Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada

Sponsor

Karina Gould  Liberal

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

Feb. 29, 2024 Passed Motion for closure
June 19, 2023 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada
June 12, 2023 Passed Concurrence at report stage of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada
June 12, 2023 Failed Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada (report stage amendment)
June 6, 2023 Passed Time allocation for Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada
Feb. 1, 2023 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses who are here today.

Mr. Fortin, you said earlier that there are five main lessons to be learned. Quebec is a leader and model in this field. What would it be essential to add to Bill C-35?

Krystal Churcher Chair, Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs

Good morning. I am very grateful for the opportunity to share with this committee this morning. My name is Krystal Churcher. I am a private child care operator in Alberta. I am also the chair of the Alberta Association of Childcare Entrepreneurs, which is a non-profit industry association that represents the interests of private child care operators in Alberta, who currently make up 70% of our child care delivery.

What we have heard around Bill C-35 and the Canada-wide early learning and child care program is all very high-level information with very lofty intentions. I want to provide some of the on-the-ground, real-life experiences that operators and families are facing.

This program and legislation are all about the long term and entrench the federal government's vision for early learning and child care. It is critical that we move forward in an aligned way that respects the rights of children to quality, flexible child care and choice for parents.

The goal of this bill is for all families to have access to high-quality, affordable, inclusive child care. However, what we are seeing on the ground is the human toll and the impact around the rollout of this program.

The bill was introduced without adequate consultation with all industry stakeholders and without respecting how the child care sector has evolved in provincial jurisdictions across the country. What we're seeing is a program that has created a demand without the infrastructure to support it, which is causing wait-lists, a two-tiered system and undue stress to families and operators. Women entrepreneurs are facing bankruptcy and closure of businesses that have now lost all their value. The system is, frankly, not equitably accessible and is failing to meet the promises to parents and families. Operators are asking what the real cost is of meeting this $10-a-day goal. Parents are losing choice; the quality of programming is at risk; educators are burned out; and women are losing their businesses.

Bill C-35 does not sufficiently recognize that Canada's current child care system still very much depends upon thousands of private operators despite directional preference for the non-profit business model. When subsidies go to child care spaces rather than directly to parents, it becomes a form of soft coercion. This doesn't create options that respect the difference of families or provide them with a form of child care they choose.

Decreased fees, which are also only available at specific centres, are actually eliminating parental choice and provide a forced standardized system. By limiting access only to programs that are predominantly non-profit, this program is forcing families to surrender their choice in child care.

While this program advocates for the full economic potential of women, our sector is made up of largely female entrepreneurs like me, and we are seeing the expropriation of our businesses. We all want to see women succeed, but what about the women who are investing in creating child care spaces in their communities? By wanting to provide affordable child care to the families we serve and opting into this program, we have had an expansion freeze placed on our private businesses, lost the ability to control the fees for our services, and ultimately lost the value of our investments.

The truth is that the promised child care spaces are not actually available to all families. In Alberta, what we're seeing is urban cities with wait-lists of 75 to 150 families on average and rural areas like Grande Prairie having wait-lists of 600 or more families. This legislation promises access to child care regardless of where families live, but that's not the reality. Parents are facing less access because the program has created a demand that can't be met, resulting in wait-lists.

When the guiding intent is to prioritize non-profit child care spaces, private expansion has been halted, yet demand for private programs continues to grow. Increased demand for child care has forced private programs to expand to meet need, despite having no access to grants for parents. This is resulting in parents paying upwards of $50 or more per day for the same program in the same centre. In Alberta, we are seeing a two-tiered system.

Do we really have affordable child care if we can't access it? The CWELCC program does not create equitable access to child care, especially for lower-income parents who were promised support to go back into the workforce. Parents and operators alike cannot understand how this CWELCC affordability grant funding is provided to every family, regardless of income bracket, when operators currently witness the majority of those on wait-lists fall into low-income brackets. Right now, families of varying income levels benefit, not necessarily prioritizing those who need affordability the most.

In closing, I urge the committee to take an approach to meet the Government of Canada's goals to make Canada child care more affordable to families.

I leave you with five solutions. They are to provide funding directly to families; change funding to an income-based model on a sliding scale so that true equitable need and accessibility can be met; focus legislation around the concept of parental choice, regardless of business model, and instead have the funding follow the child; open the full expansion of child care to private operators to meet the demand for child care; and respect and allow free market competition as a way to ensure quality and innovative niche programming that meets the needs of all parents.

We have a duty to Canadian families and children to make sure that we create a program that truly represents the needs of families, protects the quality of care for children and provides real accessibility to all families. We can't continue to ignore the issues that we're seeing across the country and move ahead with a well-intended but flawed program.

I'd like to share a few stories from operators this morning. I had one child care operator reach out to me....

I'm sorry. Am I out of time?

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Welcome back.

The committee will resume its study of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

To assist the interpreters in their work, I kindly remind all members and witnesses appearing today to introduce themselves when speaking, and to speak slowly. You may use the official language of your choice. If there is an interruption in interpretation services, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it is being corrected.

Please direct your questions and responses through me, the chair, and wait until I recognize you.

We will begin this last hour with three witnesses: Monsieur Pierre Fortin, emeritus professor of economics; Krystal Churcher, chair of the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs; and Dr. Sophie Mathieu, senior program specialist at the Vanier Institute of the Family.

We will begin with Mr. Fortin

Mr. Fortin, the floor is yours for five minutes.

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Thank you so much, Chair.

The Poverty Reduction Act establishes a national advisory council very much like the one we have in Bill C-35, but unlike Bill C-35, the national advisory council that's being used in the Poverty Reduction Act is required to submit a report to the minister on the progress being made in terms of poverty reduction. The minister is required to table the report in Parliament.

Clause 16 in the bill does not include a requirement for indicators to measure quality, accessibility, affordability and inclusion to be in the minister's report. The sector has raised concerns about how to ensure government accountability.

What is your plan for accountability? Are you willing to amend it so it's more similar to the Poverty Reduction Act?

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

We were very interested in hearing from indigenous governments, organizations and representatives on Bill C-35. Formal outreach was undertaken to over 50 governments, organizations and stakeholders early last year. There was promotion through some of the existing partnerships to solicit feedback and interest around the proposed legislation.

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

You said that Bill C-35 states that the First Nations were involved in developing the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework.

Can you tell us what groups were consulted and how many times they were consulted?

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

I think that's all positive, going back to Bill C-15, but all future legislation is supposed to be in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, so I would push back on that.

I will move on to wages and working conditions.

I think everybody knows I was formerly an early childhood educator. I'm very proud. We know the average wage for an early childhood educator is $19.50 an hour. That's not a liveable wage in most places.

Unions representing child care workers support adding an explicit, clear commitment to decent work to Bill C-35. We know that in order to make this work, we need a robust workforce. We also know that research, in study after study, indicates that poor pay and working conditions are deterrents to joining the sector. That's exactly why I left my job as an ECE. I didn't want to live on the no-salary we were provided for the important work we do.

Is your government resistant to adding language that establishes liveable wages and fairer working conditions as guiding principles for federal funding? I say this because your party, in a platform in 2021, came out and vowed to push for a $25 minimum wage for personal support workers. I support that. Care work is critical work.

Are you willing to support the same sort of liveable wage for early childhood educators?

Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON

Thank you, Ms. Gazan, for being here and for your intervention.

We certainly share the same objective. I think it's very important to see Bill C-35 as a tool complementary to the co-developed framework on indigenous early learning and child care.

One thing we have been very careful not to do is have Bill C-35 go beyond the bounds of the co-developed framework that we did with indigenous early learning and child care, which was announced in 2018 and endorsed by the AFN, ITK and MNC at the time.

I've noted one thing very clearly in the travels I've done in the past year around the country. I made a specific note while visiting with indigenous communities and leaders advancing IELCC: This is distinctions-based, indigenous-led and culturally relevant, and it incorporates language learning as well. It's very much indigenous-led and something that is.... We are a funding partner. We co-developed this, but we need to see this as a partnership—

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

It's nice to see you, Minister.

I know the Department of Justice is working on a co-developed process for free, prior and informed consent and that Bill C-35 includes a commitment to furthering UNDRIP. This was indicated by Madame Reddin in the last meeting, but we know this response isn't adequate, because we know there cannot be one single definition for “free, prior and informed consent”. Rather, as it is law, in fact, that circumstances determine how it's applied. This would also be true for Bill C-35.

Therefore, will the minister acknowledge this and take appropriate measures to enshrine the right of indigenous peoples to make decisions in matters impacting our own children?

I share this because it's the very foundation of reconciliation, especially in light of the findings of the TRC, which were based on the testimony of residential school survivors who were robbed from their families. This government has been stalling on enshrining FPIC—free, prior and informed consent. We're coming up to the two-year mark; you have a month and a half left. This is part of the law. You had two years to develop a plan, and there's nothing on the table yet. This isn't acceptable. We have an opportunity here to do the right thing.

Again I'm wondering, Minister, if you'll acknowledge this and take appropriate measures to enshrine FPIC and ensure the rights of indigenous peoples to have full free, prior and informed consent over matters impacting our children.

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

Quebec is a leader in relation to child care services because children are the priority. Given that fact, is the compensation you are going to give Quebec under Bill C-35 going to be generous?

Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON

The purpose of Bill C-35 is to guide the federal government so that subsequent governments, whether or not they are Liberal, as I hope they will be, are guided by these principles and objectives when they negotiate with the provinces and territories.

Of course, Quebec is already a leader when it comes to these principles and objectives, as you say. Ultimately, what we want to do is improve child care services in the rest of Canada so they are at the same level as the services in Quebec. Quebec has also committed to creating 30,000 new child care spaces under the agreement and we are going to maintain a very positive relationship with Quebec.

As well, I have to say that at the federal-provincial meetings, it was very helpful to have access to Quebec's experience, through my former counterpart, who was very generous in this regard, in fact. This enabled the provinces and territories to learn about Quebec's experience.

Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON

As I mentioned, Bill C-35 focuses on the work of the federal government and guarantees its long-term financial commitment for child care, a commitment that did not exist before Budget 2021. Before this, we had agreements with the provinces and territories. For example, in 2017, my colleague, Health Minister Duclos, negotiated a framework with all of the provinces and territories on this subject. In the case of the current bill, however, we are focusing on the work of the federal government.

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

What is there in this bill that would avoid another conflict between Quebec and Ottawa when the current agreement expires?

As well, why was clause 4 of Bill C-303, which provided an exemption for Quebec, not retained and incorporated into Bill C-35?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome the Minister and the witnesses who are here with us.

Minister, we can agree that Bill C-303, which was introduced by the NDP in 2006, is the ancestor of Bill C-35, with a few differences. However, one of those differences concerns me: Bill C-35 makes no mention of an exemption for Quebec, although we are well aware that Quebec is a forerunner and a leader in the area of early childhood and daycares, as you yourself have said.

It has now been over 25 years since the Government of Quebec adopted a family policy that led to the creation of a network of affordable early childhood education services that help to create better living conditions and a better balance between parenting and work responsibilities for millions of families. Given that fact, do you believe it would be useful to include a clause in Bill C-35to permit Quebec to withdraw from this program, unconditionally and with full compensation, to avoid negotiations and arguments between the federal and provincial governments every five years?

Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON

Bill C-35 is complementary to the multilateral framework and the bilateral agreements we have through the Canada-wide early learning and child care initiative. We have signed 13 bilateral agreements with provinces and territories. The one with Quebec is asymmetrical, because Quebec is much further ahead in this regard than the rest of the country. In fact, they are the pioneers in Canada.

The funding arrangements, then, are complementary. We have signed these agreements on five-year terms so that we can make sure that we are setting out objectives, and provinces and territories can respond with action plans determining and illustrating how they are going to spend that money. Then Bill C-35commits the federal government to being a long-term funding partner.

I don't think it's appropriate for Bill C-35 to determine what the amount of money is, because I think we need to continue to have this as an evergreen process. I think what's really important is that it says that the federal government is committed to funding child care and that we are going to be there for the long term.

This is in addition to the budget 2021 decision that provided ongoing funding beyond the five-year agreements of up to $9 billion a year in perpetuity.