Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Yussuff, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Hon. Tony Dean, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, presented the following report:

Tuesday, December 5, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs has the honour to present its

EIGHTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), has, in obedience to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 21, 2023, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment but with certain observations, which are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

TONY DEAN

Chair

(For text of observations, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 2275.)

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

The Government of Canada recognizes that many sectors of our economy, and many individuals within those sectors, are facing challenging times. We came out of the pandemic in pretty good shape compared to most other countries, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t take its toll. Businesses are still living with that, whether it is the shortage of materials, supply chain problems that still plague us or human resources issues.

That said, the Government of Canada — in its Fall Economic Statement and in all of its measures — is doing its best to find the right balance of prudent fiscal management in a time of economic contraction while still providing the support necessary. The Government of Canada continues to believe that its price on pollution is an appropriate policy measure.

It believes the rebates offered to Canadians, whether generally or in sectors, do in fact mitigate to some degree the effect of those.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) moved third reading of Bill S-13, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

She said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to begin third reading of Bill S-13, which represents a significant step forward in the process of reconciliation.

This bill would add a provision to the Interpretation Act affirming that all federal laws must be read as upholding, and not as abrogating or derogating from, the rights of Indigenous peoples under section 35 of the Constitution. With a few exceptions, the new provision would replace all similar clauses in existing laws so that there will be a consistency in legislative interpretation and so that Indigenous people won’t have to push for non-derogation clauses in legislation on an ad hoc basis.

This is something that many Indigenous organizations and rights holders have wanted for a very long time. It is a product of many years of advocacy and hard work, and it is exciting to finally be so close to making it a reality.

I will start by thanking the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, as well as the witnesses who contributed testimony and written briefs, for a thorough and truly interesting study.

As I said at clause-by-clause consideration, I wish some of the Indigenous leaders who have passed could have been there to witness the level and nature of the discussion. Frankly, I wish some of our predecessors in this institution could have seen it too.

In living memory, there were debates in the Senate explicitly about how best to use the laws of Canada to sideline or eliminate Indigenous nations and cultures. A few weeks ago at clause by clause, the focus of our discussion was how far and how fast we could go to ensure Canadian laws protect Indigenous rights.

The committee grappled thoughtfully with questions such as what genuine consultation means and how we, as senators, can drive progress while remaining respectful of the role of Indigenous peoples in setting the agenda and the pace of change. These are not simple questions to answer, but they are good questions to be asking.

Ultimately, the committee decided to adopt the bill unamended, in keeping with the recommendations of most but not all witnesses. In general, there was widespread agreement that Bill S-13 is significant and overdue.

Natan Obed, President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, called this “. . . a long-standing priority for Inuit” and gave this bill his unqualified support. President Cassidy Caron of the Métis National Council, or MNC, said that Bill S-13 is:

. . . part of Canada’s commitment to building renewed nation-to-nation and government-to-government relationships with the Métis Nation based on an affirmation of rights.

Speaking on behalf of the Manitoba Métis Federation, or MMF, William Goodon said:

. . . we unequivocally support the quick passage of Bill S-13. We commend the Government of Canada for finally proceeding with this long overdue and Indigenous-led initiative. . . .

Eva Clayton, President of the Nisga’a Lisims Government in B.C., said:

We are very excited at the prospect of Bill S-13 finally becoming law. The bill has the unequivocal support of the Nisga’a Nation, and we congratulate the government for finally agreeing to proceed with what has been, since the beginning, an Indigenous-led initiative. . . .

That is just a sampling, colleagues. There was also support for the bill from the Tłı̨chǫ Government and Gwich’in Tribal Council in the Northwest Territories; Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, or NTI; the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) and Cree Nation Government; and the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations in the Yukon.

Many briefs and witness statements mentioned the report issued by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee back in 2007 which called for legislation like Bill S-13. Witnesses generally expressed disappointment that it has taken 16 years for that report to turn into a bill, but there was also considerable enthusiasm for the prospect of finally turning it into law.

Colleagues, this legislation has been a long time coming, and it enjoys broad support among Indigenous peoples. I am looking forward to sending it to the other place as soon as possible, and I hope the study that happens there will be as thoughtful and expeditious as ours has been.

Before I wrap up, there are two main concerns about this bill that were raised at committee. Neither should stop us from passing it, but they are both valid and deserve to be addressed.

First, we heard differing accounts about the quality of the government’s consultations. For example, the Manitoba Métis Federation said:

We have been consulted and engaged with in respect to the current wording, and we advised the government of our agreement . . . .

Eva Clayton of the Nisga’a Lisims Government said the Department of Justice has conducted “. . . a very lengthy process of consultation and engagement . . . .”

The Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) shared with us the written exchange they had with former Minister Lametti back in 2021 in which they expressed their support for the legislative measures contained in Bill S-13. This aligns with the government’s What We Heard report issued this past June, which describes a multi-year consultation process about the specifics of the bill, such as exactly what wording to use and how to deal with existing non-derogation clauses in other acts.

However, colleagues, the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, as well as ITK and MNC all expressed dissatisfaction with the extent and quality of consultations. MNC President Cassidy Caron described a process that relied too heavily on the solicitation of written input at the expense of conversation with ministers and officials.

According to ITK President Natan Obed, “The legislation was neither co-developed with Inuit nor was it subjected to any consultation and cooperation with Inuit . . . .”

Cheryl Casimer of the AFN said that the First Nations had not given their “free, prior and informed consent,” which is the standard set by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP.

It was a pretty striking illustration of differences in understanding about what consultation means, what level of consultation is required and what the distinctions are between soliciting input, consulting and co-developing a bill.

Honestly, I got the sense that government officials were genuinely surprised by the criticism of a consultation process they seemed to think had been quite strong, and I came away feeling that the government and Indigenous organizations could really benefit from a more in-depth discussion about what consultation should consist of. Hopefully, that is something that will happen as a part of the ongoing action plan to implement UNDRIP, and it is probably an area where the Senate could make useful contributions.

To be clear, though, most of the witnesses who criticized the consultation process still supported Bill S-13 and wanted it adopted as soon as possible.

One substantive critique we heard was that the bill doesn’t go far enough. While Bill S-13 adds provisions to the Interpretation Act to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples under section 35 of the Constitution, some witnesses wanted an additional provision to clarify that all laws of Canada should be construed as being consistent with UNDRIP. This was notably the position of the Indigenous Bar Association, the Native Women’s Association of Canada and the AFN.

Much of the discussion at committee focused on this point. And there was a proposal from Senator Prosper to make this addition to the bill.

By the way, when I said earlier that we grappled with serious questions at committee, a lot of that grappling happened during the debate on Senator Prosper’s amendment, so I really do thank him for making a proposal that sparked such a valuable conversation.

As I said during that conversation, I am, of course, a big proponent of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. I sponsored the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act — former Bill C-15 — and I definitely want Canadian laws and policies to comply with it. The difficulty in this instance is that most of the Indigenous organizations who testified were not prepared to support the addition of UNDRIP to this bill at this point.

We heard repeatedly from Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council, the Manitoba Métis Federation, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, the Nisga’a Lisims Government and the Tłįcho Government that they want time to analyze this idea. They want to study the different possible ways of drafting a provision, settle on precise language and be sure to understand its broader implications. Several of them said that they would also need to do internal consultations to obtain a mandate to support an UNDRIP addition.

All of this is doable, and these are good ideas. I understand the frustration of some witnesses and senators who want to seize the moment and make this addition now. Ultimately, though, the determining factor for me was that if we value consultation — and if we want Indigenous people to be on board with major legislative changes that affect them — I think we, as senators, should do our best to listen when so many Indigenous leaders ask us to wait until they and the people whom they represent are ready.

In the meantime, the message from most witnesses came through loud and clear: Bill S-13 will be a significant step forward and should be adopted without delay. As we heard from Marie Belleau, Managing Legal Counsel for Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, it is “. . . the product of years of wordsmithing. . . .” And it’s the product of advocacy that goes back decades. It also builds on the work of the Senate, including the 2007 committee study and an earlier version of this bill sponsored by former senator Charlie Watt. It is exciting to be finally turning all those years of hard work into law.

I hope we adopt this bill as soon as possible, and I hope our colleagues in the other place do the same.

Thank you. Hiy hiy.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moodie, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, for the third reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Hon. Paul J. Prosper: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in the chamber for the first time —

Senator D. Patterson: Bravo.

Hon. Judith G. Seidman: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

As senators will know, the federal government negotiated early learning and child care agreements with all provinces and territories for a period ending March 31, 2026. The objective of Bill C-35 is to set out the parameters of future early learning and child care agreements between the federal government and the various provincial and territorial governments by enshrining into law the funding and guiding principles for early learning and child care in Canada.

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, of which I am a member, was tasked with studying this bill. We heard 12 hours of testimony from a variety of witnesses, including federal and provincial government officials, researchers and stakeholders, including the disability community, official language representatives and Indigenous leaders.

My remarks will focus on three questions that were raised during our study: One, the lack of a definition of “early learning and child care” in the legislation; two, the inconsistency regarding minority official languages in the legislation; and, three, the need for more data requirements in the legislation.

On the lack of a definition of “early learning and child care” in the bill, the committee questioned the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development of Canada, Jenna Sudds, on this submission. As it currently stands, Bill C-35 offers no indication of how the government defines “early learning and child care.” The government’s rationale was that this offered flexibility in their agreements specific to each province and that they preferred the option of not being prescriptive in their legislation.

However, many witnesses expressed concern that Bill C-35 does not have a clear definition of “early learning and child care.” There was no consensus on a definition, but most witnesses agreed on the elements needed. First, the definition should be reflective of UNESCO’s International Standard Classification of Education. Second, the definition should include “licensed and regulated,” which is already in the current agreements. And third, the definition should be inclusive to capture as much of the early learning and child care, or ELCC, landscape from coast to coast to coast.

Taya Whitehead from the Canadian Child Care Federation stated:

A carefully defined definition could play an important role in supporting and protecting the early learning and child-care programs going forward.

Colleagues, I cannot suppose what definition of “early learning and child care” would be best in Bill C-35. However, given the testimony heard at the committee, I must agree with the experts: A definition of “early learning and child care” in the legislation would eliminate any ambiguity but could also offer the flexibility needed for all.

On the inconsistency in the legislation regarding minority official languages, during our clause-by-clause deliberations, our committee considered a series of amendments regarding official language minority communities. The Human Resources Committee in the other place agreed to amend clause 7 by adding a funding commitment for official languages. That amendment was just a statement that funding agreements must be guided by the commitments set out in the Official Languages Act.

François Larocque, a professor, researcher and lawyer working in the field of language rights, made the Social Affairs Committee aware of the need to also amend clause 8 of the bill. His proposed amendment would protect long-term funding for ELCC programs and services for official language minority communities across the country.

Colleagues, as a member of the English-speaking minority in Quebec, I understand first-hand the importance of the amendment to clause 8 in order to guarantee long-term funding. Since the inception of the Official Languages Act in Canada, official language minority communities have been stuck in a perpetual cycle of turning to the courts to affirm their rights. Official language minority communities need our help as legislators, both to ensure that the federal government will follow up on its commitments and obligations and to have an explicit reference in the legislation when making their case in court.

Professor Larocque told the Social Affairs Committee that:

. . . if clause 8 does not explicitly mention programs for official language minority communities, it is more than likely that a court would conclude that the government is not obliged to guarantee them long-term funding.

Despite this, the government did not include such a reference in clause 8, and we did not have an amendment at the Social Affairs Committee to insert one.

The Social Affairs Committee was also made aware of another inconsistency in the legislation. Clause 7(1)(c) of the bill explicitly refers to “. . . English and French linguistic minority communities . . . .” while clause 11(1) refers to “. . . official language minority communities . . .” This inconsistency might have been corrected had the government been more welcoming of amendments.

On the need for more data requirements, witnesses who appeared before the Social Affairs Committee were clear — to implement a national social policy like early learning and child care in Canada, robust data is crucial. The committee heard how important data collection is to understanding the impact and effectiveness of these investments.

During our committee meeting of October 16, the minister confirmed that Statistics Canada recently launched a new survey that would provide insights in a few different areas. The minister also mentioned that reporting requirements already exist in the current agreements.

However, we also heard from witnesses concerned that the provinces were not reporting as expected. Professor Gordon Cleveland, Chair of the Data Indicators and Research Working Group of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, told us, “. . . the trouble is that the provinces and territories, in many cases — either haven’t been able to . . .” collect robust data:

. . . or it’s not high enough of a priority. They are not reporting in the way the agreements foresaw. They’re not providing information in as timely a way as we thought they would, and even when they do, there will be major problems of lack of comparability.

Martha Friendly, the founder and executive director of the Childcare Resource and Research Unit, or CRRU, told the committee:

CRRU has been collecting and making certain forms of data as comparable as possible among the provinces. . . . But that isn’t a data strategy.

She also told the committee, “We need a data strategy that ensures that we will be officially collecting certain kinds of data. . . .”

We also heard that a lack of data would make it harder for advocates for children from equity-deserving groups. Krista Carr from Inclusion Canada told the committee:

We have a really difficult time in the disability community to get accurate, up-to-date data particularly on the inclusion of children with disabilities, whether that’s in school or in early learning and child care.

It is critically important because otherwise when we try to make our policy arguments or our legislative arguments, whether that’s provincially, territorially or federally, everybody wants the data. . . .

The testimony heard from experts regarding the lack of data collection mechanisms in the bill confirms my concerns. How can we properly invest in a long-term early learning and child care system in Canada if we don’t have the data to guide future investments? It is inconceivable to undertake such an important endeavour without base data to guide subsequent agreements.

As a proud Québécoise, I understand the benefits of having affordable and accessible daycare for mothers and families. We have had a universal, government-funded program in Quebec for more than 25 years. The participation rate of mothers of children aged 3 to 5 rose from 67% in 1998 — at the launch of the program — to 82% in 2014. Furthermore, a 2018 Statistics Canada study confirmed the benefits for women in the labour force in Quebec:

Most of the recent increase in the female labour force participation rate in Quebec, relative to Ontario, occurred among women for whom pre-school child care or before- and after-school care is most relevant—i.e., those with young children. The labour force participation of Quebec women whose youngest child was under 13 also increased among those with less than a university degree, suggesting that the province’s family policies make it economically beneficial for those who would presumably earn lower wages to join and remain in the workforce.

Economist Pierre Fortin of L’Université du Québec à Montréal found that in 2008, universal access to low-fee child care allowed nearly 70,000 more mothers to hold jobs than if no such program had existed; that Quebec’s GDP was higher, by about $5 billion, as a result; and that the tax-transfer return that the federal and Quebec governments get from the program significantly exceeds its cost.

Colleagues, we can agree on the importance of having affordable and accessible quality daycare for all Canadians, but we need more clarity on the definition of “early learning and child care,” as well as better leadership for a national data collection strategy. Canadians need support to access affordable, quality daycare. We have a lack of space, with wait lists across the country, and a need for more qualified ELCC educators. Federal investments will hopefully help Canadian families. But without proper data, it will be difficult to evaluate the impact of the investment and to adapt future agreements to the challenges faced by Canadians.

Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Moodie, do you have a question?

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Senator Seidman, I just wanted to ask a question about the definition point you raised. I know that in committee, one of the key groups that raised this question was the Canadian Child Care Federation. Recently, in the last three or four days, we all received a letter from 20 key stakeholders in this area, one of which was the Canadian Child Care Federation. In that letter, they retracted any request for a change in definition.

What would you say now about your concern that these stakeholders were forceful then, but are now retracting?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Will Senator Seidman take another question?

Hon. René Cormier: Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading stage of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

I want to acknowledge that the land on which I am speaking to you today is part of the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin nation.

I thank the bill’s sponsor, Senator Moodie, and my colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for their very careful study of this bill.

In short, Bill C-35 seeks to enshrine in a legislative framework the government’s financial commitment to early learning and child care systems in Canada.

It is important to mention, honourable senators, that the initial version of the bill at first reading in the other place did not provide any assurances that official language minority communities would be taken into account. As a result, during clause-by-clause consideration, some additions were made to the guiding principles set out in clause 7 and to the national advisory council on early learning and child care set out in clause 11.

I also want to point out that, when the bill was studied in the other place, clause 8 was not carefully examined in order to make sure that it was consistent with the additions regarding official language minority communities, or OLMCs. Let’s not forget that clause 8 is at the heart of this bill and that it codifies the federal government’s long-term funding commitment.

In light of the foregoing, the Social Affairs Committee’s study of the bill in its present form revealed some serious problems with the terminology used and the lack of consistency and accuracy with respect to official language minority communities.

[English]

Colleagues, as mentioned by Senator Seidman, there is an inconsistency in the bill’s terminology. Paragraph 7(1)(c) refers to “. . . English and French linguistic minority communities . . .” whereas subclause 11(1) refers to “. . . official language minority communities . . . .”

Second, organizations and experts from official language minority communities expressed serious concerns during the committee study about the federal government’s lack of long-term financial commitment to official language minority communities in clause 8.

Moreover, witnesses before the committee demonstrated a clear causal link between the implementation of the financial commitment in clause 8 and the vitality of daycare centres in minority language communities. Allow me to reiterate the situation of the French fact in Canada and describe the reality of daycare centres in a minority language context.

As you may know, colleagues, it was acknowledged many times during the study of Bill C-13, which modernized the Official Languages Act, that French is in decline in Canada. This is an undisputable fact — an inescapable reality that we must consider in all our work as legislators.

You will not be surprised to hear that learning the minority language — French outside Quebec and English inside Quebec — from an early age is crucial to maintaining our two official languages and ensuring the vitality of official language minority communities.

It is clear that a young person born into a family where French is the first language spoken and who subsequently attends a French-language daycare centre is much more likely to pursue his or her primary, secondary and post-secondary education in French. However, colleagues, this young person still needs to have access to French-speaking daycare facilities.

[Translation]

Need I add that it’s been proven that learning and developing high-quality French in the preschool years has a direct impact on the future academic abilities of young people who pursue their studies in francophone schools?

[English]

Although imperfect, current federal legislation provides tools to protect the continuity and quality of educational services offered to linguistic minorities to ensure their development and vitality, known as “the continuum.”

As Senator Moncion reminded us in her second reading speech, section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for the right to minority language education, and access to minority language daycares is essential in implementing this Charter right.

Moreover, as per the Official Languages Act:

The Government of Canada is committed to advancing formal, non-formal and informal opportunities for members of English and French linguistic minority communities to pursue quality learning in their own language throughout their lives, including from early childhood to post-secondary education.

Given the reality experienced by official language minority communities, the danger of compromising access to minority language daycares and the existing legislative framework that recognizes this reality by establishing rights to minority language education and government commitments, we could have hoped for a clear and robust bill to reflect all of this. However, with all due respect, this is not the case with Bill C-35.

[Translation]

In Bill C-35, clause 7 lays out the guiding principles for federal investment in the establishment and maintenance of a Canada-wide early learning and child care system.

Clause 8 sets out a binding funding commitment and, as such, it is the very heart of Bill C-35. In other words, it’s the key to creating the education continuum for official language minority communities. That’s why I urge everyone to recognize the importance of this at third reading.

The first sentence of clause 8 currently reads as follows:

The Government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples.

The second sentence of this clause states the following:

The funding must be provided primarily through agreements with the provincial governments, Indigenous governing bodies and other Indigenous entities . . . .

The wording of the clause appears to set out two specific objectives. It points to the federal government’s long-term funding commitment and the mechanism by which the funding is to be provided.

Considering how important it is to provide good support for the education continuum, it goes without saying that implementing clause 8 will have a significant impact on the vitality of OLMCs. Former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Michel Bastarache, a leading expert on language rights, stated in a message sent to the Social Affairs Committee, and I quote:

In clause 8, it seems to me that the intention is to guarantee ongoing funding for groups facing assimilation, Indigenous peoples and francophones outside Quebec.

However, colleagues, there is absolutely nothing in clause 8 on the federal government’s commitment to official language minority communities.

[English]

In committee, we heard that clause 8, in its current form, could give the impression to a judge hearing a case that its silence with respect to official language minority communities is a deliberate and intentional choice by the legislator. In other words, the legislator implicitly wanted to exclude official language minority communities from the scope of clause 8 since they were explicitly included elsewhere in the bill; namely, in clause 7.

This principle of implicit exclusion is supported by work conducted by the distinguished Professor Ruth Sullivan. In short, we have heard that the principles of statutory interpretation, as well as the Supreme Court of Canada’s jurisprudence on language rights — notably in Caron v. Alberta — suggest that the current legislation must be clear and explicit if official language minority communities’ rights are to be duly respected.

Colleagues, in the past, ambiguities in legislation have created a great deal of harm for official language minority communities, which too often have had the burden of defending their rights in court. A clause 8 that explicitly states the federal government’s commitment to official language minority communities would essentially prevent official language minority community organizations from being burdened by potential litigation to have their rights recognized.

I would like to thank Senator Moodie for stating, on the record, that clause 8 implicitly includes a funding guarantee for official language minority daycare centres, but that statement is not legally binding.

[Translation]

During clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee, I introduced an amendment to add the term “official language minority community” to the first sentence of clause 8, after the words “for Indigenous peoples”. The purpose of the amendment was to correct the absence of any explicit mention OLMCs, thereby clarifying the legislator’s intent to require the federal government to commit to maintaining long-term funding for these linguistic communities. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated in committee.

I want to reiterate that such an addition would not have created a new negotiating mechanism requiring the federal government to negotiate directly with official language minority communities. This interpretation is based on expert testimony heard by the committee.

According to Professor François Larocque, legal counsel with Power Law, and I quote:

Section 8 specifies that funding is passed on through agreements between the federal government, the provinces and the territories, and not directly to the communities, and that’s not what’s being asked for and reflected in the suggested amendments.

In order to clearly specify that intention to not create a new funding mechanism with OLMCs, my amendment divided clause 8 into two separate paragraphs.

[English]

Colleagues, as we heard in committee, there is consensus among both the English-speaking communities in Quebec and the French-speaking communities outside Quebec on the essential nature of the rejected amendment to clause 8. They all agree that there is a lack of clarity in clause 8 and that the federal government’s commitment to official language minority communities must be specified.

[Translation]

The Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, an independent officer of Parliament, says that if OLMCs do not receive adequate funding as part of the early learning and child care plan, the capacity of the early childhood sector in official language minority communities will continue to be compromised. He is also of the opinion that clause 8 needs to be amended to explicitly include OLMCs.

Clearly, the government does not share our concerns over the potential impact of omitting an explicit reference to OLMCs in clause 8, even though it claims to be the champion of official languages, especially in the context of modernizing the Official Languages Act.

During clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee, we heard government representatives make bold statements about the merits of my amendment sought in section 8. I will clarify.

Those government officials said that explicitly including provinces and Indigenous peoples in clause 8 is a deliberate choice because they are responsible for designing and delivering child care programs and services. In other words, according to them, clause 8 would cover only the financial mechanism by which the federal government gives funding to the partners who are responsible for the design and delivery of child care programs and services.

However, again according to the government officials who spoke in committee, including OLMCs in clause 8 would create an expectation of increased funding, exclude federal support for other groups that are systematically marginalized and raise questions about support for Indigenous languages. Colleagues, with all due respect, this reasoning seems very inconsistent.

In its comments, the government implicitly concedes that the scope of clause 8 is much broader than the simple codification of a negotiation mechanism with some key partners. In fact, the government concedes that this clause will have financial repercussions on many minority and Indigenous groups in Canada.

[English]

Allow me to clarify this: Nothing in the wording of the amendment rejected in committee would have created an expectation of increased funding for official language minority communities or recognized that these linguistic communities have the same status as the provinces and Indigenous peoples in the design and delivery of childcare programs and services.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons and considering the role of the Senate of Canada as a legislative body complementary to the House of Commons, which must exercise a sober second thought so that no minority community is left behind, I will hereby table an amendment that adds the words “official language minority communities” to the first sentence of clause 8 after “for Indigenous peoples” and splits clause 8 into two subclauses. The first subclause sets out the government’s financial commitment. The second subclause lays out the mechanisms via which the federal government will provide the funding.

[Translation]

Hon. Senators: Dispense.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: I would like to ask Senator Cormier a question.

The Hon. the Speaker: There is very little time left. Senator Cormier, will you take a question?

Hon. René Cormier: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-35 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 8, on page 6, by replacing lines 13 to 20 with the following:

The Hon. the Speaker: In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Cormier, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, that Bill C-35 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 8—

The Hon. the Speaker: The time allotted for debate has expired.

[English]

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators, I strongly believe that every Canadian should have access to child care for their children in their language of choice, and that it must be an ambition of all governments and every jurisdiction to ensure that, one day, meaningful access for official language minority communities is a reality. I am sure that no one in this chamber disagrees with this ambition.

I want to thank you Senator Cormier for your leadership on these issues and for how passionately you champion this amendment. Although I will be spending the next minutes forcefully disagreeing with you, I do respect and admire you.

As I stated in my recent remarks, I do not agree with the concerns posed by you, Senator Cormier, but I acknowledge them. It is my view that the intent of this legislation is to include official language minority communities for the long-term.

Colleagues, I also want to remind you that Bill C-35 was adopted with support from all parties in the other place. Furthermore, Bill C-35 contains multiple provisions which highlight that funding for child care must include investments for official language minority communities. Paragraph 7(1)(c) states that funding must support:

. . . the provision . . . of early learning and child care . . . from English and French linguistic minority communities, that respect and value the diversity of all children and families and that respond to their varying needs;

Subclause 7(3) states that federal investments into child care must be guided by the Official Languages Act. Subclause 11(1) states that the minister should have regard for the importance of having members of the council who are from the official language minority communities.

You will recall that I spoke about clause 7 at length during my speech a few weeks ago. This clause provides the rules of engagement; that is, the terms and the conditions. This is what I think matters most.

In this respect, I disagree that the amendment to clause 8 would be helpful — not only because of the legislative language that already exists in clause 7, but, along with the language within the agreements and the political pressure that all Canadians can place, these factors culminate in a meaningful protection of official language minority communities and a guarantee of long-term funding for those communities.

An amendment to clause 8 does not improve this reality, colleagues. In fact, the assertion here is that for those not included in clause 8, they are not guaranteed funding despite clause 7. If this is the case, does that mean that funding for children with disabilities is not guaranteed if they are not named in clause 8? What about families from rural communities? Is this paragraph in clause 7 insufficient for them as well? If you carry out that rationale all the way, then the provisions of clause 7 are altogether useless and meaningless.

I believe that it is more reasonable to assume that the guiding principles for funding are sufficient and that the purpose of clause 7 is to commit ongoing funding to partners based on the guidance that exists in this clause.

Let me use a parallel example. Consider the Canada Health Act. We are all familiar with this act which sets out, in sections 7 through 12, the criteria for a cash transfer from the federal government to the provinces. I recall that section 5 reads:

Subject to this Act, as part of the Canada Health Transfer, a full cash contribution is payable by Canada to each province for each fiscal year.

All this section tells us is that money will be paid. How it is presented is contained in other parts of the bill. Note that no one thinks that certain types of funding or funding for certain populations are not guaranteed because they do not sit in section 5 of the Canada Health Act because we understand that this is dealt with in other sections, namely, sections 7 through 12.

This is what clause 8 of Bill C-35 is intended to do. It makes a statement of money that will be transferred. The conditions, the rules of engagement and to whom is set out in clause 7.

Colleagues, two other notes. I mentioned the agreements. You will recall that in all of the agreements — except for Quebec, who has an asymmetric agreement — there is a stated objective of ensuring the official language minority communities have proportional spaces available equal to or above their share of population.

Additionally, I want to point out the investment of more than $60 million over five years included for early learning and child care in francophone and minority communities, including supports to develop the workforce through the Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-2028.

I will not repeat all the remarks I made a few weeks ago, but I want to emphasize for all of us that, as it stands, the bill does what those seeking this amendment wanted it to do. The amendment is redundant and does not bring any further clarity, in my opinion.

I want to be clear on this: Today, a mere two years from the beginning of this Canada-wide early learning and child care system, families are still facing many issues in accessing care. We all know that for a project of this scale, it will take the better part of a decade before access to spaces is no longer a significant issue.

Colleagues, I am confident that Bill C-35 in its current form will result in generations of official language minority communities getting access to child care, to put it simply. We may not see it yet. But if we do feel an urgency, as I believe we all do, then amending this bill to do something that it is already doing and delaying its assent is the wrong decision.

Colleagues, it is also important to note that this question has been dealt with before. In the House of Commons, advocates presented these amendments. While changes were made to clauses 7 and 11, this amendment was never tabled. When it was tabled in the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, it was rejected by a meaningful margin of 7, no; 4, yes; 1 abstention.

Your committee heard hours of testimony from witnesses from throughout the country — experts, academics, child care operators, Indigenous leaders and others. Your committee, having heard this information and considering it for many weeks, voted against this amendment. As you decide how you will vote on this amendment, please consider this decision that your committee made.

When thinking about urgency, colleagues, I explained a few weeks ago my process as to whether or not I would vote for amendments. In light of the political situation in the other place, the question is whether or not adopting this amendment would warrant the subsequent delays in the adoption of the bill. The consequences of these delays may be significant.

The delay inserts uncertainty. Provinces, Indigenous governments, communities, municipalities, not-for-profits, child care workers, parents and others are looking at us today. Jurisdictions are evaluating the trustworthiness of their federal partner. Cities and not-for-profits are planning the future development of spaces and the development of their workforce. Workers are wondering if they are going to have ongoing support and whether this is a sector worth staying in. Parents are wondering whether they need to give up on their dreams or if the possibility of affordable child care is coming soon. If this bill is delayed, it will significantly harm the development of Canada-wide early learning and child care, or ELCC, and I propose that this delay is not necessary.

I will end by reading the letter I referred to earlier in my question — which many of you have seen — that was sent to all of us this past week, signed by over 20 child care advocates who are experts, researchers, operators and workers in the early learning and child care sector from all over the country:

Canada’s child care movement, made up of a broad range of diverse organizations, urges members of the Senate to adopt Bill C-35 at third reading without further amendment. It was over 50 years ago that the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended that the federal government immediately take steps to adopt a “National Day-Care Act” to make federal funds available for the building and running of child care programs. Surely, we have waited long enough for such legislation to be adopted.

We recognize that several organizations, including from our child care community, proposed amendments to the Standing Senate Committee for Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Most reflect important concerns with respect to early learning and child care. We believe these should be addressed not by amending Bill C-35 but through a Standing Committee study. We believe that at this stage, Bill C-35 is sufficiently robust to ensure equitable access to child care for generations to come.

Colleagues, I ask you to please not delay the passage of Bill C-35. Do not let another year begin without federal child care legislation in place.

Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: If you agree, I will seek leave of the Senate to give you an opportunity to ask questions, even if Senator Moodie’s time is up. Is leave granted?