OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 288 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Thursday, February 29, 2024 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 29, 2024 DEBATES No. 288 No. 288 N o 288 Volume 151 288 29 02 2024 2024/02/29 10:00:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

(1000) [ English ] Privilege Alleged Insufficiency and Inaccuracy of Responses to Order Paper Questions—Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling

The Speaker :

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on January 31 by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the question of privilege raised on February 9 by the member for Edmonton Strathcona concerning the government's responses to their written questions. While they were raised distinctly, given the procedural similarities of the two questions, the Chair intends to provide a single ruling. [ Translation ] The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan shared his concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the government’s response to Question No. 2155.

The member claimed that the response tabled on January 29, 2024, failed to identify the sub-implementing partners who are involved in delivering aid to Palestinian refugees. He argued that his question was seeking information about all organizations providing Canadian aid, which implies both implementing and sub‑implementing partners. [ English ] By way of a question of privilege, the member for Edmonton Strathcona made a similar complaint, expressing dissatisfaction with multiple elements of the government's responses to three of her written questions, namely, Questions No. 2068, 2069 and 2070.

She argued that the inadequacy of the responses was so glaring that it interfered with her ability to carry out her parliamentary duties, including holding the government to account. She contended that the government specifically failed to answer several sub-questions embedded in the larger questions and that one response appeared to contain the wrong information. She asked that the Chair review her questions and the responses in conjunction with relevant procedural authorities and precedents in the hope that her complaint rises to the level of a prima facie question of privilege.

On February 12, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tabled a revised response to Question No. 2070, stating that inaccurate information had been provided in the initial response; this was due to an error. He also stated that the Minister of Foreign Affairs had apologized to the member for Edmonton Strathcona for this mistake. [ Translation ] Members have frequently complained to the Chair about their dissatisfaction over government responses to their written questions. There are abundant precedents from past Speakers’ rulings on these kinds of grievances.

I would refer members to the Debates of April 25, 2022, at pages 4310 and 4311, for such a similar example. While the Chair can empathize with the frustration that members may have about not receiving the type of information they think should be included in a response, precedents show that the Chair cannot direct the government to respond in a given way.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice , third edition, at pages 529 and 530, summarizes the situation:

There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions. Nonetheless, on several occasions, Members have raised questions of privilege in the House regarding the accuracy of information contained in responses to written questions; in none of these cases was the matter found to be a prima facie breach of privilege. The Speaker has ruled that it is not the role of the Chair to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate nor to “assess the likelihood of an Hon. Member knowing whether the facts contained in a document are correct”.

(1005) [ English ] Having reviewed the specific concerns raised by both the members for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and Edmonton Strathcona , the Chair is not of the view that their complaints deviate from similar ones in the past. As such, I am left with little option but to apply established precedents consistent with the approach my predecessors have taken.

Consequently, I do not find that there is a prima facie case of privilege concerning the request made by the member for Edmonton Strathcona , and I consider the matter closed for both submissions made to the Chair. [ Translation ] That being said, the Chair notes the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House after he supplied a revised response to Question No. 2070.

He acknowledged that it is the right of members to have the best information available to do their important work. [ English ] As many Speakers before me have done, I would emphasize the essential purpose written questions serve in our parliamentary institution. Not only are Order Paper questions an important part of our accountability mechanisms, forcing the government to justify its choices, but their responses are also instrumental in helping members to better understand the government's programs, activities and expenses.

When members receive complete and accurate answers to their questions so they can make informed decisions, it serves everyone, including those who elected us. The Chair therefore strongly encourages the government to follow through on its statement and provide to members the best information available. I thank all members for their attention.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings

(1010) [ Translation ] Commissioner of Lobbying

The Speaker :

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to

section 10.5 of the Lobbying Act, a report on investigation from the Commissioner of Lobbying. Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

[ English ] Main Estimates, 2024-25

A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 2025, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.

Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Main Estimates, 2024-25.

Certificates of Nomination

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a certificate of nomination and biographical notes for the proposed appointment of Konrad Winrich von Finckenstein to the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

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

moved: Motion

That, in accordance with

section 81 of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C., 1985 c. P-1, the House approve the appointment of Konrad Winrich von Finckenstein as Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, for a term of seven years.

[ Translation ]

The Speaker :

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. (Motion agreed to)

[ English ] Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition. This return will be tabled in an electronic format.

Departmental Plans, 2024-25

Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the departmental plans for this government, representing 90 departments and agencies, for 2024-25.

(1015) Federal Tax Expenditures

Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, on behalf of the Minister of Finance , a document, in both official languages, entitled “Report on the Federal Tax Expenditures” for 2024.

Pharmacare Act

Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.)

Bill C-64. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-64,

An Act respecting pharmacare . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees of the House Status of Women

Mrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Act Now: Preventing Human Trafficking of Women, Girls and Gender Diverse People in Canada”. I would like to table this. Through this study, we saw 55 witnesses, received 57 briefs and travelled the greater Toronto area, including Peel, as well as Vancouver, Sault Ste. Marie and Halifax. I would like to thank the women who have taken

part in this, specifically, the analysts and clerks. We had two incredible clerks who worked on this, Stephanie Bond and Danielle Widmer. We also had incredible analysts who were able to help us: Dominique, Clare and Alexia. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I rise to present a supplementary report on behalf of my Conservative colleagues. We felt that the report did not contain enough regarding training for police and judges, nor did it speak to the absolute torture endured by those who have been trafficked. I am saddened to report that some of the perpetrators and the users of human trafficking are abusing children as young as nine years old. We need to ensure the laws of these crimes fit. The penalties, right now, do not fit the crimes. We would like to ensure that these measures are reviewed so that we can protect all our citizens, especially the most vulnerable, and those are our children.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to table the Bloc Québécois's supplementary report.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Ms. Andréanne Larouche :

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois prepared a supplementary report to reaffirm that health falls under Quebec's jurisdiction and that the federal government needs to respect that. Consequently, Quebec can implement major programs to raise public awareness of human trafficking, its forms and its impacts on women, girls and gender-diverse people. Quebec can also ensure that educational materials and training manuals are distributed to the province's vulnerable populations, law enforcement and frontline service providers.

Investments in support services for victims, such as counselling services that take into account the victims' trauma and cultural realities, legal aid and safe housing for victims of human trafficking also fall under Quebec's jurisdiction. The Bloc Québécois strongly opposes the compartmentalization of human trafficking victims because all lives are equal and everyone must have equitable access to services, regardless of their ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.

To wrap up, with respect to the funding of organizations and initiatives that help people, especially indigenous people, Black people and immigrants involved in the sex industry, including victims and survivors of human trafficking, as well as sex workers, the Bloc Québécois insists that this funding be in the form of transfer payments to ensure Quebec’s jurisdictions are respected. These services should therefore cover the much broader areas of law, justice, health, mental health and addiction.

Finally, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to implementing a procedure to expunge convictions prior to 2014 associated with consensual sex work.

(1020) [ English ] Indigenous and Northern Affairs

Mr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC) :

Motion for concurrence Madam Speaker, I move that the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, presented to the House on Wednesday, September 27, 2023, be concurred in. I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak on this very important report entitled “Food Security in Northern and Isolated Communities: Ensuring Equitable Access to Adequate and Healthy Food for All”. Just to give a quick

summary, in general, right across the country, no matter where one lives, food security has become a major issue. We see food bank usage at record highs. In fact, some food banks are running out of food before the lines get through the facility. It is a very challenging time for many Canadians, and it is even worse, if members can believe, in the north, especially in our territories. For example, this report states, “Food insecurity is generally defined as a situation that exists when people lack secure access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food.

In 2017–2018, 12.7% of Canadian households were food insecure”. As I mentioned right off the top, it is worse in the north. The report states that roughly “4.4 million” households, “12.7% of...households” right across the country, “were food insecure”. Let us look at the north: the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. It has reached as high as “16.9%” in the Yukon, “21.6%” in the Northwest Territories, and “57%” in Nunavut. That is absolutely incredible. It goes on to say that among Northerners, Indigenous peoples are particularly at risk of being food insecure.

One of the recommendations from this study, and what the committee heard, is that, unfortunately, the nutrition north program that is available shows that the program itself and the changes the government has made to it are not meeting the needs of northerners. As I mentioned, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kenora , who has great insight into this subject as well and who wants to share his thoughts. One of the biggest factors of the increase in the cost of food is of course the carbon tax. We see the newly elected Premier of the Northwest Territories calling for relief from the carbon tax.

We know that when farmers, truckers and grocery stores, etc., are forced to pay the cost, those costs are passed along to the consumer. This continues throughout the chain and increases the cost of absolutely everything. Unfortunately, food prices are impacted by this at a level and at a time when Canadians are struggling to pay their bills. Inflation is out of control. The cost of everything is up, and the government refuses to take any sort of action or to show any kind of compassion for the people who are suffering.

The government says that people will get rebates, but it had to rebrand this rebate because Canadians were not actually buying it. They noticed that somehow the rate at which they were taxed through the carbon tax was quite disproportionate to the rebate, which leaves a very good question: If it is taxing people, raising the cost of everything, giving them a bit back and expecting them to be grateful but not actually helping the environment, why bother taking it from them in the first place? Why not leave that money in their pockets? Why not stop bribing people with their own money?

Let them keep it and make the best decisions they can, and they will. Consumers will always make the best decisions based on their own situations. I think that is one of the key disagreements between the official opposition and the government; the government believes that it knows all and that it is smarter than the 40 million or so Canadians out there. It can have a central plan to make everything work, and eventually, we will reach utopia. This is not happening. Canadians are suffering. They are going hungry. They are skipping meals. They are lining up at food banks at rates we have never seen before.

Food banks are running out of food. In the north, the rates of food insecurity are even worse.

(1025) When we think about it, why is there no action? We would think the government would act, especially when people are suffering. We listen to the tone of the Prime Minister when he responds. We bring up the cost of a dozen eggs, a loaf of bread or a litre of milk, and all we hear, other than about the so-called rebate, which we know does not equal the amount people are spending, is that the Liberal government is working on it. We have a report that was tabled in the 43rd Parliament, in June 2021. The program is still not working, and the cost of food is getting is worse. People are suffering even more.

However, the government is not impacted by that. Those connected to the Liberal government, those who get the contracts for nothing and for whom money goes out the door, they are not impacted by the price of those items. Regular, everyday people are impacted, and that is the problem. When pressed on it, the Liberals just ask for three things. They wanted unlimited time, unlimited resources and, of course, unlimited money, and they will eventually figure it out. At the end of the road, will it be worth it?

It probably will not be for the average Canadian, but it might be worth it for those who are lobbied and lawyered and connected to government. They will reap the benefits, but the average person will not. We are seeing that again in the north. I do not think there is anybody who could actually justify paying more in interest on our national debt than we do in transfers of health care dollars to the provinces. I do not think there is an argument that would actually make sense. The government does not seem to think it matters. It keeps spending. It keeps putting the future on the credit card.

That is not responsible, despite programs that could easily be looked at. We talked about the green slush fund many times in the House, in many speeches. The green slush fund is where billions of dollars have been thrown, and it looks like it has just been given out to those who are connected, who are well-lawyered or who lobbied government. The infrastructure bank has yet to produce anything of substance, but it has received ridiculous amounts of funding. The list goes on.

We have arrive scam in the news, again and again, where two people in their basement seem to have made off like bandits with no real accountability. We have reports coming out that the indigenous consultation on the arrive scam app was not actually done through indigenous people. The government keeps saying one thing after another, not actually living up to what it should be doing, yet food insecurity in the north continues to get worse. Money is being spent in higher amounts than ever, especially when we look at Crown-Indigenous Relations and look at Indigenous Services Canada.

The spending is up, but the outcomes are down. There is actually more money going into those two departments, but Indigenous Services Canada, ISC, is only hitting 27% of its actual targets in its own departmental plan. It just tabled a new departmental plan today. We will have to see if it is any better. What private sector corporation would be able to succeed if it was only hitting 27% of its goals? I do not think many would. The government is looking at it and proudly saying it is throwing x amount of dollars at x amount of programs, but lives are not improving.

Going back to the study recommendation, it is recognizing that the nutrition north program will not solve food insecurity in the north. We have to look at other options. Economic reconciliation is something we talk about in a great capacity on this side of the House, because we believe that indigenous peoples have been left out of this conversation for far too long.

(1030) Having indigenous participation in the economy is key to its success as a nation. We are talking about an indigenous population that is motivated, well-educated and, according to the stats, a very young population. They want to be included, but have been left out for far too long. Therefore let us unleash the powers of these entrepreneurs. Let us stop with the government-knows-best, Ottawa-knows-best approach that we have had for 150-plus years and that has failed for those 150-plus years. We have put forward a potential option for first nations communities that want to participate in their own economy.

As I said, many do; they are just constrained by the Ottawa-knows-best approach. There is the first nations resource charge, which allows companies that are doing business on first nations lands to, instead of paying Ottawa for the federal taxes, pay the first nation directly. It is a far more efficient way for tax dollars to have maximum effect, the velocity of the tax dollar, than the current method. Currently, a resource company does business on first nations lands, leaves the community, comes to Ottawa and goes around the cotton candy machine.

First nations have to come to Ottawa and ask for the tax dollars back in the form of programs and services that are not working, and then they get only a share of the funding back. Therefore let us eliminate parts of the broken system, for one thing with the optional first nations research charge, which was actually developed by the First Nations Tax Commission. It was an indigenous-led proposal that we were able to have great success adopting and promoting. I know that when we are in government, very soon, we will be able to implement this and actually create a difference in the lives of indigenous peoples.

When we look at the north, we look at food insecurity. Processing is an issue—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. member is sharing his time, so his time is up. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

(1035) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to hear that the member feels that the government should be listening to indigenous community leaders, considering the lack of attention that was given by the former Harper regime. The member commented a great deal on the nutrition north program, which delivers literally tens of millions of dollars of support to make things like groceries a whole lot more affordable. Could the member reflect on what he believes would make a difference, given the dramatic change in life as a direct result of climate change?

Mr. Jamie Schmale :

Madam Speaker, actually that is where I was going in my speech. As I was just about to say, in Yukon, for example, there is very little processing capacity, so if people have an agricultural operation in Yukon, there is nowhere to actually process the product. If someone has a chicken operation for meat, they have nowhere to send the chickens to be processed. They have to either do it on site or truck them elsewhere, which can be very stressful on the animals. That inability to have local processing also contributes to the cost. Of course if people are trucking the animals, they also have to pay the carbon tax.

Of course when they heat the barn, they pay the carbon tax. All of these layers add to the cost. I could go on, but hopefully I will get more questions on that.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, on Monday evening, I attended the parliamentary reception of the National Aboriginal Capital Corporation Association, because at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women we are currently conducting a study on women entrepreneurs. Right now, we are seeing a problem, both for women and for others. The recurring theme is the difficulty in accessing credit. That is what we are being told in committee and that is what I was told on Monday evening. That is particularly true for northern indigenous women. We hear about wanting to develop projects and costs adapted to the needs of communities.

How is it that in 2024 access to credit for these communities is so difficult under federal funding programs?

[ English ]

Mr. Jamie Schmale :

Madam Speaker, I was at the same reception for the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association event to talk about its 35 years of success in providing funding, capital and mentorship to young indigenous entrepreneurs looking to create jobs, wealth and opportunity in their community, either on reserve or off. I think it is great work the organization is doing, but one of the barriers we talk about often on this side is economic reconciliation; that is a key. There is a very young population in indigenous communities.

There is a very educated population and a motivated population, and all it wants to do is have equal opportunity and access to the programs that are available. Unfortunately there are often roadblocks in place, so what we are trying to do, what we are proposing on this side of the House, is to remove the roadblocks and the gatekeepers and to make more economic participation for indigenous peoples available.

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. There has been a total lack of funding for nutrition north. I want to ask about the economic reconciliation I often hear the Conservatives talk about. I just want to translate what that means: It is economic reconciliation if one believes in their economic and political agenda, but if one does not, they will send in militarized police, as many people recommended in B.C. when we saw some of the blockades happening in opposition to resource extraction. To that point, it is about free, prior and informed consent.

I am wondering whether the Conservatives would have the same enthusiasm for communities or nations that do not want resource extraction or that propose resource extraction with conditions.

Mr. Jamie Schmale :

Madam Speaker, I believe she is talking about the Coastal GasLink program, but she did not mention it off the top. In that, the elected chiefs of the bands within the Wet'suwet'en First Nation supported resource development. In fact they had band elections, and all the pro-energy candidates actually won those elections over anti-energy candidates, so there was a desire for economic activity to be part of economic reconciliation. Yes, there will be disagreements, but at the same time, there are elected bands saying that they want that to happen. However, we do have to listen to all voices as well.

(1040) Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I know we were all disappointed to learn that the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock 's time expired, as he had much more to contribute. However, it is an honour for me to rise to speak to such an important topic here this morning. As has been highlighted in the discussion thus far, we know that food insecurity is a challenge right across the country, with inflationary spending by the NDP-Liberal government and its carbon tax adding to the cost of living.

People right across the country, from coast to coast to coast, are struggling to get by, to put food on the table and to put healthy food on the table, which is an important distinction. It is one thing to be able to afford some food, but to be able to afford healthy food, and culturally appropriate food in many cases, has become a struggle. It is why there have been, unfortunately, two million Canadians visiting a food bank in a single month. In recent statistics it might be even higher. Eighteen per cent of families across the country are reporting food insecurity.

This is really an affordability crisis across the country, much of it the creation of the NDP-Liberal government with its inflationary policies and carbon tax, which is a tax on everything: on the farmers who make the food, the truckers who ship the food and the individuals who buy the food. In fact in 2024, a typical family will have to spend $700 more on groceries as a result of the government's policies.

As the report we are discussing today has highlighted, this is an issue that is even greater in northern communities across the country, including in northern Ontario and communities I represent in the northwest. There are 42 first nations in the district that I represent, many of which have no year-round road access, so it becomes a challenge to deliver goods to those communities, especially food and healthy food that does not have a long shelf life. What are communities in the north relying on? They are relying on winter roads, which are not always predictable, depending on the weather we are getting.

They are relying on a barge to go from the northeast around the corner to northwest Ontario. They are relying on aircraft, which, of course, with the carbon tax, the so-called clean fuel regulations, and the second carbon tax on top, are getting more and more expensive to operate as well. There is also the pilot shortage. I could go on and on with the issues the government has created, but they all add to the cost of living for northern communities.

Then, of course, when we look farther north to the territories, where, I understand, there is not much road access to communities, the rates of food insecurity are even higher. According to a report put together by Statistics Canada with information from the University of Toronto, 46% of people in Nunavut and over 22% in the Northwest Territories live in food-insecure households. This is a major affordability crisis. What is the government doing about it?

Of course it is making it worse with its inflationary policies and high taxes, but it has supposedly been aiming to address this through nutrition north Canada, one of its flagship programs to address food insecurity in the north. Every single year, the government has been increasing funding to nutrition north Canada. In 2021, it announced $163 million over three years to expand it. Every year, the money goes up, but the rates of food insecurity also go up. The government is spending more but getting worse results year after year, driving up the cost of living for people in the north, which is a major issue.

Clearly the program is not working. As my colleague who spoke before me mentioned, nutrition north Canada is not going to solve the affordability crisis when it comes to groceries across northern Canada.

(1045) There are a number of reasons for that, which the report highlights. When I was previously working on the indigenous and northern affairs committee, this struck me. The mandate of the program is not even to address food security. We learned that from the officials of nutrition north Canada. This does not make any sense. Why would that program exists? It is a subsidy that goes to the retailers. There are a lot of concerns with the transparency of that.

There are concerns that it has not been opened up to agricultural producers, that there has not been enough support for local harvesting or the ability for food to be processed in the north. It has a very narrow scope, yet the government continues to invest more and more money into a program that does not work. Unfortunately, that is a common trend we have seen with the government. We have seen it with nutrition north and we have seen it in Indigenous Services Canada. The government often boasts about the fact that it has dramatically increased funding to Indigenous Services Canada.

However, we have seen from PBO and Auditor General reports that the spending has not actually led to an increased ability of ISC, Indigenous Services Canada, to achieve its departmental results. That is why a number of boiled water advisories continue to exist in northwestern Ontario and across the country. Over and over again, we are seeing the government focused on announcements, photo ops and money that is being sent to the bureaucracy instead of doing the real work to ensure that it is getting to the people who need it.

Something that really concerns to me is that last year, through an answer to an Order Paper question, we found out that 94% of executive staff at Indigenous Services Canada received massive bonuses, totalling over $3.6 million. They are failing to meet their targets. They are failing to deliver adequate services to indigenous people across the country, yet they are being rewarded with bonuses. That is a slap in the face to indigenous peoples across the country, including in the north, who are struggling to get by.

I am sure the 42 chiefs in my riding, and many across the north, could certainly have come up with a better use for that $3.6 million that went to the bureaucracy and bloated the pockets of executive staff. That is completely unacceptable, but that is what we get after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, more spending, leading to higher inflation and a carbon tax that is driving up the cost of living for everyone. It is not just food that it is impacting. Of course, we are speaking about food security with this report, but it is energy as well.

One in five Canadian families are now living in energy poverty. I do not have a statistic for the north off the top of my head, but I am sure common sense would indicate that this would be even higher in the north, where it becomes even more expensive and even more necessary to have home heating and that use of energy. It does not seem like the government gets it. The government does not understand the pain that its policies are inflicting on people across the country, particularly in the north. Either that or maybe the government just does not care.

Either way, it is clear that it is time for a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax and make life and food more affordable for people across the north. We will listen to people living in the north to ensure we provide the services that are needed in an efficient manner. We will work toward building economic opportunities that can lead to self-determination and ensure that everyone can live in a food-secure household.

(1050) Mr. Jaime Battiste (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the important work he has done at the indigenous and northern affairs committees. One thing we heard during this study, as well as at the United Nations permanent forum on indigenous issues, which I was proud to attend along with my colleague last year, was that climate change was impacting northern and coastal communities at a far greater level than everywhere else in Canada. The member opposite talked about the price on pollution and the problems with the carbon tax. However, we are seeing a very real situation happening in the north.

Our communities are not able to sustain themselves the way they have done since time immemorial because of climate change. Could the member opposite talk a bit about how climate change has impacted the north and what he heard during the study and at the United Nations about the urgent situation that the climate crisis has caused?

Mr. Eric Melillo :

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite is right. Climate change is impacting people in the north. As I mentioned in my speech, winter road access is becoming less predictable. It is why communities are looking for alternative options to get goods to the north. They hope to be able to harvest more in the north. We certainly need to deal with this issue. It speaks to the fact that nutrition north Canada will be unable to address those issues. Unfortunately, what we have seen, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, is that it does not have a plan for the environment.

It has a carbon tax that is driving up the cost of living, while emissions are continuing to rise, and it is not even tracking the emissions that could be potentially prevented with this carbon tax. It is simply a tax plan, and people in the north recognize that and they see right through it.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ) :

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

[ English ]

Mr. Eric Melillo :

Madam Speaker, I appreciated working with my colleague on the committee in the past. Of course, nutrition north will not be the “silver bullet” to address this issue. We heard a number of concerns about the transparency of nutrition north. A lot of people do not believe it is properly being passed on, and there should be some mechanisms in place for that.

The government also needs to look at whether a similar program can bolster harvesting support in the north, support for food processing in the north, or perhaps even rejigging the program entirely so it does not go to the retailers, but rather it goes to the people or to those who transport the goods. We have heard a number of suggestions at committee. I think it is clear that something needs to change, and it is important that the government listens to the people in the north, the people who are affected by it, to know what change will be best for them so we can ensure we get it right.

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP) :

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

Mr. Eric Melillo :

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

(1055) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, issues of this nature are of great importance. No matter where one lives in Canada, there is a great deal of sympathy and appreciation for the cost of living in northern Canada. Back in the days when I was an MLA, I recall bringing forward legislation on milk, because of the cost of milk in northern Manitoba and the fact that cola products were far more cheaper. Although my bill never passed, it at least made a point. As much as possible, we do not want products that we consume on a daily basis and take for granted to become so expensive in northern Canada.

Often, it is not even a question of price; it is a question of availability. In our cities, we have come to accept that when we walk into a grocery store many products will be available to us, but that is not the case in northern Canada. How many speeches have we heard, not only today but in the past, about competition? We often talk about the importance of competition, whether it is in Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver, smaller communities in between, Halifax, virtually throughout the country. One reason we talk about competition is because through competition we get better selection, better prices and so forth.

Those same principles do not apply to northern Canada. In northern Canada, one grocery chain covers the Far North. How does that provide for a competitive price regime? A whole lot more with respect to getting the products up north needs to be taken into consideration. I have weekly discussions in my constituency at a local restaurant. I recall one individual from the University of Manitoba. He has talked about airships for years and has gained quite a bit of support for the role airships could play in providing additional competition and resources to northern Canada.

There is now a great deal of talk about how, maybe even in a community like Thompson, airships could get engaged in providing services further north to ensure there is healthier competition and choice of product. We need to look at ways to ensure there is more food security, more choice and, obviously, a better price point on products that people living in the north need day in and day out. I think the vast majority of Canadians understand the issue and would like more done on that file. The government has moved forward significantly on reconciliation.

Before I get into more details on that, I want to highlight something that took place yesterday and we are witnessing it again today. Members in the House were anticipating that we would be talking about child care, as it is an item on today's agenda.

(1100) It is somewhat disappointing, given the very nature of the debates we have been having over the last couple of days, that the Conservative Party has chosen to talk about this issue, without giving any notice whatsoever to members outside of their own caucus. We have a Conservative opposition that wants to highlight a particular issue, yet it does not tell anyone what it wants to debate. That does put some limitations on the debate. I know others who would have liked to contribute to the debate and who maybe have not been afforded the opportunity because of availability, other agenda items and so forth.

If this issue is so important to the Conservative Party, why would it not have brought in an opposition day motion related to the report? It is interesting, the member who spoke previously talked about the nutrition north program. He even indicated in his comments that the government has been constantly increasing the financial resources for the program. We even have members of the Conservative Party making reference to the fact that the government has continued to increase the funding.

A number of issues could have been raised on an opposition day, because then everyone would have had the appropriate notice and time, and specific members who would like to address the issue would be in a better position to do so. We could actually come back with hard numbers, in terms of what has actually been invested in that program. There are numerous departments that deal with indigenous leaders and communities of the north. I would argue that the Conservatives have done a disservice in two ways.

First, they are underestimating the importance of this very issue, by the manner in which they have brought it forward. It is disrespectful to the issue they want to debate. Second, at the same time, they have prevented a debate that members of this House were anticipating from occurring, that being child care. I made reference to the fact that yesterday we were talking about processes and what takes place on the floor of the House of Commons. The Conservatives were complaining that they would actually have to sit beyond 6:00 p.m. in order to debate government agenda items.

They did not want to sit late in the evenings. I argued that we needed the time to have those debates, because of the games that were played by the Conservatives, bringing in concurrence reports in order to prevent debate on government legislation. I highlighted that yesterday. I have raised that issue before. Once again, we see the Conservative Party playing a destructive role here on the floor of the House of Commons.

(1105) The Conservatives are saying that they do not want to talk about child care here today, even though that is what we were supposed to be talking about. Then they took an issue that is so serious and, without any notice to other members, brought it forward. I am going to wind up my remarks, because I do want to get to debate. I will highlight one thing.

I think of the department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Employment and Social Development Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Indigenous Services Canada, Infrastructure Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, not to mention the many different indigenous groups that want to participate in the discussion.

The Conservatives took this opportunity to, in essence, mock the issue and take advantage of an issue in order to prevent the government agenda of dealing with child care, and that is an area that needs to be debated. The legislation needs to be passed, and that is the reason I would move: Motion

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

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

[ English ]

Mr. Eric Melillo :

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Call in the members.

(1150) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 655)

YEAS Members Aldag Alghabra Ali Anand Anandasangaree Angus Arseneault Arya Ashton Atwin Bachrach Badawey Bains Baker Barron Battiste Beech Bibeau Bittle Blaikie Blair Blaney Blois Boissonnault Boulerice Bradford Brière Cannings Carr Casey Chagger Chahal Champagne Chatel Chen Chiang Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) Cormier Coteau Dabrusin Damoff Davies Dhaliwal Dhillon Diab Drouin Dubourg Duclos Duguid Dzerowicz Ehsassi El-Khoury Erskine-Smith Fillmore Fisher Fonseca Fortier Fragiskatos Fraser Fry Gaheer Gainey Garrison Gazan Gerretsen Gould Green Hajdu Hanley Hardie Hepfner Holland Housefather Hughes Hussen Hutchings Iacono Idlout Ien Jaczek Johns Joly Jones Jowhari Julian Kayabaga Kelloway Khalid Khera Koutrakis Kusmierczyk Kwan Lalonde Lambropoulos Lamoureux Lapointe Lattanzio Lebouthillier Lightbound Long Longfield Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga) MacAulay (Cardigan) MacDonald (Malpeque) MacGregor MacKinnon (Gatineau) Maloney Martinez Ferrada Masse Mathyssen May (Cambridge) McDonald (Avalon) McGuinty McKay McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam) McLeod McPherson Mendès Mendicino Miao Miller Morrice Morrissey Murray Naqvi Noormohamed O'Connell Oliphant O'Regan Petitpas Taylor Powlowski Qualtrough Robillard Rogers Romanado Rota Sahota Sajjan Saks Samson Sarai Scarpaleggia Schiefke Serré Sgro Shanahan Sheehan Sidhu (Brampton East) Sidhu (Brampton South) Singh Sorbara Sousa St-Onge Sudds Tassi Taylor Roy Thompson Trudeau Turnbull Van Bynen van Koeverden Vandal Vandenbeld Virani Weiler Wilkinson Yip Zahid Zarrillo Zuberi -- 170

NAYS Members Aboultaif Aitchison Albas Allison Arnold Baldinelli Barlow Barrett Barsalou-Duval Beaulieu Bergeron Berthold Bérubé Bezan Blanchet Blanchette-Joncas Block Bragdon Brassard Brock Calkins Caputo Carrie Chabot Chambers Champoux Chong Cooper Dalton Dancho Davidson DeBellefeuille Desbiens Desilets Doherty Dowdall Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry) Ellis Epp Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster) Falk (Provencher) Fast Ferreri Findlay Fortin Gallant Garon Gaudreau Généreux Genuis Gill Gladu Godin Goodridge Gourde Gray Hallan Hoback Jeneroux Kelly Khanna Kitchen Kmiec Kram Kramp-Neuman Kurek Kusie Lantsman Larouche Lawrence Lehoux Lemire Leslie Lewis (Essex) Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk) Liepert Lloyd Lobb Maguire Majumdar Martel Mazier McLean Melillo Michaud Moore Morantz Morrison Motz Muys Nater Normandin Patzer Paul-Hus Pauzé Perkins Perron Poilievre Rayes Redekopp Reid Rempel Garner Richards Roberts Rood Ruff Savard-Tremblay Scheer Schmale Seeback Shipley Simard Sinclair-Desgagné Small Soroka Steinley Ste-Marie Stewart Strahl Stubbs Thériault Therrien Thomas Tochor Tolmie Trudel Uppal Van Popta Vecchio Vidal Vien Viersen Vignola Villemure Vis Wagantall Warkentin Waugh Webber Williams Williamson -- 141

PAIRED Members Carrie Deltell Dreeshen Guilbeault LeBlanc Ng Plamondon Rodriguez -- 8

The Deputy Speaker :

Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

Government Orders S. O. 57

[ English ] Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Motion Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of the motion respecting the Senate amendment to Bill C-35 ,

an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, I move:

That debate be not further adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker :

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

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame to hear that the Liberals want to close debate on a subject matter that is impacting families across this country, in every province and every territory. There is

article after

article talking about the chaos that has been unleashed due to this pipe dream that the Liberals sold Canadians of $10-a-day child care. Today, we are forgoing a debate that is an opportunity in this House to bring forth the problem, both from operators and from families who cannot access child care. In particular, I want to mention this stat: 77% of high-income parents are accessing child care under the Liberal child care agreement versus 41% of low-income families. They want to shut down debate at a time when we should be having a very robust discussion on what is wrong in this country, so that we can fix it.

Why? Why would the Liberals want to shut down this debate for families, operators and everyone? This program is already in place, but by keeping this debate open, we would allow people's voices to be elevated so we can hopefully correct those concerns. Why are they doing this?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to that question here today. Obviously, Bill C-35 is a bill that is critically important to families, to children and to our partners, our provincial, territorial and indigenous partners across this country. The bill has been thoroughly studied, both at the House committee and at the Senate committee. I would add that there have been numerous days of debate here in the House, as well as in the other place, both recently, in the winter, and back in the fall. I would also point out that, at the time, all parties voted unanimously to continue to support this work.

The member opposite has proposed that the system is in chaos. I would rebut that. I would tell the member to ask the families who are benefiting from this program, thousands of families across the country who are accessing care now, at least at 50% of the rate, if not at $10 a day. For those families, it has been incredibly impactful. Rome was not built in a day. As we do this work together with the provinces and territories, more spaces are coming in line, and there will be 250,000 new spaces as we continue to build this out with our partners.

(1155) Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, today is the day we were supposed to be talking about the Senate amendments to Bill C-35 , and the Conservatives have brought forward a concurrence debate with respect to food security in the north, which of course is an extraordinarily important topic. The issue, though, is that the Conservatives are using this as a tactic to delay a very important debate with respect to child care. The way I know this is that the Conservatives have had 10 opposition days when they could have brought forward the issue of nutrition in the north, and they have never chosen to do that.

In fact, when Stephen Harper was our prime minister, I believe that Pam Palmater, one of the indigenous experts, said that the Conservative government had actually set back indigenous relations 100 years in the 10 years that it had been there. Why is the Conservative Party of Canada so eager to stop women from coast to coast to coast from being able to access child care, something that we know we need for women, for families and, frankly, for our economy?

Hon. Jenna Sudds :

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here in the House is the importance of enshrining in law a national early learning and child care system. We cannot overstate how important this work is that we are doing here today and what this means, not only for today's parents and today's kids but for families for generations to come. As my colleague has pointed out, unfortunately we have not seen the support on the other side of the House, from the Conservatives, in moving forward collaboratively to ensure that this system is successful for moms, dads and children across the country.

I have to say it is very disappointing how it is being positioned and how this is becoming a political hot potato. This is truly about children and families and ensuring we do the right thing by them for generations to come.

[ Translation ]

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

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

Hon. Jenna Sudds :

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

I would suggest that the work we are doing today is fundamental in moving forward in a speedy way, given the number of days of debate that we have already witnessed for this legislation and that it is incredibly important to move forward, as I said, for our partners and, of course, for families and children across the country.

(1200) Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.) :

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

Hon. Jenna Sudds :

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

It means more parents are able to get out into work, predominantly mothers, as was said by my colleague. I know that these investments today will pay dividends for decades to come.

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, on this important topic of child care, it is really important to mention that the government actually signed agreements with provinces previous to bringing forth the legislation. The agreements are already in place. We are seeing the effects of those agreements. One has only to look at the headlines across the country to see the crisis in the child care system across the country and all the closures and issues that are happening.

The Liberals are talking about the economic empowerment of women, when in fact many child care locations are run by women entrepreneurs who are licensed through provinces and yet are not a priority of the government. It is right in the legislation. We are seeing headlines across the country of how this is playing out, with the government not including them and not making them a priority. Could the minister speak to this, about how the government can talk about economic empowerment for women and yet not actually have them as a priority in this legislation?

Hon. Jenna Sudds :

Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary to what has been presented by the member opposite, women across this country are rejoining the workforce and are benefiting from this national early learning and child care program. As was mentioned, we entered into historic agreements, with almost $40 billion of investments made across this country, with the provinces, territories and indigenous partners. There is a commitment to create a national system, with 250,000 new spaces by 2025-26. We are already seeing 82,000 new spaces created.

We have seen every province or territory get to at least 50% in fees and eight provinces or territories get to $10 a day. While the Conservatives may be focused on negative headlines, I am focused on the positive headlines. I am focused on the impact that this has had on families across the country that I get to speak to on a weekly basis. Those stories are so touching. When I get to hear what this translates to, whether that is getting back into the workforce or saving for a child's education, these are real people, and this is having a real impact.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech and for her nod to Quebec and its child care system. However, I would like her to return to the debate at hand. She did not answer the question asked earlier by my colleague. Only yesterday, the Liberals wanted to add hours of debate. Suddenly, today, they want closure, limiting debate. This morning, I met with people from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. I can say that francophone women are especially worried.

Yes, the bill's intention is to ensure francophone children can have access to French-language day care services. According to these women, however, that is just a veneer. I would have liked to have the opportunity to debate a bit more with my colleague. I would have liked to have been able to confirm that the government will do what it takes to ensure children from French communities outside Quebec will have day care services in their language. I would have liked to debate with her, but closure has just been invoked.

(1205) Hon. Jenna Sudds :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. This bill is very important for every family and every child across the country. [ English ] We are doing critical work here, and this is really important to families and children across the country. As I mentioned earlier, this law was studied at length here at committee and also in the other place in its committees. There have been many days of debate, and frankly, we need to move forward to give certainty to parents, children and our partners that we continue to do the hard work to move this legislation forward.

I want my colleague to be assured that, with the amendments that have been put forward by the Senate, which are now incorporated into the legislation, families in official language minority communities will be able to access child care no matter where they are, in English or in French. This is a core piece of what we are doing here. It is an important point to pause on and to emphasize that we are ensuring that, no matter where one is, no matter one's economic status, we are providing early learning and child care that is accessible, inclusive, high-quality, and affordable, in French or English.

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP) :

Uqaqtittiji , I would like to thank the member for her important responses. It really is quite unfortunate that the Conservatives are using tactics to avoid important debate on Bill C-35 . What I very much appreciate about Bill C-35 is that it takes a rights-based approach. I wonder if the member could share with us why the Conservatives would avoid ensuring that the bill passes so that rights could be respected.

Hon. Jenna Sudds :

Mr. Speaker, as we entered into agreements, and as we worked to build this nationwide system, it was incredibly important that we took a rights-based approach and that we worked alongside indigenous partners across the country, along with our provincial and territorial counterparts. I can tell members that, on the ground, it is really translating. I had the opportunity, just last week, to be in the Northwest Territories to meet with a number of operators, parents and various groups in the territory.

It was really phenomenal to see the impact, and to see culturally appropriate early learning and child care that is accessible to families, which is a reality that will be building out, of course, over the next few years across the country. I have to underscore how important and impactful that work is. This law means that it would not just for the kids today or over the next two years, but in perpetuity. It is a critical piece of legislation that I think all of us in the House should be supportive of.

Again, I have to say that it is very disheartening to hear the Conservatives refer to the situation as “chaos”, when we see it is really quite the opposite, and it is really quite impactful work.

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing over and over again about the issues of the cost of living and what that means for day care providers. For example, there is the cost of food, and we have heard about issues in accessing formula. We have heard about lots of supply chain issues that are still happening today. The government can no longer blame COVID for those issues, yet we have a program here today that is putting day care operators in a spot where they are operating at a constant loss, and it is forcing people to close.

They are going bankrupt because they cannot afford to buy the food, pay the wages and buy the supplies that are needed for their system. Right now, we have a bill that would do nothing to address those particular issues. What does the government have to say about those kinds of flaws in its system? It is great to say that it only costs $10 a day, but the reality is that these places can no longer afford to stay open.

(1210) Hon. Jenna Sudds :

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Today we are passing into legislation the early learning and child care act, and it is a framework based on the principles of high-quality, inclusive, accessible and affordable child care. My colleague is referring to the mechanics of our agreements with the provinces and territories through which funding flows. We have made a $30-billion investment with the provinces and territories to roll out this program across the country.

As we make those investments, and as the provinces and territories have signed those agreements, they have done so with eyes wide open, realizing the expectations and the commitments they are making, not only to us, the federal government, but also to the families within their province or territory. There have absolutely been challenges along the way. This is a brand new system, and we are all doing this with the best of intentions and the best of efforts. Of course, there have been some challenges, and inflation is one point, of course, to recognize.

However, the provinces and territories are well aware of the expectations of the commitments and the importance of what we are doing together. I would point to Alberta, which just most recently acknowledged the need to sit back down with operators, review their funding formula and provide cash advances to address some of the cashflow issues operators were having in that province. It is at the discretion of provinces and territories how they roll this out. The mechanics are with them, as to how they fund their operators.

I encourage ongoing dialogue, and the federal government is here to support those conversations and that work, but it is ultimately their responsibility, as they choose it to be and as they want it to be, to then move that forward with the operators in their province or territory.

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, we talk about how a national child care strategy benefits women. I totally agree, and I find it troubling how the Conservatives are trying to stall the legislation. However, I ask where the worker strategy is. If we want to talk about being a feminist government, we know that the majority of ECE workers are women, primarily from immigrant and other BIPOC communities, but we also know a national child care strategy will never work without a worker strategy, so I am wondering why her government continues to fail care workers, who are primarily women.

We should ensure that they have livable wages, pensions and benefits so that it is financially feasible for others to want to pursue a career in early childhood education. It is one thing to talk about being a feminist government. It is another thing to be a feminist government through supporting a workforce that is primarily being housed by women.

Hon. Jenna Sudds :

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have had some great discussions about this bill over the last number of months. I appreciate her commitment to the workforce, and we are also very committed to the early childhood educator workforce. In saying that, we are working with the provinces and territories at our federal-provincial-territorial table to bring forward a workforce strategy to better support the ECEs. Of course, this work needs to come through the provinces. Again, we have made a $30-billion commitment, but it is on the provinces and territories to then implement this within their jurisdictions.

We are seeing some success, of course, to date. I was in Nova Scotia a few weeks ago, and we are seeing in Nova Scotia's most recent action plan, which we just finished negotiating and signing, a commitment to a wage grid increase in wages and a first-ever pension and benefits plan in that province. We are seeing other provinces do similar efforts. There is absolutely more that needs to be done.

A caveat of course is that we are roughly two years into these agreements, and it is our expectation that the provinces do the work to make sure they make the investments in the workforce so that we have these talented, caring and passionate individuals continue to do the important work of caring for our little ones.

(1215) Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, for the last eight and a half years, we have introduced programs such as the Canada child benefit and the dental care program. We have reformed the Canada pension plan, brought in the Canada workers benefit and reduced the retirement age from 67 to 65. I would ask the minister how this legislation joins the other things we have done in creating a very stable and healthy Canadian society and why this stable Canadian society is required so we can achieve the economic growth that is needed for our country.

Hon. Jenna Sudds :

Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly, this government has done more for families and women than any other government in history, and I am incredibly proud to be part of that government and that work. This legislation, Bill C-35 , is, rightly put, just one piece of the hard work we have done to support women and families.

I look to the Canada child benefit, a program that families can rely on each and every month, like clockwork, to support them and deposit funds into their bank accounts for whatever their families may need that month, whether it be additional shoes for Johnny, extracurricular activities or saving for their post-secondary education. We have been there for families and have demonstrated that, not only with legislation but also with others, such as the Canada child benefit, which was pointed out, and many other programs.

I would point to the most recent Canada dental benefit and pharmacare, which was just recently announced. We continue to do the hard work to introduce incredible social policy that is also really smart economic policy, enabling parents to get into the workforce by supporting them in their day-to-day challenges because we all know that raising kids is not easy work.

Ms. Michelle Ferreri :

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot today from the minister , and it is unfortunate that, after our pointing out the hardships and chaos that has ensued, she wants to just look at the toxic positivity or gaslight the operators and families that are truly suffering. People are benefiting from this program, but there are more people not benefiting. It is interesting that the minister says Rome was not built in a day, but the reality is based on the sustainability of the $10-a-day child care that has been set up by the Liberals. This will be destroyed within five years because the sustainability is not in place.

Infant care programs are shutting down, and centres are robbing Peter to pay Paul because they cannot afford it. Their fees have been capped for people at home. Any business owner knows this. Their fees have been capped, and now they cannot increase their fees, but the costs have gone up. When is the funding coming to fund this? Every province and territory says they need more money. Where are they going to get that money from?

Hon. Jenna Sudds :

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad to sit on this side of the House, where we invest in families and continue to do the hard work. We recognize that, from day one, it is not going to be perfect and not everyone is going to access it, but that does not mean we would abandon it. It does not mean we would stop. It means we would work harder. This is important work. With rose-coloured glasses, I hope the member can see the light in the work that is happening here. Undoubtedly, creating a national child care system is about families. It is about investing in our children. She speaks of the funding formulas.

I have shared that this is a $30-billion investment on our part. The funding formulas are the responsibility of the provinces and territories. We can see where there are challenges, as we most recently saw in Alberta. It sat down with operators, figured it out and made advances in recognizing their cash flow issues. It is renegotiating its funding formula. This is the work of the provinces. We are there to support them and help fund them with $30 billion, but ultimately, they need to do that work.

It is so incredibly unbelievable to me that there are folks in the House, like those on the Conservative benches, who continue to throw shade and discourage those doing the hard work, such as the operators and the families dropping their children off day in and day out, when we need to focus on getting the work done together.

(1220) Ms. Michelle Ferreri :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask, in response to the minister , for unanimous consent to table the documents to show that there are not more women entering the workforce—

Some hon. members: No.

[ Translation ]

The Deputy Speaker :

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. The question is on the motion. [ English ] If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

The Deputy Speaker :

Call in the members.

(1305) [ Translation ]

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 656)

YEAS Members Aldag Alghabra Ali Anandasangaree Angus Arseneault Arya Ashton Atwin Bachrach Badawey Bains Baker Barron Battiste Beech Bibeau Bittle Blaikie Blair Blaney Blois Boissonnault Boulerice Bradford Brière Carr Casey Chagger Chahal Champagne Chatel Chen Chiang Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) Collins (Victoria) Cormier Coteau Dabrusin Damoff Dhaliwal Dhillon Diab Dong Drouin Dubourg Duguid Dzerowicz Ehsassi El-Khoury Erskine-Smith Fillmore Fisher Fonseca Fortier Fragiskatos Fraser Freeland Fry Gaheer Gainey Garrison Gazan Gerretsen Gould Green Hajdu Hanley Hardie Hepfner Holland Housefather Hughes Hussen Hutchings Iacono Idlout Ien Jaczek Joly Jones Jowhari Julian Kayabaga Kelloway Khalid Khera Koutrakis Kusmierczyk Kwan Lalonde Lambropoulos Lamoureux Lapointe Lattanzio Lebouthillier Lightbound Long Longfield Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga) MacAulay (Cardigan) MacDonald (Malpeque) MacGregor MacKinnon (Gatineau) Maloney Martinez Ferrada Masse Mathyssen May (Cambridge) McDonald (Avalon) McGuinty McKay McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam) McLeod McPherson Mendès Mendicino Miao Miller Morrice Morrissey Murray Naqvi Noormohamed O'Connell Oliphant O'Regan Petitpas Taylor Powlowski Qualtrough Robillard Rogers Romanado Rota Sahota Sajjan Saks Samson Sarai Scarpaleggia Schiefke Sgro Shanahan Sheehan Sidhu (Brampton East) Sidhu (Brampton South) Singh Sorbara Sousa St-Onge Sudds Tassi Taylor Roy Thompson Trudeau Turnbull Valdez Van Bynen van Koeverden Vandal Vandenbeld Virani Weiler Wilkinson Yip Zahid Zuberi -- 167

NAYS Members Aboultaif Aitchison Albas Allison Arnold Baldinelli Barlow Barrett Barsalou-Duval Beaulieu Bergeron Berthold Bérubé Bezan Blanchette-Joncas Block Bragdon Brassard Brock Brunelle-Duceppe Calkins Caputo Chabot Chambers Champoux Chong Cooper Dalton Dancho DeBellefeuille Desbiens Desilets Doherty Dowdall Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry) Ellis Epp Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster) Falk (Provencher) Fast Ferreri Findlay Fortin Gallant Garon Gaudreau Généreux Genuis Gill Gladu Godin Goodridge Gourde Gray Hallan Hoback Jeneroux Kelly Khanna Kitchen Kmiec Kram Kramp-Neuman Kurek Kusie Lake Lantsman Larouche Lawrence Lehoux Lemire Leslie Lewis (Essex) Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk) Liepert Lloyd Lobb Maguire Majumdar Martel May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) Mazier McLean Melillo Michaud Moore Morantz Morrison Motz Muys Nater Normandin Patzer Paul-Hus Pauzé Perkins Perron Poilievre Rayes Redekopp Reid Rempel Garner Richards Roberts Rood Ruff Savard-Tremblay Scheer Schmale Seeback Shields Shipley Simard Sinclair-Desgagné Small Soroka Steinley Ste-Marie Stewart Strahl Stubbs Thériault Therrien Thomas Tochor Tolmie Trudel Uppal Van Popta Vecchio Vidal Vien Viersen Vignola Villemure Vis Wagantall Warkentin Waugh Webber Williams Williamson -- 142

PAIRED Members Carrie Deltell Dreeshen Guilbeault LeBlanc Ng Plamondon Rodriguez -- 8

The Deputy Speaker :

I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to

[ English ] Second reading and concurrence in Senate amendments Government Orders Bill C-35. Second reading and concurrence in Senate amendments

The House resumed from February 16 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-35,

An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada .

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, today, I am continuing my speech on child care, and in the earlier part of it, I went through some of the challenges with the child care system and outlined them. I would like to go through some proof points, which are actual emails I received from constituents. I will try to read these as clearly and as unredacted as possible, but obviously, for personal reasons, for names and other things, I will skip over those parts. The first one says, “Good evening. I'm hoping you can assist us with daycare funding. My daughter is a mother of 3 year old twins.

She has...children in [a day care provider right now] and was told [that] funding would be available by October. [However] She has had no further information and unfortunately the employees are unaware of when the funding [will] be available. As you can imagine having children in daycare is costly. My daughter pays $100.00 a day. Is there someone...I can reach out to for answers?” They tried very hard, working through the government, to get this $10-a-day day care spot, but to no avail, still, to this day. The next letter reads, “I'm writing to you [today] as a concerned mother of an 8 month old baby.

I have been a [RN]...for [over] 10 years. The state of availability of licensed day care spaces in Ontario is appalling.” I will read this unredacted, good and bad. She wrote, “It is fantastic...the government is working towards $10...daycare to improve [the] financial accessibility for all. However, the planning behind this rollout has been abysmal. Did the government not consider the immense increase in demand that could not be met with the already lacking spaces in the licensed childcare industry prior to [the] rollout?! The wait lists were already lengthy.

We added our child to multiple wait lists at 20 weeks pregnant, being told [that]...we might...already [be] too late to secure a spot for him at one year for me to return to work”. Just to clarify, she put herself on the list at 20 weeks pregnant so that she could have a spot when the child, who was not born yet, was a year old, and she was told that she was too late. She went on to write, “I am now less than four months away from my return to work and have no idea when I can return to work due to the lack of day care spaces for my child.

As a registered nurse, I am eager to return to work to support [people in my important work], but may be delayed due to being unable to access appropriate...child care for my infant. The plan for $10..daycare requires significant infrastructure...for years prior to being able to achieve it.” I paraphrased a little because I did not want to give away the specifics. That is an insightful comment. In order to achieve something, one has to plan. My father used to tell me all the time, when I was a youngster, that if one fails to plan, one plans to fail. I think that this is borne out here.

The email continues to read, “New centres must be built. RECE's must be trained. Supplies must be purchased.” I will paraphrase here, because I do not want to give away the specific area. She wrote that her community is growing quickly, so that need is even more acute. She goes on to write, “Both of these issues combined are compounding the problem and creating disaster[s] for families who are planning...for their children so they can return to work. I can only imagine how...other health care workers or first responders are in the same situation.

This is only compounding our health care and first responder shortages. [I'm asking] you to please advocate for the development of infrastructure to support this rollout. Also, consider creating area based...lists, rather than...[individual]”. These are all relatively recent emails that were just quickly pulled up by my staff.

(1310) One person writes, “I am pleased to see the media is finally reporting on the disastrous roll out of the Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act. I am so tired of listening to [the Prime Minister] bragging about saving Canadian[s]...thousand[s] of dollars in child care expenses when I know [this to be] a fallacy.... This became an issue [and a] concern for me in 2022 with the birth of my third grandchild in St John's [Newfoundland]. This was about the same time as [Newfoundland] signed on...the federal program; $10...day care sounded so promising.

Little did my daughter know how difficult it was going [to be] to find day care at any cost. At that...time my older daughter in Ontario was looking for day care for her 3 year old. She become [number] 90 on the wait[ing] list...at the local school's publicly funded [centre]”. She wrote that she would like to thank the member from Peterborough for advocating so strenuously on their behalf. She went on to write, “I am a firm believer in the value of accessible day care for all Canadians but I also believe [that] parents should have the option of...private care for their children.

I realize a number of Canadians do not support tax funded day care. Many of these are people who do not value women's work and don't connect the dots when their hip surgery is cancelled because there['s] no ER nurse available. My [Newfoundland] daughter became very active [in an organization]”, which I will not reveal, “[where she works for and advocates for child care].... There are so many Liberal missteps for the Conservatives to address but I think it is time to address child care. As well as an issue for young families it is [an issue for ] grandparents [as well].

It [is] also a federal issue as...provinces and territories are raising concerns.” This person's daughter said, “I really wish [the member for Carleton] would come out on...attack [on] child care.” The email reads, “I can't agree more. I believe it is time for Conservatives to [take an even stronger stance, holding the Liberals to account].” Those are just a couple of emails I received, and I could read many more emails on the state of child care. Like everything with the Liberal government, it is great with photo ops but poor on delivery.

I also had a meeting in the last constituency week with the Otonabee-South Monaghan Food Cupboard in Keene. The context is of course parents and grandparents being unable to find child care, but in some ways the crisis is even more serious for many Canadians as they are facing insecurity as never seen before. Numbers have already increased significantly year over year, but in just the last four months, the number of children now being fed by the Otonabee-South Monaghan Food Cupboard has gone from 19 to 30 to 31 and then to 37. That is in an extremely small catchment area.

The number of children going to a food bank at the Otonabee-South Monaghan Food Cupboard has doubled, and this is the kind of story we are hearing across the country. The Liberal government promised a strong and prosperous economy, and it has failed. It promised $10 day care, and it has failed. It is time for a common-sense Conservative government.

(1315) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, this is one issue on which we cannot trust the Conservative Party. This is a good example of a hidden agenda. All one needs to do is to look at the last federal election. The leader said that they were going to tear up the whole child care plan the Liberals brought forward. Then they say some nice things post-election about it, and I think they might have even voted once in favour of the legislation. Canadians have a right to know exactly what the Conservative Party's position is, at least today, on child care. Do they support the federal program, or do they not?

Mr. Philip Lawrence :

Mr. Speaker, I would put that question directly back to them. Do they support child care? Clearly, they do not, actually. I already have the answer. Did they not just hear the litany of emails I just read? Canadians are not only unable to afford child care, but also unable to access child care. There are many dads and moms in my riding who want to return to work but cannot because they cannot find accessible child care. In this economy, it is particularly difficult because it means their families may not have the opportunity to eat at the end of the month.

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP) :

Uqaqtittiji , I would like to start by saying that prioritizing is not eliminating. The member mentioned a constituent email he received where they said that they were concerned about private care not being available. Can the member please point to where in the bill it specifically prohibits private care?

Mr. Philip Lawrence :

Mr. Speaker, the Senate has openly said that it does not want private child care. We need to value all forms of child care, whether it is a wonderful, licensed facility, of which there are a ton in Northumberland—Peterborough South that try to do there best but do not have enough spots or whether it is a grandma in the neighbourhood who takes care of not only her grandchildren but also a couple of other children and provides incredible child care. We need to thank all child care providers, as they are doing an amazing job raising the next generation of Canadians.

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's intervention on this issue. This is from a B.C. CTV news story that reads, “Our initial study intended to only interview low-income women who were single moms accessing those $10-per-day spots,” said Dr.

Lea Caragata, director of the school of social work at UBC and co-author of the study. “After six months of intensive recruitment, we could only find 13 across the province.” Billions of dollars have been allocated by the government with the whole idea that those who need it the most would get the support they need, yet this study by UBC shows only 13 in my province. We are the third-largest province in this great country. Could the member elaborate on how the government continually says one thing but does another?

Mr. Philip Lawrence :

Mr. Speaker, of course we want all Canadians to have access to affordable child care, and that is a reasonable and meaningful goal. However, as another member talked about, if we are prioritizing, we need to focus on those who are in the most vulnerable situations, those who are trying to climb up that economic ladder and those who desperately need that income. The Liberals have failed those individuals, those moms and dads. It is not only that there is no child care available to them, even if it is unaffordable, but also that they are facing, if I might say, tax rates of 50% or 60%. We are holding Canadians in poverty. The Liberals are holding Canadians back.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, the Conservative Party does not support the $10-a-day child care program that the Government of Canada has negotiated with the different provinces. I find that shameful. I would challenge the member across the way to be crystal clear and to explain why the Conservative Party does not support the program.

(1320) Mr. Philip Lawrence :

Mr. Speaker, to be crystal clear, the Liberal government does not support $10-a-day child care. I just read a number of emails. It does not exist. It is like unicorns or Pegasus; it just does not exist.

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the other Peterborough, the not-as-great but really close—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Deputy Speaker :

Order. I do not think there should be any fighting about areas.

Ms. Michelle Ferreri :

Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, though, my colleague, who is a dad, knows this. It has already been brought up once today by another member from British Columbia. It was a great point. We have the facts now, coming out of the chaos that has endured as a result of this failed policy by the Liberal-NDP government, that 77% of high-income parents are accessing this program versus 41% of low-income families. How does the member feel about that? What are his thoughts on what is supposed to be a universal program, when we see that the people who need it most are not accessing it?

Mr. Philip Lawrence :

Mr. Speaker, I will not dignify the Peterborough comment with a response. Other than that, I have great respect for the member. She has done a wonderful job, and I hope she caught, in one of the emails, that one of my constituents thanked her specifically for all the fantastic work she has done. We need to put help where it is needed most. If we are prioritizing, as I said, it behooves us. John Rawls the famous philosopher once said that if we go back to the zero position, in other words, if we did not know how and where we would be born, we would want to do everything in society to help the most vulnerable.

The Liberals are holding people back, keeping them in poverty and preventing women from returning to the workplace when they want.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Caroline Desbiens (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's child care system works. It was put in place over 25 years ago by our esteemed premier at the time, Pauline Marois. I would like to ask my colleague a question. Every day, his party, which aspires to power, makes no bones about the fact that it will cut services to communities, invest more in oil and cut taxes. If they are going to make cuts to all of the government's revenue streams, where are they going to find the money to support early childhood centres when they are in power?

[ English ]

Mr. Philip Lawrence :

Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for our support of the Canadian energy sector. In fact, the sector is required to fund social policies and social benefits. Without the revenue from the Canadian energy field, this country would be in financial ruin. We would not be able to support many of the great programs we have. We need more Canadian energy. We need the economy to grow stronger so we can have more social programs to help vulnerable people work their way up from the bottom to the top.

Ms. Michelle Ferreri :

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, I am very happy to get up all day, every day to elevate the voices of the families that have been left out by this failed Liberal-NDP policy, in particular, families with kids with special needs. We know that both neurodivergence and the need for the labour force to accommodate these kids are going up. When fees are capped, as they have been under the Liberal-NDP program, we are seeing those most vulnerable suffer. Has my member for Northumberland—Peterborough South heard these stories? Have his constituents shared with him how kids with special needs are missing out, particularly with this program?

Mr. Philip Lawrence :

Mr. Speaker, we have heard stories. I would like to take this moment to talk briefly about Clare from my office. She is a very special employee. I tell her every time I see her that she is my favourite. She has Down's syndrome, but because of the gift of an amazing raising and child care, and being an amazing person, she works her heart out every time she is at our office. She does great work for the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South. We need more people like Clare.

(1325) Mr. Dave Epp :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Peterborough—Kawartha used a term that I do not think is quite appropriate. She said, “my member for Northumberland—Peterborough South ”. I just want to put on the record that he is everyone's member, not just hers.

The Deputy Speaker :

That does not really sound like a point of order, but it is a great point of debate.

Standing Committee on Science and Research

(On the Order: Orders of the Day:)

February 9, 2024 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette— Témiscouata—Les Basques), seconded by Mr. Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île), — That the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, presented on Thursday, June 15, 2023, be concurred in.

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

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I was fascinated by the previous point of order. However, my point of order is based on some discussions among the parties. If you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: Motion

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the remainder of the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 52 to concur in the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research be deemed to have taken place and all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.

As indicated, there were discussions among the parties; I believe you will find agreement.

The Deputy Speaker :

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. (Motion agreed to)

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act Bill C-35. Second reading and concurrence in Senate amendments

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-35,

An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada .

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP) :

Uqaqtittiji , I am honoured to rise on Bill C-35 ,

an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. I am proud to represent Nunavut and to be the critic for indigenous issues and northern affairs. I thank my colleague and friend, the member for Winnipeg Centre , for her leadership in ensuring that Bill C-35 will positively impact Inuit, first nations and Métis. Early learning and child care are of particular importance to indigenous peoples. Canada used all the resources it could to rob indigenous parents of their children. It used churches, RCMP and Indian agents.

Indigenous children were sent to residential schools, and intergenerational trauma still exists because of Canada's genocidal policies against indigenous peoples. Amidst this, it has taken decades for this bill to finally reach this stage, which is so close to passing. I thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for reminding us, in her speech, about who was instrumental in this. I echo her gratitude. She stated:

Generations of feminists, trade unionists, child care workers and advocates made this victory possible. They never, ever gave up the fight. They did not give up after the 1970 Royal Commission on the Status of Women's recommendation for a national child care program was ignored by the government of the day. They did not give up after the 1993 Liberal red book promised national child care, only for that government to pursue deep cuts to social programs instead.

New Democrats who have fought for this include the mayor of Toronto, Olivia Chow, and the current member for London—Fanshawe . What would Bill C-35 do? It would ensure a long-term commitment of federal funding to provinces, territories and indigenous groups. It would provide the opportunity for a national system of early learning and child care. It would indeed help ensure that parents across Canada have access to affordable, accessible and high-quality child care, now and into the future. The NDP fought hard to ensure that Bill C-35 takes a rights-based approach.

Because of our work, it includes acknowledgements of the obligations that Canada must adhere to international human rights conventions and declarations. For example, the third paragraph of the

preamble affirms critical international instruments, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. I return to the importance of passing Bill C-35 . We all know that difficulty finding day care impacts the ability of parents to work.

(1330) Mr. Peter Julian :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I always enjoy hearing from my colleague from Nunavut; I just want to ask if she was intending to split her time.

The Deputy Speaker :

We were asking the same question. The hon. member for Nunavut.

Ms. Lori Idlout :

Uqaqtittiji , I do plan to split my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona As I said, Bill C-35 would open the opportunity for a national system of early learning and child care. A 2022 Statistics Canada study found that 38% of parents were changing their work or study

schedule and 37% were working fewer hours. Bill C-35 would allow more parents to get back to work to provide for their families. This would benefit women, who are disproportionately impacted without this bill. We need Bill C-35 to become law. The NDP will keep fighting for Canadians, unlike Conservatives, who make cuts, and Liberals who are forced to act only to avoid an election. Today, the Conservatives tried to delay the important debate on C-35 . They used a report from the 43rd parliament on food security issues as a delay tactic. They only pretend to care that nutrition north is not working.

If they really cared about indigenous issues, they could have used any of their last 10 opposition day motions to debate nutrition north. Instead, they are playing games by making last minute changes to the orders of the day and obstructing important changes that could benefit many indigenous peoples, as well as the passage of Bill C-35. I am proud that Nunavut was one of the first territories, along with Quebec and the Yukon, to commit to providing $10-a-day child care. More impressively, this milestone was achieved 15 months ahead of schedule.

With the youngest population in Canada, it should come as no surprise. Ten-dollar-a-day day care does exist. Coupled with the high cost of living and other challenges, affordable child care is especially important to Nunavummiut. Much work will be required after the passage of Bill C-35 . There will need to be major investments for improving infrastructure in indigenous communities. Many first nations, Métis and Inuit communities lack the facilities for early childhood education. With crumbling buildings and overcrowded homes, there is nowhere to open a day care.

It is not just early childhood education; there is a severe infrastructure deficit across primary, intermediate and secondary schools in indigenous communities. In Pond Inlet, Arviat and many other Nunavut communities, schools are overcrowded. The communities desperately need investments in new schools. I heard from Pacheedaht First Nation members, who have to bus their children for hours in each direction because there is no school in their community. Even with existing schools, they do not have the resources to provide the same level of service as schools in non-indigenous communities do.

I take this opportunity to remind the Liberal government that it must both reverse its decision to sunset Indigenous Services Canada programs and fill the major infrastructure gaps. In combination, the lack of investments will result in over $14 billion that will force indigenous peoples onto the streets in the future. It will force indigenous peoples to remain addicted to substances and to remain on the margins of society.

The federal government must make additional investments to ensure that Inuit, first nations and Métis communities can build the infrastructure they need to provide culturally appropriate early childhood education.

(1335) An amendment was later added to address a potential charter issue, as minority language education is a right under

section 23 of the Constitution. As parliamentarians, we have learned that there is an increasing lack of French-language child care services outside of Quebec. The amendment to clause 8 of the bill would ensure the federal government maintains funding for official language minorities. I am sure the francophone community in my riding will be very happy with this amendment. I am glad to see the amendment pass so this important legislation can go forward without potential legal challenges. While there are two official languages in Canada, hundreds of indigenous languages remain.

In order to keep indigenous languages alive, languages must be passed on to children at an early age. Governments have obligations to meet the obligations set out in the Indigenous Languages Act. I highlight the recent court decision on Bill C-92 , which was another big win for indigenous rights. Bill C-92 reaffirms Inuit, first nations and Métis rights to make decisions regarding their own children, youth and families. This includes culturally relevant child care services in their own languages. For these reasons, I urge parliamentarians to support the passage of this bill.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, I find my hon. colleague's excellent speech very inspiring. I would ask her if she would like to share with the House again her intergenerational lens on the appalling and genocidal residential school system. The defined webs of intergenerational love and caring I find inspiring. I wonder, if I have gotten it at all close to the mark, would she be willing to share that again?

Ms. Lori Idlout :

Uqaqtittiji , I am reminded of the conversations I had with my constituents, Bernadette Dean and Annie Curley, who reminded me that it is so important, as we continue to talk about intergenerational trauma, that we need to start shifting that focus to having discussions about intergenerational love. This bill is one of the opportunities to ensure we are passing on intergenerational love from parents to children and child care to children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I picked up on the member's comment earlier today when there was an attempt by the Conservative Party to prevent Bill C-35 on child care from being debated, which I know is important in all regions of the country. She has commented fairly extensively on the benefits of the program. The Conservatives tried to do that by introducing the northern food allowance and the importance of food up north. I thought that was somewhat tragic, because it is an important issue and would make a nice opposition day motion. I wonder if the member would expand on both because it was raised a little earlier, and I know her origins are in the north.

Ms. Lori Idlout :

Uqaqtittiji , I am always appalled at question period about how many resources other parties have to address issues. When I finally get my chance to ask questions in question period, I always ask about investments that go to Nunavut and indigenous communities. However, for the Conservatives, for example, a lot of their questions are limited to the carbon tax or something that does not advance the recognition and importance of indigenous peoples. The two different topics that we are discussing today are so important.

We should not be playing games, pretending to care about alleviating poverty against providing early child care and early child care development for all Canadians. It was quite an injustice to watch this morning and I really hope the Conservatives take more care in fighting for the rights of indigenous peoples, as well as the rest of Canada.

(1340) Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague to speak with her colleague about what we fought for in committee. The Conservatives were the only ones who put forward and supported an amendment for UNDRIP to ensure that first nations had access to their own child care rights. The initial version of Bill C-35 made no reference to official language minority communities. The Conservative amendments were introduced during the clause-by-clause review by the HUMA committee and they were voted down by the Liberals, which the NDP supported.

Therefore, I would ask the member to say that the Conservatives have been the only ones standing for families and parents, including indigenous peoples and first nations, to do what they feel is best with their children and to give them the choice. Therefore, why are New Democrats supporting the Liberals?

Ms. Lori Idlout :

Uqaqtittiji , I would remind the member that it has been the New Democrats who have been able to get the most results for Canada in the 44th Parliament. We are the ones who were able to get dental care. We were the ones who got pharmacare. The fourth party in this 44th Parliament has gotten the most for Canadians. We are the ones who have been ensuring that indigenous rights are being respected. I do appreciate that the member has worked closely with my friend and colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre . She has shared that with me and I do appreciate the commitment she has to ensure the bill does pass. I hope she has the support of her party to ensure Bill C-35 becomes law.

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, it is always very difficult to speak after the member for Nunavut because she is such a force within our caucus and such a champion for the people she represents. It is an honour to be in a caucus with her. Today, we are talking about Bill C-35 and the amendments that have been brought forward. I want to start by talking about just how vital child care is in our country and what a fundamental thing it is to provide real child care across the country in an affordable way that women and families can access.

During COVID-19, I worked with the member for Timmins—James Bay to look at ways that we could have an economic recovery after the slowdown that happened during COVID. One of the things we heard constantly, whether it be from financial institutions, chambers of commerce, or labour groups, was the need for child care and the importance of it, that child care was the best thing we could do for economic recovery. That is one piece of it, but I am a woman and I have children. I remember the struggle of finding child care.

I remember how difficult it was to find quality child care, to be able to afford quality child care, to ensure that my children were cared for so I could return to the work force. I know for so many women across the country that this was not possible. Having child care come forward after so many years makes me think of people like Irene Mathyssen, who pushed so hard for child care. I think about the member for Winnipeg Centre who has been absolutely tireless in this fight for child care for women. I think about these champions within the labour movement who have moved this forward over decades and decades.

The fact that we now are here and have this program in place is fundamental. I am not going to lie. This is not a perfect program. We have heard from labour leaders who say we need a workforce strategy to go along with this program. We need to ensure that the workers who are working in child care centres are adequately paid, are adequately trained and are given the resources they need so that child care spaces are available. There is a lot of work to continue to do. The idea of getting child care to people is fundamental. The New Democrats have always known how important child care is.

It is why, in my province of Alberta, Rachel Notley was the first premier to pilot a $25-a-day child care. It was wildly successful, but, of course, the Conservatives were elected under Jason Kenney and they cut that. Right now, the premiers of B.C. and Manitoba, again, New Democratic premiers, are championing and prioritizing the $10-a-day child care. Therefore, Canadians in those provinces will have that program in place. Of course, the Conservatives in my province have, once again, fumbled the ball. As we all know, Danielle Smith would rather pick a fight with the federal government—

(1345) Mrs. Shannon Stubbs :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Maybe you could remind members that we are federal members of Parliament discussing federal government policy and business.

The Deputy Speaker :

I will remind folks of relevance to the amendment we are discussing today. The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

Ms. Heather McPherson :

Mr. Speaker, the relevance of course is that I am a representative for the people of Edmonton, which is in the province of Alberta, and I am speaking about the delivery of child care in Alberta, so it is very relevant to what we are talking about. I understand why the Conservatives do not want to talk about this.

They do not want me to bring up the fact that Danielle Smith dropped the ball on child care, that she took the money and refused to give it to the child care workers, and, in fact, that child care centres had to do a one-day strike in January to actually get the money that was owed to them because the Premier of Alberta withheld that from them.

I will point out that this is the same premier who has now said that she would not support a pharmacare program, the same premier who is attacking trans kids, the same premier who promised us she would not touch our pension and is now doing that, and the same premier who for some unbelievable reason is now saying that renewables are more dangerous for our economy than oil and gas. However, that is different. I will get back to child care.

We are talking about the idea of ensuring that this program is available across the country, ensuring that every Canadian, and from my perspective as a representative of Alberta, particularly Albertans, is able to access quality child care, not in concert with our premier and our provincial government but despite our provincial government. This is the state of affairs that we are in.

Frankly, I do think that the premiers and the people of B.C. and Manitoba have a much more likely chance of getting that quality child care, because clearly the premiers in those provinces have prioritized the needs of women, families and the economy to ensure child care is available to women. I also want to talk a bit today about the amendment that was brought forward, which talks about access to official language child care. Members will not be surprised that I am going to talk a bit about Campus Saint-Jean, which is a facility in my riding. The French quarter of Edmonton is in Edmonton Strathcona.

I am a very proud representative of the French quarter, and Campus Saint-Jean is a wonderful institution. It is in fact the only institution in western Canada that trains teachers and child care providers in French so that they can meet the obligations of the Canadian government, that we all have across the country, to ensure that Canadian families can have their children educated in the language of their choice. Something that many in the House may not know is that Alberta has the fastest-growing francophone population in the country.

More than 261,000 Albertans have some knowledge of French, making French the second-most spoken language in the province after English. I do not know if members know this as well, but Alberta has the third-largest francophone minority population in Canada, after Ontario and New Brunswick. Therefore, we have a significant French population and the training to ensure that those child care workers and teachers are trained and are able to provide that education in French in my riding. It happens at Campus Saint-Jean.

Of course, this is the same university that Jason Kenney tried to cut funding to and the federal government had to step in. Just to be fair, the federal government did step in and Campus Saint-Jean continues to give extraordinary service to our community, ensuring that teachers can have a good education to provide those services. Today, as we stand here, I want to make it very clear that the New Democrats have been standing up for child care and pushing for it for decades. We have been working with labour leaders. We have been working with members of the public. We have been talking to our constituents.

Child care is a vital piece of our economic recovery. It is a vital piece for making lives better for families and for women across the country. It is a vital piece of ensuring that life is more affordable for people around the country. For that, I am very supportive of this bill. I hope that we can get everybody within the House to support the bill.

(1350) Hon. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, the member went through the history of many of the attempts to get child care funded at the federal government level and ensured for Canadians. The member left out an important name, Ken Dryden, who was minister at the time when we developed a robust plan for child care. I am wondering what the member's thoughts are with respect to how that was lost when Jack Layton, the former leader of the NDP, pulled the plug on that minority government. We went to the polls and entered the deep, dark ages of the Harper government, where we had to take this time to get back to a decent child care program.

Ms. Heather McPherson :

Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier about some of those champions of child care, and I brought up some of the previous members of our caucus and many in the labour movement who have fought so hard for this. I think that those people today are very excited that we have child care. The member is talking about a budget that happened well before my time, and so I will not comment on that. I certainly hope all members of the House can recognize the value of child care, that we can stop having the delay tactics that we are seeing