SoVote

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/29/24 4:00:40 p.m.
Watch

We need to give the hon. member the opportunity to answer.

11 words

Feb/29/24 4:00:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague across the way. I will answer it in two parts. The first is that we are. Part of the money that is being invested into the provincial deals we have signed is to make sure that we have an increase in the number of spaces, that we subsidize wages, and that we look at partnerships with colleges and universities so there are more spaces. To the second part of the question, I do not quite understand what my colleague means when she says those “who truly need” it, as though those who do not currently have access do not truly need it. There are lots of people in our community that do not have the access. Of course, I cannot speak to the context in the province she comes from, but I know that $10-a-day day care is a critical component of supporting the needs that people in my riding of Winnipeg South Centre and my home province of Manitoba require.

174 words

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

Feb/29/24 4:01:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know that the federal government has signed a five-year agreement with the Quebec government. Regarding this announcement between the two governments, the Prime Minister suggested that the federal government would continue to help Quebec while respecting Quebec's jurisdictions. Will the government keep its word and continue with the agreement after five years?

57 words

Mr. Ben Carr

Feb/29/24 4:02:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that would probably be a question for the minister. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, Quebec has an outstanding model. We have learned a lot of positive lessons about creating a national system based on what Quebec has put in place. Unfortunately, that is not a question I can answer on behalf of the government. It would probably be better to ask the minister.

67 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Feb/29/24 4:03:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, child care is vitally important. We have seen the Quebec model. British Columbia has also done an amazing job. The B.C. NDP government has provided and worked on building a child care network across British Columbia. What perturbs me about the discussion on this bill is that the Conservatives are blocking the bill, refusing to let it go through. The Conservatives are very clear about what they want to do. They have a four-point program: axe the services, build up the billionaires, fix elections and stop democracy. That is what Conservatives are all about. I do not understand, when they say they are concerned about cost-of-living issues, why they would block a bill that would help so many families. Child care is essential for raising families. Why does the member think the Conservatives are refusing to let this bill go through?

147 words

Mr. Ben Carr

Feb/29/24 4:03:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, sometimes when we hear the same song over and over again, it is nice to hear a remake of it. I really appreciate that my colleague from the NDP provided some new lyrics to the song we have been hearing frequently here in the House of Commons. It has got a nice ring to it. In terms of why the Conservatives are choosing to vote against this legislation, I think it is probably because they do not believe that investments in young people and in families are going to be beneficial in the long run for this country. I think that, along with my colleagues in the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party, over here on the government's side, we absolutely disagree with that perspective.

129 words

Mr. Randeep Sarai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Feb/29/24 4:04:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to participate in the debate on this historic legislation. Bill C-35, if passed, would indeed make history. People may be asking why we are doing this now. Why is the Government of Canada embarking on this ambitious plan to build a Canada-wide child care system? There is no doubt that there are many other important issues to take on, and let me say that we will be better able to handle them if we make sure that women can fully participate in the workforce. Indeed, the United Nations sustainable development goal no. 5 states: Gender equality is not only a fundamental human right, but a necessary foundation for a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world. We cannot have gender equality if women are prevented from participating in the workforce. Let me share the story of a woman, a mother to a seven-year-old and a nine-year-old. She thanked us for the child care agreement. She said it was not going to impact her because her children were too old, but that she hopes that other women will not have to make the same choices she did. She was a spouse in a lower-income household. Putting her children into child care would have cost more than her take-home pay after taxes at the end of each month. She stayed at home with the kids, and has been out of the workforce for over a decade. She said it was okay, but also said that she imagines what could have been, had she not had to make that decision. For her, it really was not a choice. It was something she had to do for her family's finances. That is why we are doing this. As that woman's story illustrates, affordable child care means mothers can enter, return or remain in the labour market, if they wish to do so. They could also go further in education or open up businesses. Why now? In September 1970, more than 50 years ago, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended early learning and child care legislation, saying: We recommend that the federal government immediately take steps to enter into agreement with the provinces leading to the adoption of a national Day-Care Act under which federal funds would be made available on a cost-sharing basis for the building and running of day-care centres meeting specified minimum standards....make similar arrangements for the Yukon and Northwest Territories. So why now, at long last? The pandemic moved things along, so to speak. As the Deputy Prime Minister said in her April 2021 budget speech, COVID brutally exposed something women have long known: without child care, parents, usually mothers, cannot work. The closing of our schools and day cares during the height of the pandemic drove women's participation in the labour force down to its lowest level in more than two decades. This is part of the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on women. The crisis has been described as a “she-cession”. The Government of Canada does not want the legacy of the pandemic to be one of rolling back the clock on women's participation in the workforce, nor one of backtracking on the social and political gains women and allies have fought so hard to secure. There is broad consensus from all parts of society that the time is now. Private sector, social sector and labour leaders agree that child care is a vital part of our social infrastructure and one that was weakened by the pandemic. That is why we committed to this program in the 2020 Speech from the Throne. That is why, in budget 2021, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke of this smart feminist economic policy and pledged up to $30 billion over five years to build this child care system across Canada. That is why we have Bill C-35 before us today. The bill echoes the recommendations made over 50 years ago in the royal commission's report. It sets out our vision for a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. It sets out our commitment to maintaining long-term funding. Finally, it creates the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care. We have a bold goal. By March 2026, parents across the country should have access to high-quality early learning and child care for an average of $10 a day. This is because Canada is a country that believes in investing in its future. We are standing on the shoulders of the commissioners who penned the 1970 report. We are standing on the shoulders of the visionary leaders in Quebec who enacted legislation in 1997 that created a day care system similar to what we are rolling out country-wide. At the time, women's labour force participation with young children in Quebec was more than two percentage points lower than in the rest of Canada. In 2022, it was five points higher than the rest of Canada. Women in Quebec have some of the highest labour market participation rates in the world. In most countries around the world, the debate is no longer whether gender equality is an important objective or not, but how best to achieve it. I think that Bill C-35 is part of the “how”. It is part of the solution that will lead us to greater gender equality by supporting mothers in reaching their full economic potential. Furthermore, Canada's job gains, compared to when COVID-19 first hit, have outperformed almost all of our G7 peers, supported by an expanding workforce. The government's investment in early learning and child care is helping more women fully participate in the workforce. The labour force participation rate for women aged 25 to 54 years has reached a record high of nearly 86%, compared to just 77% in the U.S. At the same time, a record high of 80% of Canadians, aged 15 to 64 years, are now participating in the workforce, reflecting broad-based gains in employment opportunities across demographic groups. Making full use of the skills and talents of Canadians is a key driver of a stronger economy. It helps to address labour market shortages and increases the rate at which the economy can grow, without generating inflationary pressures. These are encouraging signs. Now we just need to pass this proposed bill so that a Canada-wide early learning and child care system can become entrenched in Canadian law and a part of our social safety net, something to make us all proud.

1115 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

Feb/29/24 4:12:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that access to child care is the number one issue in supporting mothers getting back to work or choosing to work outside of the home. There are a couple of things I want to correct on the record. This bill is already in effect. It is already happening. These agreements have already been signed. What we are arguing and debating today in the House are two amendments that were put through the Senate that Conservatives supported but the Liberals did not, and now we are here. My question to the member opposite is this. If one cannot access child care, then what is it? What we do know is what has come out of Stats Canada. Under this $10-a-day child care, 77% of high-income parents are accessing it under this Liberal program, versus 41% of low-income families. Does he support that?

152 words

Mr. Randeep Sarai

Feb/29/24 4:12:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me remind members that this program is just being implemented. We are also spending money on training early childhood educators. We are having municipalities develop spaces. These are sometimes spaces that require specific zoning and specific safety standards. That is why we are working in collaboration with the provinces to ensure that we have enough early childhood educators and enough spots for them. I have been speaking to a school board in Surrey and the school board is now reinventing all new schools. Every new school that will be designed, elementary school or high school, will have a child care facility on the same campus so that when people drop off their elementary or high school students, they can also drop off their young child in the same place to make it easier. Those are the types of investments we are making. We are working with the provinces. We are working with school boards. Unlike some of the other members who wish to vote against this, we will make this happen and we will have early childhood child care for every child in Canada.

187 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Feb/29/24 4:14:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I would like to come back to what my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou said about Quebec's specificity and respect for jurisdictions. She said that, although the bill does not recognize Quebec's specificity, respect its knowledge or require the government to give Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation, there is a five-year agreement between the two governments. Given that the right to opt out with full compensation is not specifically included in the bill, I do not see that as a permanent thing. To me, that sends the same message that, in five years, the government could decide to start imposing conditions. Does my colleague agree that the government's failure to include in the bill the right to opt out with full compensation basically sends the message that, as soon as the five-year agreement is up, the government will want to interfere in an area that is under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction?

174 words

Mr. Randeep Sarai

Feb/29/24 4:15:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if anything, this bill would protect francophones across this country so there would be accessible child care in culturally and linguistically appropriate measures. However, at the end of the five years, we hope Canadians will choose a government that wants to keep child care in this country and in every single province. We trust that Canadians will make that decision and it will not have to get to that point. These agreements are intergovernmental and we will have to work with both governments at the time.

88 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Feb/29/24 4:15:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his work. To us in the NDP, what was really important in Bill C‑35 was that it prioritizes a public, not-for-profit, co-operative or community child care model. My colleague from Winnipeg Centre has done a lot of work on this and I congratulate her on that. How important is it to my colleague that the private sector not be the one effectively prioritized in order to keep the prices reasonable and affordable for the families that really need it? That way we would be contributing to helping people return to work because their children could go to a co-operative or public affordable child care centre.

118 words

Mr. Randeep Sarai

Feb/29/24 4:16:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is going to be imperative that it be region to region, where they are able to have public child care. Like I mentioned, if school boards wanted to administer it, fund it and support it themselves, that would be ideal and probably foremost, but where they cannot, that is where the private sector would step up and give that service. We would not want to impede availability to Canadians. The best system should prevail in every jurisdiction.

80 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Feb/29/24 4:17:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Madam Speaker, I want to open my speech this afternoon by clarifying a few things, especially for the member for Winnipeg South Centre and the member for Winnipeg North. They seem to be confused about how Conservatives voted on Bill C-35. The bill was voted on at all stages and received unanimous consent from every member in this House. I will make it crystal clear to everybody now that I support the amendment, which is what we are debating. That is where I stand. I hope I do not have to answer that question later. Today, I appreciate the opportunity to bring up and focus on the concerns I am hearing from day cares and parents right across my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I am going to back this up with data. In fact, I want to highlight that we actually need more data, specifically around the impact this program is having on before- and after-school programs across the country. This is mainly due to a lack of early childhood educators. I would encourage the government to listen and go out and seek that data, unlike what has maybe happened so far. I have had this conversation with some of my colleagues from Quebec, which has a program that, I would argue, has been quite successful in la belle province. However, the reason it has worked is that it was implemented over time; they did not just jam it down people's throats and basically hold a gun, or a bag of money, to the provinces and territories to implement something without actually thinking out all the consequences. The following is a quote from a speech made in the House: Again, we see the Liberals promising what they cannot deliver. Ten dollars-a-day day care does not address the labour shortage and the lack of spaces. I will guarantee today that, if and when this strategy fails and has not delivered affordable child care for all those in need across Canada in all jurisdictions, the Liberal government will blame the provinces and territories for that failure. Who said that? It was me. I said that during my speech last spring, when we were first debating this bill. I still hold that this is what we are hearing today, right now, from day cares and providers across the country. Let us talk about some data and news coverage that we have been hearing within the last few weeks. It was reported earlier this month that 77% of high-income parents access child care versus only 41% of low-income families. The government talks about the child care benefit, which makes sense, is something I support and is means tested. I am struggling to understand how the government has implemented a program that is actually taking away from lower-income Canadians because of the demand from people who are making $1 million a year. It does not make sense to me, personally, and I just do not understand why the government would bring something like that in. According to StatsCan, 46.4% of parents reported difficulty finding child care in 2023; this is up from 36.4% in 2019. Also, in 2023, 26% of parents of children aged zero to five years who were not using child care reported their child was on a wait-list, which is up from 19% in 2022. A CBC News article reads, “Sharon Gregson with the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C. says while there are about 130,000 licensed child-care spaces in the province, 75 per cent of children age 0-12 aren't able to access them.” I am not going to use my words now, but I am going to read from emails I received today. I found out I had the opportunity to speak to this today, so I reached out to the day care and child care providers across my riding and, in hours, received pages of feedback addressing the concerns they have around this program. Some commented that they would have provided me with a lot more, but they did not have time. One nursery school wrote, “Although we believe in the concept, the current model is not sustainable. Our school is not receiving the funding needed. It does not take into consideration inflation. Inflation funding through the Canada-wide early learning and child care is significantly lower than the actual increased costs of operation. [The] 2023 inflation funding was only 2.75%, which is a decrease from earlier at 2.1%. Non-registered early childhood educators, which fill 45% of the workforce, are completely neglected in wage funding calculations.” It went on to state, “We have a wait-list of over 100 families. Most of the children on the wait-list will age out before they get a spot at our school.” Another nursery school stated, “The private independent centres are not the only centres raising deep concerns over this program.” It also stated some concerns from member private centres in the Ontario Association of Independent Childcare Centres, which are currently looking to opt out of the program if they have not opted out already. In fact, 70% of these centres, which are all volunteer-led, are looking to opt out when the cost-based funding comes out. Another comment made was that there has been a huge increase in order to meet the demands of this program and the administrative time needed. This has pulled administrators away from other classroom activities they used to be able to do. They “do not feel they can stay in the program and deliver the programming and quality of care for which the centre stands.” In one case here, and again in Ontario, where I reside, this means their day care fees will go up from $525 to over $1,000 a month, or over $12,000 a year. According to the school, “incremental funding adjustments have not kept pace with rising operational costs”. This is “far from sufficient to cover increased expenses over the last two years”, and it is looking for more “detailed guidance and clarity on implementation.” It said that this uncertainty is just creating challenges “for providers to plan and ensure the continued delivery of high-quality care.” It continued, “Without adequate support and flexibility in funding, providers are now considering opting out of the program.” It provided some recommendations. This is the important part. It urges “all levels of government to work together to do the following: re-evaluate the funding model to ensure it accurately reflects the rising costs of providing high-quality child care, including considering direct funding to families or continued revenue replacement for providers.” Another recommendation is to “engage in meaningful consultation with child care providers and parents to understand the challenges and adjust the Canada-wide early learning child care program to better meet the needs of all stakeholders.” The last of its recommendations is to “follow the Quebec lead, where families that cannot access centres in the program can claim costs separately for the child care they choose. This allows parents to choose the child care that is right for their family and ensure it is affordable. Some may want Montessori, some academic, some forest schools or childminding in their homes. Parents should have the choice.” The YMCA is urging the additional recruitment of newcomers into the early childhood education system “by prioritizing early childhood education as an in-demand profession in Ontario and recognizing home country credentials. Ontario should increase investments in accelerated early childhood educator assistant training programs, in addition to increasing compensation levels of assistants working in the sector.” I recognize that part of this would be implemented at the provincial level, but the feedback we are getting from the provinces and territories is that the government has not funded them appropriately. Specifically, the YMCA in my riding is short 10 full-time child care educators for its toddler and preschool programs to achieve capacity. This translates into the potential to have another 59 new children from its substantial wait-list. I am going to get into the wait-list data here shortly. It can only increase its capacity for the school-age programs if it has the necessary educators. I will get into that later. Another child care and family education centre stated, “The increases we are experiencing in utilities, food, rents and supplies have been staggering. The funding we receive does not cover our costs.” It also stated, “It is not hard to see why our educators are leaving the sector. This program is surviving on the backs of low-paid, hard-working educators. The additional paperwork, reporting, reconciling, is adding so much work to our administrative team, who are already struggling with so many other requirements. We cannot and will not be able to meet the demand for child care. Parents are struggling to find a space to benefit from the Canada-wide early learning child care reduced rates.” The one program currently operates with over 527 licensed child care spaces across their locations. This includes for toddlers, preschoolers and school-aged children. Their wait-list was sitting at 790 for their program as of February 15, and they guarantee this number would actually be higher if they counted the wait-list today. Not one day goes by that they are not faced with challenges with the current program. This system should be funded appropriately and equitably if it is to succeed. Parents are faced with the reality that, without child care, they cannot go to work. Parents are angry and frustrated with this system that they did not have a proper say about. This is from Grey County, one of my counties. Both counties provided some good feedback on some statistics. The average monthly number of children aged zero to six years receiving the reduction is 1,231. That is some good news. There are 1,231 kids who are getting some benefit in my one county. However, as of December 31 of this past year, 1,835 children are reported to be on the wait-list. Child care operators again continue to report ongoing issues in recruiting and retaining qualified staff, limiting the ability of some of these programs to operate at full licensed capacity. Again, there are concerns over the wage floor and the delay in the implementation of the funding model. Specifically, I had asked for follow-up about the impact the program is having on before- and after-school programs. I hinted at this earlier in my speech. They are basically operating at a lower number than their licensed capacity. In Grey County alone there are 730 licensed spaces for children six to 12 in the before- and after-school programs. However, as of December 31, there were over 166 children reported to be on the wait-lists, and the main reason the operators report that they are only operating at 60% to 75% of their capacity is that they had to move staff to the full-day program for children aged zero to six. As well, they have a problem recruiting staff because of the shift requirements around the before- and after-school programs. They are continuing to work with the operators of the child care centres on recruitment and retention strategies in an effort to fix this, so they are trying to do their best at their level. I want to share the impact on somebody I know personally, a single parent. Since this program was signed, they have now lost their before- and after-school program. They have to drop their child off at 10 to 9 in the morning and pick the child up every day at 3:40. How does a single parent do that? Who works a six-hour day? It is very unmanageable. If not for the flexibility of relying on friends and other family members, they are basically left with a program where we are taking lucky or single parents who were able to go back into the workforce under this program. Again, we are still missing the necessary staff and enough early childhood educators. However, in two years, or whenever a child has aged out and their parent is now trying to look for that before- and after-school program, they have to quit work, because they can no longer keep their job. This has an even larger impact on the gig economy and shift workers who do not have the flexibility to show up from 9 to 5. There are so many workers in this country, especially lower-income workers, who depend upon that flexibility of the before- and after-school programs that were available but have been negatively impacted by this current program. I have the pleasure of representing most of Grey County, or all but one very important part, the municipality of Blue Mountains, which my colleague from Simcoe—Grey represents. I also represent the top half of Bruce County. What Bruce County has talked about, and some of it is positive, is affordable child care. I fully agree. I think everybody in this whole House is fully agreed, because we made these statements a number of times here in the chamber. Affordable child care is a critical component to addressing inflationary cost of living concerns, economic growth, workforce participation and declining economic conditions that have disproportionately impacted women. However, child care providers have expressed concern about the financial viability. Additional operational funding is also required to maintain these spaces and ensure that child care operators have sustained, predictable and adequate support to continue in the program. Full funding is required. Workforce challenges remain a barrier to expanding early years in child care access. To ensure the success of the early childhood program, workforce challenges must be resolved quickly, with increased compensation and benefits to reflect the education, skill sets and value of these early childhood educators. This is specific data out of Bruce County. The expansion in order to meet the demand of just the access and inclusion framework of 645 new child care spaces requires another 100 to 130 additional ECEs in the sector to accommodate the child-to-staff ratios. There are currently 1,243 children on the Bruce County centralized wait-list who require licensed day care. There is some good news here: Bruce County is co-leading a Bruce Grey registered early childhood educator recruitment and retention working group, which includes membership and support from local colleges, boards of education, workplace engagement services and corporate communications to develop and implement local ECE recruitment and retention strategies. To support the need for this, Bruce County has actually partnered with Fanshawe College to offer a part-time early childhood education program, which is being offered locally in our region. In this school year alone, 32 students are participating in that program. Let us do the math. Thirty-two new early childhood educators frees up somewhere between 150 and 250 of the child care spaces that are still needed once we get these early childhood educators into the workforce, but over 1,250 spaces are needed, so it is only a drop in the bucket, and we need to do more. There is of course no guarantee that all of the ECEs will stay in the program and choose to get into this work. As I come near to the end of my speech, I just want to highlight a few of the points I had flagged before, when we had the privilege of debating this. Regarding access, this program is difficult to work, especially in rural Canada, if the spaces and staff do not exist. This is something that needs to be done, because otherwise parents and families out there cannot access these subsidized rates. Respecting labour shortages, this is something that has not changed. I highlighted the data very clearly. This is great, but these lower costs do not exist if parents cannot actually get access to the programs themselves. With respect to the rising operating costs, and I highlighted this, we knew it was coming even last year. The funding that is currently set out through the federal government to the provinces and territories does not cover the expenses of many of the organizations that are being asked to deliver this. In conclusion, affordable quality child care is critical, but if people cannot access it, it does not exist. Again, this bill specifically would actually do nothing to address the accessibility challenge. All Canadian families should have access to affordable and quality child care and be able to choose the child care providers who best suit their family's needs. Bill C-35 would be good for families who already have a child care space, but it would not help the thousands of families on the child care wait-lists or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces. Again, we see the Liberals promising what they cannot deliver. Conservatives would support all forms of child care, including traditional day care centres; centres with extended, part-time or overnight care; nurseries; flexible and drop-in care; before- and after-school care; preschools and co-op child care; faith-based care; unique programming to support children with disabilities; home-based child care; nannies and shared nannies; stay-at-home parents and guardians who raise their own children; and family members, friends or neighbours who provide care. It would be care for all.

2957 words

Mr. Ben Carr (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Feb/29/24 4:36:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, since we are talking about young people and the important investments the governments have made, I was quite pleased to hear the member reference that he thought that an income-tested CCB program is having a positive impact on young people and their families in this country. I will note that it was of course Prime Minister Harper's government over a number of years that did not income-test that program. Does the member believe and agree that this government's CCB is having a more profound impact, by virtue of the income-testing component that he said he agrees with, relative to the one from the Harper government?

112 words

Mr. Alex Ruff

Feb/29/24 4:37:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I was elected only in 2019, and I know the member was elected more recently, so I cannot really compare. I have not done sufficient data analysis. I am just saying that I support income testing for the program. I know plenty of people would use it, myself included, though I likely would not meet the requirement anyway because I have the privilege of being compensated well as a member of Parliament. If I did meet it, I would never even apply for the program, because I do not think it is the government's job to support the raising of my children. That is Alex Ruff's personal opinion. I am not speaking for everybody; I am just saying I do not personally feel I need the government to help me—

136 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/29/24 4:38:05 p.m.
Watch

I know the hon. member referred to himself, but we still do not use names in the House. The hon. member for Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

32 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Feb/29/24 4:38:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound on his speech. Quebec is a distinct society by virtue of not only its identity, but also its choices. It was over 25 years ago now that Quebec chose to set up early childhood centres. This child care system already exists in Quebec. I really feel that we are wasting Quebeckers' time when we have to debate a bill to bring in a system that has already existed in Quebec for more than 25 years. This morning, we also heard about a new pharmacare program, something that has existed in Quebec for nearly 50 years now. I would like my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound to tell me loud and clear if he respects Quebec's choices and if, for these types of programs, Quebec can have a right to opt out with full financial compensation, no strings attached.

155 words

Mr. Alex Ruff

Feb/29/24 4:39:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot answer a question on a bill that has yet to be fully debated or analyzed, on pharmacare. I did speak to Bill C-35 and the child care program in Quebec, and I complimented Quebec because it was able to implement something. The majority of this does fall within provincial jurisdiction. I made the comment when I spoke to this last year that I do not even understand why legislation is being brought in on this. The agreements have been signed. There are many other things we could be addressing versus debating something that has already been signed with the provinces and territories.

108 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Feb/29/24 4:39:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague, it seems, does not have to rely on social programs to send his children to day care. Maybe he has the means to pay $60 or $80 a day for those services. However, not everyone has that kind of money. Not everyone has grandparents or neighbours who can look after their children. That keeps some people, especially women, out of the workforce. How can my colleague consider Quebec's social programs and policies such a great success, but refuse to offer the same thing to the people he represents in the rest of Canada?

98 words