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.

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 moved third reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

She said: Honourable senators, as the Senate sponsor of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, I am proud to begin on third reading of this bill.

I want to begin by thanking my colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for their robust study of the bill. As a member of this committee for several years, I am always struck by the insightful questions, collaboration and consensus-based approach of our committee. I am grateful to have the opportunity to serve with all of you and look forward to continuing our work together.

It’s especially meaningful for me on this occasion that the focus of this committee study was children.

To our colleagues Senators Burey, Seidman, Cormier, Mégie, Petitclerc, Osler, Dasko, Cardozo, McPhedran and Bernard, as well as to others who joined, thank you for your hard work on this bill. I also want to thank our chair, Senator Omidvar, for her admirable handling of the process and for keeping us in order. Special thanks to you, Senator Cordy, for stepping in at the end of our study. It is my understanding this was your first time chairing, although it was no surprise to me how well you led us through the clause by clause and how fitting it was to have a teacher lead us through the finishing steps of a study on early childhood learning.

In addition to my thanks to the committee members, I want to thank every single witness who took the time to appear before us or to provide us with additional information. We value and appreciate your insight.

Colleagues, as I noted in my second reading speech on Bill C-35, this is a significant commitment to a crucial dimension of Canada’s social fabric. It will immensely impact all children, women and the economy for generations to come. It is a commitment by our federal government to ensure the growth of an accessible, affordable and inclusive child care system that will provide a firmer foundation on which all Canadian families can thrive.

I will briefly remind us of the journey that brought us here, of the benefits of national child care and of the current landscape, before returning to the bill and the committee’s work.

As you heard from me in second reading, the journey to a national early learning and child care program was a long one. The ambition originated during the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and through numerous developments resulting in the 2017 Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework with provincial and territorial governments. This agreement between Ottawa and the provinces was for $7.5 billion over 11 years. The purpose was to “. . . increase quality, accessibility, affordability, flexibility, and inclusivity in early learning and child care . . .” with consideration for families that needed care the most.

Colleagues, we are all familiar with what came next. The COVID-19 pandemic was a significant shock to our society and our economy. Women were displaced from the workforce, and the progress we had made on equality in the labour force threatened to be entirely erased. The response to this crisis was a national child care program.

In Budget 2021, an investment of $30 billion over five years and $8.3 billion ongoing were committed to build and sustain a national child care system. Through this investment, the government significantly expanded the multilateral agreements and set about building something new. Their goal was a 50% reduction of average fees by the end of 2022 and an average fee of $10 a day by 2026.

You have heard me say this before: This investment in child care is a transformative project on the scale of the establishment of Canada’s public school system and public health care system by previous generations. This is a legacy investment for today’s children, who will not only benefit from it but will also inherit it for their own children.

In my view, this is one of the most significant bills you and I will deal with in this august chamber. Why? Because child care has clear and powerful impacts on Canadian society.

For children, early access to education can set them on a very strong path to future success and productivity. We know that child care better prepares children to learn in elementary school. It also provides an opportunity for them to be around professional educators who may help families identify specific needs their children may have or to address those needs early on to ensure they have support early on to be successful and to resolve the issues that may arise. By providing upstream supports, we not only help kids to be successful, but we lower costs for our education system down the line.

For women and families, access to affordable child care means the opportunity to return to work, build on their own education or to start a business. It means that both parents can now use their gifts and their skills to the benefit of their communities and to Canadian society as a whole. It means that parents — specifically mothers — don’t have to decide between their child’s well-being and their own ambitions. They can build a life they want for their families with the assurance that their children are not just taken care of but that they are thriving.

For our economy, child care represents an investment with significant returns. This is why many sectors of our society, such as private business, unions, economists, academics and many others, supported the government’s investment into a pan-Canadian child care system. Studies have shown us that for every dollar invested in early childhood education, the broader economy receives between $1.50 to $2.80 in return. The federal government’s own estimate predicts that the Canada-wide system will raise GDP by as much as 1.2% over the next two decades.

Finally, falling child care fees means that families individually are saving more on child care and can use those savings to pay bills or to invest in their own futures.

Simply put, national early learning and child care is an investment in our families. Access to affordable child care means resilient and successful families and communities. This is what Bill C-35, along with the agreements already in place, represents. It represents a commitment not only to achieve the government’s short-term goals, but it also represents an ongoing investment to Canadian families. It will benefit all Canadians.

In my remarks during second reading, I spoke about the three pillars of the child care system today — the agreements with provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples; the investments into infrastructure; and this bill, Bill C-35, the legislation.

I want to remind us first of the agreements. The fact that all of the agreements are already in place is a crucial consideration for us as we debate this bill. Unlike other framework bills, we don’t have to imagine what Bill C-35 will look like and how it will be applied. We can see it. Every province and territory has a bilateral agreement with the federal government that is tailored to the needs of their jurisdiction. Each differs in its specific details, but all have similar broad lines and themes.

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

All of the agreements include a list of objectives, committing to fee reductions, space creation and workforce development. All have a stated priority for investments to go into not-for-profit and public care over private and unlicensed care.

Finally, every agreement has appended to it an action plan, created by each province, that outlines how they plan to meet their commitments under the agreements.

More specifically, Canada-wide early learning and child care agreements with provincial and territorial governments include a number of commitments, such as the number of new regulated spaces to be created; the timeline for achieving the goal of $10-a-day, on average, fees for regulated child care; and the actions to support valuing the early childhood educator workforce, providing them with training and development opportunities. They also commit to equitable access to child care for communities with barriers to access, such as for children from official language minority communities, children with disabilities, racialized children, children of newcomers and Indigenous children and their families.

Funding agreements with Indigenous partners support Indigenous governance, while partnerships in this sector support program delivery and expand access to culturally appropriate early learning and child care for Indigenous children across the Canada-wide system.

I want to highlight that the very nature of the agreements is a positive step. As Senator Arnot pointed out just yesterday in this chamber, Western alienation and Northern alienation are real. To me, this emphasizes the value of cooperative federalism in the context of national child care.

These agreements should be viewed as a positive development for our country because they allow for the customized approach that meets the needs of each jurisdiction.

All together, these agreements are the basis for the creation of a strong, Canada-wide early learning and child care system based on the vision proposed by our federal government. It is important to note that the provinces and territories are accountable to these agreements and must respect them for a few reasons, and I will walk through these.

First, I would argue that the provinces do not want to lose the significant financial support from the federal government that makes possible this very impactful, popular and valued program. The politics of child care is a motivating factor for respecting agreements in and of itself.

Second, as mentioned, every province and territory has prepared an action plan which acts as the road map outlining how they will deliver on their commitments within their agreements. This allows the provinces and territories to implement their commitments in line with their respective child care priorities, for their respective community needs, while providing the federal government with a clear idea of the targets and outcomes they hope to achieve.

For every jurisdiction, there are round tables where the action plans are and will be regularly discussed and reviewed to ensure there is progress. Where there is not progress, the federal government can engage its partners on those issues.

Finally, every agreement has a dispute resolution and termination clause. This is important because, whereas the politics of child care motivates provinces and collaboration and dialogue at implementation tables drives the monitoring of action plans, it is dispute resolution and termination clauses within the agreements that are important last resorts that must be and remain available.

Canada’s early learning and child care, or ELCC, system is built on the principles of high-quality, affordable and inclusive care that is available for all families and children through public and not-for-profit providers who prioritize the quality of services and affordability, rather than profits. It must be care that supports cultural identity and is available to linguistic minorities from coast to coast to coast.

This program is not about bolstering private businesses or adding to their profits. It is about investing in quality, affordability, space creation and workforce development.

Yet, to be candid, colleagues, although this program has received wide support from all sectors of society, and although the government has received a democratic mandate to continue it based on these principles, we have seen that many of the provinces’ current political leadership might not be totally aligned. They might have a preference for for-profit care or might not prioritize the expansion of spaces for specific groups, such as official language minority communities or Indigenous peoples. Should those provinces be willing to go against the political tides and refuse to meet their commitments in their action plans, these dispute resolution and termination clauses become more important as tools of last resort.

I want to specifically place on the record part of the agreement regarding dispute resolution and termination. I will use my home province of Ontario as an example. Subsection 8.1 of the Canada – Ontario Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement — 2021 to 2026 states:

Canada and Ontario are committed to working together and avoiding disputes through government-to-government information exchange, advance notice, early consultation, and discussion, clarification, and resolution of issues, as they arise.

Jumping forward, subsection 8.3 states:

As the Parties take stock of progress as outlined in section 6 —

— regarding long-term collaboration —

 — should there be challenges, Canada and Ontario agree to work together to explore workable solutions, including proportional adjustments to targets. The responsible Ministers for Canada and Ontario agree to consider all reasonable approaches put forward by officials to address challenges.

Subection 8.4 states:

If at any time either Canada or Ontario is of the opinion that the other Party has failed to comply with any of its obligations or undertakings under this Agreement or is in breach of any term or condition of the agreement, Canada or Ontario, as the case may be, may notify the other Party in writing of the failure or breach. Upon such notice, Canada and Ontario will endeavour to resolve the issue in dispute bilaterally through their designated officials.

The agreement goes on to explicitly lay out the process. It is clearly defined in the agreement. Canada can terminate the agreement at any time, according to subsection 10.1:

. . . if the terms of this Agreement are breached by Ontario by giving at least 6 months written notice of Canada’s intention to terminate the agreement. . . .

Subsection 10.2 states:

After the date of termination of this Agreement under section 10.1, Canada shall have no obligation to make any further payments to Ontario after the date of effective termination.

Colleagues, the cost of non-compliance is loss of money. It is a significant and powerful driver for compliance.

This might have been a bit tedious to listen to — my apologies — but I think that reading all of that into the record is important to assure us and all Canadians listening that there is, in a very real sense, accountability from the provinces, and between the provinces and the federal government.

We actually got to see this accountability take place, in one form, just recently. I encourage you to read your own provincial agreement, as they are easy to access online.

But referring to the recent example, on October 27, CBC News reported that New Brunswick’s education minister had told reporters that the province “. . . needs to renegotiate its 2022 child-care agreement with the federal government to address a long wait list for spaces in the province.” The article goes on to explain that the province was asking for more flexibility to expand the for-profit sector rather than the not-for-profit sector.

On October 31, another report was published, this time with the Honourable Minister Sudds stating quite clearly that New Brunswick will be held to the terms of the agreement in place. This was a clear and important statement from the minister, and I believe it will relieve fears that Ottawa would compromise and be less effective.

Of course, this is true for this current federal government, but what about future governments that might not share the same ideological penchant as this current government? That is where Bill C-35 comes into play.

Bill C-35, as you heard me state at second reading, builds upon these agreements by enshrining the federal commitment to build Canada-wide ELCC into law. The bill imposes conditions on Ottawa regarding its engagement with the provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples through the vision and principles of the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework. Its adoption will provide significant assurance for those partners, the child care sector, the child care workforce and families that Canada-wide ELCC is here to stay.

I want to focus my remarks here on clause 7 of the bill, because that is where the money is. Clause 7 lays out the guiding principles for funding. These are the rules of engagement for Ottawa. These are the conditions by which the Government of Canada makes investments into child care. To put it differently, these are the essential principles that must be included in every agreement going forward.

This clause ensures the accountability of the federal government going forward. It is the stake in the ground that holds Ottawa accountable, and it is how, along with the agreements, Ottawa works with the provinces and keeps them accountable.

Subclause 7(1) of Bill C-35 reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation 118 of the report states:

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

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

Today we continue to have this conversation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now let me examine the legislation in greater detail.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meegwetch, thank you.

Senator Moodie: In a recent statement, Senator Gold, Children’s Healthcare Canada, the Canadian Association of Paediatric Nurses and the Canadian Paediatric Society called on governments of all jurisdictions to work together to address the crisis in children’s health.

Children require specific and focused attention at this time, and emergency warrants special collaboration across all governments. Immediate investments are needed to increase capacity, support clinicians and, ultimately, help children.

Senator Gold, is the Government of Canada willing to sit down with the provinces to find solutions to the crisis in pediatric health care as a separate negotiation from an ongoing discussion on health transfers?

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators, on May 17 and 18, Canada’s performance on children’s rights was reviewed by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This convention is an invaluable human rights treaty that secures a list of rights for all children and youth and has become the most widely ratified human rights treaty in history, with good reason. It has made a transformative impact on children’s well-being in Canada and throughout the world.

By ratifying this convention in 1991, Canada committed to protect and promote the rights of children and youth and agreed to be reviewed by a panel of independent experts on our performance every five years. This was our joint fifth and sixth. How did we do?

The committee was pleased to note some progress since 2012, including progress with national strategies on housing and poverty and progress within provinces on health care and suicide prevention. However, there were mixed reviews on Canada’s performance respecting the rights of Indigenous children.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the implementation of Jordan’s Principle are some examples of progress, but concerns about the impact of poverty on Indigenous children and the failures of the child welfare system were among the many ongoing concerns raised.

Disappointingly, Canada remains stagnant in our overall performance. Once a leader in children’s rights, we are steadily falling to the rear. Why are we doing so poorly? Colleagues, the committee noted Canada’s failure to implement the convention because of poor collaboration with the provinces. It is worth noting that Ontario did not send a delegation to participate in this review.

Another issue is that key landmark policies do not sufficiently consider the needs of children and youth. As an example, the UN suggested that the National Housing Strategy lacks proportionate resources for low-income families and lacks targets, timelines and mechanisms to ensure that they meaningfully benefit from this strategy.

Finally, Canada has failed to ratify the third optional protocol, which is a communications procedure that would give children in Canada and their allies the means to raise concerns on the rights’ violations directly to the UN. When asked why it had not been ratified, the Canadian delegate had no meaningful response.

Honourable senators, we should have been able to celebrate successes, but instead we are left focusing on areas for improvement. It is time that political leaders at all levels make the choice to work together for the good of children. Canada must retake its place on the world stage as a leader in children’s rights. Thank you to the organizations, the hundreds of volunteers and staff who prepared alternative reports for their passion and for their dedication. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Welcome, Minister Gould. In my question today, I would like to focus on child poverty. You have the mandate, minister, for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development through the delivery of Canada’s First Poverty Reduction Strategy. As you are currently reviewing income supports for low-income families and children, what opportunities do you see now to improve the supports for these families?