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.

[Maureen Farris]

It's very disheartening for the staff. Honestly, when that wage floor was announced, it was like a punch in the gut to our staff. Not only is the wage floor really low, but there also is a cap or a ceiling of a maximum of $25 per hours—$23 if you take out the wage enhancement. Again, our staff doesn't have any room for growth within their careers. They're going to hit that ceiling really quickly. Then there is also a lack of benefits in some organizations. There are no pensions.

I feel that a national minimum wage for early childhood educators would be a really valuable component to Bill C-35.

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

All right.

Ms. Friendly, are there any other key items that should be added to Bill C‑35? Do you have any concerns about the bill?

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

Okay. Bill C‑35 neither defines what child care is, nor does it gives any indication of the age range in which children will be covered by the Canada-wide early learning and child care system. In your view, is that a problem and can you speak to the impact that will have?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To all the witnesses, thank you for taking part in this meeting. It's important, because we're talking about the future of our young children.

Bill C‑35 neither defines what child care is, nor does it give any indication of the age range in which children will be covered by the Canada-wide early learning and child care system. In your view, is that a problem and can you speak to the impact that will have?

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

Thank you so much, Andrea.

Ms. Farris, do you feel that with the way Bill C-35 is currently written it could create a two-tiered system of child care? Basically, those who are lucky enough or who win the lottery have a spot, but those who are waiting do not.

[Maureen Farris]

Certainly. I'm sorry about that. Let me skip ahead.

Both the federal and provincial governments are promising to increase child care spaces. However, it's impossible to do so without the workforce to support and sustain this. Without adequate staffing, we cannot create more spaces.

As someone who operates two child care centres and sits on various committees, I can tell you that the biggest hurdle our child care community is currently facing is staffing. In fact, even the media is honing in on this. They admit that child care will be facing a staffing shortage and a staffing crisis by 2025.

I would argue that we're already in that crisis. What you may not be aware of is the incredible amount of pressure on frontline staff.

In spite of all the mounting pressure, Bill C-35 does not contain a clear staff retention plan. We need strong leadership in developing a workforce strategy. Otherwise, creating more child care spaces and, therefore, ensuring access to quality care are unrealistic expectations.

I have a lot more to say, but I will conclude, because you've asked me to do so.

It is my hope that the ideas shared at this committee meeting will help to refine Bill C-35 and the national child care plan so that they remain an excellent solution for families and their children, and that they are also equitable for educators, while being sustainable for organizations.

Investment in the early years is the best use of national funds. Every dollar invested in early learning and care is returned exponentially in our communities and the economy.

Bill C-35 needs to ensure that the focus is on the welfare of children, which is ensured through high-quality early learning and care provided by qualified early childhood educators.

It is truly my desire, and that of the child care community, that Bill C-35 does what it originally intended, which is ensure high-quality, accessible, inclusive and affordable child care for all who need it.

Thank you so much.

[Maureen Farris, Director, Strath-MacLean Child Care Centre]

Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the child care community. I'm grateful to be here, today, to share with you some areas of concern regarding Bill C-35 and the Canada-wide early learning and child care program from the perspective of a director, as well as others throughout the child care community, including educators, families and children.

I would like to start by acknowledging that the intention of Bill C-35 is an honourable one: a national child care plan that includes high-quality, accessible and affordable child care for all who need it. Bill C-35 is certainly moving in the right direction. However, there are parts of the bill that require refining, in order to meet the core principles it initially set out to meet: affordability, accessibility, inclusivity, quality, flexibility and collaboration.

Bill C-35 sets out a vision and core principles for a national child care plan, and the child care community is appreciative that this committee and the federal government are working to build on the plan and improve it, in order to make it accessible to all Canadians. To do so, there is a need for the expansion of child care programs and improvements to compensation that values educators. We need trained early-childhood educators to make expansion possible.

BillC-35 is intended to ensure equity and sustainability. In its current state, the Canada-wide early learning and child care plan, or CWELCC, is not equitable or sustainable. This program is terrific in theory, facilitating access to high-quality early learning and child care programs and providing funding to make child care more affordable for families. However, it is vital that the federal government look at the actual impact this program has on families, children, educators and organizations.

I would like to acknowledge that the Canada-wide early learning and child care program is fantastic for our families. These families have access to high-quality early learning programs that are now more affordable. This is incredibly important to the families we serve. However, as I mentioned, CWELCC is not equitable. It is not equitable for families on the wait-list that currently don't have child care. As the media continues to report on $10-a-day child care, our wait-lists are growing daily, which leads to further inequities.

In Peterborough, which is where I'm from, we have approximately 3,500 children on the wait-list across the city and county, and that number continues to grow. While this may be a provincial jurisdiction, simply put, we do not have the educators or physical space to create more child care places. We cannot create access to affordable child care without qualified, well-paid educators. It's important to recognize there is no access without educators.

The Canada-wide early learning and child care plan is also not equitable for families with children in care but whose children are not all eligible, under the guidelines of the program. For example, in our organization, we have several families with a school-age child in our before- and after-school programs, for which they pay $24 per child per day. These children have siblings in our preschool program, for which the family pays $19.85 per child per day. The children in our before- and after-school programs are there for a maximum of four hours of care. The children in our preschool program are there for up to 10 hours of care and receive all the associated education and outdoor programming, as well as two snacks and a hot lunch daily.

As you can see, families pay significantly more for less programming and fewer hours of care for their school-age child. Where is the equity in that?

We also have families that, beginning in the fall, will have two children in our primary after-school program. One of their children will be in grade 1 and the other in junior kindergarten. The JK child is eligible for the CWELCC fee reduction, whereas the child in grade 1 will not be eligible. As a result, these families will pay $17 for the child who is not eligible for a fee reduction, but only $12 for the child who is eligible. These children are in the same program with the same educators, and with access to the same programming and snack. Everything is the same, yet families will pay $5 more per day for a child who is not eligible. Again, where is the equity in that?

Furthermore, CWELCC is not equitable for educators. Bill C-35 states that high-quality early learning and child care programs will be provided through the use of a qualified and well-supported early childhood education workforce. However, in Ontario, at least, that is certainly not the case. While I again acknowledge that wage grids are a provincial and territorial jurisdiction, I would like to share, with this committee, some facts about the workforce in Ontario. As of January 2023, early childhood educators in Ontario are eligible for a wage floor of $19 per hour. As that amount includes wage enhancement, the wage floor is actually only $17 per hour.

Governments at all levels must focus on recognizing registered early childhood educators as professionals. They are professionals who educate our children, following a curriculum and a pedagogy routed in child development practices.

These professionals educate and care for young children, support their families and work collaboratively with other educators.

They are governed by the College of ECEs, as well as a code of ethics and standards of practice, while working within guidelines laid out in the Child Care and Early Years Act. ECEs are required to strictly adhere to all of these.

Our registered early childhood educators are not glorified babysitters. They need to be given the respect of a professional, which includes a professional wage—

[Martha Friendly, Executive Director, Childcare Resource and Research Unit]

Hello, I'm Martha Friendly. I'm the executive director of the Childcare Resource and Research Unit, CRRU. I think you have my written brief, which I submitted to the clerk. I'm just going to speak for five minutes, and it's going to be a small summary of that.

CRRU is a small child care and family policy research institute. It began at the University of Toronto in 1982, and it's been an independent non-profit organization since 2007.

I have been a policy researcher in child care for almost 50 years. I've written many papers, reports, popular articles and several books. I've worked on child care internationally. I've been a member of various government expert groups.

One of the main ideas that has guided CRRU's work is the idea that good policy-making needs a solid foundation of good evidence. That's been one of our guiding principles.

Since the earliest days, CRRU has urged governments at all levels to work together to establish an early learning and child care system based on the premise that child care is a public good. Thus, we've applauded the introduction of the Canada-wide early learning and child care plan, CWELCC, but we continue to point out ways that it's implementation can be strengthened.

We all know that quality child care for all is essential in a 21st century society, but how it's set up and designed is especially and critically important. Why? It's because a well-designed child care system can meet multiple goals at the same time. However, a child care market with child care deserts or poor-quality services does not deliver the same results.

Bill C‑35 is a key component as Canada begins to build its child care system. Legislation is important for setting out the high-level goals, aspirations, principles and objectives that we need to transform Canada's piecemeal child care market into a high-quality system, that is, a public good and part of our community infrastructure.

As a dedicated researcher, I find that the federal government's overall policy approach to child care is generally consistent with the best available evidence. That being said, though, I want to make several recommendations aimed at strengthening Bill C‑35, and the rest of my comments are going to be about the recommendations that I'm going to make.

The first thing that I want to recommend is strengthening the language that sets out the division. The importance of early learning and child care for children, women, gender equality, families and the economy is quite well represented in the legislation's preamble. However, the Government of Canada's vision in paragraph 5(a) is inconsistently tentative. Thus, I suggest amending paragraph 5(a) to read, “the Government of Canada's vision for a Canada-wide universal, high-quality early learning and child care system that is envisioned as a public good,” which, I think, would strengthen and make it more consistent with the principles in the preamble.

The second recommendation I want to make is to strengthen the rights-based language, which I was very pleased to see in the preamble, linking the new system to international human rights conventions, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, CEDAW and the social development goals. Therefore, I suggest amending paragraph 6(a) slightly to declare the Government of Canada's obligation “to support and ensure establishment and maintenance of a Canada-wide child care system”. This would be consistent with the federal government's role as the responsible state party identified in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and in the comments of UN committees reviewing Canada's compliance.

The third recommendation I want to make has already had a lot of discussion. I want to support the federal approach limiting for-profit care with regard to expansion while permitting existing for-profit child care to receive public funding on the same basis as not-for-profits, which is the government's approach at this particular point.

The legislation touches on this in paragraph 7(1)(a). I suggest strengthening this clause for at least two reasons. The first reason is that, as we've already discussed, there is abundant research showing negative associations between for-profit ownership and key quality indicators, including the number of qualified staff, their wages, working conditions and support, staff turnover and morale, and that observed what we call “process quality”.

I actually—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I appreciate that, and I was actually one of those people myself.

Madam Bruske, it's good to see you again, and thank you for your comments on the rights of indigenous peoples. Certainly that's something, you know, that is near and dear to my heart.

That's one of the reasons the NDP is pushing the Liberal government right now to make amendments so that the bill will align with Bill C-15, which affirms that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has application in Canadian law, by including this commitment in the bill to ensure that the government upholds the right of indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent for legislation pertaining to indigenous children. So, thank you for that.

I want to build on the comments by Madam Ballantyne.

We have a workforce crisis. Do you think that Bill C-35 should be amended to include an explicit commitment to decent work for child care staff?

[Morna Ballantyne, Executive Director, Child Care Now]

Thank you for inviting me to appear before your committee.

I'm a member of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, but I speak to you today as the executive director of Child Care Now, Canada's national child care advocacy organization.

Early childhood education in Canada is far from what it should be. It's unavailable in many communities. Where it's available, wait-lists are long. The quality of programs is uneven. Although parent fees have dropped dramatically over the last year, licensed child care remains unaffordable for too many.

These problems result from the failure of past governments at all levels. For too long they refused responsibility for the provision of early learning and child care, relying instead on private individuals and organizations to set up programs on either a for-profit or a not-for-profit basis. This has meant unplanned, uneven and under supply.

Also, for far too long inadequate public funding has forced service providers to charge high service fees, putting licensed child care out of the financial reach of most families. At the same time, the parent fee revenue collected has never been sufficient to properly compensate educators for their work and to ensure decent working and learning conditions. This is why the child care sector has suffered from a perpetual problem of high staff turnover and it's why it's so difficult to recruit educators to the sector, especially graduates from early childhood education programs.

Almost always governments have responded to these problems ineffectively through short-term patchwork solutions such as salary top-ups, subsidies for some parents and inadequate operating grants of various kinds.

Child care advocates in Canada cheered when the Government of Canada proposed in budget 2021 to spend just under $30 billion over five years to transform early learning and child care. We celebrated the funding agreements with the provinces and territories, and we welcomed Bill C-35 because it affirms the federal government's long-term commitment to fund early learning and child care and to establish with the provinces and territories systems that could eventually realize every child's right to quality early childhood education.

Going by the experience of other countries, it will take many years to reach the goal declared in paragraph 6(a) of Bill C-35, to have a Canada-wide early learning and child care system that gives all families access to affordable, inclusive, high-quality early learning and child care programs regardless of where they live.

It will take time and it will take spending federal money in the right way on the right things.

That's why in our written submission we propose ways to strengthen the principles in clause 7 of Bill C-35 that are intended to guide federal investments. It's why we also suggest ways to strengthen the accountability mechanisms in the bill.

Unfortunately, I don't have time in my five minutes to expand on our proposed changes, but I do want to take my last minute to emphasize what we don't want changed.

We agree fully with the language in paragraph 7(1)(a) that supports the expansion of early learning and child care operated on a public and not-for-profit basis. It is consistent with the Canada-wide early learning and child care funding agreements agreed to by every province and territory, and it fulfills the promise made in the 2021 budget that was adopted by Parliament.

Federal public funds should be directed to expanding the provision of high-quality early learning and child care, not to expanding opportunities to make private profit or to increasing the equity of privately held real estate and other business assets.

Also, evidence from Canada and internationally tells us that not-for-profit and public early learning and child care providers are generally of higher quality and are more reliable and that public and not-for-profit child care systems are better at serving low-income families.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[Bea Bruske, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. My name is Bea Bruske. I'm the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, and I'm pleased to speak on behalf of Canada's largest labour organization, representing three million workers from every sector of our economy.

The CLC supports Bill C-35 as an important building block in the effort to establish a truly pan-Canadian system of quality, affordable, accessible, inclusive, public and not-for-profit child care.

Canada's unions have been advocating for child care for decades, and we know that it is good for families, good for children and good for our economy. We also know that it is essential for enabling women's labour force participation. If done right, it could be a very important source of quality jobs in a sector that has traditionally been dominated by women, and often Black, indigenous and racialized women, new Canadians and migrant women.

Unions were excited, quite frankly, when the long-term funding was established in the 2021 federal budget, and we were hopeful when the multilateral early learning and child care framework and bilateral agreements were reached with the provinces and territories. However, we know that the devil is always in the details and, along with others in the child care sector, we have expressed some misgivings that there were not enough teeth in these agreements to ensure the outcomes of the new system meet the very high expectations of the parents, workers and communities, and that there was some risk that the effort might result in the further entrenchment of our patchwork, market-based system.

We have a chance to get this right, and that's why this legislation is so very important.

Unions believe that everyone should have the right to the care they need, and that includes the right to early learning and to child care. We further believe that decent work for people working in the sector, whether they're early childhood educators, cooks, administrators, cleaners or others, is deeply connected to the quality of learning and the care that our children receive and our families depend on. We were pleased to see that references to rights are included in this legislation, including the references to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

We also like it that the legislation clearly lays out the government's commitment to system building and to enshrining a set of core principles to guide the development of such a system, recognizing the roles of the provinces and territories, as well as those of the indigenous peoples, and the need for programs and services for first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families that are culturally appropriate and led by indigenous peoples.

We were very pleased to see the reference to public and not-for-profit early learning and child care, and we urge the committee to support this language. There is considerable evidence that public and not-for-profit programs and services deliver higher-quality care and better jobs for child care workers, and we do not believe that the diversion of public funds to private interests will help us build the affordable, accessible system that families have been waiting for.

We also support the references in paragraph 7(1)(c) regarding the need for “respect” and valuing “diversity” and meeting the “varying needs” of children and families. Although the text of the bill does mention “inclusive” programs, the need for programs and services that meet the needs of children with disabilities is not explicitly stated, and perhaps it should be.

We are glad to see the reference to a “qualified and well-supported” workforce in paragraph 7(1)(d). We believe it could be further strengthened by more specific reference to what “well-supported” might mean in practice, including decent working conditions, proper compensation commensurate with qualifications, experience, access to ongoing training and other measures necessary to recruit and retain workers. Child care workers have been sounding the alarm about the staffing crisis, and if the system is going to expand to meet the growing needs of families and the ambitious plans of government, a clear workforce strategy is absolutely essential.

We're also pleased to see the legislation enshrine the establishment of the national advisory council on early learning and child care. Ideally, we would like to see workers represented on this council as well. I don't believe that is currently the case; however, that could be something that could be addressed in regulation or practice rather than in legislation.

We would support any amendments aimed at making the functions of the council more concrete or more specific: for example, requiring meaningful consultations with stakeholders, including unions representing child care workers. The council could and also might be more directly mandated to assess progress and implementation of this legislation. Finally, the bill could be strengthened by a requirement for adequate funding to sustain the council's work.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[Hélène Gosselin, Chair, Board of Directors, Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance]

Thank you very much. Good afternoon.

My name is Hélène Gosselin and I am chair of the board of directors of the Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance, or AQCPE.

As an early childhood expert, the AQCPE provides leadership, representation, outreach and support of a quality system of educational child care centres and coordinating offices, commonly known as CPEs and BCs, for children aged 0 to 5 years. Thank you for inviting us to testify about Quebec's early childhood experience as part of the study of Bill C‑35.

In 1996, Quebecers were asked to make a considerable effort. It was the time of “zero deficits”. However, then-premier Lucien Bouchard knew that to achieve his goal, Quebecers would need to be given tools to enable them to participate actively in Quebec's productivity. The rest, as they say, is history.

Today, recent events have served as powerful reminders of the essential character of child education services. The pandemic and the widespread labour shortage propelled what was considered “nice to have” to “must have”. This recognition can also be found in the preamble to the bill, which contains findings from the Quebec experience, as well as from the many longitudinal studies on the positive impacts of such a measure:

… the Government of Canada … recogniz(es) the beneficial impact of early learning on child care and child development, on the well-being of children and of families, on gender equality, on the rights of women and their economic participation and prosperity and on Canada's economy and social infrastructure ...

This is welcome official recognition. Similarly, the guiding principles that led to the creation of the network of educational child care centres—affordable, inclusive and high-quality services—are also included.

Of all of these, our focus here is on the principle of quality. Why are we interested in quality services? Because it is not just a matter of work‑family life balance. Taking care of toddlers means much more than just making sure they are looked after and safe. Trained staff working in the CPE/BC network are not extensions of the home. It is a real social fabric that we wrap around children and their families, enabling them to develop their full potential.

In some cases, it means overcoming a language delay to ensure better educational success. In others, it enables the family to break the cycle of poverty. There are as many examples as there are testimonials, but each has its significance and impacts our society. Child development professionals are able to recognize subtle cues, and to do so at several levels simultaneously. That requires adapted training, specific skills and abilities.

It is also referred to as “structural quality”: the settings, equipment and management that support educational staff, links with other organizations that work with families and links with the health and social services network. To achieve the objectives, experience has also shown us that only one model can fulfill this mandate. The network of early childhood centres was built on community-based, non-profit day care centres, a model for and by the community, managed by boards primarily made up of parent-users and independent of financial considerations, all exclusively for the benefit of children.

This structure directly affects the level of quality offered. Since Quebec implemented the mandatory quality assessment, we are able to rank the different models. A clear difference between for-profit and CPE models emerges. Even with identical funding, as is currently the case between CPEs and subsidized private day care centres, the difference is 30% in favour of CPEs.

However, the network has been driven by political trends and its development has been chaotic. This has led to the proliferation of models and in so doing curtailed the positive impact. Thus, we are reaching out to our counterparts in other provinces: You now have the opportunity to choose the model that will enable you to achieve your early childhood education goals. This decision must be clear, scientifically based and impervious to political interference.

Finally, the desire to secure investments in early childhood is, in our view, an acknowledgement of how important that funding is to people.

While respecting provincial jurisdictions, we see in this bill a bulwark against economic and political uncertainty. Quebec's experience and the many studies, both national and international, speak with one voice: It is a win-win situation when a society invests in early childhood, and we hope that you, parliamentarians, will move in that direction.

Thank you for your time.

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

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 59 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. Members and witnesses will be appearing virtually using Zoom and with us here in the room.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name, and please address comments through the chair. You have the option of using the official language of your choice. If interpretation services discontinue, please get my attention. We'll suspend while they are corrected.

As well, I would like to remind all participants that screenshots are not allowed to be taken in the room or on the screen.

Also, for those appearing virtually, unless you're using an approved House of Commons headset that allows the interpreters to interpret your presentation, I will not recognize you to participate verbally, although those members of the committee appearing virtually will still have the option to vote.

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.

Tests have all been done, Mr. Clerk, on the connectivity and the equipment, so we're okay to go.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to begin our discussion with five minutes of opening remarks, followed by questioning. I would remind the witnesses that after five minutes I will advise you to conclude your comments so that members of the committee have time to question you.

Appearing virtually, we have the Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance, with Hélène Gosselin, the chair; the Canadian Labour Congress, with Bea Bruske, president, and Vicky Smallman, national director, human rights, by video conference; and here in the room with us, we have Child Care Now, with Morna Ballantyne, executive director.

We'll begin with Madame Gosselin.

You have the floor for five minutes.

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

That's good.

Do you think that Bill C-35 would achieve its targets in both rural and urban areas?

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

Ms. Mathieu, thank you for the clarification you provided concerning the distinctions between daycares and CPEs. It is important that the committee hear about that.

Knowing that the public data on Indigenous children that the government is working with are out of date, how can we make sure that Bill C-35 meets the needs of the First Nations and the Inuit and Métis?