44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, that was a very interesting comment. We have to give credit to la belle province for being a leader in Canada when it comes to day care.
I do not disagree with the member. This is primarily a provincial jurisdiction issue. I would say the challenge with the agreements put in place by the federal government with the provinces and territories really comes down to the idea that it is almost setting different standards across this country, pitting provinces and territories against each other as they try to bid for a limited pot of money from the federal side. That goes to the second or third point I made on the rising costs and the fact that, as many day care centres have already identified, the sheer cost of this program is going to continue to increase.
Ultimately, I still do not think it is going to happen in a timely enough fashion to have these spaces right across the country. Then when the program starts failing, what is the government going to do? It is going to blame the provinces and territories.
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and speak, and it is a great honour to rise and speak to Bill C-35. I am a mother who has been an advocate for affordable child care since the 1980s, and if I had to be in the House until midnight debating something, there is nothing more than this that I would rather debate.
I have been listening to people speak today, and a lot of the remarks have been read from a script. I would like to pay homage to my colleague, the leader of the Green Party, who often says we should be speaking without notes. As one can see, I am doing that because I could not recall the name of her riding.
What I want to talk about is what this bill is really about and what the opposition is saying about it. It is one thing to say we need to move forward and we need to work together. It is very easy to sit and criticize something that has been brought forward and to point out all the shortcomings, all the faults and all the things that are not being done without recognizing—
An hon. member: It's literally our job.
Ms. Leah Taylor Roy: Mr. Speaker, it is funny. Someone across the aisle just said that is literally their job, but I actually do not believe that. I believe that as members of Parliament, we are all here to work together for the future of Canada and Canadians.
What we need to do is collaborate, and that is what this government has been doing with every province, territory and group to put in place the child care system we have been advocating for as women for over 50 years. Think about that. It is 50 years that we have been asking for this, and it is now coming to fruition. Rather than celebrating that fact, all we can do is criticize the shortcomings and act as though it was the fault of the legislation that certain things are not happening.
There are two basic things we hear often. I hear it in my communities, and according to what I have heard tonight and over the last few days, it is something we hear in many constituencies. There are two concerns among several. The cost of living and affordability are one and the second is the labour shortage. This bill, for all the perceived shortcomings that have been pointed out, addresses both of those of issues and addresses them well.
Child care costs some families $50 a day depending on the age of the child. This bill would bring into place child care that will cost $10 a day by 2026. I can guarantee that the young families in my riding I speak to, the parents, both men and women, are very grateful for the fact that their costs have already been cut in half and are looking forward to $10-a-day child care.
This bill is addressing the affordability crisis. We hear constantly from members opposite that this is one of the biggest concerns they have. We are putting forward legislation that addresses it, yet all we hear is criticism.
The other issue is the labour shortage. We have the example of early learning and child care and the good-quality program in the province of Quebec. In Canada, we are lucky because we have an example of what could happen to labour force participation, and in particular the participation of women in the labour force, when we have a reliable, affordable child care program.
Estimates have been provided by many private sector firms, although I will not name them, that show the return on this investment is between $1.80 to $2.50 for every dollar we spend. This is a viable economic proposition that is going to increase labour force participation and reduce the cost of living, yet all we hear is that it is not flexible enough and that there are not enough early childhood educators. Is this the fault of the legislation? No. It has been designed and implemented through work with provinces and territories, with bilateral agreements that the provinces have agreed to and wanted.
The shortage of early childhood educators existed before this legislation was introduced. If anything, increasing labour force participation is going to address the labour shortage. It is going to allow for more people to work as child care workers or anything else they want to work as, and it will help address this problem.
In some cases, I think the members opposite confuse causality and correlation. That is a very important concept. Just because something happens over a period of time does not mean it is caused by something during that period of time. We have to do significant regression analysis with multiple variables to figure out what is causing it. We hear accusations time and time again that under this government, something has happened, so it must be the fault of this government. That is not how it works. We have to look at what is actually causing things. We can look at the labour shortage, we can look at what is causing it and we can look at this bill and say the bill would address it.
We have been asked why we have to pass this bill now when the money is flowing. This is about ensuring that this program continues over time. We have had plenty of examples of good legislation being made, with good investments in Canadians, only to be overturned. We have heard several Conservative leaders say they would overturn this legislation, that this legislation is no good. For many young families in my riding, that would be a huge step backward. I believe that for all Canadians, that would be a huge step backward.
Parents today raising their families would have more choices. This bill would not limit flexibility in any way. It is up to the provinces and the child care providers. As we all know, and as the Bloc has repeatedly told us, this is not our territory. We can fund, we can provide leadership and we can provide vision, but it is up to the provinces and territories to implement this as they see fit. That is why we have individual agreements with each of them. The $30 billion we are investing to help provinces and territories provide adequate child care for families over the next five years would create over 250,000 new spaces and ensure accessibility for all people.
As a member of Parliament, as a woman with two daughters and as a woman who has helped raised six children and has grandchildren, I do not want to leave my children and grandchildren with fewer choices. I want them to have more choices, and I believe that this bill, Bill C-35, would give more choices to people. I ask members to please look at the values behind this bill, look at supporting families, look at trying to bring down the cost of living and look at addressing labour force shortages. Vote with me, vote with the Liberal Party, vote with the young families in Canada that desperately need child care and need someone to take that first step.
It has been 50 years. Let us stop talking about what is not there and let us look at what we are doing for the future of our country.
1250 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out that we do want the same thing. We 100% want the same thing. What is upsetting is saying we should only look at what is great. That is not what we are here to do. We are here to figure out what is not working so that we can fix it. That is the whole point. When the Conservatives are criticizing and when we are elevating the concerns of thousands and thousands of parents, it is because 29% of families have access to spaces and 50% of children are in a child care desert. I think that warrants a legitimate criticism.
Alicia Bishop wrote to me. Alicia is a mother of four, an active member in her community, a former teacher, an owner of a child care facility and a proud female entrepreneur. She said, “I would like this to have very careful consideration. Introducing $10-a-day fees to parents is an important step forward, but it must be made with very careful consideration, as it is critical that we get this right and not disrupt the private model that has been working so well in Alberta for decades. The bottom line is we need to maintain quality, innovation and incentive to make this work.”
Will the hon. member consider including private and all forms of child care so we can meet the demand the Liberals have created?
239 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear that the member opposite and I want the same thing.
I did not say there was not concern regarding the lack of available child care; what I was trying to say is that we need to move forward, and the fact that we have other issues to deal with should not prevent us from moving forward with what we have in front of us now.
There are spaces being created; there are more than there were before. If the system in Alberta were as perfect as the member opposite says it is, then Alberta could decline to participate in this program. It does not have to sign the bilateral agreement; it can keep the program it has right now.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Indeed, having accessible and affordable day care is so important for families, and especially to mothers. We went through it in Quebec, we saw it. Quebec was a pioneer, a trailblazer, with its network of child care centres. That has provided immeasurable services to families.
The NDP is very proud to have worked on this bill to improve it. It was even a requirement of our agreement. We wanted to make sure there would be long-term funding for the provinces. My colleague from Winnipeg Centre even insisted that funding be given in priority to public day cares, as well as to non-profit day cares. I think it is a priority for us, as progressives. I would like my colleague to comment on this aspect of the bill.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member's question is an important one.
We are working with every province to sign agreements that work for those provinces. My belief is that with public day care, not-for-profit day care, there is no profit margin. It has to be more affordable when it is delivered. I would say that would be the first priority.
I believe that what is most important right now is to get as much day care as possible out there for all families, not just for women and mothers, as there are families that have two fathers, or are single-father households, as we heard across the aisle. This would benefit all Canadians, not just women and mothers.
I am certainly in support of what the member is asking.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is not shy. It used Quebec's model when introducing this program. Many witnesses came from Quebec.
It bothers me when people just call it child care. In Quebec, we use the term early childhood education services. These services are not just there so that women can go back to work, even though women make an important contribution to the labour market. These services are also there to give children equal opportunities.
Given that Quebec is a leader in this area and the federal government was guided by our model, which is a good thing, why did the government flat out refuse to acknowledge Quebec's leadership in the bill's preamble and consequently give us a lifetime exemption from this bill?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite raised a very good point, which is that this is not just about affordability and workforce participation; it is also about giving our children a great start in life. I think the Quebec model has exemplified that through the early learning component, which is certainly something we are trying to replicate through this bill, so I give full credit for that. I believe we have often referenced what the province of Quebec has done as a great example, but each province has its own unique needs. That is why we are negotiating bilateral agreements with each province and not taking a one-size-fits-all kind of approach.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I am very pleased to appear this evening from my home riding in Nunavut. I am pleased to submit that the NDP supports passing Bill C-35. The NDP has, for a long time, fought for a national child care program that is enshrined in legislation.
Before I get to the main aspects of my speech, I highlight and thank the MP for Winnipeg Centre for her great work, the MP for London—Fanshawe for the work she did on Bill C-311 in the 43rd Parliament and Olivia Chow for her work, in the 40th Parliament, on Bill C-373.
New Democrats truly believe that every parent across Canada deserves access to affordable, high-quality child care wherever they live in Canada. That is why passing Bill C-35 is so important.
My intervention tonight will focus on three areas at this stage of the bill. First, I will speak to some of the content of the bill. Second, I will highlight the inclusion of international instruments in Bill C-35 and the importance of acknowledging indigenous laws in implementing these important instruments. Finally, I will address some of the disinformation that has been shared by other members in the House.
The content of Bill C-35 is important because it would set out a vision for the creation of a national early learning and child care system. It would ensure that there are principles that guide federal investments. These are important as they will show the willingness of this Parliament to invest in children, as they truly are the future and we must do what we can to keep it secured.
Bill C-35 would establish a national advisory council on early learning and child care. This is such an important measure to ensure that policy-making and advocacy would come from experts in the field. It is truly my hope that the composition of this council would include indigenous peoples in Canada.
It is great to hear at this stage that Bill C-35 has been improved in some areas through the work of the HUMA committee One such area is the strengthening of reporting requirements, specifically in areas where the minister responsible must report to Parliament. Another is to recognize that working conditions affect the provision of child care programs, and, as such, improvements were made regarding working conditions in this area.
International instruments and indigenous laws are also important. I turn now to the incredibly great work that my NDP colleague, the MP for Winnipeg Centre, was able to do in ensuring that indigenous rights are protected and that international instruments are included in Bill C-35. Specifically, I outline the important inclusion of recognizing the rights established in both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These are meant to have Canada acknowledge Canada's international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.
Finally, I highlight the prominent place for indigenous peoples to have free, prior and informed consent on matters pertaining to children. With June being National Indigenous History Month, I take every opportunity I can to make interventions that include indigenous history. What implementing the international instruments could look like is recognizing the existence of indigenous laws surrounding the raising of children. For example, in Inuit laws, there are three areas of laws that govern Inuit. I thank Jarich Oosten, Frédéric Laugrand and Willem Rasing for editing the book entitled Inuit Laws. The content of this book is based on interviews with Inuit elders: Mariano Aupilaarjuk, Marie Tulimaaq, Akisu Joamie, Émile Imaruittuq and Lucassie Nutaraaluk. I honour their great knowledge and their sharing it for us to use. What a privilege it is to share these names in the House.
The laws described in this book are piqujait, maligait and tirigusuusiit. I describe the first two for this speech. As I stated earlier this month, these categories govern our behaviours and our relationships to each other and to wildlife and the environment.
Piqujait, translated into English, means “behaviours that must be done as directed by a person of authority”. An example is piqujait from parents to children. In today's society, piqujait can also be used by child care workers when they are taking care of children in day care settings.
Maligait is translated into English as “those that must be followed”. These differ from piqujait because they focus on the obligation to obey. A maligait in this system could be used to establish policies, regulations and instruments that could guide decision-making.
I look forward to learning, in my role as indigenous critic, more about indigenous laws held by first nations and Métis so that I may speak to them. Even better, it would be great to see more first nations, Métis and Inuit across Canada taking up the challenge of representing their peoples in the House. I encourage more indigenous people to consider running in the next federal election so we can continue to make laws that reflect our existence.
Finally, in addressing the disinformation that has been shared by other members in the House, I will talk about what has been shared mainly by Conservative members. I hope to remind Canadians of some of these issues. As I have outlined in my speech, Bill C-35 is not just about existing agreements; it is about much more than that. Conservatives have shared that Bill C-35 would not provide supports to parents to get access to child care. The Conservatives, at HUMA, introduced amendments to remove prioritization of non-profit and public child care. They argued that prioritizing these groups makes it unfair to for-profit child care businesses. This is entirely untrue. Prioritization is not elimination; prioritization is giving equity-seeking groups extra supports they have been excluded from for years. Including prioritization of non-profit and public child care would ensure that children get a more full spectrum of child care in Canada.
In support of these arguments, I highlight two testimonies that were shared at HUMA in studying Bill C-35. The first is from Pierre Fortin, an emeritus professor of economics, who said, “There is no way to escape the conclusion that private markets for child care have, unfortunately, been a quality failure. I'm saying ‘unfortunately’ because I have defended private market solutions throughout my career, but a fact is a fact.” Second, I quote Morna Ballantyne, executive director of Child Care Now, who said, “Federal public funds should be directed to expanding the provision of high-quality early learning and child care, not to expanding opportunities to make private profit or to increasing the equity of privately held real estate and other business assets.”
In conclusion, I am very excited to support Bill C-35. It gives me hope that children and parents will be better supported. With the passing of Bill C-35, decision-making would be founded on human rights and indigenous rights. Accountability and transparency would be monitored by a national council composed of experts from the field. This bill would indeed help ensure working conditions for child care workers.
Qujannamiik from Iqaluit. My thoughts are with the many Canadians experiencing the forest fires across Canada.
1245 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that the member and I share an interest in early childhood learning, but I have a question for her.
Together we visited a number of remote communities in Nunavut, places with only a few hundred people. How do we make early childhood learning work in those kinds of small communities, which abound all across this country?
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, that is a great question. I think that is why this legislation discusses the importance of non-profit organizations in ensuring that public child care is also a priority.
All of the communities in Nunavut have schools. Some of them have spaces for Aboriginal Head Start programs. There are many communities as well with buildings that we need to ensure will provide access. I think that with more investments in ensuring that infrastructure exists, we could make sure that this bill could work for Nunavummiut.
Ultimately, we will also need to make sure that child care centres are being built in Nunavut.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague is always very thoughtful, and I appreciate learning from her.
She did make a comment that I would like to correct on the record. I think it says it best about the difference between prioritizing and eliminating. I am going to read her a comment that Ms. Maggie Moser, director of the board of directors of the Ontario Association of Independent Childcare Centres, made at committee. She said:
Lower-income families were excluded from obtaining access to the CWELCC child care spots. Families who could already afford the fees of their centre were the ones who benefited from the rebates and discounts, while the rest were left behind on a long wait-list.
Does she recognize that the way the bill is currently written is actually hurting lower-income families?
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I think that is a different type of program that she might be talking about, but it highlights the importance of Bill C-35 and why we need to nationalize child care. We need to ensure, as I have said, that those who have been excluded from accessing child care get the supports that they need.
I heard a Conservative member talking earlier about his family supporting each other in the area of child care. I question whether that member would have had that same level of support if all of their family members had been marginalized for decades, had been oppressed for decades and had been forced to experience genocide for decades. I question whether he would have had the same level of family supports that he needed to ensure child care for his family.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, by establishing an early childhood education system, we are helping women return to work and also to school. We are creating an ecosystem that supports the local economy and community support.
I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I think there are absolutely different views about what women can choose to do or what they do not want to do. I think raising children is such a beautiful privilege and a wonderful honour to have. I was not ever really able to be a stay-at-home mom, so I always have tremendous respect for mothers or fathers, any parent, to choose to stay at home to invest in their children's early learning.
I think that what this bill does is really focus our efforts to ensure that we are investing in children so that we can have a better Canada.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-35 and will support the bill at third reading, even though it finds the bill to be ambiguous.
The bill does not comply with the distribution of powers set out in the Constitution, which clearly states that education and family policies are not under federal jurisdiction. Although the bill states that the provinces will be able to certify child care services and determine the applicable criteria, it also states that every government in Canada will have to comply with the principles set out in the multilateral early learning and child care framework.
This framework is full of good intentions and fine principles, but it is based on the federal government's supposed spending power, which Quebec does not consider legitimate or legal. One thing is clear: This bill was not tabled in the right Parliament.
I will first go into more detail about why we will nevertheless vote in favour of the bill. Then I will explain the Quebec exception and end my speech with an historical overview.
First, the bill excludes Quebec from this federalization of family policy for the next five years. In fact, the Government of Quebec will receive $6 billion in compensation for opting out of this centralist policy. In that sense, the bill respects the will of Quebec not to have the government interfere in its jurisdictions, especially since Quebec is a pioneer in child care services and a model of success, to boot.
Nevertheless, unlike Bill C‑303, the predecessor to this bill, the current version does not contain any wording on exempting Quebec. Indeed, Bill C‑303 stated the following:
4. Recognizing the unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec with regard to the education and development of children in Quebec society, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Government of Quebec may choose to be exempted from the application of this Act and, notwithstanding any such decision, shall receive the full transfer payment that would otherwise be paid under section 5.
The agreement concluded with the Quebec government spans a period of five years. Enshrining Quebec's full right to opt out of this program would help avoid another dispute between Quebec and Ottawa in case the federal government ever wants to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions as it does so well.
Passing this bill would also enable Quebec to recover significant amounts that could be used to reinforce its network and improve working conditions for workers in the sector.
By allowing Quebec to withdraw with full compensation, Bill C-35 takes into account these two opposing trends in federal-provincial relations. That sort of consideration is rare at the federal level.
Outside Quebec, Ottawa is seen as the guarantor of social progress, which results in a strong tendency towards centralization. Quebec rejects that type of interference. It would be interesting if Bill C-35 were consistent with the previous version in recognizing that the Quebec government's child care expertise is unique in North America. In fact, the international community acknowledged that in 2003.
The OECD, in its study of child care in Canada at the time, mentioned the following:
[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....none of these provinces showed the same clarity of vision as Quebec in addressing the needs of young children and families....
In short, to come back to Bill C-35, public officials said that the bill was drafted with respect for the provincial and territorial jurisdictions and indigenous rights.
They also stated that the bill did not impose any conditions on other levels of government. That was the main concern of some provincial governments during the consultation process. Any provision seeking to ensure that the provinces shoulder their share of the agreement would be part of the individual bilateral agreements signed with each province and territory, agreements that must be renegotiated every five years, as I mentioned previously.
Here are some interesting figures to think about. Access to low-cost regulated child care could lead to the addition of 240,000 workers to the Canadian labour market and a 1.2% increase in the GDP over 20 years. In Quebec, the money would also serve to strengthen the existing network of early childhood education services, which is grappling with a shortage of teachers.
After the committee completed its work, it became clear that the demands of the Bloc Québécois and Quebec were not heard or respected.
Throughout the study, Quebec was cited as a model. It may not be perfect, but the Quebec model was cited on numerous occasions as being a model to emulate. However, at the amendment stage, when the time came to recognize Quebec's expertise in the bill, we saw the three other parties dismiss this reality out of hand. The same thing happened to our amendments giving Quebec the option of completely withdrawing from the federal program with full financial compensation. The only place the other members were even remotely willing to mention Quebec's expertise was the preamble, which is the only place where those words would ultimately have no concrete effect on the bill.
Although Quebec does not get the option of completely withdrawing from this program with full compensation, an agreement to that effect had already been concluded 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 members of the Liberal government who spoke to the bill also mentioned several times that the Liberals intended to keep working with Quebec on this file. The current agreement also pleased Quebec since it did not interfere with any jurisdiction and gave the Quebec government total freedom to spend the money in whatever sectors it wanted.
Third, let us rewind to 2022, when Quebec celebrated 25 years of the family policy. On January 23, 1997, Quebec's family policy was unveiled by education minister Pauline Marois on behalf of the Parti Québécois government. It was a visionary policy that reflected the changing face of Quebec, including the increase in the number of single-parent and blended families, the growing presence of women in the workforce and the troubling rise in job insecurity.
This forward-thinking policy has allowed Quebeckers to benefit from better work-life or school-life balance and more generous maternity leave and parental leave, and it has extended family assistance programs to self-employed workers or workers with atypical schedules.
This model is an asset. It is a source of pride for the entire Quebec nation, as studies show that every dollar invested in early childhood yields about $1.75 in tax revenues, and that every dollar invested in health and in early childhood saves up to $9 in social health and legal services. Early childhood education services have also been a giant step ahead for education in Quebec. They help improve children's chances of success and keep students from dropping out. They have a positive effect on early childhood development, help identify adaptive and learning difficulties early on, and ensure greater equality of opportunities for every young Quebecker, regardless of sex, ethnic origin or social class.
In conclusion, we also believe that a true family policy is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Quebec and provincial governments. Parental leave, income support and child care networks must be integrated into a coherent whole. In our opinion, to be efficient, this network and all these family policies must be the responsibility of the Government of Quebec alone. The Constitution clearly indicates that education and family policies are not under federal jurisdiction.
One last thing: As the Standing Committee on the Status of Women has noted in more than one report, including the report on intimate partner violence I spoke about earlier in connection with another bill, by providing quality day care that is affordable and accessible to all, we are providing women with an opportunity to fulfill their professional ambitions without compromising their family responsibilities.
What is more, this bill seeks to enhance day care services by providing a safe and protective environment for young children and especially for mothers who are seeking to escape intimate partner violence. What we in the Bloc Québécois are saying is, let us do this with respect for the expertise, but above all, for Quebec's jurisdiction. We will be voting in favour of the principle of Bill C‑35.
I will end with an interesting economic fact. According to the work of Pierre Fortin, Luc Godbout and Suzie St‑Cerny, between 1998 and 2015, with Quebec's child care services taking care of all these young children, mothers' labour force participation rate increased from 66% to 79%. We implemented this feminist measure. Yes, early childhood education is a feminist policy that made it possible for women to return to the labour market, to become emancipated and to provide equal opportunities for young children.
1577 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is not a feminist policy. It would increase taxes on women as well as on men, and it would subsidize particular choices and not others. It would create a fiscal pressure by subsidizing people who use particular kinds of child care arrangements, and it would offer no support to shift workers, those who choose to stay at home for periods of time with their children, those who are relying on grandparents or those who are making other kinds of choices. I think a genuinely feminist policy would not say there is one way to do child care; it would say that we should be giving more money and more resources back to parents and back to families, and supporting them in making their own choices, especially in this time when we are seeing more demand for flexible work, more work from home, more web-based work and more alternatives.
Why does the Bloc not support choice in child care that would give the broadest range of options to all families and that would let women, without the fiscal pressure to make one kind of choice or another, have the resources to make the kinds of choices they want with their own families?
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, this whole issue of early childhood education services is a choice made by Quebec and the provinces. Quebec has chosen this model. Furthermore, this model offers more and more spaces to accommodate non-standard schedules. I am seeing more and more early childhood education centres all around me that are taking women's non-standard schedules into account. It needs to be developed further, but it is happening.
I was talking about a feminist policy. I remember very well that, during the pandemic, when women were suffering at home and I was urgently studying the pandemic's disproportionate effects on women at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we sometimes heard that women were faring better in Quebec. Why was that? It was because we had set up this service, which is designed not only to enable women to return to the workforce, but also to give very young children equal opportunities. This means greater social justice. I believe in these principles. In that sense, yes, this policy is—
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/23 9:57:21 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up with the member on that aspect. It is hard to imagine that the Conservative Party does not see the real and tangible benefits of this program, given that the Province of Quebec has had it for many years and we have seen a great deal of benefit, like more women getting engaged into the workforce. There is a wide spectrum of benefits from having this program.
I am wondering if the member could expand on why she believes the Quebec program has been as successful as it has and why it is, in fact, in Canada's best interest to try to duplicate that model nationwide.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
