Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators, today I’m honoured to speak as critic of the important bill brought by our colleague Senator Martin: Bill S-260. I thank Senator Martin for introducing this bill of which I am generally supportive.

Diffuse midline glioma is a particularly aggressive form of brain cancer that affects children around the ages of 5 to 10 years of age. As a senator particularly focused on children’s health and well-being, my heart breaks for victims and their families, and my sympathies sit strongly with them. This is an awful, devastating disease that I’ve seen in some patients. I hope we as policy-makers can continue to strive toward an end to the suffering of these children as health care remains also a large part of this effort.

Cancer remains one of the most common killers in our society today. Around 85,000 Canadians lose their battles with cancer each year. Virtually everyone has been touched by this disease, as roughly two in five Canadians will have cancer in their lifetime while one in four will ultimately succumb to it. Cancer affects not only its victims but also those around them, who are often needed to care for their loved ones and who watch them deteriorate very slowly — particularly hard when this is a child.

However, it is important to remember that not all cancers are created equal. Some cancers are easily treated and even removable without treatment, while some, like diffuse midline glioma, are particularly harsh for the victims and their families. It is incredibly important that progress move forward at a constant pace on the worst cancers that affect people in our societies. Sadly, that has not been the case for this terrible disease.

As my colleague has noted — and the bill states — this cancer attacks the brain stem of the victim, impairing their vital motor functions, including such important actions as swallowing, chewing and speaking. Effectively, it does all of this while leaving the victim’s cognitive functions more or less fully intact, leaving them conscious — completely aware — and a prisoner in their own body.

It is hard to get treatment for diffuse midline glioma. There is little access to services because few professionals deal with this problem, as is the case in many other areas of health care. But in a relatively unique way, one issue that is impacting this disease and its treatment is a complete lack of research and development for new and improved therapies. The terrible truth is that victims today have essentially the same treatment options as their counterparts did 40 years ago.

Diffuse midline glioma is typically treated with a round of radiation therapy, which, while it helps to alleviate symptoms in the short run, invariably results in the cancer’s reappearance within six months. This disease is no minor ailment, colleagues. It is one of the most serious things with which a patient can be diagnosed.

The typical estimated survival post-diagnosis is a mere 9 to 15 months. Only 30% of patients are expected to live a full year; less than 10% live two years. Five years post-diagnosis, the survival rate is usually zero.

Remember, colleagues, that this disease primarily affects our children — children whose entire lives are before them but have them stolen by this incurable, fatal disease.

Honourable senators, this disease is putting our children through unspeakable horror before taking them from us. An effective treatment is needed, funding for research is needed and awareness is needed. I believe this bill is a positive step in the right direction.

I will share with you Adaura’s story. Adaura Cayford was a girl with midline diffuse glioma who was taken from her family by the disease on July 1, 2020, after an 11-month battle. Adaura was like any other child. She loved her family, her dogs, the colour purple, movies, soccer, dancing, pancakes and swimming. It’s a tragedy that Adaura was left with the same treatments and chance of survival as a patient would have had 20 years ago. She was doomed — not just by the disease, but by our lack of progress.

Across Canada, there are many more tragic stories like Adaura’s. The only way we can stop this suffering is by developing new and more effective treatments. This is where key organizations such as Brain Canada come into place.

Brain Canada serves as a national convenor and enabler of the Canadian brain research community. This includes efforts to assess the different ways that brain diseases and disorders affect people at various stages of neurodevelopment and aging. Overall, Brain Canada’s goal is to provide equal access to, and benefit from, the results of bold brain research.

We need to fund Brain Canada and the many researchers in Canadian institutions and private research companies who are working to study brain diseases. This is where the federal government can step in. By investing in researchers, Canada can help fight against diffuse midline glioblastoma and work toward making sure that this disease is no longer a death sentence for our children. This is why I encourage all senators to support this bill. Making May 17 “National Diffuse Midline Glioma Awareness Day” is a positive step in recognizing the collective effort that is needed to defeat this disease.

I’d like to thank my colleague Senator Martin, once again, for introducing this bill. Should it be adopted, we must not rest on our laurels. It is my significant hope that the government will take this bill as a starting point from which to launch concrete, effective action with adequate funds attached. Thank you.

Hon. Rosemary Moodie moved second reading of Bill S-282, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada.

She said: Honourable senators, if you don’t know where you’re going, you’ll never get there. Honourable colleagues, I think it’s safe to say that we all agree on this simple principle: The best way to arrive at a destination is to plan to get there. In other words, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail.

Unfortunately, because of our lack of vision, direction and intention, we are planning to fail our children.

Canada’s 8 million children and youth are being failed by our public policies, including those meant to serve them. Why? Because we design policies without clear outcomes in mind. We implement programs without the resources needed to make conclusive change. We fail to support cross-sector collaboration or listen to those who need the most help.

We have become content with leaving thousands of children behind. Canada doesn’t have a vision for the health and well-being of our children and youth, and so they are left to be supported by a patchwork of programs, supports and benefits. This is not good enough.

This is why I have tabled before you today Bill S-282, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada.

This bill is a response to decades of failed approaches and half measures. It calls on the government to build a comprehensive strategy for our children and youth that sets a path to fulfill our obligation to give them healthy, happy and hopeful childhoods.

This bill sets out a framework for a strategy that identifies areas where we are failing children as well as areas where we are making important progress, and proposes a detailed plan of action to change the status quo once and for all, to ensure that every child is safe, happy and healthy.

This bill proposes that such a strategy would require defined outcomes and quantifiable indicators, because if we are serious about moving the needle for children here in Canada, we need good data to guide us along the way.

Bill S-282 is not and does not create the strategy, but sets a framework out for the creation of a strategy. A strong strategy, as set out in this bill, must be created through extensive consultation with Canadians. It would be a defined vision that reflects our values as a country when it comes to our children.

Colleagues, this is not a new idea. Over half of the 38 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, countries already have what the OECD calls “. . . an integrated policy plan for child well-being,” which is defined as “. . . a policy document that sets out the government’s approach to promoting child outcomes in several well-being domains. . . .” These plans aim to integrate existing — and sometimes competing — policy initiatives into a cohesive strategy for young people and formalizes cooperation between those responsible for implementing those policies.

Consider the New Zealand example. New Zealand set out ambitious targets to eradicate child poverty and took aggressive action through an action plan that captures the voice of children. This plan, adopted in legislation in late 2018, was New Zealand’s Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy . This legislative framework provides a powerful vision for the lives of New Zealand’s children and a plan to make it a reality, which involves collaboration between government and civil society rather than more silos.

Their plan has clear outcomes based on the social, economic and environmental factors necessary for children to thrive. Every outcome includes key actions and indicators for progress. New Zealand has also committed to accountability through annual reports on the strategy. Further, the government must report on the impact of every federal budget on reducing child poverty.

With this strategy, New Zealand has made its commitments to children clear and given the public the tools to hold them to account for delivering on their promises. This is a comprehensive approach to child and youth well-being. While we must have our own made-in-Canada strategy, this example points to what is possible.

Another jurisdiction that has taken strides in this area is the European Union. In 2019, the President of the European Commission announced the creation of a European Child Guarantee. This plan was a response to the social exclusion and poverty facing 25 million children throughout the EU. The European Child Guarantee’s goal is to guarantee children access to a set of basic services. It calls on member states to guarantee free early childhood education and care, free education, free health care, healthy nutrition and adequate housing. These are the basic building blocks to any safe, healthy and hopeful childhood.

In 2023, a pilot of the European Child Guarantee, delivered in partnership with UNICEF, concluded with promising results. Over 30,000 children and young adults across four countries — Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece and Italy — were reached with services and interventions based on the EU’s commitment to a vision centred on thriving, healthy childhoods.

These international developments demonstrate for us that the idea of presenting a dedicated vision for children’s well-being in a given country, paired with a plan to achieve it, is catching on worldwide. Faced with evidence that they are not adequately supporting the well-being of their youngest residents, countries around the world are choosing to take action rather than accept the status quo. We in Canada must choose action instead of accepting the status quo.

Colleagues, I can’t assume that you know of all the issues facing our children, but I think you are aware of many. You see them in your communities. You read about them in the media. You may even have seen them in your own circles. We need to assess where we are doing well regarding our aspirations for our children and where we are falling short.

And we are falling short, colleagues. We are failing to adequately support our children and youth in several areas. Too many children are falling through the gaps of our patchwork system of policies and programs. Let me highlight for you just a few of the areas where our current approach is less than successful — and where a strategy might help.

We are losing the battle on child poverty. Despite achieving a record low in child poverty rates in 2020, in large part due to CERB, over 1 million children in Canada still live in poverty today. In fact, we know that poverty rates are now rebounding as income supports stagnate and the cost of living rises. Campaign 2000’s recent child poverty report card notes that child poverty rates rose from 13.5% in 2020 to 15.6% a year later, a change that indicates over 160,000 kids plunged into poverty.

Families faced with poverty struggle to meet their children’s fundamental needs, whether that’s stable housing, access to education or food security. In other words, poverty has a crippling impact on a child’s well-being and can have devastating long-term consequences on children’s ability to learn and acquire skills, which in turn hinders their ability to find employment and avoid poverty as adults. The longer children live in poverty, the more likely they will experience poverty as adults.

In 1989, the House of Commons resolved to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. Yet almost a quarter of a decade past that deadline, over 1 million children in Canada still live in poverty. If simply setting a target was enough, we would have solved this problem long ago.

This is why we need a strategy, colleagues, because targets without specific plans are empty if they don’t come with that very detailed evaluation, planning and monitoring. A strategy would not only set a target; it would give us a concrete plan of action matched with a series of indicators to constantly assess the effectiveness of what we’re doing. Children living in poverty and their families deserve more than just empty words — they are relying on us to create a sound plan that works.

But poverty is just one issue. Throughout Canada, many young children are experiencing long and costly delays in receiving essential health care services.

A growing body of evidence underscores the impact of decades of underinvestment in children’s health. According to data from 2018, only 35% of non-emergency surgeries in Canadian paediatric hospitals were completed within the recommended safe clinical time frame. Due to the pandemic, the situation was worsened, of course. The situation for mental health services is no better. In my province of Ontario, about 28,000 Ontario children and youth with mental health needs were reportedly on wait lists for treatment in 2020, with some waiting up to two and a half years for intensive treatment.

On top of this, an estimated 200,000 Ontario children with mental health issues received no mental health services at all because they lived in rural, remote or Northern communities where treatment programs are scarce.

Tossing more money at the situation is not the solution. It is not, on its own, enough. What is needed is a plan — a plan to move us towards equitable access to these essential services so that all children get care when they need it. Increasing funding needs to come with a commitment to monitor children’s health outcomes, the effectiveness of the spending across Canada and to assess the effectiveness of the interventions we’re using, not just the spending. This is why we need a strategy.

Alongside long-standing issues are ones that are rapidly developing and evolving in real time. Climate change and child safety are two such examples.

Climate change is a large, global and interconnected issue, one that is already having significant economic and social impacts across all aspects of our lives. The Canadian Paediatric Society has referred to climate change as the single largest global health threat of the 21st century. Increased injuries, deaths from extreme weather, negative effects on food yields leading to food insecurity, risk of displacement due to rising sea levels and negative health impacts from rising pollution are just a few of the consequences children will and are already facing — and this is just the impacts on children’s health.

What about the other impacts? Economic turmoil from a global economy under stress or educational disruptions due to natural disasters exacerbated by climate change? Are we doing enough and are we adequately preparing to support children through the impacts of rapidly changing climate?

As we take steps to address the climate crisis, we need to be ready to assess and to address the impacts on children as they arise. A strategy will help us here. In dealing with issues in constant flux, focusing on our desired outcomes will help us target what is most important and determine which interventions will have the biggest impact.

For example, let’s say one of the strategy’s desired outcomes is that children in Canada are safe and healthy. If progress in this area slows or reverses due to the impacts of climate change, the indicators the strategy monitors would alert us to this change — this new direction — and prompt us to quickly alter or adjust our policies and programs. A strategy would allow us to become more responsive, more effective in the steps we need to take to support our kids.

This world is a dangerous place for children, both online and offline. Our children are growing up in a digital age with widespread internet use that has become the norm. This increased digital exposure comes with challenges, such as a difficulty concentrating, inadequate sleep, decreased physical activity, weight gain and notably the heightened risk of cybervictimization. Cybervictimization is the experience of being targeted, harassed or victimized through online channels.

In 2019, Statistics Canada reported that 25% of youth aged 12 to 17 had encountered cyberbullying, including aggressive text messages or unwanted sexual content on various online platforms. As the internet evolves and changes, we need to do the same or risk leaving our children and youth behind.

The offline world is not necessarily safer. An alarming 2018 study published by Statistics Canada found that around 72% of Canadians experienced at least one incident of child maltreatment defined as an incident of physical or sexual abuse, harsh parenting or witnessing violence before the age of 15 years. High-profile cases of abuse in team sports and community-based organizations have shown that abuse of children in schools, sports and other community settings continues to be a pervasive threat here in Canada. We need to do better when it comes to young people’s safety, both online and off.

Children’s safety is a multi-faceted issue that has implications for all levels of government and our communities as a whole. This is a problem that can’t be solved by welfare agencies or by police alone. A national strategy would help us cohesively grasp the true scale of the issues, identify the causes and evaluate where our current efforts are falling short. What’s working and what’s not? It would help us implement a concrete plan to ensure that every child in Canada grows up safe and secure.

What all of these issues come down to is children’s well-being. Well-being is not just about being physically healthy, but also about feeling good emotionally, mentally and socially. It refers to a person’s overall state of health and happiness. When someone has a good sense of well-being, they tend to have more positive relationships, feel satisfied with their life and can cope with stress and challenges. Well-being is about feeling balanced, content and able to enjoy life to its fullest. As a country, we expect the government to ensure the basic building blocks toward well-being. This is not a high bar to clear, but unfortunately we are failing to meet it.

When children are waiting months for necessary medical care or are unable to get support for their mental health, they are not well. When children are going hungry or are being harmed by adults who are meant to protect them, they are not well. When we allow children to fall through the cracks of our patchwork system, they are not well. We can and we must do better.

Fortunately, we have something to build on. There is some good news. Existing programs aimed at children undoubtedly play crucial roles in supporting children across the country. However, these programs, while making positive strides, often fall short of the kind of strategic, holistic thinking we need to have for our children.

Consider the Canada Child Benefit, a tax-free benefit paid monthly to help eligible families with the cost of raising their children. For many families, this translates to hundreds of dollars of support every month. The Canada Child Benefit is a commendable effort to alleviate child poverty and has indeed made a significant impact by lifting approximately 250,000 children out of poverty. Nevertheless, the recent increase in child poverty rates underscores the fragility of the progress that has been made, and the need for more robust, sustained efforts is clearly there.

This is an example of an area where we have not gone far enough. We have the potential to eradicate child poverty as a policy, and yet over 1 million children in Canada continue to live in poverty today. What are our goals, and how are we measuring our progress? Lifting a quarter of a million children out of poverty is noticeable, but is that enough? A strategy would help us answer these questions and set a better path for moving ahead.

Child care is another area where we have made significant progress with the recent Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreements. However, the program faces challenges in its early stages. Infrastructure and support for child care workers remain areas of concern. Two weeks ago, I travelled across Ontario, met with a number of child care operators, and I have heard from operators that the program does not currently provide enough money to pay staff well or to maintain operations at the same level of quality as they had known before.

Colleagues, aiming for affordability is a good first step, but cost reductions cannot be the only goal in our effort. We need a strategic approach centred on the well-being of children that uses early learning as one of the many tools and programs that will enable our kids and youth to reach their full potential.

Jordan’s Principle and the Inuit Child First Initiative are important programs addressing the unique needs of First Nations and Inuit children but face implementation challenges. Jordan’s Principle is a child-first principle that ensures timely access to products, services and supports for all First Nations children in Canada, on- and off-reserve. Funding can help with a wide range of health, social and educational needs. Similarly, the Inuit Child First Initiative ensures that all Inuit children in Canada have access, in a timely manner, to the essential government-funded health, social and educational products, services and supports that they need. These are some of the good things.

However, delays in processing requests, as seen with Jordan’s Principle, and stalled applications in the Inuit Child First Initiative reveal systemic issues that make timely access to these services difficult. There have also been concerns that the government is applying Jordan’s Principle too narrowly. The recent $23-billion settlement for chronic underfunding of on-reserve child welfare services makes it clear that we still have work to do to adequately support Indigenous children in Canada.

Make no mistake; these programs are good and do important work, but without a plan, without knowing concretely what outcomes we want and without data to measure our progress, we are destined to fail.

These programs help our children some of the time. Designed in silos, they don’t work together holistically to support children’s well-being. More significantly, there are no clear goals for how these programs will support children or enough resources to meet the need right now. The result is that we leave many children to fall through the cracks of this unsuccessful patchwork of programs.

There are many more issues and programs I could highlight. What I hope is clear to you is that the challenges facing our children and youth are both varied and complex, and many are intertwined, interlinked and connected. It would be a mistake to treat these issues as individual, siloed challenges. Simple one-off interventions, therefore, will not suffice. From health care to poverty to safety and more, the issues facing youth are interconnected and require a systematic approach and coordination between different levels of government and civil society.

Colleagues, it is clear to me that we are failing our children because we are applying band-aids to counter the issues of the day rather than more fulsome and interconnected solutions that set kids on the path to a better future. I know that we can do better. It starts with developing a comprehensive plan that identifies where we need to improve and outlines that road map to better outcomes.

In fact, this is not an entirely new idea in the Canadian context. Under the leadership of the Honourable Landon Pearson, in 2004, A Canada Fit for Children was a plan that set out the outcomes we want for our children and the steps we needed to take. A collaborative effort, the plan was intended for everyone involved with caring for children and youth. Crucially, it was developed with input from many Canadians, including children and youth, and identified ways to promote and to protect children’s rights.

We must build on this and other important work done by Canadians to create a country fit for our children. We must end the patchwork of good intentions and unmet targets. We must provide a path forward for our children, their families and their caregivers. We need a strategic plan with detailed objectives, clearly defined indicators that speak to progress, that help us rationalize what we’re doing and how we’re doing it, and specific actions we must take to achieve them.

We need thoughtful, meaningful policies that not only end harm but support our children’s well-being to the fullest. This is why this bill is so important. There is a need for transformative change. There is a need for us to think more clearly about what we want for our children. We just need to do the work.

You may have seen my recent report on the creation of a national strategy, entitled From Vision to Reality. If you haven’t, I encourage you to read it. This collaborative report was the result of a series of round tables and engagements with young people and stakeholders across Canada. These discussions served to confirm the need for a national strategy and to shape what the strategy might look like. This report and the stakeholders it represents have shaped Bill S-282. For that reason, I’d like to present the details of the bill through the lens of this report.

We heard from all the participants that Canada needs a national strategy. They said Canada’s current government infrastructure for children and youth is failing young Canadians and that federal budgets fail to adequately focus on children and youth. Instead, the focus is on programs geared to serving the public in general, and their impact on children is more often than not an afterthought. They made clear that a lack of comprehensive strategy creates this patchwork system of support, requiring provinces to create disjointed policies to try to fill the gaps. This patchwork is currently leaving many children behind, including the most vulnerable children, whom we should all be taking care of.

But what should a strategy include? While the government would need to do a comprehensive, countrywide consultation, our round table participants had several guidelines to share. They were clear that the strategy needs to take a rights-based approach, led by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. They called for an intersectional strategy that adopts the principle of “no child left behind” and advances substantive equality. Importantly, they made clear that the strategy should include an aim to increase awareness among children and youth of their rights, and to help develop their confidence as active citizens. Overall, they called for a broad roadmap toward the respect of children’s rights and the implementation of policies that ensure their health and well-being.

Clause 4(2)(a) of the bill, which outlines mandatory guidelines, reflects many of these comments. It notes that the objectives of the strategy must include a high and consistent standard of living for children and youth across Canada and the complete elimination of child poverty.

Highlighting the importance of our international commitments and the need to take a rights-based approach, it also calls for the government objectives to include full compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the optional protocols which we have signed on to, as well as the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, relating to children and youth.

I think we all agree, colleagues, on the importance of these measures.

Another area of consensus was the need for clear targets and outcomes. As one participant put it:

. . . any strategy developed for the implementation of children’s rights must go beyond statements of policy and principle, to set real and achievable targets in relation to the full range of economic, social and cultural, and civic and political rights for all children.

These should include specific, measurable and ambitious outcomes for children and youth. They also noted the strategy should collect and analyze data to ensure accountability, with emphasis on the need for disaggregated data. There should be a plan to share this data alongside information on the progress of the strategy.

These comments influenced the remainder of clause 4(2), and calls for the government to identify a series of outcomes and quantifiable indicators aligned with internationally accepted standards that would, if met, demonstrate the Government of Canada’s objectives have been met; provide an evidence-based assessment of whether these objectives have been met; outline a detailed plan to address unmet objectives, including a description of immediate actions and possible preventive measures; and identify what resources would be required to implement the strategy.

The bill also calls on the government to propose oversight and accountability mechanisms, including public monitoring of the strategy’s implementation; continued consultation with a wide range of stakeholders on the implementation of the strategy; the ability to update the strategy to address emerging needs; the consideration of complaints from children and youth about how this strategy is being implemented; and, finally, parliamentary oversight over the implementation.

When asked who should be involved in the development of the strategy, one round table participant said:

Young people have a difficult time getting authority figures to listen to them, respect their perspectives, and really consider their lived experiences.

Children and youth often face an uphill battle to be heard on the issues that affect them. It is clear that the development process for a national strategy should focus on including the voices of young Canadians of all backgrounds.

This is reflected in clause 4(3) of the bill, which lists children and youth first in the list of those to be consulted on the strategy.

They were clear that the consultation process should include representation from all the provinces, territories, municipal governments, academic institutions and civil society. The consensus from the round tables is that unilateral action by the federal government would be completely insufficient. Buy-in and participation by the provinces will be important in the creation and operation of a national strategy. A truly national strategy should include a coordinating mechanism between levels of government.

That is why clause 4(3) also notes that the minister responsible for the strategy must consult with representatives of provincial and municipal governments, as well as representatives of Indigenous governing bodies and organizations that serve and represent First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and youth. It also calls for the inclusion of relevant stakeholders, including representatives from organizations that serve and advocate for children and youth.

In this process, the government must deliberately seek out the voices that reflect the diversity of all children and youth in Canada and their experiences, and build a process that recognizes and addresses the challenges in obtaining input from all communities. This list outlining who must be consulted is not meant to be an exhaustive one, and the bill invites the minister to consult with whomever else they deem appropriate.

Accountability was a major area of concern highlighted in the round tables. Regarding the need for public reporting, we heard:

The strategy and reporting can be disseminated to all levels, but particularly the public, because the public tool is really handy to keep things accountable.

To address these concerns, the bill lays out several accountability measures. First, it requires that within six months of Royal Assent, and every six months after that until the national strategy is tabled, the minister must table a progress report in each house of Parliament setting out the progress of the development of the strategy and a list of those who have been consulted, as long as they consent to sharing their participation. This will give the public insight into the progress of the strategy’s development, and give young people, stakeholders and other parties time to join the consultations before they end, if they feel that certain vital viewpoints have been missed.

The bill gives the government two years after Royal Assent to develop the national strategy for children and youth, with a report outlining the strategy to be tabled in both houses of Parliament by that date. It must also be published on a government website within 10 days of tabling.

Multiple participants called for regular review periods of the strategy so that it stays relevant as the challenges facing children and youth evolve. That is why the bill calls for a review every five years in the form of a report outlining the extent to which the national strategy for children and youth has been implemented and an assessment of whether the strategy’s objectives have been met or changed, as well as any other relevant conclusions or recommendations about the strategy.

In conclusion, colleagues, I will be blunt: Canada needs this. Canada’s children need this. They need to see an end to the patchwork of half measures that characterize our approach to our children. They need leaders to speak with and listen to children, parents, teachers, caregivers, civil society and advocates in order to make sure that no one is left behind.

Children need us to say “no more” to child poverty and poor access to health care. They need us to protect them online and offline, and from the harms brought by climate change. They need us to protect and defend their rights.

They need a vision for a future where every child can flourish, and for us to be willing to put in the work to do this. Canada’s children and youth need us to step up.

One of the unsaid premises of this bill is that, despite the history and the challenges we have faced as a country in delivering for our children, I believe that parliamentarians from every side care about our children — that we want to build a country fit for our children, and that we are collectively ready to set this up. That’s why I urge you to support Bill S-282.

I look forward to hearing other colleagues debate this bill, and sending it to committee for further study.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: There is a phrase you used that I don’t understand. What is “the right time”? Can you define that for me? What do you think is the right time?

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 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 introduced Bill S-282, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada.

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Senator Gold, as you know, the fall represents a challenging time for respiratory illnesses. Last year, we saw the health care system pushed to the brink because of COVID-19 and the respiratory syncytial virus, RSV, striking at the same time. We also saw pediatric drug shortages affect families across this country.

What steps is the Government of Canada taking this year to prepare for the upcoming flu season? What are the tangible ways our health care system is better prepared to handle this incoming shock that we anticipate?

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association concerning the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly’s Winter Meeting, held in Vienna, Austria, from February 23 to 24, 2023.

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators, first, on a sombre note, I want to express my deep sadness at the passing of our honourable colleague, Senator Shugart. I offer my condolences to his family, friends and all of us grieving his loss, including here in this chamber.

I want to take a moment to welcome the Honourable Pearnel Charles Jr., Minister of Labour and Social Security from Jamaica, Ms. Marsha Coore Lobban, High Commissioner of Jamaica and Her Excellency Ms. Colette Roberts Risden, Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Labour and Social Security from the Government of Jamaica. Welcome.

Colleagues, I rise today to recognize the Inspiring Healthy Futures initiative and to welcome to Ottawa hundreds of delegates from the A Future Fit for Kids summit taking place tomorrow here in Ottawa.

Inspiring Healthy Futures emerged in the middle of COVID-19 with a mission to address many of the long-standing issues facing children and families in Canada. Since then, they have built a broad and powerful coalition of youth, parents, researchers, educators, advocates, policy-makers, service providers and community and business leaders throughout this country to look at the urgent issues facing children and to create an innovative agenda that will help move us forward. They have had a powerful impact. For example, they were leading voices in pushing the Government of Canada to commit $2 billion to address the pediatric health crisis earlier this year. Additionally, the community secured $125 million of federal funding for One Child Every Child, a pan-Canadian health research initiative led by the University of Calgary.

Colleagues, as I conclude, I want to share with you two opportunities for you to engage with these delegates from our regions here in Ottawa. First, I want to invite you to the Imagine the Future reception taking place this evening. It will be a great opportunity to meet these young people, advocates and researchers who are making a difference in our health care system today. Second, please join the Parliamentary Child Health Caucus for breakfast tomorrow morning for a more fulsome discussion on the paths forward and ways that we as parliamentarians can be strong, reliable partners.

Colleagues, now is not the time to rest on our laurels. We have seen some success for children, but it is just a fraction of what they need to live healthy, happy and successful lives. I invite you to partner in securing that future. Thank you.

[Translation]

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: Would Senator Woo take a question?

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators, I rise to continue our debate on Bill C-22. I want to thank my colleagues for their comments so far.

Let me state from the outset that I will vote in favour of this message, fully respecting the prerogative of the government and mostly because the disability community has made it clear that they’re satisfied with this bill in its current form.

I want to take a few moments to highlight the important work done by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, of which I am a member. Our chair, the Honourable Senator Omidvar, noted clearly in her speech at report stage that our committee heard from 44 witnesses in addition to receiving 48 briefs, seven follow-ups and two letters. I want to add that many of our witnesses were members of the disability community and were given the accommodation needed to fully participate. Many of our witnesses were truly inspiring and went to extraordinary lengths to be with us, to be heard, and I’d like to thank these witnesses for their contributions to our study.

Not only did we study this bill in depth, but many of the committee members met on their own initiative with members of the disabled community for months before the study in anticipation of this bill’s arrival and in acknowledgement of the historic nature and gravity of this bill. Our colleagues on the committee worked diligently and with great insight and understood that our job is to carry the voices and priorities of constituencies, along with the application of our best judgment. That is what we did.

Our colleagues proposed amendments, some of which were rejected, but many were adopted. It was not an easy undertaking. It required the courage to resist the strong internal pressure to simply let this bill pass, to do nothing and let the bill go through without the proposed amendments that we, as a committee, felt were needed based on what we heard from our witnesses, amendments that the government has now, in essence, adopted. You have heard five of six. As Minister Qualtrough put it in her speech in the other place on June 14, “These amendments enhance Bill C-22 in that they add clarity, precision and specificity.”

Bill C-22 is going to impact the lives of millions of people. It will be — putting hyperbole aside — the difference between life and death for many Canadians with disabilities. It will be historic, not just here in Canada but on the world stage. Our contribution of “clarity, precision and specificity” is absolutely critical. In fact, I would argue that this is exactly why our institution exists — to make sure bills are precise, clear and specific for the good of all Canadians, including and especially for those who are vulnerable and who need us to work on their behalf to bring their voices forward.

I want to congratulate our colleagues on the Social Affairs Committee for resisting the pressure to do nothing and for doing what you knew was right despite the often-repeated warning that it would kill the bill. Colleagues, in a few moments we will adopt this bill, and it will become law. It will be a better law because we were unwilling to stand idly by, because we did our job.

Colleagues, we have a privileged and sacred role to play in this place. The Senate has an obligation and a duty to review legislation. Fulfilling our constitutional role must always be front and centre. Sometimes this may mean expediting bills, but I believe, for the most part, it means we must authoritatively, thoughtfully, deliberately and thoroughly consider every bill before us. Senators, that is how we should be, regardless of the pressure we may face to do otherwise.

Bill C-22 proves once more that all Canadians will benefit when we are willing to do what we are summoned to do — to be legislators, to do our part — and this is what I believe Canadians value.

To the thousands of Canadians who continue to email us, urging us to adopt this legislation, continuing to let us know and sharing your concerns — thank you. It is my hope that we have served you well. Like many of you, I was disappointed with the rejection of amendment 2 and believe that the burden to fight to make sure clawbacks do not occur should not be on your backs. Unfortunately, you may still retain that responsibility to ensure that you have full access to this benefit now.

Nevertheless, what I have heard loud and clear is that you are ready to take the next steps to make this benefit what you want it to be. I join with you in calling on the government to put this bill into force on the day it receives Royal Assent and to begin co‑creation of regulations immediately. Should any issues arise, which may happen, you will find many of us here in the Senate of Canada behind you, ready to support you and to see that the full potential of the Canada disability benefit is met.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[Translation]

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable Canadian, former senator Landon Pearson.

Former Senator Pearson — “the Children’s Senator” — dedicated her life to advocating for children and youth, both here in Canada and around the world. For nearly seven decades, she has led the way on children’s rights, and has transformed how children are viewed — not just here in Canada, but around the globe. Her work as a champion for children began long before her time in the Senate. As you have heard, she served as the vice‑chair of the Canadian Commission for the UN International Year of the Child and chaired the Canadian Council on Children and Youth. She was a founding member and chairperson of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children from 1989 to 1994, when she was appointed here to the Senate.

As a senator she was increasingly focused on giving children the space to advocate for themselves and went on to advise both the Chrétien and Martin governments on children’s rights in Canada and abroad.

As we have heard, her retirement was not the end of her work, but a new chapter. Shortly after retiring and founding the Landon Pearson Resource Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights, she continued her work. She has been an adviser and mentor for me and many other people in this space.

Colleagues, much of what I have just said is well known to you and much more can be said, but I can personally attest to her kindness, wisdom and work ethic. Even past the age of 90 years, she was unrelenting in her devotion to Canada’s children. I remember when we were recently on a program together and she was a panellist speaking. She ripped off her oxygen to present, and we had to say, “No, put it back on, please.”

Over her entire career, former Senator Pearson was a trusted voice across Canada. She was often the glue that pulled together actors from across the country on children’s rights, a space that can be notoriously fragmented. She brought credibility and reputation. She carried weight because everybody knew she was the real deal.

She was a great senator and a great Canadian, and she leaves a great legacy. May it be said of all of us who sit in this chamber that we strove to give our time and our voice to those who needed it most, and that like our dear colleague Landon we gave all measure of true devotion to all Canadians.

To her children Hilary, Michael and Patricia and to her other family, friends and to her community, our deepest condolences. Know that you do not mourn her loss alone. Thank you.

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators, I rise today to acknowledge and celebrate Black History Month, and to acknowledge the significant change and progress that we have experienced as a country in the past years to make Canada a more inclusive country that values and honours Black Canadians.

I think of the decision to put Viola Desmond on the $10 bill. Her image signals to all Canadians that she represents what we believe is the best of our country.

I think of the recognition of the United Nations Decade for People of African Descent and how this moment was the beginning of a whole-of-government approach to change, address and recognize anti-Black racism in Canada.

I think of the apology to the descendants of the No. 2 Construction Battalion in Truro, Nova Scotia, in the summer of 2022, which I was honoured to attend. Their ancestors — our heroes — were finally recognized for their valour and bravery on behalf of this country.

And I think of the countless Canadians, in cities and towns in communities from coast-to-coast-to-coast, who invested countless hours and immeasurable energy to see these changes and this progress come to fruition.

They deserve the credit for this progress, more than anyone else.

Colleagues, an interesting recent phenomenon is the reference of Black History Month as “Black Futures” month by many young people. Indeed, our history is rich. The present is encouraging, and our future is bright.

Within the Senate, and under the leadership of Speaker Furey, the African Canadian Senate Group hosted the first of its kind Black History Month reception on February 7. I want to thank our Speaker for his sponsorship, and thank many of our colleagues who attended as well as our guests, including the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean and other distinguished Black Canadian leaders.

The highlight of our evening was a spectacular performance by spoken word artist Nonso Morah. I will close my statement by quoting this young woman, who makes me confident that our future is bright, although I’m sure I’ll not do her wonderful words justice:

Dear child,

When the history you are taught rebukes you,

Baptize yourself the lion’s daughter.

Or the lion’s author

Wrapped yourself in the arms of legacy.

And accept the wild call of your identity.

Your destiny.

To write truth, as it is meant to be read.

Not in red, but in right.

Not in darkness, but in light.

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, the pediatric health community was very pleased with the news of the planned $2-billion injection of funds into the system last week. That is a good response to the crisis we are facing, and it’s good news that the government has recognized that there is an issue and that it has a role to play in solving it.

That said, one-time funding is not enough to fix the long-term issues plaguing our system. Does the government plan to work with the provinces to secure ongoing earmarked funding for the pediatric health care system here in Canada?

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators, I rise to mark the release of the annual report by Campaign 2000 on the state of child poverty here in Canada. I want to thank and congratulate Leila Sarangi and her team, along with their many partners and stakeholders across this country, for this important work.

This year’s report focused on the impacts of income supports that were made available during the pandemic. Based on 2020 data, Campaign 2000 found that while more than 300,000 children were lifted out of poverty, one in eight still experience the short- and long-term impacts of poverty on every facet of their lives.

This means, colleagues, that at least one million children live in poverty.

Campaign 2000’s data indicates that without pandemic benefits, another half a million children would be in poverty.

Another key finding is that the Canada Child Benefit is losing its impact, and its effect on poverty reduction is increasingly minimal. Simply tying it to inflation is not enough.

I want to highlight for you, colleagues, that these findings should be contextualized in today’s setting. Rising inflation means that low-income families are struggling even more. It means that families living in poverty, many of them Black and Indigenous, need more support from government, not less. It means there is still a lot of work to be done.

Why does this matter? A democracy is only as strong as the belief citizens have in its ability to meet their needs. Having children and families struggle to make ends meet is not only a failure to meet our human rights obligations; it speaks to a need for deep change in our systems to ensure its survival. In an era where democracies are threatened, this issue cannot be ignored.

So what should we be doing, colleagues? I will highlight what Campaign 2000 proposes, namely, the advancement of a national strategy for children and youth, so that we can have a vision of the country we want for our children. They also support a deep poverty supplement to the Canada Child Benefit, which I support wholeheartedly.

Ultimately, we must recognize that child poverty is a policy choice. It is not inevitable. And we can make a choice to end it, once and for all. 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, I rise in celebration of Canada’s children and National Child Day, taking place this Sunday, November 20.

National Child Day is a celebration of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was adopted by the UN on November 20, 1989. By signing that convention, we committed here in Canada to ensuring that every child has the opportunity to reach their full potential through the respect of their rights.

Unfortunately, as we celebrate National Child Day, our pediatric health care system is in crisis. Rates of respiratory illness have reached crisis levels in children’s hospitals across the country, leading to cancelled surgeries, overburdened emergency rooms and ICUs being forced to operate above capacity. In my province of Ontario, ERs are seeing respiratory complaints at triple the seasonal average in kids aged 5 to 17. Simultaneously, we have a crisis on pharmacy shelves. Children’s pain and fever medications are in short supply, leaving many parents unable to manage their children’s illnesses at home.

Children are our future. If we hurt them or allow them to be hurt or fail to respond to their hurt, we hurt ourselves. At the National Child Day breakfast that I co-hosted on Tuesday with Senator Francis, I called on attendees to be authentic in our celebrations. Authentic celebration means a commitment to work for the changes our children need and to address the issues they face. Federal, provincial and territorial leaders must work together for the good of children across Canada, not only on this file but on all files. Our children should never be jurisdictional bargaining chips.

Colleagues, this crisis is just one in which it is clear we need a strategy for children in Canada. This crisis was not created overnight. Good leaders identify and address problems long before they become critical. The best gift we could give children for National Child Day is the assurance that we will work together to ensure that they have a brighter future.

As I conclude, I want to invite all colleagues and staff to a panel discussion on Monday afternoon, co-hosted by myself and Children’s Healthcare Canada, on this crisis, how it happened and where it goes from here. It will include pediatric health care leaders from throughout Canada and will be moderated by The Globe and Mail columnist André Picard. We do hope you can watch. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators, one of the central roles of our Senate is being a voice for the voiceless and representing the groups who lack meaningful representation in our political discourse. Bill S-251 fits well within this mission on three fronts. It simultaneously addresses, first, a long-standing concern within Canadian communities; second, a Call to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s final report; and third, it’s an important step towards fulfilling all international human rights commitments.

I’ll start by saying I strongly favour this bill and urge us to ensure it receives due consideration in committee, where the voices of Canadians — especially Canadian children — can be heard.

Colleagues, it is well past time to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. I want to commend our colleague Senator Kutcher for putting this bill forward because, colleagues, this bill has come before us in many iterations in the past decade. But the truth is that, as we all know, perseverance and persistence are always necessary for real change to happen. For this crucial issue, it is time for us to bring it back for renewed consideration in today’s context, recognizing again Canadians’ concerns, the need to definitively respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and to fulfill our international commitments.

A few years ago, we hosted a virtual celebration for the Honourable Landon Pearson’s ninetieth birthday and during that discussion she said something I knew and you know, but she communicated it in a fresh and simple way when she said, “Parents don’t have rights. They have responsibilities. Parents don’t have rights. Children have rights. Parents have responsibilities.”

I’m strongly in support of helping parents care for their family well. In that regard, we must be sensitive to the role government should play, but interventions from public institutions are sometimes needed to protect children’s rights, and then they should be welcomed.

That’s why we have wealth transfers, for example, like the Canada Child Benefit; and important programs like the special benefits within Employment Insurance, because these play a role for public institutions in helping families thrive.

Parents are supposed to be the primary caretakers of their children, and have the responsibility to raise them so they go on to live healthy, meaningful and productive lives. In an ideal world, this would be what we observe in every family. But, as you and I know, sometimes reality does not play out like this. There are times when public institutions do need to step in. We often think of those moments as times when parents are unable or unwilling to live up to that responsibility. I would argue that we also need to look at them as times when children’s rights and their well-being need to be assured and upheld.

What are those rights? According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, or UNCRC, children have wide-ranging rights — just like adults — from freedom to use their language and freedom of religious thought, to protection from violence and abuse. Senator Kutcher quoted section 1 of Article 19 in his speech as sponsor, and I’ll read it again to remind you:

States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical and mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

Colleagues, Canada has an obligation to respect the UNCRC and to fully implement it. This is one of the many ways that we have failed to do so.

Section 43 effectively does the opposite by allowing children to experience forms of physical violence. We can no longer stand idly by. This bill is not about grabbing a child to help keep them out of harm’s way. Nor is it about lovingly restraining a child to put them in their car seat or to give them their bath. It is about removing corporal punishment as a legally accepted form of parental discipline when there is no evidence at all to prove its effectiveness.

I want to turn to comments from two experts: Dr. Daniella Bendo, Assistant Professor at King’s College University; and Cheyanne Ratnam, CEO of the Ontario Children’s Advancement Coalition, an organization that focuses on children in foster care. Dr. Bendo argues:

Section 43 of Canada’s Criminal Code justifies the use of corrective force against children in Canada and states that corrective force is warranted if the force does not exceed what is considered “reasonable” under the circumstances. This colonial law is a violation of children’s protection rights and has been in the Criminal Code since 1892 although 63 countries globally have prohibited physical punishment in all contexts.

There exists a significant amount of academic research that demonstrates the negative effects of corporal punishment on children — including the harmful effects on young people’s behaviour, well-being and mental health, cognitive development, and relationships.

She goes on to say:

In fact, there is no research that shows there are positive effects or benefits of corporal punishment on children’s health or well-being; nor has there ever been research that highlights long-term benefits of physical punishment on children. Bill S-251 is central to Canadian children’s legal protection from harm and violence and signifies Canada’s human rights obligations to children.

For her part, Ms. Ratman stated:

Bill S-251 is imperative to protecting children from harm, and the system has the responsibility to develop adequate supports and resources to support the health and well-being of families. [Section 43 of the Criminal Code] is outdated and is counterintuitive. [It is] as a country to support a law that is rooted in whiteness, and which perpetuates the breakdown of families, entire communities, and facilitates the breakdown of culture and identity in instances of forced family breakdowns — such as the child welfare system and legal system. What families need is adequate, equitable, accessible and culturally appropriate supports and resources, including mental health supports, rooted in healing and growth for all members unique to their divergent needs. . .

The sum of the comments of both these accomplished women is that it is no longer morally tenable for Canada to sanction child violence and simultaneously take moral leadership on the world stage or seek reconciliation here at home — in fact, it never was. There is a defect in Canadian law, and it must be fixed.

It must be fixed, because there is no evidence to support corporal punishment as an effective way of shaping better behaviours in children, as noted by our colleague Senator Kutcher when he spoke about an article in The Lancet published in 2021 — an article that spoke about the analysis of 69 longitudinal studies and concluding something that we all know: spanking is harmful.

Yet, fixing this issue is only the beginning of the large work we need to do to support healthy families in this country. Corporal punishment, as sanctioned by the Criminal Code, is symptomatic of a larger issue.

In considering this issue, my first assumption is that most parents love their children and would do anything to care for and love them well. The ability for parents to do so is eroded by many daily challenges like the high cost of housing and groceries, low-paying jobs, pressures on their mental health brought on by generational trauma, and a whole host of other challenges you and I are very familiar with.

Many parents resort to corporal punishment because they don’t have the time, energy, capacity and understanding to sit and speak with their children, to gently teach them or use other methods of positive discipline. There simply isn’t time, and corporal punishment can be perceived as the way to stop unwanted behaviour now — in a time-efficient manner. I don’t think it’s because parents are bad people who hate their children. I think that often they just don’t have the time and understanding.

My second assumption is that children don’t need to be hit to learn. Anyone who has spent any amount of time observing a child would be surprised and amazed at their many abilities. They’re observant, curious and bright. They can learn and be taught. Our goal should be to enable parents, families and communities to work toward the moral and intellectual development of children from a very young age. Talking to them, teaching them, patiently reminding and encouraging them is the way parents can and should work toward children adopting appropriate behaviours. Using positive strategies to parent also shows these kids that words, when used patiently and deliberately, have the power to change hearts and minds in a more powerful and permanent way than physical intervention ever could, setting those children on the path to healthy adulthood.

I know many of us, even here in this chamber, have dealt with corporal punishment when we were kids. For some, it was something much worse than the occasional — but certainly still abusive — slap, pinch or twisted arm. If we’re honest, it’s not something we look back on fondly. It’s something we got through and endured and, for some, may be accepted as part of what made us the successful, powerful people that we are. But there was a silent effect: something that impacted us subconsciously, and something we could never put our finger on but we know is still there. A silent impact that, for many, remains a source of pain for their entire lives. It may well be that we are where we are despite that treatment, not because of it.

We must have never been spanked out of anger, and it may well have always satisfied that “reasonable” criteria laid out by the Supreme Court, but that did not make it okay, colleagues.

I don’t say this to make light of the situation many have gone through. I say this to cause us to reflect on whether or not corporal punishment is ever beneficial and to remind us that the effects on children are real and long-lasting. This is a deeply personal issue for many, and one that has rightly left deep scars, unresolved anger and open wounds.

Repealing section 43 alone will not be sufficient. Colleagues, meaningful steps to improve the well-being of families and children will be needed if we are to see the welfare of children improve, and if the rights of children are to be respected.

I will mention a few words on the experiences of other jurisdictions on the global stage. We know that many countries, including Sweden, Germany and New Zealand, have banned corporal punishment, and we can learn from their lived experiences. In these jurisdictions, the bans imposed worked. Those countries all report a significant drop in reports of corporal punishment. In Germany and Finland, that reduction was by nearly 50%. Also, these countries acknowledge the need for public education and for adequate family supports. They acknowledge the need to help parents and families figure out other ways to teach and discipline their kids.

I recognize the importance of these factors and would strongly recommend that our government here in Canada consider this and commits to making those investments when this bill becomes law.

Finally, the bans did not result in parents getting locked up for spanking their kids. In most countries, the response to corporal punishment was mostly referrals to social services that allowed families to get the right kinds of supports they needed. We will need to do much of the same here in Canada.

Colleagues, I end by saying it is our responsibility to repeal section 43. I’ll close by saying that I support this bill again wholeheartedly and look forward to further discussion on this bill in committee, with your help. Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ravalia, seconded by the Honourable Senator Duncan, for the second reading of Bill S-253, An Act respecting a national framework for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: This question is for the Government Representative.

Senator Gold, as you know, there is a crisis in pediatric health centres across the country. Last Friday at the Hospital for Sick Children, half of the children were in ICU on ventilators, and this spike of respiratory illnesses has prevented surgeries, cancelled emergency room access and flooded intensive care wards. Halifax’s IWK Health Centre set a record a week ago with the highest number of seriously ill patients. CHEO — the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario — opened a second ICU with unprecedented demand.

Senator Gold, I understand and I agree with the federal government’s position that money is not the only solution and there needs to be a systemic change. Nevertheless, we are in a crisis.

Despite the failure to make progress on health funding at the recent Federal-Provincial-Territorial Health Ministers’ meeting, has the Minister of Health re-engaged with his provincial and territorial colleagues to seek pathways for meaningful collaboration to address this pediatric health crisis?