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

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is imperative for our country that every person in this place agree on one thing: We have to equitably value the labour of child care in all its forms. It is through that principle that I believe people in this place should be considering amendments to this bill.

I want to speak about why this bill gets us part of the way but does not talk about the equitable value of the labour of child care. We need to do better. Better can always be achieved.

This bill does not address the lack of child care spaces across the country in an adequate way. We have to look at how we can work within the confines of our regionally and demographically diverse nation to see how child care is being undertaken and to see how we can incentivize people to undertake that activity. For example, not every person has access to a spot that would be considered under this bill. Some people look to extended family to provide child care or private home day cares, and some people would not have access to that with this bill.

As I have been listening to the debate, many colleagues have raised concerns about people who do shift work or who are part of the gig economy. Their hours do not neatly overlay with the way these child care spaces would be structured. I believe one of my colleagues from the NDP raised issues this morning about whether this bill adequately addresses indigenous child care needs, which are sensitive. This bill does not really address any of those things.

If we are going to talk about child care, we have to do more than just look at one frame of reference. That frame of reference is important for sure, but if we are only talking about that frame of reference, what happens to the people who are planning to have children or who are looking for child care right now, are struggling and do not necessarily fit in the very prescriptive box this bill puts together? They do not feel like they are part of the bigger vision. That is why we need to amend this bill, and I hope that happens.

There is another context this bill needs to be studied in. We say “affordable child care” or “affordable day care”, but the reality is that life is not affordable for many Canadians right now. I want to take a slightly different approach to explaining how the cost of living crisis could seriously affect our economy and where child care fits into this.

Right now, Canada's national fertility rate, when we factor out immigration, is about 1.4, and the natural rate of replacement of a population is about 2.1. This phenomenon is not unique to Canada or to any country in the world. In fact, we are seeing a rapid global decline of fertility rates across the board.

For example, I believe China now has a 1.1 fertility rate. China's fertility rate is actually lower than Canada's rate. When people are looking at China's long-term economic growth forecast or the ability of China to maintain its continuous growth, the lack of children is factoring into the economic equation. We have the same issue here in Canada.

The other phenomenon we see in Canada is that immigration is very important to our country, and we need to ensure we have adequate processes to incentivize immigration, to welcome people to Canada and to integrate them into our social and economic fabric. However, we are also seeing over time, through studies out of the U.S., that immigrant populations that have traditionally bolstered fertility rates within countries are seeing declines in their fertility rates as well.

When we are looking at child care affordability and the cost of living, we have to understand that people make a decision to have a child based on a wide variety of factors. It is a very sensitive topic, but affordability and the availability of child care is one of the big reasons. If we are just putting child care into the box we have in this bill and are not seeking consensus to look at valuing the labour of child care in all its forms, we are missing the plot here for people who need child care right now. We need to be talking about very urgently as a Parliament how we incentivize people to have children without leaving women behind and while progressing on issues of gender equity.

This is a very tough, very emotionally charged subject that many people will have a lot of feelings over based on their frame of reference and the personal experience in their lives. Frankly, the decision to have a child is about one person and one person alone in the context of a family. If we want more people to have children, we need to incentivize people so that when we are looking at all of the factors that somebody considers when deciding whether they are going to start a family, those factors are taken care of.

One of the things this bill does not consider, which I hope this place will sensitively and from a cross-partisan perspective look at, is the failure of our immigration system to process parents and grandparents' applications. Right now, I believe the wait time in that particular stream is over 38 months. That is just the service standard; we know it is a lot higher. We know there are a lot of Canadians who want to bring extended families here either through that stream or through a super visa in order to provide child care. I hope the committee that studies this bill looks at that as well. We cannot be talking about child care in a country as diverse as ours without looking at ways that we can make it easier for people to have their family engaged in that if they choose to be.

We also need to make sure that we have affordable child care spots, as this bill starts to lay out. However, we need to look at how those spaces affect people who cannot access them due to their work schedules. That is something this bill does not address.

The other thing this bill does not address is the fact that, at the same time that we are looking at child care and looking at a decline in fertility in our country, we have an aging population. On one hand we have people of a certain generation who are trying to figure out how to have child care, and at the same time, they are starting to ask the question of how to care for aging parents.

We cannot have the conversation about child care without talking about elder care for all of the reasons that have already been raised in debate, particularly around the issue of staffing, burnout and early child care educators. It is not just early child care educators who we are lacking. It is also people who are willing to be caregivers in the broadest sense of the word. We need to talk about labour and valuing the labour of child care. Again, this bill is a start, but what it does is put our perception of the response to this crisis into very narrow terms. We need to be looking at this a lot broader.

I also believe that for us to allow for gender equity and allow people to look at starting a family, should they so choose, we cannot do that without understanding that not everybody in this country will want to access programs under this system. That does not mean people should not have access to that system. It should not mean that these people are left in the dark without a solution. It should not mean that their labour is not valued.

I know somebody very close to me who chose to have a child at a very young age. They made that decision because people circled around them and made child care happen. How do we value the labour of those people? We understand that our country is diverse and is not homogenous, so how do we meet this need, particularly in the context of the fertility crisis that our country is facing?

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

Mr. Speaker, what is significant is that in Bill C-35, we are establishing a fundamental, universal early learning and child care program that would be a first in the history of Canada. We are saying that in working with provinces, territories and indigenous communities, there would be public, non-profit child care that is affordable and provides the type of quality care that Canadians want. This will enable women in particular to get into the workforce if they choose to do that, or volunteer or upgrade their educational opportunities. All sorts of wonderful opportunities would be created here, and it is modelled off what we saw in the province of Quebec.

Would the member not agree that this is an absolutely critical aspect of furthering, in a very significant way, child care and enabling women in particular to get more opportunities in the future?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that women should have more opportunity and that overcoming barriers for women to participate in society, writ large, is something this place should be urgently seized with. However, I take issue with the characterization of this bill as providing universal access to child care, because it does not. Not every Canadian who wants to get a spot would get a spot under this program. The fact that this program has not been means-tested is something that should be considered in a committee study.

We should not be trying to say that this is universal when it is not. If we are going to use the term “universal”, we have to understand that we must value the labour of child care no matter where it happens, be it in a state-sponsored space, in a private home or by parents providing it at home. Those are all labours of equal value, and they are all legitimate choices that should be open to all Canadians. Framing this bill as universal when it is not is the point we need to move on in order to improve it.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the member said, which I have heard other Conservative members say today, is that the bill would impose a particular way of doing child care. They particularly reference shift work and things like that as somehow being excluded from the bill. However, I was not able to find anything in the bill that prescribes a particular time of day that child care is to be offered by the centres that may receive federal funding through this legislation or the agreements.

In fact, one of the guiding principles in the bill, at paragraph 7(1)(c), says:

(c) support the provision of early learning and child care programs and services that are inclusive and that respect and value the diversity of all children and families and respond to their varying needs

As a New Democrat, when I read that I think it is a very obvious nod to shift work and families with parents who have different types of jobs and who are underserved by the current system. The way we are going to get this done is to have a strategy that incorporates those things.

I see language in the bill that talks about the need to meet those varying and diverse needs, so I wonder if the member could please point me to the part in the bill where the straitjacket that she and some of her caucus colleagues have alluded to exists. I cannot find it.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the paragraph my colleague just alluded to would benefit centres that currently operate on a regular nine-to-five schedule. That is just the reality. If we look to where most of the funding would go, it would be to those centres. If my colleague is concerned and actually wants to address this concern with members of the House, he should suggest an amendment at committee stating that a portion of these funds should go to something that provides spots for shift workers.

As much as the member is saying there is a straitjacket, the way the funding mechanism works right now is that funding will largely go to traditional state-run day cares, and I believe we need more flexibility to acknowledge a changing workforce and changing economy. I know how bureaucracies work. Funding would go to the system that is set up. We need to be incentivizing innovation and meeting the diversity of our country by spelling out changes that need to happen.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today for the first time in 2023 on behalf of the good people of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. I hope you have been able to have a very restful holiday season with your family, and that all members of the House have been able to do the same and come back recharged for what I am sure will be a very busy session.

Over the course of the last month, I had an opportunity to connect with my constituents, being away from this place and being at their places, at their doors, and hearing what is top of mind. Not surprisingly, one of the things that is top of mind for most people is affordability challenges right now, with the cost of housing and groceries going up. This is putting a real burden on families.

For many years now, one of the largest costs for families has been child care. In a riding like my own, one of the fastest growing in all of Canada, and particularly the Sea to Sky region, which has grown by about 20% over the last five years, this is a big concern. For example, in 2021 there were 5,100 children under 12 years old in the Sea to Sky region who were in need of child care, and there were only 1,100 child care spaces.

I often hear of families waiting for two or more years to get a spot. Meanwhile, the cost of child care ranges between $85 and $100 per day in many cases. Even with the income-tested Canada child benefit we brought in, which puts up to $7,000 per child back in the pockets of Canadians, families are still being stretched. As a result, many families in my riding are forced to pay up to $1,800 a month for child care or balance dual workdays caring for their children while trying to earn a living. This is a burden that negatively impacts not only the economy and the parents but the children as well.

This is why our government created the Canada-wide early learning and child care system through budget 2021. To highlight how much of a priority it is for my province, B.C. was the first province to sign on to this agreement in the summer of 2021. Just last month, we were able to announce that child care fees have already been reduced by an average of 50% to $20 a day in B.C. and will average $10 a day by 2025-26. This is already saving average B.C. families $6,000 a year per child and will help them save over $9,000 per year per child by the end of 2025-26. Given how families are now being squeezed by global inflation, this relief could not come at a more important time.

However, it is not just about the cost of child care. Access is just as important, particularly in fast-growing areas like my own. It is important to note that 40,000 new spaces will be built through this agreement with B.C., and in fact over 12,000 have already been built. Budget 2022 invested an additional $625 million to accelerate this process.

The benefits of this policy are wide-ranging. By allowing both parents to return to the workforce, we are unlocking the economic potential of thousands of parents, most of them women, who have not been able to participate fully in the workforce due to an inability to access quality affordable day care.

Independent studies have shown that this, alone, can help the economy grow by as much as 1.2%, in addition to improving the quality of life for families. A range of studies have also shown that for every dollar spent on early childhood education, the broader economy receives between $1.50 and $2.80 in return. Just about all leading economists agree there is no measure that would increase our GDP more than this.

I am excited there are already a number of child care facilities in my riding now offering $10-a-day child care. On the Sunshine Coast, there are ESPRIT Daycare and Huckleberry Childcare in Gibsons, Little Scholars Child Care in west Sechelt and Sunshine Coast Tiny Tots day care in Sechelt. Just last year, Sea to Sky Community Services in Squamish began offering $10-a-day care. In West Vancouver, the owners of KidiKare told me that they are excited to offer $10-a-day care, among many other facilities that are now offering the same.

There remain major challenges in delivering the child care people need. In areas like Squamish and Pemberton, spaces are an issue, and we need the province to deliver more spaces there under our agreement. In fact, spaces are so slim right now that I have heard stories of folks driving 40 minutes from Squamish to West Vancouver just to put their kids into day care.

In other places like Whistler, the Sunshine Coast and West Vancouver, ECE workers are badly needed, so we need to continue to work with educational institutions like Capilano University on the north shore to graduate more ECE workers and to bring in qualified ECE workers from around the world.

Clearly, this policy is already making a real difference for families in my riding and across the country, but we know we are living in an uncertain world right now. With the spectres of ever-worsening climate change and international conflict, many people are concerned about the future. With the rising cost of living all around the world, I know many young people who are thinking twice about having children.

It is important that, as parliamentarians, we provide peace of mind about what the future holds. Bill C-35 is so important because it would assure current and future parents that they would not be left in the lurch with high child care prices. In fact, it would do the same for provinces, territories, indigenous peoples, child care operators and others.

The legislation sets out our vision for a Canada-wide system where all families have access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive early learning and child care, no matter where they live, today and into the future. It would enshrine the principles of the Canada-wide early learning and child care system into federal law and commit to maintaining long-term funding for provinces, territories and indigenous peoples. It would make sure the government remained accountable for continuing to follow through on this promise by creating an independent national advisory council to provide expert advice to the government on all matters related to early learning and child care. It would also require the federal government to publicly report on all federal investments and progress being made towards a truly Canada-wide system.

While I do not have kids, I want to end by discussing a story of someone who does: my sister, Berkley. She and her husband, Sean, have three boys: my six-year-old nephew, Haiden, and my twin two-year-old nephews, Sawyer and Beckham. I love these three boys to bits. Members can imagine what it is like to have three young boys running around and all the chaos that comes along with that, but it is also important to think of the cost that it would create for three young kids to be in child care. If someone is paying $1,800 a month per child, like many parents are in my riding, then the cost of child care alone exceeds the average income of a British Columbian. Things like these have led many parents in my riding and across the country to leave the workforce, which also greatly impacts our economy.

The announcement last month that fees were being cut in half, on average, has been an absolute game-changer for my sister and her family. Instead of paying $2,200 a month for the twins to access child care, she is now paying $1,260. She has been able to go back into the workforce, and not only that, but also to now pursue her dream job. Just as she has always been there to look after and care for me in my life, she is now working as a postpartum doula so that she can care for other new parents throughout the region.

Not only has this made a huge difference in her whole family's life, but now, she is also able to help other families. The presence of other doulas like her is alleviating the burden on our health care system. These doulas are reducing stress, depression and the number of physical injuries among expectant and new parents, who are going through major changes, some of the most emotional in their lives.

This is just one very personal example of the impact of affordable and accessible child care. Through Bill C-35, we would ensure that families would not be at risk of having access to child care cancelled by government, now or in the future. More and more spaces would be created, and more spaces would become $10 per day. Throughout the process, there would be transparent oversight of the implementation of this agreement.

I can see my time is running out here. I look forward to the questions from my colleagues, and I look forward to having this bill passed through this process into committee so we can move it a step forward in becoming law in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed working with the colleague across the way when I was under the shadow minister of tourism. We talked about the wait-lists. This legislation would help a lot of families that are currently in day cares and signed up for this agreement, but there are still wait-lists that are years long. One of the issues is having access to private day cares. We must have entrepreneur or small business-owned home day cares to meet the demand. Parents need to have choice.

Does the member opposite believe the legislation should be strengthened to have representation from small business owners or entrepreneurs on the national council? As it stands right now, in the legislation, there is zero representation from that sector; I believe it is greatly needed to meet the demand of parents.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question, because we know it is not just about the cost of child care. It is about the ability to access child care. Particularly in fast-growing regions it is a huge challenge. Part of it is the creation of spaces, but the other thing we need to talk about is making sure we have the workforce to do that. This is a challenge that there is no silver bullet or easy solution for. As we move ahead with policies like these, we need to consult broadly and to make sure that we do get the best ideas.

As we implement this new system, we will be working very closely with all of the provinces, territories and indigenous groups to make sure that it is fit for purpose and that it meets the needs for what the system is today as we look forward to the system that we want in the future, which is a publicly accessible system of non-profit operators. As we move in that direction, we need to work with all those working in it and make sure that we have the best system in place.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech.

Unfortunately, I have to remind him again that anything to do with family policy and education falls solely within provincial jurisdiction.

This bill is full of good intentions, but the Liberal government should stick to issues under its jurisdiction. Why does it not manage its affairs properly, instead of coming to meddle in our jurisdictions yet again?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague's question.

We know that child care has to look different in different parts of the country. We need to work with the provinces to implement the system that works best for them. That is under their jurisdiction.

That said, the federal government has a role to play in assisting the provinces and making sure that people have access to the care they need. That is why we looked at the Quebec model, which is a good one. Each province is a little bit different, and that is why we have different agreements in place across the country.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats welcome any movement forward on child care in Canada. We have been pushing this for the last 30 years, ever since the Liberals started promising it.

I wonder if the member could comment on the benefit not only to young families and women trying to enter the workforce, but to businesses in the community. In my riding, one of the main problems in getting labour for businesses is housing. If we can access a labour force that already has housing, for instance women at home who need child care to enter the workforce, it is a huge benefit to the economy as a whole.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, much like the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, I have enjoyed working with the member in the context of tourism as well. Both of our ridings have a big tourism industry, and just like housing is important to have a workforce employed there, it is similarly important for ECE workers. We need to make sure that as we move forward with this agreement there is adequate housing in place. If we do not have that, then of course we are not going to be able to house the people we need to work in the spaces that we are creating.

Absolutely, I see these two tracks moving simultaneously. That is why we developed the national housing strategy, so that we can deploy the type of housing that we need in the country and we are able to solve the housing challenges, particularly for frontline workers and those who are so critical to making sure that our economy and our country function.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have sensed in this debate a misunderstanding across the aisle of the difference between child care, as in anyone possible available to look after the kid, and the concept underpinning this act, which is early learning and child care on enhanced childhood development.

I wonder if the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country would care to comment on this.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been lots of misinterpretations about this piece of legislation, about what is in it and what is not.

What this is really about is making sure we are providing high-quality, affordable, inclusive and accessible child care right across the country. It looks very different in each place. That is why I think it is really important that we get this right.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I love being in the chamber probably more than any professional activity I have undertaken, but I am actually at home in my community because I am celebrating the birth of my daughter, Launa Grace, who joined us on January 18, not even two weeks ago. I am pleased to announce that I have a healthy baby girl. She is the new joy in my life.

Over the last two days, I have very much appreciated a very comprehensive debate from all political parties on a very important subject, a subject that, for every parent, is probably the closest to our hearts, and that is the well-being of our children. Like many of the speakers who have shared personal stories, I have my own as well.

I have a three-year-old son in a licensed, registered day care facility. Since the agreement with British Columbia was signed, my fees went down approximately $450 in December. I know that many of my constituents are very appreciative of the decrease in fees, because the cost of living is almost insurmountable for many of them. I acknowledge the benefit, that the contract signed with the Province of British Columbia in July 2022 has made a moderate improvement for many young families struggling to make sense of the challenges they face today.

Indeed, child care is challenging. Many families do not have access to the type of facility that I do, and many who do, many parents who work in shift work, understand that raising a child is not only nine-to-five. It might be relying on neighbours, like I have to rely on my neighbours to come over in the mornings when my wife starts work at 6 a.m., and the nanny I have to employ at times when I am in Ottawa and my wife is left alone with our children or has other professional commitments. It is the grandparents as well, who play such a vital role in the upbringing of many children in many families across Canada. Also, it is the wonderful early learning and child care staff, who are so important to my kids. In fact, this very morning, my son Declyn and I went to his old child care facility. He was able to give a hug to one of his old teachers, because that relationship is so important to Declyn.

All that said, I am still at a loss as to why the government is putting forward Bill C-35 when the funding agreements have already been reached with the Province of British Columbia and the other provinces and territories in Canada. I looked through the bill quite comprehensively yesterday, and I figured, to add to the debate so far, I would point out a few of the discrepancies or points I believe the government should look at a little more closely once the bill gets to the committee stage and is studied in further detail.

The first point I would like to raise relates to indigenous participation. In July 2022, the Government of Canada actually reached a $40-billion settlement with indigenous people over past discretions of the Government of Canada failing to meet its obligations to indigenous children in respect to Jordan's principle.

Bill C-35 states that any future negotiations would include separate negotiations to uphold the nation-to-nation commitment to reconciliation. On that point, I would encourage the government members to look specifically at the preamble and paragraphs 5(a) and 5(b), and whether the government would actually be able to uphold its commitment to reach individual agreements with each respective first nation, Inuit and Métis community or entity.

The second point relates to the funding commitments. In clause 8, there is no specific dollar amount actually outlined for the future negotiations of agreements between provinces, territories and indigenous communities. I reference this because the government states in the bill that it would undertake negotiations on a nation-to-nation basis. If the government actually wants to divest responsibility, finally, as many indigenous communities have asked to have control over child and family services, which I understand would include child care, the government needs to get to work today, because it would not be able to reach those responsibilities accordingly.

The third point I would like to raise is about geographic equality or, I might add, inequality. In paragraph 6(a), under “Declaration”, the government commits to inclusive and high-quality early learning and child care programs and services where one lives. In many rural and remote communities and indigenous reserves, child care simply does not exist.

My constituents in rural communities do not have access to the government program that I do in Abbotsford and Mission. That is problematic. In fact, one young mother in the community of Boston Bar stated that she is effectively going to have to cut back on her small business because she is having a child and none of the government programs being discussed here today are accessible to her and her family. We need to do better. If the government is really serious about the universality it spoke about when it first introduced these agreements, it needs to spend more time looking at the availability of child care in remote and rural communities.

One aspect of the bill that I am very perturbed about is clause 9, which would establish 18 new federal government positions on a national council, with salaries that will be decided at a later point by the Governor in Council. In my opinion, the creation of a new council undermines the role of provinces as the primary level of government responsible for child care and, second, it undermines the valuable contributions of public servants at Employment and Social Development Canada. Many public servants worked for years to reach these agreements. They have connections with the provinces and stakeholders across Canada. The public service has the ability to do what a national council would and to provide the requisite advice to the minister in advance of future negotiations in 2026.

What I am fearful of is that the creation of this new advisory council is just another attempt by the government to create plum positions for Liberal partisans to get paid by the government and appointed solely by the government. We should not undermine the valuable contributions of the public service to provide the necessary advice in advance of future negotiations by the Government of Canada and the respective provinces and territories.

Finally, I will end on a note regarding the nature of child care for so many families. As a politician, I have to admit that my wife takes on many of the primary responsibilities that relate to child care due to the nature of my job and the time that I am away. This Christmas season we were sitting down with another family that had a similar experience. We also shared a song by Dolly Parton and the movie about working nine to five. My wife quipped that actually she is working more like five to nine. That is the experience of many women across this country. Their jobs start the moment they wake up in the morning and a lot of them are working until the moment they go to bed.

We need to ensure that child care programs and facilities give women the choices they need that account for shift work and the nature of professional work today so that they can participate in the economy in the way they feel best for themselves and their children accordingly.