44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 31, 2023 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, that is the whole point. We should be debating ways to find efficiencies within the government to lower taxes and to lower spending. Instead, we are wasting our time here in this House, creating programs to make the government look good and to pretend to Canadians that it is doing something.
I absolutely agree with the member that we should be doing things that actually benefit Canadians, like decreasing inflationary spending and decreasing taxation so that Canadians can buy whatever they want in the grocery store, so that Canadians can actually purchase a home, and so that Canadians can make the choice for a parent to stay at home if they want.
The Liberals are perpetuating their lie. That is what they are doing, and Canadians are catching on to it.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's passion. As a mom, I know that she knows this. What is interesting is we have heard so much tonight in the chamber, and the reality is—and we have the testimony—that this bill would actually hurt the most vulnerable, the most marginalized and the poor, which the member for Nunavut mentioned.
However, one of the things that came out of the CCPA child care deserts report, the report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, is that it is most often rural areas that are more likely to have child care deserts in comparison to urban areas with a population of over 100,000 people. It really speaks to the question of whether this is purely a political tool. Because of where all of the seats are that the Liberals win, they continue to just disregard rural areas of Canadians and not treat them fairly. I would like to know what the member thinks of that.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what really comes to my mind is the tag line we saw from the Liberal government in the first years that the Liberals were in power: the middle class and those hoping to join it. Frankly, I have seen lots of people from my riding go from the upper middle class to the middle class and even the lower middle class, so congratulations. The Liberals are doing a great job of having people join the middle class. That is what I would say about that.
Again, it is this cycle that I am talking about. They spend too much. They tax too much. They create poverty for Canadians. People get unemployed, cannot buy houses, cannot buy food and are driven into poverty. The Liberals come along as the saviours with these scraps to save them, so hurray for them. Good job.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying something from my heart, something I think we all agree on in this place: Canadians deserve and need access to affordable, quality child care. This is important for so many reasons, particularly for gender equality. While our country has made gains in various measures of gender equality, we know that women still bear the disproportionate labour costs of child care. Providing access to quality child care, and, more importantly, valuing the labour of child care are what we need to do as a society to move towards true gender equity.
The other principle that we need to understand in achieving gender equity and quality child care in the context of Canadian pluralism, and not just Canadian pluralism but also a regionally diverse country, is that we have to respect and value the labour of child care when it happens in multiple different modalities.
What I mean by that is that while it is very important to ensure that there are quality child care spaces that are affordable and available to Canadians, we also need to understand that some people may want to access child care in a private home. They may want to raise their children in a nanny share, or they may want to raise their children by bringing in parents and grandparents who perhaps currently reside in other parts of the country. Perhaps they are sharing child care duties within their own family, which is unpaid labour, because they are on shift work or because they have chosen to do things that way. The reality is that child care is not homogenous in our country, because we are not a homogenous country. We have so many different ways of raising children, and I think that is part of the beauty of our country.
Our child care policy has to be reflective of that in order for it to be equitable in our country. This bill creates a certain type of child care space. I know that there was a lot of committee testimony that said it is a step in the right direction. The concern that I have with the bill in the current format and with us having a very dogmatic debate on this issue is that we are missing that heterogeneity, that variety of child care that we see in our country, that Canadians want and need in order to raise their children in a way that both makes sense for them and also reflects their living reality.
Some of my colleagues have raised the issue of rural child care. I think this is really important. This bill does not adequately reference rural child care. I also think that it perhaps does not speak to, and the government should find ways to speak to, valuing other forms of child care, particularly unpaid labour within extended families or within a nuclear family itself.
I also think that we need to realize the fact that sometimes, in communities, there is a day home, a private day home on a street. That is not addressed in this bill.
I would just implore the minister and the government to say that perhaps more needs to be done, that while this is a step in the right direction, the concerns that have been raised in this place need to be addressed by the government.
The other reason I think it is so important to get this right, beyond gender equity, which is so important, and beyond looking at child care policy that reflects the wonderful diversity of our country, is a fact that I want to raise because it is such an important issue and I do not think it has really been raised in Parliament: Our country is facing a fertility issue.
Many other countries around the world are as well. This is such a sensitive topic to talk about, because it raises a lot of questions about the cost and benefits of bearing children, in both a societal context and in very personal contexts. It is something that we as legislators have to be seized with. The reality is that around the world, not just in Canada, the global fertility rate is dipping almost to the point of being below replacement levels. That is across the world.
In Canada, we do not replace our population. We rely on immigration to do that, but at some point in the future, based on current trends, immigration is not going to replace our population in Canada, and that has very broad impacts, both on the economy and on social policy.
One might think that people are not having children out of choice, but there have been studies done internationally that show, particularly in the G7 context, that people want to have kids, but are choosing not to because they are not attaining certain life goals. That is where the concept of overall affordability comes into child care.
When people are choosing not to have children for the express reason that they feel they cannot afford to have children, that is a deeply personal societal problem that we all as legislators have a duty to talk about in a respectful way and come up with public policy for. We also have to ensure, though, that the legislation in front of the House right now reflects this fact, as well as reflecting the fact that it is not just people who are choosing not to have children, but people who have children now and cannot afford to make ends meet. It is not just about child care in general.
I have a very diverse riding in north central Calgary. There are a lot of new Canadians. I think about women who cannot get language acquisition classes because they cannot afford or access child care. While this bill is a step in the right direction, it does not address some of the issues that my colleagues have been talking about, like the labour gap, actually getting enough people to fill the jobs, like shift work, like trying to bring parents and grandparents into the country, like valuing the labour of a broader family.
I think about my own situation. I have a stepdaughter who has a son. She had my grandson at a very young age, and raising him has been an effort of extended family, but that labour has not been valued. That is really where we get to the heart of gender equity.
I hope that the minister and the government are not so dogmatically entrenched in just what is in this bill that they keep being reluctant to acknowledge some of these issues, which I think are being brought forward in good faith and out of compassion for Canadian families, and the need to recognize that the labour of child care looks very different in many different contexts in this country. One homogenous solution, sure, might be a check in the box and a step in the right direction, but we are not there yet, and this bill does not get us there.
Solutions I would like to see proposed include a lot more emphasis on fixing immigration wait times to ensure that people who want to bring parents and grandparents to this country on things like super visas can do so a lot more quickly. I would like to see really innovative policies on how we value the unpaid labour of extended families, be it through tax breaks or other programs. That is something we should be debating here. I would like to see the government recognize that in rural Canada it is really hard to get child care, and that might mean private homes or nanny shares. Even in urban Canada, we know that happens. The government should be acknowledging that and trying to address it. The other thing I would like the government to do that it has not done with this bill is have a specific strategy to address the labour shortage in child care.
My fear is that if we do not do these things, in 10 years' time we are going to be facing such a fertility gap in this country that everybody is going to be in competition for immigration to replacing aging populations. If we have not addressed this broader suite of services, particularly ones that are related to labour shortages, we are going to be in a big societal crisis in this country, because we all know what happens when there are issues around women producing children. It is not a pretty place to be.
If the government can get ahead of these issues, acknowledge that they are problematic and deserve solutions, and perhaps add to what is being done here, I think we would have a lot more consensus and also acknowledge that our diverse, beautiful country deserves a diverse, beautiful child care solution. That is what I would like to see. All ideas should be on the table, and all issues should be acknowledged.
1500 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her thoughtful speech. She put a lot of thought into it.
I want to correct the record on a couple of things, though. The first is with respect to what child care is included in this legislation, as well as the agreements. There seems to be a misconception on the part of the Conservatives that for-profit or home day care is not included. In fact, it is, as long as it is licensed, and that is important to note.
The other part that my hon. colleague brought up that I think is important to clarify is with regard to rural child care. Manitoba and Saskatchewan are doing some really amazing work at announcing new spaces, particularly in rural communities, and we know that child care is not just an urban issue but an issue for families right across this country. I agree with my hon. colleague that this is something that needs to happen, and in fact it is.
Given her support for child care and saying that this is a step in the right direction, I would like to know if she will be supporting Bill C-35.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first of all, with regard to the for-profit licensed child care spaces, the bill does not recognize the fact that there might be a grandma, a retired person or an aunt who stays at home specifically to care for children and who takes in other children in the neighbourhood. They may not have the means to go through the licensing process, but they are providing quality child care. It is discriminatory to value the labour of licensed people as opposed to people who are providing a valuable resource to society in these other situations. I hope the minister acknowledges that. This bill does not acknowledge that situation. That is why I find it inequitable.
The second component is this. The reality is that rural communities in Canada have a hard time retaining population and attracting labour and newcomers writ large. This bill does not address the reality of child care deserts.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments, but I still have questions. I think there is a reality that she describes well: the issue of home-based child care services.
When the public early childhood education services network was implemented in Quebec, both home-based and institutional child care services were accredited, for those who wanted that, in order to participate in the same mission, the same regulations of early childhood education services.
I do not understand how a program could support child care centres without a permit if we agree that the objective is early childhood education and not just the child care services that many people can offer.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this bill will not meet all child care needs. What we should be looking at when it comes to child care is valuing the labour of child care no matter how it occurs, because if we do not use that as a principle, we are not as a Parliament respecting the diversity of our country, nor are we creating equity in how we value child care. That is the wrong message to send to Canadians.
I understand there will be different preferences and different scenarios, and this is one piece of the pie for sure, but if we cannot figure out how to value child care in all of its forms in a regionally, ethnically and culturally diverse country, we will not achieve gender equality, or universality in child care, or quality child care.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, to whom I always listen attentively, as she speaks so eloquently and makes a real contribution in the House of Commons.
I understand the point she is making, but what she has not really addressed is the fact that, ultimately, this bill provides more accessibility to child care, which is fundamentally important. I note that, in terms of child care accessibility in this country, Alberta ranks last. That is something, as I know the member is aware, that played out in the Alberta elections this week, when the New Democrats swept Edmonton and won most of the ridings in Calgary, in part because of the lack of accessibility to services.
The member has been eloquent in making her points, but will she admit that this is an important step in the progress that is so important for families in Edmonton, Calgary and right across the country?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, of course creating more child care spaces is important, as is creating equity in how child care is valued in all of its forms. I just wish we could have our cake and eat it too with this bill.
I will say that perhaps the NDP and Alberta's prospects would have been better if they understood that rural Alberta matters, too, because they sure did not do well there.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-35, labelled as an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.
The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development was reported as saying that the bill would enshrine the “principles that provinces and territories agreed to in the funding agreement [with Ottawa], including [the pledge] to cut parent fees and create more spaces.” I want to emphasize “create more spaces”, which we all know are currently lacking.
The Liberals promised to introduce the legislation by the end of 2022 in the confidence and supply agreement that would see the New Democrats support the minority government through 2025. Conservatives support affordable, quality day care. It is critical. However, if it cannot be assessed, it does not exist.
Bill C-35 does nothing to address accessibility. Bill C-35 is good for families who already have a child care space, but it does nothing to address the thousands of families on child care wait lists or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces.
James and Leah are a young married couple who just had their first child. As new parents, they were both excited and anxious about welcoming their new arrival. They tried to do their due diligence to ensure everything was in place and ready for their new little arrival. Their friends and family advised they start looking for day care immediately. When Leah was just a few months pregnant, they began the search. They quickly realized that there was, on average, a two-year wait list. They continue to look and hope something will become available for them before Leah's maternity leave is over and she needs to go back to work. How does the Liberal government expect more women to go to work when there are no child care spots available?
Bill C-35 increases the demand for child care but does not solve the problem of access to more spaces. Families, like James and Leah, are on wait lists for years. Ontario's financial accountability office projects that by 2026, there will be 602,000 children under the age of six whose families will want $10-a-day child care, and the province will only be able to accommodate 375,000. That is a shortfall of 38%, or 227,000 children. The term “child care desert” is often used to reference a lack of or inequitable distribution of child care.
A report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released just this month found:
...child care deserts to be widespread: there were an estimated 759,000 full-time licensed spaces for younger children across Canada in centres and family child care homes in 2023. Of the 1.97 million younger children who might be using those spaces, 48 per cent live in child care deserts.
That means that almost half of younger Canadian children (defined as not yet attending Kindergarten) live in a postal code that has more than three children for every licensed child care space.
The report also examined child care coverage in 50 major cities across Canada and found:
Most Canadian cities have a coverage rate below 20 per cent, meaning that in those cities, there are at least five infants for every licensed infant space. St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Ontario cities of Barrie, Guelph, Hamilton and Brampton, and Saskatoon scored particularly badly, with low availability of infant spaces compared to their population of infants. In those cities, there is less than one licensed space for every 10 infants.
We have heard time and time again that this bill does nothing to address long wait-lists. Bill C-35 is just another in a long list of Liberal promises that they cannot deliver on. This bill does not address the labour shortage. This bill increases demand, but does not solve the problem of frontline burnout or staff shortages. There are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone to staff new spaces.
The government itself projects that by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early child care workers. The minister stated that she plans to build 250,000 new spaces. Accordingly, 40,000 new child care workers would be required in order to accommodate this. Over the next 10 years, it is reported that more than 60% of the workforce already employed will need to be replaced, meaning around 181,000 will need to be replaced. Once we add those two figures, over 200,000 workers will be required. Currently, 27% of child care centres in British Columbia are forced to turn away children due to a lack of staff.
The committee heard from one child care director who oversees 13 child care programs with 350 spaces. They said that in the past two years, they have had to close programs temporarily, whether for a day or two, or shorten hours of the week in order to meet the licensing regulations. Conservatives know how vital affordable, quality and accessible child care is, not only to family life but also to the growth of our nation. That is why we listened to providers and those on the ground.
My colleagues listened when Dr. Susan Prentice, a Duff Roblin professor of government at the University of Manitoba, stated the following: “One thing I would like to see, for example, would be the national advisory council assured of the kind of information and data it needs, so it can track, for example, progress on strengthening the workforce.”
The Coalition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia wrote to the committee stating, “We strongly recommend the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care must...provide an annual publicly available report to the Minister on the work of the Advisory Council in meeting the goals set out in the Act”. Therefore, at committee, my colleagues sought to amend the function of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care to include supporting the recruitment and retention of a well-qualified workforce, conducting regular engagement, and a specific mandate call—
Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear. I keep hearing another conversation, and I am losing track of my speech.
1064 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/23 9:07:11 p.m.
- Watch
I just want to make sure people in the gallery sit down when they come to visit us. I see one of our members is giving a bit of a tour. I would ask him to sit down.
The hon. member for King—Vaughan.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague also put forward an amendment to the reporting clause of the bill to include the Minister of Labour in the annual reporting, and the annual reporting must include a national labour strategy to recruit and retain a qualified early childhood education workforce. This supports witnesses' testimony on the importance of a strong national labour strategy dictating the success of a national child care framework.
Our Conservative Party believes in affordable child care, but we also believe that we need to ensure that child care comes in many different avenues, and we need to make sure that we provide that for all Canadians.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech because it reinforces why Bill C-35 is important when it comes to creating affordable child care, creating accessible child care and creating more spaces.
I know that, when the Conservatives see a big challenge, they just throw up their hands to say, “We should not do anything”, but this government is different. We say, “There is a problem. Let us try to solve it.” We are going to create those 250,000 spaces. We have already created 50,000. We are getting the job done, and we are helping Canadian families.
I have two questions for my hon. colleague.
The member mentioned at the end of her speech that we should support child care in all of its diversity. Her colleagues before had talked about supporting unlicensed child care. I am wondering if she can clarify if they do in fact mean that they want to subsidize unlicensed child care that has not gone through the regulatory process.
Also, the member just said that they support affordable child care. Does that mean they are going to support Bill C-35? Right now, we are just debating an amendment to the short title.
207 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to share an experience. I was a child of immigrants, and I had the pleasure of being raised by my grandparents. They taught me values that I still live with today.
I have seniors in my community who have had to go back to work because they cannot afford to live on their pension. For whatever reason, they are now looking for work, which they cannot find because of their age, as they are being discriminated against. However, what an opportunity it would be to have children raised by their grandparents, who will teach them the love and the tradition of what they were raised with. Why not allow that type of child care with every grandparent who has the opportunity to raise their grandchild?
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for her presentation.
That said, I would like to hear the Conservatives speak a little more about shared jurisdictions. The last time I read Canada's Constitution, which, I would remind members, Quebec never signed, it stated that education, including family policies, were not a federal jurisdiction.
The Bloc Québécois will of course vote for the bill for the sole reason that it allows for the right to opt out with compensation, and this seldom happens, or happens too little with centralizing policies and bills. Quebec is exempt for five years. That is the only reason we support it, but we do not do so enthusiastically.
In committee, why did the Conservatives vote against the Bloc Québécois amendments, which mentioned Quebec's invaluable contribution to family policies?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is a provincial jurisdiction. I also believe that parents have the right to choose what child care fits their child.
As a young widow, I had no choice but to find child care outside of the licensed child care because I did not have a nine-to-five job. My job related to different hours and different shifts, and I needed to find support for my children.
Yes, it is a provincial issue, and yes we should not cross that line, but we need to diversify to ensure that the individuals who are willing to go back to work to continue their careers have the opportunity to choose the right child care for their children.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was very thoughtful.
Child care is an important issue. My own daughter is struggling to find child care for her daughter, my granddaughter.
We are here until midnight debating the bill. Actually, we are debating the Conservative amendment to the bill, which is something I assume Conservatives think would improve it, and that is to delete the short title of the bill. I am just wondering if the member can tell me, without looking, what the short title of the bill is and what Conservatives find so offensive about it?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we are here because we are parents. We are mothers, and we care. We need to make sure that the bill works for every mother and child in this country.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House for the second time today, this time to speak to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, which was introduced by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development on December 8.
From the work that we did at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, it is clear that the demands of the Bloc Québécois and Quebec were not heard or respected. Throughout the study of the bill, we heard witnesses talk about how important affordable, quality child care is for early childhood development, for better work-school-life balance, for the emancipation of women and for return on investment in the economy.
Throughout the study, Quebec was lauded as a model. Although it is not perfect, the Quebec model was mentioned many times as the model that should be emulated. However, at amendment stage, when it came time to include Quebec's expertise in the bill, the other three parties dismissed that reality out of hand. The same thing happened with our amendments to include wording allowing Quebec to completely opt out of the federal program with full financial compensation.
The only sign of any degree of openness was when a reference to Quebec expertise was included in the preamble, the only place where these words ultimately have no real impact on the law.
Although Quebec will not get the option to completely withdraw from the program with full compensation, an agreement to this effect had already been reached between Ottawa and Quebec. Senior officials who worked on the bill also repeatedly stated, when questioned on the subject, that while nothing would prevent the federal government from imposing conditions as part of a future agreement, the bill had always been designed with the asymmetry of Quebec's reality compared to Canada's provinces in mind.
The various members of the Liberal government who spoke on the bill also repeatedly said that the Liberals intended to continue working with Quebec on this issue. The current agreement also appealed to Quebec, since it did not interfere in any area of jurisdiction and left the Quebec government free to spend the money wherever it wanted.
With the current agreement between Ottawa and Quebec, and with the government's expressed willingness to continue that collaboration, it appears that Canada does not intend to preach to Quebec on the child care issue, especially since it has consistently praised Quebec's model of early childhood centres. We therefore believe that another bilateral agreement would be possible, probable and necessary, since the government is taking its cue from Quebec.
I presented six amendments in committee that, as I said earlier, would have made it possible to include Quebec's expertise in the bill. I wanted clause 7 to be amended by adding, among other things, the following:
(3) Having regard to the special and unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec relating to early learning and child care in Quebec society and despite any other provision of this Act, the Government of Quebec may choose to exempt itself from the application of this Act by giving the Minister written notice to that effect, in which case that province may still receive the funding under section 8.
The purpose of this amendment was to incorporate a clause that recognizes the expertise of Quebec in the guiding principles of the bill. The adoption of my amendment would have allowed for the recognition of Quebec's jurisdiction and guaranteed Quebec a right to opt out of this legislation with full compensation. The idea is to avoid disputes between Ottawa and Quebec by recognizing from the outset what everyone here knows: Quebec is a pioneer when it comes to early childhood education and must continue to have sole control of its policies in this area.
We know that Quebec adopted a forward-thinking family policy more than 25 years ago. This policy, which can be described as progressive and feminist, has enabled thousands of women and families to benefit from better work-life or school-life balance, specifically through the creation of a network of early childhood centres. This model is an asset and a source of pride for the entire Quebec nation. In fact, it is the inspiration for this bill.
The adoption of this amendment would have confirmed the special and unique nature of the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction over education and child development by giving Quebec a right to opt out completely with full compensation.
Furthermore, this is an exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, and we believe that this amendment, like all the amendments that I moved, would have prevented squabbling between Ottawa and Quebec in the next round of federal investments in this area.
With respect to the same clause of the bill, I moved that the following be added:
Quebec retains sole responsibility for implementing, evaluating and adapting its early learning and child care policies and programs in Quebec, and therefore the Council's functions do not extend to early learning and child care, or any other related activity, in Quebec.
This amendment would have reiterated Quebec's sole jurisdiction in this area. Quebec has no desire to be evaluated or monitored by some council that answers to Ottawa, seeing as Quebec is a pioneer in this area, which falls under provincial jurisdiction. This came at the request of the office of Quebec's Minister of Families.
I also wanted the preamble to recognize the unique and leading-edge expertise of the Government of Quebec in the development and implementation of accessible and affordable educational child care services, that government having developed an innovative child care model in 1997 as part of its comprehensive family policy designed to give Quebec families a better work- or study-life balance, access to generous maternity and parental leaves, and services that are suited to self-employed workers and those with atypical hours of work.
This change in the text of the bill would have been important in guiding actions and interpretations of the bill. My amendment would have enshrined Quebec's historical capacity and expertise in its jurisdiction and family policy in the bill.
Continuing with the preamble, I wanted to read that the Government of Canada recognizes that, because of the special and unique nature of the Quebec government's responsibility for early learning and child care and the fact that Quebec developed educational, accessible, affordable and quality child care services as part of the family policy it adopted in 1997, the Quebec government need not adhere to the multilateral framework, as it intends to retain the exclusive responsibility for this matter in its territory.
The amendment that I presented was important because it would have recognized all the work done by Quebec on family policy and early childhood education over more than 25 years. The Quebec government declined Ottawa's invitation to participate in meetings to develop the multilateral early learning framework for a very simple reason. Quebec is responsible for its areas of jurisdiction and takes full responsibility for its family policy and educational framework. In this regard, it is not accountable to the federal government for its decisions.
As I said at the beginning, when it came time to include Quebec's expertise in the bill, the other three parties dismissed the idea outright. As I have said many times, Quebec is a champion in this field and a model, a model repeatedly cited by several witnesses we heard from at committee, and a model long envied by other provinces and territories.
However, Quebec does not appear once in Bill C-35. If Quebec's expertise and recognition had appeared in this bill, it would have garnered greater support from the Bloc Québécois. That said, we still support Bill C-35 in principle and will be voting in favour of it.
1343 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
