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

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—

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

Hon. Rose-May Poirier: Honourable senators, I rise today to support Senator Cormier’s amendment to Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

As the senator explained so well, the amendment to clause 8 of Bill C-35 would confirm the federal government’s commitment to maintain long-term funding for early learning and child care programs for official language minority communities.

Honourable colleagues, as a senator from an official language minority community — the community of Saint-Louis-de-Kent — and proud Acadian, I must join the debate and support my colleague, Senator Cormier.

Ever since the federal government signed bilateral agreements with the provinces, official language minority communities have been worried about the fact that the funding will accelerate the assimilation of future generations.

Parents have expressed their concern for the survival of their language, whether in the testimonies heard at the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages or in the communications received by my office.

[English]

For some of you, this may be the first time or the rare occasion when you hear about the difficulties for francophones outside of Quebec in having access to an education in their first language. It has been and remains an important concern for many parents. During my speech on Bill C-13 at second reading, I shared the challenge for official language minority communities to effectively have access to education in the official language of their choice for their children from ages 5 to 17. It is where we are losing roughly 35% of the eligible children outside of Quebec who are not receiving their education in French despite their rights.

There is a similar issue for children aged 0 to 4. Currently, there are not enough spaces for francophone kids outside of Quebec. During the study by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, Jean-Luc Racine, Executive Director for La Commission nationale des parents francophones, confirmed the difficulty:

The situation is alarming. According to the latest census, in 2021, 141,635 children aged 0 to 4 are entitled to French-language education outside Quebec. However, the number of authorized spaces only allows us to serve 20% of these children. In 80% of cases, parents must turn to English-speaking daycare centres.

As all francophones know, it has been and continues to be a constant battle. Colleagues, this is how assimilation happens, and how it is accelerated. Too many francophone parents across the country face the anxiety of their child’s education: Will it begin in their culture, in their language, or will it begin as assimilation at the age of 2? Too often, we hear the story of parents having to put their name on a wait-list before the birth of their child. Imagine the anxiety, colleagues, of not knowing if your child will even have a chance to begin their daycare in their language and culture.

There was a concrete example given at the Social Affairs Committee during its study of Bill C-35 by the President of the Acadian Society of New Brunswick, Nicole Arseneau Sluyter:

Let me tell you about a personal experience I’ve had since I’ve been in St. John that shows just how important the educational continuum is. If we fail in this continuum, we contribute directly to assimilation to English. There aren’t enough daycare centres in French, and some parents have no choice but to enrol their children in English-language schools. As a result, their children end up losing their mother tongue.

A friend of mine from St. John’s, a French-speaking Acadian, had no choice but to enrol her children in an English-language school. She told me: ”Nicole, I’m ashamed, my child doesn’t speak French anymore.”

The situation is similar in Ontario and in each province. The survival of official language minority communities across the country depends on long-term funding commitments from the federal government. We cannot take a chance that the federal government will fuel the assimilation process by not ensuring long-term funding commitments in bilateral agreements on daycares. It is irresponsible on the government’s part to refuse such a reasonable amendment.

Like the Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge, said in his brief submitted to the committee:

. . . investing in early childcare centres for linguistic minority communities ensures greater success of the language transmission process, which in turn contributes to the vitality of the community. As Commissioner Fraser stated in his 2016 report, ”Early childhood development is an area for positive, preventive and proactive intervention to revitalize the French language and Francophone communities.”

[Translation]

If this situation does not change, colleagues, the French fact in Canada will slowly but surely disappear. The federal government must be responsible when granting large sums of money, as it does for the child care program. There must be clear commitments to official language minority communities.

With Bill C-13, the government committed to restoring the demographic weight of francophones in Canada to 6.1%, as it was in 1971. This commitment requires a collective effort on the part of the federal government, and Bill C-35 is part of that. Thanks to the amendment proposed by Senator Cormier, official language minority communities are being given a helping hand to maintain their demographic weight. Not only are they being given a tool to ensure that the government honours its commitment in future negotiations, but they are also being given a tool to help them if ever they need to go to court. All too often, Canada’s francophones have to turn to the courts to ensure their rights are upheld.

Linguistic minorities in Canada are a reality. Too often, we have to ask the courts to affirm our rights.

[English]

Colleagues, I’ve mentioned this a few times before, but I am an example of this assimilation. Due to there being no French schools in the Miramichi region at the time, I had to attend English schools while living in a French household. The linguistic environment outside the house was English, and slowly but surely, English became more predominant than French. My writing and reading skills in French suffered, and to this day, when speaking with my siblings, I often still do so in English. Colleagues, in today’s environment, with the internet, social media, et cetera, francophone kids are even more prone to lose their French compared to our time growing up with radio and limited television.

Honourable senators, the amendment presented by Senator Cormier is for future agreements on daycare with the provinces. We are voting on helping future generations to maintain the vitality of their language, their culture and their identity. By amending Bill C-35 in clause 8, we are helping the government’s own commitment to official language communities like it said it would in the Bill C-13 debates.

I want to repeat three words from the 2016 report on early childhood development from Commissioner Graham Fraser: positive, preventive, proactive. That is the essence of Senator Cormier’s amendment: positive, preventive and proactive. Colleagues, we complain so often about the federal government’s reactive approach to issues. And in this case, they are reactive. Therefore, let’s be preventive and proactive with a positive amendment to Bill C-35 and ensuring long-term funding to official language minority communities.

I want to personally thank my colleague Senator Cormier for his tireless advocacy on behalf of Acadians and francophones across the country. Honourable senators, let’s send a strong message to all official language minority communities in this country by supporting this amendment.

Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, Senator Cormier, for the amendment. Thank you all who have contributed.

I have a prepared text that I am going to read.

Let me begin by saying that what I will try to do is present the government’s position. The government does not support this amendment, as Senator Cormier knows — I was in committee for the clause-by-clause consideration. I will try to do so in as clear a way as I can as a member of a minority language community whose government is not particularly friendly to my community despite the privileges that we have enjoyed for centuries. We have had a far easier time than those of you in the French communities outside of Quebec.

I do understand the importance of this to you. I certainly understand the passion with which you and others in this chamber have embraced the amendment. I respect that. Our identities are important to us. They are precious to us. They are who we are. Our language is the vehicle through which we see the world, much less express ourselves in the world.

I hope you hear my remarks in the spirit in which I am offering them. I am not going to put on my constitutional lawyer hat, although it probably comes out that way when I give you the legal analysis that the government, at least, believes is correct. As well, I am not going to pretend that this amendment, if it passes, is going to kill the bill or — what was the expression — cause the cathedrals to fall or something. It was “sink the armada” — no, none of that.

I have argued against amendments before in this place with less and less success, it seems, as the appetite for amendments in this place seems to grow more than to my taste. However, the will of the Senate is what — we are all here to serve Canadians, and I signed up for this gig seven years ago believing, as I still do, in the independence of the Senate and our duty to do the best we can to improve legislation.

I also believe that it is never possible as humans to be rational as opposed to emotional. Our intelligence and our judgment as we now understand them through neuroscience and, indeed, through the wisdom of our traditions, frankly — we did not need neuroscience to teach us that — as human beings, we bring everything to the table.

You can read it, and what you will hear me say, I am saying to you through my own eyes and wearing the hat that I wear. You can take it. You can discount it. I do appreciate your attention to the preamble. Now I will get to my speech.

I will speak briefly to this amendment, but the government cannot support it. It is not because the objective is not worthy. It is because, in the government’s view, this amendment is actually not consistent with the fundamental intent and purpose of this bill. The purpose of the bill is set out in clause 5.

The purpose is to:

(a) set out the Government of Canada’s vision for a Canada-wide, community-based early learning and child care system and its commitment to ongoing collaboration with the provinces and Indigenous peoples to support them in their efforts to establish and maintain such a system . . . .

Responsibility for early childhood care is exclusively provincial or territorial or is in the hands of the Indigenous communities that have the constitutional right to self-government and have the responsibility. It is their responsibility to set up, manage and determine it.

Further, the purpose is to:

(b) set out the government’s —

— the Government of Canada’s —

— commitment to maintaining long-term funding for the provinces and Indigenous peoples for the establishment and maintenance of that system;

(c) set out the principles that guide the ongoing federal investments in that system . . . .

[Translation]

Colleagues, Bill C-35 only applies to the federal government, which is enshrining in legislation a long-term commitment to building and maintaining a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. The bill respects provincial and territorial jurisdictions and does not impose any conditions on the provincial and territorial governments or on Indigenous peoples. The provinces and territories will maintain their jurisdiction and responsibilities regarding early learning and child care.

Colleagues, let me remind you that all of the Canada-wide early learning and child care agreements signed with the provinces and territories, apart from Quebec, contain clauses about supporting and respecting the rights of official language minority communities according to every jurisdiction’s context and priorities.

[English]

As an example, the existing bilateral child care agreement between the federal government and the Government of New Brunswick includes the following:

New Brunswick commits to develop and fund a plan to ensure that new space creation ensures diverse and/or vulnerable children and families — including children with disabilities and children needing enhanced or individual supports, Indigenous children, Black and other racialized children, children of newcomers, and official language minorities — have spaces equivalent to or greater than their share of the population in the province or territory.

Senator Cormier’s proposed amendment, as we know, intends to include reference to official language minority communities in clause 8 of the bill. The intentions are laudable, but it would be inconsistent, colleagues, to recognize English and French linguistic minority communities alongside the provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples responsible for the design and delivery of the early learning and child care programs and services outlined in clause 8 of the legislation. Legally speaking, English and French linguistic minority communities do not have the same status or the same role in delivering early learning and child care programs and services, nor in building and maintaining this Canada-wide system, as do the provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners.

It has already been mentioned that the bill contains multiple provisions highlighting that the funding for child care must include investments for official language minority communities. Clause 7 specifically articulates the federal principles guiding how federal investments are directed for early learning and child care across Canada. These include the efforts in the development of agreements with provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples — the specific bilateral agreements upon which this framework sits and guarantees the ongoing federal funding to those funding partners.

The Government of Canada is absolutely committed to supporting official language minority communities in early learning and child care. For example, the government’s Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-2028 contains an existing investment of more than $60 million over five years into early learning and child care in francophone minority communities.

In relation to Bill C-35, clause 7 highlights the funding commitments for the official language minority communities. Let me put on record these specifics:

[Translation]

Paragraph 7(1)(c) states that the investment must support the provision of early childhood 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 in respect of early learning and child care programs and services must be “guided by the commitments set out in the Official Languages Act.”

Subclause 11(1) states that the minister must take into account the importance of forming a council that includes official language minority communities, referring here to the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care.

[English]

Colleagues, I would like to point out that in both paragraph 7(1)(c) and subclause 7(3), the definitive use of the word “must,” rather than the subjective use of the word “may,” is used. This is a commitment of the federal government in its responsibility to fund those partners acting within their jurisdiction.

Clause 8 of this bill speaks to the funding and delivery mechanisms of early learning and child care. These are the provinces, territories and Indigenous partners who are constitutionally responsible, not official language minority communities.

The bill was drafted to ensure that the government respects the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, as well as respects and upholds the rights of Indigenous people, including the right to self-determination.

Colleagues, this was not incoherent. This is not ambiguous. This is not an oversight. This was very deliberate. This was a deliberate distinction drawn between the principles to guide the funding and the beneficiaries, including language communities in minority situations as well as others to whom access to fair, affordable child care is a priority, and those bodies — provinces, territories and Indigenous governments — who have the constitutional responsibility to create and deliver these systems and to receive the funding for these systems.

Respectfully, despite the arguments that you have heard, there is, in fact, a potential problem for including the linguistic communities in situations of minority in clause 8. A government official stated it at committee. I will quote again for those of you who were not at committee. This is a repetition of the point that I just made to some degree, but I’m quoting from the government official at committee, who said:

. . . legally speaking, English and French linguistic minority communities do not have the same status or role in delivering ELCC programs and services and in building and maintaining this Canada-wide system as the provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners do. Adding a reference to that group, then, in clause 8 would create the expectation for dedicated and increased funding. . . .

. . . support for specific groups, such as English and French linguistic minority communities, are very importantly and appropriately captured in that guiding principles clause, which was already amended at HUMA in clause 7 in subclauses (1) and (3).

The official went on to say:

Adding another mention of official languages in Bill C-35 could, per our understanding, legally be seen as specifically excluding federal support for other systematically marginalized groups, such as children with disabilities, who aren’t listed.

Beyond jurisdictional roles and responsibilities, I think this amendment also raises questions around support for Indigenous languages, which are not mentioned in the legislation . . . .

Colleagues, sometimes best efforts may result in unintended consequences. I have no doubt that neither Senator Cormier nor anyone else in this chamber who has spoken for or who will vote in favour of this amendment has the intention of potentially excluding support for other marginalized communities not listed. However, the balance between constitutional jurisdiction and the federal commitment to fund relies on specific wording — or lack of wording in this case.

We have heard reference to statutory interpretation, but it cuts both ways. If there is a risk that the exclusion of language might cause a potential consequence down the road for those communities seeking vindication from their province because that is where the responsibility lies, so, too, would the inclusion of some words potentially cause problems, applying the same principles of statutory interpretation to those who would not be otherwise included in the amendment to clause 8. The government lawyers reviewed this carefully. They considered it in the other place. It is their view that the amendment is not appropriate for these reasons.

Senator Moodie outlined the following in her second reading speech:

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

Amending clause 8 with an additional entity could conceivably, as a matter of potential statutory interpretation, add another funding commitment, and it is concern for that that underscores the government’s opposition to this amendment because provinces and Indigenous peoples have legal and jurisdictional roles to play in the creation and delivery of these whereas minority language communities — like my own in Quebec or those of yours in other provinces — simply do not.

Notwithstanding that our rights are constitutionally protected in many ways in education and the like, our status is, nonetheless, different from the provinces, territories and Indigenous governments.

[Translation]

Bill C-35 also aims to respect and enforce the rights of Indigenous peoples, including the right to self-determination. As officials have pointed out, Senator Cormier’s amendment could raise questions about support for Indigenous languages. This is certainly not what Senator Cormier and those who support his amendment intend to do, but it could lead to section 8 being amended or split.

Senator Cormier is right to say that the wording he proposes in his amendment is found in other bills. This point was not necessarily raised in today’s debate, but it was, and rightly so, during the committee study of Bills C-11 and C-18.

In these bills, however, the wording is used in a specific context. The suggested wording for section 8 of Bill C-35 does not appear in these bills. As I said earlier, this is not necessarily consistent with the fundamental objective of this bill, which is to guarantee federal funding to the provinces, territories and Indigenous governments who are responsible for providing daycare spaces for Canadian families.

[English]

Please don’t misunderstand me. The Government of Canada sees the value of official language minorities in early learning and child care. That is why it is referenced in every single provincial and territorial bilateral agreement, again, outside of Quebec, which has an asymmetrical arrangement. The existing funding agreements actually lay out the official language minority communities’ intentions, and clause 7 of the framework legislation in Bill C-35 captures that as a matter of principle.

However, it is the position of the government that amending clause 8 would be improper. Here I’m clearly testing your patience by repeating the same thing over and over again, but clause 8 is exclusively focused on who and what actually delivers what these bilateral agreements promise, and that is the provinces, the territories and Indigenous partners.

[Translation]

What’s more, as you may have seen this week, early childhood education advocates from across the country, including New Brunswick, publicly called for us to pass this bill without any other amendments. Groups such as the YWCA, Child Care Now and the Canadian Labour Congress wrote to remind us that, 50 years ago, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended that the federal government take immediate measures to adopt a “national Day-Care Act” under which federal funds would be made available for the building and running of child care centres.

[English]

They wrote that, at this stage, colleagues, Bill C-35 is sufficiently robust to ensure equitable access to child care for generations to come.

For all of these reasons — and I appreciate that you have indulged me longer than I had intended to speak — the Government of Canada, and I as its representative, simply cannot support Senator Cormier’s well-intentioned amendment, and I would invite you to consider my remarks and vote against the amendment.

Thank you so much for your patience.

Hon. René Cormier: Senator Gold, I’d like to hear your thoughts on the federal government’s responsibility under the Official Languages Act, Part VII in particular, and on taking positive measures. Under the new Official Languages Act, the government committed to working on taking positive measures in its relationships with its partners to ensure the development and vitality of official language minority communities.

How can the government justify its commitment to taking positive measures under Part VII of the act when it comes to the problems that you identified? How can the government justify not agreeing to include something that, as we already said, doesn’t infringe on Indigenous people’s rights, or any rights?

My underlying question is this. Can you tell me how you determine the difference between a guiding principle and what is referred to in clause 8 as a funding commitment?