SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24

Feb/29/24 10:51:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite is right. Climate change is impacting people in the north. As I mentioned in my speech, winter road access is becoming less predictable. It is why communities are looking for alternative options to get goods to the north. They hope to be able to harvest more in the north. We certainly need to deal with this issue. It speaks to the fact that nutrition north Canada will be unable to address those issues. Unfortunately, what we have seen, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, is that it does not have a plan for the environment. It has a carbon tax that is driving up the cost of living, while emissions are continuing to rise, and it is not even tracking the emissions that could be potentially prevented with this carbon tax. It is simply a tax plan, and people in the north recognize that and they see right through it.

157 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

Feb/29/24 10:52:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I also had the opportunity to sit with my colleague at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I would like him to speak in a little more depth about nutrition north Canada, which was studied in committee. We hear that it cannot resolve the whole situation of food sovereignty or food security in the north. Does my colleague see other possible solutions or arrangements? How can the nutrition north Canada program be improved to ensure food security in the north?

84 words

Mr. Eric Melillo

Feb/29/24 10:53:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciated working with my colleague on the committee in the past. Of course, nutrition north will not be the “silver bullet” to address this issue. We heard a number of concerns about the transparency of nutrition north. A lot of people do not believe it is properly being passed on, and there should be some mechanisms in place for that. The government also needs to look at whether a similar program can bolster harvesting support in the north, support for food processing in the north, or perhaps even rejigging the program entirely so it does not go to the retailers, but rather it goes to the people or to those who transport the goods. We have heard a number of suggestions at committee. I think it is clear that something needs to change, and it is important that the government listens to the people in the north, the people who are affected by it, to know what change will be best for them so we can ensure we get it right.

176 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Feb/29/24 10:54:18 a.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I am quickly reading through the report that was done by the 43rd Parliament. This is not an issue that is new to me; it is quite familiar. I hear about food insecurity all the time whenever I go to my communities. I was surprised to see there was a recommendation in the report that the nutrition north program be evaluated, but, unfortunately, that has not been done. Could the member share his thoughts on why it would take so long to evaluate such an important program?

88 words

Mr. Eric Melillo

Feb/29/24 10:54:56 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, obviously, the government would have to answer why it is taking so long to evaluate the program. I have no idea. It is something the government should have acted on before we did that report. I would have hoped that it would have acted on it much quicker. We have heard time and time again that there are problems and concerns with this program. In committee, the government seems to agree with us, but then afterward it sits on its hands and does nothing about it. In fact, it has been increasing funding to this program. It is all about announcements and photo ops and not results with those guys.

112 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/29/24 11:07:18 a.m.
Watch

The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

51 words

Mr. Eric Melillo

Feb/29/24 11:07:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/29/24 11:07:38 a.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/29/24 11:50:30 a.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/29/24 11:50:36 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of the motion respecting the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, I move: That debate be not further adjourned.

36 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/29/24 11:51:17 a.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of how many members would like to participate. The hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha.

55 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

Feb/29/24 11:52:07 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame to hear that the Liberals want to close debate on a subject matter that is impacting families across this country, in every province and every territory. There is article after article talking about the chaos that has been unleashed due to this pipe dream that the Liberals sold Canadians of $10-a-day child care. Today, we are forgoing a debate that is an opportunity in this House to bring forth the problem, both from operators and from families who cannot access child care. In particular, I want to mention this stat: 77% of high-income parents are accessing child care under the Liberal child care agreement versus 41% of low-income families. They want to shut down debate at a time when we should be having a very robust discussion on what is wrong in this country, so that we can fix it. Why? Why would the Liberals want to shut down this debate for families, operators and everyone? This program is already in place, but by keeping this debate open, we would allow people's voices to be elevated so we can hopefully correct those concerns. Why are they doing this?

199 words

Hon. Jenna Sudds (Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.)

Feb/29/24 11:53:55 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to that question here today. Obviously, Bill C-35 is a bill that is critically important to families, to children and to our partners, our provincial, territorial and indigenous partners across this country. The bill has been thoroughly studied, both at the House committee and at the Senate committee. I would add that there have been numerous days of debate here in the House, as well as in the other place, both recently, in the winter, and back in the fall. I would also point out that, at the time, all parties voted unanimously to continue to support this work. The member opposite has proposed that the system is in chaos. I would rebut that. I would tell the member to ask the families who are benefiting from this program, thousands of families across the country who are accessing care now, at least at 50% of the rate, if not at $10 a day. For those families, it has been incredibly impactful. Rome was not built in a day. As we do this work together with the provinces and territories, more spaces are coming in line, and there will be 250,000 new spaces as we continue to build this out with our partners.

212 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/29/24 11:55:41 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Mr. Speaker, today is the day we were supposed to be talking about the Senate amendments to Bill C-35, and the Conservatives have brought forward a concurrence debate with respect to food security in the north, which of course is an extraordinarily important topic. The issue, though, is that the Conservatives are using this as a tactic to delay a very important debate with respect to child care. The way I know this is that the Conservatives have had 10 opposition days when they could have brought forward the issue of nutrition in the north, and they have never chosen to do that. In fact, when Stephen Harper was our prime minister, I believe that Pam Palmater, one of the indigenous experts, said that the Conservative government had actually set back indigenous relations 100 years in the 10 years that it had been there. Why is the Conservative Party of Canada so eager to stop women from coast to coast to coast from being able to access child care, something that we know we need for women, for families and, frankly, for our economy?

185 words

Hon. Jenna Sudds

Feb/29/24 11:57:03 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here in the House is the importance of enshrining in law a national early learning and child care system. We cannot overstate how important this work is that we are doing here today and what this means, not only for today's parents and today's kids but for families for generations to come. As my colleague has pointed out, unfortunately we have not seen the support on the other side of the House, from the Conservatives, in moving forward collaboratively to ensure that this system is successful for moms, dads and children across the country. I have to say it is very disappointing how it is being positioned and how this is becoming a political hot potato. This is truly about children and families and ensuring we do the right thing by them for generations to come.

145 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Feb/29/24 11:58:26 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have an excellent question for the minister. Just yesterday, the government passed its Motion No. 35, claiming its intent was to improve debate by adding more hours of debate. Then, it stated its intention to introduce a closure motion the very next day in order to limit it. What is going on with the government? Is it behaving this way because it does not know what to do? It seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth. I would like to know why it is invoking closure today.

95 words

Hon. Jenna Sudds

Feb/29/24 11:59:03 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. Truly, this is really about moving forward this important legislation for families and children across the country, as I have already said. It is worth pointing out that as we have entered into agreements with the provinces and territories and we work with our partners, including our indigenous partners, they are waiting with bated breath, of course, for the certainty of this legislation. As we do that work together and as we focus on creating spaces, it is really important that this certainty is in place. I would suggest that the work we are doing today is fundamental in moving forward in a speedy way, given the number of days of debate that we have already witnessed for this legislation and that it is incredibly important to move forward, as I said, for our partners and, of course, for families and children across the country.

157 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Feb/29/24 12:00:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, focusing on early childhood development is crucial for building a healthy and stable society. I would like to ask the minister to touch upon the economic empowerment of women, who disproportionately bear the brunt of child care responsibilities, and the fact that increasing their participation in the workforce not only enhances the productivity of the current workforce but also allows for the future prosperity of our nation.

69 words

Hon. Jenna Sudds

Feb/29/24 12:00:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. This is not just good social policy; it is incredible economic policy. We have seen, to date, the impact of that. We can look back, even to when Quebec first introduced this in 1997. We saw the impact, in that province alone, of women's participation in the workforce. We know now, here, across the country, that we are seeing an increase of participation among core-aged mothers in Canada with young children, with it reaching a record high at 80% last year. We are seeing the dividends that are being paid by this investment in families and parents here in our economy. It means more parents are able to get out into work, predominantly mothers, as was said by my colleague. I know that these investments today will pay dividends for decades to come.

142 words