Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the government leader, and it also touches on Prime Minister Trudeau’s Senate appointments to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.

Over the summer, the Prime Minister filled the last Senate vacancy by appointing yet again one of his very own Senate appointees, meaning that currently the three senators sitting on NSICOP are senators whom he has appointed and picked based on common values. By doing so, the Prime Minister eliminated the balance between the government and the opposition in the Senate. We all know that the Prime Minister wants to strip the opposition of its role of representing the voice of the political minority.

Senator Gold, will you pressure the Prime Minister to correct this mistake?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Well, you’ve said before there’s a reason why it is called Question Period and not answer period.

In June, the Prime Minister’s made-up rapporteur confirmed he was receiving free media advice from Liberal and NDP strategists at the same time the crisis communications firm Navigator was being paid to help him. Leader, at that time, I asked you why taxpayer dollars were going to Navigator when he was getting free advice.

Yesterday, a written answer tabled in the House revealed that Navigator was subcontracted by the Torys law firm, which the Trudeau government awarded a sole-source contract worth $4.5 million.

Leader, given that the made-up rapporteur stepped down on June 9, how much of this $4.5 million was actually paid out? If I guessed all of it, leader, would I be right?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The analysis or review is ongoing. When it is completed, the results will be made public.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you. I certainly don’t know if you’re right, but I certainly do know that the summer obviously hasn’t tempered your proclivity to insult the former Governor General. The rapporteur did the job he was asked to do and happily. We now have in place Justice Hogue, who will be conducting her inquiry into foreign interference, and we look forward to the results of that.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, between March 2018 and March 2022, the Trudeau government made five payments totalling $256 million to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Conservatives believe this infrastructure bank is a tool of Beijing’s communist party. On June 14, the Canadian who worked there at an executive level confirmed our opinion when he publicly detailed the many ways the bank is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, or CCP.

Leader, what is going on with the review of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank that Minister Freeland announced on June 14? When will this government bring home to Canada the quarter of a billion taxpayer dollars it gave Beijing for nothing in return?

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is also about the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. Leader, I note that only one of the 11 members is francophone. That is less than 10%, even though francophones make up more than 20% of Canadian society. I know that the Prime Minister has been approached about appointing francophone senators and has turned them down. Was it because these senators were Conservatives?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Let me first of all start off by saying I certainly will not withdraw anything that I have said. I have used the term “official opposition,” because that, in fact, is the term. I am the leader of the loyal opposition in the Senate.

You can shake your head all you want. That is the term.

And I am quite happy, Your Honour, to have you take under advisement whether supposed senators appointed by Justin Trudeau have the right to come in here and start changing the titles of what we, in fact, have gone by. You can call yourself “liaison” and “representative” and whatever you want. When it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it’s a duck.

Senator Gold is the Leader of the Government. As was decided by the previous Speaker in a ruling that he made, Senator Gold, in fact, is the Leader of the Government, even if he doesn’t want to call himself that.

So if your point of order, senator, is on whether we are officially the opposition, you may take this as an insult, but I would like to say that’s a ridiculous argument. We are the official opposition. You can complain about us using the wrong terms when we talk about others. I didn’t besmirch any senator in this chamber. I was attacking the Prime Minister for making partisan appointments to NSICOP, because that’s what they are. They are his senators that he appointed to this chamber and then appointed to NSICOP to help him there.

I will stand on the position that we are the official opposition, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: I rise on a point of order.

Your Honour, in the same way that you have admonished us at the start of the new session to watch our comportment, to watch our decorum and to watch our words, I would like to raise a profound issue I have with the use of a term that undermines the meaning of our institution, which is not captured in our Rules of the Senate of Canada or in the Parliament of Canada Act, and which is fundamentally deeply insulting to many senators. This is the idea that there is such a thing as an official opposition.

We heard this phrase used three times during Question Period, just a few minutes ago — once by Senator Plett and twice by Senator Housakos — and it is intended, with no justification, to give the impression that there is a small group of senators here who are more worthy than the rest of us.

I will point out that there is the use of the “official opposition” in the House of Commons, but it is not used in the Parliament of Canada Act for the Senate or in the Rules of the Senate of Canada, and the fact that it is not used in the same way in the Senate should tell us something about what it means to be the opposition in this chamber.

In a more independent, less partisan chamber, all of us should have the same rights and privileges, and we should not be second-class citizens in the way that is implied by the term “official opposition.”

So all of the questioning, Your Honour, around whether some of our colleagues who have been appointed to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, are worthy to be there because they are not part of the so-called official opposition is an insult to those members.

Your Honour, I would ask that if honourable colleagues Senators Plett and Housakos choose not to withdraw those comments from Hansard, that you provide us with some clarification on the use of this term.

Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: I am ready to rule on this. I would like to read the definition of “Leader of the Opposition,” that is in the Rules of the Senate of Canada. The “Leader of the Opposition” or “Opposition Leader” is:

The Senator recognized as the head of the party, other than the Government party, with the most Senators. The full title of the Opposition Leader is “Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.”

I would ask senators to govern themselves as such.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, in August, when energy costs went up for Canadians yet again, the Trudeau government sent its environment minister to a meeting in Beijing, where they burn more coal each year than every other country on earth combined. The China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development is a tool of the Chinese Communist Party, or CCP, yet the Trudeau government thinks it is appropriate for Minister Guilbeault to sit on this council as a vice chair. In addition to lending Canada’s good name to this organization, Canadian taxpayers are funding it to the tune of $16 million, leader.

Leader, none of this makes sense. How can you possibly defend any of this?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): It is important and responsible for this government and, indeed, all governments to work with all governments in this world to combat climate change. It would be irresponsible and, indeed, a measure of rather ideological blindness to ignore the important contribution to fossil fuel emissions, for which countries like China are responsible. It is the responsible thing for ourselves, for our children and our grandchildren — not to be cliché about it — to work independently of fundamental differences and values and ideologies with those governments that are expressing a willingness — for their own sake and in their own self-interest — to reduce the ravages that climate change is having on their land, on their people and on their future.

Hon. Rosemary Moodie moved second reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

She said: Honourable senators, it is indeed an honour to rise today as the Senate sponsor of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

This bill was first tabled in the House by the Honourable Karina Gould, then Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. It was sent to us with unanimous support of the other place, and it is an important part of the government’s project of building a high-quality, accessible, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care system for all Canadians.

The bill represents the culmination of decades of advocacy from child care experts, advocates for children, women and economists. Its passage would enshrine in law a federal commitment to cooperate with provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples to build and sustain a service for generations of families to the benefit of communities and to the benefit of the country as a whole.

At the outset, I want to state, to no one’s surprise, that I am enthusiastically in favour of this bill. Taking care of children, looking after their physical and cognitive development from their very first days, understanding the alignment of development with learning and outcomes — this has been my life’s work and my passion. I’ve seen first-hand all the benefits of high-quality early childhood education and know the positive effect it can have on a child’s life. I will share with you during this debate how I view the current landscape on the issue of child care and where this legislation fits in. I am glad to hear from many of you, colleagues, that this bill is widely supported in this chamber, and I look forward to listening to your thoughts during this debate.

The history of child care in Canada informs where we find ourselves today. It leads us to the challenges we face and to the choices that we have at hand, and so that is where I will start.

Honourable colleagues, what is the story of Canada’s child care system? I want to take us back to the 1960s and 1970s, because much of how the child care system is being operated and conceptualized today began back then. Specifically, there are three important events that took place. First, the creation, in 1966, of the Canada Assistance Plan. This program created a cost-sharing agreement for social assistance programs, such as child care for poor families. To my knowledge, this was the first foray of the federal government into child care.

Second is the rise of women’s participation in the labour force. As a result of feminist movements and changes to the economy, women’s participation in the workforce surged significantly as they sought to contribute to their families’ prosperity and to exercise their gifts and talents in the workplace. In 1960, we saw that 30% of working-age women were active in the labour force. This would rise to 42% by 1970, and to 60% by 1980.

As a result of women’s participation in the labour force, and thanks to greater public funding, child care outside the home became an increasingly common occurrence. By 1973, 5% of children were regularly cared for in a daycare centre, and that figure doubled by 1981 and tripled by 2004.

The third thing that happened took place in the 1960s and 1970s and shaped how we view child care today. The Royal Commission on the Status of Women was established in 1967 by the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson at the urging of the Honourable Judy LaMarsh and Laura Sabia. The commission featured legendary figures like Florence Bird, Elsie MacGill and a young Monique Bégin. It had a mandate to report on the status of women in Canada and provide recommendations for a path forward. The final report, tabled in December of 1970, would contain 167 recommendations made on the core principle that equality between women and men is possible, ethically critical and desirable.

One important area of study by that group was child care. As a result of their understanding of the evolution of the economy and the rights of women to be equally involved in the labour force, the commission would, in their report, declare a vision for early learning and child care in Canada that was a high-quality daycare system affordable for all and publicly managed. To them, this would be an important step toward gender equality in Canada, and they called on the Government of Canada to step in and lead in the development of a strong national program.

Recommendation 118 of the report states:

We recommend that the federal government immediately take steps to enter into agreement with the provinces leading to the adoption of a national Day-Care Act under which federal funds would be made available on a cost-sharing basis for the building and running of day-care centres meeting specified minimum standards . . . .

That was the beginning of a long and important conversation about how child care should operate in Canada. Should Canada participate in the creation of an ambitious, high-quality, affordable and accessible program, and, if so, how?

Today we continue to have this conversation.

Through the 1960s and 1970s, child care remained a hot topic. Various federal governments committed to implementing a national child care program, but it was not until 2005 that Ken Dryden agreed to bilateral agreements on the eve of the federal election. That was when we seemed to make meaningful progress.

By 2006, a campaign would see the Harper Conservatives win power and undo the child care deals in favour of the Universal Child Care Benefit. We have also seen the Canada Child Tax Benefit and the Canada Child Benefit. The Universal Child Care Benefit was a taxable benefit of $100 per child under 6 years of age.

Fast-forward a decade later, and the Trudeau Liberals would form government and convert the Universal Child Care Benefit and the Canada Child Tax Benefit to what we know today as the Canada Child Benefit, a tax-free benefit that can be topped up with a child disability benefit where needed. Families can receive up to $619 a month for every child under 6 years of age and $522 a month for children 6 to 17 years of age.

What was the impact of this? For most middle-class families, this translated into hundreds of dollars of support every month — a positive step in the right direction, you will agree.

In addition, in 2017 the government reached an agreement on a Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework with provincial and territorial governments, injecting $7.5 billion over 11 years. The purpose is to “increase quality, accessibility, affordability, flexibility and inclusivity in early learning and child care,” with consideration for families that need care the most.

Through the mid-2010s, child care had really slipped in prominence in discussion at the level of government, but during this period we saw the use of child care and its costs growing significantly, and fewer individuals were able to access affordable child care for families. Leading up to 2011, the majority of parents — 86% — were using child care in a system that looked like this. It had evolved into a mix of daycare centres run by municipalities or not-for-profit organizations. Some were licensed, or unlicensed home daycares and private centres. Different jurisdictions would have different requirements for quality and qualifications for workers, and, for many families, finding a space for their child would be an increasingly challenging task.

The cost of child care was dramatically different across the whole country. In 2020, the cost of child care ranged from $450 a month in Winnipeg to $1,600 a month in Toronto — per child. Without significant federal assistance, as recommended by the royal commission, child care had evolved into a difficult-to-access and difficult-to-afford essential service — an outcome that, frankly, was avoidable.

Consider Quebec, a province that has had a public child care system since the late 1990s. We often hear that Quebec is a good example of how child care could have evolved, and, though the system may not be perfect, it is important to acknowledge the choice the Quebec government made in the late 1990s. That included the introduction of a stronger parental leave system and substantial cash benefits to families to support raising and caring for children in a high-quality public child care system, along with a tax credit that would become a monthly benefit for those unable to access low-cost public spots.

Quebec proceeded to heavily invest in policies it deemed necessary for the benefit of children, women and the economy — all of whom benefited from the direction they took.

Yes, colleagues, they encountered some challenges. As the demand for child care exploded, the province was not able to develop public spaces fast enough to meet the demand — with the result that in today’s system of child care, affordable, high‑quality spots in daycare centres are difficult to access for low‑income families who need them the most. Despite this, families in Quebec, and society as a whole, are better off for this program than they would be without it, with over 220,000 subsidized daycare spots, almost half of which are in publicly managed centres.

Quebec’s journey has taken them down a very promising road. Their journey demonstrates for us that high-quality child care and all its benefits can be a reality for all Canadians.

Then came the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic was an awakening for many of us. Despite the many positive aspects of Canadian life, there were still many underlying significant issues that the pandemic unmasked.

The pandemic disproportionately affected the participation of women in the economy. An RBC report found that it had effectively pushed women out of the labour market, erasing three decades of progress. The “she-cession,” as dubbed by economist Armine Yalnizyan, would reveal that poor access to child care was a significant factor in women not going back to work. By the fall of 2020, 85% of the jobs that had not been brought back were jobs held by women.

Children were negatively affected by the pandemic. Amongst many who weighed in with similar findings, researchers from the Observatory for Children’s Education and Health found the pandemic led to setbacks in children’s education while negatively affecting their mental health.

The pandemic led to a new wave of advocacy by parents, families, child care experts, labour unions, academics and economists, all of whom wanted high-quality, affordable, accessible and inclusive child care as a crucial step to reversing the harms of the pandemic and building a society for all.

The Government of Canada’s response was in favour of building a national Early Learning and Child Care Plan. In the Speech from the Throne of the Second Session of the Forty-third Parliament, in response to the realities and impact of the pandemic, the government announced:

Recognizing the urgency of this challenge, the Government will make a significant, long-term, sustained investment to create a Canada-wide early learning and childcare system.

Budget 2021 committed an investment of $30 billion over five years and $8.3 billion ongoing to build and sustain a national child care system. In the short term, the government’s ambition was a 50% reduction of average fees by the end of 2022 and an average fee of $10 a day by 2026. This was to be a transformative project on scale with the work of previous generations of Canadians who built a public school system and a public health care system. This is a legacy investment for today’s children, who will not only benefit from it but also inherit it for their own children.

Yes, honourable colleagues, we can all agree that the road to a government commitment to early learning and child care, or ELCC, has been a long and challenging one. Today, we are experiencing the development of a system that will bring significant benefits to Canadian society.

Let me outline how and why early learning and child care will benefit Canadian society.

Let’s talk about the impact on Canadian children. Overall, high-quality early learning and child care enriches children’s cognitive, emotional and social development. This builds a child’s capabilities and confidence and sets them on a path to success in school and life. It means that early learning and child care delivers long-lasting and far-reaching positive outcomes throughout the child’s life.

A study from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in the United States found that high-quality child care can have a positive impact on cognitive development in young children. A cohort study from the Sorbonne University, the EDEN mother-child cohort study, found that compared with children in informal child care, children who attended formal care had:

. . . lower likelihood of having high levels of emotional symptoms, peer relationship problems and low prosocial behaviours. . . . Attendance of centre-based child care for more than 1 year was especially protective of high levels of emotional, peer-related difficulties and low prosocial behaviours.

Craig Alexander, who at the time was Executive Advisor at Deloitte, appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology in 2021 to testify about Bill C-30. He had spent many decades studying the economic benefits of child care and told us that children from disadvantaged backgrounds and low-income households benefit most from ELCC, as it lowers the often great gap that exists between their skills coming into school and the expectations of the school system. Internationally, a study from the United Kingdom found that children who attended ELCC were 40% less likely to have special education needs — translating into millions in savings for education systems.

Back in Canada, Morna Ballantyne, Executive Director of Child Care Now, testified to the committee at that time that ELCC provides an academic advantage to children that would last throughout their lifetimes and translate to success and higher wages in their careers.

Now let’s discuss the impact of ELCC on Canadian women and their role in the economy.

Access to high-quality, affordable, flexible and inclusive child care is not just about giving every child in Canada the best start in life; it is also about providing the opportunity for parents, particularly mothers, to enter or return to the workforce, pursue their education or start their own business.

The evidence from Quebec is clear: Labour participation rates for women began to rise soon after the development of a subsidized system, resulting in tens of thousands of women entering the workforce. There is also evidence that this will be the case in other provinces. A recent report by TD Bank’s chief economist entitled The Space Between Us: The Availability of Childcare will Define Canada’s Workplace found that increased access to child care in provinces led to an increase in the participation of women with children under 6 years of age. The labour force participation rate among women with children under the age of 6 has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It has risen by 4 percentage points since 2020, equating to roughly 111,000 additional working women — a sharp acceleration from the 1.7 percentage point increase posted in the previous three years.

Honourable colleagues, there is a clear consensus that access to child care is a major barrier to full economic prosperity and gender equality for women. And what is the impact on the economy in general?

We observed during the pandemic that support from private sector leaders for Canada-wide ELCC was strong because they saw it as vital to our economic infrastructure and restoration of the economy. Access to affordable child care plays an important role in recruiting and retaining the best talent the world has to offer.

The federal government agrees. By expanding access to affordable, high-quality and inclusive child care, Canada is giving its families the opportunity to be ambitious and bold, to work hard to secure their future and to be prosperous, knowing that their children are safe, healthy and thriving. In addition, studies show that for every dollar invested in early childhood education, the broader economy receives between $1.50 to $2.80 in return. The federal government’s own estimate predicts that a Canada-wide system could raise real GDP by as much as 1.2% over the next two decades.

Susan Prentice and Molly McCracken of the Child Care Coalition of Manitoba found that children would have significant regional benefits. They determined that for every dollar invested in Winnipeg’s child care system, the region would gain $1.38 back. Greater access could bring relief and support to nearly 13,000 households, increasing the income of these families by more than $700 million a year.

In summary, greater access to child care will mean better outcomes for children, women, families and the economy as a whole. This is why a national child care program matters. This is why this bill matters.

Honourable senators, the last few years have been exciting, as the government has significantly increased its involvement in the provision of early learning and child care, and it has done this through three main avenues: through bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories, through investments in infrastructure and through legislation, or Bill C-35.

Let’s talk about the first one and the most significant one: the bilateral agreements reached with the provinces. Shortly after the adoption of Budget 2021, British Columbia became the first province to reach an agreement in July 2021.

By March 2022, all of the provinces and territories had signed agreements — Ontario being the last one.

Today, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nunavut have all achieved the goal of $10-a-day licensed child care — three years ahead of the national target.

Quebec and the Yukon had already achieved an average cost of $10 a day, or lower, for regulated child care in their jurisdictions. In Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Prince Edward Island, fees for licensed child care have decreased by 50% to 60%. Those provinces are on track to achieve the $10-a-day mark by March 2026.

What does this mean for families? They are saving between $3,900 to $6,600 a year per child. The bilateral agreements, as we have heard, are all different in their details. They are tailored to each jurisdiction, but they have similar broad lines and themes. I will outline them:

The first is there is a general commitment to the vision of child care set out in the multilateral framework agreements: high-quality, affordable, accessible and inclusive child care.

All of them have a list of objectives, including fee reductions, space creation and workforce development.

All agreements have a stated priority for investments to go into not-for-profit and public care over private and unlicensed care.

Finally, every agreement has appended to it an action plan — from the province — that outlines how they plan to meet their commitments under the agreement.

Let me highlight an example: In New Brunswick, there is a commitment to create 34,000 new spaces. Their agreement with Canada specifies that the official language minority communities will have spaces that match or are greater than their share of the population in that province, effectively safeguarding access to service in their language of choice for every family in the province. This is in keeping with New Brunswick’s constitutional status as a bilingual province. The province has also committed to tracking both the number of inclusive spaces, with inclusive programming created or converted, and the annual public expenditures on child care programming dedicated to children from marginalized or vulnerable families — allowing for greater accountability from these communities.

And, might I say, a similar focus on official language minority communities is present in all of the agreements.

The current agreement signed by the provinces remains in effect until 2026. Negotiations for the following years are beginning now and/or will begin shortly. Governments from every jurisdiction in this country should be applauded for their cooperation on behalf of children and families. We, as senators, should look at the agreements reached with our own home provinces in order to see the positive fruits of the federal-provincial collaboration that has occurred around this program.

Canada also co-developed an Indigenous early learning and child care system with Indigenous communities and governments — some individuals in this chamber worked on that. This program is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action.

It is meant to empower First Nations, Inuit and Métis children by incorporating identity, language and culture. Programs are to be culturally appropriate, distinct and grounded in the right to self-determination for every community.

Indigenous early learning and child care also includes plans for space creation and workforce development, but, most importantly, Indigenous communities have direct influence over the delivery of the program through investments in governance and partnership building.

The second avenue being taken by the government, in addition to the agreements, relates to infrastructure. Early learning and child care is being built with a specific focus on increasing infrastructure. The government recently announced that negotiations with the provinces regarding the $625-million Early Learning and Child Care Infrastructure Fund will now begin. This fund is set to be available for four years, beginning this current fiscal year, with the goal of creating spaces for underserved communities.

The third piece, in addition to the agreements and the infrastructure, is legislation — legislation that will enshrine in law a federal commitment to cooperate with the provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples in order to build and sustain service for generations of families to the benefit of communities and the country as a whole.

Bill C-35 was built on these positive partnerships — it’s not top-down, but rather built on collaborative work done to date. It does not impose any conditions or requirements on provincial, territorial or Indigenous partners. It respects provincial and territorial jurisdictions, along with the vision and principles of the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework.

This was co-developed and endorsed by the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council.

It is this third piece — the legislation — that brings us here today: Bill C-35. The Government of Canada’s long-term goal is to build a high-quality system of publicly funded early learning and child care for all families who choose to use it.

Bill C-35 does not replace or supersede the Canada-wide bilateral agreements; rather, with this legislation, provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners will benefit from greater predictability and assurance of long-term federal commitment to early learning and child care.

Nevertheless, you will notice that the legislation does match much of what has been found in the agreements, as it serves as an ongoing, enabling structure for these agreements.

Now let me examine the legislation in greater detail.

First, there is the statement of the government’s vision on early learning and child care in clause 6 of Bill C-35. This vision recognizes the government’s role in collaborating with the provinces and Indigenous peoples to establish flexible early learning and child care programs that meet the needs of families. There is a specific recognition of the need for culturally appropriate services led by Indigenous peoples.

An amendment made by the other place’s Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities added the following to clause 6: “. . . the right of Indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent in matters relating to children.”

Second, clause 7 lays out the guiding principles of the federal investment:

Federal investments respecting the establishment and maintenance of a Canada-wide early learning and child care system — as well as the efforts to enter into related agreements with the provinces and Indigenous peoples — must be guided by the principles by which early learning and child care programs and services should be accessible, affordable, inclusive and of high quality . . . .

Although many of the terms used to date might have various definitions, clause 7 also simultaneously provides definitions for us. Paragraph (a) of clause 7(1) defines “high quality” as evidence-based care that responds to the needs of families and meets the standards of both Indigenous and provincial governments. It also states that there is a priority for “. . . public and not for profit child care providers . . . .”

Paragraph (b) of clause 7(1) puts forward affordability as a core principle so that all Canadians, regardless of income, can access high-quality care. Paragraph (c) of clause 7(1) focuses on accessibility, committing the government to supporting the provision of care in rural and remote communities, as well as the provision of care for children with disabilities and children from linguistic minority communities. In this clause, “accessibility” also means responding to the varying needs of families.

Paragraph (d) of clause 7(1) commits the government to focusing on workforce development — through the recruitment and retention of qualified early learning and child care educators — as crucial to the delivery of a high-quality care system.

Clause 7(2) commits the government to making investments in line with the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework, in addition to the principles set out in clause 7(1).

Finally, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the other place made another important amendment to clause 7 by ensuring that investments are also guided by the Official Languages Act.

Third, clause 8 of the bill commits Canada to maintaining long-term funding, primarily through agreements with the provinces, Indigenous governments and Indigenous entities.

Clauses 9 through 15 include provisions regarding the national advisory council on early learning and child care. This council will bring together a committed and diverse group of academics, advocates, practitioners and caregivers in order to provide expert advice to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. It will serve as a forum for consultations on issues and challenges facing the early learning and child care sector.

Again, an amendment made by the House Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities added the ability to consult broadly with entities that have interests in child care.

Bill C-35 will enshrine the council under statutory authority. Clauses 9 through 15 outline the appointment process, considerations for membership and the functions of the council, as well as prescribe the minimum number of meetings, among other considerations.

The House Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities amended this part of the bill in clause 11(1) to ensure that Indigenous peoples and official language minority communities would have representation on the council. They also amended clause 14 to provide the council with the opportunity to receive information from the minister respecting the early learning and child care system in order to allow the council to perform its role.

Finally, the House Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities made important amendments in clause 16, which sets out the details of annual reporting on the performance and the progress of the Canada-wide early learning and child care system.

Before I conclude my presentation of this legislation, I must commend our colleagues in the other place for their work on this legislation. It is my assertion that Bill C-35 is a strong bill. It is no surprise that the other place passed it with unanimous support. Nevertheless, I’m looking forward to this chamber and our Social Affairs Committee putting their lenses on this bill — in our role as a complementary partner to the House of Commons in the legislative process.

I want to share some final considerations: What you have heard from me during this speech is that the work that has been done, and that continues to be done, has been tremendous around establishing a national child care system. Bill C-35 provides a framework for ongoing agreements, but we know that — as the work of building a national child care system evolves — challenges will arise. It is my view that the bill leaves sufficient flexibility to allow the federal government, and its partners, to address future and current challenges within a framework that prioritizes the public and not-for-profit delivery of child care.

As I close, I wish to acknowledge and address some of the challenges facing our system today.

First, we do not have the data to fully consider and evaluate the status of child care. This is an area targeted by the agreements. As we build upon this system, we need to have a clearer understanding of what the needs are. How many spaces do we need? Where do we need them? How many workers are missing? This information is not readily available, and that needs to change, colleagues.

The second challenge is building a sustainable workforce. This is crucial not only to develop new spaces, but also to be able to use the ones we currently have. A high-quality early childhood educator workforce is essential to fostering the social, emotional, physical and cognitive development of young children. Investing in such a high-quality early childhood educator workforce is investing in the health, well-being and success of generations to come here in Canada.

Unfortunately, the child care sector faces major issues in the recruitment and retention of qualified workers. The Childcare Resource and Research Unit found that 50% of workers are exiting the industry within the first five years. They move on to school boards or to the private sector where they can find more competitive wages and benefits, and this is directly affecting supply.

The YMCA of Ontario reported to us that of its 1,250 centres, none are operating at capacity because of staff shortages. This leads to long wait-lists and to burnout for staff.

Compensation, benefits and a clear career trajectory are key to the long-term development of the workforce. This is possible by integrating child care centres into larger social service networks that have the resources to provide competitive wages and benefits, along with the size to allow mobility and new opportunities for workers.

This leads to my final point: the choice of public and not-for-profit care over private care. I believe that choice is a good one, and needs to be an essential principle underscoring any national child care program. We must recognize that there are private operators that are providing excellent high-quality care throughout this country, but child care is ultimately a public good. Individuals and firms operating on a for-profit basis will never have the incentive to develop the kind of system we need, a system that emphasizes affordability, inclusivity and accessibility, not one that reacts to the bottom line. This is why public and not-for-profit operation is critical.

When she was before the Social Affairs Committee concerning Budget 2021, Morna Ballantyne, Executive Director of Child Care Now, argued that a public system is crucial to equity and quality and that expanding the supply of services must be a government responsibility. Now, this is not the end of private child care. The agreements do allow for some funding to private providers; indeed, all existing private providers were brought into the Canada-wide system from the start to maintain access for parents.

Going forward, it is the government’s intention to make sure that public funds are used for public goods. Ultimately, colleagues, we are making a policy choice here. Access to a critical service that we consider to be a public good should not be based on profit incentives or the ability to pay.

Child care, like other areas of our education system, is critical for children’s outcomes and for their futures. Although not supported by all, this policy choice is supported by the evidence within and without and beyond our borders. It is best for our young children and for our future prosperity.

Now that we are in the midst of this transition period, fees may be going down, but spaces may not yet be opening up. Many may feel that the change is not coming soon enough, that the plan is not working well enough. The answer, I would propose, is not to turn back but to persist, because this is the final outcome that we strive to achieve. This is the outcome that Canadian children deserve.

Thank you, colleagues, for your attention. I urge all of us to study this bill rigorously and to adopt it swiftly so that provinces, Indigenous communities, parents and children can move forward with a certainty that Canada-wide early learning and child care is here to stay.

Meegwetch, thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?

An Hon. Senator: No.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Thank you for that informative overview of the law, and thank you for mentioning the great Monique Bégin, an icon who left a great legacy for us in terms of social and health policy in Canada.

My question is about public support for child care in Canada; indeed, this is one of the most important affordability programs we are putting in place. Over the years, over several decades, there were really only women’s groups, women’s movement and feminist groups who were calling for child care. Something happened over COVID and that changed, and you mentioned that. Could you say a little bit about how this changed and how we finally got the business community onside for national child care at this point?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Moodie, there are seven seconds left. Are you asking for five more minutes?

Senator Moodie: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?

Hon. Percy E. Downe moved second reading of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak as the sponsor of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act.

Canadians have been waiting for this important piece of legislation to fight against money laundering and overseas tax evasion. That is why I am pleased to have the opportunity to sponsor this bill.

If passed by Parliament, this bill will create a public and searchable beneficial ownership registry. I welcome this legislation and I am not alone in this.

James Cohen of Transparency International Canada stated:

There was a lot of aggressive language on anti-money laundering in Budget 2023. We’re thankfully seeing the tough talk backed up with increasingly bold proposals that now need to be implemented and financed. Canada’s finally getting on the right track it seems.

A spokesperson for Canadians for Tax Fairness regarded this bill as an important first step and stated:

Tax dodging and money laundering cost the public billions every year. A publicly accessible registry will significantly improve tax compliance and enforcement for all levels of government.

The government has proposed this legislation because a lack of corporate ownership transparency is impairing Canada’s ability to combat serious financial crimes like fraud, money laundering and tax evasion. It also limits our nation’s capacity to enforce domestic and international sanctions through effective tracing and freezing of financial assets. Finally, it is impacting the trust of Canadians and foreign investors in our marketplace and eroding confidence that our tax system treats everyone equally.

Canada’s inability to quickly and quietly identify a company’s beneficial owner, that is the natural person who controls the corporation or company, delays justice and enforcement of laws in our country.

Honourable senators may be interested to know that according to FINTRAC, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, roughly 70% of all money laundering cases in Canada involve the misuse of corporate legal entities, both to channel foreign proceeds of crime into or through Canada as well as to launder domestically generated proceeds. This is consistent with one of the findings of the final report of the Cullen Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering in British Columbia.

Unfortunately, drug cartels and foreign criminals have long used corporate vehicles to hide the ownership and control. A public beneficial ownership registry would complement the existing tools of law enforcement. Such registries and the transparency they foster further serve as a deterrent to criminals, foreign and domestic.

In my work in overseas tax evasion, I was always impressed by the Australian experience, which I mentioned in this chamber before. After starting Project Wickenby, a broad-based government effort to fight overseas tax evasion and recover money owed to the Australian people, the authorities discovered that international money transfers to known tax havens declined dramatically once people were charged and sent to jail. Charging, convicting and jailing Australian tax evaders and money launderers curbed their desire to conduct such activities.

To that end, this legislation will have penalties for wilful non‑compliance that are some of the most severe in the world: up to $100,000 fines for corporations, up to $1 million of personal fines for directors and officers and up to five years in prison for those who knowingly provide or allow or permit false or misleading information to be filed.

Colleagues, the need for this type of registry has been well established by now, notably by public consultation held by the Government of Canada and the Financial Action Task Force, the G20 body that sets international standards in these matters.

Incidentally, this was the same task force that in a 2016 report raised significant concerns about the state of beneficial ownership transparency in Canada.

In recent years, Transparency International — the global organization, not the Canadian chapter — has given Canada progressively lower scores in its yearly international Corruption Perceptions Index due in no small part to delays in implementing beneficial ownership transparency. Naturally, the same organization is greatly encouraged by the measures proposed in the bill before us, such recognition being a testimony to the leadership of Minister Champagne on this file. This long-delayed and much-needed action in Canada has finally arrived with this legislation.

Beneficial ownership registries are nothing new, and have existed in the United Kingdom and in a growing number of countries since 2016. They have proven a useful tool in helping law enforcement, journalists and civil society detect and deter the misuse of corporations for illicit financial activity. A beneficial ownership registry will also serve tax authorities here and abroad. They will be able to use the information to track and fight tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. The Panama Papers as well as other mass leaks have shown that criminals look for places with weak beneficial ownership transparency and then try to hide their personal ownership and income. The longer the chain of entities between the income and the beneficial owners, the harder the truth is to determine.

We should not underestimate the significant burden that tax evasion and avoidance place on the Canadian economy. In 2019, for example, the U.S. State Department designated Canada as a major money-laundering country. Volume II of the U.S. State Department’s report from March 2022, entitled International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, says that they estimated that between CAD 50 billion and CAD 120 billion is laundered every year in Canada. That, colleagues, is roughly 5% of our GDP. Think about that: 5% of our GDP is consisting of money laundering. That was further documented when the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada’s 2020 report, using an estimate from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, concluded that money laundering represents between 2% and 5% of GDP in Canada, and they pegged the money laundering at between CAD 45 billion and CAD 113 billion.

Senators, we have a major problem that this bill will help to address. Making beneficial ownership information publicly available supports good governance and trust. All businesses can check who they are doing business with by reviewing the entities of potential suppliers and customers, thereby protecting themselves against crooks.

Honourable senators, at this time, I would like to take the opportunity to highlight a few additional features of the bill that, I believe, reflect the significant amount of thought that has gone into designing an effective regime. Obviously, our Senate committee will conduct its own study of this bill in greater detail, but here are a few of the highlights.

Bill C-42 is the product of significant consultation. In 2020 and again in 2022, officials from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Finance Canada conducted public consultations on options and met with key stakeholders, including law enforcement, businesses, transparency organizations, professional associations and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

The text of Bill C-42 represents a careful balance of the views of all the stakeholders. It also reflects lessons learned from registries already in place in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States. Here in Canada, the federal government is providing leadership under Minister Champagne and is working closely with the provinces and territories given that corporation registration is a joint responsibility.

This federal bill, if passed, will cover roughly 15% of corporations in Canada, and with the cooperation of the provinces and territories, we will have 100% coverage. Colleagues, the Province of Quebec led the way with its Bill 78, passed in June of 2021, making it the first province in Canada with legislation to institute a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry. They were soon followed by British Columbia. I want to congratulate these governments on their leadership and urge other provinces to now join the fight.

Another feature of this bill I want to highlight relates to the protection of the privacy of Canadians. Upon entry into force, Bill C-42 will require corporations to collect more information from their beneficial owners, including name, citizenship, date of birth and address, and to send this, along with other information in their registry of individuals with significant control, to Corporations Canada. They would be required to do this annually and within 15 days of any changes recorded in their registry. This new information is necessary to enable law enforcement to effectively identify beneficial owners and to align with international partners.

At the same time, only a portion of the information collected by Corporations Canada will be made available to the public: the name; the address for service if it has been provided to the corporation or the residential address if an address for service has not been provided to the corporation; the date the individual gained or ceased to have significant control; and a description of the nature of that control.

The proposed legislation collects and discloses only that information that is both necessary and proportional to meet the objectives of the registry. The most sensitive personal information will only be made available to law enforcement and other authorized entities. This design is intentionally privacy-conscious, and a Charter Statement released by the Department of Justice Canada finds Bill C-42 to be fully compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Honourable senators, Bill C-42 also provides for a two-track exemption regime to protect certain at-risk individuals and further ensure the bill is Charter compliant. The first track will be an automatic exemption from publication for individuals who are less than 18 years old. The second track will be an exemption under application if the director of Corporations Canada is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that their safety and security are at risk. It is important to note that in all these cases, law enforcement will still have access to the information and that Corporations Canada’s website will have to make its exemption decisions public. At the same time, the core set of information publicly disclosed will be of great benefit to shareholders, creditors and other business partners of the corporations, like reporting entities, foreign law enforcement and tax authorities as well as non-governmental organizations, journalists and members of the public.

Honourable colleagues, a second notable set of features of Bill C-42 is the measure put in place to deter non-compliance. The effectiveness of the registry will indeed be heavily dependent on the data it contains. Bill C-42 puts in place the building blocks of a comprehensive and progressive compliance program — including the administrative action and criminal sanctions that I outlined earlier — to deter bad behaviour and encourage compliance by all corporations.

On the administrative front, corporations that fail to provide their beneficial ownership information to Corporations Canada may notably be prevented from obtaining a certificate of compliance, a document that is often required to support a loan request or to enter into contract with a potential supplier or buyer. If a corporation remains in non-compliance, it could be dissolved, meaning the end of the legal existence of the corporation.

Honourable senators, I would also like to highlight another key feature that provides individuals, employees and journalists the opportunity to report suspected wrongdoings directly to the director of Corporations Canada. I am referring to the whistle-blower protection provision. For example, the director of Corporations Canada will not be authorized to disclose to the public information submitted to it by a whistle-blower, and the bill amends section 2 of the Access to Information Act to prevent the release of information submitted that could identify any individuals.

Altogether, these measures should serve to enhance the accuracy and integrity of the information in the registry and deter intentional misreporting, or false or misleading information.

Colleagues, I have talked a lot about efforts put in place to increase transparency and hold criminals to account, but this should not have us lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of Canadian businesses are law-abiding and vital contributors to the well-being of our country. Bill C-42 is very mindful of this consideration and works to ease the administrative cost of the new obligations. More specifically, Bill C-42 will enable online-only intake forms and align reporting timelines with pre-existing filing requirements for corporations, such as annual reports and reporting changes of directors. Additional steps will be taken, including a progressive onboarding of corporations based on their original creation date, as well as significant proactive education and outreach efforts.

Colleagues, I would now like to turn to the topic of the interoperability of the registry. This is a key concern for stakeholders and will be an important component of the success of a national approach to corporate transparency. Interoperability has many dimensions, but the general plan is for the federal registry to be aligned with domestic and international registries so that provinces are enticed to join a pan-Canadian registry.

Honourable senators, the government has publicly committed to adopting the Beneficial Ownership Data Standard, which is an internationally accepted open standard that provides a consistent way to use, collect, exchange and establish beneficial ownership information and control of companies. Canada’s use of this standard will ensure that our registry can communicate with and speak the same technical language as beneficial ownership registries around the world, as well as with our provincial and federal authorities.

Provincial and territorial finance ministers have agreed in principle to pursue legislative amendments to their respective corporate statutes to require corporations to hold up-to-date information on beneficial ownership. This bill is step two.

The efforts to harmonize federal, territorial and provincial beneficial ownership regimes are ongoing. On June 5 of this year, Minister Champagne and Deputy Prime Minister Freeland sent a joint letter to their respective provincial and territorial ministerial counterparts asking them to join their federal efforts to create a pan-Canadian beneficial ownership registry and were seeking specifically to understand each area’s particular needs and any supports required to facilitate their participation in a national system.

Honourable senators, the lack of beneficial ownership transparency is impairing Canada’s ability to combat serious financial crimes like fraud, money laundering and overseas tax evasion. It also limits our capacity to enforce domestic and international sanctions and to effectively trace and freeze financial assets. The lack of beneficial ownership transparency is impacting the trust of Canadians and foreign investors in our marketplace. Simply put, we must put an end to Canada’s reputation as a most attractive country to launder money. With our stable government and banking system, we have become an international hot spot for criminals — and foreign money that has been obtained by drug cartels, corrupt dictators and the Mob.

The registry proposed by Bill C-42 would be a significant step forward in those regards. It would be of great benefit to law enforcement, and in building and reinforcing trust in the Canadian marketplace.

Finally, colleagues, Canada is taking action. For those reasons, I hope you will join me in supporting this bill. Thank you, honourable senators.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “no.”

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)