Bill C-35

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada

This enactment sets out the Government of Canada’s vision for a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. It also sets out the Government of Canada’s commitment to maintaining long-term funding relating to early learning and child care to be provided to the provinces and Indigenous peoples. Finally, it creates the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you.

Well, I hope they do support it, because.... What I want to have on record here is that we have supported this. I think it is exactly the thing we are fighting for in this bill. When we look at Bill C-35 and why we supported this amendment put forth by my NDP colleague....

I respect her greatly and I know how fierce she is for indigenous rights. Conservatives believe in the rights of parents to choose what is best for their children, and it is a similar that conversation we are having. This bill continues to have winners and losers, because there are parents on wait-lists who will never have access to this program. These small, entrepreneur-owned businesses are shutting down because they can't afford it.

There was a woman who wrote to me and—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes. It's that Bill C-35, in the preamble, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 2 the following:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to upholding the right of Indigenous peoples to be consulted in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent for legislation pertaining to Indigenous children;

There are a couple of reasons this is important. One is that the committee approved the amendment contained within the bill, which makes it a necessary change.

The other thing is that I know Ms. Reddin indicated that amending the bill by adding “free, prior and informed consent” served no purpose. However, in the framework agreement that was signed, there is mention that indigenous peoples have a right to self-determination over matters impacting their kids. The very definition of self-determination is actually “free, prior and informed consent”, so the framework confirms that.

I'm merely stating what's already stated in the framework. If there was a concern about free, prior and informed consent, then perhaps they should have looked at that when they were developing the framework in consultation with indigenous peoples. In the framework, they recognize self-determination. Again, self-determination is defined as the right of indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent on matters impacting children.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I want to pick up where we left off.

The Conservatives have been pretty open that we want to ensure that everybody is included in this bill and that children and child welfare are at the forefront of this discussion.

The pillars of Bill C-35 put forth by the Liberals were quality, availability, affordability, accessibility and inclusiveness.

The NDP amendment asked for an assessment of the progress being made respecting that system, including information on the “quality, availability, affordability, accessibility and inclusiveness of early learning and child care programs and services”. That was the amendment they put forth.

The Liberals put forth a subamendment, and it removed two key pillar words: “availability” and “accessibility”. Then we recessed, and it was brought to my attention that they would put these words back in because they were caught for not having them in there.

Mr. Chair, I guess I'm asking why these two words around this bill were taken out in a subamendment. What was the reasoning to remove two of the pillars, availability and accessibility, when we're looking at this legislation? These are the two biggest issues that we see in child care in this country.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

Committee members, we have a quorum and we have the timeline from the end of the last vote in the House of Commons.

Welcome to meeting number 66 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. There will be members appearing virtually in today's meeting.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to make a few comments.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. Those appearing in the room or virtually have the option of choosing to participate in the official language of your choice by using the interpretation icon at the bottom of your screen, and in the room the headset will provide interpretation services for you. If there's an interruption in interpretation services, please get my attention, and we'll suspend while it's being corrected.

As I said, unless there are exceptional circumstances—which we do not anticipate—in order to participate verbally in the meeting, you have to have a House of Commons approved headset. Those members of the committee appearing virtually can participate in all votes in the House by simply indicating yes or no by thumbs up or thumbs down.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee will continue its study of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Today we're resuming a clause-by-clause meeting. As the name indicates, this is an examination of the order of the bill. We're now into our third committee hearing on the bill.

The proceedings are the same. Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number to indicate which party submitted them. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended.

When a subamendment is moved, which is where we're at when we resume, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been done, we will adopt the title of the bill, and an order to reprint the bill may be required. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House.

I would like to welcome, again, representatives from the department who are available to answer technical questions related to the bill. They have all been introduced and are the same departmental experts who were with us from the start of the clause-by-clause review.

To begin, let's go back to where we were when we adjourned the last meeting. We had circulated the language for clarification of the subamendment of Madame Saks to the NDP amendment 5. It's the subamendment to NDP-5. That's where we had closed on Friday when the committee adjourned. We're at the subamendment of Ms. Saks.

Is there any discussion? If not, I will go to a vote on the subamendment of Ms. Saks.

Ms. Ferreri, you have the floor on the subamendment.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We're talking about accountability, and I think my amendment is stronger in terms of forcing accountability on the government.

The other thing—just as an aside to one of the reasons I couldn't support...and am proceeding forth with my amendment—is that we don't have a workforce strategy in place. This is problematic, and it's something that I've been bringing up—that this isn't going to work without a workforce strategy. Unfortunately, they haven't put one on the table yet.

What I'm proposing for this one is that Bill C-35, in clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 35 on page 7 with the following:

16(1) At the end of the fiscal year, the Minister must prepare a report that contains

(a) a summary of information in the Minister's possession relating to the federal investments made in respect of the Canada-wide early learning and child care system during the fiscal year;

(b) an assessment of the progress being made respecting that system, including information on the quality, availability, affordability, accessibility and inclusiveness of early learning and child care programs and services; and

(c) a summary of the advice provided by the Council under paragraph 14(a) and the work of the Council during the reporting period.

(2) The Minister must cause the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Before we go to debate, my role as chair is to ensure that the committee follows the rules and orders that are adopted by the House of Commons.

Having said that, Bill C-35 sets out the Government of Canada's vision for a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. The amendment proposes to allow the government of Quebec to retain sole responsibility for its early learning and child care policies and to exclude Quebec from the functions of the national advisory council on early learning and child care created by the bill.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd Edition states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair, as advised by the legislative clerk, the amendment is contrary to the bill's stated principle of creating a Canada-wide system. Such a council's function would not extend to the province of Quebec; therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. My ruling is not debatable, but it can be challenged.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I propose that Bill C‑35 be amended by adding after line 28, page 7 the following new clause:14.1 Quebec retains sole responsibility for implementing, evaluating and adapting its early learning and child care policies and programs in Quebec, and therefore the council's functions do not extend to early learning and child care, or any other related activity, in Quebec.

This amendment serves to reiterate Quebec's sole jurisdiction in this area. Quebec does not wish to be evaluated or monitored by some council that answers to Ottawa. This area, in which Quebec is a pioneer, falls under provincial jurisdiction. The amendment comes at the request of the Cabinet of Quebec's Finance Minister, and we hope that everyone will support the amendment.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes. Thank you, Chair.

What the NDP is proposing is that Bill C-35 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 7 the following new clause:

14.1 The Minister must, on request of the Council, provide the Council with any information related to the Canada-wide early learning and child care system that is in the Minister's possession and that the Minister is authorized to share.

This was something that came directly from advocates in the field in terms of accountability mechanisms for the minister. This amendment is merely echoing voices from leading advocates in the field.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

This NDP amendment proposes that Bill C-35 in clause 14 be amended by replacing line 23 on page 7 with the following:

(b) consult broadly with individuals and organizations that have an interest in early learning and child care, including parents, the early childhood education workforce, child care providers, advocates and policy and research specialists, on matters relating

That's what we're proposing for an amendment. It's not that I didn't like some of the amendments that were proposed by the Conservative Party, but I felt like it might be a bit overly prescriptive in terms of allowing the council to make those kinds of decisions as specialists in the field. I thought the amendment would give more autonomy to the groups I mentioned.

Our amendment also supports having a report included in the minister's report, so it puts more responsibility on the minister.

I think we're going in a similar direction, but it's stronger.

I'll leave it at that, thank you.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call this meeting to order.

The clerk has advised me that those appearing virtually have had their sound tested and that it's okay to proceed with translation.

Welcome to meeting number 65 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Committee members are appearing in the room and virtually. All witnesses are in the room with us.

I would remind those appearing that you have the option of speaking in the official language of your choice. Virtually, you have the translation icon at the bottom of your Surface. Here in the room, you have translation through the earpiece in your mike. If there's an issue with translation, please get my attention, and we'll suspend while it is being corrected.

I would also like to remind members that screenshots are not allowed at today's meeting. In-person shots in the room while the meeting is proceeding are also not allowed.

I would also like to remind you that if you could give your comments slowly, please, that would be great for the translators to deal with.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee will continue its study of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Today we are resuming clause-by-clause consideration. I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-35.

Members of the committee, we've gone through the particular material. I will go through clause-by-clause. Members who have provided an amendment will proceed to move that amendment when we get to that particular section.

Again, I would like to welcome, from the department, Michelle Lattimore, director general; Cheri Reddin, director general; Jill Henry, director, policy; Kelly Nares, director; and Christian Paradis, director.

(On clause 9)

We will begin. As you are aware, at the last meeting, we concluded and carried up to clause 8, so we will begin with clause 9.

Is there an amendment to clause 9?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me the time to present amendment CPC-2.1. I will try to be quick.

Amendment CPC-2.1 proposes that Bill C-35, in clause 7, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 5 the following:

(3) Federal investments in respect of early learning and child care programs and services subject to an agreement entered into with a province must be guided by the commitments set out in the Official Languages Act, in addition to the principles set out in subsection (1).

Clause 7 of this bill sets out the guiding principles of the funding granted by the federal government for early childhood services. The proposed amendment is critical in that it will ensure that the federal government takes its official languages commitments as set out in the Official Languages Act into account when it grants funding for early childhood services.

Bill C-13, An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, specifically proposes to add a federal commitment to the Official Languages Act to advance learning opportunities starting in early childhood.

To help in understanding what is really happening, I will cite a few examples.

In New Brunswick, the government recently announced the creation of 1,900 child care spaces, 300 of which will be francophone. This means that barely 16 per cent of the spaces are being allocated for francophones, when francophones make up over 30 per cent of the population in the only bilingual province in Canada.

In Nova Scotia, faced with an outcry from francophones, the provincial government decided to reverse its plan, with funding from the federal government, to merge all francophone and anglophone child care centres in the province under a single provincial agency already in existence whose senior management is exclusively anglophone. That would have constituted a violation of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In Ontario, it seems that francophone child care centres will not have access to the provincial funding intended to improve wages in child care centres. Only private anglophone agencies, that pay much less, will be receiving this top-up funding from the province.

In conclusion, I want to cite the example of Alberta. Out of the1,500 new spaces announced recently, only 19 will be reserved for francophones. This means that 0.013 per cent of the spaces will be allocated to francophones in Alberta, when francophones represent over 2 per cent of the population of the province.

I could continue, with examples for British Columbia and Manitoba. Manitoba's history is positive, with the Manitoba government's intentions giving the province a good track record in terms of financial effects.

Members of the committee, I invite you to consider this point. This bill gives us the opportunity to offer the federal government tools it can use to get tangible results when it comes to francophone education and child care services in minority communities across Canada. I think this is important.

As I said at the beginning of the meeting, it is important to have this presence in all bill that come after. This is particularly important now that we have concluded the study on modernization of the Official Languages Act, the new version of which will probably be adopted by the House of Commons very soon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Bérubé.

The role of the chair of the committee is to rule on admissibility of amendments as dictated by House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

My ruling, therefore, on this amendment is that Bill C-35 sets out the Government of Canada's vision for a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. The amendment proposes to allow the Government of Quebec to exempt itself from the application of the bill, while receiving federal funding for its early learning and child care programs and services. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes to alter the terms and conditions for spending provided in the royal recommendation. In addition, the amendment is contrary to the bill’s stated principle of creating a Canada-wide system, since there is no mechanism to allow any province or territory to opt out of that system while still receiving federal funding. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

The ruling of the chair cannot be questioned.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Chair, Bloc Québécois amendment BQ-1 proposes that Bill C-35, in clause 7, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 5 the following:(3) Having regard to the special and unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec relating to early learning and child care in Quebec society and despite any other provision of this Act, the Government of Quebec may choose to exempt itself from the application of this Act by giving the Minister written notice to that effect, in which case that province may still receive the funding under section 8.

I will explain. As you know, the purpose of this amendment is to incorporate a clause to recognize Quebec's expertise in the guiding principles of the bill. This amendment also recognizes Quebec's jurisdiction and guarantees its right to withdraw with compensation from the application of this act. The idea is to avoid arguments between Quebec and Ottawa by recognizing from the outset what everyone knows here: Quebec is a forerunner when it comes to early childhood education and must continue to have sole control of its policies in this area.

In fact, Quebec was in the vanguard when it adopted its family policy over 25 years ago now. That policy, which can be described as progressive and feminist, enabled thousands of women and families to enjoy better work/life or school/life balance, specifically through the creation of a network of early childhood centres. This model is an asset and a source of pride for the entire Quebec nation. In fact, it is the inspiration for this bill.

This amendment therefore confirms the special and unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Quebec government in the area of education and child development, by giving it a right to withdraw completely with full compensation. As well, this is a field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction and we believe that this amendment, like all of the amendments we are proposing, will avoid arguments between Ottawa and Quebec in the future federal investments in this area.

I therefore invite all of my colleagues to vote in favour of this amendment and of recognition of all the work done by Quebec in the last 25 years.

[Cheri Reddin, Director General, Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Secretariat, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Perhaps I can highlight a few things.

First, I'd like to highlight that Bill C-35 does include a strong commitment in paragraph 5(f) to contribute to the implementation of UNDRIP.

I'd also like to underscore that the indigenous-specific references in the bill are grounded in work that was codeveloped with indigenous peoples, including the codeveloped indigenous early learning and child care framework. That work continues through the codevelopment process that's being led through the Department of Justice with indigenous governments to give meaning to the United Nations declaration and its application in Canada, including consideration of FPIC in that context.

From a policy perspective, I would underscore the need to abide by that practice and to not use this legislation to get out ahead of it. I'd also like to underscore that the bill was drafted with the intention of being flexible and being able to catch up with that eventual outcome.

The last thing I would like to note from a policy perspective is that any decision to include FPIC at this time in the clause would essentially be baseless. As a federal official, I have no idea how we would implement that, what measures would apply or what test would apply to ensure that the government was adhering to FPIC obligations.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am here to show the importance that we in the Conservative Party of Canada place on the two official languages. I think it is important that this be reflected in all our legislation.

We have studied Bill C-13, which we will probably be debating tomorrow in the House of Commons. I am not revealing anything that is not already public. I think the importance of the two official languages needs to be specified in all future legislation, and for that reason I am proposing amendment CPC-0.1. I am going to read it.

First, I propose that Bill C-35 be amended by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 3 with the following:child care system, including in both official languages, and its commitment to ongoing collaboration with the provinces, Indigenous peoples and official language minority communities

Second, I propose that it be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 24 on page 3 with the following:nue avec les provinces, les peuples autochtones et les communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire afin

Third, I propose that it be amended by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 3 with the following: taining long-term funding for the provinces, Indigenous peoples and official language minority communities for the establishment and mainte-

In fact, what is important is that when we studied Bill C-13 on official languages, a number of organizations testified about the importance of making sure that our young people in official language minority communities have access to education in French so that our Canada will be bilingual in the future. I stress the fact that this bilingualism relates to French and English, because we have a Governor General who is bilingual but does not speak French. I think it is important to specify this in the bill and to make sure it is reflected in all of the laws of our country, Canada, which takes pride in being a bilingual country.

That is the purpose of the amendment I am proposing. If there are questions, I am available to answer them.