Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, September 30 has been set aside to commemorate the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation — a day of deep significance for our nation.

The history of Indigenous peoples in Canada is a story of resilience, strength and profound injustice. For generations, Indigenous communities faced colonization, dispossession of land, forced assimilation and the horrors of the residential school system. These dark chapters in our history have left indelible scars that continue to affect Indigenous individuals, families and communities today.

For too long, the experiences and suffering of Indigenous peoples in Canada have been marginalized, ignored and even denied. The National Day for Truth and Reconciliation reminds us that it is time to confront this painful history, listen to the stories of survivors, learn from their wisdom and engage in meaningful dialogue.

The National Day for Truth and Reconciliation is not just a date on the calendar; it’s a mandate for change, a call for us to collectively acknowledge the truth of our past and work towards a better future.

It’s a day to reflect upon the devastating legacy of cultural assimilation policies that separated Indigenous children from their families, languages and cultures.

It’s a day to remember the thousands of children who never returned home from those schools, and to honour the survivors who have carried the weight of their trauma for generations.

This day is a testament to our commitment to acknowledging the painful truths of our past and working together to build a more just and inclusive future.

It is also a day of hope that reminds us of our collective responsibility to seek reconciliation. It requires us to confront the systemic injustices that persist today, such as inadequate access to clean water, housing and education in Indigenous communities.

The National Day for Truth and Reconciliation is a day of reflection, reckoning with our history and committing to a more just and equitable future.

Together, let us build a Canada where the wounds of the past are healed, the truth is known and reconciliation is not just an aspiration but a lived reality for all.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-35, the Canada early learning and child care act as the official critic.

Let me begin by emphasizing the importance and need for early child care learning. As a mother and former educator, I intimately understand the critical need for accessible, high‑quality child care.

In principle, I support Bill C-35 which aims to provide accessible, affordable and high-quality child care for all Canadian families. However, there are a few areas of concern that I wish to address as the critic of this bill.

Bill C-35 proposes to enshrine into law the principles contained in the Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework and also makes reference to the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework as guiding principles for funding. Please allow me, colleagues, to talk briefly on both frameworks.

The Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework which:

. . . sets out principles to guide the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces in achieving the vision of all children in Canada having access to quality early learning and child care programs and services that support their development and enable them to reach their full potential.

It is used as the basis for the Early Learning and Child Care Agreements that the federal government signed with each province and territory.

The second is the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework, which was co-developed by the Government of Canada and Indigenous peoples and:

. . . sets out the principles to guide all interested parties in achieving the vision that all First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and families are supported by a comprehensive and coordinated early learning and child care system that is rooted in Indigenous knowledge, cultures and languages and led by Indigenous peoples.

While national frameworks can be useful as general guidelines, they can also overlook regional and local nuances.

In a country vast and culturally rich as Canada, a one-size-fits-all approach may not cater to the unique needs of each province, family and community, potentially leading to disparities in service quality and accessibility. It is crucial for the frameworks to be flexible to the different regional and cultural needs of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

As we study this bill in committee, I think we need to ask ourselves three questions with respect to the importance of regional child care initiatives in promoting child development, supporting working parents and fostering local community growth.

First, does the bill address the importance of tailoring solutions to regional needs? Regional child care initiatives allow for customization of services to address the distinct requirements of local communities. They consider factors such as demographic composition, cultural diversity and economic conditions ensuring that child care programs are relevant and effective within their specific contexts.

Second, does the bill address accessibility and affordability? By focusing on regional solutions, initiatives can target areas with limited access to quality child care services with the aim to make child care more accessible and affordable for families, particularly those residing in underserved or remote regions, and help parents re-enter the workforce without sacrificing the quality of care their children receive.

Third, does the bill address the importance of community engagement and collaboration? Regional initiatives encourage collaboration among local stakeholders, including parents, educators and policymakers. This collective effort fosters a sense of community engagement and ownership in the development of child care programs, which leads to better outcomes for children.

As we inquire deeper into the nuances, the co-development of the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework, though commendable, raises some questions about the depth of this collaboration. Were all Indigenous communities equally represented?

The emphasis on being “rooted in Indigenous knowledge, cultures and languages” is significant, but there’s a risk of homogenizing diverse Indigenous cultures into a singular narrative. Recognizing diversity respects autonomy of Indigenous communities. It empowers them to shape their own education systems, ensuring that education aligns with their culturally unique values and needs.

While we grapple with the complexities of national frameworks and their implications for diverse communities, we must also turn our attention to the pressing challenges of demand and limited availability of early childhood educators.

Ontario’s Financial Accountability Officer has estimated that demand for child care spaces will outpace the current expansion plans by a staggering 220,000 spaces by 2026. This looming gap in availability is further exacerbated by a concerning decline in the workforce. According to Statistics Canada, employment in child care dropped by 21% during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to 3% among other workers across Canada.

An article from the Early Childhood Education Report showed the following key findings from recent surveys of staff working in licensed child care across Canada. In Alberta, 62% of child care centre operators had to recruit staff in the last two years, nearly 30% reported facing hiring difficulties and 6% had unfilled staff vacancies lasting over four months. In PEI, 82% had difficulty hiring staff with the necessary qualifications.

Among early childhood educators who resigned their position in Ontario, the majority sought other employment outside of licensed child care. This decline not only highlights the challenges in meeting the demand for more qualified personnel, but also underscores the importance of ensuring that our educators are valued and supported.

We must therefore ask ourselves whether Bill C-35 addresses the critical questions on how we adequately compensate a profession that historically receives lower wages compared to their counterparts in the K-12 system, which often discourages potential candidates from pursuing a career in the field.

Coupled with low wages comes the fact that early childhood education workers often receive inadequate training and professional development. The field requires highly skilled professionals who can nurture development. However, limited access to quality training and professional development opportunities can deter individuals from entering or staying in the profession.

Another fundamental aspect of Bill C-35 that warrants attention is the role of parents in their child’s upbringing. Parents, undeniably, form the foundation of a child’s world, shaping their perspectives, values and beliefs.

Parents are a child’s primary source of emotional support and attachment. The close bond formed during early years has a profound and lasting impact on a child’s sense of security and emotional well-being.

Parents instill essential social and moral values in their children. Through modelling behaviour, teaching empathy and setting boundaries, parents contribute to the formation of a child’s character and values. These early lessons lay the foundation for future relationships and moral decision making. Parents play a pivotal role in transmitting cultural heritage and social identity. They expose children to their cultural practices, traditions and values, fostering a sense of belonging and identity.

The introduction of mandatory conditions for child care centres to be eligible to opt in for the government program raises some questions. How will these conditions cater to the rich tapestry of beliefs and values that Canadian families hold dear? It’s imperative that any conditions set forth respect this diversity and do not infringe upon the rights of parents to guide their children’s moral and social development.

Every Canadian family should have the freedom to choose the child care that suits their unique needs. Canada’s strength lies in its diversity. What’s suitable for one family might not be for another due to varying circumstances.

In its current form, Bill C-35 appears to favour public and non‑profit child care providers, potentially marginalizing the pivotal role played by private operators in the child care system. Private child care providers have, over the years, established themselves as vital pillars of support for a vast number of Canadian families. Their strength lies in their ability to offer a rich tapestry of diverse programs tailored to meet the unique needs, values and preferences of different families. These providers often fill gaps in regions where public services might be sparse or in areas that require specialized care. By potentially sidelining them, the bill risks creating a standardized child care landscape lacking the richness and variety that private providers bring to the table.

It’s crucial that the legislation recognizes and values the contributions of private child care providers, which are largely owned and operated by female entrepreneurs. To quote my colleague MP Michelle Ferreri, critic of this bill in the other place:

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.

They should not only be acknowledged but also be provided with equitable access to resources, training and support. Ensuring their inclusion and support is not just about fairness; it’s about preserving the diverse, multi-faceted nature of child care in Canada, which is essential for catering to the diverse needs of Canadian families.

In the diverse landscape of child care services, the province of Alberta stands out with 67% of its child care being managed by entrepreneurs. These are not public institutions or not-for-profit entities but entrepreneurial ventures, many of which have been successful and effective in catering to the region’s needs. This model, which has thrived in Alberta, is a testament to the fact that private enterprises can coexist harmoniously with public and not-for-profit sectors, delivering quality care.

Private child care providers offer a wide range of services, including daycare centres, home-based care and specialized programs. This diversity allows parents to choose the option that best suits their child’s needs and their family’s schedule, providing greater flexibility and convenience. Private child care centres may offer extended or non-standard hours of operation, making it more convenient for parents with irregular work schedules to access child care services.

For families with specific cultural or religious preferences, private child care providers can offer programs that align with these values and traditions, creating a culturally sensitive and nurturing environment.

The presence of private child care providers can stimulate competition and innovation in the child care sector, encouraging both private and public providers to continually improve the quality of care and programing they offer. It’s crucial for the government to recognize and value the contributions of these private entities and ensure a balanced approach that doesn’t inadvertently disadvantage a sector that has been instrumental in the province’s child care framework.

Another concern raised by MP Ferreri in her third reading speech is in regards to the national advisory council. She said:

Conservatives put forth concrete amendments to the bill for the national advisory council to track data on the implementation of the child care program, including the availability of child care services, the number of families on wait-lists for child care places and any progress made in reducing the number of families on wait-lists. It is accountability and tracking. How do we measure success if we are not tracking it? . . . what happened to this amendment? It was voted down.

Adoption of such an amendment would certainly have improved the bill, and perhaps the committee or our chamber could reconsider this amendment.

Reflecting on the details of Bill C-35 and the Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care Plan, it is clear that while the government’s intentions to establish a national child care system are admirable, significant concerns need to be addressed. The proposed $30-billion investment, although substantial, may not fully address the multi-faceted challenges of labour shortages, long wait-lists and the lack of available spaces. The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s analysis further underscores potential shortfalls, with a notable gap between the number of subsidized spaces and the actual demand for a truly universal $10-per-day child care policy.

Honourable senators, while Bill C-35 represents a significant stride toward a national child care system, it is imperative to approach its implementation with a critical lens, ensuring that the diverse needs of all Canadian families are met, that the workforce is valued and supported, and that the lessons from history guide our path forward.

With that, I wish to acknowledge the work of Senator Moodie, the sponsor of the bill in our chamber. I trust that Bill C-35 will receive careful and thorough study at committee. Thank you.