SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Bill

Bill C-35

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 19, 2024
Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act
  • This is a new law that sets out the Canadian government's plan for a country-wide system for early learning and child care. It includes commitments to funding for provinces and Indigenous peoples, as well as the establishment of a National Advisory Council. The law aims to provide high-quality, affordable, and inclusive early learning and child care programs for families across Canada. It also acknowledges the importance of Indigenous-led systems and the rights of Indigenous peoples. The government will provide an annual report on the progress of the system.
  • H1
  • H2
  • H3
  • S1
  • S2
  • S3
  • RA
  • Yea (255)
  • Nay (162)
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 323 - Jun/3/24
Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)
Mr. Speaker, I have risen three times today because I was so eager to speak. I am pleased to speak today at third reading of Bill C-64. We have been debating this bill for a long time. Clause-by-clause study took place last week, but we do need to wind up the debate at some point. Before continuing with my speech, I would ask my colleagues to respect my right to speak and not talk over me. First, to make things clear, if they are not already, the Bloc Québécois's position has not changed one iota: We are against Bill C-64. I would like to remind my colleagues of the purpose of the bill. Obviously, a bill can have several different purposes, depending on which side we are on. Sometimes it may seem like a bill has a noble goal, but that may not be the case. I would like to talk about something that is totally obvious to me but that people tend to forget when we get into these debates. Bill C‑64 addresses one of the 27 items in the agreement that the Liberals reached with the NDP in 2022 to stay in power by forming a sort of coalition with the NDP. This may have been in the NDP's best interests, although maybe it will want to argue that point. I would like to remind the House of the wording of the second item in this agreement: “Continuing progress towards a universal national pharmacare program by passing a Canada Pharmacare Act by the end of 2023”. They want to “continu[e] progress”. We often hear similar phrases in the House, phrases like continuing to move forward, continuing progress or continuing to do something. That is all very vague, in my opinion. I would imagine that pretty much anything we do is progress, even the bill we are currently discussing. Perhaps that covers the disagreement there was between the Liberals and the NDP on this issue. As members know, the Liberals dragged their feet on introducing this bill. This bill was in the works for years. They were talking about it in 2022. It was introduced on February 29. They could not agree on the cost of the measure. Of course we would like to see a pharmacare act, but perhaps not at all costs, if my colleagues will pardon the pun. This bill was introduced on February 29, at the very last minute, to save the agreement and to save the Liberals. I might add that it was also to save the NDP. I must say that I did not hold my breath at the time. A moment ago, I talked about the purpose of the bill. I think that this bill was introduced purely for the purpose of garnering votes. It could have been introduced sooner, but there was an agreement. The NDP would not want to bring the government down. That is why I was not surprised when the bill was introduced this year, one year away from the election, just before the budget. I also get the feeling that it may have been because the government is short on ideas. I have spoken many times about the government's lack of vision. It has been eight, almost nine, years since the government came to power. It will have been 10 years by the time the election comes around. I have noticed that the House is copying the debates taking place south of the border. Take the debates over contraceptives and diabetes medication. It is not that I am not happy to see my colleagues across the aisle and next to me tackling the official opposition, to use a soccer term, here in the House over a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body. I was not unhappy about that. However, it is being done for the purpose of gaining votes. There is one party in the House that wants to limit women's rights. This may resonate with some people, even me, but it should not be done for that purpose alone. In fact, maybe it was entirely arbitrary. The government did not know what to do, what to propose. It desperately wanted pharmacare, but it had no idea what it really wanted to do, so it thought about what could help it win votes. It figured that it could take certain debates from the U.S. bipartisan system and copy them here to pit the good guys against the bad guys. In short, I am not saying that these billions of dollars that will be spent by the government are a form of pre-election advertising, but that is what it looks like. Again, Quebeckers and Canadians need to be aware of the partisan agenda hidden behind this bill. There is a hidden objective. I think it takes a certain kind of courage to oppose a bill that seems virtuous. That is what we are being told: If we do not vote in favour of the bill, it is because we are against it. I, of course, am 100% in favour of a woman's right to choose and all methods of contraception. I am a member of the Bloc Québécois. I speak on behalf of Quebec. I am not against the provinces' positions. I do not mind if they decide that the federal government can interfere in their jurisdictions. That is their choice, and I respect it. At the same time, that is not what I want for Quebec. That is why the Bloc Québécois proposed the following amendment in committee: Despite subsections (1) and (2), a province or territory may elect not to participate in national universal pharmacare, in which case that province or territory remains unconditionally entitled to receive payments in order to maintain the accessibility and affordability of the prescription drugs and related products already covered by its public pharmacare. Our amendment concerns the ability to opt out with full compensation from the pharmacare program. It was not debated because we could not debate it in committee during clause-by-clause study of the bill. It was not rejected either. I would say that what happened is even worse: It was ruled inadmissible. I wish I could avoid talking about the reasons the committee chair ruled the amendment inadmissible, but I think it is important to go over them because this is just another clear demonstration of bad faith, in my opinion, and the federal government's disregard for the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. It was argued that the amendment required a royal recommendation, which is false. What we were told is that it will generate additional costs and that, since we are an opposition party, it requires a royal recommendation. I hate to say it, but that is absolutely false. The amendment did not require a royal recommendation, because the funds had already been committed by the government. The Bloc Québécois's amendment was therefore legitimate and admissible. This is not the only time that government members have made arguments that do not hold water and that are merely a pretext to interfere in Quebec's jurisdiction. The government did the same thing in the case of Bill C-35, which deals with the child care program. As far as I am concerned, this is not only a sign of disrespect toward Quebec, it is basically an insult, because over the decades, Quebec has built a social safety net that is the envy of North America. We have pharmacare, as well as dental coverage for young people. We have free education and early childhood centres. We have made some huge social advances. In this case, the federal government is digging in its heels and refusing to allow Quebec to opt out unconditionally with full compensation. As I see it, Ottawa is refusing to recognize Quebec's decades of leadership in this area. The same thing happened with child care centres and Bill C‑35. What is more, the federal government is doing all this without having jurisdiction over this area or having any expertise in care and social services. Quebec is being denied something we have every right to request by a government that lacks both expertise and jurisdiction. The government has no compunction about turning us down, but at the same time, it has to follow our example with a view to “continuing progress”, as they put it so eloquently. I have no problem with the federal government continuing progress, but I do not want this progress to come at Quebec's expense. As I said before, Quebec already has a public pharmacare plan for part of the population that the government introduced nearly 30 years ago. I need to repeat this because I think some people have trouble hearing it. This is not the case with everyone, but in the House, it is true of nearly the majority. As far as Canada is concerned, it is trying to catch up. It is behind by 30 years, so now it is encroaching on our jurisdiction. It may be more. We also have a private plan offered by employers, to which workers contribute as well. No one in Quebec lacks pharmacare coverage. People need to stop spreading falsehoods. The choice was made by Quebeckers. It was not Ottawa that made this choice, it was Quebec. Our plan is also paid for by Quebeckers. The federal government did not give a red cent for this plan. We know what is right for us. We do not need someone else to tell us. We are capable of taking care of ourselves. We do not need paternalistic Ottawa trying to manage a pharmacare plan in Quebec without expertise, without legitimacy and without experience. I keep thinking that what the Bloc Québécois is asking from the federal government is simple and it makes sense. We are asking the federal government to take care of its own responsibilities, such as foreign affairs, defence and fisheries. It seems to me that the federal government has enough responsibilities. It has more than enough things to take care of. Perhaps that is not sexy enough for the government. I should ask that question. Is that sexy enough for the government? Health and education are the two areas that affect people the most. Of course, health is a matter of major importance. We talk about the things we care about. If we are not alive, then nothing else matters, obviously. Health is important. These are the two budget items that are most important for Quebec. The government knows that, for years now, its health transfers have been insufficient. They are shrinking down to nothing. It knows all that. If the government reduces the transfers, the burden will fall heavily on Quebec and the provinces. Who gets the blame when there is a shortage of care and services? Quebec and the provinces, obviously. Jean Chrétien understood this well. He bragged to the G7 that all he had to do to balance the budget was reduce health transfers. He said that Canadians would look for someone to blame, but that they would not blame the federal government, because health is under Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction. They are the ones who would be cutting health care and education. For him, it was simple: Canadians would take it out on the provinces. The federal government would be able to achieve a balanced budget, and no one would hold anything against it. The provinces would pay the price, both literally and figuratively. It always comes down to this, unfortunately, but as a separatist, I have no other choice. I am a separatist and I am pragmatic. It always comes down to the fiscal imbalance. The federal government collects more money than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, while the provinces and Quebec are not collecting enough to manage their own jurisdictions. They are short of money, which gives the federal government an opening to spend money on things under Quebec's and the provinces' jursidiction. It is unbelievable. It is like the federal government is stealing from the provinces and Quebec. It is strangling them. If they meet certain conditions, it will back off and let them breathe again. We would not thank anyone who is strangling us for stopping. We understand that interference is always done with a purpose. I mentioned this earlier, but it is still the same thing with the government and its minions. The federal government swoops in like a saviour, slapping its flag on cheques, which it tosses around like confetti, and the cavalry of government members run around, trumpets blaring, trying to solve the problems it created itself. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like that image. It has definite educational value. However, although we may be laughing over it, it is a hard fact. While the government is gaily running around, it has forgotten why it was elected. Perhaps it does not know. Perhaps it has forgotten. When a government has no vision, it may take a peek in the neighbour's yard, looking for direction. Again, interfering in areas of provincial and Quebec jurisdiction has a purpose for them. In fact, the purpose is twofold in this case: one, to keep the government in power, and two, to prepare for the next election. Until we gain independence, Quebeckers will have to fight to make sure this government respects us, respects our expertise and experience and gives us what is ours, meaning our money and, of course, control over our own jurisdictions. It will also have to respect the fact that we have our own pharmacare program. Quebeckers are capable of discussing amongst ourselves, at home, and improving our pharmacare plan with our experts, based on our experience and our wishes. It is not up to the federal government to tell Quebeckers what to do. We refuse to let our own tax money be used against us and at our expense. One way to respect us is to vote down Bill C‑64. I may be a member of the Bloc Québécois, but I am not the only one who says so. The Quebec National Assembly has said it too. Christian Dubé, Quebec's health minister, pointed it out the day before the bill was introduced. We do not want this bill. We do not want the federal government to encroach on areas of Quebec's jurisdiction. I would remind the House that the National Assembly alone speaks for all Quebeckers. In closing, I would therefore like to let the voices of Quebeckers be heard through the unanimous demands of the National Assembly for compensation to be paid to Quebec. That is what the Bloc Québécois has asked for, because the Bloc Québécois speaks on behalf of Quebeckers. The motion unanimously adopted by the National Assembly on June 14, 2019, reads as follows: THAT the National Assembly acknowledge the federal report recommending the establishment of a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan; THAT it reaffirm the Government of Québec's exclusive jurisdiction over health; THAT it also reaffirm that Québec has had its own general prescription insurance plan for 20 years; THAT it indicate to the federal government that Québec refuses to adhere to a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan; THAT it ask the Government of Québec to maintain its prescription drug insurance plan and that it demand full financial compensation from the federal government if a project for a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan is officially tabled. That was back in 2019, so the Quebec government made its position clear quite some time ago. Today, I am still trying to be a voice for the National Assembly. I hoped that the federal government would respect Quebec's decision to refuse to join the federal plan, for example, in the motion put forward at the committee studying Bill C‑64. We respect the provinces that want to take part in the program set out in the bill, since coverage is rather inconsistent across Canada, but in Quebec, everyone is covered by a pharmacare program. It is up to us to decide what we want to do next. It is not up to the federal government.
2770 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24
Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)
  • May/6/24 7:58:16 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
Mr. Speaker, I am glad I do not live in the world the member lives in. It is another dystopia. The last time I listened to the member go on in a speech in that vein was on Bill C-35, the child care bill. She went on and on arguing against it and then, at the end of the night, she voted for it. In fact, every single member on that side voted for the bill. I am wondering if it is going to be the same story with the pharmacare bill.
93 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 302 - Apr/18/24
Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to present a petition on behalf of over 1,200 people who note, first of all, that people with disabilities often face barriers to employment, along with higher costs associated with health care and housing. They go on to note that the Canada Disability Benefit Act was delayed for over two years; the first attempt to establish the law, known as Bill C-35, was postponed because of the 2021 election. The Canada Disability Benefit Act was meant to provide much-needed financial support for people with disabilities, many of whom live in poverty. They note that the minister responsible has told Canadians that implementing the Canada disability benefit is estimated to take a minimum of 18 months, following the passage of Bill C-22, which received royal assent last June. They note that there are insufficient supports in current disability programs federally and, particularly, provincially. This presents a significant risk to life and health for people with disabilities across the country who live in legislated poverty. They note that the federal government has refused to provide people with disabilities with an interim disability emergency response benefit and that the government has yet to bring the Canada disability benefit into force. The government is not starting the 12-month regulatory time clock, which is further delaying the benefit. As a result, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to bring the Canada disability benefit into force within two weeks of this petition being presented in the House.
256 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)
I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows: Rideau Hall Ottawa March 19, 2024 Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 19th day of March, 2024, at 6:04 p.m. Yours sincerely, Ken MacKillop Secretary to the Governor General The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada and Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine.
117 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: Senate Volume 153, Issue 185 - Mar/19/24
Speake

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, and acquainting the Senate that they have agreed to the amendment made by the Senate to this bill without further amendment.

[English]
54 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)
  • Feb/29/24 6:20:53 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
Mr. Speaker, it is obviously with great regret that this House has learned of the passing of Canada's 18th prime minister, the Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney. Obviously, all members join us in wishing the Mulroney family our deepest sympathy at this time as they deal with the loss of this great statesman, who has done so much for our country. I join all Canadians in offering our condolences. Out of respect, I would like to seek unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House: (a) the motion respecting Senate amendments to Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be deemed adopted; and (b) this House do now adjourn.
129 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)
  • Feb/29/24 5:13:16 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak once more to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, with respect to the amendments that were provided by the Senate. First, let me reiterate the Conservative Party's support for child care and for supporting women entering or re-entering the workforce as they balance their family lives. We want to see Canadians have equal access to child care in the forms that fit their families. This goes far beyond the Liberals' $10-a-day day care spots to include traditional day care centres; centres with extended, part-time or overnight care; nurseries; flexible and drop-in care; before- and after-school care; pre-schools and co-op child care; faith-based care; unique programming to support children with disabilities; home-based care; nannies and shared nannies; au pairs; stay-at-home parents; guardians who raise their own children; and family members, friends or neighbours who provide care. This is what it means to make up and support community, and our children and our grandchildren are some of the most vulnerable members in our communities. They all deserve high-quality care in the chosen style of their caretakers. However, my Liberal colleagues have been clear that they do not want to amend the bill overall to include choice for parents. This is unhelpful for a variety of reasons. So many Canadian parents are not in a position to send their children to traditional day care during conventional work hours. First responders, medical personnel, military members, truck drivers and a whole host of others must work through the nights, weekends and holidays, when many traditional day care centres are closed, and they thus require specialized care. Do they not deserve flexible options that suit their needs, especially when so many of their jobs are community focused? Anyone working unconventional shifts to provide for themselves and their families is just as deserving of high-quality affordable child care as those who work Monday to Friday, nine to five. I have personal experience in this realm. I raised my two daughters while travelling extensively for work as a chemical engineer. I have previously in the House discussed the challenges of securing child care for them while working around my busy travel schedule, especially when factoring in the realities of travel, which include delays, changed timelines and flights cancelled altogether. Families absolutely need options that work for their individual needs. When Conservatives form government, we would honour the provincial and territorial agreements and ensure parents have the choice and flexibility they deserve to remove the Liberal ideological shackles, if they so desire. With regard to the Senate amendment of Bill C-35, the bill already contained references to the official language minority communities, or OLMCs, when it was sent to the Senate. However, the bill did not originally include any reference to them until the Conservative amendments were made during the clause-by-clause review done at HUMA and we introduced these safeguards. The references to the OLMCs in the bill now include a provision that federal investments related to programs and services for the education and care of young children should be guided by the commitments outlined in the Official Languages Act, and the inclusion of OLMCs and indigenous peoples in the composition of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care. We are grateful to the hon. senator from Acadia who proposed an amendment to include a reference in clause 8 to eliminate any ambiguity before the courts, and we continue to support his amendment today. The amendment would 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 would divide clause 8 into two paragraphs. The first paragraph would then outline the government's financial commitment, while the second would specify the mechanisms through which the federal government would provide funding. To allay any remaining hesitancy, under no circumstances is it the intention to create a new direct-negotiation mechanism between the federal government and the OLMCs. The amendment text is very clear on this matter. Furthermore, adding a mention of OLMCs after the word “including” would not in any way diminish the rights of any other minority or indigenous peoples. Clause 3 of the bill explicitly states that it would not infringe upon the rights of indigenous peoples as “recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”. The amendment is simply to clarify the intent to ensure the consideration of OLMCs as stipulated in clauses 7 and 11. There has been much study done on early childhood as a critical period for language development and the identity development of children. Access to French language early childhood services is often a necessary condition for the transmission of language and culture in French communities. These services help young children acquire the language skills they need to prepare for education, especially for children who will enter French language or immersion schools across the country. This is all upholding the right to education enshrined in section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Critically, and to assuage fears from across the aisle, this amendment does not introduce any new funding mechanism and merely aims to clarify financial commitments. Especially with Sarnia—Lambton recently receiving the official Francophone designation and with French language use in danger throughout the country, it is more critical than ever to establish and protect these services for our official language minority communities. This amendment was adopted by a large majority of senators, who clearly understand and appreciate both the need to increase child care spaces and access to them and the need to deliver services across the board in both of our official Canadian languages. It is clear now more than ever just how important and critical child care is, in terms of both obtaining an early child care space and maintaining it if one is lucky enough to have one, for recruiting and retaining women in the workforce. The employment rate for young women has been on a strong downward trend since last February, with a cumulative decline of 4.2% over that period. This is the lowest since May 2020, excluding the pandemic. More than 46% of parents reported difficulty finding child care in 2023, which is up from 36.4% in 2019, so more parents are having trouble finding child care now, in the era of the Liberals' $10-a-day child care, than before. A column in the Financial Post last week alleges that the Liberals' national child care plan is proving to be “an expensive shambles, creating widespread shortages and destroying private child care businesses”. This problem spans the country, with issues from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia. This week there has been a slate of news reports across the country, with headlines despairing over the lack of access to child care, including the Liberals' $10-a-day program. Day care operators, including the owner of Little Heroes Daycare Centre here in Ottawa, say they cannot turn a profit and are not even breaking even since opting in to the $10-a-day program, which they did out of their desire to assist their families, to their own detriment. To further illustrate, as part of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women's current study of women's economic empowerment, the executive director of the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario, which represents independent licensed child care centres, said, “[W]e have a sector of the economy that was largely created by women. It's essential to women's equality in the workforce. It's one of the only economic sectors in the country where women are fairly represented as owners and managers, and it's being not only undervalued by government but targeted for replacement by a government-run system.” The Liberals are undercutting their own economy once again and pushing costs onto taxpayers while denying Canadians the freedom to choose what works best for their families. What is more is that one of the main goals of the $10-a-day plan was to enable women to join the workforce in greater numbers, but a recent Fraser Institute report looking at that issue indicates there is “little evidence” whether the Liberal program is reaching its stated goals. It reads, “There is also little evidence that the federal government is achieving [the second] goal of boosting the labour force participation of women with children.” As the StatsCan data I quoted earlier shows, the employment rate for young women is on a downward trend. It is another example of the problem of the Prime Minister's fake feminism. I will be generous and allow that the pandemic exacerbated the issues of child care, and many well-meaning parents changed their plans and their lives to accommodate for a more precarious world, either changing work hours to watch children, changing jobs or leaving the workforce altogether. However, the Liberals owe Canadian parents and families that much more for letting them down in the first place. Conservatives, when we form government, will put Canadians first and prioritize freedom of choice and family life, empowering parents to make the decisions that best serve their child care needs and not just what the government prescribes. If I look over the history of my own journey with child care, I will say that it is very difficult when only one in 10 families are covered by the existing program. That is nine out of 10 families that are not. I have people calling my office asking if I can help them find child care. It is almost impossible. I had some very wonderful child care providers and some not-so-wonderful child care providers. Ms. Betty was a school teacher who was off with her own kids. She was probably a better mother than I will ever be, so that was great. She was flexible, because I could drop the kids off at 5:30 in the morning if I had to catch a flight at six o'clock. If a flight was cancelled, late, or the kids had to stay late, she had flexibility. That is really important for a lot of workers today. Similarly, I had Joanne, who was wonderful. She was a stay-at-home mom with her kids. Once again, she was flexible and gave excellent care. However, she moved and I was left in a cycle of trying to find child care. It started with Sarah, who was a mom at the preschool that my kids went to, but once my kids were eating cat food on her stairs, I had to find another one. Then there was the student who was smoking weed and hanging out with her boyfriend. That one went away. Then there was Karen. I should have known maybe just by the name, but she was watching soaps when I came home and found out she has let my kids go swimming with a male neighbour some place up the road. That was not so great. There was a happy occasion with Generations Day Care in Petrolia, which was a wonderful experience. It was certainly expensive, but worth it. The pinnacle was Andrea, an ECE worker who became my nanny. She was able to stay overnight if I needed, make meals if I was travelling, and do anything that was needed. When my kids got older and went to high school, she opened her own day care and they ended up working there, so that was fantastic. There is a lot of need. We need more care and in order to get more care we have to build on the $10-a-day child care and we have to allow parents to have choices. We have to figure out how we are going to help with those, because I think that is fair. We also need to consider that, with the inflation we are seeing, the cost of food and heating is going up, and the interest rates are going up. All of these pressures are really affecting the cost of providing child care. I know when we studied this issue at the status of women committee we looked at the Quebec model. At the time, Quebec was charging less than $10 a day for day care and the actual cost was more like $47 or $48, which would have hugely increased now. However, the comment was that there were still long wait-lists. Therefore, I do not think it is good to have $10-a-day day care if there are no spaces. We need to provide more spaces. We need to be creative in figuring out how we help people get child care and broaden their freedom of choice so that people who work weird hours can get coverage, and people who have special needs children can get the care they need. All of these things I think will be important. I know all of the provincial and territorial agreements have been signed. I always hear the Liberals whining about Conservatives wasting the time of the House on concurrence motions, but here we are debating something where the agreements have already been signed. Why do we have everyone state on the public record that we support this program when that is the case? We should move on. Finally, I want to reiterate some of the things that have been implied. The members opposite have implied that Conservatives do not support this program. That is not true. We do support child care. Anyone can go to openparliament.ca and see that we all voted yes on Bill C-35. I think there is more work to be done in this area. I certainly would like to see the government come forward with something that would not only address an increase in spaces but also help those who are less fortunate. We see that 71% of people who are taking advantage of the $10-a-day day care are higher-income people, whereas only 41% are lower-income ones. That does not seem right to me. I think there needs to be a means test. There needs to be something that favours those who need the help the most, because obviously we do not have enough spaces, so we have to prioritize. If we could work with the provinces and territories to create some flexibility, I think that would help the private day cares. We need more spaces. We cannot afford to lose the ones we have, and that is what is happening. I am hearing from day care providers that are not eligible for this program that they are struggling, and many of them are even going out of business. I have heard from the ones that are in the program that they are having issues with cash flow because of the way the remuneration works. I think there is more work to be done on this, but certainly we need to move in this direction. We want to see more women in the workforce. I certainly experienced the highs and the lows of child care, and would rather head in the direction of highs.
2576 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
  • Feb/29/24 5:10:08 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
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!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
Mr. Mark Gerretsen
  • Feb/29/24 4:47:55 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
Madam Speaker, it certainly is relevant when I am referencing back to actual debate that took place in the House less than 10 minutes ago. My point is that the Canada child benefit is means-tested, and people only get it when they meet certain thresholds. The program that the former Stephen Harper government had, which was basically to give everybody the exact same amount of money regardless of one's income just based on whether they had a child, was not means-tested. In fact, it was a program geared toward giving cheques to millionaires, which was exactly what happened. I am happy to talk about this particular legislation today. First, I just want to briefly say that it is with extreme sorrow that I learned today of the passing of Grace Eves. Grace was an incredible member of my community in Kingston and the Islands. She was extremely supportive of me throughout the years. Even in my early days of running for city council, Grace was my treasurer and helped with my campaigns. It was really hard for me to learn today, even though I had visited her in palliative care last week, that she had passed away. My deepest condolences go out to her husband, William, and to her family. Bill C-35, and there has been criticism I have heard from Conservatives, is about entrenching this framework. I think it is important to entrench this into law because I feel that if a future government, whenever that may be, might make the decision to change course with respect to a policy like this, it is going to have to go through a legislative process in order to undo it. I think that is really important, and we have been talking about in this country for decades, talking about bringing in child care that could be a benefit to Canadians as a whole. I think those benefits are extremely important. This is not just about investing in children, although it is extremely important to have early education and early learning opportunities for children. It is not just about empowering more people and, in particular, more women to get into the workforce, those who want to but are being held back because they are making conscious decisions about the cost of child care versus the additional income. This is also about growing our economy. We know that a successful economy is one that is continually growing. We know that we have problems, like a lot of developed countries do, with labour shortages. This would provide an opportunity to empower people who want to get into the workforce to be able to do that, because they would not be burdened by the significant offset of child care. It would also grow our economy, and we would see economic growth through participation in the labour force, in particular, by filling those spots that quite often need to be filled. It was brought up by a parliamentary secretary earlier that all one has to do, without even getting into the historical context of Quebec and the success it has seen, is to look at the United States, where 77% of women participate in the labour market. In Canada, that number is 86%. The parliamentary secretary said that earlier today. I think that this is already showing the results and the positive impacts of this program. One of the concerns that have come up within the last several minutes here that I am hearing from my Conservative colleagues and, indeed a Bloc member was saying this too, is why this is important. Why do we need to do this? We already have signed deals. We need to make this law and make this legislative, in terms of entrenching it into the laws in our country, to ensure that this is formalized. Why is that important? I think the general public should know, especially those enjoying the benefits of the child care agreements out there, that every Conservative MP who ran in the last election and, in fact, every Conservative candidate who ran in the last election, ran on getting rid of this program. Erin O'Toole made it very clear that if he was elected, he would scrap those agreements that were made with the provinces. The current leader of the Conservatives, in the past, bragged about the fact that Conservatives got rid of child care programs that the Liberals brought forward. It happened nearly 20 years ago, and we talked about this earlier. Ken Dryden was literally at the door with the agreements and was ready to work with provinces, but due to the unfortunate scenario where the NDP sided with the Conservatives to take down the Liberal government at the time, which resulted in a Conservative government being elected, Stephen Harper did exactly that. He got rid of those programs. This is something that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, has bragged about. I think that Canadians are right to be concerned about the intentions of the Conservative Party, which is why entrenching this into legislation, by making this law, is so critically important. It would ensure that these agreements, this relationship and the collaboration between the federal government and the provincial governments, are sustained. If a future government decides it would like to do away with it, it would have to go through a lengthy process to do that, which would include debates in the House, votes and so on. I do not think we have to worry about that. I do not think that the Conservatives are against it, despite their rhetoric, and they will point this out, as the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound pointed out earlier. That is good to hear. However, it is unfortunate that every time they stand up to talk about it, it as though it is one of the worst pieces of legislation that could have ever existed. This is the scenario that the Conservatives routinely find themselves in, whether it on this legislation or whether it is on scab-worker legislation. Routinely, they will speak out against something, talk very negatively about it, challenge all the work that has been done it and when it comes time to vote, they vote in favour of it. I do not even think that Conservatives, because I think they know where the majority of Canadians are on this and how they feel about it, would ever consider touching this. Nonetheless, I would certainly feel much more confident, as I am sure my colleagues would and Canadians would, to know that this would be entrenched in legislation. That is why this measure is important. When the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound asks the question, or when the member from the Bloc asks why we are even talking about this when we have these agreements in place, that is the reason. We need to do this to ensure that there is longevity to this and that, in order to dismantle this program, it would require a number of steps in the future. If we want to look at the success of this program, and I have said this many times here, all we need to do is to look to the Quebec model, which happened several decades ago. I have stood up in the House many times as a proud Ontario member of Parliament, whether it is on this issue, on the environment or on other socially progressive issues, Quebec certainly led the way. We can learn from what Quebec did a number of decades ago with child care. We can see the results. We see that, in Quebec, more women are in the workforce. We knew we would be successful in encouraging more people to get into the workforce if we brought forward these agreements and worked with provinces in this manner. We can learn a lot, and indeed we did learn a lot. It is important to recognize that there are always growing pains with new programs. I listened to the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound speak about how Quebec got it right. I am curious to know, if he went back and looked at its implementation several decades ago, if it was as squeaky clean and worked as effectively from day one as he suggests. I think that maybe it was not that great when it was rolled out because there are growing pains to these learning processes. I understand if the Conservative angle right now is to try to highlight these growing pains as the challenges that would end the entire program. However, I have a lot more faith in our ability to deliver on this and a lot more faith in Canadians' abilities to ensure that this program lasts in perpetuity because of what we have seen in Quebec and because we have seen the success in Quebec, notwithstanding the fact that it may have had growing pains as well in the beginning. I find that so critical to look at the success of Quebec and other jurisdictions throughout the world that have taken on similar challenges. I go back to a point I made earlier, specifically with respect to $10-a-day child care and the issue of whether child care should be means tested, as was suggested by Conservatives. We have a program in place to means-test, in terms of helping families to raise their children, and that is the Canada child benefit. That is a payment program to families with children, which is based on income. I do not receive it, and the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound does not receive it, as he indicated, nor would we if we tried to apply. It is something that we would just not get, given our level of income. However, it is important that rather than the Conservative plan of the universal child care benefit, which just gave the same amount to every single family based on the number of children, this is a program that means-tests. The lower the income, the more a family would get from society, through the government, to help raise their children. As a Liberal, we see a value in that and in society playing a role in helping to raise children. We see a benefit to collectively coming together to make that happen and, in particular, to support those who need it the most. That is where the means testing part comes in, with respect to the Canada child benefit. This particular program and $10-a-day child care is about making a universal standard across the entire country that absolutely everybody could benefit from. I started in my speech and will perhaps conclude with this, it is not just about providing child care for children and not just about making things cheaper. This is about providing opportunities. As has been demonstrated through Quebec, and as we can see already in Canada when compared to the United States, this is about empowering more women to get into the workforce, which is exactly what we are seeing as a result of this. Most importantly, from my perspective, it is about growing our economy and helping to fill some gaps that exist within the labour force and the shortage of labour that we might have in this country. I am really excited to see that this has finally come to fruition. I accept the amendment that has been put forward by the Senate. I think we should pass this. This is a bill that would do great things for Canadians, just like the pharmacare bill that was introduced today. I want to take the opportunity, as I have done before, to thank my colleagues in the NDP for working collectively and constructively on behalf of Canadians to provide programs that would genuinely impact and change the lives of Canadians. It is so incredibly important. I would be the first to say that, because of the NDP, we have really been pushed forward in terms of our social and progressive agendas. Its members should take a lot of the credit for this, as I know they like to do and are doing. They deserve credit for being among the adults working in this room on behalf of Canadians.
2058 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
Ms. Michelle Ferreri
  • Feb/29/24 4:47:45 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What is the relevance? We are talking about Bill C-35, and the member opposite is talking about—
28 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)
  • Feb/29/24 4:43:58 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, someone I hold in high regard, for his speech. Like my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, I would like him to discuss the issue of opting out with full compensation, but from another angle. Based on what he said at the start of his speech, the key to Quebec's success is that no other government told the province how to set up its early childhood education program. Quebec had enough time to implement it properly. We agree with that. We do not want another government telling us what to do in the future. I would like the member to tell us why the Conservatives voted against the Bloc Québécois amendments presented in committee in order to include in Bill C-35 a right allowing Quebec to opt out with full compensation.
149 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
Mr. Ben Carr (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)
  • Feb/29/24 3:49:25 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey Centre. I appreciate, as always, the opportunity to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents in Winnipeg South Centre. It is timely that I have the opportunity to talk about this bill because just last week, during our constituency week, I visited Splash Early Learning Centre in my riding. It was a wonderful opportunity for me to get a tour of the facility. I noted that there were some really interesting and innovative things they were doing, and I will come back to that later on in my remarks. As my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North has mentioned on a number of occasions today in the chamber, our home province of Manitoba has realized $10-a-day day care, and this is part of the $30-billion investment over a five-year period that is going to help benefit families, kids and ultimately educators throughout our public education and private systems across the country as a result of this investment. A system that helps to ensure families across Canada can access high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care is critical no matter where they live. As has been said many times in this chamber, child care is not a luxury. It is a necessity. Parents should have the opportunity to build both a family and a career, and children deserve the best possible start in life. As members know, I spent a good chunk of my career as a teacher and as a principal, and there is no doubt, in my experiences working with young people and families, that when they had access to early child care and early learning opportunities, we saw the benefits of that later on in their educational journeys. Bill C-35, which we are debating at the moment, would reinforce the Government of Canada's long-term commitment to early learning and child care. It would do so by articulating the federal goal, vision and principles for a Canada-wide system. Bill C-35 would also enshrine our commitment to sustained and ongoing funding to provinces, territories and indigenous peoples. In addition, Bill C-35 would enhance accountability through regular reporting to Parliament on the progress towards an early learning and child care system. Finally, Bill C-35 would establish in law the national advisory council on early learning and child care. I will say that I think one of the most important and critical components of this bill is those last pieces I referenced. In particular, they are the necessity that Parliament report back on the progress that has been made in the agreements across the country and the national advisory council. I think it is critical that the input of experts from across Canada is taken into consideration. Early learning and child care are essential needs. The early learning and child care system will drive economic growth, increase mothers' participation in the workforce, and guarantee that no parent will ever have to choose between returning to work or staying at home to take care of children. To achieve these goals, we need to put in place mechanisms that will ensure that the early learning and child care system runs smoothly. One of those mechanisms is without a doubt the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care. The National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care will play an important role in providing third-party expert advice and thereby complement federal expertise for designing the system. The council will serve as a consultative forum on the issues and challenges that the early learning and child care system might face. The council will represent the early learning and child care sector. Its members will reflect Canada's geographic, cultural and linguistic diversity. I am pleased that my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and my colleagues from Quebec in the other parties are here. I think that the Quebec model is outstanding. As my colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned a few minutes ago, there are many lessons we can learn from the Quebec model, which has had many success stories in recent decades. I recognize there are ongoing challenges, just as there are at the beginning of any program. Of course, $10-a-day day care is a critical component. The cost is essential to ensuring that families can access this much-needed service. However, at the same time, we do need to continue to focus, and I acknowledge that, on some of the other challenges that face our system. This would include making sure that we have enough early childhood educators, they are well paid and there are incentives, such as benefit packages, that come along with the work so that these educators do not get scooped up into the system to go on to be, for example, educational assistants. This also means working with our colleges and universities. I am really pleased to know that, when I speak with early childhood educators and those post-secondary institutions and families on the ground in my riding of Winnipeg South Centre in Manitoba, I am seeing that this is starting to take place, but there is no doubt that there is room to grow. One of the really interesting opportunities that are presented is the partnerships that can arise through early childhood learning centres and other community infrastructure, and this was displayed to me last week. As I mentioned, I went to Splash Early Learning Centre. What was really interesting, and I think it is perhaps something we should be talking about across party lines and across the country, is that, in this particular instance, there was a church in my riding, and the church was starting to see that the congregation was diminishing over time for a variety of different reasons. The church decided that it was going to invest upfront and renovate a substantial portion of the space that it occupied and then, in turn, after the renovation was made, it was going to rent this out to the early childhood education centre. That is exactly what happened. This has provided the faith-based community, as this particular example is a church in my riding, with the ability to generate more revenue, which it was losing through other means, while, at the same time, making sure we can contribute to the well-being of young people in our riding by creating the spaces they need to experience quality child care. I am not sure if I completely understand some of the arguments I have heard from colleagues of mine across the way. I come from a profession, as I have mentioned before, in education. This included working for a number of years in the northwest part of Winnipeg. This is a part of the city with large numbers of newcomers to Canada, large indigenous populations, large numbers of members of our community who are typically disenfranchised and who suffer as a result of a variety of barriers and obstacles, both historical and current, and challenges in accessing systems. I think this is truly inspirational. I think this is truly beneficial. I think that, when we look back in the future at the investments the Government of Canada made and the laws we passed in relation to early childhood education in the country, they will be looked upon as some of the most important and most beneficial we have made in our history. As I mentioned, when we see students by the time they get to middle school and high school, where I spent most of my time as an educator, the benefits of having access to early childhood education are very obvious. It is not only the benefits to the children that are of the utmost importance in the context of this conversation, but also what it does to the workforce. We know that there has been a historic increase in the number of women who are participating in the workforce by virtue of the fact that they now have access in greater ways, with more opportunity, and more affordable opportunities, than they have had in the past. That has allowed for us to have more economic drivers, greater economic participation and more equity and equality across this country. In conclusion to my remarks on this important and historic piece of legislation today, I want to note that one piece of criticism that seems to be coming from certain colleagues across the way is on the challenge of there being people who can afford child care, and this seems to be their preoccupation while, at the same time, we hear, day after day, criticisms about an affordability crisis in Canada. We are addressing that affordability crisis, of course, in a variety of different ways. One of the marquee ways in which we are addressing it is through ensuring that there is access to low-cost, quality child care in this country.
1502 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)
  • Feb/29/24 3:42:13 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
Madam Speaker, again I put on the record the Green Party's strong support for early learning, enriched child care accessible to all across Canada. I note that in Bill C-35 there would be a number of improvements, but one of the pieces is that while funding would be required, there is no particular funding mechanism mentioned. I want to reference that I was honoured to know the amazing Canadian social justice activist and journalist June Callwood. June always argued that what we needed was a baby investment tax. She would have put it on corporations, and every corporation would be asked whether it had done its bit. Are we investing in our toddlers, our children? It is the strongest investment we could make. Is the Government of Canada considering mechanisms to ensure strong, sustainable funding directed to early childhood education?
142 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
  • Feb/29/24 3:38:56 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
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!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
  • Feb/29/24 3:18:39 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
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!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, I have good news today. We have announced a whole bunch more homes being built in Canada. We have reduced taxes on the middle class and increased them on the one per cent, and those guys voted against it. The budget is the best in the G7, and we have a great record on reducing poverty. All these things are well in hand without the bad track record of the previous government. Later today, we will have the final vote on the motion regarding the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. Tomorrow will be an allotted day. When we return following the constituency weeks, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. On Wednesday of the same week, we will continue debate on the motion relating to the Senate amendments to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. Tuesday, March 19, and Thursday, March 21, shall be allotted days.
180 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border