THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 18, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4:15 p.m. [ET] to consider Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. I would like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses and members of the public. My name is Ratna Omidvar, a senator from Ontario, and I am the chair of this committee.
Before we begin, perhaps I could ask my colleagues to go around the table very briefly introduce themselves, starting with Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: Thank you. Welcome, minister and officials. It’s nice that you’re here with us today. I am Jane Cordy, a senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator McPhedran: Welcome, minister and officials. I am an independent senator from Manitoba, Marilou McPhedran.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Hello and welcome, minister and officials. I am René Cormier, senator from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Burey: Hello, minister. Welcome to everyone. I am Sharon Burey, a senator for Ontario.
Senator Osler: Welcome, minister and guests. I am Gigi Osler, senator for Manitoba.
Senator Cardozo: Welcome, all. I am Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator Seidman: Welcome. I am Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Hello, minister. I am Marie-Françoise Mégie, a senator from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, all.
Today we begin our consideration of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. Joining us today for our first panel, we welcome The Honourable Jenna Sudds, P.C., M.P., Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. Minister, welcome to our house, and thank you for taking the time. And we welcome officials from the department, including Andrew Brown, Associate Deputy Minister; Michelle Lattimore, Director General, Federal Secretariat on Early Learning and Child Care; Cheri Reddin, Director General, Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care; Jill Henry, Director, Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Secretariat; Kelly Nares, Director, Federal Secretariat on Early Learning and Child Care; and Christian Paradis, Director, Federal Secretariat on Early Learning and Child Care. Thank you all for joining us today.
I have been advised that there are votes scheduled in the other place that may coincide with your presence here in the chamber. Please give me a signal, and we will suspend briefly so that you can vote. That’s important as well.
Minister, we will ask you to kick off this session with five minutes for your opening statements, followed by questions from our members.
Hon. Jenna Sudds, P.C., M.P., Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. It is really a pleasure to be with you here today to speak to Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, and this is an exciting opportunity as my first time here as Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. I do want to take a minute, of course, to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded Anishinaabe Algonquin territory.
I did also want to acknowledge the deeply disturbing and horrifying crisis that we are seeing right now in the Middle East. I’ll be honest: It’s hard to do this in the midst of that strife. I did want to take a minute to acknowledge that and say that my thoughts and prayers are with all who are affected.
With that, I’m pleased, of course, to be accompanied by Andrew Brown, Associate Deputy Minister from Employment and Social Development Canada; Michelle Lattimore, Director General, Federal Secretariat on Early Learning and Child Care; and Cheri Reddin, Director General, Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care.
[Translation]
All children deserve the best possible start in life, and all Canadians should have the opportunity to build both a career and a family.
[English]
That is why, as part of Budget 2021, the Government of Canada made a truly transformative investment of up to $30 billion over five years to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system with provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners.
Since that announcement, a lot has happened. We’ve signed agreements with each province and territory, including an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec to help reduce fees everywhere and to support the creation of high-quality child-care spaces and also to help ensure that the early childhood workforce is better supported.
The Canada-wide system is already benefiting tens of thousands of families. Fees have been dramatically reduced with nearly half the provinces and territories having already reached $10-a-day child care fees. Our plan to create 250,000 new child‑‑care spaces across the country will get affordable child care to where it is needed most. To date, we have announced over 50,000 new spaces.
Progress is being made on our commitment, and we want to ensure that families can continue to count on the achievements that we’ve made so far. We have put Bill C-35 forward to help ensure that future generations of families across Canada will continue to benefit from this system. I welcome the opportunity to speak with all of you today and help you in your study of this important piece of legislation.
[Translation]
Bill C-35 incorporates feedback that we received from our partners and stakeholders. This proposed legislation respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction, and the vision and principles of both the 2017 Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework developed with provinces and territories, as well as the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework that was co-developed with Indigenous partners.
With Bill C-35, provincial, territorial, and Indigenous partners would benefit from the assurance of a sustained federal commitment to early learning and child care, including a commitment to long-term funding. By enshrining our shared principles and vision into federal law, we would be building stability and predictability into the child care system.
We are talking about shared principles such as cultural inclusivity and access for all communities.
[English]
Senators asked an important question about how the legislation would support a more inclusive child-care system, and if all signed agreements would include specific language clauses to protect the rights of official language minority communities. No matter their socio-economic standing or racial identity, no matter whether a child has a disability or needs enhanced or individualized support, and no matter where they live in Canada, families will benefit.
The Government of Canada understands child care has a profound influence on a child’s individual development, including their language skills and identity. I saw this for myself last week when I visited London and La Pommeraie Child Care Centre.
[Translation]
That’s why Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreements feature clauses to support the inclusion of underserved communities such as official language minority communities. The bill was also amended at HUMA — the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities — to add similar language.
[English]
In conclusion, by enshrining our shared principles and our vision into federal law, we will be building stability and predictability into the child-care system. We will help future generations of families across this country continue to benefit from this system for generations to come.
Thank you very much, chair. I’m pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. You mentioned that this bill was amended in the House. My question to you is, are you open to any improvements that may be made in this House, either in the committee or in the chamber?
Ms. Sudds: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Of course, we’re always open to amendments. The goal here is to ensure we put forward the best possible legislation to benefit families and children across this country. That’s my goal and I’m sure it’s a goal for all of you, so, of course.
The Chair: Thank you for that openness.
Senators have four minutes each for questions and answers, starting with Deputy Chair Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: Thank you, minister, for being here. I’m always delighted. I used to be an elementary schoolteacher in Nova Scotia, so I love bills like this because I understand the true value and importance of early learning and child care. When both parents choose to stay in the workforce, affordable early learning and child care is essential or they are not able to be in the workforce.
Affordability is not the only barrier to child care in Canada. Availability of space is a major obstacle. I’m from Nova Scotia where it’s been a struggle to create the necessary child-care spaces that are needed, particularly in rural regions of Nova Scotia.
Bill C-35 doesn’t seem to address this issue. If it does, I missed it when I read it and made all my notes last evening. What steps has the department taken to help ensure the required number of child-care spaces are in fact available in each region of the country? Is there a way through this legislation to help achieve the creation of more child-care spaces when needed? I’m not going to say, “if;” I’m going to say, “when.”
Ms. Sudds: Yes. Agreed. “When” is the right term. As this system has developed and as we’ve seen the cost of early learning and child care decrease across the country, of course, the demand has increased. Part of ensuring the success of this nationwide system is growing the access. One of our guiding principles around this bill and creating this system is equitable access.
So, of course, we recognize the importance of ensuring that families across the country, no matter their socio-economic status or background, have equal access. We’ve made a commitment to ensuring 250,000 new spaces are created across the country, and we’re doing that by leveraging the tools at our disposal, which are our agreements with our partners as we build with provinces, territories and our national Indigenous organizations.
Through those agreements, every one of our partners has engaged with us to make a plan as to what each province, territory and national Indigenous organizations needs to ensure the communities can then strive to create those spaces.
It’s important to mention as well that I’ve had a lot of discussions about rural and remote issues, as well as official language requirements. The negotiations and agreements that we’ve struck recognize that we expect equitable access as a principle, and the provinces and territories have agreed to act on that principle.
We’re starting to see some of those new spaces come to fruition. We expect that to continue as the provinces and territories deliver on their those commitments throughout the next number of years of the agreements.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much, minister.
Ms. Sudds: I apologize. I do have a quick vote.
The Chair: We will pause momentarily to allow that.
Ms. Sudds: Thank you. I’m now ready to continue.
The Chair: We will continue with questions.
Senator Seidman: Excellent. I will ask my question now.
As you know, valid, timely and comparable information is crucial to ensuring we can review and update Canada’s early learning and child-care programs as they develop. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, also known as OECD, identified indicators to help governments build more effective and equitable systems. They noted that local governments often play a key role in financing and sometimes provide child-care services. The spending is recorded in the Nordic countries, but in some other, often federal, countries, it is not properly captured in the data and it’s much more difficult to get a good view of public support for child care across such countries. In fact, in Canada, there is no data presented, and if we examined the OECD’s international comparisons, Canadian data is largely absent.
Have you been collaborating with Statistics Canada on the development of a set of Canadian indicators? Will the federal government require that the provinces and territories collect and share data that is internationally comparable?
Ms. Sudds: That is a great question. I’m an economist by study, so I love numbers.
First, on the Statistics Canada piece, Statistics Canada has recently launched a new survey on early learning and child care that I believe will provide significant insights into a few different areas, including the challenges that are being faced by families in accessing care. The data that we will begin to see — this is a fairly new endeavour — will be able to help us pinpoint where those access challenges are.
That’s on the Statistics Canada side as to what we are doing on that piece.
As for ourselves, there is a reporting requirement through our agreements with the provinces, territories and our national Indigenous organizations at the table. I will add myself, as well; as the minister, I have an annual reporting requirement to Parliament to ensure transparency with Canadians as to how we are delivering and assisting families through this bill.
The data collection piece is really meant to monitor our progress in creating and maintaining spaces as we build out this system. Of course, early learning and child care are provincial-territorial jurisdiction, so I take your point that it is sometimes challenging to get those data points. What I’m inspired by and what I’m looking forward to as we move forward with our action plans with our partners are those reporting pieces from them through the action plans and then my ability to present it to Canadians, as well. I think that transparency is incredibly important.
I won’t belittle the fact that it is a charge, but it is a challenge we have acknowledged and one we have put forward to our partners as this system has developed. I look forward to being able to move forward with that.
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
Senator Osler: Congratulations, minister, on your new role.
The province I represent, Manitoba, is home to a significant number of First Nations communities, each with its distinct needs and cultural consideration. How does Bill C-35 specifically address and accommodate the child-care and early-learning needs of First Nations communities and ensure access to culturally appropriate care?
Ms. Sudds: Thank you for the question. It’s an important one, and it’s a lot of the work that Cheri Reddin has been leading on our behalf.
I’ll start off by saying that, from the outset, it’s been incredibly important, as we move forward with developing this nationwide system, that we had constant dialogue with the national Indigenous organizations. It really needs to be led by them. “Nothing for us without us” is certainly relevant in this situation and has been a part of the thinking as we’ve worked with them to develop this system.
Regarding the piece around culturally appropriate child care, we ensure that by working with our Indigenous partners. It is not for us to preclude what that looks like; it is for them to lead, and to show us what this needs to look like and to co-develop those spaces. Whether that is a culturally relevant curriculum or education, culture — there are so many aspects to this. Again, it’s really about us following and them leading in this process.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
I will dig deeper on that question. You’ve already signed agreements with all the provinces. Have you signed agreements with Indigenous peoples?
Ms. Sudds: Yes. If I may, I will turn to Ms. Reddin to take that question.
Cheri Reddin, Director General, Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you for the question, Madam Chair.
We’re not negotiating with Indigenous governments as we are with provinces and territories. It is very much a co-development and partnered process. We work very closely with the national Indigenous organizations who act as coordinators and enablers, bringing together regional representatives who have been mandated by their leadership to participate and serve as conveners in this process.
Indigenous leaders at the forefront of decision making make decisions on funding allocations, work plans and priorities, nationally and regionally. As a federal government, we’re really takers from that process. Our job is really to line up the federal system to be able to implement direction from Indigenous leadership and to be able to accommodate their aspirations, be that around culturally appropriate curriculum, linguistic revitalization activities, expanded access, expanded hours of care, and new and different program and service offerings.
We do not have negotiated agreements per se, but we have entrenched processes that lead to work plans, which provide for that direction in an Indigenous early learning and child care space.
The Chair: Thank you for that. We may come back to that question. The sponsor of the bill has a question now.
Senator Moodie: Thank you, minister, for being here. It’s been a pleasure working with you as the sponsor of this bill. I’m sure the committee is going to benefit from your testimony today.
I will throw a hard ball. Sorry. I think many of us, and many Canadians, would be concerned about the use of this fund for the creation of private child-care spaces instead of public spaces. What assurance can you give us that the government is committed to a public system even if it must, at times, butt heads with the provinces to build it?
Ms. Sudds: That’s not a hardball question; it’s a great question. It’s also an important one because, ultimately, it is our job as the government to ensure that public funds are spent wisely and with the greatest impact. As we build out this system with our partners, that is front and centre.
I’ll use an example. Private-sector spaces exist across this country for a number of very valid reasons. For example, here in Ontario right now, 30% of spaces are private spaces and 70% are public. As we move forward and as the agreements have been signed, of course, we recognize that there is still a role for those private spaces. We have asked through our agreements that those spaces grow at the same proportion as public spaces. We will never see a case in Ontario where it exceeds 30% private. For the public spaces, of course, research has shown that it provides all of the things that we are asking for. It abides by our principles as we build out this system. The quality of our national system is, of course, one of our biggest priorities, and we do believe, as we build out this system, that public is where we will see the highest quality and the best value for Canadian families.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I’ll ask my question in French.
Ms. Sudds: Okay.
Senator Mégie: Bill C-35 provides for the creation of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, which will consist of 10 to 18 members, at the Governor-in-Council’s discretion.
According to the October 14 edition of the Canada Gazette, this same Governor-in-Council will have to fill over 50 positions in various councils, including the National Seniors Council and the National Advisory Council on Poverty.
Have you put any mechanisms in place to speed up the appointment process at this advisory council so that it can begin performing its functions?
Ms. Sudds: Thank you for you question. I’ll answer it in English.
[English]
So, yes, if I’ve understood the question correctly, this is around the creation of the National Advisory Council for Early Learning and Child Care and the process by which we are doing so.
As you have noted, this council is intended to be an expert panel that provides advice and input to myself. It’s not a decision-making body but an incredible council of smart individuals with a vast amount of experience in the sector and in the field.
Applicants were selected through an open process. Once the legislation, of course, hopefully passes, the process will be converted to appointments by Governor-in-Council, but in the medium term, we did go ahead with a ministerial-appointed council to get the work done that we have been doing over the last number of years.
Does that answer your question?
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Yes. What worries me is whether the other national councils that will come later will be able to begin their work in a timely manner.
[English]
Ms. Sudds: Just for clarity, the other councils that you’re referring to, was the National Advisory Council on Poverty?
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Yes. Considering the fact that this national council hasn’t been established yet, I’m wondering if that might not delay the establishment of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care.
[English]
Ms. Sudds: I appreciate the clarification. I apologize. I missed that in the question.
No, absolutely not. The process, as it is set out, we already have, of course, the national council in place, ministerially appointed. As soon as we have the legislation passed, we will be able to move forward with the council as it stands, although, of course, as terms are lapsing, there will be a process for replacements and selection of those individuals. The process will continue, and once we pass legislation, we will be able to make this a Governor-in-Council appointment.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Welcome, minister, and congratulations on your nomination to this position at a rather important time on this file and many other social issues.
I wonder if I could take us up a few thousand feet and talk about this policy in a broader sense.
There are a couple of agendas at play here. One is an economic agenda. For the longest time, since the time that we started talking about a national child-care program some 50 years ago with the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada, it has always been a social policy agenda that primarily has been put forward by women and women’s groups. It has taken a long time for it to become a national policy. During COVID, perhaps business finally realized it was an economic agenda, and then you had a really resounding economic endorsement for this policy.
The other agenda I see is an affordability agenda. I look at your government’s record in terms of the Canada child benefit, the grocery rebates and pension extensions.
Could you talk a little bit about your overall approach as to why Canada needs a child-care policy? I look at various policies that we deal with, whether it’s the environment or Indigenous people’s advancement or many other policies, and we forget to talk about why we started. We move on and we have new terminology, and we forget about people who weren’t part of the discussion at the start. I wonder if you could take us back and explain why the federal government needs to do this.
Ms. Sudds: Thank you for that question. There is a lot that I could say here, but I will try to be succinct.
First of all, you’re right. This is, in my opinion, very smart economic policy, says the mother of three, but this is really about enabling families, be that men or women — although I will say predominantly mothers — to get back into the workforce after they have had children. The data is very clear on the impact of that. We can look back to when Quebec did this and look at the data points. I apologize; I can’t recall the year comparison off the top of my head. There was at one point a 4% gap in women’s labour force participation in Quebec over the rest of Canada because Quebec had moved forward and had been such a leader in introducing an affordable child-care program in that province.
We saw then and we are starting to see now in the data — it’s really phenomenal to think about the opportunities that this is affording parents, although predominantly women, to get back into the workforce and the economic independence that brings, and benefit to families, but also to our economy in general and our country. That can’t be understated.
The second part that you had mentioned around an affordability agenda, for too many decades — I was going to say for years, but I’m going to say decades — there were too many parents, predominantly women, who could not afford to go back to work after they had children. That had a grave economic impact on our country. The impact that we have by enabling people to go back to work because we have been able to create this national system in which, ultimately, everyone in this country will be able to access childcare on average for $10 a day is transformational.
I’ve only been in this role for a few months, but I can tell you that I have had countless conversations with parents for whom this has been really make or break. It has transformed their lives at a time when affordability is really changing. We all know that inflation is high and the cost of living right now is hard. But when a family here in Ontario can save, on average, $800 a month because of this program, we are absolutely addressing affordability, and that will only pay dividends for years to come for families.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Minister, everyone acknowledges that the first years of life are crucial for the development of a child’s identity and language learning. In that sense, you probably have one of the most important departments in your hands.
I’d like to ask you some questions about official language minority communities.
I’ve some rather specific questions about the language used in the bill, because I’m attempting to properly understand its contents.
Subclause 7(3) of the bill provides that federal investments must be guided by the commitments set out in the Official Languages Act. As we know, the Official Languages Act includes a certain number of federal government commitments above and beyond those provided for under subsections 41(1), 41(2) and 41(3), commitments that are advocated for by official language minority communities to ensure their growth and development.
Does subclause 7(3) of the bill cover all of the commitments outlined in the Official Languages Act or only some of them? Would you be able to provide clarity on that?
[English]
Ms. Sudds: Thank you for the question.
This is a really important issue, one that was dived into by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, also known as HUMA, which resulted in some constructive commitments to strengthen this bill.
We know that the federal goal as we build out this Canada‑wide system is for families to have access, no matter their linguistic profile, official language profile or socio-economic status. Equitable access is a key principle of this legislation and building this national network.
As we move forward with this legislation, it entrenches this into law. That is such an important part of what we are working to do to ensure that these commitments are longstanding for decades to come.
Of course, the early years are profoundly impactful on a young person’s life when it comes to so many aspects of their development, including their language skills and identity. The agreements that we have signed with the provinces and territories, excluding Quebec, because it has some other clauses to support and respect the rights of official language minority communities — but based on the specific priorities and the context of each jurisdiction, these agreements have been negotiated.
I would say there is a tremendous amount of work that has gone into ensuring that the federal government and provinces and territories are ensuring we are setting Canadian families up for success, no matter where they are. It’s my belief that, not only through some amendments made at HUMA but also through some other legislative work that is under way regarding official language minorities, we will see that access. It is something that we continue to discuss as we look at the action plans as they’re being negotiated with the provinces and territories. It is a priority and a principle that is part of this legislation.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you. I’ve a question about clause 8, which deals with funding. Clause 8 provides for a commitment to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples.
How are we to understand the word “notamment”? Do you find there to be a lack of consistency or parallelism between clause 7 and clause 8? The first refers to official language communities but the second does not. I’d like to know if the word “notamment” is used to show an example or to single out Indigenous communities exclusively. This is in clause 8
Ms. Sudds: In the English version, the term “primarily” is used, not “particularly.”
Senator Cormier: Do you not have the right translation?
Ms. Sudds: No, it’s okay.
[English]
Senator Cormier: I don’t know if it is a problem with wording, but it’s an important question, because it can have a different meaning in the two languages.
Michelle Lattimore, Director General, Federal Secretariat on Early Learning and Child Care, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you for the question. It’s a good one.
What’s being pointed out is that, in the French version of the bill, the language is “notamment ceux destinés aux peuples autochtones.” The English version of the bill is “including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples.”
This was something that was discussed in the drafting room, and that translation was confirmed. It does seem to have a bit of a different nuance, but that was the translation that the drafters were most comfortable with.
The intent in English is to include Indigenous early learning and child care and not to single out, in that sense, of “particularly.”
Does that help?
Senator Cormier: It helps if you have any written confirmation of that. It’s important to understand the bill.
Ms. Lattimore: Certainly. Yes.
The Chair: Thank you. Whatever little time we had hoped to gain, we have now lost.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much for being here. I’ll try to be brief.
I really applaud this bill. I am a pediatrician — the whole thing: mother, grandmother. I don’t have to say anymore. But certain organizations have criticized the current implementation of this Canada-wide funding system, because it’s not income‑tested. For example, some have suggested that higher‑income families may monopolize low-cost child-care spaces, and in some cases — I read this in the literature — the poor quality of child-care spaces for communities who are marginalized, poor and racialized may lead to poorer outcomes. I think the Quebec experience has shown that this has happened, and it’s something that we have to address.
Minister, how does Bill C-35 address not just the equity but the quality aspect, especially for those spaces?
Ms. Sudds: I’d like to first address your comment around income-tested, and then perhaps I will pass to Michelle Lattimore to finish that off on the second part.
As you’ve noted, one of the guiding principles enshrined in this legislation is enabling families of varying means, varying incomes, to benefit from affordability, from high-quality child care and inclusive spaces. That’s a pillar of what we are trying to create here. We’re working hard with our partners to do so.
The current commitment of this framework is for an average of $10 a day for this child care. The provinces and territories do have the flexibility to establish varying rates for families within their respective jurisdictions. That is at their discretion as they move forward in their jurisdiction; however, we are ensuring that we retain the principle of the average $10 per day.
Most provinces and territories subsidize early learning and child-care spaces to ensure that lower-income families do benefit from the system.
Perhaps I’ll refer to Ms. Lattimore on the second piece, which was around quality.
Ms. Lattimore: Thank you very much for the question. Quality is one of the principles underlined in the multilateral early learning and child care framework. It’s reflected in the principles of the legislation itself.
The legislation draws a really strong link between the quality of care that is provided and the importance of the Early Childhood Education, or ECE, workforce in Canada. Through the amendment process, we saw even stronger language in this bill pointing to the value of the ECE workforce. That’s reflected even just day-to-day in the priorities of the department and the work that we are doing with provinces and territories and Indigenous partners. We want to ensure we are respecting and looking to improve the recruitment and retention of a really high‑quality ECE workforce in this country. It is a challenge, but with the legislation, the government is underscoring its long-term commitment to supporting that workforce through its work with provinces and territories.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Senator Greenwood: Hello, minister. Thank you for coming. My name is Margo Greenwood. I’m from British Columbia. Today, I’m sitting in for a senator who could not be with us. That’s why I’m here.
I have many questions, but I will try to limit them. In case I missed it — and it might be in the bilaterals themselves — but I don’t see the words “early learning and child care” defined. I understand what that is. Where I come from, we and I think everyone in this room understand “the early years,” but I don’t see it. Forgive me if I’m asking for something that already exists. Perhaps it’s in the implementation through the bilaterals. That is something I’m flagging, so that we’re all on the same page.
I do want to talk a bit about quality and a couple of other things. I know there’s an Official Languages Act, but I also know there are many first languages, Indigenous languages, in this land. How do we hold them up to the same acknowledgment and recognition, particularly when we’re talking about children’s lives and children’s identity? Our language carries who we are. I have that question, and I know there are phrases in the bill itself that speak to that. Can they be strengthened? Maybe you are open to amendments around that.
That leads me to my question on quality. There’s a statement in here around having those relationships with provincial governments around standards and regulations. You also note here the Indigenous governing bodies. I’ve been out of the loop for a while, so I’m not sure any Indigenous body has standards and regulations on early learning and child care, but many people adhere to the provincial standards and regulations. How does that ensure quality? How will you keep a handle on that, because these are partnerships?
Ms. Sudds: Would it be acceptable, in the interests of time, if I ask Cheri Reddin to answer that question while I do my last vote?
The Chair: You may also send us your answer in writing.
Ms. Reddin: I’m happy to speak to this, at least in an Indigenous context. What’s been indicated to me for quality in an Indigenous context is provincial-territorial, or PT, standards plus. It’s meeting the PT standard, but in addition to that, many communities have a cultural threshold they like to meet in terms of having trained educators who can help to pass on their culture and support linguistic revitalization interests.
There’s no codified PT standards plus, but we do have proposal-based funding, quality-improvement projects, which are really intended to provide pathways for innovation in the sector. We have awarded funding for some proposals to try to get at that question, senator, and to have it codified and be able to assess a system and say, “Okay, this meets PT plus.”
Senator Greenwood: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Greenwood, you asked a number of questions. Would you like to get the answers to the rest of your questions in writing, or should I be persuaded to give you more time?
Senator Greenwood: No, no, everyone needs to have more time. I would be happy to have the reply in writing. That would be great. Thank you so much.
The Chair: Thank you. Minister, building a national child care construct in Canada requires lots of inputs. Money is one of them. Agreements is another one. But it is the workforce that will make this come alive. The standards on wages and salaries are widely divergent, ranging from $20,000 as a starting point in some jurisdictions in Ontario to, maybe, $40,000 in some jurisdictions in British Columbia. What levers do you have to ensure that we see not only quality child care but a quality workforce that is paid commensurately?
Ms. Sudds: Thank you very much for that question. Again, I believe that this bill, Bill C-35, highlights as a principle the need for the federal government to support a high-quality program of early learning and child care through the use of qualified, well‑supported ECE, or early childhood educator, workforce.
There was an amendment made at the HUMA committee that strengthened the language on the ECE workforce to recognize the intrinsic link, if you will, between good working conditions and the provision of high-quality care for our children in these programs.
It is undoubtedly critical, as we build this system, to have a workforce who are well supported and well compensated. I can share that at our federal-provincial-territorial ministerial table, or FPT Table, for the ministers most engaged in early learning and child care, this is a priority. We are working collaboratively on a workforce strategy. Undoubtedly, ECEs are a workforce that is within provincial and territorial jurisdiction. As a federal government, it is not a wage that we can regulate.
Having said that, we’re making some good progress through the work at the FPT table, as well as negotiating the action plans. Whether that be the wage grids or benefits and pensions, we’re starting to see some movement in some provinces on these elements and do believe, wholeheartedly, that they are critical. Without a well-supported and well-educated ECE workforce, we cannot build this system. The provinces and the territories, of course, know that as well. I am seeing the commitment to work collaboratively towards that.
The Chair: Thank you. I don’t believe Senator Greenwood’s question on definitions was addressed. Perhaps you could take that on, minister. In the “Definitions” section, you’ve defined certain stakeholders, but there is really no definition of what you mean by “early learning and child care.”
Senator Greenwood, am I right? That was your question?
Senator Greenwood: It was my question. It is an important one. I know how complex it is too. I’ve been down this pathway before. It could be in the implementation, but I’m not sure. I don’t know that part.
Ms. Sudds: Fair enough. It is a great question, and I’m going to pass it to Ms. Lattimore to respond. Thank you.
Ms. Lattimore: Thank you for the question. You’re correct. In the legislation itself, there is not a definition of “early learning and child care.” There are three definitions in the outset, but “early learning and child care” is not one of them.
One of the things we do have, though, in the preamble is some built-in flexibility in how to interpret the act itself and what might be considered as part of the scope of this kind of work. For example, what we see in the agreements right now and in the funding commitments that the Government of Canada has made is a commitment to the 0-to-5 age group. That’s really where you see the language, the action plans, the agreements, digging down on working with the provinces and the territories to achieve goals in that space around affordability and accessibility.
We all know and understand that children don’t somehow graduate out of needing care when they turn 6 years old. In fact, provincially and territorially, we don’t even necessarily have a standard idea of the age of a child in junior kindergarten or kindergarten. We don’t have uniform kindergarten programs across the country. To some extent, staying away from a very strict definition allows us the flexibility to work with the provinces and territories within the context of their Canada-wide agreements and to dig down to whom we are talking about with this particular funding and who will benefit most from it.
There is language in the legislation, in the preamble, that speaks to before- and after-school care. We’re talking about an older age group, school-aged children. While there hasn’t been funding at this point specifically dedicated to before- and after‑school care, there is flexibility for the provinces and territories to invest there and for the Government of Canada to continue to work with them over time to look at future work in this space.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Lattimore. Colleagues, our time with the minister and her officials has expired. We wish to thank you very much, minister and officials, for joining us today. Of course, we could keep you here for a long time, but that’s not fair to either you or our next panel.
Speaking of which, joining us today by video conference for our second panel, we welcome Gordon Cleveland, Emeritus Associate Professor of Economics, Department of Management at the University of Toronto Scarborough; Jessica Lue, Vice President, Government Relations and Advocacy with YMCA Canada; and Kerry McCuaig, Senior Fellow in Early Childhood Policy, Atkinson Centre for Society and Child Development, Ontario Institute for Studies Education, University of Toronto. Thank you very much for joining us today.
I will remind witnesses that you will each have five minutes allocated for opening statements to be followed by questions from committee members. We will begin with Professor Cleveland, who will be followed by Ms. Lue and then Ms. McCuaig. The floor is yours.
Gordon Cleveland, Emeritus Associate Professor of Economics, Department of Management, University of Toronto Scarborough, as an individual: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I’m an economist and an associate professor of economics, emeritus. I taught at University of Toronto for nearly 25 years. My research area was the economics of, and policy issues related to, early childhood education.
I’ve advised Conservative and Liberal governments, and provided advice to NDP members of different provincial legislatures. I currently sit on the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, which provides advice to Minister Sudds, with whom you have just spoken.
As far as I can see, this proposed legislation does four main things. First, it guarantees that the federal government will be a dependable and major funding partner to the provinces and territories in building a transformed early learning and child care system.
Second, it declares a vision for what this early learning and child care system will look like. It is affordable; accessible; high quality; and community-based, where community-based means that it will predominantly be not-for-profit and public rather than being dominated by corporate for-profit providers.
Third, it declares that the plans for the implementation of this system will be worked through in cooperation with the provinces and territories by means of agreements that are updated over time.
Fourth, it establishes a national advisory council of persons knowledgeable about the sector and its key policy issues who will provide advice to the minister, and will both provide information to community members and collate information from those community members to influence government decisions and directions.
All of those are good things. I believe the legislation should receive, in general, the approval of the Senate.
I will make comments on one issue that might be controversial, which is the role of for-profit child care in building this transformed early learning and child care system.
Very briefly, across Canada, we already have a majority of not-for-profit and public child care, but there is a substantial component of for-profit operators. We do not want the pursuit of profit to be the driving force behind the decisions that are made about how to care for children, so we are building a publicly managed system of child-care services in which 80% to 90% of the revenues will come from governments. Decisions about fees and wages paid, necessary staff qualifications, the locations of services, which children get access — especially where there are shortages — and the characteristics of child care will now be publicly managed decisions, not private ones.
So if the existing for-profit child-care operators are willing to accept the new rules of the game in a publicly managed system, in my opinion, they should be welcomed. But those who insist that child care is a major profit centre, who want to take only the children that are the easiest to look after, who want to charge extra fees wherever they can, who only want to be located in affluent areas, who want to become major corporate operators taking government funding to buy real estate — such would be for-profit operators that are not willing to accept the new rules of the game.
In my opinion, they should not be welcomed into our $10‑a‑day system. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Ms. Lue, please go ahead.
Jessica Lue, Vice President, Government Relations and Advocacy, YMCA Canada: Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on this important legislation.
The YMCA is one of Canada’s longest-standing charities and a significant provider of non-profit, high-quality early learning and child care. YMCA early learning and child-care programs nurture the development of over 61,000 children of all backgrounds and abilities, and support thousands of families annually. Across the country, the YMCA employs over 9,000 early childhood educators and supplementary staff.
With more than 50 years of experience building new centres and providing child care in Canada, we have deep knowledge of the importance of high-quality child care upon children’s development and well-being, positive family outcomes, the participation of women in the workforce, poverty reduction and the strength of our Canadian economy.
The Canada-wide early learning and child care system, once fully realized, will have a transformational impact on children, families and communities. That’s why YMCAs across Canada proudly support the visionary Canada-wide plan and the passage of Bill C-35.
My statement today will touch upon four key points. The first is the need to fairly compensate and support the child-care workforce. A well supported and compensated professional early-childhood educator workforce is the linchpin to achieving a high-quality system. With ambitious targets set across Canada, tens of thousands of new educators are urgently needed. Our own numbers indicate that, in Ontario, the YMCA alone has approximately 400 vacancies today for registered ECE positions and would need almost 3,500 ECEs to expand our current capacity by 20%. Without a well supported and compensated early childhood educator workforce, Canada will not meet today’s demands nor fulfill expansion goals within the provincial agreements.
We welcome changes made to Bill C-35 to strengthen the language and recognize the federal government’s role in supporting the essential ECE workforce. We recommend that this language go further to include commitments to developing and implementing a multilateral workforce strategy centred on the pillars of recruitment, retention and recognition.
Additionally, we welcome the reference of working conditions that affect the provision of programs and services, and we would recommend expanding this to explicitly reference compensation and professional education, which together affect the provision of those programs and services, and emphasize the importance of these two factors in supporting the workforce.
My second point is the need for consistent and predictable funding. The YMCA applauds federal commitments within the bill to sustained and ongoing funding. We would further recommend within Bill C-35 that funding be explicitly described as annualized and be tied to the licensed, regulated system of non-profit child care that reflects the true costs of delivering high-quality care.
Across Canada, the YMCA is experiencing challenges with funding shortfalls because of frozen fees, the impacts of inflation, higher administrative costs for larger child care operators with several centres and inconsistent funding approaches across the country. Mechanisms to ensure child care funding is predictable, sustainable and sufficient to reflect the true cost of high-quality child care would enable non-profit providers to remain financially stable today and grow their programs in future.
The third point is the need to ensure equity and inclusion. The YMCA supports the declarations and guiding principles within Bill C-35 that speak to equity, inclusion and accessibility. It is imperative that expansion be facilitated in an equitable manner to ensure that all families who need child care have access to it, regardless of where they live or their socio-economic standing. It also means that all children can receive appropriate care, regardless of their background, needs or abilities. We urge that equity and inclusion perspectives be at the centre of all decision making with regard to early learning and child care growth and delivery.
Fourth is the need for accountability and public reporting. The YMCA welcomes commitments within the proposed act to enhance accountability and supports the changes made to include more specificity on the timeline for the annual report and the key information it will include.
We would further recommend the establishment of key performance indicators to measure the current system against desired outcomes and that the act commit to supporting Canadian-based early learning and child care research.
Before closing, I would also like to acknowledge that learning and development do not stop at age 6 and families need support managing the high costs of before- and after-school care for children up to age 12. We are supportive of the flexibility in the legislation, and we encourage the federal government to take a leadership role in supporting children ages 6 to 12 by increasing the affordability and accessibility of high quality before- and after-school programs.
In closing, the YMCA is fully supportive of Bill C-35 and continues to be a supportive partner in realizing a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. Thank you so much.
Kerry McCuaig, Senior Fellow in Early Childhood Policy, Atkinson Centre for Society and Child Development, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, as an individual:
Thank you for the opportunity to present. I would like to focus my remarks on paragraph 7(1)(a) of the proposed legislation and urge the committee to consider strengthening the language around the public and non-profit provision of child care.
As it appears, the legislation would not provide stakeholders with legal recourse to challenge the growth and dominance of commercial child care. Many concessions have already made by provinces under the child agreements, allowing the expansion of for-profit delivery using federal funds. You have probably been told that there should not be differential treatment between operators since provinces monitor profit margins and child-care facilities all operate under the same rules, but the child-care agreements have shifted that terrain. Governments will fund 80% of operating costs, or more, and, in some cases, the majority portion of their capital acquisitions. Facilities will be publicly financed but remain privately owned, and if provinces did manage their service systems that would be one thing, but what we currently see is that it is operators who decide whom to serve, where to locate and whether to downsize or close, and then walk away with the real estate. In fact, decisions of major community concern are being made without community consideration.
Since as many child care centres close as open most years, this is not a hypothetical concern. Flip my centre is a real profit‑boosting strategy, as are corporate takeovers. While much is made of supporting women entrepreneurs, national and international evidence shows that as public funding increases, so does the procurement of smaller daycare operations by corporate chains.
A hedge fund owned by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan is now the largest corporate child-care provider in Canada. It’s publicly traded in ten countries, and the field is so lucrative that we now have Canadian brokerage firms that deal exclusively in buying and selling child-care centres.
What we find is that investors in early learning are more buyers than builders. Financiers shy away from developing new centres particularly in areas where the need is greatest, and large corporations gobble up the small operators and child-care chains with no discernible increase in services. An analysis in the U.K. tracked the growth in corporate child care along with increases in public funding. The U.K. had a market that looked very much like Canada’s ten years ago and is now dominated by corporate chains. So it should be citizens and not investors that shape services they rely on. Leaving the care of small children to the marketplace is an abdication of the state’s responsibilities. From long-term care, group homes, children in care to private schools, regulating the market to act with care inevitably fails, and the energy governments dispense developing, monitoring and enforcing regulations are never enough.
We also see the biggest companies accrue the biggest fines for dangerous conditions, so there are concerns about quality control. As corporate influence grows, so does its sway over government.
What we see is that provinces are required under the agreements to track for-profit provision, but not the reach of corporate care. The longer we ignore these developments, the more entrenched corporate care will become. Once in place, these structures are hard to pry apart.
I urge you to legislate real controls to limit profiteering off of young children. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. McCuaig. We will now open the floor to questions. Perhaps, Ms. McCuaig, I will jump in with the first one.
We queried the minister, in the preceding hour, about the role of for-profit centres in a publicly funded system, and she assured us that the ratio of 70 non-profit sector to 30 for-profit sector would remain; that if the federal government is funding for‑profit centres, it would never go over 30% of the whole share in a province.
What is your response to that?
Ms. McCuaig: That is the agreement that they have with Ontario. It’s not the agreement they have with other provinces, which are, in fact, supporting the growth of for-profit child care, Alberta and New Brunswick being two examples of that. New Brunswick in particular is one jurisdiction that funds the capital acquisition by the for-profit sector at the same rate as the non‑profit sector.
Part of our work is that we track changes in services across Canada every three years. Our last report was in March 2020. Our new report is looking at 2023. In every province that allows public funding of the for-profit sector, we have seen an increase in for-profit care and not with a commensurate increase in the non-profit sector.
With due respect, we want this legislation to outlast the current government and its good intentions. What we are seeing is financiers putting their centres in place, looking for a change in the rules along with the change in government.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Thank you all very much. You are all, certainly, experts in this field, and it’s interesting to see you all coming from different perspectives.
My first question is for you, Mr. Cleveland. I’m looking at the provincial-territorial agreements and the funding. I’ve been in the Senate for a while, and I’ve seen a number of provincial-territorial agreements, and the provinces and the territories get offended when the federal government tells them how to spend the money.
That is my concern. Are we going to get — the agreements are in place, and it looks like a really good model, but that’s my concern. I remember a number of years ago when funding was given for medical equipment in the hospitals and one hospital actually purchased a ride-on lawn mower. One could argue that was equipment for the hospital, but I don’t think anyone in their wildest dreams thought the money would be used for a lawn mower.
My concern is — “control” may not be the right word, but how much say will the federal government have in terms of how the funding is spent?
Mr. Cleveland: It’s a good question. Canada is a funny place in regard to federal-provincial jurisdiction. Yes, the provinces have agreed through these agreements, but the agreements are temporary. They’re two years and then they’ll roll over for another three. What will happen after that? Let’s take that 30-70 split in Ontario. That’s in the agreements that are signed right now. Could that change under a future agreement? The answer is yes, it could. That is the difficulty.
Fundamentally, the protection we have is through the collective understanding of Canadians that this kind of system is the right one, and that a privately, monopolized, for-profit system dominated will deliver poorer quality and less control over what happens with children.
The difficulty is that I can name you many countries. Kerry McCuaig talked about the U.K., but you could talk about Australia or New Zealand. You could even talk about Norway. In them, you could look at the ways in which the for-profit sector has, over a very few number of years, come to dominate important aspects of the way child care is delivered in those countries.
So it is very important to try to have a collective understanding that such is not what we want. We want a public and non-profit child-care system, because that is what is good for children and that is what we can trust in the long run. But it is the collective will that is really the only guarantee in the end.
Senator Cordy: Collective will and collective pressure, one would say.
Do I have time for another question, chair?
The Chair: Not really, sorry.
Senator Cordy: Okay.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much for your presentations.
My question is for you, Professor McCuaig. The Atkinson Centre’s 2020 report notes:
Data collection, monitoring, and reporting is an integral part of democratic accountability. It is essential for informed decision-making and ensures that societal resources are implemented productively and efficiently, with often scarce resources distributed equitably and social goals reached.
Listening to all of your presentations, I am very worried about the opportunities for data collection.
I would appreciate it if you could share with the committee the importance of gathering data that is comparable within Canada and internationally, and lay out the challenges we face in getting coherent, standardized and comparable data, especially since, when I asked her, the minister replied that the only detail we are collecting is the number of spaces.
Ms. McCuaig: Yes. Many agreements still have in place quite detailed ways about the ways in which data was to be collected. For our work in particular, we were rather excited that we were finally going to get some consistent data across the country.
We were also promised that we were going to have annual reports by October 1 of each year. Very few provinces have made that a priority in what they’re doing. In some cases, COVID made that understandable, but it’s still a challenge now.
Maybe this would be a better question for Mr. Cleveland to answer, since he’s sitting on the advisory committee, which has as one of its priorities what accountability and data collection should look like. Thank you for reading the report, but I think that obviously stands: We don’t know what we have, not only what we have in a very high-level way but what we have down on the ground.
Jessica Lue was talking about the workforce. We are in the process right now of working with Ontario municipalities around the workforce. We’re finding areas with 400 spaces that do not have a single qualified early childhood educator working in them. We have other areas where the centres are being given — the right word isn’t “passed” — but they’re given directors’ approval to hire staff without the necessary qualification. It’s running at 50%.
That’s just adding to what you’re hearing from Jessica Lue. We’re getting new spaces, but we also know that those spaces are emptying because there aren’t staff to fill them. Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Professor Cleveland, would you like to reply? This also feeds into the public-private issue, and you made a note of that in your presentation to the House of Commons.
Mr. Cleveland: Yes. I happen to be the chair of the Data Indicators and Research Working Group on the national advisory council. We are taking very seriously the need to improve data collection.
As Kerry McCuaig has indicated, the trouble is that the provinces and territories, in many cases — either haven’t been able to or it’s not high enough of a priority. They are not reporting in the way the agreements foresaw. They’re not providing information in as timely a way as we thought they would, and even when they do, there will be major problems of lack of comparability.
Our working group has tried to work with Statistics Canada on figuring out the back-up plan to the provision of provincial and territorial data. It is important for the federal government to say, “Okay, we will not assume that everything will work out fine with the provinces and territories,” so our first job has been to work on data on the workforce. The minister directed us to do that as a priority, so we have a few projects that Statistics Canada is working on for us, reporting on —
The Chair: Mr. Cleveland, I apologize, but we must move on.
Senator Osler: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
My question is for Ms. McCuaig, and it’s in regard to your submitted brief entitled Emerging trends in the development of the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Plan. It addresses the increase in for-profit child care.
My question for you is on the last sentence of the brief. It hopes that the federal government will take into account this trend and put “sustainable non-profit safeguards in place.”
Ms. McCuaig, can you elaborate on what you see as “sustainable non-profit safeguards,” and do you have any specific amendments to this bill that you would recommend?
Ms. McCuaig: There is a nice line in the Canada Health Act about the protection of the non-profit management of health care. It would be very nice to see something like that within this legislation. Stakeholders use the Canada Health Act in order to argue with their provinces about what they’re doing. I wouldn’t see us being able to use the child-care legislation as it is to challenge a province about what they are doing.
Then the other thing is that we need to know what is on the ground. It is not only counting spaces, because spaces are meaningless. Schools count kids; we count spaces. It has to be in terms of the status of the child-care workforce.
We get very strange information back from the provinces about whom they consider to be qualified staff, but when you get deep, you find that this isn’t, in fact, the case.
In short, senator, I think it’s a combination of actually having language similar to the Canada Health Act, which would protect a public good here that we’re trying to build, and having the most robust data collection that we can, including — and I’d urge you to do this — not just counting for-profit child care but counting the reach of the corporate sector. That is going to be the most dangerous outcome of having public funding that is not sufficiently protected.
Senator Osler: I will extend the question to Professor Cleveland first and then Ms. Lue. I’d like your thoughts, if there is time for both of you. Professor Cleveland, first.
Mr. Cleveland: This is on changes to the legislation in order to deal with the not-for-profit question?
Senator Osler: Any recommendations. Ms. McCuaig was talking about language.
Mr. Cleveland: Yes. I don’t have particular language to add to the bill, but I do agree with what Ms. McCuaig has said.
Senator Osler: Thank you. Ms. Lue?
Ms. Lue: Thank you for the opportunity. I too, do not have specific language, but as non-profit child-care providers, we, of course, understand the value of ensuring public dollars are being well stewarded in the non-profit sector. We know, based on international research, the reputation of the non-profit sector in providing high-quality child care. Based on our own experience, we know demand for high-quality non-profit child care is high. We see it in our own organization with very long waiting lists of families looking to access space. We would echo that need to explicitly recognize non-profit public child-care spaces in the legislation.
Senator Moodie: I will continue with the questions my colleague has started on. I had that exact question here to ask, but I want to go further.
There is a tension here. We are sitting squarely in provincial jurisdiction. The federal government brings money to the table and sets the policy. This legislation will determine the conditions under which the money is provided.
You talk about putting in a line that matches or parallels what is in health care. That’s my area, and we grapple with what happens. What is the accountability factor that moves into place when there is an infraction of the Canada Health Act?
Are you comfortable with the federal government pulling funding from the provinces if they don’t meet requirements? Is there another mechanism that you would like to see put in place? This is for Professor McCuaig. I was also referring back to the Atkinson document that you provided to us.
Ms. McCuaig: Personally, I am quite comfortable with the federal government withholding funding from the provinces when they don’t meet their contractual obligations. In fact, you have quite strong language in some of the agreements, Ontario’s, in particular. You say that you will withhold money if Ontario doesn’t put in the level of controls over what can go to the for-profit sector.
The first draft from the province was very good. It would have actually done something, but because of the corporate lobby, it was changed. Within weeks, it was changed.
We can talk about the political will, but there is a very strong will there in the for-profit sector.
The other thing that you may want to consider is this. The federal government has many federal-city agreements. There are other avenues through which you could work with the coalition of the willing who actually want to address the challenges and seek the solutions to have a world-class child-care system.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My question is for Mr. Cleveland.
Professor Cleveland, I’m assuming the program is modelled on the Quebec program. You must have data from that program. Have you made any forecasts based on that program? Do you have any numbers or statistical analyses that show what effect Bill C-35 will have on inflation for Canadian families?
[English]
Mr. Cleveland: Thank you for the question. It will improve affordability; it certainly did in Quebec. The $5-per-day program, initially has been unbelievably popular in Quebec, precisely because it did enormously improve the affordability of child care.
I don’t have any particular numbers on how it would influence inflation, but the Quebec model is an extraordinarily interesting one from which the federal government must learn because many of the same shortages have been dealt with by difficult expansion and then policy innovations — not all of which were good — which reflect the same problems that the federal system will now be facing.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Do you know if the people in charge of implementing it used data from Quebec to make any forecasts involving this new program?
[English]
Mr. Cleveland: I haven’t been at the heart of the planning with the federal government; I advise the minister. But to take the essence of your question, I would say, yes, the best predictor you could make of the demand for $10-per-day child care in Canada is the current level of demand in Quebec because it’s very similar.
That would mean, if you take the 0-to-5 age range, you can expect 70%, typically — or upwards, beyond 70% — of children wanting to use licensed child-care facilities in Canada at $10 a day. If you do the math, we will need to go considerably beyond the additional 250,000 spaces currently envisioned. This is a marathon that we’re involved in, not a sprint.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: This is a very interesting panel. Thank you, Ms. Lue, for your presentation. I should tell you I have wonderful memories of the YWCA-YMCA programs here in Ottawa. My kids used them usually after school, in the after‑4 period. I can attest to the quality of care, the nurturing, the care and the early childhood education that was provided even for the after-4 program. The standards were always very high. It is still a favourite among our family when we go by the Y.
My question is for Professor McCuaig. It’s good to see you again. Over the past 10 years, when I was at the Pearson Centre, I worked with you occasionally on this issue. I’m glad to see we’ve come a long way since then.
I also want to recognize the work of the Honourable Margaret McCain over her many years in this field, supporting this movement and supporting some of your work through the McCain Family Foundation. She has done some wonderful work and has been a champion on this issue for so long.
Professor McCuaig, could you consider some wording for subclause 7(1)? Should we slip a few words into paragraphs 7(1)(a), (b), (c) or (d), or should we add a paragraph (e) at the end of that? Wording in other legislation does talk about “predominance.” You could use the phrase, “predominantly non‑profit.” Or do you feel the 70-30 split should be entrenched? I’d like your thoughts on that. If you or Ms. Lue have other wording that you can send to us in the next while, that would be very helpful.
Ms. McCuaig: I’m not sure if I would entrench anything under the principles section. When you look at the legislation, there are three areas that are, in fact, enforceable, and one is that there will be an advisory committee. The other is that the federal government will maintain a level of funding. There’s one other, but sorry, I’ve forgotten it.
I would like something in a section that was actually enforceable saying that expansion will be limited to the public and not-for-profit sector. We are dealing with a difference here. I think that it is a given that given the circumstances of the delivery of child care across Canada, we cannot exclude those operators who are currently providing child care through the for-profit mode from joining the $10-a-day schedule. Otherwise, we will have an uprising from parents.
The intention was, as we went forward, that expansion would take place in the public and not-for-profit sector, and that is not what is happening. We keep going to the 70-30 split in Ontario. This split has grown. It didn’t use to be 70-30; it was 75-25 three years ago. In that short amount of time, we’re seeing that amount of expansion taking place in the for-profit sector.
I have some constitutional lawyer friends where we’ve been fiddling around with language that I could share with you, and I’d certainly be happy to follow up with suggestions afterward, but this has to move beyond principle. There’s too much money on the table and too much at stake for Canadian children and families to simply make this something on a wish list.
Senator Cardozo: And Ontario is the only one that has this in their agreement, from what you know?
Ms. McCuaig: No. New Brunswick is allowed to expand the for-profit sector, and Alberta under its agreements is allowed to expand the for-profit sector. We’re also seeing other jurisdictions. British Columbia has seen a big expansion in the for-profit sector. It’s taking place whether it’s allowed or not.
The Chair: I guess it would be useful for the committee to have some information that compares the agreements across the country in terms of what the federal government is committing to do in terms of profit and public. That would be helpful. We’ve asked for it from the minister. I don’t believe we have that document, so we have to rely on stakeholders. We would appreciate getting clarity on the diversity of the agreements on this particular point of sharing public dollars between the public and the for-profit sector. If you have that, we would certainly appreciate it.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Good evening, witnesses, and welcome. My question is for either Ms. McCuaig or Mr. Cleveland. You mentioned the challenge with for-profit child care and non-profit child care. Professor McCuaig, you spoke of New Brunswick. I’m from New Brunswick. There are much fewer French‑language daycares than there are English-language ones. There are some issues with the way the funds are allocated.
How can the federal government ensure that non-profit child care centres as well as for-profit child care centres are able to meet federal obligations in terms of official languages? I refer you to clause 7 — which you talked about, Ms. McCuaig — because it mentions the commitment under the Official Languages Act.
In the very specific financial commitment provided for under clause 8, there’s absolutely no mention of the importance of adequately funding official language minority communities. In your estimation, would it be appropriate to include something to that effect in order to address that potential imbalance, in New Brunswick and elsewhere?
[English]
The Chair: Is that question directed to —
Senator Cormier: To Ms. McCuaig.
Ms. McCuaig: Thank you. I think it would be very important to include it there for francophone minorities, Indigenous peoples and racialized communities. In fact, child care for a long time will be a scarce resource, so what do we mean when we say “equitable”? The distribution of programs should be equitably provided to different communities.
The big challenge that we’re finding with the francophone sector, particularly when it comes to the retention of staff, because they are often the only folks who are bilingual, they are snapped up by other sectors, particularly the government, where they are paid much more and work under much better conditions.
Also keep in mind that equitable doesn’t mean the same. There needs to be a real dedicated push in order to ensure that these traditionally underserved communities have been served. There are not many examples of this, but where we see that happening is when it’s delivered by the public sector.
If you look at the Nunavut agreement, it begins with this wonderful paragraph about how difficult it is to expect a community sector made up of volunteers and non-profit boards to provide an essential service that there really does need to be a big presence of the public sector in public management, in public development, and in some cases, in public delivery. That doesn’t happen when we just throw out money and say, “Come on down,” and hope that it’s going to fall in the right places.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you. I don’t know if Mr. Cleveland would also like to answer.
[English]
Mr. Cleveland: Yes, I think I’ll take your question in a slightly different direction. I hope that is acceptable.
I don’t know the situation so well in the francophone community in New Brunswick. I know it better in Ontario. What I will say is that in general, you have a problem which is that the for-profit sector is likely to serve the harder-to-serve communities. It may not be francophone but low income or other things, and often the francophone communities in general do not end up being well served by the for-profit sector because it’s more troubling, more difficult, and it doesn’t fit into a cookie-cutter approach.
I think senators should know that there are very big barriers to the expansion of the not-for-profit sector in child care in Canada, and they are not yet well taken care of, either by the agreements or by anything else.
There are two points I’d make here. One is financing. Are private financiers, the banks, trust companies and so on, willing to loan money to not-for-profit organizations? In general, the answer is no. I can give you many examples of not-for-profit child care centres that have approached the private financial sector and have been refused financing to expand child care. They are completely willing to expand child care and do a good job of it, but they are not able to obtain financing.
The second point is the infrastructure that supports the expansion. Most of these little not-for-profit centres don’t have the ability like the YMCA and the YWCA, which have the capability of expanding. They have people who know something about making loans, hiring architects and doing designs, but most of the not-for-profit child care centres don’t. You actually need institutions in each one of the provinces that begin to take those tasks away from the individual not-for-profit sectors and do them as a collective enterprise. Then you can serve the francophone community in New Brunswick better with not-for-profit and public services.
The Chair: We’re sort of running out of time. Senator Greenwood and then a clarification from me.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you. I’ll be really quick. Greetings to you all. I’m Margo Greenwood. I am sorry that I was out of the room when introductions were being done. Mr. Cleveland, it’s great to see you.
When I worked in First Nations communities — and I’m going to say this is a potential mechanism — the funding was tied to standards and regulations. Each province and territory has its own standards and regulations relative to child care. Oftentimes, it depends on the age or the number of hours, all those sorts of things. I always look to that around languages, as Senator Cormier was asking about official languages. Is there something there? This could also depend on whether you’re for-profit or not-for-profit; could they be required to adhere to these in the bilaterals?
What are your thoughts on that? Maybe I’ve gone down a rabbit hole here.
Mr. Cleveland: It is a joy to address you as Senator Greenwood. I love being able to say that.
Of course, the funding is, in general, tied to willingness to obey the regulations and so on. That’s generally the case. Some provinces have done that better than others. I’d take you to Prince Edward Island, where they have child care centres, yes, but they also have early-years centres, which have a higher set of standards. Better quality is expected from them. The province works well with them.
Provinces can certainly learn, from places like Prince Edward Island, how to move from ordinary garden-variety child care into better-quality child care which is publicly managed. They call their system publicly managed and community-based child care.
We have a lot of work to do together on building something that is publicly managed and community-based. We haven’t really worked out very well what it means to have a truly publicly managed system. It means, yes, there are normal standards and regulations, but it means so much more than that.
How do you incentivize that? How do you pay for that? Can you develop funding formulas to incentivize the right things? Most of the provinces, so far, have not yet developed funding formulas to provide the revenue streams but also the incentives to deliver the kind of child care we want. We’re a long way from having this system developed in anything like the way we want.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses.
Colleagues, I’d like to just make a point of clarification. I said we did not have the information, but we do have information on the various bilaterals. It’s interesting to note that the language in each bilateral is completely different. For example, Manitoba and Saskatchewan commit to using the funding exclusively for not-for-profit child care centres. There are different words like “predominantly” or “inclusive.”
It’s not clear at this point what we will actually be able to see at the end of the first year of reporting. With other witnesses, I hope to examine the question of reporting. I direct you to the brief that has been prepared by the Library of Parliament. It really does tell you that we have bilateral agreements. Each one is different, so we really have to think about the overall federal imprint on this.
Thank you very much to our witnesses. We appreciate your time, your wisdom, your knowledge, all of you. We have lots more questions, but, sadly, this room gets expropriated very shortly.
(The committee adjourned.)