House Publications

    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be the first member of the House to rise and speak in 2023. I would like to wish all my colleagues from all parties a happy new year.

    We hope that we all have a prosperous year, working together productively and introducing bills that will make a difference. We hope to see strong, decisive action, especially when it comes to language, but also in the fight against climate change. That is very important to me. We also want decisive action for our seniors, meaningful action for housing, and action that will really improve people's lives. I think we also want to hear the expression “triple, triple, triple” less often in the House. I think everyone would like that.

    I am very pleased to speak to Motion No. 62. I want to thank my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard, with whom I was lucky to work at the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. He is doing remarkable work. I think this motion is very important. There are all kinds of humanitarian and human rights crises going on in the world right now. I became aware of that, and it is something that matters very much to my colleague as well.

    I think it is especially important to talk about the motion before us this morning, which is about what is happening to the Uighurs. I would note that here in Ottawa today, on Parliament Hill, we have Dolkun Isa, president of the World Uyghur Congress; Omer Kanat, executive vice-president of the World Uyghur Congress; Mehmet Tohti, executive director of the Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project; and many members of the Uighur diaspora. I thank them for being here on Parliament Hill, and I hope their presence here will help put some pressure on this government. I really think that is what we need.

    First, I would warn my colleagues who are sensitive and have a tender heart. I am about to tell members a really horrific story, one that will make our hearts pound, give us the chills and absolutely stun us. My colleagues should do what I did before becoming a politician. They should put themselves in the other person's shoes. They should try to see things from the perspective of the person I am going to talk about.

    This is the story of a Uighur woman who immigrated to Canada several years ago. Her father became very sick and this woman decided to return to her country. When she arrived in her home city, she was welcomed at the airport by her sisters. Her heart filled with joy as she was so happy to see them. It was a meaningful moment. However, a sense of unease came over her. She did not know why, but she sensed that she was not welcome. In the taxi, they asked her to remain silent and not to talk. She thought that things would be all right when she arrived at her home, but her sister asked everyone to turn off their cell phones. She whispered to her that something had been installed on their roof the previous evening and that she had to be careful about what she said.

    One night, at a restaurant, she noticed three men seated at the table next to her. She realized they were government agents. She was scared and did not finish her meal. These men watched her suspiciously. She slipped out into the market, which used to be quite vibrant, only to realize that no one was there. Her sister told her that most of the people had practically disappeared overnight, including her best friend. The situation was untenable and was jeopardizing her family. She had no choice but to leave. She left behind her dying father and her sisters, never to see them again. It was a heart-rending farewell. She returned to the comfort of her home in Quebec, while her family lives in fear in China.

    This is a very real story. The actions of this government have been very tentative and weak. The government has reluctantly acknowledged that China's treatment of the Uighurs constitutes genocide. While an entire people is being persecuted and employed in so-called vocational training schools, surrounded by walls and barbed wire, watched by guards equipped with batons and shields, the government across the way seems just a tad hesitant.

    It is also important to remember that many women are being raped. Some women told the committee about the sexual and psychological abuse they have suffered. Children are being taken away from their families and placed in orphanages or state-run schools. Good people are being forced into factories as slaves, primarily outside the Xinjiang region, further contributing to the shrinking Muslim population.

    This is the same government that decided to boycott the Olympic Games, but to no effect. That is what it decided to do rather than demand that the games be moved so that the event could not be used for Chinese propaganda. It was as though the human rights violations and attacks on human dignity that we are talking about were somewhat or partially acceptable. The government will not go all the way with sanctions, because it thinks it can negotiate with people's suffering.

    This morning, it is very important to point out how ironic it is that Motion No. 62 states that the government determined that China's treatment of Uighurs is genocide, when, in reality, the executive, the council of ministers, cravenly abstained during the vote on the previous motion in February 2021. We sincerely hope that such will not be the case this time, that the government will take the bull by the horns, show some backbone and truly acknowledge that what is happening in China right now is a genocide against the Uighur people.

    We are talking about a regime that spies on and tracks Uighurs even beyond its own borders. Cameras and facial recognition technologies are used to track down deserters. Just like in bad sci-fi movies, this government introduces new family members through sponsorship programs. For example, one day I could end up with a new brother named George who would live with me and who my children would call their uncle. He would have me sent to a prison camp, beat my children and rape my wife. Meanwhile, my colleagues would turn a blind eye and wonder whether boycotting an event would have any kind of political impact.

    The government is talking about bringing 10,000 Uighurs to Canada, which is approximately 0.08%. Those are the lucky ones who will be able to enjoy our openness while hopefully avoiding the Chinese service stations set up in our country. They will avoid forced sterilizations and no longer be assimilated. That said, what about the 99.92% of Uighurs who will continue to be raped, assaulted and abused and who may end up with a new brother? Are we going to be complicit in the abuse that these people are going to suffer or will we finally take action to support and help these people, these humans?

    There is also talk of foreign interference, given that many of the bordering countries are participating in this genocide, some without the option of refusing. Canada is not immune to these pressures. While the House of Commons passed a motion in 2020 calling on the federal government to have a plan to counter foreign interference, nothing has been done so far. Even in Quebec, we now have Chinese police stations that are calling the shots.

    Are we going to do like we did with Yemen? Are we going to keep pretending we are not to blame by consenting to play a political game and by denying our responsibility when we sell arms to Saudi Arabia that are then used to kill Yemenites? Even as we give, we participate in torture. Is that who we are? Can we look forward to this government tabling a refugee resettlement plan quickly so that this does not fall off the radar while people are left to suffer?

    These people are enduring slavery, torture, rape, sterilization, abuse, persecution, suffering and death. I admire these deeply resilient human beings who are risking their lives to fight for their freedom and who are not giving up on that dream.

    Madam Speaker, today we are debating Motion No. 62, a motion that focuses on the human rights abuses and genocide being carried out against Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims by the government of the People's Republic of China.

    I would first like to thank my colleague, the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, for his important motion. All parliamentarians must stand firm in defence of fundamental human rights and condemn such gross violations, wherever they occur around the globe.

    Canada has an obligation to uphold and defend human rights in the international community and support Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims, who are facing horrific persecution. I want to send a clear message that New Democrats support the motion, and we stand in solidarity with them in their fight for human rights.

    The Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has studied the human rights situation of the Uighurs. The subcommittee heard witness testimony documenting the mounting evidence of human rights abuses, including mass arbitrary detention, separation of children from their parents, forced sterilization, forced labour, torture and other atrocities.

    It was the subcommittee's conclusion that this organized and systematic persecution, which includes the largest mass detention of a minority since the Holocaust, constitutes a genocide, as per the genocide convention.

    Back in 2018, the subcommittee on international human rights stated:

    Sadly, since then, human rights abuses have only intensified, and the situation has become even more urgent, demanding greater action. New Democrats have pushed the Canadian Parliament to recognize the treatment of Uighurs as genocide and have called on the government to use every tool at its disposal to help end these abuses. On February 22, 2021, the House unanimously recognized the actions of the Chinese government against Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims as genocide, despite the Prime Minister and members of cabinet abstaining from the vote.

    Recognizing and fully condemning this genocide was a critical first step, but Canada can and must do more to take a stand against the horrific human rights abuses. Motion No. 62 recognizes that Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims who have fled to third countries face intimidation to return to China, where they face serious risks of detention and other atrocities. The motion also recognizes that many third countries face continued diplomatic and economic pressure from China to detain and deport Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims, meaning that even in other countries, they are not safe.

    Importantly, in light of this grave situation, the motion calls on the Canadian government to urgently leverage IRCC’s refugee and humanitarian resettlement program to expedite the entry of 10,000 Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in need of protection. Urgent action is needed.

    The NDP fully supports Motion No. 62. However, I will be introducing an amendment to ensure that Uighurs are admitted to Canada via a special immigration measure. New Democrats believe Canada should increase the total numbers of vulnerable people we welcome to our country, including those from East Turkestan, Ukraine, Afghanistan and other places where people are subject to the worst violations of their human rights.

    This is consistent with the subcommittee’s recommendations, which call for the creation of “an exceptional refugee stream” to expedite entry for Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims. The creation of an emergency refugee program was also among the key recommendations advocated by the World Uyghur Congress. We should not be pitting communities against each other by robbing Peter to pay Paul.

    Further, while the NDP supports this important motion, there is much more work that needs to be done to put an end to the persecution of Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims.

    Human rights advocacy organizations have been tireless in their work calling for greater action and highlighting the need for the Government of Canada to take a stronger stance for human rights. Some of them are here today.

    Groups such as the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project have called on the government to implement the recommendations of the subcommittee report. One of these recommendations is that the Department of Justice develop a comprehensive human rights due diligence law that would compel businesses to respect the most current international human rights standards across their global operations and supply chains, and be held accountable for harms caused in relation to their operations.

    Alarmingly, global supply chains are tainted with forced labour. Consequently, advocates have called on the government to strengthen trade restrictions to prohibit the importation of goods manufactured in the Uighur region. Products sold in Canadian supermarkets and stores are being made by Uighur forced labour. This includes products such as bath towels, quilts and clothes, which are made with cotton from the Uighur region. Corporations such as Nestlé, Del Monte and Unilever have also purchased tomatoes from Chinese companies in the Uighur region.

    China is one of only eight states that has not yet ratified the International Labour Organization's convention on ending forced labour. Between 2017 and 2019, it is estimated that more than 80,000 Uighurs were forcibly transferred out of the Uighur region to work in factories across China. In 2020 alone, reports revealed that 83 global companies were indirectly or directly involved in employing Uighur workers under forced labour.

    A recently released report on the automotive sector has revealed the use of Uighur forced labour throughout the supply chains of major auto manufacturers. The report found that more than 100 international automotive parts or car manufacturers have some exposure to goods made with forced Uighur labour.

     It is completely unacceptable that companies are allowed to profit off of persecution, that supply chains involve forced labour, and that the products we purchase are manufactured using forced labour.

    Advocates are also calling on Canada to push for an end to the arbitrary detention of Uighur human rights defenders in China. Canada should be working with civil society organizations to advocate for the release of those human rights defenders who have been imprisoned.

    New Democrats have also called for sanctions to be imposed on government of China officials responsible for the perpetration of grave human rights abuses. This is also consistent with the recommendations of the subcommittee on international human rights.

    The creation of a special immigration measure to expeditiously bring Uighurs and Turkic Muslims to safety is an essential part of Canada's role in defending human rights and taking a firm stand to denounce this ongoing genocide.

    I move:

    I think that this is essential, if we are going to move forward, as a first step toward supporting Uighurs. It is essential for Canada to take this action to show leadership in the international community.

    It is my duty to inform hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), no amendments may be proposed to a private member's motion or to the motion for second reading for a private member's bill unless the sponsor of the item indicates his or her consent.

    Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard if he consents to this amendment being moved.

    Madam Speaker, yes, I consent.

    The amendment is in order.

    Resuming debate, we have the hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 62 by my friend, the MP for Pierrefonds—Dollard, regarding Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims.

    I want to thank him for his leadership on this and many other issues of human rights around the world in his role as the chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. The bipartisan support we have seen for this motion is a testament to his hard work across party lines, and I am pleased to add my voice and my vote in support of this important motion.

    What does this motion seek to do? It consists of four primary components.

    The first clause asks us to recognize that Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims who have fled to third countries face pressure and intimidation by the Chinese state to return to China. The evidence makes this an undeniable truth.

    In the second clause, we are asked to recognize that many of the third countries these refugees fleeing persecution and genocide are residing in are facing strong diplomatic and economic pressure from the Chinese government to deport these refugees. Again, there is ample evidence to support this undeniable truth.

    The heart of Motion No. 62 comes in the third clause, which calls for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and the government, to undertake steps to expedite the entry into Canada of 10,000 Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in need of protection over two years starting in 2024. This is such an important measure.

    I have served on the immigration committee since I was first elected in 2015, and I know that we cannot solve the global immigration crisis through resettlement alone. We need a multi-faceted approach that includes humanitarian aid and diplomatic pressure to improve conditions on the ground. Many refugees want to stay near their country of origin, as they are hopeful conditions will improve to allow a safe return.

    We need to support those refugee host countries that often lack the resources to care for large refugee populations, but the Uighur community is facing an ongoing genocide. I was proud to stand with the yes votes in 2021 when the House of Commons voted to recognize this sad fact. Canada has agreed to accept 10,000 Uighur refugees fleeing genocide who are most in need of protection.

    It is our responsibility as a free and prosperous nation. It is our duty as a democratic nation to tell the world we are a voice for human rights. It will signal to China and the world who Canada is and where we stand. Hopefully, it will also encourage like-minded countries to step up to do the same.

     Canada has always done our share in times of crisis. In the late 1960s, we welcomed 1,100 Czech refugees fleeing from the Soviet invasion. In the 1970s, 7,000 Chilean and other Latin American refugees found safety in Canada after political upheaval. We welcomed Iranian refugees after the overthrow of the Shah, Bosnian Muslims escaping ethnic cleansing in the Yugoslav civil war, and more than 60,000 so-called boat people following the war in Vietnam. More recently, we resettled more than 25,000 Syrian refugees, provided a safe haven for thousands of Ukrainians, and we are well on our way to resettling at least 40,000 Afghan refugees.

    Canada punches above its weight, but this is not simple altruism. Refugees make Canada better. They enrich our nation, our economy and, of course, our lives. People whose families came to Canada through previous waves of immigration are today members of the House of Commons. They are giving back to this country with their service.

    In my community, the first waves of Syrian refugees found jobs in grocery stores, restaurants and landscaping companies. Now, more than five years later, they are opening their own businesses, running their own restaurants, hiring people and providing employment to others. They are also becoming Canadian citizens.

    I have spoken here before about two Syrian success stories in Scarborough Centre. Aleppo Kebab serves delicious Syrian food, while Crown Pastries has the best sweets in Scarborough, especially at Eid. I cannot help but imagine what great things these 10,000 Uighur refugees will achieve in Canada. One of them may even be the next chocolate king, like Tareq Hadhad.

    What is clear, though, is that too many Uighur people will never have the opportunity to achieve their full potential, to realize their ambitions and their dreams. That is why Canada must act.

    Lastly, the final clause of Motion No. 62 calls for the government to table a report on how the refugee resettlement plan will be implemented within 120 days of the passage of this motion.

    I welcome this motion and its call for the urgent resettlement of 10,000 vulnerable Uighur refugees in Canada. It builds on our recognition of the genocide occurring in Xinjiang and sends a message to China and its Communist government that Canada and the world are still watching. I hope Parliament will ensure that the hard-working team at IRCC, whom we have asked to do so much in recent years, have the resources they need to do all we ask of them.

    As I said earlier, resettlement alone is not an option. Canada must go further to keep the plight of the Uighur people in the public eye, to keep up pressure on China and to rally our allies and the international world with all diplomatic means in defence of the Uighur people. When the government released its new Indo-Pacific strategy, some pundits complained there was not enough attention paid to China. Indeed, the goal is to diversify our commercial and diplomatic interests in the region.

    I recognize this may not be helpful to some of those with vested business interests, but I ask them, how can Canada have business as usual with a regime that is perpetrating genocide against an entire community, that puts a minority in re-education camps and then denies their very existence? How can Canada have business as usual with a regime that kidnaps our citizens to be held and used as pawns in business disputes? The answer is clear: We cannot.

    China must uphold its international human rights obligations. Human rights are universal. National sovereignty can never be used as a pretext or an excuse for the violation of human rights. We cannot let the world forget that an estimated one million Uighurs and other Turkic groups are in concentration camps in Xinjiang, where they are subjected to forced labour, gender-based violence and torture. Uighurs who have fled their homes to third countries are still at risk of deportation.

    I have always been a voice for human rights around the world, for the Afghans fleeing the Taliban, for the Rohingya fleeing Myanmar, for Coptic Christians in northern Iraq and for the Palestinian people denied their basic rights, and I will always raise my voice for those in need.

    With my vote on this motion, we send a message: We will not look away.

    Madam Speaker, I wish a happy new year to all.

    The word “genocide” is not one to be used lightly. According to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

    It was with that definition in mind that this House, on February 22, 2021, recognized that genocide is indeed taking place, being carried out by the People's Republic of China against Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims.

    Since that motion passed in the House, the government has not addressed the concerns it raised. The UN human rights commissioner recently released a report again highlighting the atrocities being committed against Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims by the Chinese regime. If we do not act now, when will we?

    The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration unanimously passed a motion calling on the government to extend existing special immigration measures to Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims, allow Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in third countries who are at risk of being deported back to China to seek refuge in Canada, and waive the UNHCR determination for Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims. This motion is in the same spirit as that one.

    It is no surprise that the Chinese government, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, denies what is taking place. In doing this, it is following the pattern set by other autocratic regimes.

    The government of modern Russia continues to deny the death of millions of innocent Ukrainians in the Holodomor, even as once again it is assaulting the Ukrainian people. Like the Chinese, it denies the history. The world knows better.

    Germany at least has accepted that the Holocaust not only happened but is a national shame. The German people have worked hard to be able to say “never again”.

    Standing against genocide is very personal to many people, but there are times when we must do more than just take a stand. This motion is a call for action.

    Given the situation Uighurs face, this motion calls on the government to:

    This House has already stated that the crimes against the Uighur people are a genocide. The time has come to do more than just offer words of support, unless all we want is for the world to see how virtuous we are, how we are on the right side. We must do more, but what should that “more” look like?

    It seems simple to say that we must open our borders, that in a country with as much geography as Canada, 10,000 or more people are easily accommodated. Perhaps there are logistical questions in moving thousands of people from the other side of the world to Canada, but if there is a will, logistics can be overcome.

    However, we need to remember there is more to this equation than geography and seeing how many people can fit into a particular space. We are not talking about numbers here. We are talking about people, people who have been driven from their homes in fear of their lives and who have been persecuted in ways many of us cannot imagine.

    It is not that they want to leave China, but faced with a choice of life or death, they have chosen life. A new life in Canada can offer hope, hope for a new life in a peaceful land where they will not suffer for their ethnicity or their religion.

    I know, first-hand, that it is possible, for I have experienced Canada as a welcoming place, but should it be the first choice? Has anyone thought to ask those fleeing the genocide if coming to Canada is their first choice or their second or their third? Maybe starting fresh in Canada seems more appealing than life in refugee camps, but do they know the reality of what life looks like in Canada? I applaud the spirit of this motion, but I wonder if we have explored all options.

    Would these refugees be happier if a way could be found for them to be integrated into community life in the countries where they have taken refuge, rather than travelling across the world to a place with an unfamiliar language and culture? Could Canada help with that?

    The government is not very good at hands-on compassion. Ask any recently arrived immigrant. Many who come here find that Canada is not that promised land after all. The truth is that people fleeing conflict zones and attempted genocide need more than just a roof over their heads and a few language lessons. They need to know that they are safe and accepted, that there are people in this new land who are very happy to see them, who want to be their friends and who value them for who they are.

    Government programs, no matter how well-meaning, cannot replace the personal touch. Those fleeing genocide, and indeed all newcomers to Canada, need someone who can help with the basics. For some, that would be a family member who has come here before them, but for most of those fleeing conflict, such as the Uighurs, it would be a Canadian reaching out in friendship to a newcomer.

    That is what we did with the boat people coming from Vietnam in the early 1980s. That is what we have been doing with those refugees who came from Syria seven years ago, and those who continue to arrive on our shores today. We, here, can say, “Let us bring in these people who need our help”, but it is the Canadian people who will make these newcomers feel welcome.

    Conservatives believe that Canada's immigration system should uphold Canada's humanitarian tradition of providing safe haven for refugees. I think that may be something that all political parties can agree on.

    There may be some who are concerned about the reaction from the government of the People's Republic of China, which has been trying to have the countries where the Uighurs have taken refuge return the refugees, in violation of international law.

    I would not be surprised if the Chinese ambassador to Canada calls me to complain about the words I have chosen to use today. His government insists that there is no genocide and feels insulted when people talk about it. I would invite the ambassador to take a trip with me to the border areas of the neighbouring countries where the Uighurs have fled. I would invite him to talk with the refugees, to hear their stories, and then I would ask him again if there is no genocide.

    I doubt I will have that opportunity, but we in this House do have the opportunity to show our support for the Uighur people. I urge all hon. members to do so.

    Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Motion No. 62. Doing so is a big and serious responsibility. When I talk about important subjects like this one, I feel responsible for bringing people together.

    I want to take this opportunity to wish all of my colleagues in the House of Commons and the people of Berthier—Maskinongé a very happy new year. My wish for us here in Parliament is that we will be able to work together across party lines with no regard for the interests of individual political parties. I dream of a world where an election campaign lasts only for the time allotted for that campaign and then, afterward, people work together for the common good. That is what we should always be trying to do. That is what I always try to do. I may not always be perfect at it, but I am definitely trying. I urge everyone to do the same.

    I would like to remind the House that members of the Uighurs' rights movement are on Parliament Hill today, including Dolkun Isa, president of the World Uyghur Congress, Omer Kanat, chairman of the congress executive committee, Mehmet Tohti, executive director of the Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project, and many members of the Uighur diaspora in Quebec and Canada.

    I would like them to know that we truly respect them. We respect them and we are here to try to help them. I invite every member of Parliament here today to try to put themselves in their shoes for a moment. They are here in Canada’s Parliament, in a free world where people have the right to live according to their values and beliefs. They are thinking about their families and their nation, which do not have such opportunities.

    Let us truly think about it. Let us put ourselves in their place. Let us imagine that our brother, uncle, grandfather, daughter, wife are left all alone while we are forced to go to a re-education and training centre, which is actually a concentration camp. These are serious issues.

    We do not say this lightly. We have evidence. We have heard testimony, horror stories. Earlier, my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert eloquently shared the testimony of people who visited their family and cut their trip short to avoid hurting the people they love.

    I find it difficult to imagine how a member of the House of Commons could sleep peacefully after voting against a motion like this one. That is how I feel.

    Clearly, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion. The Bloc Québécois rejects any partisanship and wishes to protect the oppressed. Of course, we cannot do it all. My Conservative colleague raised a good question earlier, wondering whether these people really want to come to Canada. Of course not.

    Anyone proud of their country would want to stay there and take part in its collective social, economic and cultural development, helping it thrive on the world stage. They would want to promote their nation throughout the world so that all could benefit from their values, progress and achievements in their own quest for improvement. Everyone wants that.

    However, this is a situation where people fled to avoid being imprisoned. They fled to avoid torture. They fled to save their wives from rape. They fled to save their daughters from forced sterilization.

    Let us think about it for a minute. These women are being forcefully sterilized. It is all well and good to say that China is an important economic partner, but at some point we have to take a stand. We need to do more than take a stand: we need to do what we can. I think that welcoming people who are facing these risks into Canada is the least we can do. Let us do it and not be afraid to do it with our head held high.

    I hope that all the members in the House, including the cabinet, will support this motion. In 2022, we adopted a motion to recognize the genocide of the Uighur people and the members of the cabinet abstained. That sends a very sad message.

    We need to get as close as possible to a unanimous vote in the House. I would ask members of the government to have the courage to recognize and assert that there is a genocide in progress and to commit to welcoming these people into Canada and doing what it takes to help the Uighur nation.

    There are formalities in the motion. It mentions taking in 10,000 people. Of course, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour. In any case, the Bloc Québécois usually votes “yes”. However, we might have been able to do more. Why not take in 15,000 people?

    The motion mentions 120 days to implement the plan. The hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, who is a member of the government, sponsored the motion. I congratulate him for it and give him a tip of my hat. As a member of the government, he is aware that the government moves slowly and that it set a 120-day time frame. The NDP has just proposed an amendment to change the time frame to 100 days, and this makes us very happy. However, we might have done better there as well.

    We are faced with a world power that is extending its tentacles on all sides thanks to its economy, which is based on miserable working conditions. Let us bear that in mind. I would also like us to take a moment to think about what we have here and everything we have consumed in our lifetime that was made in China.

    With this motion and the committee's work, we have learned that factories in the region where the Uighur people live run on forced labour. This is either slavery pure and simple, or horrific exploitation at starvation wages and in appalling conditions.

     Let us be vigilant when we order things. I would very much like us to focus on the supply chains in these sectors. We have a duty to not encourage these systems.

    China also has the nerve to set up police stations abroad, including three in Canada. It is setting up police stations in Canada to harass, threaten and intimidate Chinese nationals who are allegedly dissidents, whether or not they are Uighurs.

    China is also threatening neighbouring countries. I am thinking about countries such as Mongolia. The geopolitical situation in Mongolia is not simple with Russia on one side and China on the other side. It is a landlocked country. It is easy to put pressure on a country like that.

    We must stand proud, straight and strong and say no. In fact, why have these police stations not been shut down? Let us shut them down as soon as possible. I am asking everyone to adopt this motion.

    The hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard has a five-minute right of reply.

    Madam Speaker, I thank everyone who spoke to this motion.

    It is a beautiful thing to hear voices united together, echoing as one, for this particular motion, a motion to help our human family and address a pressing issue. Whether one views it as genocide or grave and serious crimes against humanity, it is an issue that must be addressed with clarity.

    This motion will be looked at not only by Canadians, but also by the international community. It is critical that we are clear on this issue and show leadership. I hope and expect each and every member of this chamber, regardless of position or party, will vote for this motion.

    Why do I say that? We need to lead. Canada is a middle power. We have the ability to concretely move the needle on things in this world. I ask those who are making a decision right now on how to vote to take a deep and hard look at the information they have access to. Some have information that is only public and others have information that is confidential and classified. I ask individuals who are reflecting on this decision right now to take a look at that information to see what is actually happening.

    We know that at least one million Uighurs and other Turkic minorities are in concentration camps and have been forced into labour. Their identities are being erased and they are being forced to become people they are not. This is abhorrent.

    We have seen this happen in history to different people. We have seen communities wiped off the face of the earth, and the Uighur people are suffering that today. The one million of them who have been forced into concentration camps and forced to produce products that we unwittingly wear and consume are not only forced to work, but are also separated from their children. Hundreds of thousands of children are being made wards of the state permanently. They do not return home during the summer and remain permanent wards of the state.

    Women are being forcibly sterilized with IUDs that are so horrible and terrible that when physicians remove them, the whole womb has to be removed. The IUDs are so crude that they are fused to the womb, meaning these women can no longer have children. As a result, eminent jurists have said that, legally, the issue of sterilization and what is happening to the Uighur people meet the level of genocide.

    However, let us not debate too much on terms. Let us recognize that there is a minimal floor. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, recently came out with a report stating that what is happening likely amounts to crimes against humanity. Once that level is engaged, there is a responsibility for states to protect. That includes Canada.

    Former prime minister Brian Mulroney took leadership on the issue of apartheid and Canada went down in the history books. We speak about that moment in time as leadership. Today, we need leadership on this issue. That is why I implore each and every member of the House, regardless of position, to make their intent clear and vote for this motion when it comes up. Canadians and the international community will be watching. We need to take leadership.

    The question is on the amendment.

    If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried, carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

    The hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.

    Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

    Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 1, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

    The Chair wishes to inform the House of an administrative error that occurred with regard to Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

     Members may recall that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage made a series of amendments to the bill, which were presented to the House in the committee's fourth report on December 9, 2022. The committee also ordered that the bill, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

    The House concurred in the bill, as amended, at report stage on December 13, 2022, and adopted the bill at third reading the following day.

    Following passage at third reading, as per the usual practice, House officials prepared a parchment version of the bill, which was transmitted to the Senate. Due to an administrative error in the committee's report, which was also reflected in the version of the bill that was reprinted for the use of the House at report stage, the report and the bill both included a subamendment, adding a new clause 27(1.1) to the bill, which had been negatived by the committee and should not have appeared in the bill.

    Given the tight timelines between the presentation of the report and consideration of the bill at third reading, the error went unnoticed before the bill was passed. Nonetheless, the decision taken by the committee was clear, as recorded in the minutes of the meeting. The Chair has no reason to believe that members were misinformed when they adopted the bill.

    This error was nothing more than administrative in nature. The proceedings which took place in this House and the decisions made by the House with respect to Bill C‑18 remain entirely valid. The records of the House relating to this bill are complete and accurate. However, the documents relating to Bill C‑18 that were sent to the Senate included an error and were not an accurate reflection of the House's intentions.

    Similar situations have been addressed by my predecessors, such as in a ruling on April 12, 2017, found at page 10486 of Debates. Guided by this precedent and others, similar steps have been taken to address the current case.

    Once the error was detected, House officials immediately communicated with their counterparts in the Senate to inform them of the situation. The Chair then instructed House officials to take all the necessary steps to correct the error in both the committee's report and the bill itself, and to ensure that the other place has a corrected copy of Bill C-18. A revised version of the bill will be transmitted to the Senate as per the usual administrative process.

    Furthermore, the Chair has asked that a rectified “as passed by the House of Commons” version of the bill be printed and that the fourth report of the committee be corrected accordingly.

    In light of this situation, the Senate will be in a position to make its own determination as to how it will proceed with Bill C‑18.

    I thank all members for their attention.

    The hon. member for Calgary Shepard on a point of order.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Thank you for making that clarification on Bill C-18.

    There is a defect in the design of the House. While making your statement, there was much noise outside, quite disrespectfully, when you were trying to inform us of the corrections that are being made to this bill.

     I have raised this multiple times, but since this is the first day of the return of our session, I wonder if you, Mr. Speaker, would be able to ensure that, in the future, people who are walking in the courtyard around this chamber would reduce the amount of noise they are making. I am sure that when the minister rises to make her inaugural speech on the bill she will be moving she would like silence in the chamber, and I would like it as well.

    There is too much noise in this chamber that is interfering with the work of members on the floor of this House.

    I want to thank the hon. member for his interjection. I will be honest, while I was reading I heard the noise as well, and I was thinking, “What the heck is going on here?” It is a problem with the design. Aesthetically, it is a beautiful place, but when it was put together they did not count on the people.

    What I did notice is that it lasted for a short time and then somebody hushed them. I know we have signs out there. However, I will talk with the Sergeant-at-Arms, and we will see about getting that noise reduced to the best of our abilities. I do not want to make any promises I cannot keep. I thank the hon. member for bringing that up.

     moved that Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

    She said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me tremendous pleasure, and it is an honour to rise in the House today to kick off the debate on Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

    I want to start with a few thanks. I first of all want to thank the thousands of advocates across this country who have been waiting and fighting for this day for just over 52 years. It was 52 years ago in December that the Royal Commission on the Status of Women came out with its landmark report that asked the Government of Canada and suggested that it put in place an affordable, high-quality, inclusive and accessible child care system across this country.

    Fifty-two years is a long time to wait, and there are lots of families who went through child care during that period of time. However, what I have heard from stakeholders and advocates across this country is that now is a good time to start. It is never too late to do the right thing, and here we are.

    Today, we have agreements signed with 13 provinces and territories. As of December, almost all of them have reduced fees by 50%, and we have one more that is going to be making a good announcement very soon. More of those fee reductions are on their way.

    What excites me about this system and about this bill is the impact it is having on families. I have had occasion to travel to almost every province and territory across the country over the past year, to engage with families and to hear from them the stories about how this system is making a difference in their lives. I have yet to speak to a child care centre representative or a family who has not talked about the very real and tangible impact that this reduction in fees is having on their families' bottom line.

    I will start by talking about one of the things that we have been doing as a federal government for a while, and that is the RESP, the registered education savings plan. For decades, we have been encouraging families to save for post-secondary education. We understand that this is a huge expense, but that it is important for all of our children across this country, for the future of our country, to make sure that they have the opportunity to attend post-secondary education.

    Child care fees can range between $12,000 and $24,000 or even more per year. Multiply that by three or four or five, depending on the province they are in, and it could be two or three times the cost that the average student would spend on post-secondary education, yet we did not have any mechanism, until recently, to support families for this major expense.

    It is an expense that starts right at the beginning of their family's journey, often when they have recently purchased a home or when they are just getting started in their careers. We are talking about tens of thousands of dollars. That is a huge impact and, not always but often, it results in the lower-income parent deciding to take a step outside of the workforce, because it just does not make financial sense for them to carry on.

    The stories I have heard over the past year are changing that. I have been to every province and almost every territory. I meet parents. It is often a mom, I have not heard from a dad yet, but I am looking forward to that as well. However, I hear from so many moms who talk about the fact that it is because of these lower child care fees that they are returning to work.

    There was the mom in Ottawa a couple of months ago who said that because of the 50% fee reduction she enrolled her daughter in day care, and she is returning to work full time as a real estate agent. She spoke of the impact that it had not only for her family's finances but also for her career development.

    In Richmond, B.C. in December, in talking to a mom of three, she said that it is because of these reductions that she is able to go from part-time to full-time work, because she can now afford to have two of her children in full-time day care, with one of her children in school.

    In Nova Scotia, a mom whom I was talking to said that because of these fee reductions, she is not only returning to full-time work, but she breathes a sigh of relief when she goes to the grocery store. She is not as worried about making sure that she can afford to buy healthy, nutritious food for her family because of the significant fee reductions.

    Most recently I was talking to a mom in my community of Burlington, Ontario. She explained that when she and her husband saw the 50% reduction in child care fees, they decided they would not have to give up their house. Financially it made sense to keep her child enrolled in day care. They would be able to afford their mortgage and both of them could keep working.

     This initiative is having a real tangible impact on families across the country, and I could not be prouder to be part of a government that is delivering this important policy.

    That brings me to today and the introduction of this legislation at second reading. I hope all members in the House are going to support it and get it through committee quickly, so we can cement this important legacy for Canadian families, children and women right across the country.

    Let me talk a bit about what Bill C-35 would accomplish. It would provide support for the continued implementation of an affordable Canada-wide system by enshrining the vision, guiding principles and a commitment to long-term funding. It would enhance transparency and accountability by requiring the minister responsible to report annually to the public on progress being made on the system. It would establish in law the national advisory council, which, by the way, is having its first official meeting today in Ottawa. This legislation would also build on the early successes of the Canada-wide agreements.

    We are enshrining into law the federal government's commitment to strengthening and protecting this Canada-wide system.

     We are enshrining into law the federal government's commitment to strengthening and protecting these Canada-wide systems while respecting provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

    Bill C-35 would build on the collaborative work we have undertaken with PTs and with indigenous peoples from coast to coast to coast, and it is driven by a shared interest, and close partnerships and collaboration. It respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction and the co-developed indigenous early learning and child care framework that was jointly released and endorsed in 2018 with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council.

    By enshrining these principles and vision into federal law, we are building stability into the child care system, and not just stability but also predictability and commitment.

    We want provinces, territories and indigenous peoples to know that the federal government is in there for the long term. Importantly, we want parents, families, child care providers and early childhood educators to know that the federal government is also there for the long term. That is so important with Bill C-35, because we have seen in the past, unfortunately, when in 2006 then-prime minister Stephen Harper ripped up the child care agreements with the provinces and territories. It was one of the first acts the Conservatives did when they came into government. We need to ensure we are doing everything we can to make it harder for any future government, like a future Conservative government, to take that away from families, to take that away from our children and to take that away from the Canadian economy.

    Let me talk a bit about the Canadian economy, because child care is one of those amazing policies that is not just good, smart, feminist, social policy, but it is good, smart, feminist economic policy. For every one dollar invested in child care, the economy sees a broader return of $1.50 to $1.80.

    It is estimated that the Canada-wide system could raise real GDP in our country by as much as 1.2% over the next two decades. An OECD report shows that improvement in gender equality and family friendly policies has boosted growth in per-capita GDP by between 10% and 20%.

     In Sweden, for example, when it brought in universal affordable child care, female employment rates increased by almost 30%. The IMF estimated that closing the participation gap between Canadian men and women in the workforce could raise Canada's GDP levels by 4% in the medium term. That is $92 billion.

    Gender equality, ensuring women have access to economic opportunities, ensuring our children get the best possible start in life, is not just good for us as a society; that is excellent for our economy.

    Let us talk a bit about what that means in real terms. We talk about the macro picture, but when we look at what that means, we have an example in Canada.

    Quebec is celebrating 25 years of universal day care. Quebec went from having the lowest female workforce participation in the country in 1998 to now having the highest. In fact, some of the highest rates of women with children under the age of four are working in the entire OECD. If Canadian women join the workforce at the same rates that Quebec women have over the last 25 years, that is an additional 240,000 workers entering our workforce today. That is an impressive number. Those are workers in Canada, people who want to be part of the workforce, but for economic reasons have not been able to justify it or make it work.

    As I said, I have talked to moms all across the country for whom this is making the difference. This is really exciting. As to where this is going to set us up as Canada in our future, for our economy and, most important, for Canadians, the potential is unmatched.

    I want to spend a bit of time talking about the workforce. We know there is no child care system in Canada without the talented, qualified, well-trained, caring early learning and child care workforce. I want to give a big thanks to each and every one of them. During the pandemic, they went to work so that Canada could keep working. We saw what happened when child care centres were closed. It meant parents were staying home with their children.

    It is pretty hard. I do not know about other members, but I was home during the pandemic for the first six months and my two and a half year old was home with me. It is pretty tricky to get work done when parents have a two year old or a two and a half year old with them. Anyone who is a parent or has been a parent of a young child can attest to that.

    Those child care workers went to work during the pandemic. They went when we needed them most. We need to recognize that, we need to say thanks and we need to ensure that we have the system in place to support them with good wages and that they have an environment in which they can thrive, grow and develop their careers as well.

    When we talk about child care, we talk about the economic impact and the social impact, but we also need to talk about the impact that it has on our children. Being in a safe, secure place is important, one where they feel loved, where they feel cared for, where they are well taken care of, but also where learning is part and parcel of the framework.

    The Minister of Finance likes to talk about setting up a generation of super kids in the country, and I could not agree with her more. As a mom who is so grateful to the child care workers who made it possible for me to do my job while my son was little, the absolute illumination that he had when he went to day care and the explosion in learning that I saw from him is one of those things for which I will be eternally grateful.

    When we talk about child care, there are so many spinoffs that are important for our society and our economy. I like to describe it as a home run, because it is good for our children, it is good for our families and it is good for the economy.

     Bill C-35 is going to help us cement the role of the federal government. It is going to ensure that we are there in the long run for Canadian women, families, children and Canadians in general. It is going to ensure we are setting the country up for the 21st century to take hold of those opportunities and ensure that every child in our country has the best possible start in life.

    I hope that my colleagues from all parties in this place will support Bill C-35 and move it forward so we can provide that commitment and assurance to Canadians and their families that the federal government is there in the long term, that we support our children and women, that we are setting Canada up for success.

    Madam Speaker, I wish everyone a happy new year. It is nice to be back.

    It was wonderful to hear so many positive stories, and that is great, but it is not the reality of all the other parents who cannot access child care. How many of those families has the minister spoken to? What are the answers she is giving those families that have been on wait-lists for years, those who cannot go back to work because they cannot access affordable, quality child care?

    Madam Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague will be supporting this bill on the advancement of child care in Canada. It is an extremely important question and it forms part and parcel of the agreements that we signed with provinces and territories across the country.

     I was one of those parents who was on a wait list and was nervous about whether I would get a space for my son, so I understand what that is like. It is why we have committed, with our provincial and territorial counterparts, to increase the number of child care spaces by 250,000 over the course of these first five-year agreements that we have signed. In fact, I have been in many provinces and territories over the past year announcing thousands of new additional spaces that have been created, thanks to the $30 billion of federal investments that we have put in place. Access to these spaces is a key pillar and it forms part of our initiative.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister for her advocacy on behalf of families and child care services.

    I believe it is important to support them. We are pleased to see that the government is of the same mind and has the will to take action. However, I will nonetheless point out that, in theory, social matters such as the management of day care is a provincial and not a federal jurisdiction. That is very clear.

    Quebec already has a day care system and we are happy to have it. We are pleased that the government has decided to exempt Quebec from the federal government's centralizing policy on day care. I also want to point out that the government's approach is patterned after the Quebec model. That is an acknowledgment of the work Quebec has done and how advanced we are compared to the rest of Canada.

    More specifically, I would like to know why, in her bill, the minister has exempted Quebec for only five years. In five years' time, Quebec's day care program will still be in place. It is already in place. This is a provincial matter, and I assume that she would like her bill to be in effect for more than five years.

    Why is there only a five-year exemption for Quebec?

    Madam Speaker, we have an excellent relationship with Quebec when it comes to early childhood education and child care. I have worked extensively with my Quebec counterparts on this issue.

    As my colleague mentioned, Quebec's child care system has been a source of inspiration for us. We want the rest of Canada to catch up with Quebec and its system. We negotiated an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec for exactly that reason.

    Bill C-35 fully respects provincial and territorial jurisdictions. It is based on the principles and objectives we have set out in the agreements with the provinces and territories.

    What I understand from the Government of Quebec is that they are happy with this bill precisely because it respects provincial and territorial jurisdictions. It also demonstrates that the Government of Canada will be there for the long term and will ensure that it is not just five years' worth of payments—

    I must leave time for other questions.

    The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

    Madam Speaker, I will start by saying how nice it was working alongside the minister in the drafting of this legislation.

     This is good legislation, but not perfect. One concern I have brought up many times in the House is how early childhood educators historically, and I would say even now, have been underpaid and undervalued. Noting that this is critical work, noting that this is work that is vital for women across the country, does the member support adding in Bill C-35 an explicit commitment to fair wages and working conditions for staff in this sector?

    Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure working with my hon. colleague. I would note that she started her career as an early childhood educator, so her input has been invaluable in this regard.

    It is important to reiterate that the legislation is complementary to the agreements we have signed with provinces and territories. Each one of those agreements does have a commitment to a wage grid, to benefits, to ensuring we are supporting the early childhood workforce. Of course, that is very much within the provincial and territorial jurisdictions, and provinces and territories decide what those wages are.

     However, we are in constant dialogue with them and based on the last FPT meeting we had, there is a concerted interest from all my counterparts at the provincial and territorial level to ensure there are fair wages, that the workforce is included and supported, because they all understand that will be key to having a successful child care system.

    Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying I agree with and appreciate the minister for bringing forward this legislation so early in this session, as well as how important this legislation is. I also appreciate her comments about the importance of investing in the workforce. As we have heard from our colleague from Winnipeg Centre, this is an ongoing concern.

    I will speak to the specifics in Ontario. The estimates are that we will need an additional 14,700 early childhood educators in Ontario by 2025-26. In the current agreement that the federal government signed with the Province of Ontario, the wage floor is $18 an hour, rising by one dollar per year until 2025.

    Recognizing the talented folks in this workforce and the need to not only retain but also to recruit at these numbers, and since it is not just the Province of Ontario but also the federal government that has a responsibility, can the minister comment on what more needs to be done to ensure we are investing in the workforce and getting wages lifted higher?

    Madam Speaker, I could not agree with my hon. colleague more. We need to make sure we have a well-compensated and well-trained workforce.

    In the $30 billion the federal government is transferring to provinces, territories and indigenous organizations, there is room for provinces and territories to ensure wages are keeping up and in some cases exceeding what expectations are to maintain that workforce. I will give you a couple of examples. Yukon has set a minimum wage for ECEs at $30 an hour. In New Brunswick it has been set at $23.40. B.C. has given a four-dollar-an-hour top-up to ECEs. Alberta has done two dollars an hour. Manitoba has come up with a provincial benefit plan.

    There are many examples around the country of provinces and territories not only working with federal funds but also adding their own dollars to make sure that—

    I am going to allow for one more question.

    I want to remind the hon. minister that she is to address questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the members.

    The hon. member for Fredericton has the floor. We have time for a brief question.

    Madam Speaker, the legislation sets out a vision for a Canada-wide system in which all families have access to high quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care, or ELCC, no matter where they live in Canada. Are there are any challenges to meeting this goal, and if so, how is our government meeting that challenge?

    Madam Speaker, yes, of course there are challenges to meeting this goal, but we have made sure within the pillar on inclusivity that we are working with provinces and territories to reach those places where child care is harder to access, whether that is in rural communities, remote communities or even in urban centres where there are child care deserts.

    There are some really terrific examples, like in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where they are doing really innovative things in rural and remote areas. I was just in Nunavut, which is doing really interesting things to make sure there are enough child care spaces in all 25 of its communities. This is an important pillar to make sure we are reaching all Canadian families where they are, with affordable, high-quality and accessible child care.

    Madam Speaker, as always, it is in an honour and privilege to speak on behalf of Canadians and the people of my community, Peterborough—Kawartha.

    Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to recognize the life and service of Hazel “Hurricane” McCallion. She was what all of us inside of the House should aspire to be, which is fierce, fair and for the people.

    “Rest in peace, Ms. McCallion. You made Canada better.”

    Today, we are debating Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. As a mom and as the shadow minister for families, children and social development, I cannot understate the importance and value of affordable, quality child care. However, affordable, quality child care does not exist if one cannot access it.

    As a shadow minister and critic, it is my job to speak up for all Canadians and point out what is wrong with the bill. It is my job to listen to the frontline staff and parents who are directly impacted by the bill and speak on their behalf.

    I do not think we will find a Canadian who does not want what is best for their children. However, we must acknowledge that it is not the government’s job to decide what is best for one's child. Rather, it is the parent, the caregiver.

    Every Canadian deserves to choose what works best for their family when it comes to child care. Every family dynamic is different, and our diversity and our culture are what make Canada Canada. What works for one family may not work for another. We all have different situations, circumstances and needs.

    Bill C-35 would not offer choice for families. In fact, it would exclude many Canadians from accessing quality, affordable child care. This bill speaks exclusively to those who already have a child care space with a public or not-for-profit child care operator. It does not offer anything to families who have been on wait-lists for years. It does not offer anything for families who choose to raise their children at home, use a grandparent or access a private or home-run day care.

    There is no freedom to choose in this bill, and there is absolutely no mention of how to manage the frontline burnout and labour shortage of child care providers.

    Bill C-35 would not solve the problem of the staff shortages and the out-of-control wait-lists to access child care across this country. In fact, the bill would do exactly the opposite. It would increase the demand for affordable child care and leave parents with no access. This bill would subsidize the wealthy instead of prioritizing our most vulnerable families who need child care.

    The bill specifically says, “enable families of varying incomes to benefit from affordable early learning and child care programs and services”. In a cost-of-living crisis, why is the Liberal government subsidizing the most wealthy?

    This message is from Morgan, who sent it to me. She says, “I think my story is pretty common among new parents right now. I have three children, one in school and I have to go back to work in February from my latest maternity leave. I’ve been on the waitlist since I was 8 weeks pregnant and still won’t have any care for at least another year likely.” She asks whether she is just supposed to give up her career, her income, her pension and her benefits. She continues, saying, “I’m not sure how I am supposed to provide for my family with no income. Many daycares I have reached out to say they have had to shut down some of their rooms, meaning even less child care spots.”

    Here is another story from an operator in Peterborough, Ontario. She says that they have a child in their preschool program who is eligible for the Canada-wide early learning and child care program, or, as many call it, the CWELCC, and who has a sibling in the senior before and after school program who is not eligible for CWELCC because of their age. Program eligibility, for those who do not know, is only for children under six.

    The day care operator says that the parent fee for the preschool child is $19.85 a day, for up to 10 hours of care. The day care is open 7:30 to 5:30. This fee includes a hot lunch prepared by their cook, as well as two snacks each day, also prepared by the cook. For the senior before and after school child, the fee is $24 a day for a maximum of three hours and 45 minutes. This includes one snack per day.

    She asks where the equity is in this. Families who have children over six are not entitled to CWELCC program fee reductions and therefore are paying more for under four hours of care than families who are entitled to a full day of care with a hot lunch and two snacks.

    This example points out many of the flaws in the bill. What about parents who work shift work, are entrepreneurs or who work weekends? Where can they take their kids for child care?

     Second, how would the bill create more spaces when the child care operator who has written this letter is located in a school, and there are physically no more spaces to put in the school?

    Furthermore, how would this bill help with the labour shortage? There is no labour strategy in this bill.

     Matthew Lau’s synopsis of this bill and the Liberals' failed attempt at child care is spot-on. He writes that the challenges are the same across the board and there are not enough qualified staff to keep all existing child care centres running at full capacity, let alone staff new spaces.

     Bill C-35 has nothing in it to fix these problems.

     Andrea Hannen, the Executive Director of the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario, or ADCO, gives many examples of what we can expect with this Liberal flawed bill. She says, for example, that taxpayers and the families who use the program will wind up paying more and more for it, while all children will wind up getting less and less.

    This bill, like most Liberal policy, says a lot of really nice things but gives zero details on how any of these nice things will be delivered or how they will be achieved. The Liberals love to promise unrealistic expectations, and then act shocked when they cannot achieve them. They also love to tell taxpayers to just trust them.

     After eight years of this Prime Minister and seeing how badly Canadians are suffering, we do not trust them. The Financial Accountability Office of Ontario says there is a committed shortfall of $1.2 billion in 2026-27 based on the minimum federal and provincial commitment. We have barely started, and we can already see there is no sustainability plan here.

     Susan Cake, chair of Child Care Now Alberta, an advocacy organization, says that there has been a giant frustration in Alberta about the lack of communication, that everybody does not know what is going on, does not know where funding is coming from and does not know where they are going to get money.

    I want to take a minute right now. This is very important to listen to, because as members may have heard earlier, the minister talked about how this is such an advancement for feminism. This bill would do exactly the opposite.

    Feedback from the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs said that the majority of private child care in Alberta is operated by women, with a large number being immigrant women, and that the impact of this agreement and the intention of the federal government to prioritize the business model of child care rather than the affordability, accessibility or quality of care is having the opposite effect on women. It notes that we are seeing a women-led industry targeted and pushed out of business, and that women across our province are facing bankruptcy and losing their homes because they signed on to this agreement because they wanted and advocated for affordable child care.

    The association also notes the creation of a two-tiered child care system. For example, one of its directors has a centre in Grand Prairie. She had a wait-list of over 400 families, so she decided to expand even though she understood the new spaces would not have access to the affordability program. Now in her centre she has her original 120 spaces with families paying an average of $13 a day, and 86 new spaces with families paying an average of $65 a day for the same care in the same centre. This is an unintended consequence of this child care program.

    The written feedback also says that there are new centres sitting empty. They are fully operational and licensed, but because of their choice to be private operators, they cannot access subsidies for families. There are centres with wait-lists of 100 families but only four children attending, because the other families need the subsidy and cannot access it in that centre. These women who have invested their savings and taken the initiative to open centres and meet the needs of their communities are going bankrupt. They likely have signed 10- to 20-year leases with personal guarantees of their families' homes and assets, but the federal government is restricting them from having access to a fair market to operate their businesses. The message this sends is that the choice of these parents does not matter and that these women are collateral damage to meeting this Liberal campaign promise in an NDP coalition.

    As the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs has pointed out, we must have private child care along with public and not-for-profit centres to meet the demand and to offer the choice to fit what is best for families. However, the language and intention of this bill clearly leave private child care operators in the cold. The exact language from the bill reads that it is to “facilitate access to early learning and child care programs and services — in particular those that are provided by public and not for profit child care providers”.

     How can we expect to meet the demand without private operators? We cannot. We need them, yet this bill clearly leaves out any representation from private operators on the national council. What does that say? It says the same thing the Liberals always say, namely that they will decide what is best. They will decide how to spend our money. They will decide who the representatives are at the table. They do not believe in the fair market or having freedom of choice. It is not right. It is not good leadership, and it is not a good long-term strategy for our country.

    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 day care, but the province will only be able to accommodate 37,000 of them. That will leave 38% of children without access. Government estimates also suggest that by 2026, there could be a shortage of 8,500 early childhood workers.

     In British Columbia, 27% of child care centres turn away children because of a lack of staff. One director, who oversees 13 child care programs that comprise 350 spaces, said that in the past two years, they have had to close programs temporarily, whether by closing for a day or two or shortening hours for the week.

    In Peterborough, we have 4,200 licensed child care spaces in our city and county. There are 3,500 children on the wait-list. Frontline burnout is hurting our entire economy and contributing to our mental health crisis, as is not being able to access quality child care.

    When the minister says that more women will be able to go to work, she is misleading Canadians. One cannot go to work if one lacks access to child care. One cannot help address our labour shortage without available day care spots. They will say they are going to create more spaces but give zero details of a plan for achieving that.

    Bill C-35 does not solve these problems. It is not a child care strategy. It is a headline marketing plan.

    Women are rethinking having children because of the cost-of-living crisis and because there is just no access to child care. I know many women who put their name on a wait-list before they were pregnant; now they have toddlers but no indication if they will ever get a child care spot. Accessing quality child care is one of life’s greatest stressors. Any mom or parent watching this knows that leaving their child with somebody is the ultimate stressor in life. Parents need choice about who to leave their children with. It is an indescribable stress.

    Parents deserve access to quality child care; more importantly, our children deserve access to quality care. If we are not invested in our children's welfare, then what is our future? Children are our future. They are our most precious resource, and this bill does not put children first. It is a marketing plan.

     The following is Meredith's story:

     “I have been on a wait list for my 21 month old son since the day he was born, I have never come off of it nor have I received notice that I am coming to the top of any list, let alone some of the choices I feel would best suit our families needs. I’m now pregnant with my second and have already registered this baby on the list in hopes of having more success next time. I have spent countless hours on Facebook groups, asking friends, on paid service websites trying to find adequate care. It’s sad to me because I thought I would be choosing the center/provider that best suited our needs as a family, but it would appear that we are being forced to just accept whatever we get. I have also heard from friends who applied strictly for part time care who gave gotten calls from centres that only accept full time spots. This makes me question how many people are taking up spots on a list for full time when in reality they only require part time care? This seems like a simple issue to fix in the application process. In Facebook groups I see posts every single day of mothers and fathers desperately seeking care as their time on leave has run out and they still don’t have a reliable option. I consider myself lucky, I decided to leave my job after maternity leave and start my own business because I don’t feel I will ever be comfortable leaving my children wherever I get to the top of the list first. This has presented its own challenges as a full time parent & a full time entrepreneur, but at least I am not desperately seeking care left between feeding my family & staying home to care for my children”.

    She goes on to state, “This entire thing breaks my heart as I also think that while there are certainly many dads highly involved in the search for care, it ultimately seems to fall on women who are now being forced to leave their careers and remain home with their children despite wanting to return to the workplace”.

    It is really unfortunate that someone cannot be present with their children because they are so stressed out about whether they will be able to find child care and go back to work. They do not have a choice; they have to go back to work to pay for food because of inflation and the cost-of-living crisis.

    In terms of poor planning, alongside not providing clear communication or details on this ideologically driven bill, we have reports coming from child care centres explaining that parents are being charged an extra fee because, as everyone watching knows, the cost of food has skyrocketed after eight years under the current Prime Minister.

    As reported by The Globe and Mail, “Governments' daycare budgets didn't account for inflation, and it's affecting how kids are fed”.

     Ashley Collins is co-chief executive officer of Compass Early Learning and Care, which operates 40 child care programs across Canada. She estimates that Compass has had to increase its food budget by up to 10%. She said, “There's so many multifaceted things like we need to do from an operational level – make sure that food can continue, but also our staff, being able to make sure we're still putting money into increasing wages”.

     According to The Globe and Mail, “Compass programs will continue to look for sales on food and adjust menus accordingly rather than cut food offerings or add them as an extra fee”.

    “How unfortunate would it be that centres are feeling like they have to add that extra fee at a time when fees are supposed to be going down,” Ashley Collins said.

    There is so much wrong with this bill, and I cannot stress enough that Conservatives believe in freedom of choice for quality, affordable child care. Everybody wants that. However, this bill is flawed, and simply listening to parents, child care operators and frontline workers should have given the knowledge needed to fix it.

    We just need to listen to the people who are impacted by this to know what not to do. Clearly, the Liberals believe that Ottawa knows best. Conservatives know that Canadians know best, not Ottawa bureaucrats. We are elected to serve the people, and service means listening and doing something that is better, not worse.

    There are concrete policy decisions that can help families. Affordable and quality child care is critical, but if it cannot be accessed, it does not exist. It is great that we are having this conversation. It is great that we are recognizing how important affordable and quality child care is, but this bill falls very short on achieving results and details, as well as providing equal opportunities for families to access quality, affordable child care.

    It is because we have listened to parents, frontline staff and operators across this country that Conservatives believe we can fix this. We do not want to leave Canadians without hope. We know how important hope is. We can offer the freedom for families to choose what is best for them.

    The Conservatives will put forth strong amendments to address these glaring shortcomings in the legislation and ensure all Canadians can access affordable quality child care. Their children are important—

    I am sorry. The time is up.

    Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

    Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her speech because she has pointed out exactly why this bill is important. All of the issues she raised are issues that have arisen because we did not have national leadership on child care. There was no system before. The system that was there was a patchwork, and it did not provide for the needs of families across this country. Wait-lists existed before and exist today. That is why we are committed to creating 250,000 new spaces. There was no affordability. If the Conservatives truly care about these issues, this is an opportunity for them to join us in supporting this bill.

    Can we count on the hon. minister's support to improve this for families across Canada?

    Madam Speaker, I just got called an hon. minister, so I thank the minister for that.

    The reality is there is nothing in the bill that shows any solutions. Yes, we are addressing the problems; that is what my whole speech was dedicated to doing. However, how is the government going to create 250,000 spaces when many of these day care locations physically do not have the space? How is it going to increase the labour force? There is no national strategy in this bill. Why is private day care not represented? Why is there no private representation on the national council? Yes, affordable quality child care is critical, but if it cannot be accessed, it does not exist. This bill does not cover it.

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

    It is clear to me that western Canada's vision is not the same as Quebec's. The member talked about parents who have to make a decision. They still have to make decisions. Let us look at what Quebec does for child care. It is really quite extraordinary, and we have been doing it for years. The impact on child development is clear both in terms of sociology and education.

    You talked about private child care. How much do you think that will cost, and who in your region will have access?

    I would remind the hon. member that she must address the Chair, not speak to members directly.

    The hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha.

    Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to be able to examine Quebec. I think that is really beneficial for many of us.

    Sometimes we need to have really hard conversations. The reality is this. What we all want in utopia is lovely, but we have to figure out the cost analysis of everything. It must have a fair market value. Absolutely, publicly licensed child care would change the lives of some children, especially those who do not have an option for anything else or something at home. This is absolutely critical. However, the bill does not meet that demand; it would increase the demand for wait-lists, and it would not close the gap. Therefore, we need that private representation.

    Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to work with my colleague on the status of women committee. She spoke a lot about the need for for-profit care. That was a bit concerning for me because research has shown that for-profit care is not good for workers and is paid for on the backs of parents and families. I know that in Ontario, the PC government has quietly removed some of the profit caps, allowing for the expansion of for-profit care. We know this is problematic, and it is not supported by main national child care organizations, such as Child Care Now and the Childcare Resource and Research Unit, or unions, such as NUPGE, CUPE and Unifor. We see unions backing workers. The NDP has always been the party of workers, and unions are saying the workers need public, not-for-profit care.

    Does the member believe that federal funds should be used to expand, as she indicated clearly, for-profit care at the expense of public non-profit care, something that has been supported by unions and national child care organizations across the country?

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, and it is a pleasure to work with her on the status of women committee.

    We cannot meet the demand without both sectors, and every stakeholder will tell us that. We cannot access quality, affordable child care if it does not exist.

    What I would pull out of the member's comment, which is concerning, is that many of these private day cares are run by women. Some say that is hurting the workforce, but these women are trying to make a living and trying to provide for their family by offering day care. They are opening access to their communities.

    We need to come to the table and find a solution, because cutting them out is not fair; it is not equal access.

    Madam Speaker, the member really hit the nail on the head when she asked how we can create more spaces if we do not have the labour force to back that up. I hear that in rural Canada in my riding, where mothers and parents are waiting on lists for years to find child care. However, the bill does not address the shortage of child care in rural Canada.

    I wonder if my colleague could comment on what kind of strategy the Conservatives would have to help families that are in need of child care across this country, especially in the rural areas of Canada.

    Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. There is a wild promise of 250,000 child care spaces, but I have not heard one detail on how that is going to be achieved. It is certainly not in the bill. Let us sit down and listen, especially to these places that have no more space.

    What are we going to do? Well, the private sector is critical. We cannot meet the demand without both. We need equal access. We need fair access. Parents need to be able to choose, and then we need to figure out the labour strategy. There is no mention of a national labour strategy in the bill, and until that is addressed, this problem is not going to go away; it is going to get worse.

    Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in the Conservative Party. Here we have a very progressive policy for the children of our country and an opportunity for the Conservatives to reverse the position they took in the last election, when they said they would get rid of the child care program, a program that has been signed off on by provinces and territories. It is an opportunity for Canadians to have affordable child care.

    The legislation we are voting on today is not meant to provide the details the member is looking for. Look at the agreements. It is in the agreements. This is the framework.

    Why is the Conservative Party sticking to its election platform and throwing out a national child care program when, in fact, this is the type of program we should all be supporting? It is the only party in the chamber voting against this legislation.

    Madam Speaker, I think the member was listening to a different speech, because nowhere did we say that we were throwing it out and nowhere did we say that we were voting against it.

    Madam Speaker, as I listened to my Conservative colleague's remarks, I heard a lot of objections, a lot of—

    I do not think the hon. member will be able to hear the question if there are conversations going on with members of the government at the same time. I would ask the member to listen to the question so she will be able to answer it.

    The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé may ask a brief question.

    Madam Speaker, obviously I have gotten pretty good at speaking while other people are talking. This is the result of three years of training as a member of Parliament.

    I listened to my colleague's speech, which raised many doubts and questions. Has she seen the progress made in Quebec since our child care programs were implemented? This goes for both private and public programs. Private day care facilities still exist in Quebec, and there are still tax credits, but in the early childhood education centres, there are also educational programs.

    I had the great privilege of contributing to the creation of the early childhood education network with my own children. I invite my colleague to consider that aspect. We must not throw the baby out with the bathwater, as they say. We must vote in favour of this bill and work to improve it.

    Madam Speaker, I guess I need to be clear. We would not be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but it is also really important to see the shortcomings that have happened in Quebec and how many people are still on a wait-list. How do we improve? How do we do better? That is what we need to focus on for solutions, because quality, affordable child care is critical for our country, and we need to recognize that we need solutions.

    Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

    The hon. member needs the unanimous consent of the House to share her time.

    Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to share her time?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be back here in the House. I would like to thank my team in Val‑d'Or, Lebel‑sur‑Quévillon and Chibougamau for the work they are doing for my constituents. I also want to say hello to the people of Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik—Eeyou.

    I rise today to speak to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, which was tabled by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development on December 8.

    If passed, Bill C‑35 will enshrine in law the Liberal government's commitment to maintaining long-term program funding for the provinces and indigenous peoples, as well as guiding principles for that federal funding. The bill contains no specific financial promises for the national program, but enshrining it in law could make it more difficult for a future government to dismantle.

    As we know, for many years now, many Canadian families have been envious of Quebec's child care system, because child care often eats up a large portion of their household income. These families have long dreamed of being able to benefit from the same service that families in Quebec have been receiving for decades. It is therefore high time that all Canadian families were able to access child care without breaking the bank.

    In 2022, Quebec celebrated the 25th anniversary of its family policy. On January 23, 1997, the Parti Québécois government's Minister of Education, Pauline Marois, unveiled the Quebec family policy, which was based on five main pillars: child care services and parental leave; the family allowance; the work premium; the solidarity tax credit; and the refundable tax credit for child care expenses.

    The family policy was developed as a result of changes in Quebec's population, including an increase in the number of single-parent and blended families, greater numbers of women in the workforce, and the troubling rise of precarious employment. This groundbreaking policy allowed Quebeckers to improve their work-life or school-life balance and benefit from more generous maternity and parental leave, and it extended family assistance programs to self-employed workers and workers with atypical work schedules. This model is a valuable program that the entire Quebec nation is proud of.

    Providing early childhood educational services was also a giant step forward for education in Quebec. These services increase students' chances of academic success and prevent them from dropping out, positively impact early childhood development, allow for the early detection of learning disabilities and adjustment difficulties, and ensure that all young Quebeckers start off on the same footing, regardless of their sex, ethnic origin or social class.

    Considering the popular support they enjoy, the new child care centres rank among one of the greatest successes of the new social economy, being democratically managed using an approach that involves both parents and educators.

    The mission of Quebec's early childhood education services is threefold: one, to ensure the well-being, health and safety of the children receiving care; two, to provide an environment that stimulates their development in every way, from birth to school age; and three, to prevent learning, behavioural and social integration problems from appearing later on. Child care services provide a conduit for instilling values, culture and language. This system helps children grow and develop more healthily from an early age. This is an important principle of childhood socialization and sharing.

    In my opinion, a real family policy like the one in Quebec, which includes components such as family leave, income support and an accessible child care network, must be integrated into a coherent whole in order to be effective, so it should be overseen by just one level of government.

    I myself took advantage of our child care services, and my children received an education that contributed to their success in life. It is truly a pleasure to bring a child to the centre in the morning, knowing that they are safe, that they will learn something and discover their creativity, and that they are picking up life skills by making friends they can play with.

    I have to say that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-35 in principle, but we think it is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, it does not comply with the distribution of powers set out in the Constitution, but on the other, it excludes Quebec from the federal family policy for the next five years.

    Let me explain. The Constitution clearly states that education and family policy are not under federal jurisdiction. Moreover, 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.

    On the other hand, the bill excludes Quebec from the federal family policy for the next five years. The Quebec government will receive $6 billion in compensation for opting out of the centralizing policy. This demonstrates respect for Quebec's aversion to federal meddling in its jurisdictions, especially since Quebec is not only a pioneer in child care services, but is hailed as a model for success.

    Nonetheless, unlike Bill C‑303, Bill C‑35's predecessor, there is no indication of any exemption for Quebec in the current wording of the bill. This is how clause 4 of Bill C‑303 was worded:

    

    The agreement signed with the Quebec government is valid for five years. However, giving Quebec the full right to opt out of this program would help avoid another dispute between Ottawa and Quebec City when the federal government inevitably interferes in Quebec's jurisdiction, as it is wont to do.

    During the joint announcement by the federal government and the Legault government, the Premier of Quebec indicated that the federal government would continue to help Quebec and that the agreement would respect Quebec's jurisdictions. The Premier of Quebec, Mr. Legault, said that after 2026, he will expect help from the federal government.

    The passage of Bill C‑35 would make it possible for Quebec to recover significant sums that it could use to complete its network and enhance working conditions for workers in the sector. By allowing Quebec to opt out and be fully compensated, Bill C‑35 takes into consideration these two opposing tendencies in federal-provincial relations, which is rare on the part of the federal government. Outside Quebec, Ottawa is seen as a force for social progress, which results in a strong tendency towards centralization. In Quebec, we reject this interference.

    However, as I just mentioned, unlike its predecessor, Bill C‑303, specifically clause 4, this bill does not provide for the right to unconditionally opt out. It is essential that this be included in order to reflect this opposing view of Canada, that is centralization outside Quebec and respect for jurisdictions within Quebec.

    Finally, it would be a good idea for Bill C‑35 to emulate its predecessor by recognizing the Quebec government's unique expertise on day care services in North America, as the international community did in 2003. In its study of day care in Canada, the OECD stated 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....none of [the Canadian provinces] showed the same clarity of vision as Quebec in addressing the needs of young children and families”.

    In closing, it is my hope that all Canadian families will one day be able to enjoy the same child care benefits as Quebec families. We know that, in addition to giving a financial boost to Canadian families, this would enable more mothers to enter the job market. It is an investment in a better future for our children, and our children are the future.

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

    Like her, I have been able to benefit from child care for my three boys. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the excellent educators at the Carrosse-Citrouille early childhood centre for taking such good care of my children.

    As my colleague pointed out, Quebec has had a universal low-fee child care program since 1997. Econometric studies have shown a positive correlation between this program and women's participation in the workforce.

    I would like to know whether my colleague agrees that this enables women to go back to work or to school. We need to invest in women. It can improve their financial situation and perhaps even get them out of an abusive environment.

    Madam Speaker, this will indeed help women return to the workforce, and it will help families support them. We know that child care is very expensive. This service will be a huge help to families, and it will also support early childhood education.

    Madam Speaker, one of the trends we are seeing, which has really been accelerated by the pandemic, is flexible work. People are working from home and looking to be able to combine family life with work in different ways. Therefore, they are still very much needing child care, but they are looking for more creative options, which may be in their neighbourhood, may be at odd hours and may reflect the particulars of their work situation.

     One of the concerns I have with the government's one-size-fits-all approach to child care is that it would fund a particular kind of child care model that is not consistent with the way many families live. As technology changes, the government's program is not keeping up with this evolution and how people are trying to combine work with family life. I wonder if the member could talk about whether she agrees that the government's approach is failing to be flexible to accommodate all families with the way the program is structured.

    Madam Speaker, all we have to do is look at child care in Quebec. That model gives women access to better benefits and enables them to stay home. That also means better outcomes for children, so I do not agree with my colleague's point of view. I actually agree with the government's point of view because it looked at how things are done in Quebec, which sets the bar.

    Uqaqtittiji, I hope the member joins me in congratulating all the athletes who are going to the Arctic Winter Games. I am sure she has constituents in her riding who are attending that great event as well.

    I have read the bill, and it is great to see there are specific provisions not only for indigenous peoples and indigenous governance but also for implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I know that the member has huge indigenous communities, including I believe nine Cree communities and 14 Inuit communities. I wonder what the member has heard from those constituents regarding this bill.

    Madam Speaker, I congratulate all the students heading off to the athletic event in western Canada.

    This bill will really help indigenous communities. We were waiting to see the document to make sure. I am sure it will help all communities in northern Quebec and in Abitibi—Baie‑James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

    The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert may ask a brief question.

    Madam Speaker, I do not know if I can be brief.

    My colleague did a great job explaining how progressive Quebec is. It is surprising and always a pleasure to see how the federal government can follow Quebec's example, instead of lecturing Quebec as it does most of the time. Every once in a while it looks at Quebec and decides to implement the Quebec model from coast to coast to coast.

    There are even more areas where it could follow Quebec's example but, unfortunately, does not. This bill respects provincial jurisdictions, which has never been the case with the health transfers we have been asking for for years.

    Does my colleague not think the federal government could use Bill C‑35 as an opportunity to really respond to the provinces' requests, specifically by putting more money into the system—

    I have already allowed more than enough time for a short question. I would ask for a short answer, please.

    Madam Speaker, yes, the government must provide the transfers that Quebec needs. This is very important. We must not forget this.

    Madam Speaker, my wish for my colleagues is that 2023 is a bit different than these past few years.

    A few minutes ago, I heard my colleague ask if we could encourage people to get into politics and set aside partisan rhetoric on the thousands of files before us.

    Today I have the great pleasure of speaking to Bill C‑35. I say bravo because we are entirely in favour in principle. I am very proud of that. I must also say that my colleague did a fine job explaining the ins and outs of everything that might be missing from this bill.

    I will talk more about the pride of Quebec for more than 25 years now. Having heard the speech by my Conservative colleague, I hope to give the others a bit more of an understanding of the purpose of this bill and the need to see it through.

    I want to look back because I want to talk about how proud I am. Just before being appointed, the first female premier of Quebec introduced a forward-thinking family policy that changed the lives of countless families and boosted the economy. It levelled the playing field for everyone and put children on the path to educational success, and I am very proud of that. What is more, the policy was implemented in a reasonable way that did not break parents' budgets. That is why, at the time, it was known as the groundbreaking $5 day care. Today, it does not even cost $9 a day. For us, it is still a good program with benefits that I will talk about in the next few minutes.

    As the minister said earlier, in 1997, this program made it possible for children from all walks of life and all social classes to attend day care and for all parents, both men and women, who had never even considered doing so, to go back to work and become independent, to prepare to take the path I talked about earlier.

    Madam Speaker, my colleagues are really bothering me. I thought we had set the stage for a minimum level of respect. They need to go talk somewhere else besides right in front of me because I am finding it difficult to keep speaking. I want to point that out.

    I would ask anyone who wants to have a conversation when someone is giving a speech in the House to do so in the lobby. All members should be shown that respect.

    The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

    Madam Speaker, in Quebec, we call them centres de la petite enfance, or CPEs.

    This has allowed parents, like me for that matter, to not have to make the agonizing choice of deciding which parent should stay home to educate and prepare children for school based on family income.

    Twenty-five years ago, many women often earned less than their spouses. The child care system has not only provided equal opportunity for children, but also equality and prosperity for women. If we look at the numbers, we can see there has been an increase in women in business and in the workforce. As we know, the numbers are incredible. A quarter of a century later, and the numbers do not lie. We cannot ignore them.

    Quebeckers are very proud of this model. Obviously, I am, too.

    Earlier, my colleague mentioned that Quebec has been cited as an example, particularly at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In 2003, it was noted that Quebec had implemented one of the most ambitious education and child care policies. It was very ambitious when you look at North America as a whole.

    Here is what I want to tell my Conservative colleagues. Studies have shown that every dollar invested in child care returns almost $2—$1.75, actually—in tax revenue. An extra dollar invested in health and early learning saves our health, social and judicial systems $9. As I said at the start, the child care system makes a huge contribution to economic development, equal opportunity and the prosperity of women who want to be in the workforce.

    We also have numbers that show lower drop-out rates, and I am very proud of that.

    We agree with the principle of the bill. Who would oppose giving our kids the best possible opportunity? If that is where we start from, I think we have a proposal that we can re-evaluate in five years. Quebec's child care model is not new; it has been around for over 25 years. We have numbers to prove all this. I think we might even see the Conservatives admit that helping the community as a whole has an enormous impact.

    As a brief aside, I can say that one plus one equals two. If we take the necessary steps to educate people in their workplace and improve their working conditions, we could see a significant reduction in the labour shortage that exists across Quebec and Canada. The labour shortage is therefore not a good argument.

    Since I have barely three minutes left, I would like to talk about what I experienced more than 15 years ago and why I am proud to have been so heavily involved. I was the president of La Fourmilière early child care centre. This was at a time when program coordinators had to be deployed to ensure that spaces were maximized and that the programs could be managed in both institutional and home-based settings. In fact, there are still home-based child care centres operating today.

    This is very important to me. I want to take 20 seconds to recognize a woman who dedicated her life to early childhood education. Thirty years ago, it was called kindergarten. Then there was a program called Passe-Partout. Today, it is called the CPE La Fourmilière.

    Her name is Suzie Leblanc. I offer my condolences to her family. Suzie passed away over the holidays. My sympathies go out to Véro and her entire family. This does have an impact. We cannot forget that.

    Obviously, jurisdictions need to be respected. We in the Bloc Québécois keep saying that. Who could be against that? Just five minutes ago, we heard a member mention that, for once, jurisdictions were respected when it comes to the right to full compensation. I look forward to getting this bill passed. I hope things will turn around. Maybe the same will happen with health transfers. That is my biggest wish for 2023.

    On behalf of our children, the next generation, the economy and women's empowerment in the workforce, I want to congratulate the minister for taking action and standing her ground. The Bloc will be there.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and all my Bloc Québécois colleagues for supporting this bill.

    Quebec is most definitely a leader in this area. We have learned so much from Quebec's experience over the past 25 years. I would also like to thank my colleague for speaking about her pride in Quebec's early childhood and day care centres.

    I would like to ask her the following question. Could she tell us a bit more about why a lack of access to child care is not a choice for women? Could she explain to the Conservatives what choice means?

    Madam Speaker, that is a good question. I thank the minister for asking it.

    Here is my answer. How do we judge whether parents, who are acting out of love for their children, have everything they need based on their situation?

    It seems to me that we should give everyone the opportunity to get an education in a safe setting in order to prepare children for the future. It is odd to be talking about this here, because education matters are usually discussed at the National Assembly. How can we say that the labour shortage and the lack of attention paid to the private sector mean that we are not going to go ahead and not even try it? The bill provides for a five-year timeline. Could we just try it, please?

    Madam Speaker, I am from Oshawa, and in Oshawa we do factory work. Conservatives believe in equal support and accessibility. I am wondering what my colleague's comments would be for people who are working shift work, whether that is overnight or in the afternoon, or people who are rural who would like to have equal access and support.

    It is very important for me. My wife has her ECE. It is very important for all Canadians, but on this idea of accessibility and equality, I was wondering if she maybe has some input and advice for the government.

    Madam Speaker, anything is possible after 25 years. As I said, I worked in the forestry industry for seven years. For 44 hours a week, there were three shifts, including a night shift, so day care centres that are open non-standard hours do exist.

    I would ask members not to get hung up on the wording, but instead to look at how we can seize this moment to create opportunities for those who work nights and weekends. Anything is possible. We are doing this out of love for our children and their future.

    Madam Speaker, in my riding we are really struggling to find health care providers. One of the things that we have heard loud and clear as the biggest challenge is child care, and a lot of people in the health care industry are women.

    I am wondering if the member could speak a little about the impact this could have on women to open doors for them to enter the workforce and the very clear example we have seen in Quebec.

    That is a very good question, Madam Speaker.

    Studies have indeed shown that, when education is at the heart of a community, then health care prevention is possible. When individuals are fortunate enough to be informed, to feel safe and to be educated, it has a direct impact on health care.

    As I said at the outset, for every dollar we invest in health and social services, we save nine dollars. Often, a government will invest all of its pennies in prevention, but then it still has to take a curative approach.

    This bill will have positive effects, but we will not see the results right away. We need to give the children time to reach age three, four or five and start school. I can guarantee that this will bring about change, and there are statistics to prove it. That is what I wish for all of Canada, because we Quebeckers are very proud of the family policy we have had for the past 25 years.

    Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today as the NDP's critic for children, families and social development to address this historic legislation, Bill C-35.

    Finally, after so many years of struggle, we have a national child care legislation that accompanies a system of national child care.

     Let me begin by acknowledging the people who made this system and the bill we are debating today possible. There are too many names to mention, but let me say this. Generations of feminists, trade unionists, child care workers and advocates made this victory possible. They never, ever gave up the fight. They did not give up after the 1970 Royal Commission on the Status of Women's recommendation for a national child care program was ignored by the government of the day. They did not give up after the 1993 Liberal red book promised national child care, only for that government to pursue deep cuts to social programs instead. They did not give up during the 10 years of a Harper government that viewed child care as a dirty word. It has been 30 years since the Liberals promised a national child care program and, as a result of their relentless advocacy, we finally find ourselves here today.

    I, a proud New Democrat, along with my colleagues, am proud to stand here today in support of Bill C-35 on behalf of our party, which has always prided itself on being a feminist movement and a vocal advocate for an affordable, accessible, universal child care program.

    Our party prides itself on standing alongside organizations, advocates and unions in their demonstration of courage and commitment even when the possibility of national child care seemed so unlikely. It is because of their tenacity and their refusal to quit even when the odds were against them that we are here today.

    I stand on their shoulders; we stand on their shoulders.

    I also want to acknowledge the role that our party and particularly women in the NDP have played in getting us to this point. Olivia Chow, the former MP for Trinity—Spadina is a child care champion. Her private member's bill, Bill C-373, laid out a foundation for an affordable, accessible and high-quality national child care system. More recently, my colleague, the member of Parliament for London—Fanshawe, built on these efforts with her Bill C-311.

    I am grateful to them both for their work in moving this issue forward and demonstrating what a positive role for the federal government in ensuring that families can have access to child care they need when they need it looks like.

    Finally, I wish to thank the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, the member of Parliament for Burlington, and her team for the collaborative approach they have taken with this legislation. The minister sought out our feedback and was receptive to many of our suggestions about what should be included in this legislation.

    Although there are still areas where the bill can and should be strengthened, I am delighted that several of our key recommendations did find their way into the current version of the bill. I will address some of these key recommendations in more detail later, but I wanted to take this opportunity to acknowledge how I appreciated, very much, the minister's openness to our feedback.

    By establishing a long-term commitment for federal funding to provinces and indigenous peoples and enshrining the principles of a national system of early learning and child care, Bill C-35 would help ensure that parents across Canada can access affordable, accessible and high-quality child care now and into the future.

    In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, where the price of almost everything has increased, child care is a rare exception. Parents in many cities across the country are seeing child care savings as significant as 50%, providing real relief to thousands of families. It is vital that the target of $10-a-day child care by 2026 is not only achieved, but sustained for the long term.

    I will note, however, that not all cities and provinces have met their fee reduction targets. One province in particular is Manitoba, which has conspicuously lagged behind. This is a topic I will return to later.

    Nevertheless, the child care agreements are delivering significant fee reductions for parents from coast to coast. It is important this continues indefinitely, not just for five years until the agreements need to be renewed. Much like our system of universal health care, child care must be a permanent feature of our social safety net.

    The commitment to long-term funding is also crucial for advancing gender equality in our country. Child care is a feminist issue. It gives working women the ability to choose when and how they wish to re-enter the workforce after having a child. The Quebec model of low-cost child care offers a powerful example of this. Indeed, Quebec's investment in a universal child care have resulted in women's participation in the workforce increasing by between 8% and 12%.

    Not only has this boosted Quebec's economy, it has improved the financial security of women. It means a greater portion of household income is now under the control of women, which gives them more security in the case of separation, including in cases where they need to leave an abusive relationship. This is what feminist public policy looks like.

     I often hear members of Parliament sharing stories about the struggling single parent mother trying to make ends meet. In fact, the member for Carleton, now the Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, often invokes the experiences of single moms in Parliament.

    I can be certain that he has never been a single mother. If he had been, maybe he would not be so quick to oppose a national health care program, which will help thousands of single moms and children across the country have a better life.

    I, in fact, was a single mom. I was very fortunate at the time to have stable employment teaching in post-secondary education. However, even on an academic salary, I often had difficulty making ends meet, paying up to $650 a month in child care expenses. This resulted in me having to take on more employment, which resulted in my having less time with my precious son. I have lasting mother's guilt about having to leave him so I could provide for him.

     I am lucky to have such a wonderful son, whom I adore. Looking back, maybe if there had been a national child care program at the time, our life might have looked much different. I was exhausted, and my son missed his mother.

    More affordable child care, let alone $10-a-day child care, would have changed my life and my son's life. Therefore, for any member of the House who uses the story of struggling single mothers for political gain without having been one themselves, they should vote in favour of the bill and support a system of national child care now.

    Returning to the bill, beyond the long-term funding commitment, Bill C-35 contains other important provisions we pushed for and managed to have incorporated into the bill.

     First is the inclusion of international human rights conventions and declarations that enshrine access to child care as a human right.

    Preambular paragraph 3 affirms a commitment to further realization of the right to child care as recognized in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is something for which child care advocates have long demanded and for which the NDP have fought. Preambular paragraph 3 also affirms the commitment to furthering the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and contains important references to other international conventions, including the UN Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities and the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.

    An other inclusion for which the NDP fought for was that rights-based language be included in the bill. I am pleased that this has been included.

    Second and highly significant is that Bill C-35 would explicit priority to child care programs and services offered by public and not-for-profit providers as one of the principles guiding federal funding. This is a provision fought for and won by the NDP. It is a win for parents because public and non-profit child care means affordable, quality and accessible day care for families that need it rather than day cares that make a profit off of the backs of parents.

    We also know that an emphasis on public and non-profit child care means better wages and working conditions for staff in the system. Study after study, union after union have heeded these calls for a public not-for-profit child care system.

    Those in the House who say they stand with workers then they need to stand with a public, non-profit child care system. Taking care of our kids should not be on the backs of parents. Kids are not a business. The focus should be on providing the best possible care at a price that parents can afford, not delivering a profit for shareholders.

    While all of what I describe represents an important step forward, as I mentioned previously, there are areas where this bill can and should be improved. One of the improvements required is adding an explicit commitment to decent work for child care staff.

     At this point, I will digress briefly to say that I was once, as many people know in the House, an early childhood educator. If someone had told me all those years ago that I would be in this place debating national child care legislation, I would not have believed that person.

    Workers are at the heart and soul of a national child care system. For far too long, child care workers have been grossly underpaid and undervalued in spite of the fact that they perform some of society's most critical work. That is why I left the profession even though I loved the kids who I was teaching everyday. I loved the work but I could not afford to continue in a profession that did not pay a living wage or provide good benefits.

    A national child care program will only be successful and sustainable if the workers who make it possible are treated with dignity and paid fairly for their labour. That is why I support the Canadian Labour Congress' call for the legislation to include a clear commitment to decent work for child care staff. All child care workers deserve to earn a living wage with benefits with which they can support their families.

    As an aside, it is also vital for the federal government to develop a workforce strategy to address staffing shortages in the sector. When we talk about creating new spaces, the building is not the most important element. It is having trained staff to look after the kids in these new child care spaces, a workforce strategy that can help ensure we are continuously expanding child care options where the demand is greatest.

    The bill can also be strengthened with respect to the accountability and transparency it provides. While the creation of a national advisory council is welcome in terms of the expert advice that it will provide, it does not have the enforcement power to ensure that the provisions set out in Bill C-35 are followed. It is important for the bill to include strong accountability mechanisms so that the commitments it contains are upheld.

    The reporting requirements on the progress being made in establishing national child care and federal investments in this sector lack detail, stating only that the minister is required to make an annual report. This is too vague and the bill should specify the specific metrics, including new spaces being built, new child care workers being hired and other quantitative details. It is vital that members of the public and Parliament have access to this crucial information.

    It should also establish conditions on federal child care funding, real accountability for when provinces fail to deliver on fee reductions or expanding public, not-for-profit care.

    I am deeply concerned that Manitoba is the only province where we have not seen an average reduction in fees. Instead, the government has made changes to who is eligible for the subsidy. This is unacceptable. Also concerning is the Ontario government's decision to remove profit caps, paving the way for an expansion of for-profit care.

    I know the government has said there are accountability mechanisms built into the bilateral agreements, but they are either inadequate, not being properly enforced, or both.

    I am also aware that Bill C-35 does not supersede the bilateral agreements, which are legally binding, so we cannot impose new terms on top of these existing agreements. However, I am hoping the bill could be amended to provide stronger conditions that would apply on an ongoing basis, or on a going forward basis, to future agreements after the current ones expire, five years from when they are concluded. Right now, the bill says nothing about how future agreements would be enforced to ensure accountability for the funding. This is a notable gap that we should address.

    While there are more opportunities to weigh in on the bill at committee and in the chamber, I want to conclude by again acknowledging the gravity of what we are discussing today. We have progressed from being a country where child care was seen as the sole responsibility of mothers, unpaid labour with which our society could not function, to a country where child care is not just an individual responsibility but a collective one. We have progressed to being a country where we will finally have national legislation underpinning a national system of child care in every province and territory.

    After years of false starts and broken promises, that is something we can all take pride in. To the women, the workers and the advocates who have helped make this dream a reality, I say their tenacious efforts have made our country fairer, more just and more inclusive.

    Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre for the really positive and constructive working relationship we have developed over the past year. I also want to thank her colleagues in the NDP for their support of this legislation. I have great confidence in what we are going to be able to achieve with this for Canadians right across the country.

    I also want to thank her for recognizing the advocates and those who have worked for generations to get us to where we are today. I am hoping she can take a couple of minutes to explain to our Conservative colleagues why a national child care initiative supports women and children, and why this is really important progressive feminist policy.

    Madam Speaker, certainly I am willing to work with any party in the House that is willing to advance the human rights of children and women. Human rights should never be made a partisan issue. This has certainly been recognized by child care advocates who support feminist policy in advancing the rights of women.

    One cannot support women without a robust public and not-for-profit child care system. This has been recognized by unions and lead child advocacy groups in the country, who know that for-profit care hurts families, is paid for on the backs of families and mothers, and is not to the benefit of workers. I look forward to advancing this bill, putting forward some amendments to make it stronger and supporting more feminist policy in Canada with a national child care program.

    Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, I really enjoy working with the member on FEWO.

    Does the member believe that, regardless of the model of operation, if a child care facility meets or exceeds the provincial, territorial and indigenous standards of quality of care, that it should have access to the national child care framework? If not, what data suggests otherwise?

    Madam Speaker, I do not think that public money should ever be used for profit. Public monies need to be used for not-for-profit, public child care spaces.

    We know the research shows that in early childhood education for-profit care often makes profit on the backs of children. We have certainly seen this in elder care, in private seniors' homes. We have also seen this in for-profit child care.

    We need a national child care strategy that supports the training of workers; supports without question a living wage of workers, with benefits; supports families; and expands our current system so we end up with a national child care system that has enough spaces to support the families needing it.

    Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent speech. For once, I am very pleased to be able to utterly and completely support a speech by one of my colleagues from the NDP.

    I would like to offer a solution to allow us to work together better in future.

    The bill before us includes an exemption for Quebec, which already has its own system. Over the past three years, there has been more than one occasion when I have shared essentially the same ideologies as my NDP colleagues, but ultimately had to vote the other way because there is always this centralizing tendency in national programs.

    I would like my colleague to respond sincerely, from the heart. Does she not believe that we have found a model that could be used more often? We could work like this more often to advance the causes of Quebec and Canada.

    Madam Speaker, the member has a good question. I want to reiterate that the federal government has made bilateral agreements with provinces.

     We are pushing for bilateral agreements with provinces that prioritize not-for-profit public spaces. This is something that Quebec is actually already doing. Quebec has been doing this for a million years. We know that it helps women. We know that it has improved the ability of women to participate in the workforce, should they choose. I think that is already in the bill. Again, there are areas where it could be improved.

    However, I think we are on the same page in saying to let us keep child care public so we can support accessible, affordable child care for all.

    Madam Speaker, we all know we are in a fight to save our health care system. Public health care, our single payer, universal health care, is at risk, and I think it is important that we revisit our history. I know this history first-hand, not from books, but because a dear friend of mine, the late Jim MacNeill, was part of the Saskatchewan CCF government that brought in our health care.

     We forget that the profiteering doctors of Saskatchewan went out on strike to block health care. We forget that foreign doctors came in so the people of Saskatchewan would have medical care, mostly doctors from the U.K. I do not know how many Canadians know this, but Jim told me that when the foreign doctors got to Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan doctors blocked their access to hospitals, and U.K. doctors were operating on kitchen tables.

     Members of the Saskatchewan cabinet had family members who needed medical care. They were up against it, and they were brave. They held the line. We owe it to them to do the same to protect our public health care system from profiteering privatization.

    Madam Speaker, this Christmas season, when families were preparing to gather, celebrate and catch up with loved ones, our community was shaken to its core upon learning of a devastating mass shooting. One gun led to the loss of six lives and carved an unforgettable scar in the city of Vaughan. Our community, known for its generosity and can-do spirit, was shaken by this horrific act of violence.

    Like all Vaughan residents, I have kept the victims, Rita Camilleri, Vittorio Panza, Russell Manock, Lorraine Manock and Naveed Dada, and survivor, Doreen Di Nino, as well as their families, in my thoughts since that dark December 18.

    We know there is no place for gun violence in Canada, not in Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Toronto, Quebec City or the city of Vaughan. Our country will never forget the innocent lives lost and the bright futures that have been taken way too soon.

    To our first responders, I thank them for their response, their professionalism and their commitment to keeping our communities safe and secure.

    Madam Speaker, one of my favourite local events was back this year for the first time since the pandemic. Joe Loewith and Sons dairy farm in Copetown held its annual open house on December 27, so people from the city could learn more about where their food comes from.

    Other Hamilton-area dairy producers pitched in to help with the crowd of nearly a thousand people. Robotic milking, feeding and calving were all on full display. What is more exciting is that they were already showcasing a bright new building just steps from the dairy barns. This summer, it will open as a thriving new farm-to-table business and the latest agri-tourism attraction. Not only will Summit Station Dairy and Creamery be a landmark that celebrates local heritage, it is entrepreneurialism at its best.

    I send my congratulations to Ben, Jennifer, Carl, David and the entire Loewith family for their contribution to the local economy and their generations of innovation in the dairy industry.

    Madam Speaker, two weeks ago, Gerard and Jenny Barron, neighbours and Halifax West residents, were the proudest parents in Montreal's Bell Centre. If members are asking why, it is because, for the first time ever, they got to watch their boys go head-to-head as the only siblings from Nova Scotia to ever play in the NHL. Morgan plays for the Winnipeg Jets, while Justin plays for the Montreal Canadiens.

     The story of their success is incredible. At 16, Morgan left home to play two seasons at St. Andrew's College, earning himself a scholarship to Cornell. He was later drafted by the New York Rangers and was later traded to Winnipeg. Justin spent his entire junior career with the Halifax Mooseheads. He was selected by the Colorado Avalanche in the first round of the 2020 NHL draft and was then traded to the Habs.

    Please join me in congratulating both Barrons on their tremendous success on the ice.

    Mr. Speaker, few performers have been able to embody a people quite the way Viola Léger did in the role of La Sagouine.

    Viola Léger was La Sagouine, and, for many of us, La Sagouine was Acadia.

    Thousands of times over more than 50 years, Ms. Léger transformed into this wise and insightful woman, deeply marked by a hard life and by the injustices and suffering perpetrated upon the Acadian people. The character may have been created by her friend Antonine Maillet, but Viola Léger was the one who brought it to life.

    Viola Léger was a proud Acadian. She was an outstanding ambassador for Acadia and spent her entire life contributing to its cultural development, including through her foundation to promote Acadian theatre.

    On behalf of the Bloc Québécois and all Quebeckers, I want to offer her family, everyone who loved her and all Acadians our most sincere condolences.

    I thank Ms. Léger for being the face, the voice and the soul of the Acadian nation for so long.

    Mr. Speaker, five members of the Sherbrooke Phoenix made their mark at the World Junior Hockey Championship.

    Two Canadians, forward Joshua Roy and defenceman Tyson Hinds, along with their coach, Stéphane Julien, proudly represented Sherbrooke at this major hockey tournament, winning the gold medal with Team Canada.

    Two other Phoenix players, David Spacek and Jakub Brabenec, also stood out, winning the silver medal with the Czech team.

    Congratulations to all the medal winners and all tournament participants.

    Sherbrooke hockey fans are lucky to have the Phoenix, because they can gather every week to watch some of the world's best players in the electrifying atmosphere of the Palais des Sports. Together, let's continue to support and improve our national sport.

    Mr. Speaker, the motto of the Order of Canada is “They desire a better country.” I can think of few people who more truly embody that motto than the newly appointed member of the Order of Canada, Jean Aitcheson of Stratford.

    A nurse by career, Jean has dedicated her time and energy to the service to others. On countless medical mission trips, Jean has provided care to so many in need around the globe. She also founded the Stratford Mission Depot to help coordinate the donation and delivery of medical supplies and equipment. Just this past year, Jean and her team of volunteers saw the need for medical supplies for Ukrainian refugees and sprang into action, quickly amassing 14 cubic metres of medical supplies.

    Jean is quick to deflect praise away from herself and toward her team of volunteers, and it is that modesty that underscores why she is so deserving of this special recognition. I congratulate Jean Aitcheson.

    Mr. Speaker, as we start the winter session of Parliament, I want to recognize an amazing achievement from students in York Centre over the holidays.

    Our community rests on the values of kindness and compassion, giving back and showing up for one another. I am overwhelmed by the generosity that students, families and staff from Stilecroft Public School showed in December, collecting 200 pounds of food for the North York Harvest Food Bank. This amazing act of kindness allowed North York Harvest to provide hundreds of meals to the most vulnerable members of our community.

    A special thanks goes to principal Karen Barnes and the wonderful staff at Stilecroft P.S. who organized the campaign and did not hesitate for one moment when asked and jumped at the opportunity to help. I want to especially thank the generous students and families at Stilecroft. I also want to thank the staff at North York Harvest Food Bank, who provide such an important service every day to those who are facing food insecurity in our communities, with integrity and compassion.

    When we give at home, we grow a community that is strong and supportive.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Mr. Dwight Petten, who passed away earlier this month after a short but valiant battle with cancer at the young age of 56.

    Dwight was a very successful and respected fisherman from my riding, who had an enthusiasm for the industry that was surpassed only by the love for his family and passion for his faith. Far away from his home and family in Port de Grave, he joined several missionaries throughout his lifetime around the world, including one in Africa and Thailand. Dwight was a successful fisherman and a proud owner of his family business, DMC Enterprises, which he operated side by side with his son Matthew. He took great pride in his fishing vessels and was respected as a leader in the industry. For 25 years, he served in the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary.

    Dwight will be remembered as a loving husband to his wife Cynthia and a wonderful father to his children Melanie, Matthew and Melissa and his grandchildren, who were his pride and joy and who knew him simply as Pop.

    Dwight was taken from us way too soon. His legacy will live on. Rest easy, my friend.

    Mr. Speaker, it has been eight years since the Prime Minister took office, and his soft-on-crime policies have unleashed a crime wave in Canada. The government has made life easier for violent criminals by providing easy access to bail and repealing mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes. As a result, violent crime has gone up 32% in the past year, and gang-related killings have gone up by 92% since 2015.

    Furthermore, Liberals have failed to stop the flow of illegal firearms across the border. As a consequence, five police officers have tragically lost their lives this past fall in the line of duty. Our communities feel less safe, and the government is making it worse. Despite their dismal record, Liberals recently initiated a ban on hunting rifles and shotguns, making thousands of these firearms illegal. Hunters, farmers and target shooters are not the problem; Liberals are the problem. This Liberal made-in-Canada crime wave must stop.

    Only a Conservative government will do what is necessary to keep violent criminals off our streets.

    Mr. Speaker, anger, pain, misery and violence, these are the words that have shaped the experience of Iranians, especially the brave women of Iran, as they are fuelled by their hope and courage in the face of the regime's tyranny and oppression for the past four decades.

    While no words are powerful enough to describe the atrocities, we can respond with powerful actions. I, alongside my colleagues in the York Region Liberal caucus, have sponsored seven environmental activists. Going beyond our borders, I have joined members of the Italian and German Parliaments, Laura Boldrini and Carmen Wegge, to sponsor Armita Abbasi.

     Niloufar Bayani is a courageous environmentalist who has been in prison for caring for her motherland, its wildlife and the environment. Armita Abbasi has been calling for equality for women. Instead of applauding these women, the Iranian regime responded with unlawful imprisonment, abduction, severe torture and brutal sexual assault.

    The women of Iran are the embodiment of bravery.

    [Member spoke in Farsi]

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, over the last eight years under the Prime Minister, Canadians have been struggling. They are struggling under his wasteful, inflationary spending. Mortgage payments are taking a bigger bite out of paycheques. Food banks have seen a massive increase in families needing their services.

    Meanwhile, over the last eight years, Liberals and their well-connected friends have never had it so good. McKinsey & Company, a consulting firm surrounded by controversy and formerly run by the Prime Minister's friend, Dominic Barton, has received over $100 million in government contracts since 2015. Canadians deserve to know why the Liberals gave this consulting firm millions of dollars and what kind of influence McKinsey has over the government. The Liberals have created an unaccountable shadow government with their consultant friends, and Canadians are paying the price.

    The Prime Minister needs to come clean with Canadians, end his binge spending and—

    The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

     Mr. Speaker, six years ago, one hundred or so people were gathered at the Quebec City mosque. Suddenly tragedy struck. Six men died and about twenty others were seriously injured. These people died for one reason and one reason only: They were Muslims united by faith. This horror showed the dark side of humanity. Racism is born of ignorance. That is why we have a duty to support dialogue no matter who we are. We must unite, not divide. We must unite with our words, with our actions and with our humanity.

    Six years ago, at a Quebec mosque, six Canadians died because of their faith. This tragedy reminds us that we always have to be cautious and we shall condemn any violence based on faith and ethnicity. It is our duty to be careful of any sign of racism, because there is no small racism. We shall unite, not divide: unite by words, by action, by humanity.

    Mr. Speaker, on January 28, the great Viola Léger passed away at the age of 92.

    She was originally a nun and a teacher, but it was her dramatic role as La Sagouine in the work of Antonine Maillet that endeared her to Acadia and the world. During her career as an actress, Ms. Léger would portray this legendary character more than 3,000 times, in addition to playing many other roles in theatre, film and television.

    Ms. Léger went on to serve in the Senate of Canada, where she helped support causes such as the plight of minorities, the survival of the French language and the importance of arts and culture.

    She will be remembered for her incredible ability to showcase Acadia, as she was a formidable ambassador for our culture and language throughout her life. Today, all of Acadia mourns the loss of this great lady. I thank Ms. Léger for her invaluable contribution to Acadian culture and for the monumental legacy she leaves behind. I offer my deepest condolences to her family and friends.

    Mr. Speaker, six years ago, a radicalized young man committed an act of hatred in an act of violence seldom seen in our history. He entered the Quebec City mosque and opened fire on everyone inside with a semi-automatic weapon and then a handgun.

    Six men lost their lives and 19 others were injured, leaving behind broken families and grieving loved ones. We said, “never again”, but are we really any further ahead six years later?

    Dangerous weapons that are used only to kill other human beings are still in circulation. Online hate, racism and Islamophobia still exist. Extreme right-wing rhetoric has become normalized, which only fuels this radicalization and hatred targeting minorities. The killer fed on such rhetoric, which pushed him to attack. He killed Muslims.

    We still have a lot of work to do through dialogue and a better understanding among cultures, but we also need to take an uncompromising stance on racism, discrimination and supremacy. That is an imposing but necessary task. It is our collective duty.

    Mr. Speaker, there are defining moments in the history of a society, a community and a family. Sadly, January 17, 2017 was one such moment. Families and friends lost their loved ones when they were gunned down at the Quebec City mosque just for being Muslim.

    Yesterday marked the sixth commemoration for these men who were felled by hatred. It was a moment of reflection and sharing, but also a moment of hope: the hope of living and growing on a path to understanding and mutual respect.

     Ibrahima Barry, Mamadou Tanou Barry, Khaled Belkacemi, Abdelkrim Hassane, Azzeddine Soufiane and Aboubaker Thabti wanted to live in peace, happy and without fear for their future.

    Let us make sure that everyone can achieve these aspirations, which were stolen from them. Let us stand up for the right of every Quebecker to practice the religion of their choice freely, safely and with dignity.

    Let us stand up every day to fight hate in all its forms.

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister's high taxes and inflationary deficits, 22% of Canadians, 28% of them women, say they are completely broke. After eight years, 32% say they will be in the same boat if prices continue rising. After eight years, 52% are concerned they do not have enough money to feed their families. After eight years, 1.5 million Canadians are using food banks every month. After eight years, young people feel lied to and let down by this Prime Minister. After eight years, seniors can barely afford groceries and many are living in the cold, unable to heat their homes. After eight years, Canadians are anxious, angry and worried about their future.

    After eight years, this Prime Minister is completely out of touch and has no solutions to the problems that he has created. After eight years of dividing Canadians, this is a Prime Minister who cannot be redeemed; he can only be replaced. After eight years, Canada's Conservatives, led by the member for Carleton, are focused and ready to lead and as Parliament returns, we will show Canadians why.

    Mr. Speaker, I sat with a force of nature two weeks ago: “Hurricane Hazel” McCallion, a dear friend, a mentor, a leader, someone who devoted her life to serving the people of Mississauga, Ontario and Canada. We are all overcome with sadness by her passing. Our hearts go out to her family.

    She was always there to lead and to help: helping with the biggest mass evacuation in Canadian history, helping people through the pandemic at 101 years of age young, and helping to build Mississauga to the successful city it is today.

    Hazel had great insight and vision, but her greatest strength was her connection with people. Loved by all who met her, with a big heart and a deep caring for community, she will always be remembered as the people's mayor. She was so proud of our country. The last thing she said to me was, “Peter, we live in the best place in the world, Canada.”

    On behalf of the Parliament of Canada, we thank Hazel. May she rest in peace.

    I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Mr. Charles Sousa, member for the electoral district of Mississauga—Lakeshore.

    Mr. Speaker, in eight years, this Prime Minister has doubled our national debt, adding $500 billion in inflationary deficit. What did we get for spending what Bill Morneau called too much money? More inflation, more poverty, more people having to rely on food banks. Where did the money go? Now we know: $15 billion worth of contracts were given to the Prime Minister's friends.

    How much of that money went to McKinsey?

    Mr. Speaker, seven years ago, when we were elected to lead the government, we made a promise to invest in the middle class and all those working hard to be part of it. That is exactly what we did with the Canada child benefit, assistance for seniors and help for students. We were able to create millions of jobs, while lifting millions of people out of poverty.

    Unfortunately, the Conservative Party opposed us at every step. Today, the Conservatives continue to oppose our investments in dental care, our investments to help renters and our investments in child care. We will continue to invest—

    Order.

    The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

    Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister how much McKinsey got. He said that it was all for the middle class. He has always had difficulty defining what the middle class is, and now we know his definition. It is his friends who make $1,500 an hour as high-priced consultants for his government over at McKinsey, where his personal friend Dominic Barton was the boss.

    We now know that he spent $15 billion-plus per year on high-priced consultants while Canadians are eating at food banks and living in homeless shelters and while house prices have more than doubled. Again, how much did the Prime Minister's government give McKinsey?

    Mr. Speaker, while the Leader of the Opposition snickers at the middle class, we will stay focused on supporting it.

    That is exactly what we did by bringing forward supports for low-income renters and supports for families to send their kids to the dentist. These are things that the Conservative Party voted against, just as they stood against the Canada child benefit, just as they stood against help for seniors and just as they have continued to stand against investments that have had Canadians backs before the pandemic, through the pandemic and since the pandemic. We will continue to be there for Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister, mortgage payments have doubled, up to $7,000 per month for an average house in Toronto, and rent prices have doubled, up to $2,500 per month for an average place in Toronto. The number of people eating at food banks has gone up to 1.5 million, and crime is up 32%. We wonder where all this half a trillion dollars of inflationary debt actually went. Now we know: Liberal friends got the money.

    I am going to ask a third time about the well-connected insiders at McKinsey. How much did the Prime Minister give them?

    Mr. Speaker, over the past number of years, we have invested in supporting Canadians from coast to coast to coast to lift families out of poverty, to help seniors make ends meet, to invest in low-income renters, to help people access dental care for their kids and to deliver the kinds of things that have made not just Canadians better off but our whole economy work better.

    We are going to continue to step up by investing in Canadians while the Conservatives continue to push cuts and austerity and to not be there for Canadians. We know that investing in Canadians is the best way to build a better future.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that Canadians have never had it so good as they face 40-year highs in inflation, as food prices are up 12% year over year after he brought in a carbon tax on our farmers, as the cost of housing has more than doubled and as students are living in homeless shelters.

    We know why, though, he is so out of touch with these people after eight years. It is because the people he surrounds himself with, like the high-priced consultants at McKinsey, are doing better than ever.

    I would like to ask him this again. This company did work of little or no value according to his own public servants. How much did Canadians have to pay for that?

    Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, Canadians are struggling right now with high inflation caused by global crises, with interest rates and with disruptions in global supply chains. That is why we have stepped up to support Canadians, despite Conservative politicians voting against it.

    We have been able to keep investing in Canadians while maintaining the best balance sheet in the G7. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio and the lowest deficit of all our G7 partners. We have put that to work to support the Canadians who need it most. We will continue to be there for the middle class and people working hard to join it.

    Mr. Speaker, we finally got the Prime Minister to admit that Canadians are suffering, and it is after eight years of the Prime Minister. After eight years of the Prime Minister, we have 40-year highs in inflation, we have a 32% increase in crime and we have the TTC transit system in downtown Toronto overtaken by crime. We have more people eating at food banks and living in homeless shelters after eight years of the Prime Minister, but not everybody is doing badly. His friends at McKinsey are rolling in cash.

    First, the Liberals said it was $50 million, and now the government says it is over $100 million. We want to know the real number. Will the Prime Minister finally answer the question? How much did he give McKinsey?

    Mr. Speaker, everyone in the House, from conversations with constituents and conversations with people right across the country, knows well that Canadians are facing tough times. What the difference is between the Conservative leader and me is that instead of proposing real solutions and instead of telling Canadians how he is going to help them and invest in them, the Conservative leader stands up, crosses his arms, throws his hands up and says, “everything is broken”.

    That is not what Canadians are living through. Canadians stick up for each other. We are there for each other. We support each other through the tough times. That is exactly what we have been doing through this pandemic through these past years. That is what we will continue to do, no matter how much—

    The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

    Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be back here with you and all my colleagues.

    As my colleagues know, the Prime Minister made an appointment of his own, choosing Amira Elghawaby. He surely looked into her statements and positions prior to her appointment, which many perceive as very insulting to Quebec. Nevertheless, he went ahead with the appointment.

    Here is my question for the Prime Minister: Does he really think this appointment will bring people together and build bridges rather than be divisive?

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening, I was honoured to be at the Quebec City mosque with the community that was the target of a dreadful terrorist attack committed six years ago by a person motivated by hate, intolerance and ignorance regarding the Muslim community in Quebec and across the country.

    We must all stand up every single day to recognize and fight Islamophobia. We must see it as our duty to be there for our fellow Muslim citizens, and we will always be there for them.

    Mr. Speaker, Ms. Elghawaby, who has described Bill 21 as Islamophobic, was unfortunately there, too. Her presence was commendable; her remarks, not so much.

    Rather than simply condemn her remarks out of hand, I asked to meet with Ms. Elghawaby so that we could try to understand, as parliamentarians, as elected officials, as those responsible for passing the budget that will fund her position.

    Can the Prime Minister tell me whether he supports such a meeting, whether he wants to see it happen and maybe could even facilitate it?

    Mr. Speaker, I would truly love to see this meeting happen. It would be a great conversation. I think Ms. Elghawaby would be able to explain how systemic racism and Islamophobia are a reality for people across the country.

    We all have a duty to listen to one another and understand how hurtful bills and words can be, even if that is not our intention. We have a duty to understand the impact of what we are doing on vulnerable communities in our country.

    Yes, I will certainly facilitate that meeting, and I know that Ms. Elghawaby would be delighted to meet the Bloc Québécois leader.

    Mr. Speaker, in the last election, the Prime Minister criticized the Conservatives for proposing to increase for-profit private health care in our system.

    Now, Doug Ford is doing the exact same thing and the Prime Minister is calling it innovation. Why this big flip-flop?

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has always been very clear: We will stand up for our public health care system.

    We will continue to defend the principles of the Canada Health Act. This is non-negotiable and over the past few years we have taken back money several times from provinces that did not abide by the Canada Health Act. We will continue to stand up for our public system.

    In the current negotiations to improve health care for Canadians across the country, we will continue to be there to stand up for the public system.

    Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Prime Minister says one thing and does another. In the last election, the Prime Minister made a really big deal of calling out the Conservatives for proposing the idea of bringing in more for-profit private health care, but now when Doug Ford is doing exactly that, he is calling it “innovation”.

    I am not surprised the Conservatives support this approach as they believe in for-profit private health care, but I am surprised at the Prime Minister. Why the flip-flop?

    Mr. Speaker, I and the Liberal government have always been very, very clear that we stand for a public health system that fully abides by the Canada Health Act. This is something that matters to most Canadians, that certainly matters to us, and that we will continue to defend.

    We know that even as we negotiate with the provinces to ensure we are delivering more family doctors, better mental health supports, moving forward on backlogs and supporting Canadians who need emergency care, we will ensure that the Canada Health Act is fully respected. In the past, this government has pulled back money from provinces that have not respected it. We will continue to do that.

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years of Liberal mismanagement, one in five Canadians is saying they are completely out of money, skipping meals and accessing charity services just to meet their basic needs. The Governor of the Bank of Canada said that the interest rate hikes were because of out-of-control wasteful Liberal spending. Even former Liberal finance minister Bill Morneau had it right when he admitted that the Liberals overspent in the last eight years.

    When will the Prime Minister and Canada's worst money manager in Canadian history stop breaking Canada, rein in his spending and stop making the price of everything go up?

    Mr. Speaker, we know that many Canadians are facing real challenges, and that is why our government is there to help with a plan that is compassionate and fiscally responsible. Here is what we are doing: doubling the GST, providing $500 to people who are facing challenges paying their rent, providing dental care to Canadian kids, eliminating the interest on Canada student loans and improving the Canada workers benefit. The Conservatives voted against all of those essential measures.

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years of Liberal mismanagement, the only people getting help and ahead are the Prime Minister who gets lavish $6,000-a-night hotel rooms, his buddies over at McKinsey and the WE Charity who get hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of contracts, racists like Laith Marouf who gets hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of contracts, and prisoners and dead people who get free CERB cheques. It has never been so good for those people, but Canadians have never had it so bad. Recently, Canadians were just uppercut with another interest rate hike because of out-of-control Liberal spending.

    When will the Prime Minister stop rewarding his Liberal cronies and actually start helping struggling Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, let us talk for a minute about what the Conservatives would do to Canadians and the Canadian economy. The Conservatives are proposing to eviscerate our essential EI system. The Conservatives would endanger seniors' pensions and the CPP. The Conservatives would make pollution free again. The Conservatives would deny Canadian families climate incentive cheques. Those are all Conservative policies, and they would all hurt Canadians in their pocketbooks.

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister, Canadians have never found it so hard just to keep a roof over their heads. Rent increases have gone up at a record pace and the national average is now over $2,000 a month. Young adults are finding it virtually impossible to pay these rents and families are being squeezed.

    When will the Liberals reverse their inflationary policies that are driving up inflation and making it harder for everyday people to even just stay in their homes?

    Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives really believed in supporting those Canadians who are having the hardest time paying their rent, they should have supported our plan to give those people $500 to help. The best way to pay one's rent and to pay one's mortgage is to have a job, and that is why our government has been relentlessly focused on job creation. There were 100,000 jobs created in December alone. Today we have recovered 121% of the jobs lost to COVID compared to just 106% in the United States.

    Mr. Speaker, rental inflation is up 12%. Food inflation is up more than 11%. Any of these government programs will just get evaporated. We know that the former governor of the Bank of Canada said that Canada's inflation was “homegrown”, and the current governor said that inflation is as high as it is because of all of the extra spending that these Liberals have done.

    After eight years, when will the Liberals finally get their inflationary spending under control?

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives continue to talk down the Canadian economy. That is reckless and that is irresponsible. We know Canadians need support. That is why we have a plan that is compassionate, but it is also fiscally responsible. That is why just hours after we tabled the fall economic statement, Moody's reaffirmed our AAA credit rating.

    Canada has the lowest deficit in the G7, the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio and, in 2022, Canada had the strongest economic growth.

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister, the reality is that Canadians are suffering more and more, despite the fine words and promises made to the middle class.

    I visited the food banks in Thetford Mines, Lac‑Mégantic, Plessisville, Princeville and Disraeli. What I heard broke my heart. Demand for food bank services skyrocketed by over 30% in December. That is the result of eight years under a Liberal government.

    Will the Prime Minister finally realize that these measures have led more and more people to use food banks? When will he put an end to this?

    Mr. Speaker, this government has an impressive record when it comes to eliminating poverty in Canada. Over one million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty thanks to the measures that we put in place, including the Canada child benefit and the increase in benefits for seniors. The Conservatives voted against those measures.

    In fact, the Conservatives wanted to raise the retirement age for seniors. We did not let that happen. We will be there for Canadians at every stage of their lives, and I hope the Conservatives will support us.

    Mr. Speaker, the cost of food has increased by nearly 12%. I am very concerned that this Prime Minister, after eight years of promising sunny ways, has completely lost touch with reality.

    Day care centres are no longer offering meat on their menus because it costs too much. Food banks do not have enough fresh food because grocery stores no longer have any, since the middle class cannot afford to buy it.

    How could the Prime Minister allow things to get to this point?

    Mr. Speaker, right after we formed the government, 450,000 fewer children were in poverty than when the Conservatives were in power. It is because of our programs, such as the Canada child benefit or the child care and early childhood program, that fees have dropped by 50% across the country.

    Families across Canada tell me how much these programs have helped them reduce the cost of living and how this is changing their lives. It is a shame that the Conservatives do not support these measures.

    Mr. Speaker, Quebec has the legitimacy required to democratically make its own societal choices.

    That is why it is unacceptable for the federal government to threaten to attack the notwithstanding clause. The notwithstanding clause is the only provision that guarantees to Quebec and the provinces that the federal government and the judges it appoints will not be the only ones to decide what we have the right to do in our province.

    The Quebec premier stated that it was a direct attack on the ability of our nation to protect its collective rights.

    Will Ottawa back off?

    Mr. Speaker, our government has always been very clear with respect to concerns about the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause by the provinces, and we are considering all our options.

    We are strongly committed to defending the rights and freedoms protected by the charter, a charter that was created to protect minorities across Canada.

    We have been clear and we will continue to be clear in the future.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a passage about the notwithstanding clause: “It is a way that the legislatures, federal and provincial, have of ensuring that the last word is held by the elected representatives of the people rather than by the courts.” Those are the words of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

    Even Pierre Elliott Trudeau recognized the importance of the notwithstanding clause in a healthy democracy. Now his son is doing the opposite. He wants the courts to take the last word away from elected officials.

    Will the government back down?

    Mr. Speaker, Pierre Elliott Trudeau was right. It was intended to give the last word, but when it is used pre-emptively, it becomes the first word and it cuts off debate in legislatures like ours and in the courts. We have expressed our concerns and we will continue to do so.

    Mr. Speaker, we know the Liberals want to challenge Bill 21 on secularism, but Bill 96 is about the French language. Attacking the notwithstanding clause is to be expected. They want to make absolutely sure Quebec will never be able to introduce bills like 21 and 96, never be able to stand up for its collective rights, never have the right to its own distinct values. Basically, the problem is that Quebeckers are different and they cannot accept that.

    Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has a lot of parliamentary experience. He knows that the Government of Canada's position has not changed. We have always expressed concerns about the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. My hon. colleague mentioned the last word. This should not be the first word. It should be the last resort.

    We accept and understand the purpose of the notwithstanding clause, but we will never agree to it being used pre-emptively. That should come as no surprise to my colleague.

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal government, inflation is at a 40-year high as a result of its inflationary spending but it has managed to spend over $100 million, actually we do not know how much because the Prime Minister will not tell us, on a single consulting firm, McKinsey & Company.

    While Canadians have never had it so bad, Liberal insiders and consulting firms have never had it so good. Therefore, why does the Prime Minister not just admit that he and his good buddy Dominic Barton are running Canada and disappointing Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, the procurement of professional services is used to complement the work of Canada's professional public service by meeting unexpected fluctuations in workload and to acquire special expertise. We are committed to ensuring that government contracts stand up to the highest standards.

    The Prime Minister has asked the President of the Treasury Board and me to conduct a review, take a close look at the numbers and look into the circumstances, and we are doing just that.

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister, Canadians have never had it so bad while Liberal insiders like Dominic Barton have never had it so good.

     Dominic Barton was running a government advisory body while at the same time his company was collecting over $100 million in contracts on the side. Barton and his cronies at McKinsey had privileged access to the Prime Minister and were using that access to make money. The government has done so much for Dominic Barton and McKinsey and so little for struggling Canadians.

     Once again, will the government answer how much money in total it has given to McKinsey?

    Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that Public Services and Procurement Canada takes its role as the central purchasing department very seriously. We ensure value for money and quality of services for Canadians.

    Minister Fortier's focus will rest on the policy, while I focus on the circumstances of the contracts. I will be testifying, alongside my officials, at the government operations committee to give more thorough and complete answers.

    I know we are all excited to be back, but I want to remind hon. members that when they are referring to someone else in the chamber they are to refer to them by their riding or the position they hold and not their name. I know we have been away for a bit so I just want to remind everyone.

    The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

    Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can assist the minister in getting to the bottom of the circumstances around these contracts.

    The Prime Minister is a very close personal friend of Dominic Barton, who is the managing partner of McKinsey. Under Dominic Barton, McKinsey monitored dissident social media accounts for the Saudi government, had a corporate retreat down the road from a concentration camp in China and advised a pharmaceutical company to reward pharmacists for causing overdose deaths.

    We are the company we keep and the company the Prime Minister keeps is called McKinsey. Once again, how much money did the Prime Minister funnel to his friends at McKinsey?

    Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House yet again that procurement contracts must adhere to Treasury Board policies and directives, which are intended to ensure that contracts are awarded in a fair, open and transparent manner.

    Given the volume of government procurement, controls are in place at various levels based on contract value, risk and complexity.

    Following recent concerns about contracts provided to McKinsey, we are undertaking a full review of all procurements with this company.

    Details are still being finalized but the intent will be to verify if these procurements were conducted in accordance with Treasury Board policies and directives.

    Mr. Speaker, two seasons of travel chaos left Canadians sleeping on airport floors, stranded in countries around the world and out thousands of dollars. The government has over 33,000 air passenger complaints before it and the folks who do manage to jump through all of the Liberals' hoops are having to wait over a year and a half to have their complaints reviewed. Despite all of this the government has not fined the airlines a single dollar for failing to compensate passengers.

    Why is it that Canada seems to have a minister for airlines but no minister for air passengers?

    Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to protecting passengers' rights. In fact, our government was the first government in Canada's history to pass a bill in this chamber to support passengers' rights.

    Of course, the last couple of years have been very difficult on the aviation sector because of the pandemic and because of the public health situation. We are working with the Canadian Transportation Agency to provide the resources they need. The chair of the Canadian Transportation Agency was at committee, where the hon. member got the chance to ask his questions.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians are dealing with the costs of the climate crisis while everyday costs are soaring. People are having to cut back on their already tight budgets, while huge grocery chains and oil and gas companies make billions.

    A windfall tax would force those rich CEOs to finally pay what they owe. With this, the government could put money back into the pockets of Canadians and invest in clean energy.

    Will the Prime Minister implement a windfall profits tax to make Canada more affordable for people instead of more profitable for billionaires?

    Mr. Speaker, our government is absolutely committed to ensuring that everyone pays his or her fair share in Canada. That is why our government implemented a 15% COVID recovery dividend levied on our largest banks and insurance companies. That is why our government has introduced a permanent 1.5% tax on the largest banks and insurance companies in Canada. That is why we are implementing a 2% tax on share buybacks. That is why we have put in place a luxury tax on planes, yachts and cars.

    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to stand before the House for the first time. Earlier today, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development led off a debate on Bill C-35 to enshrine the Canada-wide early learning and child care system into law.

    My constituents all know so well how important access to affordable and inclusive child care is for our economy and women's empowerment.

    Could the minister please update the House on how Bill C-35 will ensure that affordable and accessible quality child care is here to stay?

    Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating and welcoming my newest colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore to the House.

    I am thrilled to talk about Bill C-35 and the important work that it is going to do to ensure to Canadians, to families, to children, to women, to day care providers that the federal government is there for the long term. I have no doubt that his constituents in Mississauga—Lakeshore voted for him because they know that he is a hard worker and that the Liberal government is going to be there in tough times.

    I am glad for the support of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. I hope the Conservatives will reverse their position—

    The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years, breaking ethics laws has become as synonymous with those Liberals as higher taxes. Now, for a record fifth time, a Liberal minister has been caught breaking ethics laws.

    At a time when Canadians are struggling to afford to heat their homes and put food on their table for their families, the trade minister was finding the time and taxpayer money to line the pockets of her insider friend: another day, another lawless Liberal under the lawless Prime Minister.

    Will the minister do the right thing and cut a cheque to make restitution for her corruption?

    Mr. Speaker, the commissioner has reviewed this issue and has reached his conclusion. To the House, I apologize. I regret that I made a mistake. I should have recused myself. At the time, it was quite urgent that we communicated with Canadians, particularly with small businesses, about those urgent supports that were needed, but I do regret that I did not recuse myself, and for that I apologize to the House.

    Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate but not surprising that the minister will not make it right after serving under the Prime Minister who has twice himself been found guilty of breaking Canada's ethics laws. Those Liberals exist solely for the purpose to hold on to power. They divide Canadians, pit neighbour against neighbour and line the pockets of Liberal insiders while they are at it.

    Therefore, will the Prime Minister today ask for the minister's resignation?

    Mr. Speaker, no.

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years, yet again another Liberal patronage scandal. Not content with gifting lucrative government contracts to hateful anti-Semites, now the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion, the member for York South—Weston, handed $93,000 to a staffer's sister for public relations advice.

    It is not difficult to realize that handing over taxpayer dollars to a staff's family is a bad idea, yet here we are again. Will the minister do the only responsible and dignified action and pay back the money?

    Mr. Speaker, one of the most important duties of any member of Parliament is to communicate with their riding. That is why members of Parliament are permitted to use their operating budgets to hire service providers to help them communicate with their constituents. In this case, a small business in Toronto was hired by my constituency office to offer assistance in providing communication services to my constituents.

     Let me be clear: The rules were followed. The contract with this organization was publicly disclosed and the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has advised that there is no conflict of interest.

    Mr. Speaker, even after $50 million was spent on the ArriveCAN app, the Commissioner of Official Languages has reprimanded the government over the app's language issues.

    A Canadian travelling in the United States was unable to get the French version of the app, even though it is one of this country's two official languages. The government spent a fortune on a service that violated the rights of francophones.

    After eight years in power, will the government finally admit that it is incompetent, very incompetent?

    Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague. When we launch services, it is essential that they be available in both official languages. That is exactly what we did with ArriveCAN. When the public raised some concerns, the Canada Border Services Agency made improvements to the service. We will continue to invest in providing service in both official languages, everywhere.

    Mr. Speaker, after years of pressure from Quebec, the provinces and the Bloc Québécois, the first ministers will finally meet on February 7 to talk health transfers. However, the federal government is trying to manage expectations by calling it a working meeting to discuss demands. We all know what those demands are. Ottawa needs to cover 35% of health care costs. That is what the premiers have been saying for the past 28 months, and they said it yet again in this morning's press release.

    The federal government knows what they need. Is it going to bring its chequebook to the February 7 meeting?

    Mr. Speaker, we are very happy to be asked that question, because we are all looking forward to the next steps, which include the February 7 meeting. The first ministers will meet to build on the major progress that the health ministers have made in recent months, not only in the fight against COVID‑19, thereby saving tens of thousands of lives and tens of billions in economic costs, but also to ensure that people in Canada continue to receive the health care they need.

    Mr. Speaker, meanwhile, the crisis is worsening in our hospitals.

    The situation is so untenable that exhausted nurses at Maisonneuve-Rosemont hospital refused to go back to work two weeks ago. They even threatened to quit. At this point, working meetings are not enough; they need results.

    Quebec and the provinces have been voicing their needs. They have been doing so for the past 28 months, and they did so again this morning.

    On February 7, will Ottawa at least put some money on the table, to prove that it is negotiating in good faith?

    Mr. Speaker, putting money on the table is exactly what we have been doing for several years now, with an additional investment of $72 billion in the Canada health transfer and by covering 80% of the costs associated with fighting COVID‑19. Last March, we increased the Canada health transfer by 5%, and we will increase it by another 10% in the next few weeks, in March. We also invested $2 billion just a few weeks ago to combat emergencies and problems facing hospitals.

    That is a lot of money, but more importantly, it is about outcomes that need to be achieved for patients and workers.

    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Prime Minister's right-hand man in Quebec, had a strong reaction to the appointment of Amira Elghawaby, the federal representative to combat Islamophobia, who once made disparaging comments about the Quebec nation.

    He said, “As a Quebecker, I am deeply hurt by these comments, I am deeply insulted”.

    Given that he is hurt and insulted, will his words be backed up with action? Will the minister press for this irresponsible political appointment to be revoked?

    Mr. Speaker, our position is clear. We know that Quebeckers oppose any form of racism and hate.

    The special representative has already clarified her remarks, and I would refer the member to her statement on this matter.

    Mr. Speaker, last month, the OPP's Constable Greg Pierzchala was murdered by a violent criminal out on bail. Chief Myron Demkiw of the Toronto police said that this murder was senseless and preventable and that Canada needs bail reform. Unfortunately, access to bail for violent criminals was made easier by the Liberal government's Bill C-75. Countless Canadians have been harmed by the Liberal bail system; it must be reformed.

    Will the Liberal government make that commitment today?

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to be and feel safe, and we all have a role in protecting our communities. The laws on bail are clear: Detaining an accused person is justified if it is necessary to protect the safety of the public. As my colleague knows, provinces and territories, as well as police forces, are responsible the enforcement of bail conditions. We all have a role to play. We at the federal level are providing resources to support them. We will continue to do so in order to ensure that laws are applied appropriately.

    We remain open to good ideas and proposals from the opposition, and from provinces and territories, to reform our criminal justice system, including the bail system.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have had eight years to make our streets safer, and they have only made things worse. Last year in Toronto, of the 44 homicides by shooting, 24 of the criminals responsible were out on bail when they committed the murders. All 13 premiers in Canada signed a historic letter to the Prime Minister demanding bail reform. The Toronto police are demanding bail reform.

    What is it going to take for the Liberal government to reform the broken Liberal bail system?

    Mr. Speaker, in a number of important cases, the bail reform that we undertook in Bill C-75 made it harder to get bail. As I have said, we are open to any good proposal from the opposition, as well as from provinces and territories.

    At a conference of federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers in the fall, I committed to that long before this became a hot issue in the House of Commons. We are working with the provinces and territories to look at legitimate suggestions for bail reform.

    Mr. Speaker, the rapid decline of biodiversity is threatening the foundation of our economy, our food security, our health and our quality of life and poses serious and irreversible risks to our communities.

    Can the Minister of Environment and Climate Change tell the House about the agreement on an historic global framework that was signed after 13 days of negotiations at COP15 in Montreal?

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question, his involvement and his advocacy on this important issue.

    In December, countries from around the world met in Montreal to address biodiversity loss. More than one million species are at risk globally, including 640 species here in Canada. Representatives from more than 160 countries set their differences aside, and we committed to protecting 30% of our land and oceans by 2030.

    It is a landmark agreement that Canadians should be proud of, since we were at the centre of this agreement.

    Mr. Speaker, under Bill C-21 on firearms, law-abiding citizens will no longer be able to hunt, but criminals will be able to continue terrorizing our streets.

    Meanwhile, the provincial premiers are unanimously calling on this Liberal government to take immediate action to strengthen Canada's bail system.

    In December, a police officer was killed by a criminal who had been granted bail even though he posed a real threat to society.

    Will this Prime Minister stop playing politics with the safety of Canadians and do what needs to be done?

    Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the laws on bail are clear. We all have a role to play. Provinces, territories and police forces must enforce federal laws.

    At a ministers' conference in November, my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, and I committed to working with the provinces to look at suggestions for bail reform.

    We are doing the work. We are open to legitimate suggestions for bail reform.

    Mr. Speaker, commuters in Toronto have been set on fire, stabbed and swarmed in a growing wave of violence. Our transit operators are scared to go to work. In the first three weeks of this year, Toronto police said that crimes were up more than 37%. We have repeat violent offenders out on our streets because of the government's weak bail system. The Minister of Public Safety says he is concerned, but he is not concerned enough to do anything about it.

    Canadians are a little more than just concerned. When are we going to see the bail reform that every premier, police union and police chief has called for in this country?

    Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned with the recent spike of violence on the TTC. I have spoken directly with Mayor Tory to express our unwavering support for him and the city.

    Our government, in fact, has doubled down on support for law enforcement, violence prevention, mental health supports, and supports to address homelessness and poverty. Most recently, along with the mayor, I announced $12 million in funding to address many of the social determinants that can lead to violence through the building safer communities fund, a fund that the Conservatives voted against.

    We will continue to work with the City of Toronto and all communities to keep our public transit safe.

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the current Prime Minister, violent crime is up 32%. That is a record. The record is the weak bail system, and it keeps serious, violent criminals out of jail and on our streets. There is a former Toronto police chief sitting on that side of the House who has made more comments about crime in the U.S. than in his own city this week. Enough with the thoughts and prayers and the concern. People do not feel safe in their communities, and they fear riding public transit.

    What is it going to take to get the minister to pay attention to the random attacks happening on public transit and reform the bail system?

    Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague and all members in this House that this government is paying attention to the situation in Toronto. This is why, without any hesitation or haste, I contacted the mayor to make sure that he knew that this government would be there to support the City of Toronto as we have done in the past with regard to law enforcement, as we have done in the past with regard to preventing crime, as in the $12-million announcement that we made last spring with the mayor, as we have done in the past with regard to our investments in Canada's summer jobs to support those young people who were at most risk.

    That is the record of this government, and we will continue to build on it to protect all residents and all communities to keep them safe.

    Mr. Speaker, every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable place to call home. By continuing to make substantial investments in affordable housing, we are creating new jobs, building an inclusive economy and strengthening our economies. We also know many employers need access to a pool of workers as labour shortages are felt across Canada.

    Could the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship tell us how working migrant workers could be a part of the solution to address Canada's critical housing needs?

    Mr. Speaker, there are many thousands of people in this country who do not currently have immigration status but have been contributing to our communities for years. Many have families living in these communities. I am thrilled to share with this House that we have worked very closely with the organized labour movement in this country to launch the out-of-status construction workers pilot to bring those people out of the shadows, allow them to contribute and help build more homes for our communities.

    I thank the hon. member for Davenport for attending on my behalf to make an important announcement that we will be doubling the scale of this program to bring more people into the light, build more homes for Canadians and serve everyone's interest at the same time.

    Mr. Speaker, the suspected for-profit buyer of Lions Place, a 287-unit, non-profit seniors' housing building in Winnipeg Centre, is a company with a history of hiking rents. The province recently announced rental support for current tenants, but this is a band-aid solution that protects residents only for two years while subsidizing rent increases.

    The Minister of Northern Affairs said he wants to see Lions Place remain in non-profit hands. What are he and the Liberal government going to do to ensure this affordable seniors' housing does so?

    Mr. Speaker, our government and I have made it very clear that we are here to build more non-profit affordable housing. I have stated on the record that I feel Lions Club should provide non-profit affordable housing for generations in downtown Winnipeg. I have written to the chair of the board of directors asking for a meeting. I have not had a response to my letter, but I am here to work with Lions Club and the Province of Manitoba to make sure it remains affordable housing.

    Mr. Speaker, in August 2021 the government invested $20 million for urgent work at Toronto's Harbourfront Centre. The rationale was that improving cultural and community infrastructure builds strong, prosperous and dynamic communities. Those objectives have fallen short of reality. Harbourfront Centre has ignored input from residents and local organizations. The centre claims that Canadian Heritage was informed of and approved the new plans, which included the elimination of a beloved and popular permanent skating rink. York Quay Neighbourhood Association and Waterfront for All were denied a meeting to discuss the rink's closure and the area's way forward.

    Is the minister okay with giving away $20 million with little public consultation?

    Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague understands the importance our government places on the appropriate investments in the Toronto waterfront. We have a history of collaborating with both the Province of Ontario and the City of Toronto. I am happy to tell my colleague that I had a chance to meet with senior executives and board members of Waterfront Toronto in December. I have had conversations with both Mayor Tory and the provincial infrastructure minister in Ontario.

    We will continue to support the good work done by Waterfront Toronto.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

    I believe, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

    All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

    It is agreed.

    The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 199 petitions.

    These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “Future of Hybrid Proceedings in the House of Commons”.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive report to this report.

    I thank all of the people who were involved in making this possible. It was a fruitful conversation that brought our Parliament into the 21st century. I give a special shout-out to Justin, who served as our clerk. I know he will be going on to other adventures. All committee members thank him for his service.

    With that, I hope that all members take the time to read this very invigorating report.

    Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table the Conservative Party's dissenting report.

    While there have been some benefits from some aspects of hybrid Parliament, we have undoubtedly witnessed first-hand a lot of shortcomings with it: ministers having an easier job deflecting accountability and an unacceptable burden being place on our interpreters, to name two.

    It is important to bear in mind that our experience with hybrid Parliament was forged as a pandemic necessity, and we have only now started to experience it in the postpandemic context. That is why Conservatives believe the majority's report goes too far and too fast in recommending a permanent extension of a hybrid Parliament practically as it exists today. Conservatives have long believed that permanent changes to procedural arrangements ought to be the result of multi-party consensus.

    In the interests of a consensus, Conservatives recommend that the renewal of hybrid proceedings be sunset one year into the next Parliament to allow us time to assess the ongoing implications. We also recommend other changes in the meantime to improve accountability and to reduce the burden on interpreters, such as reverting to entirely in-person chamber proceedings while maintaining the remote voting app and requiring ministers and senior officials to be physically present at committees.

    The committee's majority chose not to lay out any details to its vision or to suggest how the new standing orders would read. That has placed the ball in the government House leader's court to craft the way forward. A consensus is within reach. We challenge the government House leader to accept it and to turn his back on the divisive and confrontational approach he has preferred to take on the House's hybrid arrangements.

     Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House.

    If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 21st report.

    Mr. Speaker, since it is the first time I am standing in this House and it is the first day in 2023, I wish you and all loved ones a happy new year, especially the good people of the riding of Waterloo.

    If the House gives its consent, I move that the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

    All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

    The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

    Mr. Speaker, happy new year.

    I am tabling a petition on behalf of my constituents who are calling on the Minister of Finance to suspend the federal excise tax and carbon tax for Canadians until the cost-of-living crisis has been resolved. The petitioners are reminding this Parliament and the government as well, in their petition, that the price of gasoline is intended to go up much more and the clean-fuel standard will add onto the cost. The petitioners also refer to the fact that the carbon tax will add even more onto the cost of gasoline and of diesel as well, for those who use diesel for work vehicles. Therefore, they are calling on the Minister of Finance to eliminate the excise tax.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from people within my riding and beyond. In Cloverdale—Langley City, immigration is very important, and there have been some concerns raised about how the interest to sponsor form was handled coming out of the pandemic. That is the intention of the petition.

    Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in this place to be able to share the concerns that are petitioned by so many Canadians, and today I would like to present two.

    The first petition is that many Canadians would like to draw the attention of the House of Commons to some recent comments that had been made at the joint committee studying medical assistance in dying. I quote Louis Roy from the Quebec college of physicians who said, “babies from birth to one year of age who come into the world with severe deformities and very serious syndromes”.

    The undersigned citizens on this petition call on the Government of Canada to block any attempt to allow the killing of children. It is shameful that it even has to be said in this place.

    Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by a host of Canadians. They draw attention to the fact that the Liberal Party, in its 2021 platform, promised to deny the charitable status of organizations that have certain convictions. It reeks of a values test 2.0 where the government politicized charitable status in this country.

     Therefore, the undersigned citizens of Canada call upon the House of Commons to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values and without the imposition of another values test.

    The petitioners affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression.

    It is a pleasure to table these two petitions here today.

    Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago, Russia launched an unprovoked war against the people of Ukraine. Every day, the world was shocked by numerous war crimes. Russian armed forces have repeatedly engaged in violent, indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets, including hospitals, schools, residential buildings and shelters. Starting in October, Russia intensified its strikes on Ukraine's energy system to shut down the power grid and to cause a humanitarian disaster during the winter. In fact, it has launched more than 5,000 missiles at Ukraine since the beginning of this war.

     The PACE and NATO Parliamentary Assemblies have labelled Russia a terrorist regime. More so, the European Parliament has similarly declared Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. All members of the House unanimously recognized Russian aggression in Ukraine as an act of genocide. Now Canadians who have signed this petition are calling on the government to immediately designate the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism.

    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this afternoon to present a petition on behalf of petitioners who note that Canada has had an electoral system since its inception called “first past the post” that allows a political party to win a majority of seats and all of the power while having less than half the popular vote.

    They point out that proportional representation is a really critical principle that calls for the percentage of seats in the House to equate to the percentage of votes received by that political party. If a party gets 40% of the popular vote, they say that it should get 40% of the seats.

    They also point out that countries around the world such as Germany, Italy, Ireland, New Zealand and many others have progressed from a first-past-the-post system to a proportional representation system already. The petitioners move for the Government of Canada to push toward a PR electoral system to bring credible representation to all Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is currently undertaking an important study on the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, or Artsakh, and the blockade of the Lachin corridor. I am tabling a petition about the situation in that region.

    It was a petition signed prior to the start of the blockade, but it does have a number of asks that are relevant to that ongoing situation, including a call on the Government of Canada to provide the necessary humanitarian assistance to ensure the safety and viability of the population of Artsakh and facilitate the exchange of the remains of fatalities.

    It also calls on the Government of Canada to denounce aggressive rhetoric from Turkey and Azerbaijan against Armenia and Artsakh and to condemn state-sponsored hatred. Furthermore, it notes the illegal detention of prisoners of war and calls on the Government of Canada to use the tools available to it to advocate for the release of captives. I hope I join certainly all members of the House in calling for an end to the blockade of the Lachin corridor and efforts to pursue peace in the region.

    Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am tabling highlights the ongoing detention of Huseyin Celil, a Canadian citizen detained in China for over a decade and a half. The Chinese government has refused to accept Mr. Celil's Canadian citizenship and continues to deny access to lawyers, family members and Canadian officials. We must continue to be persistent in highlighting this case and calling for his release.

    Petitioners want to see the Government of Canada demand the recognition of Huseyin Celil's Canadian citizenship and provide him with consular and legal services in accordance with international law, to formally state that the release of Huseyin Celil is a priority of the Canadian government of equal concern to the unjust detention of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, to appoint a special envoy to work on securing Mr. Celil's release and to seek the assistance of the Biden administration and other allies around the world in obtaining Mr. Celil's release.

    Mr. Speaker, as it is my first chance to address you in the year 2023 and if there is no statute of limitations on it, happy new year.

    I am honoured to present a petition from my constituents. As many petitions before this one have attested, residents of British Columbia are deeply concerned that the populations of Pacific salmon are in free fall. One of the proximate reasons for that is the presence of what are referred to in some context as fish farms. My constituents prefer to call them toxic fish factories.

    There has been guidance from the Cohen commission and others that these operations should be removed from the migratory routes of Pacific salmon, but these petitioners point to a specific problem, and that is that the mandate for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans includes both regulating aquaculture and promoting aquaculture.

    The petitioners call for this conflict of interest to be removed such that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans protects the marine ecosystem particularly for the sustainability of the Fraser River sockeye.

    Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to rise today to present a number of petitions.

    The first one is from Canadians from across the country who are still concerned around the implementation of vaccine passports on Canadian citizens. They note the Government of Canada has suspended these things for the time being and they are asking for the Government of Canada to abolish these things. They are calling for an end to all federally regulated COVID-19 vaccine mandates and restrictions.

    Mr. Speaker, my next petition is from Canadians across the country who are concerned about the Liberal Party's campaign platform to revoke charitable status from pro-life organizations such as crisis pregnancy care centres, which counsel young women and save countless lives every day. Revoking charitable status would politicize charitable status and would be the first step to even more measures to eradicate the values and principles of Christian Canadians.

    Revoking the charitable status of pro-life organizations would result in an explosion in the number of folks who are unable to get help in a time of crisis. Therefore, the folks who have signed this petition are calling on members of Parliament to do everything they can to prevent the revocation of charitable status from pro-life organizations.

    Mr. Speaker, the next petition is from Canadians across Canada who are appalled by the statements of Louis Roy of the Collège des médecins du Québec, who recommended that we legalize the killing of babies from birth to one year of age who have severe deformities and syndromes. The killing of infants is deeply disturbing to these Canadians and they state that infanticide is always wrong. Therefore, they call on the Government of Canada and this Parliament to block any attempt to legalize infanticide.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not up to me to tell the Speaker about the rules of House, which you have such great respect for, but I have heard one editorializing comment after another, and that is not what petitions are for. Members are supposed to simply stick to the petition. Throwing in all of these extra attacks on people who believe in women's reproductive rights is not fair game.

    I am not here to bring judgment down on what is said and what is not said. The Speaker's role is to remind members of what the rules are.

    I was going to remind members before the next presentation that they should present a very short synopsis of every petition and not go on for a while. I am going to leave it at that. I will remind hon. members the next time I ask for petitions what petitions are for. I have let them run on a bit, and I will admit to that.

    I thank the member for bringing that up.

    I will let the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock continue.

    Mr. Speaker, my final petition comes from Canadians across Canada who are concerned about the treatment of Falun Gong by the Chinese Communist Party. Millions of Falun Gong practitioners have been arbitrarily detained. Family members of Canadians have gone missing. Extrajudicial imprisonment, forced labour, torture, rape, killing, forced abortion and these kinds of things have happened to Falun Gong practitioners in Canada.