I resume my discussion around Bill C-35. I left off when I was talking about the section that ensures accountability that the federal government must take going forward.

It is a stake in the ground that holds Ottawa accountable, and it is how, through the agreements, Ottawa will work with the provinces to keep them accountable.

Reading from clause 7(1):

Federal investments respecting the establishment and maintenance of a Canada-wide early learning and child care system — as well as the efforts to enter into related agreements with the provinces and Indigenous peoples — must be guided by the principles by which early learning and child care programs and services should be accessible, affordable, inclusive and of high quality . . . .

The following paragraphs detail what is meant by this. Paragraph (a) tells us that federal investments must support the provision of equitable access to high-quality care with a preference for expansion in public and not-for-profit spaces. These services must be licensed, built on evidence-based practices and respond to the varying needs of children and families.

Paragraph (b) tells us that the federal investment into child care must contribute to making child care more affordable for all families.

Let’s talk about paragraph (c). Paragraph (c) tells us that federal investments must support access in rural and remote communities and the expansion of services for children with disabilities, official language minority communities and children from other marginalized groups. It reiterates the obligation for federal investments to respond to the varying needs of families, this time adding respect and the value of diversity.

I want to pause here because paragraph (c) is extraordinarily important. What it says is that the federal government must invest in child care services for children with disabilities. It is clear from paragraph (c) that the federal government must invest in rural and remote communities to ensure greater access there. It is also clear from paragraph (c) that the obvious intent of this bill is that the federal government must invest in child care services for official language minority communities.

That is an obligation that will be placed into law should this bill be given Royal Assent. It is a certainty that every family who is in a community where their official language is in the minority can expect that, by law, the federal government will ensure that its investment will allow for greater access to child care spaces so that their language, their culture, their identity can be passed down to their children and their children’s children.

This paragraph, colleagues, ensures that no one is left behind. It commits Ottawa to ensuring that funding in perpetuity for these groups continues, as is reflected in the agreements. By placing these elements within the guiding principles, it makes clear the intent of Parliament that these groups receive federal funding to ensure proper access to high-quality child care that meets their needs.

I am now moving on to paragraph (d). This paragraph tells us that federal investments should contribute to high-quality child care that supports the social, emotional, physical and cognitive development of young children by ensuring a strong workforce. Indeed, all governments have recognized the core role of the workforce, and developing this workforce is an important dimension of the agreements that are already in place and will be an ongoing part of the work of building a strong Early Learning and Child Care, or ELCC, system going into the future.

In subsection 2, we are told that the federal investments and agreements with Indigenous peoples must be guided by the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework. As I said at second reading, Canada has co-developed an Indigenous early learning and child care system with Indigenous communities and governments. This subsection has the effect of ensuring that Canada will continue to make investments based on this framework and in collaboration with Indigenous peoples.

Finally, subsection 3 tells us that the federal investments must be guided by the Official Languages Act, or OLA. As we know, colleagues, one of the purposes of the Official Languages Act is to:

support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities in order to protect them while taking into account the fact that they have different needs;

This is just one purpose. Section 7 tells us that the federal investments must be guided by the entire act. In fact, we know that this quasi-constitutional act aims to ensure the respect and substantive equality of both official languages throughout and across Canada.

This is very important. By including the OLA in section 7, Bill C-35, therefore, creates an obligation for investment to not only focus on official language minority communities now but to also consider the future development and evolution of both official languages in Canada in line with the OLA.

In summary, we see in section 7 the rules of engagement, and we can understand that there are specific obligations that Canada must respect when working with provinces to make investments in child care. Section 7 decides where the money goes, and it tells us that investments in high-quality, affordable and inclusive care that meets the needs of families through funding in public and not-for-profit places is non-negotiable.

Paired with section 8, which tells us that the Government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for ELCC through agreements with provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples, we have a guarantee of an ongoing funding commitment based on the rules of engagement already outlined in section 7. Therefore, whether you need care that is culturally sensitive and in the language of your ancestors, whether you are a parent with a disabled child in urban Vancouver or rural northern B.C., whether you’re an anglophone in Quebec or a francophone outside of Quebec, sections 7 and 8 of Bill C-35 guarantees that the federal government will continue to work toward making sure that one day you have access to affordable and high-quality care that meets your needs.

Colleagues, I have spoken at length about the bill, but I would like to take a moment to turn toward our work at committee and to specifically speak to why, in my opinion, the bill has come back to us unamended.

First of all, it is my belief that our study was robust. We met with child care workers, economists and academics. We met with community leaders and Indigenous governments. We heard from parents with children with disabilities and parents who did not currently have access to child care in the language of their choice. What we heard is that more progress is needed and is needed faster. What we heard was that Canadians believe in the benefits of Canada-wide ELCC and that fee reductions have been an important step forward. Yet, space creation and workforce development are still crucially needed.

I want to thank, once more, all the witnesses for their voice and for their time, even those with whom I did not agree. Many amendments were proposed by witnesses and during clause by clause. Nevertheless, the bill has come back to us unamended, and I want to speak to this.

Colleagues, we are building and expanding a significant and immensely complex social program, one that hinges on relationships and negotiation and one that is based on collaboration and shared vision. In this exercise, the federal government has many partners it has to work with to see this through, and I think we need to be patient as we work to build our child care system, especially when doing important things like training workers and building spaces, among other critical steps.

It also means that as federal legislators, we have to remember that Canadians want Bill C-35 to be adopted. For them, it means a guarantee that ELCC is here to stay. They are looking for this certainty.

Consider Jennifer Nangreaves, Executive Director of the Early Childhood Development Association of Prince Edward Island, who told us:

The position of the ECDA is we are absolutely in support of Bill C-35. The importance of having federal commitment to the Canada-wide early learning and child care system, no matter the government in power in the future, will allow for true system building across the country. Having access to predictable, appropriate and sustained funding instead of what we’ve been doing in the past, with grants here and there, will provide stability and predictability that will allow for strategic and long-term investments so that provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples can reach their goals in achieving a high-quality, accessible and affordable early learning and child care system.

Her words resonated with me. Canadians are looking to this bill for certainty. They are looking to Parliament for certainty. We must remember this as we deliberate today.

I believe that the committee in the other place did a strong job in amending this bill and strengthened it significantly. I’m also aware of the political tensions in the House of Commons and know that amending the bill would perhaps lead to delays in its adoption, which would create greater uncertainty for Canadians. Therefore, for every amendment, I weighed whether or not the uncertainty was worth the proposed change. I will say, honourable colleagues, that none of the amendments brought forward resolved substantive issues or challenges that I felt warranted delaying the adoption of this legislation for many months.

Therefore, I argued and voted against all the amendments that were tabled, and the majority of the committee seemed to have agreed.

Honourable senators, I want to acknowledge one concern that was heard from official languages minority communities. Many felt that they needed to be included in section 8 of the bill to ensure they continue to receive long-term funding. It is their concern that without this inclusion, the courts would assume that Parliament meant to exclude them from ongoing funding commitments despite section 7, as I outlined.

Colleagues, with all due respect, I do not agree with this concern, but I acknowledge it. I believe, as I have argued, that the rules of engagement are outlined in clause 7 — the founding principles — and that these are very clear indicators of what Parliament intends for ongoing funding to include.

Nevertheless, I have worked with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, or FCFA, du Canada, as well as with Senator Cormier and Senator Moncion, to craft a statement that clarifies this without a shadow of a doubt, and I will read it now:

I am aware of the ordinary principles of statutory interpretation and the relevant case law on language rights. In particular, I’m aware that the Supreme Court of Canada, in Caron v. Alberta, refused to recognize the existence of language rights because of the absence of explicit guarantees in the relevant constitutional and legislative texts.

Consequently, as sponsor of this bill, I wish to express a clear intention that the text of clause 8 implicitly includes a guarantee of long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services for official language minority communities.

It is my understanding that as Bill C-35 is currently drafted, the intention has always been for francophone communities to continue to be part of federal-provincial-territorial discussions, within the framework of funding agreements.

I’d like to emphasize this point: Protecting the interests of official language minority communities and other minority groups is not mutually exclusive. Often, communities intersect, and individuals are at the intersection points of several minority groups.

To conclude, I will make a clear clarification regarding terminology used in the bill on the issue of official language minority communities. I would like to acknowledge that there are indeed two different terms used in Bill C-35 that refer to official language minority communities. I assure you that despite the two different terms used, they do respect the spirit of the Official Languages Act.

I want to thank Senators Cormier and Moncion, as well as the FCFA, for their partnership and their collaboration. I look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure every child can learn and grow in the language of their families.

Honourable colleagues, thank you for your attention and your hard work. I look forward to hearing from other speakers, and I look forward to seeing this bill become law. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Thank you. Would Senator Moodie take a question?

I will.

Thank you. First, thank you for drawing attention to the incoherent terminology used in the bill, and clarifying the intent and scope of clause 8 which deals with the long-term funding of official language minority communities.

I understand from your speech that you support the principle that protecting the interests of official language minority communities and other minority groups is not mutually exclusive.

Often, like you said, communities do intersect, and individuals are at the intersection of several minority groups.

However, in opposition to one of my amendments presented at committee, which was intended to clarify the government’s commitment to official language minority communities, you stated:

Equally concerning are some of the comments that we heard from ITK President Natan Obed who expressed concerns to us right here in this committee that this amendment would harm language rights for Inuit peoples.

Do you still maintain this position today? If so, could you clarify it, as your comments seem to contradict — in a certain way — each other?

Thank you, Senator Cormier.

In my response to your question there, I reminded you — another member of the committee — of President Natan Obed’s words. It was his own language when asked — he was posed a question by, perhaps, Senator Moncion — about how this would affect, if any, Indigenous peoples, and that was his response. His language is in the answer. It’s clear, and he did raise concern. And I stated a fact.

You asked me if I stand by what I said today; I absolutely do. There is no question that there’s an intersection of racial minorities, of language requirements and of people with disabilities. All communities are very keen to see and make sure that their interests are represented in this law, and that their children are offered the best possible child care — working together, that’s where we should focus for the future. We work to build that as a country, and we try to make sure that we ensure the rights of all groups, including rural and remote children, so that they have access to care as well.

My position stands today, and, in fact, the answer that I gave you then simply reflects the facts of what President Obed said.

I’m sorry, Senator Moodie; your time for debate has expired.

Are you asking for five more minutes?

Yes, I am.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Senator Marshall, you are correct — we heard that. We heard that the workforce is in trouble, and that it needs to be built. We heard about fee structuring and supporting professional development. We heard about a number of key factors — gaps, if you will — of the current system.

There is no question that this is a new system that’s being built. What exists already in the landscape is a mixture of varying levels of service, varying levels of quality of service being provided and areas where there is no service. That is clear, and that was loudly heard at committee.

It’s acknowledged that we have work to do here. The provinces have outlined in their agreements how they see the action plan of moving this forward, as well as building on what exists in some places and creating something new. There is a clear recognition — in answering your question — that there are areas with gaps, like you identified.

Thank you for your speech, Senator Moodie. My question goes back to clause 8. You acknowledged that there was concern with clause 8 in terms of courts in the future, perhaps, not interpreting funding as — in the case that you quoted — being guaranteed and locked in, and funding is the subject matter of clause 8.

In your statement, you made it clear that you agree that there needs to be the guarantee that funding be ongoing. My question is this: If that is the case, why wouldn’t we make it explicit? There are new systems being developed. Why would we want to put future generations at risk of having a court review a case, make a determination that it is not explicit and, therefore, not be in favour of locking in funding for those minority groups, not just in New Brunswick but across the country?

Thank you for your question, Senator Quinn.

I’m not one for using hurried statements. I believe that there is work to be done in building our system. I believe that the legislation as written supports — and clearly states and outlines in the area of section 7 that talks about guiding principles — the who and why of what we need to support our child care system as we build moving forward.

I also believe that section 8 speaks to the funding mechanisms that exist and how money would flow from the federal government to the establishments on the ground in the provinces and territories, as well as Indigenous governments. The legislation states it clearly. The groups of children that must be protected are clearly outlined in the guiding principles. I believe that the act, the legislation, already states what it needs to.

Clearly, I believe that we need to strengthen the system and that there may be future need for improvements.

We’re starting to build at the foundational level, and there is no question that there are gaps. Anybody who would suggest this is not the case would not be giving you the truth.

Thank you. There are a number of observations that speak to strengthening the system and funding particular groups. They do enhance and draw attention to the areas that were discussed during committee. I think they pinpoint, if you will, some of the gaps that we have seen — the need to continue work and to observe — where the government needs to improve.

Senator Moodie has answered all the questions. Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading to speak in support of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

I want to thank you, Senator Moodie, for your very detailed speech explaining Bill C-35 and its importance as a social contract.

I also want to thank you for your hard work in sponsoring this bill in the Senate. I want to thank the members of the Social Affairs Committee for your very thoughtful and important questions and comments when we studied this bill.

This bill is a first step toward the federal government’s commitment to facilitating a Canada-wide early learning and child care system, and a ten-dollar-a-day child care program. It sets out the government’s commitment to maintaining long-term funding relating to early learning and child care to be provided to the provinces, territories and to Indigenous communities.

Along with these commitments, the bill will also establish the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care. As a grandmother and former elementary school teacher, I have seen first-hand how important early learning and accessible, quality child care is to young Canadians and their families.

Honourable senators, it is essential that children be given the best possible start to set them up for a lifetime of learning.

Canadian families from every corner of the country experience barriers to accessing inclusive, culturally appropriate, high‑quality child care. Too few child care spaces and rising costs have left many families struggling to find affordable care for their children.

We heard from a wide variety of witnesses from across the country at the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee. The committee heard that disparities have persisted in Canada when it comes to access to high-quality and culturally appropriate child care for Indigenous families, lower-income families, new Canadians, language minority communities and those living outside urban areas.

Bridging these gaps is going to take time, successful planning and financial support. I believe Bill C-35 will go a long way toward helping families to find affordable and quality care.

The federal government has shown its support to the provinces, territories and to Indigenous communities with their commitment of funding through the signed funding agreements. To unlock the federal funding, the provinces and territories have agreed to submit action plans and progress reports at the beginning of each fiscal year for the duration of the agreements.

I believe the progress reports will be beneficial to governments and, more importantly, to young families.

In 2021, my province of Nova Scotia signed the Canada – Nova Scotia Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement – 2021 to 2026, which provides a commitment to creating 9,500 new child care spaces and moving to ten-dollar-a day child care by 2026. Under the agreement, the federal government will commit $123 million this fiscal year, $143 million for the next fiscal year and $169 million for the 2025-26 fiscal year.

This funding will be essential to developing strategies to meet the needs of all families with young children, but particularly for Indigenous communities and French-speaking communities in my province of Nova Scotia.

Honourable senators, one of the major hurdles provinces and territories are facing when it comes to creating spaces is the labour shortage in the early child care sector. We heard from several witnesses at committee about how difficult it is to find and retain — and the retention part is important — qualified, dedicated and motivated staff.

Jobs in the child care sector have traditionally been filled by women — and they have traditionally been low-paying jobs with few benefits. As such, there has been very little incentive for young people to pursue careers in this industry.

Provinces and territories must find solutions to attract and to retain high-quality staff. In the case of Nova Scotia, this means staffing 9,500 new spaces by 2026. This must include higher wages and better benefits for employees if we are to retain high‑quality staff, not just for the immediate future but for the long term.

As Taya Whitehead, Board Chair of the Canadian Child Care Federation, said:

We encourage mechanisms to ensure that child-care funding remains predictable, sustainable and sufficient in each province and territory based on the community needs and objectives of the agreements.

Bill C-35 aims to be the mechanism to ensure predictable, sustainable and sufficient financial support from successive federal governments in the future.

Honourable senators, I support Bill C-35. It is an essential piece of legislation to ensure future funding and support from the federal government beyond the current agreements which end in 2026.

Honourable senators, it is not often that we can have agreements of any kind arranged between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments. This early childhood agreement has happened because governments at all levels have rightfully recognized that early learning and child care in Canada must be a priority.

I believe this is an opportunity not to be taken lightly. Canadian families need the supports that Bill C-35 will provide to ensure long-term access to inclusive, culturally appropriate and high-quality child care. I will be supporting Bill C-35.