44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 29, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/29/24 10:13:14 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a certificate of nomination and biographical notes for the proposed appointment of Konrad Winrich von Finckenstein to the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 10:14:09 a.m.
- Watch
moved:
That, in accordance with section 81 of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C., 1985 c. P-1, the House approve the appointment of Konrad Winrich von Finckenstein as Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, for a term of seven years.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 10:14:30 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition. This return will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 10:35:03 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to hear that the member feels that the government should be listening to indigenous community leaders, considering the lack of attention that was given by the former Harper regime. The member commented a great deal on the nutrition north program, which delivers literally tens of millions of dollars of support to make things like groceries a whole lot more affordable.
Could the member reflect on what he believes would make a difference, given the dramatic change in life as a direct result of climate change?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 10:55:40 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, issues of this nature are of great importance. No matter where one lives in Canada, there is a great deal of sympathy and appreciation for the cost of living in northern Canada.
Back in the days when I was an MLA, I recall bringing forward legislation on milk, because of the cost of milk in northern Manitoba and the fact that cola products were far more cheaper. Although my bill never passed, it at least made a point. As much as possible, we do not want products that we consume on a daily basis and take for granted to become so expensive in northern Canada. Often, it is not even a question of price; it is a question of availability. In our cities, we have come to accept that when we walk into a grocery store many products will be available to us, but that is not the case in northern Canada.
How many speeches have we heard, not only today but in the past, about competition? We often talk about the importance of competition, whether it is in Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver, smaller communities in between, Halifax, virtually throughout the country. One reason we talk about competition is because through competition we get better selection, better prices and so forth. Those same principles do not apply to northern Canada.
In northern Canada, one grocery chain covers the Far North. How does that provide for a competitive price regime? A whole lot more with respect to getting the products up north needs to be taken into consideration.
I have weekly discussions in my constituency at a local restaurant. I recall one individual from the University of Manitoba. He has talked about airships for years and has gained quite a bit of support for the role airships could play in providing additional competition and resources to northern Canada. There is now a great deal of talk about how, maybe even in a community like Thompson, airships could get engaged in providing services further north to ensure there is healthier competition and choice of product.
We need to look at ways to ensure there is more food security, more choice and, obviously, a better price point on products that people living in the north need day in and day out. I think the vast majority of Canadians understand the issue and would like more done on that file. The government has moved forward significantly on reconciliation.
Before I get into more details on that, I want to highlight something that took place yesterday and we are witnessing it again today. Members in the House were anticipating that we would be talking about child care, as it is an item on today's agenda.
It is somewhat disappointing, given the very nature of the debates we have been having over the last couple of days, that the Conservative Party has chosen to talk about this issue, without giving any notice whatsoever to members outside of their own caucus. We have a Conservative opposition that wants to highlight a particular issue, yet it does not tell anyone what it wants to debate. That does put some limitations on the debate. I know others who would have liked to contribute to the debate and who maybe have not been afforded the opportunity because of availability, other agenda items and so forth.
If this issue is so important to the Conservative Party, why would it not have brought in an opposition day motion related to the report? It is interesting, the member who spoke previously talked about the nutrition north program. He even indicated in his comments that the government has been constantly increasing the financial resources for the program. We even have members of the Conservative Party making reference to the fact that the government has continued to increase the funding.
A number of issues could have been raised on an opposition day, because then everyone would have had the appropriate notice and time, and specific members who would like to address the issue would be in a better position to do so. We could actually come back with hard numbers, in terms of what has actually been invested in that program.
There are numerous departments that deal with indigenous leaders and communities of the north. I would argue that the Conservatives have done a disservice in two ways. First, they are underestimating the importance of this very issue, by the manner in which they have brought it forward. It is disrespectful to the issue they want to debate. Second, at the same time, they have prevented a debate that members of this House were anticipating from occurring, that being child care.
I made reference to the fact that yesterday we were talking about processes and what takes place on the floor of the House of Commons. The Conservatives were complaining that they would actually have to sit beyond 6:00 p.m. in order to debate government agenda items. They did not want to sit late in the evenings. I argued that we needed the time to have those debates, because of the games that were played by the Conservatives, bringing in concurrence reports in order to prevent debate on government legislation.
I highlighted that yesterday. I have raised that issue before. Once again, we see the Conservative Party playing a destructive role here on the floor of the House of Commons.
The Conservatives are saying that they do not want to talk about child care here today, even though that is what we were supposed to be talking about. Then they took an issue that is so serious and, without any notice to other members, brought it forward.
I am going to wind up my remarks, because I do want to get to debate. I will highlight one thing. I think of the department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Employment and Social Development Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Indigenous Services Canada, Infrastructure Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, not to mention the many different indigenous groups that want to participate in the discussion. The Conservatives took this opportunity to, in essence, mock the issue and take advantage of an issue in order to prevent the government agenda of dealing with child care, and that is an area that needs to be debated.
The legislation needs to be passed, and that is the reason I would move:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
1096 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 1:15:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is one issue on which we cannot trust the Conservative Party. This is a good example of a hidden agenda. All one needs to do is to look at the last federal election. The leader said that they were going to tear up the whole child care plan the Liberals brought forward. Then they say some nice things post-election about it, and I think they might have even voted once in favour of the legislation.
Canadians have a right to know exactly what the Conservative Party's position is, at least today, on child care. Do they support the federal program, or do they not?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 1:19:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, the Conservative Party does not support the $10-a-day child care program that the Government of Canada has negotiated with the different provinces. I find that shameful. I would challenge the member across the way to be crystal clear and to explain why the Conservative Party does not support the program.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 1:26:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, having said that, I was fascinated by the previous point of order.
However, my point of order is based on some discussions among the parties. If you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the remainder of the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 52 to concur in the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research be deemed to have taken place and all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.
As indicated, there were discussions among the parties; I believe you will find agreement.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I picked up on the member's comment earlier today when there was an attempt by the Conservative Party to prevent Bill C-35 on child care from being debated, which I know is important in all regions of the country. She has commented fairly extensively on the benefits of the program. The Conservatives tried to do that by introducing the northern food allowance and the importance of food up north. I thought that was somewhat tragic, because it is an important issue and would make a nice opposition day motion.
I wonder if the member would expand on both because it was raised a little earlier, and I know her origins are in the north.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to such an important piece of legislation.
It is interesting to note the mechanisms that were used in order to prevent debate on this piece of legislation. It is fairly well established that, as a government, we have been very aggressive on the issue of trying to provide child care to Canadians. We have had a number of ministers work with different provincial entities and other stakeholders across the country in order to develop a plan that would be well received by Canadians.
Having achieved that plan, the work was then to start by working with provinces and getting agreements put into place. Many provinces actually have $10-a-day child care because of the government's proactive approach to providing good-quality child care. Manitoba is one of those provinces. In fact, it was not that long ago that we had the Prime Minister come to Winnipeg North and visit Stanley Knowles School, where he got to witness first-hand some of the benefactors of quality child care. That was in just one school in the riding of Winnipeg North. We saw children, parents and administrators of good-quality child care.
When we look at the dialogue that had taken place, see the individual efforts by the child care providers, and see the smiles on the faces of children and their parents and guardians who bring them to that facility, we get a better appreciation as to why child care is so very important.
Here is the issue I have. Virtually every member of the Conservative Party who speaks nowadays has been programmed to talk about their four priorities. The one I want to focus a little attention on is the priority they classify as “fixing the budget”. It is important that people really understand what Conservatives mean when they say “fixing the budget”. From my perspective, those are code words about a Conservative hidden agenda in terms of what a Conservative government would actually do. We need to be aware of that. The Conservatives need to start sharing what their true feelings, thoughts and policies are on very important public policy positions.
Earlier today, in the debate on this, one of the Conservatives stood up and was very critical of Bill C-35. I posed a question, asking if the member could be very clear, because the Conservative Party has not been clear on the child care issue and on Bill C-35. If we look at what Conservatives were saying during the election, the position they took was that at the end of the day, they were going to rip up the child care proposals that the Liberal government was talking about just prior to the election. That is what they were telling Canadians.
Shortly after the election, Conservatives started to waffle a little, as the government started to actually get provinces to sign on to it. Whether it was provinces like my home province of Manitoba or provinces like Ontario, what we witnessed is that from all regions of the country, provinces and territories were buying into the national program. That caused a few issues to the Conservative Party members, as they started to feel a little uncomfortable with what they were seeing during the last federal election.
Let us fast-forward to what is happening today and what we are hearing from the Conservative caucus. I asked a member who spoke on it specifically what the Conservative Party's position is on $10-a-day child care. It was pretty straightforward, but the answer was far from straightforward. It did not provide any clarity whatsoever.
That is why I say people need to be aware of the “fix the budget” bumper sticker or theme that the Conservative Party is telling Canadians. What it really means is that programs we are talking about today, programs that have the support of New Democrats, members of the Bloc and Green Party members will be on the chopping block. The Conservatives do not support them. They might say something at different points in time, but they do not support the initiative that has been taken by this government.
The contrast between the Conservatives and the government is very compelling when it comes to social programming. We have seen that from day one. When we think of how this government has been there to support Canadians, providing programs that have seen disposable incomes go up for seniors and families with children, we have witnessed the Conservative Party vote against those measures time and time again, right from the beginning.
We told families we would give the middle class a break and brought in a tax reduction for Canada's middle class, and the Conservatives voted against that. When we brought in reforms to the Canada child benefit, the Conservative Party voted against them too. We brought in measures that ultimately prevented millionaires from receiving money and gave more money to those with lower incomes, and the Conservatives voted against them. We brought in enhancements to the guaranteed income supplement, and the Conservative Party voted against them.
Let us put that in perspective when the Conservatives tell us to fix the budget. Fixing the budget, to them, means balancing the budget. In order to balance the budget and axe the tax, they are really talking about cutting programs, cutting investments we have made to support Canadians.
We had another program announced earlier today. The Minister of Health put forward yet another comprehensive program to help Canadians. Just like the child care program is going to help with affordability, we now have a national pharmacare program, a program I have been advocating for many years. I have introduced many petitions over the last number of years on that issue, asking parliamentarians to recognize the importance of pharmacare. I am absolutely delighted to see the legislation before us today, but I am concerned. Much like what we are witnessing on Bill C-35, with the Conservatives being critical of it and having opposed child care in the past, I am concerned that other social programs, like pharmacare, are going to be on the chopping block when it comes to “fixing the budget”, their priority issue.
That is something I know the constituents of Winnipeg North, and I would argue Canadians as a whole, see, understand and appreciate the true value of. These are the types of programs that I think the Conservatives need to better understand, so that when they start talking about fixing the budget they can be a bit clearer as to the types of programs they are looking at cutting.
When I listen to what they are saying on child care today and what I heard them say during the last federal election, I am concerned about child care and the future of child care. I believe that is easily justified. My colleague, the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, talked about how when Ken Dryden travelled the country and brought forward to Parliament back then, a number of years ago, a national child care program, it ultimately was defeated at that time by the coalition of the NDP and the Stephen Harper Conservatives, which brought down the Liberal government. As a direct result, Stephen Harper killed the child care program back then. When he was elected to the chair of the Prime Minister's Office, it did not survive.
Therefore, I think it is important that we question whether, under the current Conservative leadership, which is even further to the right than Stephen Harper, we really believe the child care program is going to survive, and why it is absolutely critical that we have this legislation pass, because at the very least it would make that more difficult as the program becomes more established.
Why is this legislation so important? I would suggest that all we need to do is look at one of the treasures of being Canadian, which is the Canada Health Act. It ensured that Conservative governments in the future would be prevented from getting rid of it. The longer that act was in place, the more difficult it was for future governments to not support a national health care program.
I would argue that the same principle applies here, to Bill C-35. The longer Bill C-35 is part of Canadian law, and today Canadians already understand and appreciate the importance of a national child care program, the better I believe it will stand the test of time, so that future generations will in fact have affordable child care opportunities. That is why I believe Bill C-35 is such an important piece of legislation.
I am concerned about the short term, because it is the short-term thinking of the narrow-minded individuals who make up the Conservative Party today, which is further to the right than we have ever seen it, that I believe is a great threat to a national child care program, not to mention other programs that we have already put in place. The dental program that was rolled out last year for children is being rolled out this year for seniors and people with disabilities. These are good programs that are making a difference. These are the types of programs that I am genuinely concerned about with respect to what would happen if there was a change in government. That is why I believe it is important for us in government not just to talk about these types of initiatives, but also to bring in the legislation, because in the long term I believe these types of national programs are part of the reason we are building a Canadian identity we can all be very proud of. The best example of that is our health care system.
When we think of child care itself, all we need to do is take a look at the province of Quebec, which has had affordable child care for many years now. As a direct result of that, there is a higher percentage of workforce participation by women, which I believe is attributed to the child care policies of the Province of Quebec. It is more than just a social program; not only do children benefit because of a high-quality child care program, but so do the economy and the family unit.
I do not know how factual this next statement is, but I believe it is fairly accurate because it has been cited in the past that in the province of Quebec, women's participation in the workforce is the highest in North America. I do not know whether that is still the case today, but it amplifies the fact that providing affordable child care has a very real, tangible impact. Why would people not support that?
I hear the criticism coming from the other side, saying, “Well, what about the number of spaces and what about this and that other aspect?” However, we have to recognize that, much as in health care, there is a provincial jurisdictional issue, so there are some limitations to what Ottawa can do. We have been very careful in the way in which child care has been rolled out throughout the country, which is why there has been a great deal of discussion and negotiation with all of the provinces and territories and the many different stakeholders. It is absolutely critical that we get it right.
We expect to see, and members will see in the agreements with other jurisdictions, the current stock of $10-a-day child care spots not only being maintained but also being increased. I can say, in good part because of the funding that is coming from Ottawa, that we are going to see an increase in the actual number of spots in the province of Manitoba, where we have already achieved $10-a-day care well before the targeted dates that were established. Manitoba is benefiting from the national program today.
I can tell members opposite from the Conservative Party that the agreement that was signed in Manitoba was actually signed by Heather Stefanson's government, a Progressive Conservative government. It is the same sort of Progressive Conservative government under Doug Ford here in Ontario that actually signed an agreement. Therefore the program is coming not only from Ottawa and the literally hundreds of stakeholders and thousands of parents, but also from provinces of all political stripes that understand and appreciate the true value of a national child care program that is there to support parents.
Members opposite like to talk about quotes from some parents. However, I would suggest that they talk to those who are actually in the system today receiving this, and we are talking about tens of thousands throughout the country, in all regions, who are benefiting today because of a sound, progressive policy that is universally being accepted by different political parties in different levels of government.
2173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what the member needs to do, along with others who have raised that particular issue, is start to get serious with the jurisdiction of the Province of Alberta. He tries to imply that the millions of dollars Ottawa is providing to Alberta is causing closures in day cares. I suggest it has a lot more to do with the ways in which it is being administered in working with the child care providers.
It is somewhat concerning in the sense that this is not just about the status quo of overall numbers. It is important that the number of spaces actually increases, and I believe that is what Bill C-35 is all about, good-quality child care and increasing the availability of spots.
Working with certain provinces, in particular the province of Alberta, and seeing what they are doing is something that is worthwhile. Maybe the standing committee can look at that—
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 3:40:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is very concerning. That is why I highlighted in my comments the wording the Conservatives use all the time when they say they are going to “fix the budget”, because fixing the budget means cuts. That is why I drew the analogy with the Canada Health Act. It was the Province of Saskatchewan that initiated the idea, which the national government jumped all over. We got a national health care program, we brought in the health care act, and now, through time, it has become very sacred to all Canadians.
At the end of the day, let us recognize that Quebec did a wonderful thing, which has really contributed. It liberated a lot of people and is having such a positive impact. We need to try to take advantage of the Quebec idea, nationalize it, bring in the legislation and enable more people across Canada to be liberated to do the things they want to do, as a direct result of having affordable child care. That is something the Conservatives should be supporting, but I am genuinely concerned that part of “fix the budget” means getting rid of child care, and Canadians need to be told.
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 3:43:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is the second major investment the government has put into the children of Canada. The first one was the Canada child benefit, which lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty by making substantial reforms. Today it is making child care more affordable.
I must admit this is the first time I heard the idea the leader of the Green Party put on the table, and I look forward to no doubt having more discussion on that particular issue. I do not know too much about it.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 3:44:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is so correct. We often talk about the social benefits. I must not underestimate the impact it has on the economy itself. When we free up opportunities for wider participation in the workforce, that contributes immensely to the Canadian economy, thereby raising the standard of living for all of us. Not only, as I say, is there a social benefit to it; there is also a very healthy and strong economic benefit to it. That is why it has proven to be so successful in the province of Quebec and ultimately would be equally successful nationwide as a direct result.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 3:46:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let me give a bit of a generalized, hypothetical situation: There are many women who would go into post-secondary education at a technical vocational facility or a university shortly after having a child. Child care can be a challenge in terms of affordability. Making it more affordable enables an individual to practise what they have studied or to get into the workforce. There are so many jobs that could be filled. That is why I say it creates opportunities in many different ways, and that is just one very small example of the type of impact it could have in a real, tangible way.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 3:48:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I completely disagree with the member. What this tells me is that the Conservative Party does not understand what is actually taking place in the agreements between Ottawa and the different jurisdictions. The agreements that are in place not only help facilitate the spaces that currently exist but also provide additional incentive to expand the overall number of spaces. The Conservative Party is all over the map on this. Pre-election, the Conservatives were going to rip up the bill. Who knows what they are really going to do?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether the deputy House leader would be able to give his perspective on where the Conservative Party is on the child care issue. I know in the last federal election, there were members who were saying they would rip up the agreements we were putting into place, and then they kind of waffled. They were really critical inside the chamber. I think at one point they might even have voted in favour. I have no idea where they actually are on the issue of Bill C-35.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
