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.

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. 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.