people in smaller communities—