Human Resources Committee on April 25th, 2023

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I'd like to acknowledge to my colleague from the NDP that I value her insights tremendously. She is a fierce fighter for indigenous rights in this country. She has moved me to tears many times in the chamber over her commitment to righting the wrongs in the history of this country and holding us, all of us who work here, to account as we move down the path of reconciliation.

However, Mr. Chair, I just want to make sure that we're clear on what we're doing here today and what this is a part of in the bigger picture of children in this country and indigenous children. This is a chamber that committed to UNDRIP and committed to that process—the framework of UNDRIP and its implementation—in our negotiations and ongoing discussions with our indigenous leadership in this country. Talks continue, and they're not always easy. There are challenges. There are bumps in the road, but this is a government and there are many members here who have committed to that process, as hard as it may be.

I've been engaged in similar processes in other parts of the world. I know how painful they are and about the intergenerational trauma. Setting up a system that's built on trust.... We know, fundamentally, that's what we're hoping for in righting the wrongs that have been done to many indigenous children in this country over generations.

The process of UNDRIP and its implementation framework is something that is an ongoing process. We're still in that process with indigenous leadership to create the legal framework of which FPIC is a part. I would hate to see—as we are servants of the Crown here and we all represent servants of the Crown here—that we put the cart before the horse in determining what the legal framework of FPIC is, or UNDRIP, before those negotiations are completed.

I would never want a situation where legislation is put forward and then passed in the chamber that bypasses the very important dialogue that is happening right now to ensure indigenous-led processes, whether it is in education, whether it is in IELCC or whether it is in all aspects of implementing indigenous rights and future legislation in this country. I would never want a situation where the people sitting at the table have usurped that right or interceded on those negotiations in any way. That is my reservation.

That doesn't take us away from the principle and the important value that we have to place in educating our children and in recognizing that indigenous communities need to be in the driver's seat with regard to educating their children. That is a key part of reconciliation. That's why I asked my minister for the indigenous early learning file, understanding that it is a key component of reconciliation.

We're here today to talk about the nationwide system and the agreements that are in place. I hope that colleagues understand that I want to make sure we are moving through these two parallel processes in the right way, in a way that honours the negotiations that are going on with indigenous leadership.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Saks.

Mr. Coteau.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you so much.

First, I'd like to ask the mover of the amendment just to explain a little bit more about informed consent. Then I'd like to ask the officials to give their opinion and bring some clarity to the issue, if that's okay.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much for that question.

Just so you know, there is an instrument that is used to determine FPIC. It's the UN expert mechanism, in fact.

What free, prior and informed consent means is free of coercion, prior to any decision being made and knowing what you're making a decision about. Unless you have those three things, you don't have consent. I know that we're talking about consultation processes with indigenous people. I don't know any parent in this country who would oppose having free, prior and informed consent about matters impacting their children. In fact, I would like you to find me one indigenous person, let alone political organization or political leadership, who would say, “No, we don't want to have rights. We don't want to have our self-determination respected over matters impacting our children.” I don't think any parent, in fact, would fight against their self-determination to make decisions about their own children. That is simply what my amendment is proposing.

As a country, we have also signed on to international law. Part of that international law is the UN expert mechanism. As well as free, prior and informed consent, this already informs part of our law. I'm not proposing something that's outside of Canadian law. It's affirmed, once again, through Bill C-15.

In the spirit of reconciliation, in the spirit of healing in this country, we need to see this in a bill and a legal framework. I'm talking as an indigenous person. We need to know that Canada understands, in 2023, that indigenous people, even though we have Canadian Human Rights Tribunal battles going on still in the courts, forced sterilization and birth alerts, and no access to school, have, at the very least, in the spirit of reconciliation, in spite of all the constant human rights violations, free, prior and informed consent—free of coercion, prior to any decisions being made about our kids and informed, knowing what the decision is—before any decision is made. That's precisely what this amendment is for.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Gazan.

Officials can speak to the technical aspects of the bill but cannot provide an opinion.

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

Perhaps I can highlight a few things.

First, I'd like to highlight that Bill C-35 does include a strong commitment in paragraph 5(f) to contribute to the implementation of UNDRIP.

I'd also like to underscore that the indigenous-specific references in the bill are grounded in work that was codeveloped with indigenous peoples, including the codeveloped indigenous early learning and child care framework. That work continues through the codevelopment process that's being led through the Department of Justice with indigenous governments to give meaning to the United Nations declaration and its application in Canada, including consideration of FPIC in that context.

From a policy perspective, I would underscore the need to abide by that practice and to not use this legislation to get out ahead of it. I'd also like to underscore that the bill was drafted with the intention of being flexible and being able to catch up with that eventual outcome.

The last thing I would like to note from a policy perspective is that any decision to include FPIC at this time in the clause would essentially be baseless. As a federal official, I have no idea how we would implement that, what measures would apply or what test would apply to ensure that the government was adhering to FPIC obligations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Reddin.

Ms. Gazan, go ahead on your amendment.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

The government made a commitment in the last session—we voted on it in the House and it passed—to uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Part of that is FPIC. That is part of the declaration itself. I'm calling on the government to uphold what it promised to do in terms of what's now a legal obligation, because it's now passed into law.

I also want to point to article 3 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which reads:

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Central to self-determination as affirmed in the framework is free, prior and informed consent. That is self-determination.

If the argument is that there's a commitment to uphold the UN declaration, there shouldn't be any issue with this amendment because, in fact, it supports that position of the folks who have joined us here today, including Cheri Reddin.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Ms. Saks.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank officials for the clarification, and I thank my colleague.

Mr. Chair, I don't think anyone in this room disagrees with the importance of this. I think every single one of us has made that commitment. Over time, it's simply sitting in the House and learning more and more in the work that we do and understanding how important this path is, but I would like to update committee members a bit.

The Department of Justice is currently working with indigenous leadership on an action plan for UNDRIP. My concern, which I wish to share, is that I would hate to see this as a unilateral imposition on the work that's being done in a codeveloped manner. I want to be able to respect the indigenous leadership that is at the table, working with the Department of Justice on the commitment that was made by legislators to UNDRIP.

With that commitment comes a work process for implementation. I wouldn't disagree with my colleague that it's slow, that there are frustrations and that it's hard. It's hard work to do and the clock has run out for many families and for many communities.

That being said, I would hate to see a situation where we are taking a unilateral move against that very important work. I know that a draft action plan is proposed to be issued by the end of June of this year for it to be considered as codeveloped with indigenous leadership. I want to make sure that the work we do here is complementary to that work, so that we are not getting ahead of that work and it's not perceived that the people in this room are trying to impose a pathway that isn't agreed upon.

That is my only concern, and I feel that it should be put out there as we weigh in on how we do this right. There is a sense of urgency, and I appreciate that, but I want to make sure that we get this right and that it can be implemented.

Currently, the agreements are jurisdictional. If there's no framework to implement them to protect FPIC by provinces that are in that agreement because there isn't a framework currently, I would hate for everyone in this room to be accused of putting something in that is hollow when indigenous children deserve more that. They deserve better.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Saks.

Go ahead, Madam Gazan.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, there is a framework that has been worked on. First nations leadership was quite clear about it at the AFN actually and said that it was totally unacceptable and subpar.

I would challenge any sort of insinuation that first nations leadership will have difficulty with having free, prior and informed consent over matters impacting our children. That's bizarre. If you took the indigenous out of it and it was just a human being making decisions about their children, I don't think any parent in this country would fight against having self-determination to make decisions about their children. I think that first nations leadership will be shocked and disturbed that, in 2023, free, prior and informed consent over matters impacting indigenous children isn't just a set conclusion in this country and that we're still playing political games about the human rights of first nations children, indigenous kids, over self-determining the path for our children.

I think that argument is fairly weak. Certainly, I don't accept that argument. It is not a logical argument, and I'll just leave it there. I do feel that we're at a stage in this country where people really do want to move forward with reconciliation. I believe that, but if we can't start with children, given the kind of history in this country with residential schools and ongoing issues with child welfare and issues around the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rulings and all of those things, with birth alerts and forced sterilization.... It is very disturbing to me, in fact, that we have to debate this, but I do accept that this is a democracy, and I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

If there is no further discussion, I will call for a recorded vote on the amendment of Madam Gazan.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to: 11 yeas; 0 nays)

(On clause 7)

We'll now move to clause 7.

Madam Ferreri, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are putting forth an amendment to clause 7, and this is the most important amendment that we could put forward on this bill.

We have just heard a powerful exchange about parents having choice in caring for their children and flexible options for ensuring that everybody has access to quality affordable child care.

We heard multiple testimonies from many witnesses about wait-lists and parents who are left out in the cold and that there are still a lot of winners and losers in this bill. Therefore, I would propose the following amendment, which replaces lines 4 to 9 on page 5 with the following:

(a) facilitate access to all types of early learning and child care programs and services regardless of the provider—such as those that are provided through traditional daycare centres, centres with extended, part-time or overnight care, nurseries, flexible and drop-in care, before- and after-school care, preschools and co-op child care, faith-based care, unique programming to support children with disabilities, home-based child care, nannies and shared nannies, au pairs, stay-at-home parents or guardians who raise their own children, or family members, friends or neighbours who provide care—that meet or exceed standards set by provincial governments or Indigenous governing bodies and respond to the varying needs of children and families while respecting the jurisdiction and unique needs of the provinces and Indigenous peoples;

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Ferreri.

Before we open the floor to discussion, I want to make clear to the committee that, if amendment CPC-1 is adopted, amendment NDP-2 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. Both amendments seek to modify lines 4 and 8 on page 5.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 769:

Once a line of a clause has been amended by the committee, it cannot be further amended by a subsequent amendment as a given line may be amended only once.

Now I will open the floor to discussion on the amendment of Madam Ferreri.

Go ahead, Madam Saks.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I will just simply say that this clause was drafted to closely align with the current CWELCC system that prioritizes not-for-profit public child care, and that's simply because, as stewards of the public purse, we want to make sure that we are creating a system that is high quality, affordable, accessible, licensed and within the purview of standards that are set.

Every province and territory that signed on to CWELCC understood the parameters of not-for-profit and public priorities. They signed and are moving forward.

There was some private child care that was grandfathered. Ontario is a perfect example of that, but province by province, the agreements outlined who was coming into the system, who was signing on, how it would be managed and the priorities that they set, so I would say that, when we look at the evidence.... There was much evidence discussed here at this committee by many witnesses about the quality of care that is provided in the non-profit and public sector models. That is the model we are proud of. We have Quebec to look to for the success of that and also the hiccups that come along the way, which we know are there.

It is not an easy lift creating a nationwide system; nevertheless, it is a nationwide system that prioritizes not-for-profit care because care of children is the priority, and the evidence shows that strongly.

We've seen models such as Australia, where there was creep into the private sector that left a system that collapsed and parents without care as the quality plummeted. We don't want that for our children. We don't want that for our families across this country, and stewarding the public purse means that we prioritize the best quality care that evidence has shown us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Saks.

Go ahead, Madam Ferreri.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There is nothing universal about the child care bill, and I think that is what we heard repeatedly from witnesses in their testimony. If I can go to a quote from briefs that were submitted to the committee, this is from Kathryn Babowal. She's with Les Petits Soleils Inc. She said:

CWELCC roll out has actually resulted in inequitable access and creation of extensive waitlists for parents. Expansion freezes have been placed upon private operators, which have created a lack of access for families in private centres and waitlists in the hundreds per centre. These expansion freezes are creating a two-tiered system: increased demand for childcare due to CWELCC has forced private programs to expand to meet need, despite having no access to grants for parents, which results in parents paying upwards of $50 more per day for the same program, staff and venue.

I think it's just frustrating. Just own what it is, if I'm going to be so blunt, because we just went through and heard this from my colleague down the way, Ms. Gazan. Just own it. Either you're including everyone or you're not. I think it's unfortunate that you've pitted two systems against each other that need each other to meet the demand.

At the core of this discussion has to be the child. The nucleus of this discussion is the welfare of the child. There are countless testimonies that say there are winners and losers. I've said this repeatedly. I'm a mom. Affordable child care and quality child care is incredible, but if it's not accessible it doesn't exist. The only people who are winning—and we heard this repeatedly—are the people who already have a spot.

Therefore, either call it what it is or don't. It's not universal child care, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Ferreri.

Mrs. Gray.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Adding this amendment is really important because we want to make sure that there is access for all parents and for all children. Really, parents are the best people to decide who cares for their children. Part of what's in this amendment is that it says, “that meet or exceed standards set by provincial governments or Indigenous governing bodies”. It's really important that this is in here because it is saying this would be child care that is meeting these standards.

Therefore, if the provincial standards are acceptable, then it should be acceptable for that child to be in whatever format that might look like. Right now, the way this bill is—really, it's coming after the agreements have been made with the provinces—it touts being accessible and inclusive when in fact it's leaving out a number of children who really need access to this.

During the time when we were having witnesses and doing questioning, I did quote a couple of child care providers from my riding, but there are many others. I've had many parents reach out to me as they have seen this program roll out and have seen how it's leaving people behind. I have visited child care facilities in my riding as well.

I think this is one of the most important pieces we can add to this legislation, so that there is access for everyone and so that everyone is covered. The government is prioritizing government and not-for-profit facilities. However, they will not be able to be the sole organizations in order to expand the number of child care spaces that are needed. We have numbers that are in the tens of thousands of children who need placement, and actually, we need over 40,000 workers as well.

There are a lot of private facilities that have opened. We heard testimony about how they've taken on personal debt. They do this for the love of what they do. It's their passion. They are not similar to a lot of the organizations that other members might quote, which are the huge, corporate, national organizations. A lot of these organizations are private, but they're in our communities. They're serving maybe between 10 to 50 children. They're not a huge size, but they're serving our communities all over this country. It's really important that we capture all of them because right now there are children being left behind.

I think this is one of the most important pieces we can add to this legislation to make it stronger and to make it better. There's overwhelming support for having more accessibility for families who really need access to this program.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Gray.

Next is Ms. Ferreri.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to put into the record that these were submitted testimony to the committee. I think it's really important to have them on the record. I think these voices are really important.

Do we know the number, if I can ask, of how many submissions we had submitted for this bill?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. David Chandonnet]

There were 58 or perhaps a few more that we received lately.

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

What would be the normal submissions for a committee, do you know, on average?

[The Clerk]

I'm not sure. It would depend.