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.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do hope the member was listening to my speech when I outlined the research showing a three-point plan with the current funding agreements. It makes sense to maintain and fund the whole spectrum of our child care system.

Moving forward, when we are talking about future agreements with provinces, if we want to make decisions that are based on evidence and the best available information we have, it means investing in public, non-profit child care in the future. I recommend the member check out the research. It was released last year. It is a powerful document that outlines the dos and don'ts of creating a national child care program.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, the 2021 federal budget included $30 billion in new spending over five years to fund this new national child care system. It also projected an additional $9.2 billion ongoing. That is a lot of money.

At the same time, predictability is the key issue. As much as we want to get this system in place, we also want it to be robust and reliable. What kind of impact do we think this will actually have? How will this $9.2‑billion investment impact Quebec? Can we expect to see long-term agreements?

The government has not reintroduced the clause from Bill C-303 from 2006, so I am worried about predictability and the impact this will have on Quebec.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this issue.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned a few things, one being the cost of the program. On the one hand, we have to acknowledge that investing in child care is an economically sound policy. It is good for our economy, and it is good for equity and taking care of our children, but it also means people returning to the workforce, which is good for our economy overall.

We also want to make sure the government is making the right kind of fiscal decisions, meaning taxing the wealthiest corporations, the people at the very top, so that we can invest in programs that support everyday Canadians with things such as child care, health care and affordable housing.

To the question of how this would impact Quebec, I am going to admit that I am not an expert on that. I do think that there is flexibility built into this legislation that would ensure that provinces such as Quebec, which really are models when it comes to creating affordable child care, can direct funds in ways that best serve the province.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, what I like about Bill C-35 is that it embodies, in recognizing the importance of early learning and child care, true Canadian values. Not only do we have agreements with the different provinces, territories and indigenous communities, we also have the substantial funding of $30 billion over a five-year period of time. This legislation would embody the commitment from the federal government to ensure there is a strong role going forward.

I would ask the member to provide her thoughts on the significance of this historic piece of legislation.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, this legislation is so important. It is unfortunate that the Liberals have been promising child care since 1993 and it took three decades to get here, but it is critical that we move forward together. That is why New Democrats have pushed the government to ensure this legislation is passed, that it moves forward. This is critical for our country as a whole when it comes to our economic success. It is critical for gender equality. It is critical for the future of our children.

I want to thank all members in the House who are supporting this legislation and fighting for the rights of women.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, it is a great opportunity to stand in the chamber to speak to the importance of child care, which is what Bill C-35 is all about. The aim is to establish, through this legislation, a national early learning child care system.

This is something that is not a new discussion in Canada. It was this government that was able to get it done, but the discussion, as members know, goes back to 1970 when a national child care program was called for by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada. Ten years later, in 1980, the Canadian commission for the international year of the child said the same thing. In 1986, a federal task force made the same recommendation. One year later, in 1987, it looked like the Mulroney government was going to get it done, but they were not able to. Its aim was to invest $4.5 billion toward the creation of 200,000 child care spaces.

The efforts of Prime Minister Paul Martin and the social development minister in early 2006 have to be lauded. There was an incredible effort made by Ken Dryden at that time to establish a national system, but unfortunately, it was not to be. Politics got in the way. Politics has not come in the way this time. We have been able to collaborate across the aisle. We have been able to collaborate with the provinces to establish a national system, and this legislation would enshrine that so any future government could not change it.

There are many benefits. This legislation stems from the fact that we have carried out enormous consultations with Canadians across communities across this country. The benefits for children are very clear. Child care programs play a critical role in children's development.

This is not to say that child care programs are the only way to foster and to nurture the development of the child. It is up to parents to decide how they wish to raise their kids. They still have the choice under this system. However, those who choose to put their children in child care will absolutely see obvious benefits, including the ability to interact with other kids, language development, cognitive development, the motor skills that come with these programs and other basic skills. This is something that I have seen up close, in my own experience.

My daughter Ava is now 16 months as of yesterday. She goes to Arbour Glen in London, where the incredible staff have worked with her in really important ways, which I cannot even begin to describe. These are early childhood educators. That is what they are. It has been disappointing to hear the word “babysitter” sometimes used across the aisle, as it is not appropriate.

They are early childhood educators, as important in our communities as teachers, nurses and others who carry out public-facing roles in support of the community. Whether it is Arbour Glen, where Ava is, or KidLogic, London Bridge Child Care Services, Oak Park Co-operative Children’s Centre or so many other child care centres in the city of London, parents have the option, more so even now. I talked about choice before. They have even more of a choice now to enrol their children in these outstanding programs.

What is the result? The result is not only important for the development of the child. The result is also important in terms of a community focus. TD Bank made clear just a few years ago that, when it comes to government investments in child care, “for every dollar invested, the return ranges from roughly 1.5 to almost 3 dollars”. A more important point from the study, which bears enormous emphasis, and I cannot repeat this enough, is “that the benefit ratio for disadvantaged children [is] in the double digits.” This is not from some far-left organization. In fact, my Conservative friends will like hearing this, as this is one of the big banks coming out in favour of national child care.

One might ask in what ways the enormous benefits would flow. The research is clear that children who do partake in child care programs see higher graduation rates. It is something that promotes lifelong well-being. Future earnings are in fact impacted by this. On average, those children who are involved in child care do tend to see higher earnings, and equality levels rise as children spend time with one another. For children from different socio-economic, ethnic and religious backgrounds, there is a very positive impact, in the long term, on equality.

Furthermore, the economic impact, which I have touched on just briefly, flows into something else and that is gender equality. In fact, it is quite relevant. Just a few days ago, Statistics Canada's labour force survey came out. This was in early January. It is made clear that 81% of Canadian women aged between 25 and 54 were working during 2022. That is the highest number recorded on record in this survey.

Mothers with kids under six are employed at a rate now of 75% of the 2022 figure. We will see but it is even more likely to increase in 2023 as a result of this program. The 2022 figure that I Just cited is a 3% increase from 2019. As I say, I expect that number to grow in the coming years.

There are a number of reasons for this. The pandemic has seen a more flexible approach to work being embraced by employers. I will not say that remote work patterns are the norm but they are becoming more regular in work places. We are seeing Parliament move in that direction as well. In all of this is the importance of national child care.

Now that every province and territory has signed on to this system, it is a natural consequence that there is a rising number of women in the workforce. That is not only good for the economy but also good for the goal of gender equality. Women now have more of an ability, if they wish, to work in a pursuit of what matters to them, to pursue their creative interests and to pursue work that they find meaningful. As we all know, that is a central goal of gender equality.

In relation to the economic impact, on GDP we can look to the province of Quebec where an excellent child care system has been in place since 1997. Since that time, the province, just because of its program alone, has seen a 1.7% increase in GDP. That is something very important with respect to planning for future social programs and other laudable aims that governments in that province have presently and will have in the future.

Finally, let me touch on the savings for families, particularly at a difficult time as Canadians grapple with the effects of inflation. Let me do so by touching on my own community's experience.

In London, 92% of licensed child care providers have signed on to this national program, which is a huge number. It even caught me by surprise. This number goes back to November. It could even be higher at this point. It speaks to the structure of this program, the fact that licensed providers have found it enticing to sign onto. Of course, the results are not just good for child care providers and their employees but also for everyday Canadians; in my case, everyday Londoners.

In 2018, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives put out a landmark study, a very important study that made clear how much the average family was paying in child care costs city by city. In London, that cost ranged between $1,000 to $1200 a month, depending on the age of the child. That could be a mortgage payment. It is a very expensive cost. Sometimes it was even more than $1,200. I spoke to a Londoner this morning and said I would be doing a speech on Bill C-35 on a national system. That individual was paying upward of $1,500 to $1,600 a month until this program came into being. Now those costs have been cut in half.

At a time when Canadians and Londoners continue to face the challenges of inflation this is a very important development. We can look at how it complements the other suite of measures that this government has introduced, such as the GST tax credit and the ways we are helping through the rental benefit and the dental benefit.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks to the NDP.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my friend in the NDP wants credit. We worked with members of the NDP on that, so he gets credit. We worked with them and it was this government that got it done. I am sure he will give credit to the Liberal government for getting it done.

We have great legislation here. I hope all colleagues support it.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions. The main question is on the member's thoughts on the bill the way it currently stands and whether his party would be open to amending the national council.

In the past we have seen the Liberal government appoint people it thinks are best rather than have a fair representation that serves all Canadians. Currently in the bill there is zero private representation. Entrepreneurs and small business owners will not be on the national council. Would he be open to amending this?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member does not give evidence as to what the government apparently has done, in her view, with previous advisory councils.

It is important for an advisory council to exist, and the bill would open the door to exactly that. However, if the member has suggestions that she wishes to raise, I would be open to looking at those. It is for the government to make the ultimate decision of course.

I see an excellent bill with an advisory council built in to it to provide that critical feedback to the government on how the legislation progresses in the short and long term.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak again about the multilateral early learning and child care framework, which states that the systems will “recognize the unique needs of French and English linguistic minority communities”. Would this be a way for the Liberal government to circumvent Bill 101?

The Liberals are already interfering by investing in a provincial jurisdiction, and now they also want to recognize the unique needs of French and English linguistic minority communities.

Where are anglophones in the minority? In Quebec, as we know. Is that not a way to circumvent Bill 101?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the subject today is not Bill 101, but Bill C‑35. In my opinion, Quebec has an excellent model for Canada.

In fact, that is exactly what we have seen, a government that has looked at the Quebec model, looked at other provinces and opened the door to ongoing discussions that ultimately led to agreements.

I mentioned Quebec before, with nearly a 2% increase in that province's GDP since 1997. There is a lot to learn from the Quebec model. This country and this government will seek to do better, and the Quebec model is instrumental in all of that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member knows quite well that we have had to compete really hard for manufacturing jobs and to sustain economic development, especially new ones. The green technology in the auto sector in London is affected by this for sure. As well, health care in those structures has actually played an important role to retain those jobs, especially when competing against Alabama, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and other places.

I liked his reflections on how child care would also be an important instrument to not only retain jobs but grow them. There is a bit of concern in Ontario with the fact that we are looking at more private health care from the Ford administration, which will undermine that competitive advantage. In the meantime, how will this child care policy enhance our overall economic competitiveness as we face these challenges?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I have enjoyed a very good working relationship over the years. I have a lot of respect for what he does in his community, and no doubt his constituents do as well as they have returned him to the House many times.

On the question, if we have an affordable child care option, we give people choice. If we give people choice, they will take it.

We have seen, as I cited in my speech, a huge number of women now in the workforce. I have cited the Statistics Canada Labour Force Survey that shows that 81% of women aged 25 to 45 are working. That is not entirely due to the child care program that the government has introduced, but it is part of the explanation.

If we give people that option, they will take it, and we need to provide that option to make Canada more competitive. We have to ensure that this is the case. When we do, it is only natural that we will see a number of metrics increase, including GDP. As I mentioned before, Quebec has seen a very significant increase in its GDP. That is expected to rise in Canada, and that is the TD Bank talking among other banks.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, speaking to parents of young children, this debate on Bill C-35, the Canada early learning and child care act, is about them and the type of support they need from their government while their children are preschool age. They will find the Conservative caucus and the majority of the House supports the legislation at this stage, but they will also find two competing visions for the future of child care in Canada.

The Conservative vision flows from our belief in small government and big citizens. We respect the agency of parents to make the child care decisions that meet their individual needs. That means we must ensure families have financial flexibility to create the life they dream of for themselves and their children. To do that, we need to make life more affordable, lower taxes and leave more of their hard-earned dollars in their pockets.

I was part of the previous Conservative government that promoted income splitting for families, implemented a child care tax credit and the universal child care benefit. We did so with a balanced budget.

The child care benefit was a direct cash transfer to Canadian families that gave them more flexibility in their child care choices with no strings attached. It was so well received that when the Liberals came to office, they decided to keep it in place and rebranded it as the Canada child benefit. The benefit was universal and supported the needs of every child in Canada.

Unfortunately, the vision of the NDP-Liberal government fails to meet that standard. Bill C-35 would not help every preschooler in Canada, not by a long shot. The legislation flows from its core belief that government is the best solution to societal problems. That is why the bill would give more power to the government to decide who gets child care support and who will provide the services.

What the government is offering is an Ottawa-knows-best solution, forcing provinces to give the federal government more control over their jurisdiction. For example, the child care agreement with B.C. will direct $3.2 billion into the child care system, with one key condition: that those dollars only be allocated to run regulated day cares.

That means families that choose to have a parent take time away from work to focus on the most formative years of their child’s life will not benefit from this spending. Parents working shifts beyond the hours of operation of regulated day cares will not receive any further support. Parents who prefer to rely on family members for child care will not receive support. This includes new Canadians, many of whom are waiting for the arrival of grandparents to help with their child care but are stuck in the Liberal-made backlog at the immigration department, which is well over two million applications long.

Many indigenous parents who distrust child care institutions, given their family experience with residential schools, will not receive support when they arrange child care alternatives. Parents in rural and remote communities where regulated child care is often not available will not get a nickel of support. For those who are able to align their schedules to benefit from this program, they may need to wait years on a wait-list.

That said, the child care agreement with British Columbia will help some families, but far too many are being left behind. After eight years, I expected an inclusive child care approach from the Prime Minister, because after all it is 2023. His Deputy Prime Minister promised better when she introduced the child care plan in her budget. She said:

This is women's liberation. It will mean more women no longer need to choose between motherhood and a career. This is feminist economic policy in action.

This is typical of the Liberal government: big promises but no follow-through.

Bill C-35 and the related child care agreements fall demonstrably short. Instead, the Liberal government implemented a program, frankly, straight out of the 1970s, when women were generally limited to typical nine-to-five jobs.

Speaking as someone who was a single mother for four years following the death of my first husband and as a woman who raised four children with a career in law and politics, this program is certainly not feminist economic policy.

I do not know where the Liberals have been for the last 50 years, but while women have been breaking the glass ceilings of every industry and every realm of life, have they really noticed? Women are leaders in the military, policing, medicine, aerospace, engineering, mining and resource extraction.

They are on the cutting edge of research and development. They are bolstering our food supply chains as agricultural producers. They are manufacturing the cars we drive and designing the transit systems we rely on. Many women are taking up jobs in the skilled trades, helping to construct the homes and highways that we need to build up our great country. Women are thriving in industries that were once male dominated, and they need flexible child care options that meet their needs.

The idea of a national child care program is a recycled Liberal election promise from the 1980s, but it does not seem to have evolved with the times. John Turner promised the program in 1984 and 1988, but could not win a mandate. Jean Chrétien made a similar promise in 1993, but failed to deliver the program despite having successive majority governments.

Liberal leaders ever since, including Martin, Dion and Ignatieff, all made similar promises but never got it done. The current Prime Minister copied and pasted the program into their election platform, but failed to modernize it for women working in today’s economy.

To make matters worse, the program fails to live up to the standard set by the courts. In 2010, as an administrative law judge with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, I presided over the Johnstone case.

Fiona Johnstone worked rotating shifts as a border services officer. Her child care preference was to rely on family to care for her children, but her family was available only three days a week. She sought accommodations from her employer, the Canada Border Services Agency, requesting that she work full time with extended shifts over those three days. Her employer refused her request, believing it had no obligation under the Canadian Human Rights Act to accommodate her personal choices around child care.

After hearing testimony from several child care experts on availability and quality, I made a precedent-setting decision that found the CBSA discriminated against Fiona Johnstone by failing to accommodate her child care request. My decision, which has since been upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal, protected child care choice as a right for working parents under the ground of family status in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I would hope that a national child care program would reflect the ruling of the court by supporting the child care choices of all Canadian parents. Sadly, it falls short. In fact, the bill itself is a half-hearted effort. After eight years, when the Liberals could have gotten it right, most of it is inconsequential. A lengthy preamble, a declaration and some guiding principles make up most of the bill.

The one thing the bill would do is establish an advisory council to advise the minister on child care going forward.

I have four pieces of advice for this council to consider in order to help families take control of their child care choices. The first is to find solutions that help all parents in the modern economy. The second is to empower parents to make child care choices that suit their needs. The third is to refrain from dictating to provincial governments how to deliver those services. After eight years, it is difficult for other orders of government to take the federal government seriously when it cannot even issue passports or process visa applications. The fourth is to find ways to give families more financial flexibility to build the lives they want.

The Liberals can start by axing their plan to triple the carbon tax. They can rein in government spending that is driving high interest rates and inflation, which is the cruellest tax of all. To conclude, Conservatives will vote to send the bill to committee and will seek to amend it with a clear objective, which is to make sure the national child care program respects the choices of all Canadian families.