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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jumping forward, subsection 8.3 states:

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

— regarding long-term collaboration —

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

Subection 8.4 states:

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

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

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

Subsection 10.2 states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subclause 7(1) of Bill C-35 reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation 118 of the report states:

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

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

Today we continue to have this conversation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now let me examine the legislation in greater detail.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meegwetch, thank you.

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: 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?

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

Senator Gold, disaggregated data is well understood to be key in crafting better social policies that are equitable and address various intersectionalities. Robust and modernized data collection was a significant line item in Budget 2021 at $250 million over five years, and it was part of the recommendations of the 2021 report from the National Advisory Council on Poverty.

Senator Gold, could you provide this chamber with an update on Statistics Canada’s progress on this issue and their goals for the coming fiscal year, please?

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

Senator Gold, today, Ontario is the only province that has not reached a bilateral agreement with the federal government on child care.

A few weeks ago, in response to Senator Omidvar’s question, you clarified for us that there was no deadline for the province to sign such a deal. However, Senator Gold, despite there being no deadline, the end of the fiscal year, March 31, is rapidly approaching. Can you confirm that if Ontario does not sign by the end of the month, the province could lose over $1 billion in funding? If so, would there be a way for the province to recuperate this funding?

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators, I do not think that any of us could have imagined that we would be here discussing the historic, grim moments of the past 23 days.

I know that we all feel an exceedingly heavy burden and some sadness for the events that have today brought us here that we must acknowledge, the actions that today we are tasked to take, actions that will be remembered by future generations.

On Monday, February 14, 2022, the Governor-in-Council on the advice of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness issued a proclamation of a public order emergency invoked for the first time in the act’s 34-year history. The government took this step after multiple weeks of an occupation that revealed the limited capacity of municipal and provincial authorities to act under existing measures.

After the trucks began to arrive in Ottawa on January 29, multiple reports began to emerge about the disruptive and disturbing and sometimes violent events. We saw the displays of the symbols of hate. Let us not downplay these. We saw the desecration of the National War Memorial and the caricaturing and appropriation of Indigenous culture.

People of colour were intimidated and harassed. And unlike the experience of the esteemed senator who spoke earlier, there are senators within this chamber who experienced that intimidation and harassment. I’d like to say that the fact that those who perpetrated this behaviour felt comfortable to do so amongst this crowd of protesters, and that is somewhat telling.

The Parliamentary Black Caucus spoke about this in the statement issued on February 4, in which they described the events that unfolded as completely unacceptable, saying, “These displays of hatred and violence offend Canadians and have no place in our country.”

I encourage all colleagues to take the time to read the statement of the Parliamentary Black Caucus, and take this opportunity to thank the over 170 parliamentarians who signed on in support of this call to action, that was fully endorsed by the senators of the African-Canadian group.

The statement proposed three actions: first, the prohibition of the public display of the Confederate flag and swastika, symbols of hate and terror; second, strengthening FINTRAC’s ability to collect information related to donations made through public fundraising sites; and third, a call for a joint parliamentary study to review the events surrounding the so-called Freedom Convoy.

As we all know, the Emergencies Act has issued two key regulations: an economic measure, and a measure to equip police and law enforcement with additional powers.

The economic measures align with the call to action of the Parliamentary Black Caucus’s request and we applaud the government for their responsiveness.

Honourable senators, the rise in use of online fundraising platforms is a reason for significant concern, primarily because they are the perfect venue for the laundering of large sums of money that can be used to fund illicit activities. We have examples. We heard many from Senator Gold. There are also jurisdictional examples in the United Kingdom where the site JustGiving was targeted by criminals for money laundering.

With the current limited mechanisms that authorities have to gain information on those who donated these funds to the protest, and with the limited accountability placed on fundraisers currently, we know little about what this money is being used for. Millions of dollars were raised for this protest, and we don’t know where the money has gone or what it is being used for.

Through recent reporting according to The Globe and Mail who obtained information from the GiveSendGo platform site, 43% of funds donated came from the United States; 56% of the donors were American. Honourable senators, it should concern us that this could represent an unprecedented intrusion into our domestic affairs by far-right fringe elements of the United States who do not espouse Canadian values.

We must be cautious to make sure that, as Canadians, we retain sovereignty over our affairs. Importantly, the use of the emergency powers in this instance immediately allowed financial intuitions to access the tools that they need to stop the flow of money into the occupation, and to ensure that funds have not and will not be diverted for illicit purposes.

I believe the application of these economic measures was strategically effective in the short-term and, in the longer term, will inform our actions as legislators on future legislation that will ensure careful and effective oversight of public fundraising sites.

The second emergency measure that was enacted was meant to provide further authority to police to enable them to effectively break up the occupation in Ottawa and elsewhere.

There has been much concern raised about whether these measures were necessary, concerns about overreach and that these measures might limit the right of public assembly. These are measures that serve to designate and to protect certain sites as critical infrastructure, and that make it unlawful for individuals to bring minors to protests.

First, let me say, unreservedly, that I support action that makes it unlawful to expose our children to risky and potentially volatile situations and to potential harm. It is their right to be protected and it is our role to protect them. Therefore, I applaud the provision in the Emergency Measures Regulations that pertains to minors and the Government of Canada’s sensitivity to this issue.

We know that children have been in the occupation, some of them in trucks, in the cold for weeks and breathing in polluted air from the idling engines. It was all the more concerning and disheartening to see children used as shields by protesters — their parents. Interim Police Chief Bell said, “. . . we’re seeing children put in harm’s way in the middle of a demonstration where a police operation is unfolding.”

He continues:

. . . we implore all the parents who have kids in there — get kids out of there, they do not need to be in the middle of this, it is not a safe place for them.

I am glad that the police made it their priority to care for children and clearly considered how these operations would impact them.

We also know that many children living in the downtown core have been affected by protesters, unable to sleep amongst the sound of horns and cut off from access to vital services. It is my hope that additional steps to analyze this and other measures using Child Rights Impact Assessment tools will be carried out to ensure that we understand the impact on children and can act in consequence.

Further, these emergency authorities have allowed police to integrate forces from multiple jurisdictions and to retake the city of Ottawa, while maintaining their safety and avoiding significant violence.

As critical resources are shifted to Ottawa, these measures also ensure that the ongoing broader protection of regions that are left with depleted resources are protected. It should also be underscored that these security resources continue to be needed to make sure that a renewed occupation does not take place in Ottawa or anywhere else in the country. We are already hearing from the authorities about renewed attempts since the protest was disassembled this past weekend.

Again, interim Police Chief Bell stated during a press conference last Friday that the use of the emergency powers by the three levels of government created the ability for police to use new and existing powers to deal with the occupation. He said, “Without the authorities provided to us . . . we wouldn’t be able to do the work we are today.”

For all of these reasons, colleagues, I believe that the government’s use of the emergency powers is both warranted and needed to bring the situation to a close and to maintain peace. I also believe the circumstances are dire enough to require significant action to supplement emergency measures taken by other orders of government. I will be voting in favour of this proclamation.

Honourable senators, the events and the discourse leading up to and during this occupation has been troubling. There has been much irresponsible rhetoric. We have seen that one’s political perspective has defined these events, has defined the perception of truth, has made it impossible for objective public discourse and has stood in the way of our appreciation of fact.

This is a critical time in Canada’s history. As we reflect on the events that have brought us here, we must focus on the troubling fissures that have been unmasked, that threaten to weaken the union of our Confederation and that threaten our democracy. We must work together to heal these divisions that today turn Canadians against one another. We must work to ensure that Canada remains an inclusive and united country, a country based on truth, peace, order and good governance. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Minister Duclos, welcome.

Recently, the Health Standards Organization released their first draft of the National Long-Term Care Services Standard. This is highly anticipated because long-term care, as you just pointed out, has been a long-standing issue in this country, one made worse by the pandemic, and was the scene of some of the most disheartening instances of neglect and death during the pandemic.

You have acknowledged that these issues require a broad, systemic change that considers a number of factors: standards of care, conditions for workers, affordability, access to care, and that federal leadership is really needed and essential here.

In the face of an aging population and a weakened health care system, it is clear that the Guaranteed Income Supplement is not going to be the change that will make significant change here. Many of these issues require —