---

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, October 19, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 11:30 a.m. [ET] for the consideration of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: I would like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, witnesses and members of the public who are watching our proceedings. My name is Ratna Omidvar, senator from Ontario, and I am the chair of this committee.

Before we begin, I would like to invite my colleagues to briefly introduce themselves to the audience and our witnesses, starting with our Deputy Chair, Senator Cordy.

Senator Cordy: Thank you very much, chair, and welcome to all of you for being at our committee and for helping us to study our report. My name is Jane Cordy, and I’m a senator from Nova Scotia.

[Translation]

Senator Mégie: I am Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.

Senator Cormier: I am Senator René Cormier from New Brunswick.

[English]

Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, senator from Ontario.

Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator from Ontario.

Senator Osler: Gigi Osler, senator from Manitoba.

Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, independent senator from Manitoba.

Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.

Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, from Montreal, Quebec.

Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Joining us today for our first panel, we welcome in person Morna Ballantyne, Executive Director Child Care Now; and by video conference, Martha Friendly, Executive Director, Childcare Resource and Research Unit; and Taya Whitehead, Board Chair of the Canadian Child Care Federation. Thank you for joining us today as we continue our study of Bill C-35.

I will ask each of the witnesses to present for a limited time, five minutes precisely. We will have questions following your presentations, and I can tell you that our time will be used up before we know it.

So, Ms. Ballantyne, we will begin with you, followed by Ms. Friendly and then Ms. Whitehead. Your five minutes, ma’am.

Morna Ballantyne, Executive Director, Child Care Now: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. I will speak in English.

I begin by expressing gratitude for living, working and making this short presentation on the unceded and unsurrendered Anishinaabe Algonquin Territory.

I speak on behalf of Canada’s national child care advocacy organization, known as Child Care Now. Our diverse group, established 40 years ago, brings together individuals and organizations from across Canada to advocate for high-quality, affordable, universally and equitably accessible early childhood education and care that is inclusive of all children.

From our beginnings, we echoed the call of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada for federal leadership and federal legislation to build a comprehensive and inclusive system of early learning and child care available to all children from birth to age 12.

For decades, we have called on all levels of government to recognize the value of early childhood education and child care and treat it as a public good.

We applauded the large federal investment in early learning and child care set out in Budget 2021 and celebrated when it was approved by both the Houses of Parliament. We applauded when the Government of Canada achieved Canada-wide early learning and child care funding agreements with the provinces and territories, affirming the vision “that all families in Canada have access to high-quality, affordable, flexible and inclusive ELCC, no matter where they live.” We were heartened to see in these agreements, the call of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada “to develop culturally appropriate early childhood education programs for Indigenous families.”

Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, enshrines in law the visions set out in these agreements, and we hope that the proposed legislation will go through the parliamentary process and receive Royal Assent as quickly as possible.

We stated in our written brief, which I hope you’ve had a chance to look at — we provided it in English and in French — that the bill was improved considerably by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. However, we would like to see one further amendment that specifies for future governments that the early learning and child care system, programs and services referred to in the bill and funded through the frameworks set out in the bill, are regulated and licensed, not unregulated and informal.

The early learning and child care funding agreements between the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories, consistent with the multilateral early learning and child care frameworks, each specifies support for regulated early learning and child care. It makes sense that the bill, which is intended to enshrine for future generations and future governments that the principles of these agreements in law would specify that the federal public funding provided through this law be only for regulated and licensed programs.

The second recommendation we make in our brief relates to the implementation of Bill C-35. In many respects, the implementation of the bill began with the adoption of the 2021 federal budget and the signing of the Canada-wide funding agreements in the following year. We think it would be beneficial for both Houses of Parliament to review the progress made since then, particularly with respect to quality, affordability, availability and inclusion, and to make recommendations on what more can be done in these interrelated areas. To this end, we hope that your standing committee will consider undertaking a study, invite witnesses, request data and research, and make evidence-based recommendations on how the Canada-wide system of early learning and child care develops in the best way possible over the years.

As the testimony you’ve already heard yesterday confirms, there are so many questions and concerns about how federal early learning and child care funds are and will be used. Many of us are extremely concerned about public funds being directed to profit making. We are concerned about equitable access to publicly funded programs. We are including access for linguistic minorities and for vulnerable populations.

We are concerned about the ongoing workforce crisis, which is proving a major barrier to increasing the supply and maintaining this existing supply of quality programs. We’re concerned about the lack of quality child care for school-age children. It’s unlikely that Bill C-35, as it is constructed, can address all these questions and concerns, and that’s why we think another forum is required to address them and that it would be helpful to provide another forum.

To conclude briefly, Bill C-35 is strongly supported by child care advocates across Canada. We believe it is important to define early learning and child care, and we have offered language for you to consider. However, given your experience and knowledge of legislation, we are sure you can improve on what we have proposed.

We know how interested and informed the Senate of Canada is about early childhood education and child care. When I look around the room, I see more experts perhaps than even on the witness side.

We think that a study by your standing committee of the opportunities and challenges we are experiencing in the building of the Canada-wide system would contribute significantly to its future. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Ballantyne.

Martha Friendly, Executive Director, Childcare Resource and Research Unit: Good morning, honourable members of the Senate committee, friends and colleagues. I’m executive director of a small policy research institute on early learning and child care. Since it began, it has been our mandate to work towards an equitable high-quality, publicly funded, inclusive early learning and child care system Canada-wide.

The Childcare Resource and Research Unit, also known as CRRU, and I play an active part in the child care community through our role in child care policy research. We develop and carry out our own research, and we also collaborate with partners, other researchers, child care organizations, feminist and social justice groups and think tanks. I have been advisory to many governments over the last 40 years, including the City of Toronto, the Province of Ontario, other provincial governments and a number of federal governments.

My remarks will be aimed somewhat narrowly on this committee’s review of the legislation as it now stands. You have my written brief in French and English for more detail.

I agree strongly with Morna Ballantyne’s remarks. I also watched yesterday’s hearing, and I agree with many of the panel’s comments about data, the child care workforce and the issue of for-profit child care, all of which I’ve worked on. I have sent to Senator Omidvar some of CRRU’s reports related to these topics that might be helpful.

Today I just want to make three points. First, as one of the 50‑year advocates that Minister Freeland referenced when she announced the Canada-wide early learning and child care plan, I firmly support the speedy passage of Bill C-35 as an important part of this overall plan.

Second, Bill C-35 is key in supporting the transformation and building of an early learning and child care provision Canada‑wide, so it needs to be strong enough to support, strengthen and protect the new system.

I was really pleased to see the amendments made by the HUMA Committee following recommendations from the child care community. These really strengthened the legislation. I want to mention some of the constructive elements in the legislation that I think are really important.

First, the preamble sets out the intentions, purposes, roles, principles and commitments to Indigenous peoples, which were strengthened in the preamble through amendments. The preamble signals a rights-based approach, specifying a list of relevant international agreements to which Canada is a signatory. It’s an almost complete list. I think it’s important.

Second is the declaration section, which was also strengthened by the addition of language stating the right of Indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent on matters relating to children.

Third, the bill includes guiding principles for funding. Under this — and I think this is important — paragraph 7(1)(a) now specifies that funds will “. . . support the provision of and facilitate equitable access to, high-quality early learning and child care programs. . . .” This section links this, in particular, to those provided by public and not-for-profit child care providers.

The research on this is quite overwhelming, showing there is a strong link between auspice and quality. The section also links this to being reflective of evidence-based best practices in high‑quality service provision. That was a good amendment.

The funding principles section was also amended to specify inclusion of systemically marginalized groups, respecting and valuing the diversity of all children and families and their different needs. The funding principles section on the child care workforce was strengthened, I think significantly, by adding specific language about recruitment, retention and working conditions and their importance.

Finally, the annual report section was made stronger by adding subclauses setting out what the reporting must contain and that the report must be tabled in Parliament. These are very key points for transparency and public accountability. I want to state here that these are important changes and should remain in the final legislation.

My final point is about the remaining gap in the legislation in that it does not include a definition of early learning and child care. I really recommend adding a definition of ELCC to the definitions sections. I know you’ve already heard about this, but I want to take a slightly different perspective.

As you’ll see in my written brief, I outlined how a standard classification of education that was developed by UNESCO that’s used for comparing education systems from country to country, can provide a good basis on a definition of early learning and child care.

In the brief, in some detail, I outline the criteria that set out such things as educational properties, staff qualifications, the age group and that it is not part of compulsory education. Most important is that the definition should specify that there must be a regulatory framework, licensing or regulation.

I set out what a full definition could be under this UNESCO classification system. Early learning and child care can include licensed or regulated, centre-based and home-based settings; that the regulatory framework is issued by provincial or territorial authorities or by Indigenous governments or groups; that it could specify qualifications for educators, a pedagogical framework for learning, health and safety, the physical environment; and that for the purposes of this legislation, early learning and child care does not include kindergarten or prekindergarten delivered by school authorities.

With that in mind, I commend the whole process from beginning to end of developing this legislation, something that we’ve waited for 50 years since the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended a national daycare act in 1970.

I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Friendly. Ms. Whitehead?

Taya Whitehead, Board Chair, Canadian Child Care Federation: Good morning, honourable members of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. I am calling in today from the traditional territories of the Sinixt, the Syilx, the Ktunaxa and the Secwepemc peoples, in the rural British Columbia region known as the West Kootenays.

I speak to you today as the Board Chair of the Canadian Child Care Federation, or CCCF, an organization representing child care affiliates and members from across the country. It is Canada’s largest national not-for-profit charitable organization supporting child care and research and policy.

I know my time is limited before the committee, and the federation has submitted a detailed written submission on recommendations to your committee’s study on Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. Therefore, I will speak specifically to a few key topics.

First, I would like to acknowledge that the Canadian Child Care Federation is in full support of Bill C-35 and is a committed partner in realizing the Canada-wide early learning and child care system. We recommend that the committee retain all amendments and changes made thus far to Bill C-35 in the final legislation.

The Canadian Child Care Federation applauds the federal commitment to sustained and ongoing funding to ensure that child care is affordable, accessible, inclusive and high quality across Canada. We further recommend that within Bill C-35 funding be explicitly described as annualized and tied to a licensed regulated child care system which includes centre-based and home-based child care.

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.

Finally, funding provided to operators must reflect the true cost of providing high-quality, accessible and inclusive child care and include sustainable inflationary increases as part of the funding formula.

As an ECE, an early childhood educator, and post-secondary administrator myself, I cannot over-stress the importance of the workforce. The Canadian Child Care Federation sees opportunity to strengthen language within the act to emphasize the federal government’s leadership role in strengthening the ECE workforce, professionals who create inspiring learning environments for children within the early learning curriculum.

This could include principles for collaboration and sustained investments in a national strategy that includes recruitment, education, retention and retraining of ECEs. A cultural transformation must follow to ensure that Canadians embrace the value of regulated, quality care and the ECEs who deliver the care for children.

Finally, it’s important to clearly define the parameters of the term “child care” in Bill C-35. The term “child care” may expansively include all care of a child, potentially by its parents or immediate family, in formal child care, not under public oversight such as unregulated, unlicensed child care in a caregiver’s home or the child’s own home. But in terms of the Canada-wide early learning and child care system and, in particular, Bill C-35, we would recommend a definition that is a publicly managed, regulated, licensed system of early learning and child care in Canada.

Building on the comments from Martha Friendly, we urge the committee to consider exploring UNESCO’s international standard classification of education. We agree that it would be a good basis for an ELCC definition. The ISCED’s level zero is early childhood education and includes programs for children 0 to 2 and 3 years to primary school. It includes centre-based and home-based early learning and child care provided it meets the criteria but not unregulated, unlicensed or parental care.

Based on this international standard, adapted to reflect Canada, the Canadian Child Care Federation recommends a clear definition of early learning and child care. A carefully defined definition could play an important role in supporting and protecting the early learning and child care programs going forward.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide perspective on Bill C-35. The Canadian Child Care Federation is in full support of this critical piece of legislation, which ensures the federal goal, vision and principles for the Canada-wide early learning and child care system are sustained and protected into the future.

We look forward to continuing to work together with all our government partners to realize this transformative system for children and families. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses.

We will proceed to questions from senators. Ms. Friendly and Ms. Whitehead if I may ask you both, or all three of you, a question around your recommendation that there be a definition of early learning and child care.

Canada has already signed agreements with provinces. The insertion of an amendment with the definition of early learning and child care — what impact would such a definition in legislation have on the agreements that have already been signed?

Ms. Ballantyne.

Ms. Ballantyne: Thank you very much for the question.

The definition that we’re proposing, which is straightforward, is that it be defined as regulated or licensed services in the agreements, so it would not in any way detract from what’s in the agreements.

Why we think it’s important to have the law reflect that language is that we’ve heard, and yesterday I listened to the testimony of Minister Sudds, that this bill is largely about enshrining in law and ensuring that the law in the system is there to protect future generations, and presumably that also means that it will direct future governments as well.

We would just prefer that there be no ambiguity, that what this law does is provide a framework, in fact, allowing for federal funding for early learning and child care, and that would be directed to licenced and regulated.

The reason we are particularly concerned, and we put this in our written brief, is that in the testimony, in the discussion at HUMA, there was a suggestion that child care can be defined in any number of ways and to include informal and unregulated care. If there was that ambiguity in the testimony at HUMA, we’re concerned that ambiguity will remain and we think it’s best for laws to be very clear on this point.

The Chair: It is a kind of double insurance you want to provide.

Ms. Ballantyne: That’s right.

The Chair: Ms. Friendly, do you and Ms. Whitehead wish to add anything?

Ms. Friendly: I would like to support that. We recommended a definition at the HUMA Committee, but I think it hadn’t been thought out as much as it has been now, and we hadn’t had the experience of the HUMA Committee.

For one thing, I think what we’re recommending is quite a standard definition. The requirement that ELCC be licensed or regulated is in the multilateral framework and it’s also in the agreements, but one of the things about the agreements is they are five-year agreements, in our understanding, with further action plans to fall among them.

We were told in a technical briefing that there will be new agreements after this first period 2025-2026. We’re thinking that this is a program for posterity. I see it as a package. I see the legislation as the high level that won’t cross every T and dot every I. The language could be clearer and firmer than what it is now, and the action plans are supposed to shape the implementation.

We’re in the very early stages. We have really just gotten into this. We are just a year and a half into this. Having worked on this for so many years, I think we are really thinking long term after none of us are working on this anymore. We want this to stand, and legislation is the most likely place that it can stand, so I think this is very important.

The Chair: Ms. Whitehead, would you like to weigh in? I have 31 seconds left of my time.

Ms. Whitehead: I have no further comments beyond what Ms. Ballantyne and Ms. Friendly have included.

The Chair: Thank you. That gives us more time.

Senator Cordy: Thank you so much to the three of you. I’ve heard some of you before at the Social Affairs Committee talking about what is definitely your passion. You’re all so knowledgeable about the whole issue and strong advocates for the issue of early learning and child care. Thank you so much for all the work you do.

You all mentioned the workforce. You talked about the need for recruitment, retention, working conditions. We know that child care workers are invaluable. They are, they do such an incredible job, they need patience, they need kindness, all of these things in working with children and teaching young children. But the reality is that salaries are very low, and they are not nearly as valued as they should be within Canada and, I would say, many other countries as well.

We heard all of those same things mentioned yesterday, but we also heard that there is a shortage of child care workers and when this is implemented that, in Ontario alone, they will need thousands more child care workers. How do we go about recruiting thousands of qualified, caring child care workers? They are essential to make this work.

Ms. Friendly: Where do you want to start?

Senator Cordy: That was sort of what I was thinking last night, so maybe you could just fill me in.

Ms. Friendly: Here is the short form. There are two reasons that salaries are low, one of which is that it’s a woman’s job ghetto. We know that the care professions are lower paid because they are women.

But the other reason that’s really important is that child care has not, to date in Canada, been publicly funded. Any money that went to the staff, to the early childhood educators, had to come primarily, not entirely, but mostly from the parents, varying by province.

That situation has now changed. The question really is: Is there enough money after reducing parents’ fees to actually do the other part of it. To ensure that we’re going to have provision of services, we need to have early childhood educators.

Child care is successful when it’s publicly funded. If you look at any country, in any of our international work, the reality is that we have been one of the lowest countries previously in publicly funding child care. We have begun to come up, but we have only started building this system.

We will not build the system unless we really take on the question of how we will have those educators to provide the services that we envision. If we don’t have them, we won’t have the services and the whole thing won’t work.

I think it has to be considered from that perspective. The next piece of it has to be the expansion of the system. For that to be done, we have to expand the supply of early childhood educators who are willing to work for better wages. Although they have indicated that there are many workforce issues, the core is it doesn’t pay enough money. There are historical reasons for this that we need to move beyond. There are lots of other things to say.

Senator Cordy: Go ahead.

Ms. Ballantyne: Very quickly, I think we know exactly what has to be done because this has been studied exhaustively, including by the OECD.

If we want more people who work in early learning and child care to stay in the profession, to stay providing the services, or to recruit the many that we will need to support the expansion of their service, we need to increase wages. We have to provide good benefits, extended health care, among others, that are comparable to other publicly funded services. If we don’t do that, we will continue to lose staff to the publicly funded and publicly managed education, primary education system.

We need to provide good pensions, not just retirement benefits, but real pensions, again, comparable to other publicly funded services, and very importantly, we need to address working conditions.

To do all of this will require money, but it also requires some long-term thinking about what kind of system of early learning and child care, publicly funded, we want in this country, and what kind of workforce is required to ensure that it can operate, ensure to expand and meet the changing needs of families. That takes money.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Ballantyne. I’m sure you’ll get the opportunity to reflect further.

Senator Seidman: Thank you, witnesses, very much for educating us. It’s really important as we review the bill. I think we all concur on the importance of the evidence base when building this kind of a system, and especially when reviewing it. I know, Ms. Ballantyne, you’re making a plea to us in your brief, in your recommendation that we take time to consider what progress has been made since 2021 with respect to system building.

My question is: Even though I look at the implementation agreements with all the provinces and I see under data sharing and reporting they are all committing to share financial and administrative data, we know what happens in this country about collecting comparable data in provinces and sharing with the federal government. We’ve seen in the health care system how challenging it can be. I’d like to know if you think that there are sufficient provisions for collecting the kind of data that we’ll need to review the system, to know where we’re going with it and to know how successfully we’re achieving what we need to achieve.

Ms. Ballantyne: Thank you. Martha Friendly is the research and data expert among us. However, like Gordon Cleveland, I serve on the advisory council and I’m on the same working group he referenced. I cannot, in any way, speak on behalf of the advisory council.

I don’t think we have in place the mechanisms, or the political and other will to be able to collect and analyze the data and, in particular, to make the data and the research transparent. As advocates, we’re having a difficult time monitoring what the developments are, being concrete and being real. We’re forced to speak in general platitudes which no one wants to do.

There is work to be done. I think we can look at the health care system as an example where the federal government has intervened in a significant way around the coordination, the collection and the analysis of data. That has produced more evidence-based policy making at all levels and I think that’s what we need for early learning and child care.

Senator Seidman: I want to hear from Ms. Friendly, but in Child Care Now’s brief to HUMA, you recommended a change to clause 14 of the bill regarding collecting disaggregated data but that didn’t happen. Do you think there is something we could do to this piece of legislation to help ensure and relieve the agony of trying to collect the kind of data that’s necessary?

Ms. Ballantyne: We would invite you to look at the changes and the amendments that we put forward, but we’re cautious in doing so because we want to balance that against getting this legislation passed and getting Royal Assent. We think that there are other means around the data and indicator area that could be used outside of legislation to ensure that more and better is done in that regard.

Senator Seidman: Thank you. To the importance of this, giving monitoring is a basic function. I think it was Professor Cleveland who had that quote, namely that monitoring is a basic function of a democratic society. We need to be able to monitor something like this. Ms. Friendly, do you have something to add about this particular thing?

Ms. Friendly: I have been working on child care data for at least 30 years. CRRU has been collecting and making certain forms of data as comparable as possible among the provinces. That’s one of the reports that I forwarded to Senator Omidvar last night. That’s the thirteenth version of this data collection that we’ve done. We’ve made it as comparable as possible across the provinces and over the years so that you can actually use it in that way. But that isn’t a data strategy.

The first report that I did on data was with Gordon Cleveland, as a matter of fact, back in 2001. We need a data strategy that ensures that we will be officially collecting certain kinds of data. I think StatCan really needs to play a role in this. I was on StatCan’s early learning and child care data advisory committee for about four years, where we were trying to develo some data instruments that might start to fill in some of the gaps.

I would like to quote Gordon Cleveland on this. He once said that child care data in Canada is much more gaps than anything else.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Friendly. We have to move on.

Senator Osler: Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today. My question is about quality.

Bill C-35’s guiding principles, paragraph 7(1)(d), propose that federal investment support high-quality care through the use of a qualified and well-supported early childhood education workforce.

Ms. Ballantyne, I heard you speak to the need for funding to be directed towards regulated and licensed programs; Ms. Whitehead, I think you spoke to that as well.

My question is for all three of you, perhaps starting with Ms. Ballantyne, Ms. Whitehead and then Ms. Friendly. What other factors would need to be in place to ensure the provision of high-quality care?

Ms. Friendly: That’s a good question.

Ms. Ballantyne: I’ll go back to the issue of compensation. That is critical because a well-compensated workforce contributes to a high quality workforce. You need highly qualified educators to be able to provide and support high‑quality programs and you have to compensate them appropriately and they’re not.

The other is this issue of work conditions. I will leave it to the federation to expand more on that. We’re hearing from those in the workforce that too much burden is being placed on the educators alone, without proper supports, in inappropriate, difficult work environments to safeguard the well-being and the educational needs of young children. The system is being forced to depend on a lot of staff who have not been able to get formal qualifications and formal education, which is completely unacceptable. This is not what we would find acceptable for primary education and it certainly is not for early childhood education.

Ms. Whitehead: I would like to build on that. The formal education and training of these educators is essential in the development of the system and the overall definition of quality.

When you’re working with a workforce that is underfunded, underpaid and working conditions are less than ideal, and add to that layer often underqualified or undereducated, it impacts the quality significantly.

As a post-secondary educator, my passion lies in developing some type of national standards that would provide a formal educational pathway for educators across the country similar to other professions, one that provides laddering opportunities, mobility across provinces and would increase overall quality.

When our workforce is educated and paid well, quality comes along behind that.

Ms. Friendly: I would echo this, but I think that this is a layered question that we haven’t looked into in Canada. We’ve never had a research strategy. We have [Technical difficulty] — what is related to quality.

First, if you have regulations that require staff to have qualifications, namely that they have post-secondary training in early childhood education, and those are actually met, then they have to be well supported. They need professional development. They need decent facilities to provide child care in because that has an impact on how their work proceeds. You need to have good food and outdoor environments. This is a question we have never tackled in Canada.

Starting from the beginning, with licensing requirements and the core of quality, which is the workforce and supporting the workforce in all the ways that we’ve discussed — that is the starting point. We then have to go beyond that to flesh out the other pieces that will support that, such as a pedagogical framework, which most of the provinces and territories have now put in place over time.

This is something for which we should say, “Here is our goal. Here are things we do now and let’s build.”

The Chair: I have to be a little strict on time, colleagues. We only have 20 minutes left and lots of questions. We will now go to Senator Moodie, the sponsor of the bill.

Senator Moodie: I have a question around capacity and quality. We’re hearing a lot about the need for both.

What would you say to individuals who tell us that privately delivered child care is the best way to address challenges to access, especially in rural and remote settings?

Can you comment further on some of the best practices that you’ve seen in different jurisdictions that you think the federal government should be scaling up as a national norm?

Ms. Friendly: Could you clarify what you mean by that, Senator Moodie?

Senator Moodie: There is an argument that with the significant capacity restrictions, privately delivered care is the best way to address the challenges to access, especially in rural and remote settings. What would be your response to that viewpoint?

Ms. Friendly: I would say that all the evidence shows it is not necessary and it is not so. “Privately delivered” could mean an individual woman caregiver in her own home, not with public oversight, or it could mean a for-profit centre. I would argue that neither of them is the right solution. We have really good examples of regulated not-for-profit child care in rural and remote communities when there is actually the will to put a program there and the will to fund the program so it can function. That is what functions best. We can see that across Canada.

People in rural communities need public oversight. I don’t think that for-profit child care, if that’s what you mean, is the right solution, and it’s not the right solution anywhere.

The barriers have been about low population density in rural communities. They previously could not make a budget to deliver a non-profit or public child care centre when it wasn’t publicly funded. Now that it’s publicly funded, it will take public leadership to expand child care in communities that are in child care deserts. Then we can begin to be more equitable in the way they are distributed.

We have examples of small, good-quality child care centres in small communities but only if there has been enough public funding to allow them to function.

This is a matter of public leadership, public management and political will to make sure we will have an equitably distributed supply of child care — if that answers your question.

People in rural communities, children in rural communities, also need good-quality child care with other children, in groups, not for profit, in the same way that people in cities do.

Senator Moodie: Thank you.

Ms. Ballantyne: If it were the case that reliance on private provision and supply could answer the problem of equitable access, then we would have an accessible, equitable system. We don’t. In fact, in this country for decades now, we’ve relied on private delivery, either on a for-profit or not-for-profit basis. Essentially, we relied on individuals and organizations to hold up their hands and say, “Yes, we will provide child care. We will make it happen.”

If we did that with health care or public education, there would be a massive outcry because wealthier communities would have more. Wealthier families would have more. That’s essentially what we have with child care. So it’s the wrong solution. We’ve tried it. It’s failed. Every country that has tried it has failed. The only way is the public system —

[Translation]

Senator Cormier: First off, I commend you, and I want to recognize the leadership of women in this field.

Yesterday, we heard that minority groups, including linguistic minority communities, benefited more from public child care and early learning services. We heard that for-profit services were not as willing to serve minority communities because doing so tended to be less profitable for them.

My question has two parts. Do we have any data — and this is for Ms. Friendly, mainly — to give credence to that?

Furthermore, one of the bill’s guiding principles is to support the provision, including in rural and remote communities, of early learning and child care programs and services that are inclusive of children with disabilities, and children from English and French linguistic minority communities, among others. Since the bill does not stipulate that the funding must support public service providers, which are more likely to serve minority communities, is there a risk that the bill will fail to implement the guiding principle I just mentioned? Should the bill state more clearly that the financial investments in these services must benefit linguistic minorities?

Thank you. Ms. Friendly or whoever would like can answer that.

[English]

Ms. Friendly: There are multiple questions in what you’re asking. I will just speak to the linguistic minority question.

That has been the case with other kinds of services in Canada. Linguistic minorities have an official status that marginal or under-represented groups have not had. We would deal with some of this not legislatively as much as through the implementation of a much more planned approach to how child care appears and what the nature of it is.

If I decide to get some other parents together and start a child care program and it’s only in English, we won’t serve the francophone population because it’s an individual effort, even if it’s non-profit. That has pervaded child care. This is through implementation, not really through the bill. We’ve been urging that the expansion of child care needs to become a publicly led and managed initiative. It should involve communities, but they shouldn’t have to be responsible — as I think Morna Ballantyne said — to put their hands up to volunteer to start a child care centre. Some of us have done this several times, but the people who are more likely to do it tend to be more privileged, to know the ropes and to have more time and resources to do that.

I don’t know if I’m really getting at your question. I referred to a high level in the legislation. A lot of this needs to be done through the implementation, meaning that each province and territory needs to have a plan for how they will expand and for whom. That means linguistic minorities, French and English, but it also means newcomers to Canada, low-income communities, racialized communities. That’s the way I would pursue it.

[Translation]

Senator Cormier: Thank you very much. Ultimately, shouldn’t the funding favour not-for-profit agencies or public service providers, since, as far as we know, they tend to do a better job of serving minority communities? I’m talking about all minorities, including linguistic minority groups. What will happen if those services aren’t given funding priority?

[English]

Ms. Ballantyne: The legislation does, in fact, say that we’re trying to build a system that is primarily public and not for profit. It’s critical to make sure that happens.

Senator Cardozo: Thank you to all three panellists. I congratulate Martha Friendly and Morna Ballantyne. We are here because of your determination. I was looking up synonyms — dogged, relentless, stubborn. You have persevered over many, many years, so congratulations to you. We are here to discuss “An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada” because of your work. Thank you.

Martha Friendly, you suggested passing this bill as soon as possible. Here is the conundrum. We can pass it as is, and it will go through faster, or we can make a few amendments to make it a better bill. But you know how the system works. It would have to go back to the house because both chambers have to pass the exact same bill at the end of the day. What would you prefer we do?

Ms. Friendly: You’re pointing out the exact conundrum. We want this bill to be passed; we don’t want it to linger. We don’t want to get into a battle about how good it can be. We’re all really committed to passing it as quickly as possible with a number of amendments that we hope aren’t going to cause a delay.

I, myself, having become very pragmatic over that period of time that you’re identifying, am quite aware that the legislation should be as good as it possibly can be. I would put a simple definition into that category, but I’m very aware that a good deal of it is going to happen through the other pieces of the package, and this will drive it.

I would have strengthened the for-profit language. We did try in the HUMA committee. I’m not sure we’re going to get there. I don’t mean to be ambiguous about this. We would like this to be passed without delay.

Senator Cardozo: In the interest of time, what you’re asking for is the definition of the for profit, something about training, and quality of service. Are those the top three issues?

Ms. Friendly: Yes. Although, I did not put for-profit and more language on the workforce into my brief. If it were possible to strengthen those, I would. I didn’t go for it because, in the interest of trying to get it passed, I couldn’t think of what the right amendments would be to strengthen it. That is the reality.

We did strengthen the for-profit and not-for-profit piece by putting in evidence-based as an amendment, linking it to quality. It’s not as strong as it could be, but I think it would do. I would like to not fund, going forward, expansion of for-profit child care at all, but I think a lot of that has to happen in the implementation, if that’s an answer to your question.

Senator Dasko: This committee has a history of getting changes made within tight timeframes. If anyone can do it, we know it is us. That is a comment on the committee, not myself.

Ms. Friendly, I can’t believe that here we are after 35 years of talking about this.

Ms. Friendly: I can’t believe it either.

Senator Dasko: It’s incredible. I want to ask you, first of all, to complete what you were saying earlier about the data piece that Senator Seidman asked you about. You were in the middle of talking about your experience with Statistics Canada. You have done incredible work with the faulty data that the system has provided. You’ve done incredible work for all these years.

Can you finish your piece about your experience with the data and how far you’ve gotten trying to make changes? If there is any time remaining, I have another question.

Ms. Friendly: We need a solid data strategy. I was on the previous expert panel that worked on it. I believe that the current national advisory council, which I’m not on, is also working on this.

Everyone agrees we need to have, not only what we’ve collected all these years which has been federally funded, but other kinds of data that’s collected in different ways and that’s been presented in the form of indicators and things like that so we can actually know what’s going on. I absolutely, fully support that. It has to happen through the federal government. It needs to have data experts. There are data experts around who have worked on it in different ways, who can make a contribution. It also needs a research strategy. I would say that these two need to go hand-in-hand so we can answer real research questions.

It’s one of the things I’m disappointed in is that has not been built yet. I do think monitoring and reporting absolutely needs data, so we can answer some questions but not others with the data that we have. I don’t think anyone believes we now have a data strategy. It still needs to be developed. It needs the federal government and the provinces.

Senator Dasko: Correct.

The Chair: Do you have another question, Senator Dasko?

Senator Dasko: How much time do I have left?

The Chair: I would urge you to pose the question and we can get the answer in writing.

Senator Dasko: I will pose the question.

I am concerned and interested in what happens after the current agreements with the provinces are over, especially with respect to the reduced-fee model. I would like your views as to what you think will happen. Are fees going to go up? How much will they go up by? It’s a big-picture question about the future.

If anyone wants to attempt to answer that now, please do.

Ms. Ballantyne: Most of the federal funds that have been transferred to the provinces and territories have been used to finance a reduction in parent fees, leaving very little money for others. I don’t think we’re going to see big parent fee increases. However, the pressure to increase parent fees is going to be enormous. That risks undermining the whole proposition.

The other thing that is at great risk is that the whole project gets undermined by the lack of access. You can’t have an almost fully publicly funded system if only 30% of children from 0 to 6 have access. It’s unfair. It’s inequitable. That has to be the number-one priority, increasing access. That means resolving the workforce crisis. We can’t maintain existing spaces because of the workforce crisis, let alone increase it.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Ballantyne.

Ms. Ballantyne: That will take political pressure and other means, not necessarily legislative changes.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Ballantyne.

Colleagues, I am going to go five minutes over on this panel. Thank you.

Senator McPhedran: Could I go a little more into the proposed definition that’s in your paper, Ms. Friendly?

A question that has come to my mind is, in comparing some of the reference yesterday to the European standards, I’m reading in your definition, the very last line, for the purposes of this legislation early learning and child care does not include kindergarten or prekindergarten delivered by school authorities. Yesterday, we heard the bill itself looks at age 0 on. Can you please help me understand the significance of that last line?

Ms. Friendly: It’s mostly a jurisdictional question. I consider kindergarten to be part of early learning and child care, or early childhood education and care. In Canada, of course, kindergarten is under education authorities and the federal government has no role in that. Kindergarten is playing an increasing child care [Technical difficulty] — program. That’s one thing I think you might be reacting to.

The other thing is the inclusion of school-age child care in the legislation, which I really agree with, because I think it needs to be dealt with. A definition of early learning and child care, the 0 level in the UNESCO definition — which is used outside of Europe, by the way — is not referring to what happens to 8‑year‑olds after school, which is also important.

I opted for simplicity and used a definition of early childhood education and care. It was raised with me by one of our colleagues, Susan Prentice, that we’re leaving out — to date, the federal plan does not address children who are compulsory school age and up. In what we call school age child care in Canada now, there are many now 4- and 5-year-olds, even 3‑year‑olds, who are in after-school programs. Those are included. It was too complicated for a brief.

This is another question. We would really need another definition that is not about early learning and child care. That’s why I stuck to that, for the sake of simplicity, if that helps.

Does that answer your question, Senator McPhedran?

Senator McPhedran: It does. It also makes me ask you whether you think that the definition can carry as much as what you want it to do.

Ms. Friendly: Let me put it this way: I provided a full definition, because I wanted to show what I thought the possibilities were. As I said, the key part is the requirement to be licensed/regulated. Having a regulatory framework would be key for the sake of, again, simplicity. Those things carry, generally, all the other pieces along with them because they’re actually included in regulatory frameworks. My intention was to elaborate on what seems to be in the realm of possibility.

Let me think of how to put this. The issue of school age child care — not kindergarten, because that’s a different thing — for children above compulsory school age after school, has not been addressed by the child care movement — people like us — for years because we have been too busy with the rest of it. It really needs to be addressed as an issue. It needs consideration. I see where the federal government is going on this. It hasn’t happened yet, if that answers your question.

The Chair: Senator Burey, the last question goes to you.

Senator Burey: Thank you so much. I am so impressed with all the work you have done. Thank you again.

To be brief, Madam Chair, I wanted to zone in on the funding issue, because, of course, that’s where all the action happens in terms of workforce, staff to child ratios, regulations, all of that.

The government has said in 2021-2022 additional agreements, et cetera, coming up to $27 billion over five years and $9.2 billion every other year.

Now, how much does it really cost? Has anyone worked that out? Of course, is that how much money? And how do we close that gap? Because that appears to be an essential factor.

Ms. Ballantyne: How much it costs depends on all your assumptions. How much should the workforce be paid? What should we aim for coverage? In the Nordic countries once child care was made a right and accessibility provided, we had more than 90% of families with young children using the system, and not just to support work or study, but because the systems are designed for children.

We would like additional money in the next federal budget earmarked for improving the workforce, for addressing the workforce crisis. We think more money is needed. We think the federal government needs more leverage to be able to get the provinces and territories to put more money in, because we need better funding of operations to be able to increase quality, address working conditions, and so forth.

How much, again, we can’t give you an absolute number. We can tell you everything we would like the system to work at, but that will take time, too. This is an evolving thing. What we think of as a good system today might be different three or four years down the road, and that’s why monitoring, assessing, evaluating, getting data is so important. That’s why we want the Senate to continue to be engaged in this, and that’s why we’re calling for you to have a study.

Senator Burey: Thank you.

The Chair: This brings us to the end of our first panel.

For the next panel, I will limit all of us strictly to four minutes.

To our witnesses, let me thank you very much for all the work you have been doing for so long. We know it’s hard in the trenches, but hopefully you’ll see some results.

We will commence our second panel.

Joining us today by video conference, we welcome Jennifer Nangreaves, Executive Director, Early Childhood Development Association of Prince Edward Island; Jodie Kehl, Executive Director of the Manitoba Child Care Association; and Jane Bertrand, Program Director of the Margaret and Wallace McCain Family Foundation Inc.

Thank you for joining us today. I remind all our witnesses that you will have five minutes allocated for your opening statements, followed by questions from our members. We will begin with Ms. Nangreaves, followed by Ms. Kehl and then Ms. Bertrand.

Jennifer Nangreaves, Executive Director, Early Childhood Development Association of Prince Edward Island: Hello. Thank you for the invitation to present today. My name is Jennifer Nangreaves, and I’m the Executive Director of the Early Childhood Development Association of Prince Edward Island, ECDA.

I am here representing our board of directors, and we represent over 90% of the early childhood educator workforce here on P.E.I.

We are a provincial non-profit organization committed to promoting and supporting quality early childhood development programs and services for island children and families.

I’m honoured to be joining you today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq people of Epekwitk.

On behalf of the ECDA, I want to begin by thanking each of you on the committee for your work on studying this legislation. Our members are monitoring this process with keen interest as it is truly their life’s passion and livelihood, and we collectively thank you for your time that will undoubtedly go down in history in our profession.

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.

Quality matters. Research suggests that poor quality in early learning and child care can have a negative impact, in particular for children who are most vulnerable. This is why children attending a high-quality early learning and child care centre is just as important to us as it is to families being able to go to work and contribute to the economy. It’s a win-win.

The ECDA supports publicly managed centres to ensure the highest quality for children and families. In Prince Edward Island, 90% of the licensed centres are a part of a publicly managed system of high-quality early learning and child care. As a part of this system, operators have agreed to a partnership with the provincial government to achieve a higher standard of quality. For example, we have all trained staff, follow provincial early learning framework, accept children with exceptional needs, provide healthy meals, establish a family advisory committee, et cetera.

The publicly managed system must also operate with the provincial regulated family fees, as well as a provincial wage grid for employees. This system was established over a decade ago and was built upon the investment that grew from the provincial government and most recently from the federal government. It is important to note that this commitment in P.E.I. was started by a Liberal government and continued by a Progressive Conservative government, demonstrating that regardless of the stripe, a commitment to early learning and child care is a sound investment.

To highlight initiatives that P.E.I. has seen success with so far due to the Canada-wide agreement, which was signed in July 2021, twice now we have had family fees lowered significantly and wages increased on our provincial early learning and child care educators’ wage grid, both on the same day.

Most recently the ECDA was pleased to be part of an announcement on a defined contribution pension plan for employees working in the publicly managed system that will be matched 4% by funding made possible through the Canada-wide agreement.

Supporting the early childhood educator workforce is not always about wages, though. It is also about our working conditions, something that the ECDA advocated on behalf of our members was for an extra position funded to provide pedagogical support above ratio requirements. The feedback we have heard from our educators about this added support has meant more meaningful time scaffolding children’s experiences and saved many from burning out.

These initiatives have notably retained educators who were considering another career opportunity and will undoubtedly be used as a recruitment initiative.

In closing, imagine a world where every child and family has access to a high-quality early learning and child care centre in their community guided by expert early childhood educators who are valued for their critical work. This dreamy goal will not only empower our children and families to flourish, it will also pave the way for a brighter future for generations to come.

Providing access to high-quality early learning and child care means not only creating a safe and nurturing environment for children to learn and grow, but is also ensuring that early childhood educators are well trained and recognized for their important work.

Investing in early childhood education has both short-term and long-term benefits for society as a whole by supporting the development of young children —

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Nangreaves. Ms. Kehl, your five minutes.

Jodie Kehl, Executive Director, Manitoba Child Care Association: Good afternoon, chair and committee members. Thank you for this opportunity. The Manitoba Child Care Association, also known as MCCA, is a non-profit, non-partisan organization and is proud to be the voice of early learning child care in Manitoba. I speak to you today on behalf of our provincial board of directors and our 4,400 plus members.

MCCA enthusiastically endorses Bill C-35 and applauds the Government of Canada’s commitment to working with provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples to build an affordable, inclusive, flexible, high-quality early learning system for families across Canada.

Advocates like ourselves have been dreaming of a national system for over 50 years. The leadership and dedication demonstrated by the federal government on the Canada-wide plan and now this critical piece of legislation is nothing short of historic. The possibility of enshrining early learning and child care into legislation is simply incredible.

Since signing its agreement in 2021, Manitoba has been making many great strides beginning to build its system. We were the first province to adopt an average of $10 a day. Although our province had notoriously lower child care fees, this has demonstrated to be incredibly supportive and life changing to many families. While affordability is one of the key elements under the Canada-wide plan, there are several other priorities that should be considered within Bill C-35.

MCCA is recommending that care and careful consideration is taken to introduce a definition of early learning and child care within the act. Earlier this year at HUMA, Dr. Susan Prentice suggested the following definition:

Early learning and child care is a system of regulated and licensed services provided by qualified early childhood educators who have specialized post-secondary education training.

A succinct definition such as this would ensure that national legislation is strong and effective. This would be significant in establishing the distinctness of regulated, high-quality child care to which all families and children across Canada deserve access.

The success of building the system relies solely on early childhood educators. These are EC professionals who are educated, valued and compensated fairly. In addition to increasing wages and benefits, improvements to working conditions of ECEs are required to improve job satisfaction morale, help reduce staff turnover and to encourage qualified staff to remain in the field.

While workforce strategies fall to provincial and territorial jurisdiction, MCCA believes there’s an opportunity to reinforce the language within the act to recognize the Government of Canada’s leadership and role in supporting our essential ECE workforce. This could include principles for collaboration, sustained investments in a comprehensive national strategy which includes education, retention, recruitment and recognition of ECEs.

MCCA supports the federal commitment to sustained and continued funding, the guiding principles in proposed section 7 speak to facilitating access to regulated services provided by public and not-for-profit child care providers.

Early learning and child care must be thought of as a public good similar to public education and public health systems. The federal government has signalled that expansion of child care will be predominantly in the not-for-profit public facilities and home-based child care providers. MCCA strongly endorses a publicly managed model. However, the language in the act should protect public and not-for-profit rules more strongly. In Manitoba, where the early learning child care system is mainly not-for-profit, we have long been viewed as a leader for our robust regulations and progressive [Technical Difficulties] —

The Chair: The screen is frozen. I am sorry.

Colleagues —

Ms. Kehl: — national advisory council on early learning and child care and [Technical Difficulties] — body into law.

We would welcome additional ongoing formal and informal methods to ensure that the federal policies, positions and funding committed related to the Canada-wide plan are informed by the expertise and experiences of child care providers like MCCA’s members.

The Chair: Ms. Kehl, you are breaking up so I will ask you to please submit your brief in writing as well because you’re clearly reading from something.

Ms. Kehl: We have a power failure. I am so sorry.

The Chair: Okay, that’s the subject matter of a bill of another kind to another committee. I found your remarks most interesting. Please do send them to us.

Ms. Kehl: I will.

The Chair: Hopefully, you can weigh in on the questions.

Ms. Bertrand, the floor is yours.

Jane Bertrand, Program Director, Margaret and Wallace McCain Family Foundation Inc.: Thank you for the opportunity to present today. I am a long-time early childhood educator with experience in early years policy, practice and research. I am currently the Program Director at the Margaret and Wallace McCain Family Foundation. The foundation supports Bill C-35 and the broad notion of creating a public system. We also promote access to quality early learning and child care that is aligned with public education.

On September 19 this year, Senator Rosemary Moodie rose in the Senate Chamber to speak to Bill C-35. She stated:

Individuals and firms operating on a for-profit basis will never have the incentive to develop the kind of system we need, a system that emphasizes affordability, inclusivity and accessibility, not one that reacts to the bottom line. That is why public and not-for-profit operation is critical.

We agree.

The successful implementation of public/non-profit Canada‑wide early learning and child care system faces two major challenges: One, lack of infrastructure and financing to grow and sustain non-profit early learning and child care programs; and two, shortage of qualified early learning and child care educators.

The committee has heard that the capacity for non-profit growth is hindered by poor infrastructure. That infrastructure exists in public education. By maximizing the resources that Canada has in its public education systems, the expansion, equity and quality goals of the Canada-wide plan can be achieved.

The rapid and successful introduction of four- and five‑year‑old full-day kindergarten with extended-day options in Ontario and the pre-primary program for four-year-old children in Nova Scotia are two examples of what can be achieved. Even Quebec, with its mature child care services, turned to its schools to address equity and access concerns.

The public education infrastructure supports efficient, rapid and equitable expansion. The professional work environments offered by public education attract and retain qualified early childhood educators. ECEs who previously left the sector often return in school-delivered early learning programs.

I urge the committee to promote promising policies and practices that align and integrate early childhood education into public education.

This could be achieved by including a definition of early learning and child care in the legislation that specifically includes programs for pre-school children delivered by schools. In addition, any perceived impediments in Bill C-35, or in the federal-provincial-territorial agreements and action plans for the expansion of early learning and child care by public education, should be removed.

Universal early learning programs in public education have been found, first, to reach underserved communities, including minority language, Indigenous, low-income, racialized communities and those living in rural and remote areas; second, provide a continuum of learning from early years into the primary grades that contributes to improved academic outcomes for all children; third, identify children’s learning challenges and intervene early and reduce later special education expenditures; fourth, expand capacity in licensed community child care programs for younger children — there’s lots of two- and three‑year-olds — fifth, include all children whose non-mandatory participation is based on age and access is not dependent on what parents are doing, whether they are participating in the workforce or in studies or not; and, sixth, public education can offer extended day options to support parents’ work and study.

Prioritizing public delivery would also disincentivize the growth of corporate child care that we currently witness. Harnessing the capacity of public education infrastructure can ensure that the Canada-wide early learning and child care funding is used for the public good rather than creating profits for investors. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bertrand. Colleagues, there are 10 of you. We have precisely 40 minutes left. I will keep you to four minutes very stringently starting with Senator Cordy.

Senator Cordy: Thank you very much, chair. Thank you very much to all the witnesses. It’s nice to see some of you again. Ms. Bertrand, I know we spoke many times about child care. Thanks to the McCain foundation for all the work they do in this area.

My question is for Ms. Nangreaves from P.E.I. It’s interesting that 90% of your child care facilities are licensed, which is a very positive thing.

I was interested particularly by the comment that you made about the saving staff from burning out, and we have heard that staff retention across the country is probably one of the most challenging things because the wages are low, the salaries, the long days, and on and on and on.

So I wonder if you could just expand on how you got that to work, how you encouraged or motivated staff to stay within the field of early learning and child care.

Ms. Nangreaves: Sure. Thank you for the question. This was something that the ECDA advocated for when the budget was tabled. We saw a large investment being made and asked our workforce what was most important, and although wages are always up there, it was actually just another set of hands above ratio. You’re always at ratio, but having an extra set of hands, a certified educator to help with documentation time and programming time, really allowed educators to be able to step back and be really intentional about the programming they are providing and really increase the quality when it wasn’t just that ratio of requirement. That added position was really something that our sector rejoiced with.

Senator Cordy: I will give up the rest of my time.

The Chair: Thank you so much. Senator Osler.

Senator Osler: Thanks, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing today. We have heard concerns about child care operators using public funding through the Canada‑wide agreements to drive for-profit care or to build profit‑driven care. I will direct my question first to Ms. Kehl and then Ms. Bertrand and then, Ms. Nangreaves.

How should the bill address the specific challenges faced by child care operators in rural and remote regions where economies of scale might not be achievable, potentially leading to profit‑driven practices?

Ms. Kehl: I will try to answer the question. Please let me know if my internet is stable or not.

I would echo the comments that Ms. Friendly shared in the first panel. We know that under the Canada-wide agreement the expansion is for not-for-profit public. I speak to the experiences in Manitoba where we have, primarily, a not-for-profit system in our province. Ninety-five per cent of existing licensed facilities are of this delivery model. What we know, and the evidence has shown, is that high quality is often connected with the type of business model —

The Chair: I’m very sorry, we are not able to hear you and therefore we are not able to provide translation.

Ms. Kehl: I’m so sorry.

The Chair: We are very sorry too, but I welcome you to submit written answers to any and all questions that you may hear.

Let’s go on to Ms. Nangreaves.

Ms. Nangreaves: Thank you for the question. When P.E.I. signed the agreement, it was for the non-profit or the publicly managed sector. To go with your question on the remote rural areas, in P.E.I. we have a child care registry, and that data is used to see where the need is in communities and maybe rural or minority areas.

That’s where the expansion is really focused, to see where the work needs to be done in that way, but certainly part of that publicly managed part.

Senator Osler: Thank you. Ms. Bertrand?

Ms. Bertrand: The rural and remote areas is a challenge in Canada. One thing that exists in every rural and remote area is a public school that children have access to when they are four or five or six years old, depending.

Those facilities, that infrastructure could be leveraged to provide licensed child care programs for younger children, to extend pre-school programs in the downward extension of kindergarten into pre-kindergarten and junior kindergarten, and that has been an effective strategy, certainly for four-year-olds in Nova Scotia with the pre-primary program. That is one of the reasons why the foundation is supporting alignment with public education as a platform that is already in place and could be utilized to support more children and younger children.

Senator Osler: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Senator Moodie, the sponsor of the bill.

Senator Moodie: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is around regulation and licensure. We know that regulation and licensure is currently written in at the level of the agreements for all the agreements. In your opinion, and this is to all of you, considering the concern about federal legislation intervening into provincial jurisdiction, is it essential that this requirement for regulation and licensure be included in this legislation, as well as a definition?

Ms. Nangreaves: I can speak to that. Thank you, senator. Absolutely. It protects the investment of public dollars when it’s going into a quality system. I believe if that were to be taken out, it would, actually, be taking a backward step for Canada, seeing that all agreements were signed on that notion of licensed and regulated care.

The research, and you’ve heard this today and yesterday, focuses on fair wages and compensation for educators. It’s more affordable for families and it’s a better outcome for all, so it’s really a win-win, and it’s a really protected investment when you know what the funding is going into.

Ms. Bertrand: I’m sorry, I didn’t understand the question. I apologize. The question was?

Senator Moodie: We’ve heard many times that regulation and the need for licensed child care is already written in at the level of the agreements with each province.

However, we have heard that it should be elevated to be included in the legislation. In your view, is this an essential piece of what needs to happen here?

Ms. Bertrand: As I’ve said in my remarks, we want to also align with public education. Public education can license programs for younger children and hold licensing and regulation. That is all part of what alignment with public education means.

Yes, regulation is important; licensing is important and needs to be part of a publicly managed system.

The Chair: I’m sorry we can’t hear Ms. Kehl on that, but that is an important question. Hopefully, we can explore it further. Perhaps Ms. Kehl would respond to us in writing.

Colleagues, all of a sudden I go from famine to feast. We have time and not too many senators asking questions.

[Translation]

Senator Cormier: My question is for Ms. Nangreaves, the Prince Edward Island representative.

Back in August, Kathleen Couture, Director of the Association des centres de la petite enfance francophones de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard, said that she was totally worn out from trying to recruit staff to work in the Evangeline region.

Witnesses told a House of Commons committee that a national workforce strategy would help to address recruitment challenges.

Here’s my question for you: Can Bill C-35, in its current form, help French-language child care centres in minority communities in Prince Edward Island with those challenges? Is there anything that should be added to the bill? Should the committee address the issue in its observations?

What measures are necessary to make things better for French-language child care centres in Prince Edward Island’s minority communities?

[English]

Ms. Nangreaves: Thank you, senator, for the question, and I apologize for my English answer.

Of course a commitment to a workforce strategy will help the workforce entirely. The francophone minority centres are a part of P.E.I.’s publicly managed system, so they do have access to all of those benefits and high-quality funding initiatives that are a part of that. Certainly continuing an investment for recruitment and retention is a focus there.

I speak with the director regularly, and I know recruitment is tough for anglophones, and even tougher for francophones. We have really great relationships with our local French college —Collège de l’Île — and we are working on creating more entry‑level folks to join the centres. Most recently, we were visiting high schools with French immersion to try to incentivize that we do have francophone centres looking for highly trained educators. Certainly, any further commitment to workforce recruitment and retention helps the workforce as a whole and then, of course, our minority groups as well.

Senator Cormier: Thank you.

Senator McPhedran: I’d like to go back to my earlier question to the previous panel in terms of a potential amendment that would be a definition. I hope that you heard the discussion. I don’t need to repeat all of it.

From your understanding, is there consensus among those of you who are such strong advocates for this bill of the wording of the definition?

I referenced some particular wording from Martha Friendly. I know that in Morna Ballantyne’s paper there is also another definition. I’m really seeking some sense of consensus among those of you who are such powerful advocates.

Ms. Bertrand: As I stated, we are proposing that we do not eliminate pre-school programs of children younger than compulsory school age who are in programs if public education from being excluded from the definition. I think, a broad definition that recognizes that early childhood education, early learning and child care can be delivered in school-operated licensed programs as well as school-operated prekindergarten, junior kindergarten, et cetera, would be value-added to the legislation.

What we are recommending strongly is that we don’t eliminate the possibility of those sorts of school-delivered programs, pre‑school programs, because they are enormously successful where they have been rolled out on a universal level in both Nova Scotia and Ontario.

Ms. Nangreaves: The ECDA would, certainly, be in favour of a definition. Through the amendments and through this process, I think most are understanding the advocates are wanting a definition that is licensed and regulated and provided by educated and certified early childhood educators.

What we would worry about is a couple of years down the road when it’s not us at the table, if it’s too broad, things can sneak in. We know that quality is a licensed and regulated system, that publicly managed system where there is that quality assurance. The ECDA is in favour of having a definition that more clearly protects that in the future.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you.

Senator Cardozo: Thank you to all three of our presenters today. You’ve provided us with a lot of interesting information.

I want to say hello to Jane Bertrand, whom I have had the good fortune of working with over the years in my previous role at the Pearson Centre. I want to thank you, Ms. Bertrand, and the Honourable Margaret McCain for the many years of work she has done through her foundation on this important issue.

I want to ask both of you: In terms of making any amendments to the bill — you might have seen I asked the same question to the previous panel — there is always the conundrum of whether we improve the bill and run the risk of delaying it or pass it in its current form just so that we get it across the finish line as soon as possible.

What is your advice to us? Are the changes you would like to see important enough that we must do it? As Senator Dasko pointed out, this committee is able to do both things sometimes — make amendments and get it through — but in case that weren’t to happen, what would you advise us?

Ms. Nangreaves: I am an optimist by nature, so I think you can do both. In the knowledge of time, I certainly want to celebrate this bill, but I think the definition, at the very least, isn’t going to cause too many hiccups along the way. It does add that extra assurance to future generations and future senators who are looking at this, and provinces, territories and Indigenous people.

It is a conundrum, but as an optimist, I trust the committee to be able to do both.

Ms. Bertrand: It is a conundrum; no doubt about it. I would hesitate to go forward with a definition that isn’t clear about what can be included in the bucket and what is out of the bucket. As I’ve already stated, I wouldn’t want to eliminate what can be offered through the public alignment with public education through a definition either. It should be reviewed with that in mind, and consider what is a straightforward definition that’s possible. If it’s not possible to do it in an uncomplicated way that allows the legislation to be passed, then as long as there is nothing that prohibits early childhood education programs in the non-profit and public sector proceeding, then I would go forward with it.

What is important is to really emphasize the principle that’s stated early in the legislation that this is about non-profit and public. That is the preference. Hold the line on the commercial sector. The biggest threat that this initiative faces is that it will become the go-to way to expand. We need to ensure that doesn’t happen, which is back to the point about including public education as a platform, as infrastructure to use. It’s public delivery. It can assist in early childhood education delivery going forward.

Senator Cardozo: Because these issues are hard to settle, does the bill in its current form strike the balance, and are you satisfied with the bill in its current form?

Ms. Bertrand: I would need to do a closer examination to see if there are ways in which the bill prohibits public education from going forward. I certainly wouldn’t want to add anything that prohibits alignment with public education.

I’m sorry that I’m not more knowledgeable. Perhaps what I could offer to do is go away and send in a written response to this after doing some more thinking.

Senator Cardozo: Please do. That would be very helpful.

I have one general question to both of you, just to take us back to first principles.

We have all these agreements in place with the provinces and territories. What is your one-sentence or two-sentence reason for why we need the act now?

Ms. Nangreaves: It has been transformational in P.E.I. since July 2021. That October, we saw wage increases and significant family fees deceased. We need that federal commitment to go forward and continue with expansion and really building our foundation and our workforce, continuing to ensure that’s quality. Having the relationship with provincial and federal commitment and investment and having it enshrined into law is transforming not only P.E.I. but the country. It’s of great importance to P.E.I.

Senator Cardozo: From the agreement to an act of Parliament, is that important to you?

Ms. Nangreaves: Yes.

Senator Cardozo: Thank you. Ms. Bertrand?

Ms. Bertrand: Yes, an act in Parliament that really strengthens the principle of commitment to public and non-profit is important going forward. It would be much more difficult to dismantle that by any subsequent government. Those of us who have been around the block a bit, we have seen this happen when the legislation was not yet in place, and it was very easy to dismantle federal commitments with a new government.

That is part of the concern of wanting to enshrine it into legislation. Any government can come in and change legislation and dismantle things, but it’s much more difficult to do when legislation is in place. That’s the driving force around really wanting to get the legislation passed.

At the same time, we want to be cautious that we are not setting the stage for massive corporate investment in commercial child care that sucks up the public resource, as has happened in Australia and in the U.K. It is important to have that commitment in place and legislation strong enough to carry it.

I only gave a couple of lines from Senator Moodie’s statement at the beginning of my notes. Senator Moodie ended her presentation to the Senate committee with a very strong endorsement of needing to stick to public and non-profit delivery, that it’s a public good. I think that’s the main driver to get the legislation through without letting it languish too long. On the other hand, we want to ensure that it does that.

Senator Cardozo: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Colleagues, we have some more time. Let me ask my question, and I encourage others who held back their questions because we had a famine and now we have a feast.

Ms. Nangreaves, we heard yesterday that whilst the agreements that have been signed have resulted in the creation of 276,395 new child care spots, that doesn’t actually mean those children are in care due to capacity issues. I note that P.E.I. committed to providing 452 more spots.

What can you tell us about whether these spots are actually filled with babies and children or if they are vacant spots because we cannot find the workforce?

Ms. Nangreaves: Thank you for the question. We have seen expansion happen with new spaces and children in spaces. Moving ahead, I had mentioned earlier that we have a child care registry that helps with our data province-wide to see where those predominantly rural areas really need more spaces and expansion.

I will note that, of course, across the country it has to come with workforce, and so P.E.I. in our agreement in this past year has focused a lot of investment on education grants and education opportunities to make sure that as we try to expand over here we will have the workforce to fill that space on the other side.

We’ve seen expansion since July 2021 with families accessing the care, but as we are right now joining the rest of the provinces and territories, we still have families that aren’t accessing, so we’re trying to be strategic as we go forward and advocate that another part on the P.E.I. government is the infrastructure and actually having the dollars for that as well.

It’s not always linear. There are a couple of things at play, but to be strategic, to answer your question.

Senator Seidman: This is related to the question Senator Omidvar just asked. If I look at data put out from StatCan on October 5, 2023, proportion of children younger than six participating in any form of child care by province in the years 2019, 2020 and 2022, it’s an interesting trend to see that the numbers have gone down over time instead of going up, and by fairly high proportions. In Prince Edward Island, the number has gone down by 8% in three years.

We could think about why this could be happening, COVID, for example, but I’m just wondering if there is something else going on and is it that places are announced but there’s no staff, no way to fill obligations to provide child care and that’s why they’re going empty and there are fewer children in child care.

Ms. Nangreaves, since you are getting the questions about P.E.I. today, could I ask you about that, if you have some understanding of the situation?

Ms. Nangreaves: Can I ask you, senator, to repeat the beginning of the question? The number has gone down for children actually accessing care? Is that what you mean?

Senator Seidman: Yes, participating. The number has gone down for children younger than six participating in any form of child care for the years 2019, 2020 and 2022, so the number has decreased every year.

Ms. Nangreaves: I don’t want to argue with Statistics Canada. I would assume the pandemic would have an influence on that number. I can only speak to what we see as far as the child care registry, and certainly the demand is there. As we continue to see the family fees reduced, demand is increasing, and that is not even infant and toddler. It’s across the board. I don’t have much to add to that, unfortunately. My apologies. I can bring something back, senator, if you wish.

Senator Seidman: It would be interesting to know if there is some fault in the data collection, especially because the reduction is a pattern for all the provinces, if you look at them, with no exceptions. It could be simply the pandemic and parents didn’t send their kids to daycare and kept them home.

However, if it has to do with access, that would be another matter. If you’re opening spaces but the spaces can’t be filled so kids aren’t getting their places and you have fewer teachers, it would be hard to know. If there is a way to find out, that would be interesting. Thank you.

Ms. Bertrand: If I could add to that, we’ll check in with the Atkinson Centre who is monitoring this and with Gordon Cleveland who understand those data far better than I do and get back to you in a written response.

I would say, yes, the pandemic had a huge impact. Centres were closed with emergency care only. It takes time to reopen and build back up. That’s point one.

Point two, there are many centres that have rooms closed because they can’t attract qualified staff. That is definitely a Toronto problem. Even though there are waiting lists, those spaces and rooms cannot be accessed because there are no qualified people. That is very much a factor.

Senator Seidman: I would really appreciate if you check with Atkinson Centre. Thank you very much.

The Chair: I am disappointed that we were not able to hear Ms. Kehl on both these local and broader questions. I suggest the question is for you as well, Ms. Kehl, so whatever you can do to help us with your point of view from Manitoba would be helpful.

Ms. Bertrand, we look forward to your version of definition that would be inclusive of child care in schools for after-school programs or in public facilities.

Ms. Bertrand: I was not referencing school-aged child care for children who are in Grade 1 and up. I was talking more about pre-school programs, the 3-year-olds, the 4-year-olds, the full-day 5-year-olds, that they can be recognized as part of the Canada-wide system and its expansion. I will work on a definition and send it in.

The point is not to have anything in the definition that eliminates the potential for public education to align with and reach down and serve younger kids.

The Chair: We look forward to receiving that.

With that I wish to thank our witnesses. Your work in the field has enriched our perspectives on this bill significantly.

Again, we’re very sorry, Ms. Kehl, about the technical issues, but we wish to hear from you.

(The committee adjourned.)