44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 31, 2023 02:00PM
- May/31/23 2:21:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is with great appreciation that I rise today before you and the entire House to pay tribute to a good, kind and gentle man from Gatineau, Quebec, who has dedicated 38 years of his life to serving his country. He spent 10 of those years in the Royal Canadian Air Force, while the last 28 years were spent protecting us, the MPs, and all those who come to the House.
I am talking about the man who is sitting in the Sergeant-at-Arms' chair today, Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms Michel Denault.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/23 2:46:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to use another example. The Quebec National Assembly is unanimously asking for information about Ottawa's interference in the democratic process during the 1995 referendum. The Prime Minister is choosing secrecy. This Parliament is asking to have the information from David Johnston's secret briefings entrusted to an independent commissioner. Again, the Prime Minister is choosing to keep his buddy's secrets.
Either the Prime Minister is weak, or he is being used by a foreign power. Is this Prime Minister working for his country, or for the financial interests of his Liberal friends?
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/23 2:48:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest a hypothesis that explains why we are seeing what we are seeing. Has there ever been a Prime Minister less serious than this one, or one so unworthy of the office he holds?
We are talking about the intimidation of elected officials, illegal election financing, industrial espionage, research funded by Huawei, the Trudeau Foundation and contempt for intelligence officers. We already know more than enough to demand a truly independent and public inquiry, not just this nonsense from his buddy.
Will the Prime Minister scrap his policy, which is damaging to Canada and Quebec, and is good for China?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/23 3:07:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canada is dragging Quebec into a crisis that will literally undermine democracy with all the secrecy. The Prime Minister responds by grandstanding.
We are going to get to the bottom of this matter. How will he explain to Canadians and Quebeckers that he will treat with contempt the vote of an elected majority of the House, with each one being an elected member of Parliament just as he is?
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/23 3:24:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we learned from an article by journalist Daniel Leblanc that the RCMP is preparing to provide additional protection services to a dozen senior officials and maybe even some ministers.
We are all aware that in-person and online threats and aggressive language are on the rise. The risks are real, and we cannot wait for something bad to happen to realize that we should have done something.
It is therefore high time that the government and Parliament showed some political courage and gave all ministers and party leaders a bodyguard, as is already the case in the Quebec National Assembly.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to put such a measure in place here in Ottawa?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, to create a beneficial ownership registry to combat money laundering.
I have the honour today of sharing my time with my friend and colleague, the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.
Canada has a big problem with money laundering, and nowhere is that more evident than in metro Vancouver where my community of Langley—Aldergrove is located. Now, this is well known around the world. People have given Canada's very accessible money laundering streams a special name. They call it “snow washing”.
Generally speaking, Canada is known to have a stable government and economy, and to be a safe place to invest, so honest people make assumptions that money coming from or going to Canadian-registered corporations must be legitimate, but sadly that is not always the case. We need to work hard to maintain that favourable impression that the world has of us. It is easy to ruin one's reputation. That is sadly what is happening.
According to a 2017 analysis by Transparency International, Canada is tied with South Korea for the weakest corporate transparency rules among G20 nations. That is why I welcome this legislation, Bill C-42, which is going to create a beneficial shareholder register so that crooks cannot hide behind a veil of secrecy, complexity and confusion. We want things to be transparent. We want to know who owns what.
B.C. has been taking the lead in building transparency rules to combat money laundering. In March 2019, in a report entitled “Combatting Money Laundering in BC Real Estate”, an expert panel appointed by the B.C. government had this to say about the problem of money laundering. It focuses on British Columbia, but of course it applies right across the country. It reads:
Money laundering significantly damages our society and causes ongoing harm, not limited to the real estate sector or other economic sectors. Money laundering is a contagious, corrupting influence on society...It facilitates other criminal activities, contributing in particular to drug trafficking and the violent crime and opioid deaths that result, as is sadly so evident in [British Columbia].
The report goes on to say that, given the secret nature of money laundering, it is very difficult to estimate how much damage it is doing to our economy, but they do estimate that somewhere around $50 billion in dirty money is pumped into our national economy every year. This activity is estimated at 5% of real estate prices in British Columbia, feeding into the housing unaffordability crisis.
The expert panel recommended several anti-money laundering tools, starting with implementing a land ownership transparency register, which is in effect at the moment in British Columbia. They were of the opinion that transparency in real estate would be the single most effective tool in the anti-money laundering arsenal, but they also acknowledge that money laundering touches on more than just real estate transactions.
I think it is informative to understand what money laundering is. It is effectively the process of making illegally gained proceeds appear to be legitimate. These proceeds can come from monstrous activities like fentanyl trafficking, for example, but sometimes it is much less nefarious than that. For example, it could be legally earned and obtained money which has been brought illegally into Canada by evading the originating country's arbitrary capital controls.
All of this activity is illegal. Actors become very creative in hiding their trails by creating layers of complexity, but it all follows the same basic process. It is usually done in three phases: first of all, placement; second, layering and third, integration.
Placement is the introduction of cash into the legitimate payment system. Layering is conducting multiple levels of complexity for no purpose other than to hide the paper trail. Integration is working the money back into the legal system. Money properly laundered, and I use the term loosely, can be very difficult to trace.
One of the layering tools that professionals like to use is secret trusts. This is where somebody owns something, but that is the front person. They are the registered owner, but they are not the real owner. They are holding it in trust for somebody who is working in the shadows. The real owner is invisible to law enforcement agencies.
Today we are talking about amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act to create a share ownership transparency register to eliminate this layering tool that professionals like to use. How can this be beneficial? Let us take a look at what some provinces have done.
British Columbia is really taking the lead. It bears to note that every province in Canada has its own corporate registry, as there is a federal registry, so it is very important that the provinces and the federal government work together. There needs to be a pan-Canadian approach. Otherwise, we would be encouraging forum shopping among professional crooks. They are going to go to the province with the most relaxed and most permissive laws. I am happy to say that Bill C-42 at least attempts to tackle that.
British Columbia has implemented a requirement that all British Columbia-registered companies keep a beneficial owners register at their corporate records office. This is an early version of a beneficial shareholder register and it is a good start, but it is not enough, and that is recognized. It is not a very useful tool for law enforcement because it does not allow law enforcement agencies to work undercover. The register is not free. It is not publicly accessible. It is not centralized, and it is too bureaucratic. It is also too difficult for law enforcement agencies to use and therefore it needs to be amended.
I am happy to say that is in the works. By 2025, there should be a centralized register in British Columbia that is readily searchable by law enforcement agents without the police coming to the registered office and saying they want to see their corporate records, which gives too much notice to the crooks. Quebec and Ontario are following a trajectory similar to British Columbia's.
The United Kingdom is really taking the lead with its people with significant control register for all registered companies in that country. It is free, and it is publicly accessible, but so far it is presenting only mixed results in being an effective tool for law enforcement. Bill C-42 needs to go past second reading to go to committee, where it needs to be studied in detail. I hope that we would have witnesses coming from United Kingdom to tell us what is good about their system and what is lacking so we can learn from their successes and their mistakes.
Bill C-42 is the federal government's attempt to tackle money laundering, tax evasion and other illegal activity. The minister, in his speech when he introduced this legislation, said, “Simply put, increasing beneficial ownership transparency will enhance Canada's good international reputation as a safe, fair and competitive place to do business and provide even greater legitimacy to law-abiding Canadian businesses.” Those are all very laudable objectives, which I support.
This bill should go to committee where it could be studied in detail. I will be looking there for efficiencies and effectiveness, and how adaptable it would be so that provinces can adopt it as well. As I said, the solution needs to be pan-Canadian.
1264 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.
My question will be fairly short and simple. The Bloc Québécois is known to be a staunch defender of Quebec independence, including its areas of jurisdiction. I get the impression that Bill C‑35 has been tabled in the wrong Parliament. Nothing related to family policies comes under the federal government's jurisdiction. Once again, the Liberal Party is trying to bulldoze its way into the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. This bill shows no respect for Quebec's demands that the federal government stop interfering in its jurisdictions.
Furthermore, the requests of Quebec and the Bloc Québécois were not listened to or respected. When the time came to include Quebec's expertise in the bill, based on its 25 years of experience in child care, all of the other parties, including the Conservative Party, rejected amendments aimed at upholding exclusive jurisdiction and the right to opt out with full compensation.
Does my colleague respect Quebec's autonomy and jurisdictions?
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I really hope it is not the case that the Conservative Party of Canada has decided not to support affordable child care for Canadians, because I know that, for the hundreds of thousands of Canadian families for which this has been life changing, it would be so disappointing to know that the Conservative Party of Canada, once again, is voting against and not supporting affordable child care.
We know that, in 2006, one of the very first things the Conservative Party of Canada did when it formed government was to rip up the child care agreements with the provinces and territories. This legislation is particularly important, to make it harder for Conservatives to do that and to make it harder for Conservatives to hurt Canadian families and Canadian children. I am very pleased to say that we have the support of the NDP. I think we also have the support of the Bloc Québécois. We are just not really sure where the Conservatives are.
I will talk about what Canadian families are saying when it comes to affordable child care. They are calling it life changing. I have been across this country, to every province and almost every territory, and what I have heard from Canadian families is that this is a game changer for them. When I was in Nova Scotia, I was talking to a mom in Halifax who said that the 50% reduction in child care fees meant that, when she went to the grocery store, she was not deciding whether or not she could buy chicken. When I was talking to a mom in Toronto, she said that, because of the child care fee reduction, her family was deciding to have a second child. When I was in Vancouver, British Columbia, I was talking to a mom of three who has two kids in child care. She said that she has now put two of her three children into child care, and, because of those fee reductions, she has now gone back to work full time, which is a huge, meaningful change for her family and her family income. When we talk about child care, we are talking about choice. Despite what the Conservatives say, there is no choice if people cannot afford to go to work and to have someone to care for their child in safety and security.
This means, of course, that we are going to make sure there are enough child care spaces, so that every child in Canada who wants a space can get one. That is precisely why we have committed to creating 250,000 more spaces by 2025-26. We have already created 50,000 spaces across the country. That means there are now 50,000 additional spots.
If we had not funded this $30-billion initiative, those spaces would not have been created. Conservatives talk about families who need a space, and that is exactly why we created this initiative. Without the Government of Canada's intervention, these spaces would not have been created because the current child care market does not meet the real needs of Canadians.
As for Quebec, we signed an asymmetrical agreement because we recognize Quebec's leadership in child care. For 25 years now, Quebec has had affordable early childhood centres and day cares for families in Quebec. This has had an impact on the participation rate of women in the workforce. In Quebec, more women participate in the workforce than anywhere else in Canada. We recognize Quebec's leadership, and we have based our initiative on Quebec's efforts and leadership.
Our bill respects provincial and territorial jurisdictions, and we signed agreements with each one of the 10 provinces and each one of the three territories in this country to ensure that they can establish these child care services. We have common goals and Quebec promised to create 37,000 additional spaces with that money. We are here to support Quebec and to work together.
I will just say that, as of December, every province and territory had reduced its fees by 50% across this country, and several jurisdictions, including Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nunavut, have already reached the $10-a-day objective, three years ahead of schedule, which is making a huge and meaningful difference for families in those provinces and territories. Quebec and Yukon had already met that objective, and every other province and territory has been at 50% since December.
When it comes to quality, we know that quality cannot be achieved without a well-paid, well-respected and well-treated workforce. That is why every single bilateral agreement we have ensures that we are working with provinces and territories to bring forward a wage grid to make sure they are working on a workforce strategy. In fact, this summer, I will be meeting with my provincial and territorial counterparts, and the number one thing on the agenda is a national workforce strategy. Absolutely, our ECEs care for our children. They care for our most precious resource, and we need to be there to make sure they have the supports they need. That is all factored into Bill C-35, which would commit the federal government to making sure that we have that accessible, affordable, high-quality and inclusive child care system right across the country.
I will talk about the final pillar. When we talk about inclusion, one of the things that, as a parent, is very challenging is having a child with special needs or special requirements. Not only is it difficult to find a centre that will take their child; it is also difficult to find a child care space that has the requisite supports they need to thrive. One of the key pillars of our child care initiative, and it is here in Bill C-35, is making sure we are building inclusive child care spaces. I have had the opportunity to visit the GRIT program in Edmonton and a program here in Ottawa that have built and created space that is ensuring that children of all abilities and all neurodivergences can be there, can be safe and, most importantly, can thrive.
That is what is exciting about Bill C-35 and its complementarity to the work we are doing in early learning and child care.
I would like to say one more thing. We are a feminist government. Our government is committed to everything we have done for gender equality. We are seeing the results.
This year, we have the highest female participation rate in the workforce in Canada's history. That is due in part to our day care and early childhood centre program. We are seeing the results.
Yes, there is a lot more work to be done. Of course a system cannot be created overnight. However, we are working on it, and I hope to be able to count on the support of every member of the House. It is one of the most most important and transformative socio-economic initiatives to be undertaken by a government, by Canadians.
1191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech. I also thank my colleagues who participated in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
However, it is apparent that our requests were completely disregarded. In fact, Quebec's expertise was not even recognized.
I would like the minister to explain why her government did not rely on the expertise and the model that we have in Quebec when it comes to child care.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on the contrary, we recognize Quebec's leadership. We used Quebec's experience as a foundation for our child care and early learning program.
I worked hand in hand with my Quebec counterpart on getting this bill through. We respect provincial jurisdictions.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑35.
The minister began by commending the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for its work. I want to commend the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for the excellent work that she did on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which took many hours. I also want to commend the other committee members for their work. My colleague did a great job, and she asked a very insightful question.
I will digress from the subject of Bill C‑35 for a moment to talk about the most recent budget. In its latest budget, the federal government decided to make the child care program a federal project that would encompass all of the provinces except Quebec. I will come back to that.
At that point, there was already talk about Quebec's leadership, our model and our early childhood education services. I want to specify that we are not just talking about basic child care services but about educational services. It seems as though the other provinces rely on Canada to ensure their social progress, whereas, in Quebec, these are societal choices that we made 25 years ago or more. Quebec made this societal choice to give all children an equal opportunity and to incorporate the early childhood education services policy into an ambitious family policy.
I am hearing talk of how it does not work that way in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and that we need a national strategy for workers. I can see why we are proud of our Quebec model. It has been recognized by the OECD. I myself went on a mission to the OECD regarding child care services and, at the time, Quebec attended with the minister. Indeed, Quebec as a society has chosen social progress. In our opinion, this bill meddles in provincial jurisdictions, and it is the provinces that should be responsible for implementing these social programs. It is not up to the federal government to tell them what to do and come to their rescue.
That said, we can only hope that all children will be offered truly equal opportunities. Education and learning are the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. The government cannot regulate all the social choices made in other provinces. We have taken care of ourselves.
I am especially proud of the early childhood education services. The minister talked about leadership. The Quebec model has been recognized, but my colleague is right: If that model was used then why not include it in the bill? I was a witness in some respects at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Several witnesses in committee witnessed the implementation of the program in Quebec. That is the case for Pierre Fortin, a brilliant economist who worked on this to demonstrate to us that working on equality of opportunity for our children was not an expense, but an investment.
I do not understand why this was not indicated in Bill C‑35 even though there has been verbal recognition of Quebec's work on child care services, as the international community did in 2003. I am talking about the OECD. In the study it did on child care services in Canada, it mentioned that it is “important to underline...the extraordinary advance made by Quebec, which has launched one of the most ambitious and interesting early education and care policies in North America.”
As many people know, Quebec is already investing $3 billion in early childhood education services. There are over 200,000 reduced contribution spaces. This is a public service. It is not a blend of public and private services. Early childhood education services are public services, and parents' contributions are reduced. The cost is even lower than the $10 that will be charged under the federal program. Currently, the contribution in Quebec is $8.85.
When early childhood education services were first introduced, the parental contribution was $5. More than 25 years later, the contribution is a symbolic $8.85. The contribution is the same, whatever the parents' income, because the condition of these services for the zero to five age group is to enable all children, whatever the parents' social status, whatever their socio-economic conditions, to have access to educational services. This is an important difference. Children are not simply being warehoused while their parents work. Children are learning in these environments.
This was definitely helpful in the context of a family policy that saw an increase in the number of women returning to the workforce. It was astounding.
It is all well and good if the provinces or other territories can benefit from this agreement. Everyone agrees on that, and the bill simply confirms it.
The bill should have mentioned Quebec's leadership and its model and followed that model more carefully, not just haphazardly. The government also should have recognized that this bill will not apply in Quebec, not just for the next five years, but for always, because Quebec is the model. Quebec has a no-strings-attached agreement for the next five years. There were not a lot of Bloc Québécois amendments in this model.
The government also should have recognized Quebec's leadership and the fact that the agreement provided for transfers with no strings attached. How can the government impose conditions on Quebec when it is using Quebec's program as a model for its own? That is a big deal for us.
There has also been talk about a national strategy for workers. With all due respect, I can understand. If we want to provide quality early childhood education services, then training for staff, pay and working conditions are all very important, but those are not things that fall under Ottawa's jurisdiction. They are provincial responsibilities. I do not see how the federal government can include training and qualification requirements in salary policies. I understand that the government is making agreements so that the provinces are able to provide as many child care spaces as possible at 50% of the cost in the first year and then eventually at $10 a day. That is the goal. I think that the number of child care spaces that the government is looking at in the rest of Canada is the same as or less than the number we already have in Quebec. I think that the government should have recognized that Quebec inspired the federal program. That must be recognized and it should be recognized in the bill.
We understand that the bill is there to ensure that this is not undone by another government, but it will be up to each Parliament to decide. As soon as the model is put in place, I think this will indeed contribute to reinforcing these services elsewhere. If the government's financial contribution can help provinces define or develop child care policies, so much the better. However, what I can say is that in Quebec, even though we have been using this model for 25 years, the federal transfers or the federal policies on family benefits or allowances have never offset Quebec's fair share of child care costs.
Before entering politics, I was a union leader. I was proud to be there 25 years ago when the education services were implemented. This was done in the spirit of a social dialogue in Quebec. The employers, the departments, the government, the social milieu and civil society were all involved in this big project. I am proud to say that it was the work of the first woman premier of Quebec, Pauline Marois, as minister at the time. This accomplishment is a source of great pride for us.
That is what it takes in social policy.
However, a fundamental question remains. While the federal government has social programs—
1353 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for her speech.
I have enjoyed working with her and also other colleagues in committee as we go through this process. I could not agree with my colleague more. Quebec is the model that we looked to in being able to create a system that would include all the provinces and territories, and that is why we embarked on this with so much consultation with Quebec. As a matter of fact, I enjoyed really fruitful conversations with the centre of excellence for early childhood development in Sainte-Justine.
We know that a public system is the right system. It is a high-quality system, yet my colleagues in the CPC keep insisting on private care. I would like to know the member's thoughts on why a public system is the right system for our children.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think there is a lot to unpack. In Quebec, there are still 70,000 kids on a wait-list. I think it is great to look to Quebec because, as I say, it is the DeLorean. We can go back to the future and learn from it.
In terms of the private sector turning a profit, I find it interesting. If we have women entrepreneurs who are just putting money back into the system, is that not what the public system is doing?
How is Quebec closing this gap of 70,000 without accessing that? How is it addressing the labour shortage?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would say that Quebec has always been a victim of its own success. The number of spaces has always been an issue. There are more than 200,000 spots, yet we still come up short.
There are also certain concerns. For parents, it is important to have a space in a public child care centre precisely so they do not have to go to the private sector, where the regulations and objectives are completely different. We need to strengthen the public network by creating spaces. I think it is a decent challenge, and the model is a success.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the benefits of the Quebec child care system is that more women are able to participate in the workforce.
Does the member agree that access to affordable, quality child care is a gender equity issue?
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and speak to such important legislation. I suggest that what we are talking about this evening is historical legislation. If we take a look at it from the perspective of the Canada Health Act, the Canada Health Act has ensured that we have the health care system we have today. That is the way I look at Bill C-35.
Bill C-35 is a very powerful statement. It is a statement to all Canadians, no matter where they live from coast to coast to coast, that says the government recognizes child care is of the utmost importance. Having a national program will make a difference in a very real and tangible way.
Bill C-35 would put into place an act to ensure early learning and child care is there not only today but for future generations. It ensures that the federal government recognizes that it has a very important role to play. Not only will it be providing money, but there will be a higher sense of public accountability and transparency. It will ensure there is an affordability element to child care, no matter where one happens to live in Canada.
This is something that I believe will make a positive difference, and we have already seen some early results. When the minister talked about the bill an hour or so ago, she talked about the number and percentage of women in the workforce today. There are record numbers in North America. We have more women entering into the workforce than we ever have. That is going to continue to grow. We know that, because we can look at the province of Quebec to see how successful its program has been. We have taken what has happened in the the province of Quebec and amplified it to apply across the country. Everyone wins.
I do not quite understand the Conservative Party's position. It was long ago when we attempted to do this before. That would have been 20 years ago. Unfortunately, the first thing the Harper government did was rip up the idea, the agreements and the thoughts on this. As a result, it set back a generation or two of people who would have received good-quality child care, not to mention what I suspect would have been better wages and resources for child care workers. Because there was no legislative component to this, Stephen Harper had a very easy time destroying it.
Let us flash back to just a couple of years ago, when there were 338 Conservative candidates running around in the federal election. What was the Conservative Party saying then? We did not have full agreement from all the provinces at that time, but even at that point, less than two years ago, the federal Conservative Party was saying that it did not support this and that it would also rip it up. If we contrast the Conservatives with us, it is night and day. They do not support affordable, quality child care.
What we have done since the election is accomplish an agreement with all of the provinces and territories, along with indigenous communities. That means provincial and territorial parties that are not only Liberal. They are Conservative and NDP. When I say “Conservative” I mean Progressive Conservative. I should qualify that because the current Conservative Party is a very far right Conservative Party.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member who is laughing understands exactly what I am saying. One only needs to read her comments.
I think it is a positive thing that we have been encouraged by the Conservative Party to bring in this legislation. However, from my personal perspective, even if the Conservative Party was supporting the concept of affordable, quality child care, I would still be advocating for legislation of this nature because it is good legislation.
If the Conservative Party was not so far to the right, I would be advocating for it, but with today's Conservative Party, it even becomes more important to have this legislation. I listened to the shadow minister. We do not call them critics; we call them shadow ministers. It is kind of scary when we stop to think about how the Conservatives are going to vote on this legislation. If we listen to the critic, we would think they are going to be voting against it.
I look at that, as I know many of my colleagues do, and ask who they are actually listening to. Obviously it is not their constituents. Instead, they try to give a false impression that this is broken. They then go on to talk about all the day care and child care problems, being very critical of the provinces, which have the responsibility of providing child care systems. I wonder if they have the support of the provinces to rip up things of this nature that we are proposing. I wonder if the provinces are aware of just how critical the Conservative Party of Canada is in regard to the performance of provincial governments across this country and those in the territories, because that is who its members are criticizing. We finally have a federal government, a national government, that has a vision of progress, of moving Canada forward on child care, yet we have a Conservative Party that has an attitude of “No, not here in Canada”. It does not want money being spent, which we hear constantly coming from the Conservative Party.
Yes, there is a cost to this. I recognize there is a cost going into the billions of dollars, and I think that is what offends Conservative Party members at the national level. However, let me suggest that if they open their eyes and try to get a better understanding of both the social and economic impact of a progressive policy of this nature, maybe they will do one of their traditional flip-flops, support the legislation and go against what they campaigned about on this issue. We all know the flip-flop they have taken on the price on pollution. Here is another good flip-flop for them, but a flip-flop in a positive way, where they would be supporting a national child care program. That would be encouraging to see the Conservative Party do.
Let us think of the economic advantage. We would have more people in the workforce. We would be making a more equal playing field. Many more women would be able to plan a career and not need to worry about the cost of day care, child care or early learning. These are the advantages. When they get into the workforce, they will be paying taxes, taxes that in all likelihood they might not have been paying because they did not have affordable child care. It is healthier for the economy.
There are parents who have their children in $10-a-day child care. We talk about other issues in Canada, things like inflation. This is helping families today in a very real and tangible way by putting thousands of dollars in their pockets, yet the Conservatives do not like the idea. They need to really start thinking about how society would benefit. It is not just the family who would benefit; it is everyone. All of us benefit when we have programs of this nature.
Bill C-35, in essence, ensures we will continue to have a national child care program and a national commitment to financing and contributing to the care of children. That is a good thing. I hope the Conservatives will flip-flop on this issue and support it.
I see the member is already standing to ask a question. I hope she will give a commitment to support the legislation. That is the question I would pose to her.
An hon. member: Bring it home.
1325 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. However, he was very critical of the Conservatives.
The Liberal government also deserves some criticism for not taking into account the fact that Quebec is a model.
On top of that, the contract is for a period of five years. What is the government going to do after that? I think it is looking for a fight between Quebec and Ottawa.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member will recall from the comments I made that we looked at how successful the program in Quebec was and saw Quebec is leading the country on the issue. We knew if we took the idea from Quebec and applied it universally from coast to coast to coast, we would see some very positive results, like affordable, quality child care and more women being engaged in the workforce. We are already witnessing that. A number of provinces are already at $10-a-day day care, and we have the highest percentage in North America of women engaged in the workforce. This is just the beginning, recognizing that Quebec has led the way.
One of the nice things about being in a federal system is that when one province does something and excels at it, Ottawa has the opportunity to promote, encourage and, in this case, take specific action so that future generations will benefit, as with the program that was introduced by the Province of Quebec. I love the fact that the Province of Quebec brought in the program.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the data speaks for itself. We have numbers ranging from $1.80 to $2.65 for every dollar we put in as a return on investment, which is good money well spent.
However, I would emphasize that I asked my Quebec colleagues this: How did this happen in Quebec first? Who made it happen? It was women who made it happen.
This is a feminist government committed to making sure that the choice women make is not between child care and a career. Instead, they can choose the path they want to carve out for themselves while enjoying being both a mother and an excellent part of our workforce.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Once again, I thank all my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for this bill.
I have a question for my colleague. We know that this bill does not provide full compensation for Quebec. However, outside Quebec, Ottawa is seen as a force for social progress.
Is my colleague concerned about the trend towards centralization when, in Quebec, we reject all forms of interference?
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
