OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 284 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Friday, February 16, 2024 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 16, 2024 DEBATES No. 284 No. 284 N o 284 Volume 151 284 16 02 2024 2024/02/16 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

Government Orders Government Orders

(1000) [ English ] Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act Bill C-35. Second reading and concurrence in Senate amendments

The House resumed from February 14 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 .

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in debate today with respect to the early learning and child care act, as well as amendments sent to this place from the other place. There are many things to speak about today since this bill is back before the House. First of all, the amendment that the Senate has sent back to us relates to the importance of linguistic duality. My maiden name is Godin. This is the first time I have had the opportunity to talk about early childhood learning. My father, Claude Godin, may or may not be watching this today.

I would like to take an opportunity to say I wish his French-language skills had been imparted to me. That would have been great. It would have been really nice to have my French heritage given to me because it would have saved me a lot of learning here and it would have given me a better sense of connection to my culture, my country and the importance of linguistic duality.

In fact, it has been through my time in Parliament, being able to interact with colleagues from francophone areas in the country and with francophone constituents, that has imparted to me how important it is for children in our country to have opportunity to have access to early education in the language of their choice. That is why it is so important for this amendment to be debated here today. I am looking at my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier 's comments. He spent a lot of time in debate making a lot of points that I agreed with.

He found it unfortunate that the Liberal government was against this amendment, it had to go to the Senate and it is back here and we are having to debate the importance of it. This was really a lost opportunity for the Liberal government. It could have dealt with this in the first iteration of the bill. My colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier raised this point in House debate: Does this actually raise questions about the government's commitment to linguistic duality?

As somebody who has a very personal experience with understanding why it is so necessary for Canadians to have access to linguistic duality in education from an early age, I would agree with those comments. There are other issues that have come to light about this bill since it was last debated in this place. I would like to speak on behalf of my constituents in Calgary Nose Hill. I point to challenges in implementation of the bill that were raised in previous debates that the government did not address, which are now really coming to light, are made real and are impacting parents.

When this bill was last debated, many of my colleagues raised concerns that it could have a perverse outcome and could actually reduce the number of child care spots in the country, and we are starting to see that happen. At the end of January, there were several articles that came out after Alberta child care facilities took

part in rolling closures to protest the $10-a-day program. It is not that these facilities oppose affordable child care. They oppose the fact that the government's implementation of this bill did not foresee or take into consideration the costs that facilities would have to absorb, making it unaffordable for them to deliver services to their clients, the parents. The Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs stated that the job action of rolling closures was meant to draw attention to issues that come with offering parents low-cost child care without ensuring that the cost of delivery is still covered. An

article states:

“It’s been underfunded from the beginning,” said Krystal Churcher, the chair of the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs. “There is not enough funding to ensure that the level of quality is going to be continuing on...”.

(1005) As I have put on the record before, Conservatives support access to affordable child care. That is not in question. The way the Liberal government has structured this program has become overly bureaucratic and has not adequately valued the labour of child care in all of its forms. When I last spoke on the bill, I talked about the fact that the way the bill is structured and the way the funding mechanism is structured would not give access for parents who work in the gig economy and may have hours that are not conventional nine-to-five jobs.

It would not provide for access to child care for people in those situations in an adequate way. Also, people in rural communities are in similar situations. Frankly, the bill also does not adequately value the labour of child care provided by parents, grandparents, extended family members or neighbours who may pool child care resources to take care of one another's children or grandchildren because of the lack of affordable child care spaces in other ways, but that caregiving component has no value in the bill, under the current Liberal government.

If we are going to, in Canada, as a very regionally, ethnically and economically diverse country, maintain the unity of our pluralism, we cannot set forward principles on child care that do not universally value the labour of child care provision equally, and the bill before us would not do that. In spite of all the time the Liberals have had to enhance these offerings, they have failed to do so. To me that speaks to a lack of creativity, a lack of innovation and a worn-out government that has really overstayed its welcome.

When I think about younger Canadians in my constituency, work for them looks a lot different than work looked for their parents or their grandparents. The reality is that for somebody seeking a spot under the Liberals' current formula under Bill C-35 , if they are working shift work or in the gig economy, they are not going to have the same access to care as somebody who is providing professional services, like bankers or lawyers, who are working traditional nine-to-five hours.

Those people are also in a position of privilege, because they have usually had a different level of education or they might have access to networks, that other people might not have access to, to get into these child care facilities. That does not speak to universality and valuing the labour of child care.

What I fear, because the government has failed to correct these deficiencies in the way the bill is currently outlined, is that, as we start measuring the outcomes of spending over a two, five or 10-year period, we are going to see a big disparity between bankers and lawyers, who have the networks to get into a child care spot and work nine-to-five hours, versus people who are working multiple jobs in a gig economy and who are already having trouble making ends meet. With that, I also want to talk about a fact.

I did read through the debate on the amendment that happened earlier this week, and I noted that the minister purported that the bill would provide transparency to Canadians on outcomes. It would do none of that. I want to outline what the government must do. I am going to put this on the record now, because I know a future parliamentarian will want these figures. I bet the Parliamentary Budget Officer will want these figures. The Auditor General may want these figures, because we need to be able to manage value for money.

The government has talked a lot about spending on Bill C-35 , but it is not talking about the opportunity cost of how this spending could perhaps have been used in a different structure to provide better universality of care for Canadian parents.

(1010) So, in terms of transparency, as a parliamentarian there are data points that I cannot find. For example, how many children are currently enrolled in a $10-a-day spot in total and broken down by province or territory? It is impossible for parliamentarians to find out the number of children who have access to the spot and then measure it against the needs in a region. If we want to be able, as parliamentarians, to measure the efficacy of this large amount of spending, then we should have access to that data.

The other concern I have is that there is no data on the average income of parents who have the $10-a-day spots. The government has not put means testing in the bill, and I am concerned that these spots will be disproportionately going to higher-income Canadians as opposed to lower-income Canadians or Canadians who might be in the gig economy or in shift work. The fact that the government is not measuring this and is not talking about this tells me that we are going to have a problem in the future.

The other piece of data that we do not have is how many $10-a-day spots are for flexible child care outside of the hours between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If the government wants to stand up and say that the bill would provide universal access to child care, then, again, as I said earlier, it should take into consideration all the forms of work and work arrangements that we see in Canada. We are starting to see a major shift in economic modality in the country.

I still feel like there are many people in the public service who perhaps might be providing advice to the government who are saying, “Well, let's structure it around a nine-to-five job”, because that is what they know. However, the reality is that, outside of government, nine-to-five hours are few and far between now, and even people who have nine-to-five jobs, because of the inflationary crisis, are having to pick up second or even third jobs. We know a lot of people might be working in a $40,000 or $50,000-a-year traditional nine-to-five office job but then are driving for Uber or Uber Eats in the evening.

There are a lot of people who have side hustles who could have access to income and economic productivity who do not have access to child care under this formula. The other key component that the government is not measuring adequately speaks to the problem in Alberta that I just mentioned. How many additional child care workers are needed to achieve the number of spots that the government promised would be created? I have not seen the government provide any sort of analysis to show that there is an adequate plan in place to train and retain child care workers to provide the services it promised.

There is a lot of money going into the creation of this bureaucracy, but if we do not have the labour to provide the services, then it is all for naught. I would also point out that if the government is not doing this analysis and not projecting forward on it, this problem is going to be compounded as we see an aging baby boomer population, and there are many people in my generation who are now feeling squeezed between parental care, child care and, in some cases, grandchild care.

So, as we see more of a demand for care for seniors, it will be competitive labour for child care, and the government needs to be measuring those statistics in order for Parliament to be able to determine whether or not this is an adequate or right expenditure, because this is not a cheap program. Speaking to the concerns raised by child care workers in Alberta, the government has not been transparent on the average wage of a child care worker who provides $10-a-day day care. Again, why is this data necessary?

First of all, it is necessary to determine whether the government is considering fair wages in the context of a $10-a-day day care provision. Second, it is needed to ensure that, when we are looking at labour supply over a long period of time, we have the data on at least what the wage floor would be so that cost and potential cost overruns or cost expansion of this program could be adequately assessed. Provincial governments are going to need this data as well. The last component is that if we are seeing an average wage to fill these positions, it needs to be much higher than what the government has forecasted.

The government will not have adequately costed out the entirety of the program either, which also puts a burden on provincial governments.

(1015) The other components of data that the government has not provided in its analysis to Parliament, which I do not think it is measuring at all, are how many of the $10-a-day spots are located in urban areas versus rural areas. I think that the government has, through many different policies, created more of a wedge between urban and rural Canada, when it should be trying to knit these parts of the country together for national cohesiveness, for economic outcome and just for social cohesion. To create a disparity between availability of child care in urban versus rural areas is wrong.

The government should be providing data to the public on whether that disparity exists and, if it does exist, how it plans to correct the program so that that delta does not get worse over the years. There is also the fact that the government has not been forthcoming. It does not seem like the government cares about tracking this information. It did not put any of this information forward in committee study. The government's tone and tenor on the debate has been “this is the only way for the state to have a role in child care in Canada”.

That is fundamentally flawed, but the extent of that flawed nature can only be measured with this data. I think that is why the government is hiding it from Canadians. I just want to take, for the record, extreme exception to the minister 's comments that somehow this bill was providing transparency. It is a very Orwellian thing she said. None of this data is available to the public. Child care, labour, unions, child care providers and parents need to have this data to plan for the future. I will close with this.

Over the last eight years, we have seen an unprecedented cost-of-living crisis in this country that has been exacerbated and has been made worse by the extreme level of deficit spending by the Liberal government. In so many situations, we have just seen abject waste: $250 million to a company that has two employees who have done no IT work and that is in the basement of a cottage. How many other things have we seen like the WE Charity scandal?

There has been so much waste with the Liberal government that any expenditures the government is making now have to be evaluated with rigorous data against the outcomes of what the government is purporting the program would do. My concern, based on what we have seen in Alberta, has to do with the lack of transparency on data and the lack of the principle of universality. The government cannot be making the inflationary crisis worse by putting forward expenditures that are not directly impacting, in a positive way, every person in this country. That is why data is so important.

The government does have an obligation to parents to address the inflationary crisis. We can talk about child care all we want, but the reality is that child care is one of many issues Canadians are facing that they were not facing eight years ago: out-of-control mortgage prices: out-of-control rent prices; not even being able to buy a bag of groceries for less than $100. These are all things that make children unaffordable. As we see global fertility rates, we need to ensure that we incentivize Canadians to have children.

Addressing a wide variety of issues around that, affordability writ large has to be a bigger part of the conversation. Again, I am dismayed that the government does not have better data on these outcomes. I am dismayed that it has not addressed the concerns of child care operators in my province. I certainly hope that the government will be doing a better job of this so that future governments will not have to correct the mistakes that Canadians will have paid for.

(1020) Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for her speech this morning on this vital bill and vital support to constituents and to Canadians as a whole. My office is getting calls from parents saying there are no spaces available. It is great to have $10-a-day day care, but they need the spaces for the kids to be able to go there. People, at one time, would probably have had a neighbour, an aunt or uncle, or a grandparent look after the child, but the $10-a-day day care allows kids to be with kids and to enjoy that kind of camaraderie, I suppose, to a certain extent. I wonder if she is hearing the same things at her constituency office that I am hearing at mine.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Madam Speaker, I guess it is an Atlantic Canada and Alberta problem. To re-emphasize what my colleague said, the problem is so acute in my province that unions that represent child care workers say that they might have to close facilities because of the inadequacies in the way this bill, Bill C-35 , was structured. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Liberal government to address that. To my colleague's point, child care is not a homogenous thing.

We cannot expect it to be a homogenous thing because parents will raise their children according to their values, their traditions and their economic circumstances, so we cannot present nine-to-five, $10-a-day day care as a panacea. We have to value child care labour equally, be it provided by somebody next door, a grandparent or a parent, and this bill would not do that.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, Quebec's public child care system has proven its worth. Because of this system, many women have been able to quickly return to the labour market with peace of mind. Without this program, many Quebec mothers would be deprived of rewarding careers. Members are saying that the program the government is currently proposing is inspired by Quebec's program, which has proven to be successful over the years and even decades. I would like to ask my colleague to explain the differences between the child care program proposed by the federal level and the Quebec program that will actually make the federal program ineffective,

whereas Quebec's program is very effective and has such a good reputation.

[ English ]

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would point my colleague to the substance of the amendment we are debating today. I find it disappointing that the Liberal government did not demonstrate a commitment to linguistic duality in the first instance of Bill C-35 . The other place had to propose an amendment to correct that, which, I am sure, is as important to my colleague as it is to me. The other thing I would like to do, since I have the opportunity, is to thank the hard-working people of Alberta, who have contributed to the equalization program for so many years and have provided opportunities for provinces that may have benefited from that program.

(1025) Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, we constantly hear across the floor how the Liberal government supports small business, yet I know in my riding and in rural

Canada businesses exist for day care, and they are really struggling because they are not recognized as being valued in this whole process. They offer various hours and are in communities where shift work is a real challenge. I would like the member to clarify again how important it is that the government take another look at the importance of being all-inclusive with its program.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Madam Speaker, I love this question because it gives Parliament an opportunity to thank the unsung heroes of Canada: home-based day care operators. It is usually someone on a cul-de-sac or in an apartment block who takes in children in the neighbourhood, allowing them to play and to grow up together, putting in long hours, being flexible for parents and really being the neighbourhood mom or dad, grandma or grandpa. The fact is that the government has not recognized that foundational part of Canadian culture, which, frankly, is also part of our pluralism.

There was cultural diversity on my street where I grew up with kids, and grandparents would share child care duty. That is how we got to know one another. This is such an important component. I again want to underscore that Bill C-35 would not truly provide the concept of universality in child care. It would not value all forms of child care equally, particularly those forms of child care that my colleague mentioned: those small, home-based businesses that have provided income for so many people and a lifeline for support, a trusted place to provide child care that is close to home.

I thank them and, frankly, shame on the government for not recognizing their value in an adequate way.

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP) :

Uqaqtittiji , I do not see in this bill how the individuals the member talked about are being prevented from accessing these programs. Can she tell us where in Bill C-35 she sees the impact of not creating that equality? I see that equality would be better achieved because of things like what it would do for indigenous families and how indigenous families could better support each other so that indigenous women could also enter the workforce.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that in any program seeking to provide universality, equality of access for indigenous persons has to be paramount. To her question about whether Bill C-35 would provide true universality, it would not. Grandparents, who might provide unpaid labour at home, are not valued in this bill. The parent who works in the gig economy, shift work or part time, would likely not have access to those spots. In fact, it would be high-income Canadians who work nine-to-five jobs who would have access to these spots and would push out access to lower-income Canadians who need it the most.

The government has put no safeguard in this bill to safeguard that at all, which is problematic. Also, I fundamentally believe that the way this bill is structured undervalues the labour of child care, even those providing those spots for nine-to-five jobs, as we are seeing in my home province of Alberta with rolling closures. In no way, shape or form would this bill achieve true universality. My party, my colleagues, firmly believe that the provision of child care should be valued in all of its forms and that parents should have access to the workforce through access to affordable child care.

This bill leaves a lot to be desired.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I am at a loss for words this morning. For 25 years, we have been demonstrating that early childhood centres benefit women. It is very difficult for me to accept that my colleague is trying to find small flaws in our system. I am beginning to wonder whether she is familiar with Quebec's early child care system at all.

(1030) [ English ]

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Madam Speaker, again, I voted in favour of Bill C-35 , but 2000 called and wanted its child care program back. This is not a bill that acknowledges the current economic reality in any part of our country with regard to the changes in how people work. This is a bill that was developed to provide child care in 2000, and there have been many gains made; our pluralism has grown and has changed in so many ways. This bill truly does not recognize how diverse our country is and how people work. It does not recognize the differences between urban and rural communities.

It does not recognize the labour of grandparents who might be attempting to come to the country to provide child care for recent new Canadians. The role of Parliament is to look at current economic conditions, to see where the football is going and to try to make sure government expenditures are addressing the needs of the population, not 20 years ago, but today and into the future. If we know how people work has changed, then it is incumbent upon us to ensure the program reflects that. Again, this is why it is so important for the government to track the data I mentioned.

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Milton . We all know that affordability is a top-of-mind topic, so let us consider early learning and child care through that lens. Before the early learning and child care agreements with all provinces and territories were finalized, daily child care fees ranged from $20 to $48 a day per child. Those dollars could go a long way in a grocery store or to keep children active in sports or other activities.

Child care fees have been dropping across Canada, and we are continuing to work hard with our provincial and territorial colleagues to meet our March 2026 goal of a $10-a-day, on average, fee for children under the age of six in licensed child care. Affordable child care means hundreds of dollars every month in the pockets of Canadians of all income levels. Affordable child care means money for nutritious meals on the table as prices at grocery stores remain high. Affordable child care means money for clothing and other necessities.

Carolyn Ferns, the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care's public policy coordinator put it perfectly: “Affordable child care is life-changing for families and for our communities. It is great to see the collaboration between the federal and provincial governments making that a reality for Ontario families.” Of course it is a reality not just for Ontario families; it is also a reality for every family in Canada with young children, whoever they are, wherever they live and regardless of their income level.

Let me share just a few of the testimonials parents have taken the trouble to write to members and to the government as they realize the financial relief affordable child care is bringing to them. Most are accompanied by expressions of enthusiasm and emphasis, such as multiple exclamation points or capital letters. The first one is, “My daughter on Vancouver Island found out yesterday that her daycare will be charging $10/day. This is huge for families! Thank you to the federal and provincial [governments] for collaborating on this excellent legislation.

It truly puts families first.” The next is, “Just paid our January day care fees. Under $500! This is a 55% reduction from last year. This is going to make such a huge difference for so many families.” The third one is, “Our infant's day care fees have dropped $500 per month, and on the 26th at her [18-month anniversary], it will drop an additional $200 (two hundred!) per month.

Probably one of the largest pieces of legislation to personally affect me in my lifetime.” Here is another one: “I will not benefit from this as my kids are grown and I remember paying $650/month for child care on a salary of $1,200/month back in the 80s. But I am so very, very happy that young families are benefiting from this.” The last one is, “It was absolutely surreal to see my day care fees drop from a high of $167.25.

As of [January], we will be paying less than 50% of that, on a path to $10.” It is clear from these and many other social media posts, interviews and comments that families in Canada are thrilled and, in many cases, astonished that affordable early learning and child care is finally here. The Government of Canada has made an historic investment of nearly $30 billion over five years to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system.

We have done so in collaboration with provincial, territorial and indigenous partners, all of whom deserve enormous credit for their willingness to work together to give every child in Canada the best possible start in life, and in so doing, to bring financial and emotional relief to millions of families from coast to coast to coast.

(1035) Child care fees have been reduced across the country, and by 2025-26, the average fee for regulated child care spaces across Canada would be $10 a day. As families across the country are realizing, there are no losers here. It is a financial win for families regardless of their income level. Since 2015, the Government of Canada has delivered real improvements to make life more affordable for Canadians. There is no better example than the progress we have made on the new ELCC system.

As of 2025-26, a minimum of $9.2 billion would be provided every year, on an ongoing basis, for affordable early learning and child care, and indigenous early learning and child care. The return on this investment for families with young children is obvious and is supported by evidence. Of course, we can look to the overwhelming success of the Quebec early learning and child care system, which is now ingrained in the social fabric of that province. When we speak about affordability, it is perfectly appropriate to ask whether the country as a whole can afford it. The answer is a resounding yes.

This is a plan to drive economic growth, to increase participation in the workforce, especially among mothers who want to pursue professional ambitions or further their education to get better-paying jobs. It is one of the many investments the Government of Canada remains committed to, investments that increase our economic growth and Canadians’ quality of life. Independent studies show that our early learning and child care system could raise real GDP by as much as 1.2% over the next two decades.

Further, a range of studies have shown that for every dollar spent on early childhood education, the broader economy receives between $1.50 and $2.80 in return. That would be a huge return on our early learning and child care investment. We are hearing loud and clear how thrilled families are that their governments have joined together to bring them significant financial relief. Doubtless, many are beginning to wonder why we waited so long. It is a fair question.

As other colleagues have said, in passing this legislation, we would be promising the best possible start in life to future generations of children in Canada. We are on the brink of making history, of cementing together these wonderful provincial and territorial agreements into an enduring testament to our commitment and caring. When we eventually leave office, we can do so with the pride and satisfaction of knowing that we were all part of this great, lasting achievement. I urge colleagues to give quick passage to Bill C-35 .

(1040) Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I think it is pretty obvious, with the way the bill passed the first time through the House, that the House does recognize the importance of child care in this country. We are all in agreement with the bill's intent.

However, I raised in my speech last year something that has really come to the forefront of one of the challenges with the current agreements, which is the impact they are having on the lack of labour and lack of early childhood educators, who are being pulled out of the before- and after-care programs, which help so many parents with the ability to work, in order to fill the demand for full-day day care. I know it has impacted my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

I know it has impacted people even here in Ottawa, where parents who had kids enrolled in before- and after-care programs are now tied because they have to drop their kids off not before 9:00 a.m. and pick them up by 3:30 p.m. It is really hard to find a six-hour-per-day job and be able to make a living. Has the member heard the same things in his riding?

Mr. Chandra Arya :

Madam Speaker, one thing the families in Nepean are overwhelmingly in support of is this program, because they see the benefit it brings to their family. It allows them the funds required to help children undertake some sports activities. It has helped families, especially mothers, free themselves up so they can go back into the workforce. Some of the mothers I know are using the program to help them get better educated for better-quality jobs.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to know that I really enjoyed his speech. For years I was president of the CPE La Fourmilière, an early childhood centre, and I can vouch for the important role we played in helping women enter the labour market and our significant contribution to reducing poverty. Early childhood centres pave the way to academic success. Children who previously had no access to education are prepared to make the big leap to regular school. Children get to interact with little ones who may have needed a little extra love or security.

I therefore congratulate my colleague, and I want all parliamentarians to know that we hope all the provinces have the same kind of experience Quebec has had.

[ English ]

Mr. Chandra Arya :

Madam Speaker, I am glad to note that the member has personally experienced the economic benefits that educating children at a very young age bring, allowing them to grow up educated and allowing parents to contribute to the workforce generally, not only in Quebec, because of course it is something that other provinces and the federal government have learned from. I have seen it happen in other parts of the world that a focus on children's, and especially girls', education has contributed to the economic development of an entire region, entire community and the entire country.

Therefore it is very important that through the bill we would be making up for what was lacking in Canada. Again, I recognize the contributions of Quebec in bringing this forward as a national priority.

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I certainly share the importance of the $10-a-day child care for many families in my riding, but the problem of course still exists that there is not enough child care available. I wonder whether the member would agree with me that one of the things we also have to do is make sure that those who work in the child care sector, primarily women and quite often those who are new Canadians, are properly compensated for their skills and for the hard work they do each and every day.

Mr. Chandra Arya :

Madam Speaker, I fully agree with the hon. member that the people who work in child care should be adequately compensated. It is very much a requirement. This is a collaborative program between the federal government and the provinces, and authorities at all levels of government should work hand in hand to find a means of making sure it is implemented well in every single respect.

(1045) Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is a real honour and privilege to stand in the House to talk about a program that has been such an important affordability measure for young families, particularly in my riding. It has also allowed so many women, and so many parents, to get back to work a little sooner than they would have otherwise, leading to the best-ever marks on female engagement in the economy. It has been a real landmark for Canada, and I am proud to speak to Bill C-35 from the perspective of Milton.

As the House has heard us say repeatedly, access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive child care is not a luxury, it is a necessity. That is why our commitment to building a Canada-wide early learning and child care system matters so much to so many. Since signalling our intention to create that system, the Government of Canada has signed Canada-wide early learning and child care agreements with all provinces and territories to support increased access to high-quality, affordable, inclusive child care, including supports to the early learning and childhood education workforce.

Since then, we have been working closely with our provincial and territorial colleagues to ensure that early childhood educators are the cornerstone of our child care system. I would like to recognize the outstanding contribution of so many of those educators, who continue to work so hard to care for children and support their growth and education. In particular, I would like to highlight the great work of the Milton Community Resource Centre. I visit regularly, and I talk to them about any and all issues that affect early learning and child care.

It is one of the largest providers of early learning and child care in Milton and throughout Halton. Without it, there would be so many parents in Milton that would not have been able to get back to work. That impact on the earnings and the careers for members of a family is pretty profound. When I am walking down the street, talking to neighbours in Milton, I have had so many parents come to me to say that they are saving thousands of dollars a year thanks to the early learning and child care program, which the government provides.

It has been huge for a young community, such as Milton, that has so many parents and so many young kids. Bill C-35 outlines the guiding principles for federal investments in early learning and child care. One of those guiding principles includes supporting the provision of high-quality programs and services through the recruitment and retention of qualified and well-supported early learning and childhood educator workforce individuals. That high-quality early childhood educator workforce is essential to fostering the social, emotional, physical and cognitive development of young children.

I can speak from personal experience. I am not a parent, but I have been in those classrooms with some of those kids, and I have seen how amazing the workers are. They are fantastic, and seeing the different personalities among the kids is a lot of fun every time I visit. More specifically, international studies have shown that children who regularly participate in high-quality early learning and child care programs tend to have higher graduation rates.

Later on, they make better decisions, improve their work habits and their grades, make gains in reading and math, are excited about learning and develop stronger social skills. It is pretty clear to me that when we invest in a high-quality early learning and childhood educator workforce, we are investing it the health, well-being and success of generations to come. That is why we are putting forward this important legislation, to ensure that early childhood educator workforces are supported right across the country, so they can continue to provide children across Canada with the best possible start in life.

It all starts with our agreements with the provinces and territories, where commitments are made to, one, implement evidence-based, quality frameworks, standards and tools for early learning and child care; two, development and implement wage grids for early childhood educators; three, increase the percentage of child care workers who fully meet provincial and territorial certification requirements; and, four, increase training, professional development and other supports for early childhood workforces.

These commitments are essential, not only to attract early childhood educators but also, even more importantly, to retain our high-quality workforce. What does that look like in practice? From coast to coast to coast, the provinces and territories have been working closely to provide better training opportunities, increased compensation and more benefits to their early childhood educator workforce. Let us take British Columbia as an example.

B.C. is investing in special training and development to upgrade skills in priority areas to make child care more inclusive, especially for children with disabilities and children needing enhanced or individual supports. This training also focuses on making child care more culturally appropriate for indigenous children. We know that, in building an inclusive child care system that meets our children's needs, we must meet children where they are and support both current and future early childhood educators at the same time.

That is why the Government of British Columbia expanded its dual credit program for early childhood educators. The dual credit program allows secondary students in B.C. to take post-secondary courses and receive credits towards both high school graduation and a post-secondary program. The program covers tuition fees for the courses, resulting in more affordable training for students in early childhood education.

(1050) Let us go across the country to the east, to Prince Edward Island, where more training opportunities have been provided for both current early childhood educators and those interested in joining the early childhood education workforce. The province has also launched a one-time grant to help recruit early childhood educators back to the sector, and these investments are ensuring that early childhood educators on the island have the skills and tools they need to succeed while providing new opportunities to expand the workforce.

Further, P.E.I. also increased staff salaries at early year centres across the province as part of a coordinated effort to move the province's early childhood workforce forward. Wage increases are instrumental in P.E.I.'s multi-year plan to support the early childhood sector and to encourage others to pursue a career in early childhood education. Let us head up to the territories. In the Yukon, the territory has been investing in accelerated education pathways for early childhood educators in partnership with Yukon University.

The goal of these accelerated education pathways is to enhance the level of education available for early childhood educators in the territory, which would help increase the quality of early learning and child care across the Yukon. This initiative in the Yukon is a win-win-win. It provides enhanced education, strengthens the workforce and benefits our youngest learners with the most qualified educators. Moreover, early learning educators in the Yukon will be able to customize their training plan, allowing them to continue to work in a licenced program, including in family day homes.

These are only a few of the amazing initiatives under way across the country to support the hard-working and dedicated early childhood educators. These initiatives are made possible thanks to the groundbreaking federal investments of the Government of Canada that we have made in building that Canada-wide early learning and child care system from coast to coast to coast. Our early childhood education workforce is critical to the success of the Canada-wide system, and it is key to Canada's economic prosperity. Our government is committed to building a stronger, more resilient economy where nobody is left behind.

We know that access to early learning and child care that is affordable and inclusive is going to help drive our economic growth. It will enable parents, particularly mothers, to enter, maintain and re-enter the job market, and offer each child in Canada the best possible start. This is why I encourage my colleagues to support Bill C-35 quickly so we can continue to work together to support, grow, develop and engage with the early learning and childhood educator workforce.

As I said earlier, when we invest in high-quality early childhood educator workforces, we are investing in the health, well-being and success of generations to come.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-35 prioritizes child care facilities that are government run and not-for-profit. It does not prioritize small businesses and entrepreneurs, many of whom are women entrepreneurs, even if those locations are licenced and regulated by the respective provincial governments. Why would a Liberal government that touts itself to be a feminist government not prioritize young women entrepreneurs in this legislation?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden :

Madam Speaker, our funding agreements with provinces go towards supporting not-for-profit, public and family-based child care. I can say that my experience in visiting with some of those female entrepreneurs in my riding and making sure they have the qualifications necessary to access some of those supports has been really beneficial. In working with well-experienced providers, such as the Milton Community Resource Centre, I know that some of those entrepreneurs have been able to upskill and scale up, and they have also been able to provide child care spaces for more kids throughout the day.

It is a great success, and I am glad that the Conservatives are considering supporting child care, despite early indications that they might vote against it. This is an affordability measure. It is great for the workforce, and it is also excellent for female entrepreneurs.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I represent a Quebec riding. Quebec's day care system has been in place for 25 years. Families really like it and are proud of it. I doubt we could make any sort of changes to it because people are so attached to the system and even take it for granted. It is a fixture in Quebec. As for the rest of Canada, the program is under development, if I understand correctly. The government started creating the program and then introduced the bill. The program was already in the works and now the government comes strolling in with the bill.

Is this not an admission from the government and Liberal MPs that things are not going well for them and that they expect to lose a lot of seats in the next election? Essentially, the purpose of the bill is to lock in the program they have created. Ultimately, the program could exist without a bill, could it not?

(1055) Mr. Adam van Koeverden :

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and for his interest in this program. First of all, I must thank Pauline Marois, a leader in this sector. It is important to highlight the leadership shown by both Pauline Marois and the Province of Quebec. We can see it not only in this file, but also on the environment and the fight against climate change: Quebec is a leader. It is important to have a good example of progress in one province and to try to promote the same opportunities in the other provinces and territories.

[ English ]

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, like that of the hon. member, my riding is rapidly growing with lots of young families. What people are finding, whether they are talking about setting up a new public sector child care centre or a non-profit, even as new entrepreneurs, is that they lack the workers. What is the government going to do to make sure that we increase the compensation that would help attract more people into this important field?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden :

Madam Speaker, as we know, there is a worker shortage across the country in various sectors, and that is a challenge, but it is also a great opportunity because, where there is scarcity, I think workers tend to benefit. It tends to increase their wages and provide a bit of competition and more choice for workers. That is the context we are in.

We have very low unemployment in Canada right now, which is certainly a good thing for workers, but it is a challenging for many sectors that are looking to find a more available workforce, so ensuring that it is a competitive opportunity, that early learning and child care workers can aspire to earning a good income, is very important. I know that, when I have worked with the Milton Community Resource Centre, it is very focused on making sure it pays competitive wages.

I have also seen that it is providing people with their first jobs and also providing work to newcomers, refugees and all sorts of people who are looking for that work.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House once again to speak to this bill. We do have an amendment coming back to the House from the Senate, which is why we are standing here to speak today. What makes this interesting, based on how this bill went last time, is that my province of Saskatchewan signed on to its agreement with the federal government in 2021. I hosted a couple of town halls in January, and one of the topics that came up was child care.

When we look at rural Canada, rural Saskatchewan and what is available for people who are looking to put their kids into a day home so that they can go to work, quite frankly, there is basically no capacity. The town I grew up in had a small facility that maybe five to 10 kids could go into. Most kids were raised by a stay-at-home mom where I grew up, but in some of the other towns now, as people are looking to be working, capacity is the number one problem.

When I look at the way this program has been rolled out and the way the federal government has put money to the provinces, it has definitely put an overemphasis on creating spaces in the larger cities and the larger centres. In typical Liberal government fashion, it looks like rural Saskatchewan, once again, has lost out and has been left behind.

Statements by Members Statements by Members

(1100) [ English ] Seniors

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Vancouver Granville, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, seniors are at the heart of our communities. Since we were first elected, seniors have been central to our work in government. In Vancouver Granville, I have established a local seniors council to advise me on their priorities. As part of budget 2024 consultations, the Vancouver Granville Seniors Council shared issues that were important to the members that they would like addressed. From affordability and homelessness to social inclusion, these are issues all Canadians face, and I shared their issues with the Minister of Finance .

I want to thank my seniors council members for their hard work and dedication and let them know that everyone in the House hears them and that we are taking concrete steps, like building over 40,000 homes in Vancouver and launching the Canada dental plan to ensure that every senior and every Canadian has the tools and supports they need to live well. I look forward to continuing to work with them on their shared priorities. As they have given so much back to Canada, it is our obligation to make sure we take care of our seniors from coast to coast to coast.

[ Translation ] 95th Anniversary of Écho de Frontenac

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, for 95 years, the Écho de Frontenac newspaper has been an important part of people's lives in Lac‑Mégantic and the Granit MCR. Founded in 1929 by J. Édouard Fortin, the local independent newspaper was acquired by Louis‑Philippe Poulin two years later and has remained in the family ever since. A truly independent weekly, the Écho de Frontenac gets support from its subscribers and its local commercial partners. I want to pay tribute to Gaétan Poulin, who served as managing editor and publisher from 1967 until his death in fall 2023.

A staunch defender of the French language and passionate historian, Mr. Poulin enforced the values of truth, objectivity and justice at Écho de Frontenac, values that are still in place at the newspaper today. Thanks to the current team at Écho de Frontenac, the young and not-so-young have access to reliable quality content that remains accessible and relatable to its audience. It is an honour today to be able to draw attention to the hard work of Suzanne Poulin, who took over as publisher, and that of all the dedicated employees who care about Écho de Frontenac and ensure it showcases local news.

Long live this essential witness of the Granit community, and happy 95th anniversary.

[ English ] Children's Rights

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-273 passed, by a vote of 209 to 115, this week for a second reading in Parliament. I thank all those MPs who spoke up for this bill and for the repeal of

section 43 of the Criminal Code. Canada is finally taking our first steps in joining 65 other countries around the world that have banned the use of force against children. More than 700 organizations across Canada, including every major organization that works for children's health and well-being, have called for the repeal of this legalized use of force against children. The repeal of this provision of the Criminal Code was one of the first recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Call to action number 6 of the TRC calls for repeal of the provision, which legalizes the use of force against children. This provision was put in place in 1892, when all kinds of abuses were legal. It is high time to change that and time to repeal

section 43.

SDG Idea Factory

Ms. Valerie Bradford (Kitchener South—Hespeler, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, on February 3 we welcomed the Prime Minister to the Waterloo region and the SDG Idea Factory, a hub dedicated to advancing the UN's 17 sustainable development goals. Located in Kitchener, it unites visionary entrepreneurs and organizations to address pressing global challenges. The Idea Factory is more than an innovation space. It is a catalyst for social and environmental transformation. In supporting start-ups and businesses championing social equity and environmental stewardship, this hub is working to foster global positive change and a better future for all.

The Idea Factory is host to businesses and organizations like LiftOff, the Waterloo Region Community Foundation, ForUsGirls Foundation, K-W Oktoberfest, the Waterloo Region Small Business Centre, Mot Mot Mind, Bring on the Sunshine and the Community Company to drive transformative change. We are immensely proud of the incredible work happening in our community and anticipate future contributions from these innovative minds.

Public Services and Procurement

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, arrive scam is a failed app that should have cost $80,000 but cost Canadians $60 million. GC Strategies, the two middlemen working out of their basement getting $258 million in IT contracts, never did a keystroke of IT work. It turns out they have been wining and dining senior Liberal government officials. Another $150 million was embezzled at the Prime Minister 's billion-dollar green slush fund, with hand-picked NDP-Liberal board members funnelling millions to their own companies. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost and not worth the corruption, but there is hope yet.

Conservatives would end the corruption, axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Our common-sense plan would axe the tax on everything, for everyone, for good. We would tie municipal funding to housing to make sure more houses get built, not bureaucracy. Conservatives would find savings by scrapping ArriveCAN. We would bring jail, not bail for Canadians. We would bring it home.

(1105) Housing

Ms. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we know we have a housing crisis, and that is why we are investing in the creation of homes nationwide, including in Oakville and Burlington. In 2023 we announced over $55 million to build 131 purpose-built rental homes in Oakville, with the funding coming as a fully repayable low-interest loan through the CMHC apartment construction loan program. Last month in Burlington, we announced that the City of Burlington would be receiving $21 million from the housing accelerator fund, which will create 600 homes in the next three years and 5,000 new homes over the next decade.

This is a step in the right direction for Oakville and Burlington, because we know every Canadian should have access to safe and affordable housing. We are working with developers and municipalities to get more homes built at prices people can afford.

Labour

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Windsor—Tecumseh, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, my community of Windsor—Tecumseh has a proud history of fighting for workers. Last week I joined Unifor workers in solidarity on the picket line at Jamieson Vitamins, fighting for what is fair. This week, ATU Local 616 fought and won better wages for Transit Windsor workers. I thank them for defending their right to 10 paid sick days, which our federal government introduced. This follows hard-fought wins by Windsor Salt workers, who stayed strong in their 192-day strike, and the hard-fought historic contracts bargained by Unifor for auto workers.

Unions fight for workers, but they lift our entire community. I was proud to work with unions to deliver the battery plant that will create 2,500 good-paying jobs back home. I am proud to work with unions to deliver programs that make real differences for workers, like child care, dental care and the Canada worker benefit. Conservatives want to cut programs that help workers. We will continue to fight for workers.

Rural Canadians

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years, rural Canadians are breaking under the NDP-Liberal government. The Prime Minister and his radical environment minister have launched an attack on rural Canadians. Rural Canadians rely on their vehicles to raise their families and drive to work, yet this week the environment minister publicly announced that the Liberals will stop building new roads and highways. The minister stated, “Our government has made the decision to stop investing in new road infrastructure.” Rural Canadians do not have the option to take a subway to work or to the doctor's office.

They rely on highways and roads, but the NDP-Liberal government does not care about rural Canadians. That is why the Prime Minister is increasing his failed carbon tax by 23% on April 1. It is clear he is not worth the cost. Rural Canadians cannot afford the government's plan to quadruple the carbon tax. Only Conservatives will fight for rural Canadians and axe the carbon tax.

Community Volunteer Income Tax Program

Ms. Iqra Khalid (Mississauga—Erin Mills, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I encourage all members in this House to get with the program. That is, the community volunteer income tax program, a collaboration between local community organizations and the Canada Revenue Agency to deliver free tax clinics for Canadians. This collaboration between the CRA and dedicated volunteers across Canada allows us to give back to communities by helping residents to file their taxes.

Local organizations across the country run these tax clinics for lower-income Canadians to help make sure they are getting their benefits, like the Canada child benefit, the Canada workers benefit, the Canada carbon rebate and many more cost-of-living measures they may be eligible for. I am so proud of the positive impact we have made through the CVITP and look forward to repeating this success again in what will be a productive tax filing season this year.

Carbon Tax

Mr. Branden Leslie (Portage—Lisgar, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister , it has never been more expensive to feed one's family, own a home and heat one's house. The price of everything is up, and the average family of four will spend an additional $700 this year on groceries compared to last. Now the Prime Minister is hiking the carbon tax by 23% on April 1, but he is not done there. He is also jacking up the tax on beer, wine and spirits by 5% for good measure. I do not know if the Prime Minister learned basic reasoning, so let me explain.

If we tax the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who ships the food, we tax all who buy the food. What is the result? Two million Canadians now rely on a food bank and 50% are $200 away from insolvency, yet the Liberals think rebranding the carbon tax will stop the financial pain. Here is a news flash: It will not. Canadians live in reality. They know the carbon tax is a tax plan, not an environment plan. Only common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax on everything, for everyone and for good.

(1110) Housing

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

Madam Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, the lives of renters, mortgage holders and the unhoused continue to worsen, with crushing costs. The facts speak for themselves. Home prices now outpace incomes by 40%, earning Canada the worst record in the G7. While American rents fall, Canadian rents hit record highs. Canada built fewer homes in 2022 than in 1972, and housing starts were down in 2023. We now have the fewest homes per capita of any country in the G7, despite having the most land to build on.

Ottawa-funded gatekeepers and punitive taxes add hundreds of thousands of dollars of unneeded costs to the construction of each home. Canada's infrastructure funding should be tied to actually building homes. On top of that, we now hear that the radical environment minister does not even want to build new roads. Our common-sense Conservative plan will ensure that infrastructure dollars go to the municipalities to get their bureaucracies out of the way, to build homes, not bureaucracy.

[ Translation ] Gabriel Fredette

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, everyone knows how passionate I am about music and singing, which is why I was delighted to learn that Gabriel Fredette, a young firefighter from Lachute, in my riding, is one of the talented young artists selected to participate in the television show La Voix . He was even lucky enough to see all four coaches turn around and ask him to join their respective teams. In the end, he chose Mario Pelchat, one of my idols. His maternal grandfather, who passed away in 2020, loved the artist. Gabriel inherited his love for the guitar from his grandfather, Léopold Dumouchel, also a musician.

He began strumming the guitar and writing folk and pop music during the pandemic. What a journey for this talented young man, who seems to have come out of nowhere. I wish Gabriel all the best and a great, very successful career.

[ English ] Sexual and Reproductive Health Awareness Week

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I rise today during Sexual and Reproductive Health Awareness Week to emphasize the importance of menstrual equity, access to contraception and abortion rights for Canadian women and gender-diverse people. I am happy to see my colleagues join me in celebrating the critical gains made by Canada's feminist movement in its fight for women's sexual and reproductive rights, but we cannot forget that there is still work to be done. It has now been over two weeks since Fredericton's only abortion clinic closed, and the government has done nothing.

The Liberals pat themselves on the backs for supporting gender equality but refuse to ensure access to safe abortion, while the Conservatives are actively undermining this right through back-door legislation. The human right to have safe and trauma-informed abortion care is only as good as the ability to access that right. Leaders must uphold the Canada Health Act and ensure access is available to everyone in Canada.

[ Translation ]

National Human Trafficking Awareness Day

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, February 22 is now recognized as National Human Trafficking Awareness Day. This should not be just another day on the calendar, but rather a call to action against all forms of human trafficking. It is one of the faces of modern slavery, usually for sexual purposes or forced labour and slavery. Victims often suffer physical, sexual, financial, emotional and psychological abuse, and often have to live and work in horrific conditions. Because of the damage and violence human trafficking inflicts on victims, it is linked to severe trauma, and recovering from its impact can take a lifetime.

Here are a few statistics to illustrate the severity of this scourge: 93% of victims were born here; 97% are women and children, many of them indigenous. There are still too many victims. This national day of awareness must empower us to better identify these heinous crimes, vehemently condemn them and to fight them more effectively. We must take action.

(1115) [ English ] Public Services and Procurement

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, where is the accountability? Where are the funds? What a boondoggle. In a misguided attempt, the Liberal government tried to control our borders during a pandemic. It wasted at least $60 million on an app that should have cost no more than $80,000, and the app does not even work. Without competition, the Liberals handed out a contract for $20 million to a couple of guys operating out of their basement. Then they decided to throw in another $40 million for good measure, as well as some nice bottles of Scotch and a couple of fancy dinners for their friends.

This government has wasted $60 million on people who did no work on an app that does not work. That is Liberal accounting. That is the ArriveCAN scam. It is time to call in the RCMP.

Sexual and Reproductive Health

Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, in 2010, I was working in Africa when one of my colleagues turned to me and said that Canadian women are hypocrites. I was stunned. She went on to say that she had studied at McGill, and she knew Canadian women had reproductive rights, but it was not good enough for African women. I was mortified, and I decided right then that I was going to run for office and to change that policy. Not always in this place do we get to come full circle, but three weeks ago, I was in Kinshasa, where I toured a safe abortion clinic funded by Canada.

DRC has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world, 10%, because of unsafe abortions. Our commitment to sexual and reproductive health and rights is not ideology. It literally saves lives.

Black History Month

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, this Black History Month, I would like to recognize an Ottawa-based organization: AKHRI - Mothers and Daughters Literacy. Its mission is to create lasting, positive, community-based change through basic literacy in rural and underprivileged communities in Somaliland. It empowers girls and women with the power to learn, to be heard, to be seen and to make a difference. I agree that educated, empowered women can change the world. Successful economic development of a community or a country can be fast-tracked if education is made available to all and, specifically, if girls are educated.

I would like to recognize and to thank the team, under the leadership of Anab Mohamed, for its noble and dedicated service to realize AKHRI’s mission.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions

[ English ] Public Services and Procurement

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, its arrive scam app that was supposed to cost $80,000 cost Canadians $60 million and, just like it, the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the cost or the corruption. GC Strategies, the two-person team who worked out of a basement, got paid $20 million and did no IT work but did take senior Liberal officials out for whisky tastings and fine dinners, which were not worth the cost and not worth the corruption. Will the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister join common-sense Conservatives as we call for the RCMP to expand the investigation into this Liberal scandal?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to answer this question, which we have heard before and to which we have provided appropriate answers already. I am pleased to remind everyone that the Auditor General not only had the job, but the very important job of tabling a report on Monday, which we have looked at and are obviously very troubled by the findings in that report. We have taken into account all the recommendations in the report, and many have already been put into place for some time.

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the minister said the Auditor General had an important job, but he and all the Liberals voted against her conducting the audit. It was because the Leader of the Opposition moved a motion in November 2022 that we had that Auditor General investigation. Just like that was the right thing to do then, calling in the RCMP is the right thing to do now. This is an $80,000 app that ballooned to $60 million. We have a two-person firm, working out of their basement, being paid $20 million, and wining and dining senior Liberal officials. Will the Liberals end their cover-up and join Conservatives in calling for an expanded RCMP investigation?

(1120) Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the member is completely right in pointing to the important work of the Auditor General. She did work very hard over the last few months, which is what we expect of her and her office. She tabled an important report on Monday. As she has said repeatedly, she is also completely willing and able to work with all other partners and institutions across the government, including with the RCMP, with which she is already in touch.

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, of course the Auditor General is willing and able to do her work, but the problem is that the government refuses to give her the documents she needs to fully account for the $60 million that was spent on this boondoggle. The Liberals, in the past, have used the executive to shield themselves from an investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, like they did in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. This time, Canadians want to know who got rich, other than of course those two guys who worked out of their basement and who took Liberal bosses out for fine dinners and whisky tastings. Will the Liberals join our calls to call in the RCMP to investigate this scam?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we are very pleased, obviously, to hear the member clearly state that he has full confidence in the abilities of the Auditor General to keep doing her job, including supporting the RCMP when that is demanded by the RCMP.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is ultimately the one responsible for the arrive scam scandal, his useless app that was supposed to cost $80,000 and ended up costing 750 times more. No one believes the Prime Minister's excuses anymore. A former NDP leader said, “The scam of the century: [the Prime Minister] gave millions to a company with four employees”. One headline reads, “Arrive Scam: A $59-million-plus scandal thanks to the [Liberal] government's laissez-faire attitude”. La Presse called it “The tip of the iceberg of wasteful spending”. After eight years, who in this government will finally dare to stand up and tell the Prime Minister that he is not worth the cost or the corruption?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, not only should we be thanking the Auditor General for her work, but we also need to read her report very carefully. The misinformation we are hearing from the other side of the House is unfortunately not helpful and can even be counterproductive. The Auditor General must continue with the serious work she does. We thank her for everything she has done so far, and we are counting on her to keep up the good work.

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the minister is denying the truth. I quoted newspaper articles that have been published since the Auditor General brought to light this scandal that saw Canadians pay $60 million for an app that should have cost only $80,000. Radio-Canada found that GC Strategies, this infamous company that does not do IT work and that was paid close to $20 million to develop a useless app, actually got a lot more money than that. We are talking about $258 million. Will the Prime Minister, who is not worth the cost, give the RCMP and the parliamentary committee access to all of the documents so that we can finally get to the bottom of this matter?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the member is quite right to talk about cost of protecting the health and safety of Canadians, including during a pandemic that cost tens of thousands of people their lives, including hundreds in his own riding. Millions of people lost their jobs, and we had to protect the integrity of our borders. Despite how urgent and important this situation was, the Auditor General of Canada clearly indicated that it was unacceptable that public servants from the CBSA did not do their job properly.

Health

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, last February, the federal government promised to increase health transfers. After a lot of political jousting, it forced Quebec and the provinces to accept six times less money than they needed. A year later, Quebec has not received a cent. There is already a $1-billion gap in health care funding this year because Ottawa is withholding the money. Why is Ottawa withholding it? Because the federal government wants to impose conditions. Will the government finally pay Quebec the money it promised instead of holding patients hostage?

[ English ]

Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, our government is working very closely with all provinces and territories, including Quebec, to make sure that health care that is much needed for all Canadians is provided. That is why we are so proud to invest $200 billion over 10 years, to all provinces and territories, to support Canadians in getting the best and excellent health care. We will continue to work with Quebec to ensure that it gets the same care.

(1125) [ Translation ]

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, that is not the point. Let me remind members once again that the federal government does not run one single hospital. It has no expertise in health care, but it is withholding the money needed to care for people, because it thinks it can tell health care workers how to do their jobs. Let me also remind members once again that the federal government is withholding nearly $5 billion in Quebec taxpayers' money. That is nothing more than our share, plain and simple. Quebeckers want their money to be used for health care, not for Liberal political games. When will the federal government give us our money?

[ English ]

Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, our government and the Government of Quebec share the same objective and that is to provide quality health care, guided by the Canada Health Act, to all Quebeckers, whether it is family health, whether it is mental health, whether it is health care for our seniors. We will continue to work with the Government of Quebec closely so that those shared priorities are met, and Quebeckers, like all Canadians, will get the best health care through the federal government.

Housing

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP) :

Uqaqtittiji , Canada's federal housing advocate confirmed this week that indigenous peoples are more likely to be forced to live on the streets. This government's lack of action means that indigenous peoples are being intentionally forgotten. In Edmonton, 60% of those living on the streets are indigenous. In Winnipeg, it is two-thirds and in Saskatoon, it is over 90%. In Nunavut, many tell me about overcrowding because of the lack of housing. Will the minister listen to the federal housing advocate and stop underfunding indigenous housing?

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we are taking action to address the tremendous lack of safe, affordable housing and housing supports for indigenous peoples in urban, rural and northern communities. The for indigenous, by indigenous approach that guides our housing strategy will ensure successful approaches for communities in need. Since 2016, we have supported the construction, renovation and retrofit of over 30,000 homes in first nation communities and have continued to work with partners to co-develop a 10-year housing and infrastructure strategy. All levels of government must work together to solve this crisis and continue to push for indigenous-led solutions to address these gaps.

Health

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, it has been two weeks since I asked the health minister for his plan to address the closure of Clinic 554, Fredericton's only health care provider offering safe abortions. This government has done nothing. While Conservatives push backdoor legislation, violating the right to a safe abortion, the so-called feminist Liberals failed to address access. Why is the government denying access to safe trauma-informed abortion care?

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I am tremendously grateful for the allyship of the member across the way and for that very important question. That clinic is located in my riding. It is an issue that I have been on for many years. The federal government actually has stepped up and has supported research projects to support better data collection to inform our provincial partners, who really hold the pen on this issue. We have also held back provincial transfers, to ensure that the Canada Health Act is upheld. More absolutely needs to be done. Reproductive rights must be ensured in this country, no matter where one lives.

Public Services and Procurement

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the arrive scam app is just like the Prime Minister : not worth the cost and not worth the corruption. The Auditor General revealed that an app that did not work cost taxpayers a staggering $60 million, including $20 million that went to a two-person company that did no work. Now the RCMP have launched a criminal investigation, but are being obstructed by the Liberals, who are hiding documents. Will the Prime Minister stop the obstruction and turn over the documents today?

[ Translation ]

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, this question has already been answered a number of times over the past few days, and again today. The answer is the same. The Auditor General deserves our appreciation. She has done solid and important work over the past few months, leading to the tabling of a troubling report on Monday. The good news is that many of her recommendations were implemented some time ago now. However, the work continues to move forward. It is important to ensure that the public service is doing its job properly, even in times of crisis.

(1130) [ English ]

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, 60 million taxpayer dollars wasted, fraud, forgery and corruption; that is arrive scam and the Liberals have tried to cover up the scandal every step of the way. They obstructed parliamentary committees, they attempted to obstruct an investigation by the Auditor General and now they are obstructing an RCMP criminal investigation. When will the Liberals stop the obstruction and turn over the documents to the RCMP?

[ Translation ]

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, as I have said before, there is no obstruction here. On the contrary, the Auditor General must have all the documents she needs to do her job, because the Auditor General's work is critical to the integrity of our democratic and parliamentary system. That is why she was given access to all necessary documents over the past few months, and why she is able, as she clearly stated, to provide these documents to any other partner, including the RCMP, upon request.

[ English ]

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the RCMP needs access to the documents so that people can be held to account for this waste. The NDP-Liberal government's waste of at least $60 million on the arrive scam app, which wrongly put 10,000 people into mandatory quarantine, was so bad that the RCMP are investigating, and it needs access to these documents. After eight years, Canadians deserve better. They deserve accountability and transparency. Why have the Liberals not released these documents and what are they trying to hide?

[ Translation ]

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is a little disturbing to hear the Conservative MPs question the integrity of the Auditor General. The Auditor General has said very clearly over the past few days that she was not only willing and able to work with the RCMP, but she was already doing so and providing the RCMP with all the information it wants.

[ English ]

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, to be clear, I am not questioning the integrity of the Auditor General. I am questioning the integrity of the government that is hiding these documents from the RCMP. Canadians deserve accountability. Somebody needs to be held to account for the waste of $60 million that went to a shady IT company that had two people working in a basement. Why have the Liberals not released these documents? Release them now.

[ Translation ]

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we are sure that the opposition member is not also suggesting that the RCMP is incapable of doing its work. The RCMP and the Auditor General operate at arm's length from the government; they can work very well together without any political or partisan influence.

Mrs. Dominique Vien (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, Canadians are in shock. They paid 750 times more for the ArriveCAN app than planned. The Auditor General is also shocked. She said it is probably some of the worst record-keeping she has ever seen. After eight years of this incompetent government, ArriveCAN is another example in a long list of abuses. The ArriveCAN app is just like the Prime Minister: It is not worth the cost. Will he join us in calling on the RCMP to expand its investigation based on the revelations in the Auditor General's report?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, there are two points that I believe have already been explained well, yet are important to reiterate. Just a few months ago, Canada experienced the worst pandemic in a century, the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. The public service had to respond quickly and effectively to save the lives of thousands of Canadians; costs were in the billions of dollars per week. Unfortunately, this work was not done by the book. As the Auditor General stated on Monday, it is unacceptable that people in the public service and at the Canada Border Services Agency in particular failed to do—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

Mrs. Dominique Vien (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the government has to answer for this. Were it not for the Conservatives, Canadians would not have found out anything about the ArriveCAN app scandal. It has been chaos since this government took office eight years ago. This Prime Minister is not worth the cost. The ArriveCAN scandal involves two men in the basement of a bungalow who received millions of dollars to develop an app that should have cost $80,000. This company received a large share of contracts, many without a bidding process. It is a free-for-all with the Liberal Party.

The Conservative Party wants the RCMP to broaden its investigation in light of the Auditor General's troubling revelations. Do you have the courage to ask for that?

(1135) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I would remind the hon. member that she must address her questions through the Chair and not directly to the government. The hon. minister.

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, our colleague is quite right in pointing out the essential work of the Auditor General. We need the Auditor General to do the kind of investigation that she was able to do over the past few months in co-operation with CBSA officials. She did her work. She tabled her report on Monday. Her findings are shocking and alarming. Her recommendations must be taken into account. Most of her recommendations have already been in place for a few weeks.

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, the Auditor General's report is an endless chain of scandals. That an app estimated to cost $80,000 should end up costing at least $60 million is already unacceptable. That the real cost will never be known because of missing documents makes it even more unacceptable. That GC Strategies was in a position to draft the call for proposals itself, to make sure it would win, makes it more unacceptable still. However, that this two-person company, which delivers no services, has received at least 140 other contracts since 2010 is utterly outrageous. When will an independent investigation into each of these contracts be launched?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the key word in the Auditor General's report is “documentation”. That documentation was flawed, incomplete, improperly stored and unsharable. Indeed, it forms the central focus of the Auditor General's findings, and that is why we are continuing to move forward with the work that now needs to be done.

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, apparently the bookkeeping has been bad since 2010. Maybe this should have been addressed sooner. The wasteful spending on ArriveCAN continued after the pandemic under the CBSA's new president. At least $12 million more was invested in contracts with consultants, just for ArriveCAN. Clearly there is still a complete lack of accountability at the CBSA today. Will the government put the CBSA under third-party management?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I thank our colleague for the question. Every day, the Canada Border Services Agency plays an essential role in facilitating and allowing the flow of hundreds of thousands of travellers and billions of dollars in goods. This was even more important during the pandemic, when Canadians were relying on the arrival of vital drugs, personal protective equipment, and equipment parts that were absolutely essential for businesses, including in the opposition member's riding.

[ English ]

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the arrive scam app is just like the Prime Minister , not worth the cost and not worth the corruption. The RCMP is investigating this $80,000 app which cost more than $60 million. The Auditor General said it will take a court order for the RCMP to get access to all the documents in this Liberal corruption. Will the Prime Minister stop his cover-up, not make the police seek a court order, and hand over all the documents, voluntarily, to the police and to Parliament, so Canadians can learn the truth?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the member is correct when he points to the ability and expertise of the RCMP, the Auditor General and other institutions to work together. They know how to do their jobs. They do not need political processes and politicians to do their jobs. The RCMP, the Auditor General and all of the other independent organizations on which Canadians have the fortune to depend know what to do.

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the institution that is covering up is that Liberal cabinet and that Liberal minister . If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why does the RCMP need a court order? Release the documents voluntarily. A government with nothing to hide would produce these documents for the police without a court order. The arrive scam app is not worth the cost and the Prime Minister is not worth the corruption. Will the Prime Minister end this cover-up, release all the arrive scam documents voluntarily, stop the cover-up and turn it over to the police and Parliament, so Canadians can get the truth?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the member points to the work of the Auditor General. She has already said in public that she is not only able but very willing to work with the RCMP and any other institution in the government that would like to use her important findings on Monday. The member may want to speak to the Auditor General to understand how she does that. That is for him to decide, but we on this side of the House have full confidence in the ability of the Auditor General.

(1140) Mr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the revelations in the Auditor General's report on the arrive scam app are shocking, and after eight years of this NDP-Liberal government, waste is at an all-time high. Canadians know that, just like the arrive scam app, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost and he is not worth the corruption. Unfortunately, the Auditor General was only able to scratch the surface of this costly corruption. Evidence is being withheld and maybe even destroyed. It is time to send in the police. When will the Prime Minister stop the cover-up and call for a complete investigation into the arrive scam fiasco?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, again, I think no one in this House should attempt to display a lack of confidence in the ability of the Auditor General to do her job. I am sure we are all united in supporting the importance and the value of what she does. She needs no advice on the part of politicians. She has full expertise. If they want to provide her with their particular advice, they know how to reach out to her. Otherwise, we can help them connect to her.

Mr. Rick Perkins: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I will remind the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets that he had an opportunity to ask questions. If he has other questions to ask, he should wait until the appropriate time and not interrupt the minister . The hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland has the floor.

Mr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, these Liberals keep making excuses, but extraordinary circumstances are no excuse for extraordinary corruption. After eight years of this NDP-Liberal government, Canadians know that the arrive scam app, just like the Prime Minister , is not worth the cost or the corruption. If the Liberals had had their way, the Auditor General would not have even investigated this issue at all, and it is now clear to Canadians that these Liberals had at least 60 million reasons to stop this investigation. When will this NDP-Liberal government join us and call for a complete investigation so that Canadians can get the truth?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the member is totally right to point to how important the work the Auditor General does is every day. She and her office are fundamental to the operations of our democracy. They are there to help and sometimes to challenge the government in doing the right thing. That is why we are so grateful for her report on Monday. We have already said that we have taken into account all the recommendations she has provided, and many of them have already been in place for a few weeks now.

Grocery Industry

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, Canadian seniors on fixed incomes are struggling very much to afford groceries in a difficult time. The government says it is talking tough with big grocers like Loblaws, but what has that led to? Loblaws is trying to cut a sweetheart deal with Manulife to screw seniors. Loblaws is getting in the way of the grocery code of conduct. Loblaws is getting rid of its discount of near-expired foods, only to replace it later after public outcry. The only thing the government has done is given Loblaws a slap on the wrist and $12 million for new fridges, so when is it going to get actually serious about doing something to lower grocery prices in Canada?

Mr. Terry Sheehan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Seniors, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we have been there for seniors from the get-go. One of the first things we did was reverse what the former prime minister, Stephen Harper, did on the world stage at the World Economic Forum in Davos. He raised that retirement age from 65 to 67, putting a lot of seniors into poverty. We have increased the GIS. We have increased the OAS. We have enhanced the CPP. Meanwhile, we do not know where the Conservatives stand on the CPP. The leader of the official opposition thinks that he could do better than the CPP board. It is just a shame.

Public Services and Procurement

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, the government has given 32 different contracts totalling $60 million to the same consultants, GC Strategies, for the useless ArriveCAN app. Liberals simply cannot keep themselves from helping themselves, while Canadians can barely pay the bills. At a time when we should be investing in the skills and knowledge of our public service, Liberals would rather hand over millions to private consultants. Why is the Liberal government giving money to its rich friends instead of investing in the valuable work of our federal public service?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the member points to the valuable public service, and he is entirely right; public servants worked extremely hard during the pandemic to protect the health and safety of millions of Canadians and millions of jobs. That being said, it is not an excuse for a very few of them in the CBSA not to have done their job appropriately. On Monday, the Auditor General was very clear as to why that was not done. We obviously took into account her recommendations. We have implemented many of them and will implement the others in days to come.

(1145) International Trade

Mr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, Canada and the United States have one of the closest and most important relationships of any two nations in the world, and there are millions of Canadians, including countless constituents of mine, who work at businesses that rely on trade with the United States. Let us be frank: The economy and the quality of life of every single Canadian and every single one of my constituents in Etobicoke Centre depend on a strong economic and trading relationship between Canada and the U.S. Could the Minister of International Trade share with Canadians how our team Canada engagement strategy will defend Canada's interest in and with the United States?

Hon. Mary Ng (Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, when President Biden addressed this chamber, he said that Canada and the United States could do good things. If we work together and if we stand together, we will rise together. That is the approach that the Minister of Innovation and I are taking with team Canada and our U.S. re-engagement strategy. I am looking forward to working with the member for Etobicoke Centre and am counting on his expertise. The trade between Canada and the United States is really impactful to our economy, and I know that this work will continue.

Infrastructure

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

Madam Speaker, the environment minister has left the highway of common sense and taken the off-ramp to Fantasy Island. He will say yes to spending $400 million to promote skateboarding to fight climate change, but no to a bridge whose closure has cut the village of Bolsover in half for three long years. In Parks Canada's own words, The bridge is of “national historic significance.” Creating a longer commute will not save the environment, so when will the minister realize that roads will not pave themselves, and fund the bridge in Bolsover?

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, yesterday I made the comment that the hon. colleague takes a non-partisan approach to issues, and he does, which is why I am surprised that he continues to maintain the approach he does today. He knows very well that the government has invested in over 8,500 bridge, road or highway projects across the country. We are proud that has happened, and it needs to continue. However, directly to the member: Which of the almost 4,000 projects in Ontario is he against? We will continue to fund these projects.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. parliamentary secretary knows that he is not to address members directly but through me.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member opposite, but I do not think he should be telling the residents of Bolsover that they should not believe their lying eyes. The bridge has been out for three long years. It was built in 1902. It is 42 metres long, is of national historic significance and is owned by Parks Canada. The minister said that no more roads and bridges will be funded by the federal government, and suddenly Parks Canada announces that the bridge will not be funded. If the member opposite wants to prove me wrong, and I really hope he does, will the minister commit today to funding the Boundary Road swing bridge in Bolsover, yes or no?

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I regularly participate in question period, and this is the first time I have heard the member raise this particular issue. I am sincere when I say that I am happy to talk with him after question period to learn more about his particular concern. However, which of the almost 4,000 road, bridge or highway projects that have been funded just in the province of Ontario alone, where the member is from, is he against? The Conservatives want to starve communities of infrastructure funds. We will not allow that. We will continue to help communities.

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the Takla First Nation is a rural and remote community in northern B.C. It has been asking the government for a safe and sustainable road into its community for eight years. The existing road is often impassable, leaving Takla without access to critical emergency services like fire and ambulance. Were the two ministers of indigenous affairs aware that the radical Minister of Environment and their government were no longer funding critical road infrastructure, or did they find out through Monday-morning media like the Takla First Nation did?

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. member used specific language that is not really acceptable in the House. I would ask members to restructure their sentences so they are more acceptable.

(1150) Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, there is $223 million for 736 road, bridge and infrastructure projects in British Columbia, where the member is from. How many did he vote for? He voted for zero. Where is his support for his constituents and his province? I know he is a sincere member. I have heard him speak in the House many times. I am not sure what has happened, whether he has been whipped to not support the particular projects that I mentioned for his province. It is a shame. We will continue to work with municipalities, towns and cities to ensure that they have the infrastructure dollars, including for road, bridge and highway projects.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, this Prime Minister 's radical environment minister is starting a war on cars. He said that the government had decided to stop investing in new road infrastructure. The radical environment minister did not clarify his remarks. Rather, he went even further, adding that the government planned to block major projects. My constituents would be very pleased to have a third link. Why is the Liberal government attacking workers in my community and in the region who are just trying to get to work?

[ English ]

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about a war on cars. I want to talk about something that the government is taking seriously and is doing for Canadians when it comes to cars that are being stolen in their communities, which is an issue in my riding. Last week I attended the summit to combat auto theft, where stakeholders came together: representatives from the police, industry, insurance, CBSA, ports and all levels of government. All of them agreed that the way to solve the issue is through coordination and co-operation, not through slogans. We are taking the issue seriously and we are taking action.

[ Translation ] Natural Resources

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, we are saying no to the Chalk River nuclear waste dump. The federal government cannot condone burying nuclear waste on the banks of the Ottawa River, a source of drinking water for millions of Quebeckers. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission did not listen to Quebeckers. The Montreal metropolitan area and its 82 cities are against the project, as is the City of Gatineau. These two entities represent 4.5 million people, half the population of Quebec. Given that there is no social licence for the Chalk River Project, will the minister reverse the decision?

Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important question. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is independent and does not approve projects unless it knows for certain that they are safe. We are looking at the issue with Canadians. We will protect the environment. We will hold consultations. The commission's independence is important. The government is not the one deciding on these projects. Canadians do not want politicians to decide on these projects. We have an independent expert body that holds consultations and ensures that projects are safe. We will move forward. Right now, a judicial review is under way. We are waiting for the results of that.

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the commission and its approval of the Chalk River project. In its consultations, it forgot to mention that 4.5 million Quebeckers are opposed to this project, as are indigenous communities. It also forgot to mention that one of the commissioners who approved the project is a former employee of the Chalk River plant. As for the federal government, it keeps forgetting to mention that it is the one that appoints the commissioners, so it is responsible for the dubious approval process. The feds are the ones are jeopardizing Quebec's drinking water with a nuclear dump. Will the government stop hiding and say no to Chalk River?

Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the Bloc's question. There is an independent commission of experts studying the decision. Canadians want to know that there are experts who will study the decision and carry out consultations. Canadians have made it clear that they do not want politicians making this decision. The government is not involved. We have an independent commission of experts continuing to carry out consultations. It will make sure the site is safe.

(1155) [ English ] Carbon Pricing

Mr. Len Webber (Calgary Confederation, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the Oxford dictionary defines a fool as a person who acts unwisely or imprudently. It is ironic that the Prime Minister chose April Fool's Day to increase his carbon tax by a whopping 23%, increasing the misery that many Canadian families face. The tax is not a joke. After eight years of the Prime Minister , and now with his plan to quadruple the carbon tax, he is just not worth the cost. Will the NDP-Liberal government cancel its April foolish carbon tax increase?

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

Madam Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, who deny that climate change exists, and who want to take money away from Canadians, what we are doing with the rebate is putting money back in their pockets. That is $1,100 to Ontario families, $1,800 to Alberta families and $1,200 to Manitoba families. The list goes on. I would just like to ask the opposition whether it makes common sense to deny climate change and to cut benefits for Canadian families, including the carbon rebates.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Before I go to the next question, I just want to remind the member who spoke earlier that he is not to say something indirectly that he cannot say directly. The previous question was saying indirectly what he cannot say directly. I just want to caution him on that. The hon. member for Calgary Confederation.

Mr. Len Webber (Calgary Confederation, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, that is just bloody foolish. She just does not—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. member for Calgary Confederation, as long as it was on the minister's response.

Mr. Len Webber :

Madam Speaker, the minister's response was just bloody foolish. She does not understand that if one taxes the farmer who grows the food and taxes the trucker who ships the food, then one taxes the people who buy the food. Already a typical family of four will have to pay $700 more in groceries in 2024 than last year. The carbon tax makes up a quarter of their home heating bills. The NDP-Liberal government is not fooling anyone anymore with its April Fool's Day tax hike. Can we not all agree that now is not the time for higher taxes? Axe the bloody tax.

Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Order. I am sure the hon. members want to hear the answer.

Hon. Steven Guilbeault :

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the colleague opposite that in the ag committee last week, one of Canada's foremost experts on food policy, Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University, said, “we don't see evidence of that”, talking about the impact of carbon pricing on food in Canada. Actually, they invited him to speak at the ag committee. I think we have it here. The Bank of Canada has said that pricing pollution is not having a material impact on inflation in Canada. It is less than half of 1%. We know that—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

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

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister blew over 60 million taxpayer dollars for his arrive scam app in a corruption scandal that is looking worse day by day. His NDP-Liberal government is also going to force grocery, gas and home heating prices to go up on April 1 as it increases the carbon tax another 23%. After eight years of being scammed and robbed by the Prime Minister, Canadians know that he is not worth the cost or the corruption. Why will he not just admit that his income redistribution scam is toast, and just axe the tax?

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy of the Conservatives is just off the charts. Conservatives use the hardships of people who are in food bank lineups for political gain, but when it comes to actually helping Canadians they are nowhere to be found. They adamantly oppose every real solution we put forward. They have said no to a grocery rebate. They are delaying competition reform. They voted against a framework for implementing a national school food program. It is appalling. Just a couple of weeks ago, we learned that the top adviser to the Leader of the Opposition , Jenni Byrne, is a lobbyist for Loblaws. Canadians can tell whose corner they are in and it is—

(1200) [ Translation ]

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. member for Lac‑Saint‑Louis.

Regional Economic Development

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we are proud of our Quebec businesses, which create jobs and support economic growth. The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord underscored the importance of funding Quebec businesses in parliamentary committee, and yet the Conservatives voted against our funding measures. Can the minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec tell us how our government's programs are strengthening supply chain development and resilience?

Hon. Soraya Martinez Ferrada (Minister of Tourism and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions has been in existence for 50 years. In that time, the agency has injected billions of dollars into the innovation, growth and productivity of thousands of Quebec businesses. The Conservative Party members from Quebec say they want to support businesses, but they voted against Canada Economic Development funding, which supports regional economic growth. I will continue to work with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis on behalf of all regions in Quebec and all Quebec businesses.

[ English ] Taxation

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years, the NDP-Liberal government is going to raise the tax on beer, wine and spirits, again on April 1 for the eighth year in a row. Most Canadians can barely afford to eat, heat and house themselves and we know that this Prime Minister is not worth the cost, but our brewers, vintners and distillers know that the current government is harming their industries. For once, will the Liberals cancel this year's undemocratic automatic tax increase, and bring back happy hour for Canadians?

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we will ensure a continued competitive environment for brewers and vintners. That environment is one that allows for people to go out and buy their beer or buy their wine, or whatever they wish to do with their free time. In this country, we want to ensure continued success, and what do we see? We see a very low unemployment rate that is lower than what was the case before the pandemic, and a better GDP rate as compared to before the pandemic. The Conservatives want to cut EI. They want to cut CPP. They want to cut the dental benefit and the child care benefit; all of them, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary wants to help Canadians and help industry by raising their taxes eight years in a row. Canada's taxes on beer, wine and spirits are already among the highest in the entire world. Brewers spend more than twice as much on production tax as they do on wages for their well-paid unionized workers, proving that this Prime Minister is not worth the cost to Canadian jobs. If the current NDP-Liberal government cannot give happy hour back to Canadian consumers, will it at least axe the automatic tax increase on industry, exporters, small businesses, unionized production workers, retailers and restaurant servers?

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, as I said, we will continue to do everything we can to ensure a competitive environment for brewers, for the vintner sector and for all Canadians. However, it is interesting: The member talks about unions. That is what stood out in his question. The Conservative Party is the party of unions all of a sudden? I could not think of anything less true. Throughout the Conservatives' tenure in office from 2006 to 2015, they did everything they could to ensure that unions had no power and no role in this country's decision-making. We have engaged with unions. We have engaged with labour. We will continue to do exactly that.

Mr. Michael Kram (Regina—Wascana, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, this Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. On April 1, he will once again be raising his carbon tax by 23% on gas, groceries and home heating. Also on April 1, he will be raising his excise tax on beer, wine and spirits by another 4.7%. When will this Prime Minister stop his cruel April Fool's Day jokes and give Canadians a break?

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

Madam Speaker, I am quite interested in the member opposite's question, because what he is effectively saying is that he is not in favour of people in his province receiving $1,500 in the carbon rebate that our government is putting back in the pockets of Canadians. That is $1,500, along with rebates across our country of $1,100 in Ontario and $1,200 in Manitoba. The contrast is clear—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler has the floor.

Carbon Pricing

Ms. Valerie Bradford (Kitchener South—Hespeler, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, this April, residents of Kitchener South—Hespeler will be receiving their first quarterly installment of the Canada carbon rebate. Can the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada share with this House how these rebates are reducing emissions while making life more affordable for Canadians in provinces where the federal backstop system applies?

(1205) Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the Canada carbon rebate is increasing. An Ontario family of four will receive $280 per quarterly payment throughout the year. What we are doing is making big polluters pay more for their pollution. What the Conservative Party wants to do is make pollution free for those big polluters, like oil companies that are making record-level profits. Not on this side