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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke at great length about how he is opposed to the program the government has put together, but he fell short of saying that he will be voting against it. I am saying this because after hours of debate on this bill with the Conservatives not committing, this afternoon we started to hear a couple of Conservatives commit that they were voting in favour of it.

It is obviously quite normal for different members of the same political party to vote differently, but could the member confirm whether he will be voting against this particular bill?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the program is flawed. I have demonstrated how clearly it is flawed.

It is my job as a parliamentarian and as a member of the opposition to call out the government on the flaws in its legislation. That is the purpose of our Westminster system of Parliament. Opposition parties hold the government accountable in order to get better outcomes for Canadians.

I look forward to seeing this bill at committee. I look forward to hearing from witnesses. I look forward to seeing concrete proposals come forward to make child care more affordable for families. However, the current plan put forward by the Liberals has tremendous risk and tremendous challenges, and the Liberals are not being honest with Canadians about those challenges.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent intervention. Facts and data are really important when we are having this conversation, because quite frankly, it is a very emotional conversation. The welfare of our children is very emotional. We want our children to have access to the best quality care. I really value the facts and data the member has put forth today.

What does the member see as one thing we could do through a strong amendment, which we could bring forth as Conservatives, to better this bill?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her advocacy on this issue.

We need to look at the free market and how free market mechanisms can be complemented by limited government intervention to provide more supply when there is a need and demand. There is a huge demand for child care in this country, even before $10-a-day day care is brought in and even before government subsidies are brought in.

How do we create that supply? We need to look at regulations that are preventing people from starting a new child care operation. We need to look at getting more access to workers, whether that is through visas for people working abroad or getting people's education upgraded here in Canada so that we can increase the pool of available workers who can provide child care. We also need to look at the inflationary spending of the government, how it is driving up the cost of food, rents, mortgages and the cost of labour and how that is impacting child care operations across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, and I thank him for his speech.

We are talking about a provincial jurisdiction. Once again, it is exclusively provincial. Quebec will be fully compensated, the equivalent of $6 billion over a five-year period. We are talking about $30 billion in programs over the next five years.

Is this amount of money acceptable to the Conservatives? Basically, will my colleague be voting in favour of the bill?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I outlined in my speech, one of my greatest concerns with this legislation is that the government cannot give us a full estimation of what the program is going to cost. If the government is going to provide child care for the 182,000 families the PBO has estimated would be left out of the program, how many billions of dollars more would need to be added to the program to maintain it? How has the government projected the cost of inflation from the increased government spending and increased government debt? Has the government projected what taxes would have to be increased to maintain this program?

I am very concerned. We have not been given a straightforward, clear fiscal plan from the government on how it is going to maintain the program. Frankly, it is shame, because it is going to be a two-tiered system where low-income families are left out in the cold and high-income families, disproportionately, are going to get the benefits.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to be speaking on Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

This bill is one of the most significant pieces of legislation before this Parliament. It is something that I have been working on since I was first elected. It is one of the key issues that I have heard from my constituents.

I have spoken with mothers who wanted to return to work after their 12-month parental leave, but they could not because they could not find affordable child care, so they stayed out of the workforce longer than they intended to.

I also know of families where the mother, who made less money than the father, realized that almost all of her income from working would go to child care. She ended up making the choice to stay out of the workforce, even though that was not what she would have preferred.

This legislation is giving families, and particularly women, their choices back to be able to decide when and how they want to re-enter the workforce and to have their families. We all know that in these kinds of cases, even today, this definitely impacts women more than it impacts men.

Bill C-35 is absolutely vital to gender equality. When I chaired the Special Committee on Pay Equity during the 42nd Parliament, we heard over and over again that women earn, over the course of their lifetime in Canada, about 74¢ for every dollar that men earn over their lifetime.

This is not just because women are paid less. It is also because women are more likely to interrupt their careers for caregiving responsibilities. That results in lower incomes throughout women's lifetimes. When women retire, they end up having smaller pensions because they are based on fewer years worked and lower salary.

We have heard in this House today that one of the key recommendations for the last 50-plus years has been that in order to reduce the wage gap between women and men, we need to provide affordable child care, so that women and men can make the choice to stay in the workforce if that is what they want.

Bill C‑35 will enshrine the principles of a Canada-wide early learning and child care system into federal law. These principles are access, affordability, inclusiveness and high quality. Because these principles will be enshrined in law, it will be much more difficult for any future government to reverse them.

Canadians have already started feeling the impact of the $30-billion, federal-provincial-territorial, multilateral early learning and child care framework.

In Ontario, in my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean, child care spaces have seen a fee reduction of 50% at the end of December. This saves families in Ontario, on average, about $6,000 a year. By March 2026, we will reduce fees to $10 a day. In addition to this, we are creating 250,000 new, affordable child care spaces, including 86,000 in Ontario.

In the past, what we have seen is federal-provincial agreements simply being cancelled after a change of government. What this legislation does is enshrine in law accountability, transparency and reporting, long-term funding and a national advisory council on early learning and child care.

This will allow families in Canada, and those who are considering starting a family in the future, the assurance that affordable child care will be available to them in the long term. It also provides predictability and planning to the provinces and territories that know they can rely on sustained federal funding, while fully respecting the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces.

I have been talking about the importance of child care to equality and values. What is often overlooked is that it is also a vital economic strategy. During the pandemic, 1.5 million women either lost their jobs or left work to take care of school-aged children who were home because of the pandemic. Many of them are still struggling to return to the workforce.

At the same time, our economy is now facing a labour shortage. Ensuring that we reduce the barriers to full labour force participation of women, the main barrier of which is lack of affordable child care, is key in overcoming our labour shortage and allowing businesses to find the skilled workers that they need in order to grow and thrive. Countries with high labour force participation of women have higher GDP growth and, therefore, access to early learning and child care is one of the key drivers of economic growth in Canada.

Studies have shown that investing in child care has one of the greatest returns on investment. For every dollar invested in early childhood education, there is a return to our economy of $1.50 to $2.80. We cannot afford not to do this.

At a time when the cost of living is rising due to global inflation and supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic and the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Putin, it is even more important to provide assistance to Canadians.

Reducing the cost of day care by thousands of dollars a year will also considerably help families with children who are struggling to make ends meet. That is only one of our affordability policies, and it is a very important one for families with young children.

I would like to talk a bit also about the principle that is in this law about inclusivity. We want families to have access to early learning and child care no matter where they live. Bill C-35 would build on the work done with indigenous peoples who have co-developed the indigenous early learning and child care framework, which is culturally appropriate and led by indigenous peoples.

I also know that women with intersecting identities, racialized and newcomer women, those living with disabilities, single parents and families in lower socio-economic conditions, face even greater challenges in finding good quality, affordable and reliable child care. This legislation would enshrine the principle of inclusivity into law. I hope that in the future we will elaborate this so that we can provide more supports to parents of children with special needs, to those working shift work or in precarious employment and to others who face additional barriers.

I would also point out that many child care workers themselves are women. This legislation would have the additional benefit of providing long-term funding and increasing the number of regulated child care spaces, creating more secure and higher-paid employment for those in this industry.

I am also very proud to say that my mom was a kindergarten teacher. I grew up in a house where I was given all the benefits of creativity, stimulation and learning from the very earliest age, but not all children are lucky enough to have a mother who is a Montessori teacher. That is why we are calling it “early learning” and child care. It is not just babysitting. This is a program that is designed to give children the best possible start in life.

We know that, traditionally, child care responsibilities are disproportionately shouldered by women. However, I hope that this law and evolving social norms will also help ensure a more equitable division of child care responsibilities between men and women.

I know that Bill C-35 is not the complete solution. It does not address caregiving responsibilities that many people, especially daughters, face for aging parents or responsibilities for caregiving for adult children with disabilities. I hope that this legislation is only the beginning of a wider societal dialogue about what we value as a society.

Caregiving has too long been invisible work done primarily by women in the unpaid economy. Our society has pushed the burden of caregiving from society onto the individual and, in particular, onto women’s unpaid care work. However, the pandemic has made visible many of the divisions and pressures in our society and I hope that it is allowing us to challenge the status quo of what we consider to be valuable work and to realize that community is important when raising families.

While Bill C-35 is an important first step, we need to ensure that we continue working to build a more equal and more prosperous Canada.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I posed a question to one of the member's colleagues from the other side and did not get an answer back, so I will pose it to her this afternoon. Hopefully, they have had the time to provide an answer.

The Liberals speak about a national day care program that should look after all its citizens who are looking for child care. I asked the question: How does this program assist those who do shift work, such as a single parent who is a nurse and works the night shift at the hospital, a baker in the coffee shop who has to start at 3 a.m. or a resident in a rural area where there is no formal day care? How does this program assist those people who need day care?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague will recall that in my speech I addressed the fact that this is a bill that is not going to necessarily solve forever every single complex problem about caregiving in our society. First of all, I hope it is going to have an enormous impact on many families, in the member's constituency as well as mine.

However, we need to rethink caregiving in our society. We need to look at what we value in our society with respect to work and come up with very productive solutions to those exact kinds of problems, such as people in precarious work or shift work, and those who are raising children with special needs. I also mentioned those who are caring for aging parents, because it is an equal burden that falls primarily on women in our society as well.

I hope the member will work with us in this Parliament to make sure that we continue to address those difficult questions. I look forward to working with him and others to make sure that we address all the issues and needs of Canadians and Canadian families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member brought up the topic of the effect this would have on the labour force. Many businesses in my riding and across the country are looking for workers. In my riding in particular, and in many others, they cannot find workers because there is no place for new workers to live. The housing crisis has made it very difficult for them. One of the obvious solutions to that is to provide a better, more inclusive, more affordable, more accessible day care system that will allow the people who already have a place to live to get back into the workforce, which would then help these businesses move on and succeed in today's world.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for raising that issue because this is very much an economic policy as well. The fact is I have heard the same thing. Businesses in my riding have told me they are struggling. Some who are nearing retirement are saying they are just going to close the doors because they cannot find people to work in their businesses. This is one of the greatest ways that we can make sure that women who want to be in the workforce, but have a barrier because of child care, are able to contribute and participate fully. Up to $2.80 goes back into our economy for every dollar we invest in child care, so I agree 100% that we cannot afford to not do this. It is an equality issue, but also an economic issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Ottawa West—Nepean for focusing so clearly on the issues of early learning and child care. There are high-quality benefits to early learning and child care. The literature on childhood development points to very clear advantages. As she has worked on this issue for a while, I wonder if she would perhaps contrast that with a program that is solely about somebody looking after one's child somewhere.

Of course this program does not preclude someone who is lucky enough to have a grandparent who provides whatever kinds of supports a mom or dad needs by having access, at a parent's choice, to early learning and child care, with the priority being, as I see in this legislation, on high quality, which brings to mind my concerns about how much child care workers are going to be paid.

The difference is important. I wonder if the hon. member would comment on that.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not realize until I was grown how special it was that I had a Montessori teacher as a mother, because we did get that quality kind of engagement. That is why I said that this is not just about babysitting. This is not just about making sure children have someone to look after them. It is about the formation, the development, sparking that creativity, the learning, and making sure that by the time they get to grade 1 they already have the socialization and the ability to absorb and learn information. I very much appreciate the part about creativity, because that was something I had at a very early age, and I want every child in Canada to be able to access that same kind of childhood.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2022, Quebec celebrated the 25th anniversary of its family policy. On January 23, 1997, former premier Pauline Marois, then education minister for the Parti Québécois government, unveiled the Quebec family policy. This family policy was developed as a result of major changes in Quebec's population, including an increase in the number of single-parent and blended families, a greater number of women in the workforce, and the troubling rise of precarious employment.

Quebec's family policy had three basic thrusts: the implementation of an integrated allowance for children, the development of early childhood education services at a reasonable cost and the implementation of a parental insurance plan to provide adequate income replacement during maternity and parental leave.

This policy made it possible for thousands of Quebeckers to go back to school, as my wife did when our first child was born. It also enabled thousands of Quebeckers to improve their work-life balance, which was the case for us when my second child was born. It also enabled them to benefit from more generous maternity and parental leave, which was the case for us when my third child was born. My family really benefited from these progressive programs that are in place in Quebec.

The policy had three objectives: to ensure fairness through universal support for families and additional help for low-income families; to help parents balance their parental and professional responsibilities; and to promote children's development and equal opportunities for all. This policy was forward-looking, just like Quebec.

It was in the same spirit that the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development of the Government of Canada introduced Bill C‑35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, on December 8, 2022. This bill is full of good will and good principles. I can admit when that is the case. However, it is too bad that these good principles stem from the federal government's infamous interfering power. Pardon me, I meant to say the federal government's spending power. It seems to me that the federal government did not introduce this bill in the right Parliament, because I get the impression that we are once again facing the age-old problem of federal interference in provincial matters.

Let me explain. If passed, Bill C‑35, will enshrine in legislation the Liberal government's commitment to providing long-term program funding for the provinces and indigenous communities, as well as the principles that must guide that federal funding. The idea is to make it more difficult for a future government to dismantle the program.

This bill is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, it does not comply with the distribution of powers set out in the Constitution, which clearly states that education and family policy are not under federal jurisdiction. I wanted to remind the federal government of that because it tends to forget. On the other hand, it exempts Quebec from the application of the federal family policy for the next five years, with compensation. I will not deny that the Bloc Québécois is very happy with that second part. That said, it is too bad it took the federal government 25 years to follow Quebec's lead. This is not the first time that the federal government has dragged its feet on an issue.

Should Canada ever decide to take a page out of Quebec's playbook in other areas, such as the environment or energy production, it certainly would not hurt. We must not kid ourselves. Quebec has always been ahead of the curve in almost all areas compared to Canada. When it comes to child care services, Quebec is a pioneer, not only in North America, but in the world, and above all, it is a model of success.

In its preamble, Bill C-35 outlines the beneficial impact of early learning and child care on child development, on the well-being of children and of families, on gender equality, and on the rights of women and their economic participation and prosperity. Of course, I was not surprised when I read this. As I said earlier, this system was created on January 23, 1997, by Pauline Marois, then minister of education in the Quebec government, as a network of non-profit child care centres and home-based child care agencies. Based on the recommendations from a report entitled “Un Québec fou de ses enfants”, which highlighted the importance of early childhood stimulation, especially among children from more vulnerable families, the network upheld the principle of access to child care for all.

In Quebec, the mission of educational child care is threefold: to ensure the well-being, health and safety of the children receiving care; to provide a child-friendly environment that stimulates their development in every way, from birth to school age; and to prevent learning, behavioural and social integration problems from appearing later on.

This child care network has greatly contributed to making the workforce much more accessible to women. In just one year, yes, one year, it encouraged nearly 70,000 mothers to get a job in Quebec, which is a big deal. That was in 1997. No one in the House will be surprised to hear me say that there are many things that make me proud to be a Quebecker, and that is one of them. Another is the fact that Quebec has always been well ahead of Canada in a number of ways. I wonder if, by following Quebec's example, Canada will soon also have its own secularism law. That will come some day. When Canada realizes that every policy in Quebec bears fruit, then maybe it will stop dragging its feet and its governments will do the same. I will not talk about the federal immigration department because I have too much to say about that and not enough time.

What I can say is that Quebeckers have quite a lot of good ideas, and we are seeing that again today. Even the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development says so. I will stop there because I can tell the House of Commons is feeling a little uncomfortable. Everyone knows I like to take shots at members of other parties because there is always a way to have a little fun even while we are working. We must never forget who we are working for, though. As I have said more than once, as elected representatives, we work for our constituents. We serve the people—the citizens, workers, mothers and fathers—who placed their trust in us.

For that reason, I could not say to the Liberals that Bill C‑35 is not a bill. Even though it interferes in provincial jurisdictions, I like their bill because we were able to obtain compensation with no conditions for Quebec. It might be advisable to take what was done with Bill C‑35 and apply it to health transfers. Why can the government give money to Quebec with no conditions for child care, but when it comes to health, it wants to set conditions? Do the Liberals believe that children are less important than the health of the rest of the population? I would not go that far.

I like the bill, but I liked it even more when the Parti Québécois introduced it in the late 1990s. My wife and I were 23 when we had our first child. My wife was in university, and because this Quebec law existed, she was able to complete her bachelor's degree. We were 26 when our second child was born. This law helped us buy a house and become homeowners. We were 31 when our third child, Simone, was born. Once again, we were lucky to share our parental leave and to have day care centres.

I will close by saying that I support this bill, despite the federal government's interference. It is a good bill for the provinces of Canada, children and their parents. I do not want members to worry. I will pass the message on to Pauline Marois that the Liberals, the House of Commons, this government and all members of the House are saying thank you to her today.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish this bill had passed when my kids, Kyle and Cassidy, were younger. It would have provided my husband and me with a lot of relief for our mortgage and for bills as well.

What this bill would do is enable more parents like those today to make the choice to enter the workforce for the first time or in some cases to go back to work. Studies have shown that for every dollar invested in early childhood education, the broader economy receives between $1.50 and $2.80 in return. Therefore, can my hon. colleague agree that this bill would make a significant improvement in our economy?