Debates of Feb. 14th, 2024

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

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

It is time for questions and comments.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is clearly very well informed about this program.

I would say one thing: Yes, there is some ideology behind the program. We believe that women should have the choice to go back to their careers if they want to and be able to afford that, so in that respect, I agree with the member. However, with all of the criticism you have of the program, I am curious as to why you voted for it. Could you please explain that?

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

I will remind members to run their questions through the Chair. It is not about how I voted.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is ironic about the member's question is that women do not have the choice to go to work. The stats are in. That is the reality of this program.

I talked to one day care operator and somebody had asked her why she did not opt out and why she opted into this program. She said to me that she absolutely wants to provide affordable, quality child care for people who need it, but this program was rigged from day one. She thought she was doing the right thing, but she was coerced into signing this agreement and they are taking money from her and taking away the choice for families.

That is what we wanted. We wanted to provide families with choice. We put forward the amendments in committee and the Liberals and the NDP voted down every single one.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I work with the hon. member on the status of women committee, and we have gotten some things done in that committee. I appreciate that very much.

My colleague mentioned Andrea Hannen, who I know has been very critical of the national child care program, but here is the thing: Provincial licensing requirements are a floor, not a ceiling.

We know that the research consensus is that non-profit and public child care delivers high-quality care and better outcomes for children than for-profit care. We know that through research. We also know that for-profit care centres, historically, have exploited workers more so than public and not-for-profit child care centres.

We know that one of the reasons why the national child care strategy is not getting off the ground is that the Liberal government did not put in place a worker strategy with livable wages, benefits and pensions. People are not wanting to join the field.

I have worked a lot with my hon. colleague. We have differences, though, on this. I am wondering why she thinks that public money should go toward centres that are not public and not not-for-profit. Why should we use public money for that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do work very well with my colleague across the way. We, as Conservatives, supported her amendment in committee to support indigenous people, for children and parents to have that right under UNDRIP, and the Liberals did not.

I think it is really insulting to these women-operated child care centres. Why are they not included? That there is research that they do not provide the quality has been said to me repeatedly. I have been to these centres. The quality of child care is deeply diminishing under this care because they do not have the money. They cannot charge more money. Their hands are tied. The quality in these not-for-profit centres is also dropping. Kids do not have access to food. Parents are getting nickelled and dimed.

To say that they do not have the quality of care, in a small, independent, female-owned-and-operated child care centre, is not fair. I encourage members to go to see them.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I think we can see the Conservative Party of Canada ideology behind it.

Now, she talked about the work done in committee. As part of that work, the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments, including one that would have given Quebec the opportunity to opt out completely from any federal program with financial compensation.

I know that all the other parties voted against that amendment. I am a little surprised by the Conservatives' position because they are always telling us that they respect the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Why did they not stand with the Bloc Québécois in this case?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do feel that we were allies with the Bloc, and we are allies in what has happened. The Bloc got this right from day one. Keep it in the province. Why did the feds wade into this water? Why did they do this?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Peterborough—Kawartha, who does excellent work on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It was a pleasure for me to work with her on the official languages section on this bill.

It is always a pleasure for me to rise in the House to debate important issues that affect Canadians.

People who know me know that I am a staunch defender of the French fact, so I am particularly enthusiastic about speaking on official languages, obviously in French.

That is a valid question. Why are official languages mentioned in the Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act? The answer is quite simple. The current Liberal government has once again forgotten francophone minority communities. That comes as no surprise.

However, as we have already seen when modernizing the Official Languages Act, the Liberal government claims to be the champion of official languages, but lacks courage when it comes time to take meaningful action. That is what the Liberals are: all talk and no action.

Because of the Liberal government's lack of vision and ambition, the elephant gave birth to a mouse, as I like to say when describing Bill C‑13. It aims to modernize the Official Languages Act. It was the first official languages review process in over 30 years. The government turned a deaf ear to stakeholders across the country. This is yet another missed opportunity. That has often been our experience with this Liberal government, which has been in power for eight years.

There is no obligation to count the rights holders. The federal authorities' powers are diluted. There is no central agency. There is no accountability. That is how it is with the Liberals. No one is ever accountable. What about the Commissioner of Official Languages, who is still awaiting the order in council granting him his powers? It is written in the act, but who is going to table that order before the government? Is it the President of the Treasury Board? Is it the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is one of the two ministers named in the legislation, but will not even appear before the Standing Committee on Official Languages? Is it the Minister of Official Languages? Is this the Minister of Justice? Who is it? No one knows and, in the meantime, the commissioner is waiting to take action. I would like to remind the House that French is in decline across Canada. The Liberals' approach to official languages is not serious, and it shows how little interest they have in this country's bilingualism.

Bill C‑35 passed unanimously here in the House last June. Today, however, we are debating a Senate amendment put forward by Senator Cormier, an Acadian, who stood up for francophones. He wants to add the words “official language minority communities” to the first sentence of clause 8, after “including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples”; and he divides clause 8 into two paragraphs. It is not complicated. However, we are still debating that today. Wow.

The first paragraph sets out the government's financial commitment. The second paragraph outlines the mechanisms that the federal government will use to provide the funding. Adding the words “official language minority communities” after the word “including” does not detract from any rights of any other minority or of indigenous peoples, but seeks to eliminate any ambiguity before the courts. The Liberals did a sloppy job, the Senate raised a red flag and made the necessary corrections. The Liberals always fly by the seat of their pants and leave things to the last minute. There is no discipline.

We are well aware of how much work and resources official language minority communities must put into defending their language rights. Let us talk about that. Even though the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique in its case against Employment and Social Development Canada, the federation still has to fight with the Minister of Official Languages to have that ruling enforced. It is unbelievable. What a waste of time and money. However, as we saw again today, the Liberals think that money grows on trees.

Early childhood is a critical period for children when it comes to learning language skills and developing their identity. All too often, access to early childhood services in French is essential for francophone minority communities to pass on their language and culture.

These services are vectors for French learning, ensuring that children acquire the language skills they need to prepare them for an education in their own language, and facilitating their integration into francophone schools across Canada. This contributes to the implementation of the right to education, as enshrined in section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We believe that this amendment is relevant and necessary.

I would also like to point out that the references to official language minority communities already found in clause 7 and clause 11 are thanks to the Conservative Party of Canada. I was the one who introduced them. I had the support of the Bloc Québécois, but the NDP and the Liberals voted against some of the amendments we proposed. However, we were able to get some of them through. Unfortunately, some others were rejected, and we had to go through the Senate. The Conservative Party of Canada made sure that francophones across Canada were included in the bilateral agreements for early childhood services.

I would also like to take a moment to thank the folks at the Commission nationale des parents francophones and at the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada for their hard work on this file.

The Liberals are not in favour of this amendment because they had to go through the Senate. Even the Speaker of the Senate, the government representative, clearly indicated that he would not support Senator Cormier's amendment. That was the stance the Liberal government was taking. Again, the Liberals flip-flopped. Francophones are the ones who took a stand.

As I said, the Liberals were not in favour of this amendment. The government's position was that this amendment was not necessary or appropriate. However, today, out of the blue, the Liberals are saying that they are in favour of the amendment. What is the reason for that?

Every individual should have access to early child care services in the official language of their choice, and that is non-negotiable as long as our country, Canada, is a bilingual country. I want to emphasize the concept of French and English bilingualism, because it is important to remember that this government appointed a governor general who is bilingual, but who does not speak French. I would also like to add that only one province in Canada is bilingual. This government appointed a unilingual lieutenant governor who, obviously, does not speak French, because the Liberals are inconsistent. Their intentions and desires may go beyond what is set out in the laws, but, unfortunately, the Liberal government does not walk the talk.

The Liberals realized that they would lose support in francophone regions and decided to adopt the Conservative Party of Canada's common-sense position. Yes, it is common sense. As long as we are a bilingual country, we should be consistent and protect both official languages.

We saw the Liberals use this same tactic with the pause on the carbon tax in Atlantic Canada. It is so odd. The Liberals reacted blindly, in panic mode. They punished all other Canadians outside the Atlantic provinces by denying them heat pumps. That was a problem. They were just reacting.

Then the Liberals changed their minds and said that Albertans and British Columbians might be able to use the credit. Again, they were improvising. It is unfortunate. This government is a disaster. It is shameful to try to score political points off our country's bilingual identity.

In closing, my message for francophones across the country is simple: Here in the House of Commons, the Conservative Party of Canada is the only party that can truly protect their interests. We will continue to take concrete action and stop the decline of French, which is a fact across Canada. We will also protect and promote our two official languages. We will not pit French against English. We intend to protect both official languages, French and English.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague for his speech and, more importantly, for his hard work on Bill C‑13.

All parties in the House worked together to support francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec, and it was a great victory. I always appreciate my colleague's work. However, I must point out that what he says and what his party says are two different things. The ideology of the party—

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

The hon. member is not wearing a tie.

Now that he is wearing his tie, the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook has the floor again.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain that it was during the nine years of the Harper government that we saw major cuts to the Translation Bureau. Court challenges that we brought—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would ask you to follow and enforce the Standing Orders. We know that male members cannot speak in the House if they are not wearing a tie.

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

I watched him put on his tie.

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree that you would not normally have recognized the member in the first place since he was not wearing a tie. You did recognize him. We understand, but we are simply asking you to follow and enforce the Standing Orders next time.

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

I did not realize he was not wearing a tie. I will be more careful next time.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a well-established precedent that if a member does not have a tie, but then gets a tie and puts it on the Speakers have always allowed them to continue their speech.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I say we let him go because the tie does not match the shirt. If he wants to stand in this place like that, then he should go ahead.

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

Personally, I think this is taking too long.

The hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am Canadian, and I am sure everyone is proud they are here today discussing important things for Canadians.

I will quickly finish my question.

I would like to acknowledge the work that has been done on this issue. I would like my colleague to talk about the importance of early child care in Canada. That is what is important here.

Francophones across Canada have missed out a lot of opportunities and have been assimilated. It is because they did not have the opportunity to receive preschool education in French.

I would like my colleague to say how happy we are today to be working together to make the major changes that needed to be made.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell viewers at home that they do not need to adjust their video, even though the tie does not match. My colleague is a colourful character and I really appreciate his presence at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. As for the tie, I will give him some fashion advice this evening.

I just want to say to my colleague that today we are talking about the amendment that seeks to include the official languages clause in the bill on child care and early childhood services. I think it is important to focus on 2024 and stop living in the past of more than 10 years ago.

We need to look what the Liberal government has done in the past eight years. Recently, it prevented a committee from doing its work because it said that translating the documents would cost $300 million. That is disgraceful. It is unacceptable. This is a parliamentary right. Every parliamentarian needs to receive information in both official languages. Who is in government right now? It is the Liberal government.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his passionate speech.

I know that he is on a mission for the Francophonie. I am delighted to serve with him on the Assemblée des parlementaires de la Francophonie. I know he cares about this.

His speech earlier sounded more partisan than pro-francophone to me. I know that in the past, his party, which he loves to talk about, actually appointed an anglophone judge to the Supreme Court, which was a bit of a black mark against it.

I would like him to tell me if there is anything good in this bill, apart from the fact that the inspiration came from Quebec's brilliant example.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières. We also have the pleasure of working together on the international scene to defend the French fact.

I would like to remind my colleague that the Conservative Party did a lot to ensure that official languages were included in this bill. We worked very hard, with the collaboration of our colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, who worked with me to try to put more in Bill C-13.

I would like to remind my colleague that I myself was at the committee. I moved amendments. Official languages are in the bill thanks to the Conservative Party of Canada.

Also, I would like to remind the House that all the Conservative senators—because there is a Conservative caucus in the Senate—voted in favour of Senator Cormier's amendment. How many Liberals or Liberal-appointed independents voted against it?

That is the question we should be asking.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I want to share that I agree with many of the comments made by my colleague about the importance of Canadians having access to French-language child care and early learning.

The member was speaking about money not growing on trees and the importance of child care being effectively funded. I have frequently heard the Conservatives talk about privatized child care. We know that, when child care is public, it is increasingly accessible and available and that workers have livable wages, for example.

Could the member share his thoughts around using public tax money for privatized child care? What is the importance of funding public child care with public funds?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who recognizes that what I said in my speech is appreciated by a very large majority of people in the NDP. It is common sense. We need to put money in the right places so that our Canadian families, mothers and fathers, can go to work, create wealth and then benefit from social programs.