Human Resources Committee on April 28th, 2023

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

I call this meeting to order.

The clerk has advised me that those appearing virtually have had their sound tested and that it's okay to proceed with translation.

Welcome to meeting number 65 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Committee members are appearing in the room and virtually. All witnesses are in the room with us.

I would remind those appearing that you have the option of speaking in the official language of your choice. Virtually, you have the translation icon at the bottom of your Surface. Here in the room, you have translation through the earpiece in your mike. If there's an issue with translation, please get my attention, and we'll suspend while it is being corrected.

I would also like to remind members that screenshots are not allowed at today's meeting. In-person shots in the room while the meeting is proceeding are also not allowed.

I would also like to remind you that if you could give your comments slowly, please, that would be great for the translators to deal with.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee will continue its study of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Today we are resuming clause-by-clause consideration. I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-35.

Members of the committee, we've gone through the particular material. I will go through clause-by-clause. Members who have provided an amendment will proceed to move that amendment when we get to that particular section.

Again, I would like to welcome, from the department, Michelle Lattimore, director general; Cheri Reddin, director general; Jill Henry, director, policy; Kelly Nares, director; and Christian Paradis, director.

(On clause 9)

We will begin. As you are aware, at the last meeting, we concluded and carried up to clause 8, so we will begin with clause 9.

Is there an amendment to clause 9?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With regard to clause 9, we're looking at suggesting the following amendment or adding the following amendment. It would add after line 4 on page 6:

The members of the Council must be representative of all parts of the early learning and child care system, including private and home-based child care providers and public and not for profit child care providers.

Again, this goes back to what we are pushing for after listening to the witnesses, stakeholders and everyone around child care in Canada. The council is a great piece for having people give feedback and for chiming in, but right now, the way it stands, the council is not fairly representative of all child care sectors. What we're asking with this amendment is that the council be representative of all parts of the early learning and child care system—so to include those other representatives whose voices are currently not on the council.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Ferreri.

Is there any discussion?

Ms. Saks.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the members for joining us today, as well as the officials who are here to help us navigate this process.

I can't say I'm supportive of this amendment, and it's for the simple reason that the approach of the council to date has been very clear in terms of selection for council participation. We've heard overwhelmingly from witnesses and from experts in the field in terms of an evidence-based approach and in terms of the stewardship of public funds to a not-for-profit and public-sector approach, which is what we're looking for.

I'd also comment to colleagues that it's a bit redundant, because, in clause 11 as it's drafted, the appointments request a representation of diversity. Diversity is a principle and an approach to the council. However, again, we want to ensure that the council is representative of the national system that is aimed to be built and to which the approach is well-rooted and clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Saks.

We will go to Ms. Ferreri and then Mr. Godin.

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I think that's kind of contradictory to what we heard from witnesses. If it is diversity, then why wouldn't you put diversity on the council?

I'm not sure if the clerk can chime in, but how many witnesses put forth that they wanted to see this representation on the council? I understand that the bill has said, “not for profit” and “public”, but if you don't have those voices at the table, you're not really getting a whole picture for child care in the country, because there are so many different forms of it.

I think this is just fair representation of all the different sectors of child care in the country. I definitely don't agree with my colleague. Just because it says diversity.... Right now, what we know is that there isn't diversity on that council. You're saying one thing and doing another thing.

There are a whole bunch of quotes, Mr. Chair. I'll give you just three.

“The current iteration of the CWELCC does not recognize the key role female entrepreneurs have played in the creation and development of Canada's early learning and child care sector.” That's from the briefing note from the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario.

“The current language directs funding in particular to public and not-for-profit providers, and it's much weaker than it should be.” That's from the March 31 testimony of Dr. Susan Prentice, Duff Roblin professor of government, University of Manitoba.

“Championing home child care as a...part of CWELCC would increase access to a diverse array of child care options.” That's from the April 18 testimony of Julie Bisnath, program coordinator, Child Care Providers Resource Network.

We're hearing that the Liberals want to have diversity on this bill, but then when you put forth an amendment to increase diversity, they say no.

It's just a little confusing to me, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Ferreri.

Monsieur Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good day to you all.

My colleague has mentioned that clause 11 already provides for representation on the council. However, as people who have worked with me on other committees will attest, I am fond of saying that you cannot be too careful. It is always better to have more than less and to be cautious.

This amendment is about avoiding too much interpretation of the bill's clauses and allowing all the stakeholders of the sector to participate. I think that we would be in a stronger position if we consulted representatives from all parts of this sector.

I believe this amendment is worth supporting. That said, I do not understand why the government is digging its heels in. We are cautious when selecting the members of various committees. I think it is important to define this. It would be an added layer of protection for us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Ms. Saks.

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

I'll keep my comments short.

There's nothing stopping the council from engaging with stakeholders from every aspect across the country in terms of getting information, just like we do in committees or any other framework, that enables us to have deep consultations with what is happening across the country.

In terms of diversity, we want the consultations that happen at the council to be reflective of Canadian society as a whole. However, as a council, the mandate of its work is clear and is true to the agreements that have been established, as well as the secretariat in its....

We don't want to see creep happening, as we saw in Australia and other places when.... Consultation is extremely valuable, and witnesses are important, but we also want to make sure that the mandate of the council is clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleague when she says that consultations are important.

However, why should we limit ourselves by not making any room on the council for these people? I am of the opinion that this would strengthen the council. Something doesn't jive here. It has been shown on many occasions that even if consultations are done, the reports that come out of them are usually relegated to the bottom of the pile or the garbage.

Unfortunately, it is the council that has the authority to make recommendations. I believe that we should let a wide range of stakeholders become members of the council so that we may do better work and reach the set targets.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madame Ferreri, you had your hand up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Listen, you can't have equity and equality if you're not sitting at the table. As a woman in politics, I would assume that my colleague knows that very well. If you have all men sitting at the table but they go and consult with a woman, does that count? No. You have to have that person at the table to include them in the conversation.

I think this is extremely unfair, to cut out some of the most important people—who are included in the bill, quite frankly—and not have their voice at the table. It just doesn't make any sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Seeing no further discussion, Mr. Clerk, I will call for a recorded vote on the amendment to clause 9 from Madam Ferreri.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The amendment is defeated. I'll now call for a vote on clause 9.

(Clause 9 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Clause 9 is carried without amendment.

Now that the amendments have been referred, shall clause 10 carry? I see consensus.

(Clause 10 agreed to)

(On clause 11)

We have Monsieur Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This segues well into what we were discussing earlier and I think it is essential that amendment CPC‑7 becomes part of the bill, i.e., that Bill C‑35, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 6 with the following:“representative of the diversity of Canadian society, in particular Indigenous peoples and official language minority communities—to.”

This is about the National Advisory Council of Early Learning and Child Care, and there should be a decent representation within that council. We would have wished for even more wide-ranging representation, but the amendment does at least give status to Indigenous peoples and official language minority communities.

We think that this should serve as basic criteria for the appointment of certain council members. We would have liked to go even further, but unfortunately, the government is opposed to that. In any event, we should at the very least stand up for both official languages and Indigenous peoples.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Ms. Saks, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank my colleague, Mr. Godin.

We seem to find common ground. If I can make a small subamendment to the proposal put forward by Monsieur Godin, I propose changing the words “in particular” to “including”. I'll explain the rationale behind that.

We always have to be cognizant of the fact that we want to make sure everyone is at the table, but also recognize that there is a parallel FPT table going on with indigenous leadership. We always want to be mindful—I've mentioned this before in other aspects of the legislation that we've discussed—to ensure that our tracks of dialogue, all of them, not only in terms of this process but in all of our relationships with indigenous communities...that we are respectful of the multiple tracks of discussions that are happening.

In that case, I would move the subamendment of changing “in particular” to “including”. That would be my suggestion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madam Saks, the clerk has the subamendment. Do you want it circulated? It's a one-word subamendment.

It has been circulated. You should have it in your email.

We're now on the subamendment of Ms. Saks.

Go ahead, Ms. Gazan, on the subamendment.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

For a reason different from that of Madam Saks, I think it's good that indigenous people and official language minorities are mentioned. I think that's very positive.

I do agree with “including”, however, just because, for example, children with disabilities are a very specific group with very specific educational needs. I just worry that it would exclude groups with specific needs in education.

I support the subamendment of “including”. I like what's been offered up by the Conservative Party in terms of a suggestion with the change of “including”, but for different reasons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Is there any discussion on the subamendment we're currently on?

I have Ms. Gray and then Ms. Ferreri.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can we recess for just a minute?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Certainly. We'll suspend for two moments while the members review the matters before the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We were on discussion of the subamendment to the amendment on clause 11.

Is there any further discussion?

Go ahead, Madam Ferreri, on the subamendment of Ms. Saks.

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

Thank you.

I just want to clarify, because I think there is some language....

To my colleague, when we say “in particular”, for us it was prioritizing. “Including” is a good word, too. One feels like it's prioritizing, and one feels more generic, but I think we're on the same page. From a language perspective, I just want to ensure that, and the comments of my colleague, Ms. Gazan, were well taken, too. This is just for clarification for the record.