THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 26, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 11:31 a.m. [ET] to examine Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses and members of the public watching our proceedings. My name is Ratna Omidvar, and I am the chair of this committee.
Before we begin, I would like to go around the table and introduce the senators to the witnesses and the public.
Senator Osler: Good morning. Gigi Osler, senator from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Good morning. Senator René Cormier from New Brunswick. Welcome.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Good morning. Senator Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
Senator Seidman: Good morning, Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Good morning. Marie-Françoise Mégie from Montréal, Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Our first panel is online, and we welcome all of you. Thank you for taking the time to provide us with your perspectives. We welcome via Zoom Hélène Gosselin, Chair of the board, Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance; Sylvia Martin-Laforge, Director General, Quebec Community Groups Network; and Élise Bonneville, Director, Collectif petite enfance. Thank you for joining us today. You will have five minutes allocated for your opening statements, followed by questions from our members.
[Translation]
Hélène Gosselin, President of the Board of Directors, Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance: Good morning. My name is Hélène Gosselin and I’m President of the Board of Directors of the Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance, the AQCPE.
As an expert body in early childhood, the AQCPE provides leadership in representing, promoting and supporting a quality CPE/BC, an early childhood centre network, for children aged 0 to 5.
Thank you for inviting us to share our experience in Quebec.
Two years after the federal government’s announcement, the stakes are still high, as Quebec and the rest of Canada grapple with a critical shortage of child care spaces and a shortage of manpower. Now more than ever, it’s important not to give in to the temptation to move too fast at the expense of quality.
Why put so much emphasis on service quality? Because it’s much more than a work-life balance measure. Child care services are not an extension of the home. The objectives go far beyond simply ensuring that toddlers are busy and safe.
It’s about building a social fabric around the child and his or her family. It means overcoming a language delay before school starts. It’s enabling a family to break the cycle of poverty. There are as many examples as there are stories, but each story has an impact on our society.
This requires child development professionals who are able to capture the infinite nuances and act at the right moment. It requires special training, skills and abilities. It also requires what we call “structural quality”: premises, equipment, management that accompanies and supports educational staff, links with community organizations and the health and social services network.
We are also pleased to see the clarifications that have been added following the parliamentary committee study to specify the importance of high-quality services and evidence-based practices. We also appreciate the clarification concerning vulnerable clienteles, who benefit most from access to quality environments.
These amendments support the guiding principles that led to the creation of the CPE network: accessibility, universality and quality. To achieve these objectives, experience has shown that only one model is capable of fulfilling this mandate.
The network of early childhood centres was built on popular, non-profit daycare centres. It’s a model for and by the community, managed by boards of directors made up mostly of parent-users, and detached from financial concerns. This structure has a direct impact on quality levels. With the compulsory quality assessment, we are in a position to situate the different models. There is a clear difference between for-profit models and the CPE model. Even with identical funding, as is currently the case between CPEs and subsidized private daycares, the gap is 30% in favour of CPEs.
However, the network has been dependent on political trends, and its development has been chaotic. This has led to a proliferation of models, which in turn has reduced the positive impact.
To our counterparts in other provinces, we say: You have the opportunity to choose today the model that will enable you to achieve your objectives efficiently. This decision must be clear, scientifically based and impervious to political direction.
With this in mind, we welcome the creation of a national advisory committee and the introduction of an annual report, which will be able to flesh out reflections on early learning. It makes sense to be able to track the progress of the network’s deployment and its effects, to avoid making decisions based on perceptions.
Likewise, the desire to secure investments in early childhood is, in our view, a recognition of the importance they hold for the population. While respecting provincial jurisdictions, we see this bill as a bulwark against economic and political vagaries.
Quebec’s experience and numerous national and international studies speak for themselves: Investing in early childhood is a win-win situation for society. We hope that you, senators, will support this approach.
Thank you for your attention.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Gosselin.
Sylvia Martin-Laforge, Director General, Quebec Community Groups Network: Good morning, Senator Omidvar, Senator Cordy and honourable members of the committee. There are some familiar faces on this committee. I am very pleased to see Senator Seidman, who is a great champion for English-speaking Quebec in this chamber, and Senator Cormier, the chair of the Official Languages Committee, who has demonstrated a personal commitment to learning more about our community and whose door is always open to us. I’m also pleased to be at the table with such expert leaders from the Quebec sector of early learning and child care, or ELCC. Good morning, ladies.
This is the first time we have appeared before this committee, so please allow me to briefly introduce our organization and the community we serve.
Founded in 1995, the Quebec Community Groups Network, or QCGN, is a not-for-profit organization linking English-language groups and people across Quebec. Canada’s English linguistic minority, which is referred to collectively as the English-speaking community of Quebec, numbered 1.2 million people at the time of the last census — more than half of all Canadians who live in an official language minority community.
As a centre of evidence-based expertise and collective action, the QCGN identifies, explores and addresses strategic issues affecting the development and vitality of the English-speaking community of Quebec. We also provide backbone support to a community development process that identifies and helps the community move toward achieving common priorities. We work well — mostly — with all levels of government, helping them understand these priorities so that they may take positive measures that meet our unique needs.
The QCGN normally works at a strategic policy level. However, English-speaking Quebec does not have a community-based advocacy organization specializing in the early learning and child care sector, which is why we were pleased to accept your invitation to appear here today. We acknowledge the invaluable research support provided by the Community Health and Social Services Network, CHSSN, in the preparation of this brief, and we note that they also work with Ms. Gosselin and Ms. Bonneville.
Let me assure you that many organizations in our network, like the Quebec Federation of Home & Schools Association and English Parents’ Committee Association, are especially interested in seeing progress on this file.
The brief that we submitted in support of your study provides some insight into the challenges faced by English-speaking Quebecers to access early learning and child care services in English in Quebec. It also provides evidence that the effects of these challenges are mostly felt by women living below the poverty line.
The brief goes into some detail on the Government of Canada’s new commitments under the recently amended Official Languages Act, which, because of its quasi-constitutional nature, will affect the implementation of Bill C-35. Bill C-35 makes specific reference to this obligation in clause 7.
The Government of Canada has new obligations under the Official Languages Act to consult with and take more clearly defined positive measures to enhance the vitality of English-speaking Quebec. These new duties apply to intergovernmental agreements involving the federal spending power. Federal obligations are attached to federal taxpayer money.
Quebec is a proud national and international leader in early learning and child care. It has demonstrated the societal benefits of providing affordable services.
However, not all segments of Quebec society have benefited equally from these programs. English-speaking Quebecers, especially those who can least afford it, continue to face challenges accessing inclusive and high-quality early learning and child care programs and services regardless of where they live. The Government of Canada has a responsibility to assist Quebec in closing these gaps, especially as they affect communities of interest identified in Bill C-35’s guiding principles, including the English-speaking community of Quebec.
It takes significant resources for communities of interest to participate in consultative mechanisms like the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care. Compensation should be provided by the federal partner to ensure the policy capacity exists in communities, not just in Quebec but in other provinces as well, to engage in evidence-based discussions. Moreover, the governance of consultative mechanisms must share power, not further bolster the immense power of the executive branch of government.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Ms. Bonneville, please go ahead.
[Translation]
Elise Bonneville, Director, Collectif petite enfance: Thank you. Senators, first of all, I’d like to thank you for welcoming me here today as a representative of the Collectif petite enfance.
The Collectif petite enfance has 23 national members across Quebec, bringing together thousands of people who work for young children and their families. Together, we share a common goal: to make early childhood a societal priority.
The collective positions itself as the voice of Quebec’s toddlers, and aims to put in place the conditions for success that will ensure their full development, well-being and future, from early pregnancy to age 5.
The members of the collective come from different networks in Quebec and have different areas of expertise. Community, associative, perinatal, research, municipal, First Nations and immigrant communities are all members of the Collectif petite enfance.
We are flattered by your invitation, and we humbly hope that by pooling the diverse expertise of the Collectif’s members, we will be able to add to your reflections on the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.
Before we begin, I’d like to make it clear that the Collectif petite enfance cannot be considered an expert on the deployment of Quebec’s network of early learning and child care services. It’s conceivable that some questions could be addressed directly to more specialized members. In fact, some members of the collective took part in the consultations and were heard by the House. Today, we see a good example of this. It was important for me to mention it.
As for our comments on the proposed legislation, I must tell you right away that we were pleased to find several terms in it that are very important when it comes to services offered to children and, by extension, their parents. If you’ll allow me, I’d like to make a few comments about some of these terms that we’ve highlighted and that are fundamental to us.
First, there’s the term “high quality.” It’s very interesting that the legislator has decided to insist on this notion. It has been emphasized from the outset in other speeches given before ours. Indeed, the quality of child care services is essential if we want this investment — because it really is an investment in tomorrow’s society — to be effective, relevant and even profitable.
I won’t be telling you anything new if I tell you that a great deal is at stake between the ages of 0 and 5. This period is exceptionally conducive to the development of children’s full potential, and is therefore also where we need to act, on the societal front, to promote social mobility and counter inequalities. As a prevention strategy, in all areas, nothing can match these investments.
Of course, achieving the high quality we’re aiming for will require substantial resources, including the creation of healthy environments conducive to the well-being of young children; the establishment of highly competitive training and working conditions for caregivers and educators; funding for research applied to these environments; the deployment of knowledge-sharing initiatives between different governments and service providers; and the establishment of monitoring indicators for early childhood programs and activities by the governments concerned.
Then there are the terms “accessible” or “equitable access.” These terms are intrinsically linked to other important terms also found in the bill. I’m thinking of the terms “rural and remote communities” or “low-income families.” The correlation is important. We must necessarily think about access to services with the most materially and socially disadvantaged groups in mind.
Firstly, given the low incomes available, even a minimal cost to access a service potentially becomes an obstacle. The aim must therefore always be to extend free services.
What’s more, we know that localities with the highest indices of disadvantage are also, proportionally and sadly, those with the fewest high-quality services. We therefore need to pay particular attention to models for deploying services in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods and regions. Social economy models seem to offer excellent solutions to this problem.
In fact, social economy models guarantee that every dollar invested by governments is directed solely towards increasing access to and quality of services. We are well aware that this notion is also to be found in the guiding principles proposed by the legislator.
Accessibility is also linked to other terms that appear in various places in the bill, namely “inclusion” and “systematically marginalized groups.” Inclusion conditions must precede individual requests, otherwise many families will simply not see the possibility of their child being included.
Every child, whether they have special support needs or not, must be able to count on a range of stakeholders, both state and community-based. The notion of inclusion necessarily implies reflection on the best ways to improve or make possible the concerted work of this diversity of players.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bonneville. I am sure you can get to the rest of your remarks through the questions that will be posed to you.
Colleagues, we will go to questions from the senators. You will have, as usual, four minutes for your question and answer. We will start with Senator Cordy, deputy chair of our committee.
Senator Cordy: My first question is for Ms. Gosselin. Thank you very much to the three of you. It has been a very interesting discussion.
Ms. Gosselin, you said that it’s a good idea to have the national advisory committee. Could you tell us some of the advantages there would be for your organization and for child care overall in Quebec?
[Translation]
Ms. Gosselin: As far as the National Advisory Council is concerned, we’re very pleased with its creation. Over the past 30 or 40 years, knowledge about the quality of child care and its effect on young children, as well as knowledge about early childhood development, has grown enormously. A lot of discoveries have been made.
Having a national council that will keep abreast of all these developments and ensure that services are organized and delivered equitably across the country... It’s also very important to notify the clienteles, as Ms. Bonneville said, who need it most, i.e. the clienteles of young children who live in socio-economic environments that are more difficult and more disadvantageous for them... Studies have shown that these are the children who benefit most from high-quality child care.
The national council could be, if you will, a watchdog for everything that’s being done in terms of child care and child care development in Canada, and it could ensure that Canada is at the cutting edge of scientific research on early childhood development.
[English]
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for that.
My second question is for Ms. Martin-Laforge. You spoke about English Quebecers having challenges accessing child care spaces and you did a good job on that.
You touched briefly on the challenges of new Canadians who may not speak either French or English. Could you expand on that somewhat?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Understanding that there’s not as much research being done for English-speaking Quebecers as we’d like, some of the answers that we would bring to you on that would have to be more researched. We would probably have to count on experts and people in the sector such as Ms. Gosselin and Ms. Bonneville to help us understand exactly the situation, certainly of new immigrants.
In our brief, we have talked to you about the incidence of statistics for English-speaking Quebecers. To my knowledge, not as much work is being done on the impacts for immigrant Quebecers coming in.
I’ll just finish with this: Equity of access and inclusion are terrifically important. Any work that we would do would have to include all individuals in Quebec that see themselves as English-speaking Quebecers.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much.
Senator Osler: Thank you to the witnesses for appearing here today. My request is for Ms. Gosselin.
In your appearance at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, HUMA for short, on March 21, 2023, you said:
Why offer high-quality services? They allow for early detection of developmental challenges and intervention before those challenges become a real issue. Non-profit services are supported by health, social services and child welfare workers, which means we can secure truly equal opportunity for children and they can succeed later in school. Therefore, quality plays a key role in children’s development.
Is the research from Quebec about development outcomes in terms of a non-profit, accessible and inclusive system? Could you also expand on the not-for-profit model in terms of children’s development outcomes?
[Translation]
Ms. Gosselin: Thank you for your question.
First of all, early childhood centres collaborate closely with the health and social services sector. As soon as challenges are identified in children, we can enlist the help of professional health care workers to help provide the right support and follow-up so that the child arrives at school with as little developmental delay as possible to help him or her succeed in school. These are partnerships that we operate on a daily basis with the children we take in. These are partnership agreements that are carried out in a very efficient and structured way.
One part of your question dealt with non-profit daycare services and their quality. In Quebec, a system for evaluating the quality of child care services has been in place for several years. These evaluations of quality in the field and of the quality of care provided by early childhood educators have shown that non-profit daycare services, i.e. those offered in CPEs, are of higher quality than those offered in for-profit daycare services.
That’s a percentage difference of 30% more quality in not-for-profit child care. One of the factors that may explain these differences is the governance of daycare centres. In not-for-profit centres, parent-users sit on the board of directors. They are the ones who decide what direction to take in order to offer quality services to their children. Obviously, no savings are made in terms of service quality, staff training — qualified staff are paid more — or food quality. The quality assessment reports produced in Quebec show very clearly that there is a higher level of quality in non-profit services, probably because there is no profit motive. All the money invested in the service goes to the quality of services for children.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you to our witnesses for being with us today and for allowing us to explore official language minority communities’ perspectives. Knowing me, that’s exactly what I’m going to pursue in my line of questioning.
Ms. Martin-Laforge, I will begin with you.
Clause 7(3) of the bill states:
Federal investments in respect of early learning and child care programs and services subject to an agreement entered into with a province must be guided by the commitments set out in the Official Languages Act . . . .
How should a monitoring and evaluation system be established to assess the compliance of child care providers with the Official Languages Act? What are the additional complications because of necessary intergovernmental agreements in education? Thank you.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Senator Seidman, that is a very important and complicated question.
Canada has an obligation to the official language minority in Quebec. Certainly, the vulnerability of English-speaking children is of concern to the English-speaking community. It’s a cornerstone for our community.
We believe that the establishment of this national committee will help in reinforcing the Government of Canada’s responsibility to the English-speaking community with an understanding of research, ensuring that the English-speaking community has the wherewithal to give proper research to this very important issue and to ensure access.
In our brief, we talk about a survey on child development in kindergarten, and you’ll see some quite alarming statistics around where we are with our kids in that they are not achieving as well as the young francophones in the province.
With this national committee and with Bill C-35, understanding and implementing the measures of Part VII under the modernized Official Languages Act will allow a proper lens to be applied to access, inclusion, good programming and training, all the very important things that other members of this committee have talked about today to ensure quality child care and early learning. I believe that we would be on a good path if this Senate committee in their report reinforced the need for a better lens on the English-speaking community of Quebec and what this act can do for us.
Senator Seidman: Is there something particular about the fact that this involves intergovernmental agreements that will further create problems, specifically for minority communities, be it the English communities in Quebec or francophone communities in the other provinces?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Transfer payments are always a concern to the English-speaking community because of the need for accountability and transparency by the provincial government to ensure that the monies coming in are considered for the use, protection, promotion and access of the English-speaking community. Any transfer payment — the big money or the small money — should really be reviewed, and there should be a focus to see if, in fact, the provincial government has an action plan specifically designed to support the priorities of our community, whether they be for seniors or for early childhood.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I would like to take an approach that I have taken before, which is to focus on the benefits and the lessons of developing a national program across jurisdictions, where one jurisdiction can learn from the other. Particularly, with your experience in Quebec, I’d like to know what you could share with us on developing a sustainable early childhood workforce. What are some of the lessons learned from Quebec’s perspective in terms of how to do this? What were the missed opportunities, and what have you put in place that could be shared across jurisdictions?
[Translation]
Ms. Gosselin: Thank you.
I’m not sure I understood the question. I think it’s about educator training, missed opportunities or... I’m not sure I understood the question.
[English]
Senator Moodie: I’m sure that, with your experience, you can identify areas that you feel were areas you had to focus on and where there were gaps. Perhaps you have developed in Quebec some best practices that you would share with us about how you address some of the issues you faced, particularly as it refers to the workforce and developing a quality workforce that is trained properly, that has appropriate wages and good working conditions.
[Translation]
Ms. Gosselin: Thank you.
In terms of the Quebec experience, to work in early childhood centres, what’s recognized above all is a college diploma, with a specialty in childhood education. These people, who are specialists and who intervene and work in our environments, are therefore highly qualified to work with young children and identify certain more specific needs in terms of children’s development.
With the current labour shortage and the lack of recognition of the essential work done by early childhood educators, very few people are going into child care at the college level.
In Quebec, the fact that we’ve developed these programs to train specialists in early childhood development is extraordinary. However, the lack of salary and professional recognition for these workers means that there are very few people studying in this field at college. There’s a gap.
During the last round of negotiations, the Quebec government made up for this by raising the salaries of educators. This has come late in our development. Family policy is over 25 years old. We really have a lot of catching up to do, both in terms of recognition and in terms of encouraging people to study in this extraordinary field to make up for a major labour shortage in our sector. It’s a sector made up mainly of women. Ninety-seven or ninety-eight percent of child care specialists are women. When we say “women,” this also implies lack of pay equity.
One of the missed opportunities is the fact that we didn’t get better recognition more quickly, to avoid a disengagement of students from this area of study. I hope I’ve answered your question correctly.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Gosselin.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I’m going to continue along the same lines, but perhaps this time with an answer from Ms. Bonneville.
I have the impression that Quebec, in certain respects, has been a bit of a victim of its own success, in the sense that child care centres have offered these services with highly qualified personnel.
If the same phenomenon occurs in other provinces, and we find ourselves with a demand that exceeds our capacity to provide this highly qualified personnel — because that’s what we want, and you’ve all clearly demonstrated that it’s very important that the personnel be highly qualified — what advice would Quebec have on how to ensure that we can meet this demand, so that there are no compromises to be made in the other provinces? Do we have that kind of advice? Do we have any lessons from Quebec that we could share?
Ms. Bonneville: Thank you for the question.
As I said at the outset, it would have been a question for which I could have given my colleague from AQCPE a little hand up to complete her answer. I think Ms. Gosselin got off to a good start with her answer, and I’ll pass the ball back to her to complete mine. Having a high-quality salary package is an avenue not to be overlooked, since she ended her answer with this strong and fundamental element for attracting and retaining staff. It’s a cornerstone in our thinking that we shouldn’t abandon too quickly for the future. That would really be my first line of thought.
If not, in terms of other avenues, perhaps Ms. Gosselin knows of others, because I’d be happy to draw on her expertise to complete my answer.
Ms. Gosselin: The provision of high-quality services depends on staff quality and training. You need qualified educators to offer high-quality services.
Obviously, in Quebec, we were pioneers in government funding of child care services. What’s important for the other provinces in implementing these flat-rate services to promote greater accessibility is not to neglect remuneration of staff commensurate with their qualifications. These are specialists, and these people have studied for three years to work with young children. The salary must be commensurate with this training, otherwise we won’t succeed.
As long as there isn’t better salary recognition for the work done by these caregivers, there won’t be more attraction, in other words, people won’t be interested in studying in this field.
Senator Mégie: My question is for our three guests, whom I thank for being here this morning.
Do you think that public funding should be earmarked exclusively for public child care services? Do you think this should be clearly stated in the bill? I’d like to hear from each of you.
Ms. Gosselin: I’ll start, if that’s okay.
For the Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance, it seems clear to us, given the results of research and quality assessments, that the money invested by the state in child care services offers a better return in non-profit services than in private services. The answer is clear.
There should be no notion of profit when it comes to the education of young children; there should be no notion of profit associated with child care services.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: We obviously support this recommendation; in fact, we know that the government has an obligation to these young children and that quality and performance measures are important, and it’s only with this idea, as Ms. Gosselin said, that we can move forward with confidence.
[English]
These children will be what we need for them to be in the future. I think that is pretty evident. Thank you, Ms. Gosselin, for your recommendation.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you. Ms. Bonneville, would you like to complete the answer, or are you of the same opinion?
Ms. Bonneville: I’m of the same opinion; the research is moving in that direction and the public funds invested really need to be reinvested in the quality of services and access.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Cormier: Ms. Martin-Laforge, first, I want to thank you again for all your work, and I want to recognize in this committee how essential your organization is to the vitality of the English-speaking communities in Quebec. It’s important.
I will refer directly to the bill in my question. I will refer to clause 8, the funding commitments. As you said, federal spending power carries with it federal obligations, namely, the Official Languages Act.
In your view, is clause 8 of Bill C-35, which provides the federal commitment to “. . . maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services . . .,” sufficiently explicit for official language minority communities? As you can see, there is no mention of the linguistic minorities in clause 8, which speaks about funding commitments. What do you think?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: One of the problems for the English-speaking community is to have this recognition, and it’s not just the official language minority of Quebec. We need to recognize in all legislation that official language minority communities are important in the dispensation of services or in any legislation.
With regard to the English-speaking community of Quebec, it becomes even more important that we be recognized as a linguistic minority, and the enhancement of that vitality of both English and French linguistic minorities is important.
If there is any wiggle room in the legislation, people might take advantage of that wiggle room, so we must not have in Bill C-35 or any other legislation any wiggle room for provinces not to take into account the contribution and the need for the minority languages.
Have I answered your question, senator?
Senator Cormier: Yes, and do I understand by what you’re saying that there is a lack of consistency or parallelism between clause 7(3), which speaks about official language obligations, and clause 8, in which there is no mention?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: There is wiggle room.
Senator Cormier: Thank you so much.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: And I think that your question is very important, and a resolution to your question is even more important.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
I just wanted to say something about that, and it might be information and a question at the same time. Some say that courts could consider that the legislator implicitly excluded linguistic minorities in its commitment to maintain long-term financing, and this despite the fact that there’s a mention in clause 7(3). That’s my preoccupation here, and I don’t know if it’s aligned with yours, but that’s what I’m asking for here.
That was a comment and a question. It’s either a yes or no. What do you think?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Yes, I absolutely agree with you.
Senator Cormier: Thank you. It’s clear. Thank you so much.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: My silence is one of agreement.
The Chair: Thank you. Let me quickly follow up on Senator Cormier’s question. You talked about the ambiguity in Bill C-35 around entrenching minority language rights in the funding section of the agreement. You called it “wiggle room.”
Wiggle room is an interesting idea and interesting language. Wiggle room can be good; it can be bad. In your opinion, and I would like to hear you — I think I heard you say it before — more definitively, should this Senate committee make sure that there is certainty and definitiveness in terms of funding for child care in official language minority communities?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: I do, and I believe that my colleagues who will come after us in the next panel would say the same thing.
I’m sorry if I’ve given a little bit of a funny word here, but legislators have to make it very clear what the intent is, certainly around funding as well.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thanks to the witnesses for being here today.
Of course, Quebec launched its system of child care services in 1997, and then in 2021, the federal government comes along with a pile of money to negotiate with the provinces to create in the other provinces a child care funding system, but Quebec, of course, had one.
And the federal government, of course, had conditions with the money — not just money, but conditions.
So, first, I’m just trying to get the big picture on this. Can you describe what the federal money did in Quebec? Did it involve changes? Were there improvements to the child care delivery system in Quebec with the federal money? Or were there any other impacts in Quebec that the federal money and the federal — you know, we’re talking about the negotiations that the federal government had with the province. I just want to get a sense of what that federal money did to change, improve or bring about other impacts on Quebec.
Then, more specifically, we were just talking now about Senator Cormier’s question about the legislation, but of course, the negotiations have already taken place. I would like to ask Ms. Martin-Laforge whether those negotiations impacted the English-language services as well, as a kind of subset question to my main question.
So, I’m going to ask this question to anybody who would like to take that big picture and just describe what the federal money did. Thank you.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: I will only be able to address the second part of your question. Certainly, I would rely on people who have expertise and who work daily with the system.
[Translation]
Ms. Gosselin or Ms. Bonneville, I’m really not comfortable answering the first part of that question.
Ms. Gosselin: I can try to answer, even if it’s not an easy question. There have been agreements. The Premier of Quebec, Mr. Legault, at the signing of the agreement for child care services and the transfer of funds from the federal government to the provincial government, said he was very happy and that he would use this money to improve the service offer. What we’ve seen in Quebec, which is linked to the injection of extra money from the federal government, is a push to develop child care services. As you know, our services are in great demand, there aren’t enough spaces for all the parents who want them, and there’s a huge waiting list. It has been announced that additional spaces are being developed. Calls for tender are currently being issued to develop new child care services. This should happen over the next two or three years.
There was an improvement in staff pay during the latest negotiations, which ended last year. I wouldn’t want to take the place of the provincial government and say that it was this money that made it possible to increase staff salaries. One would think so, but I’m not in the inner workings of the Quebec government. I can’t answer that question perfectly.
[English]
Senator Bernard: This question could be for any of the witnesses. Thank you all for being here today. I want to explore the issue of accessibility from a different perspective. In 2020, the Auditor General of Québec noted that children from disadvantaged backgrounds were under-represented in early childhood centres, or CPEs, and recommended that the Quebec Ministry of Families:
. . . ensure that children living in precarious socio-economic conditions or those with special needs have access to affordable child care services that meet their needs.
I would like to know if you’re able to tell us what initiatives were developed in Quebec to address these challenges and if you feel that Bill C-35 in its present state would address those issues that were raised in Quebec. Thank you.
[Translation]
Ms. Gosselin: First of all, it’s in the CPEs in Quebec, despite what you might think, that we take in the most children who are vulnerable, despite everything. On the other hand, we don’t manage to take in as many vulnerable children as we’d like because of the lack of spaces. In the child care network, the government estimates a shortfall of 35,000 to 50,000 spaces.
Currently, access to spaces is via a centralized waiting list, which is quite complex. Parents don’t necessarily have all the information they need to register their children. Parents whose children no longer need the service should leave spaces so that parents from vulnerable clienteles can register their children on this list and have real and rapid access to spaces. The centralized waiting list in Quebec will soon be modified, and the draft regulation has been tabled; this will happen next year, starting in 2024. It is to be hoped that, thanks to the overhauled access window, vulnerable customers will have better access to child care spaces. That’s what we want.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Thank you. Would any of the other witnesses care to respond to that question?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: I would like to say that English-speaking Quebecers care about all children in Quebec whether they speak English, French or whatever language they speak. So, better access and more funding are important.
I want to go back to a question that was asked earlier with regard to the English-speaking community. We already have it; we’re in the middle of an agreement. There is an agreement signed right now for the English-speaking community, which we’re asking you to consider. With Bill C-35, we’re playing the long game — a linguistic clause. So, turning a little bit to Senator Cormier’s thoughts here, there has to be consideration for English-speaking children within what you give to Quebec, so that transfer has to be considered within a work plan, a plan for English-speaking children in the system.
But as I said, this is not to negate what we worry about in terms of vulnerable communities across the system. I think that Bill C-35 could go a long way toward ensuring that.
The Chair: Thank you. I want to give Senator Dasko a minute because she got cut off.
Senator Seidman: I just wanted to follow up. I don’t want to take time and I appreciate that, but I think we’re on the verge of something important here based on clause 7(3), a follow-up of 8 and now this point. So, the question is whether the bill should be amended to implement that kind of linguistic clause that you’re requesting. Clauses 7(3) and 8 aren’t coherent, and that’s the problem, so is there some amendment that should be made?
The Chair: I believe, Senator Seidman, maybe our next witnesses will be able to answer that, if you agree. If not, maybe ask the witnesses to submit it in writing, please.
Senator Seidman: Sure, that would be fine.
The Chair: It is an important question.
Senator Dasko: I just want to ask Ms. Martin-Laforge about whether the money has had an impact in terms of the negotiations that have taken place, whether there has been any effect, impact or improvements for the English-language program in Quebec.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: To my knowledge, we are still struggling with having a really good program for the English-speaking kids, and that is probably systemic. I don’t think anybody is doing it on purpose, but there has to be more structure and a more systematic understanding of what we need, where we need it, how much we need and how much funding will go to it.
Thank you for that question. I think there needs to be more research done and more systemic implementation of what is needed for our community.
Senator Dasko: I guess you’re saying that you haven’t seen any change with the federal money. Is that what you’re saying?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: No, we have not.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, this brings us to the end of our first panel. I’d like to thank the witnesses for their time and testimony.
Colleagues, for our second panel, we welcome in person — and it’s always a delight to see people in person — François Larocque, Professor at the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa and Counsel with Power Law; Nicole Arseneau Sluyter, President of the Acadian Society of New Brunswick; and Ali Chaisson, Executive Director at the Acadian Society of New Brunswick. We are also joined by video conference by Jonathan Clavette, Legal Counsel, Acadian Society of New Brunswick; and Jean-Luc Racine, Executive Director, Commission nationale des parents francophones.
Thank you for joining us today. Witnesses will have five minutes for their opening remarks, followed by questions from my colleagues.
[Translation]
François Larocque, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa; Counsel, Power Law, as an individual: Madam Chair, senators, thank you very much for the invitation to appear before this committee to share my thoughts on Bill C-35.
[English]
I believe you have my speaking notes and recommendations in both official languages, but I will be making my remarks in French. However, I am happy, as always, to take questions in the official language of your choice.
[Translation]
Like the other organizations and individuals who have testified before you on this bill, I want to emphasize the importance of creating and maintaining a national system of early learning and child care. I also applaud the bill’s clear intention to ensure that this system is sustainable, inclusive and adapted to the specific realities of the communities it intends to serve, notably Indigenous peoples and official-language minority communities — OLMCs.
As a professor, university researcher and lawyer working in the field of language rights, I was very pleased to see the amendments made to Bill C-35 in the House of Commons and in committee. These amendments make direct reference to OLMCs, thereby ensuring that their rights and interests will be taken into account when this legislation is eventually implemented.
More specifically, the House of Commons deemed it useful to make explicit reference to OLMCs on three occasions in the bill, namely in paragraph 7(1)(c) and subclauses 7(3) and 11(1), which deal with the advisory council.
While these changes are beneficial, they are unfortunately incomplete in that they are not extended and reflected in the wording of clause 8 of the bill, the provision that codifies the federal commitment to long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services.
Clause 8 of Bill C-35 should include an explicit reference to official language minority communities, as I propose in my recommendation on page 2 of the brief. This is also recommended by the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Commission nationale des parents francophones.
Without the proposed amendment to clause 8, official language minority communities risk being deprived of the federal funding they need to maintain their early learning and child care programs and services over the long term.
I would like to think that these communities were inadvertently omitted from clause 8, and that the current wording does not reflect Parliament’s true intent. Fortunately, the Senate is there to correct the record and ensure that the linguistic rights and interests of official language minority communities are not forgotten. This has been the Senate’s historic role.
Some may argue that the proposed changes are unnecessary, and that the changes made by the House of Commons are sufficient to guarantee long-term funding. Respectfully, these people would be wrong.
In my view, a court could reasonably conclude that clause 8, as currently drafted, only commits the federal government to guaranteeing long-term funding for programs and services “intended for Indigenous peoples.” I say this for two reasons. First, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court has shown us that, in the absence of clear direction from Parliament, the courts should not expand the scope of language rights. In Caron v. Alberta, the Supreme Court refused to recognize the existence of language rights in the absence of explicit guarantees in the relevant legislative documents. The court must give a generous interpretation to constitutional language rights; it must not create new ones.
It goes on to say, “When these rights were addressed in the Constitution Act, 1867, they were addressed explicitly [...].” I was a lawyer on this case. It was a hard-learned lesson for official language communities.
Therefore, if clause 8 does not explicitly mention programs for official language minority communities, it is more than likely that a court would conclude that the government is not obliged to guarantee them long-term funding.
The second reason relates to principles of statutory interpretation. It is well established in Canada that courts must:
[...] The words of an act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the act, the object of the act, and the intention of Parliament.
This is an axiom of Canadian law.
Consequently, in interpreting clause 8, this provision must be placed in the context of the law as a whole. A judge seized with the question would note the absence of any reference to official language communities in clause 8, even though they are specifically mentioned in paragraph 7(1)(c) and subclauses 7(3) and 11(1).
It is in this context that the silence of clause 8 with regard to OLMCs risks giving the impression that it is a deliberate and intentional choice on the part of the legislator.
In other words, the current clause 8 would allow the government to argue before the courts that —
[English]
The Chair: I am so sorry. You are out of time, but you have given us your brief in both official languages. I thank you on behalf of my colleagues. We can go back to this in the questions. Ms. Arseneau Sluyter, please go ahead.
[Translation]
Nicole Arseneau Sluyter, President, Acadian Society of New Brunswick: Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished members of the Senate committee, it is with great pleasure that I address you today. I would like to express my gratitude to the committee for the opportunity to represent and express the concerns of the Acadian and francophone people of New Brunswick.
I would also like to take a moment to thank the delegates from Acadian organizations who have invested their time and energy in the evaluation of full Acadian school governance in New Brunswick.
We are meeting today to address an issue of great importance: Bill C-35 on child care.
Ladies and gentlemen, let’s remember that education is not a series of isolated steps, but rather a continuous path that begins long before elementary school. Daycare centres play an essential role in this journey, preparing our children for learning in French and ensuring the vitality of our Acadian and francophone culture.
When our little ones start attending daycare in French, they acquire the foundations of the language and, therefore, of their identity. It’s at this point that their love for their mother tongue is born, and the foundation on which their entire educational journey will be built. Without daycare centres offering a French-speaking environment from early childhood onwards, we risk losing this solid foundation.
Our main concern lies with subsection 16(2) and sections 16.1 and 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These elements of the Charter recognize the specificity of bilingualism in New Brunswick and access to minority-language education. We stress the importance of articulating these sections in the bill. By investing in French-language daycare, we are investing in the protection of our identity and our language. We’re building a strong, sustainable future for our children. The continuum in education starts early, which is why it’s essential to ensure access to French-language daycare for every child.
Let me tell you about a personal experience I’ve had since I’ve been in Saint John that shows just how important the educational continuum is. If we fail in this continuum, we contribute directly to assimilation to English. There aren’t enough daycare centres in French, and some parents have no choice but to enrol their children in English-language schools. As a result, their children end up losing their mother tongue.
A friend of mine from Saint John, a French-speaking Acadian, had no choice but to enrol her children in an English-language school. She told me: “Nicole, I’m ashamed, my child doesn’t speak French anymore.”
As parents, we can do our best and speak French at home, but what sometimes happens is that the children spend more time at school than with us. I remember when I was working full-time, I didn’t have time to talk to my daughter either. I’d finish work at 6 p.m., and by 7 p.m. my daughter would already be asleep, then we’d get ready for the next day.
This personal experience highlights the importance of the continuum in education. If we don’t manage to offer child care in French from early childhood onwards, we risk losing our language. Unfortunately, my friend’s situation is far from unique, which is why we must insist on equitable access to French-language daycare for all children.
We are asking that New Brunswick’s constitutional and linguistic specificity be taken into account in all agreements. This means integrating the provincial government’s obligations in terms of linguistic duality and respect for the rights of official-language minorities into agreements with the federal government and their legislative framework.
That’s why we’re asking that the preamble and purpose of Bill C-35 be modified as we’ve outlined in appendix A. We believe that these legislative changes will make it possible to create federal-provincial agreements that will respect the rights of linguistic minorities. We also believe that these changes will respect the specificity of bilingualism in New Brunswick, as recognized in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is reproduced in appendix B.
In our exchanges with the New Brunswick government, we have noted that the province is not opposed to correcting the inconsistency between the wording of Bill C-35 and the spirit of section 16.1 of the Charter. In other words, there seems to be an openness to rectifying this inconsistency.
Today, we appeal to you, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. We’re asking you to take concrete action, and we’re asking for your cooperation and commitment. We ask you to work hand in hand to preserve our Acadian and francophone identity and culture, so that our children, grandchildren and future generations can continue to flourish in the language of their ancestors.
Thank you for your attention.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Arseneau Sluyter. Mr. Racine, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Jean-Luc Racine, Executive Director, Commission nationale des parents francophones: Madam Chair, senators, thank you for inviting the Commission nationale des parents francophones to testify today on Bill C-35. We’re here to explain why it’s essential to amend clause 8 of the bill.
In short, we want funding that meets our needs for early learning and child care for francophone children in minority situations.
The CNPF works actively with 750 French-language child care services in minority settings. We are therefore well placed to understand the difficulties that these service providers face in the field.
The situation is alarming. According to the latest census, in 2021, 141,635 children aged 0 to 4 are entitled to French-language education outside Quebec. However, the number of authorized spaces only allows us to serve 20% of these children. In 80% of cases, parents must turn to English-speaking daycare centres.
We’ve heard many heartbreaking testimonials from French-speaking parents who find that their children, after years of attending English-speaking daycares, now speak to them only in English.
Some parents then choose to enrol their children in English-language schools. Why would they do this? Because they’re afraid their children won’t be able to succeed in a French-speaking school. Unfortunately, this contributes to the assimilation of young children from coast to coast.
To remedy this situation, the Commission nationale des parents francophones is asking that Bill C-35 be strengthened. In our view, it is important to add a provision to clause 8, which deals with financial commitment.
In summary, we are asking for the following addition to clause 8, which reads as follows:
The Government of Canada commits 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.
We would like to add the following: “and official language minority communities.”
Basically, what we want is for the federal government to ensure funding for our communities through early childhood agreements with the provinces and territories.
At present, the funding granted to the provinces creates very few spaces in French-speaking daycares. For example, in Alberta, only 19 of the 1,500 new child care spaces will go to the francophone community. In New Brunswick, 300 of the 1,900 new spaces created will be in French. In both cases, these numbers are well below the proportion of francophones in these provinces.
To this sad reality, we must add another element: investments by provincial and territorial governments in new French-speaking daycare spaces remain very low.
As currently worded, Bill C-35 will not help French-speaking communities obtain more child care spaces. On the contrary, as drafted, Bill C-35 will increase the systemic inequalities that already exist.
That’s why, Madam Chair, we want to improve clause 8. With the amendment we are proposing, we believe it is possible to improve early childhood services in minority francophone communities.
Thank you again for your attention. We’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Racine. We will proceed to questions from the senators. The senators will have four minutes each for their question and answer.
As chair, I would like to put my first question to you, Professor Larocque, and ask you to pick up from where you left off, which I believe was page 5, section 11. What does the case law suggest about the codification of language rights?
Mr. Larocque: I was long-winded and I did not deserve this generosity.
The Chair: Not at all, but you will only have four minutes.
Mr. Larocque: The remaining point I wanted to make had less to do with the case law and more to do with the general statutory principles of interpretation, which state that, essentially, when Parliament is silent in one part of the law but explicit in other parts of the law, courts are entitled to infer from that that it was an intentional silence.
Therefore, there is a Latin maxim — Expressio unius est exclusio alterius — which means that to specify something in one spot can infer a conclusion of wanting to exclude it elsewhere and vice versa. This is the risk that is created by the silence of section 8.
[Translation]
By not mentioning official language minority communities in clause 8, we essentially allow a court to eventually conclude that this was the legislator’s intention, since specific mentions are included elsewhere in the bill, but it is silent here.
I don’t think that was Parliament’s intention, nor that of this House. The historic jurisdiction of this House is precisely to correct errors and oversights that may have crept into a bill to protect the rights of official language minority communities.
That puts an end to the point I wanted to make.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Larocque. You state in your brief you believe the House “inadvertently omitted” an alignment between the two sections of the act.
Was there no debate either at the HUMA committee or in the House of Commons on this matter?
Mr. Larocque: There was a debate on this issue generally. Why it was omitted from section 8, I would not dare venture an explanation.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Larocque: All we do know is that section 8 is currently silent, and it creates an incoherency within the law if it remains that way.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Larocque.
Senator Cordy: Thank you, Professor Larocque. I read your brief last night; it was clear and concise, even for a non-lawyer. That’s a compliment, by the way.
My question is for Ms. Arseneau Sluyter and Mr. Racine. You gave some very troubling information. I think, as a parent, to send an Acadian child to child care in the English language and have them lose their language would be heartbreaking for a parent.
I’m wondering whether or not we have been collecting data on minority rights or minority languages within provinces like Nova Scotia and New Brunswick that have significant Acadian populations.
I’m interested in data collection because for us, as a committee, to say we heard anecdotal evidence — it’s easier if we can say there are so many people in the Atlantic region, or New Brunswick or Nova Scotia who are sending their children to English-speaking child care centres when, in fact, that is not the optimum.
You also gave numbers that were staggering about the percentage of children: 20% of Acadian children are being served.
Ms. Arseneau Sluyter: In my opinion, if the province had that data, it would be great. If we lose one child, it’s too many.
[Translation]
I worked at the Saint John ARCf for over 19 years; we had over 350 children in two early childhood centres and there were and are waiting lists. I’ve lived in Saint John for so long that I meet people almost every day whose children aren’t in a daycare centre.
In our minority regions, we see more and more couples, like mine, where one parent doesn’t speak French and the other does. This greatly reduces the number of times you can speak French to your child. What’s more, as you all know, the influence of the internet and everything that’s going on out there in the world doesn’t help us speak French.
In my opinion, if we can’t accept our children, our babies, in our daycare centres, we’re directly contributing to losing them. Parents, when their children arrive at kindergarten, feel helpless; they feel really bad and are afraid that their children won’t succeed in school.
Numbers are important, yes, but we’re a bilingual province. It shouldn’t be a problem to send our children to be educated in French, whether in Saint John, Moncton, Fredericton or anywhere else in the province.
Mr. Racine: Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to know how many francophones we have in English-language daycare centres, because we don’t have access to this data. However, I can tell you that there are very long waiting lists. In Charlottetown alone, there are 120 young people on waiting lists, with a two- to three-year wait for child care. In Petit Voilier, in the Halifax region of Nova Scotia, there are nearly 350 young people on waiting lists of two to three years to get —
[English]
The Chair: I’m afraid your time is over. We will have to come back to this question.
Senator Seidman: Thank you to the witnesses for your critically important testimony. I say that as an English Quebecer.
I’m going to cut to the chase because this follows really well from our previous panel. There is a growing concern that clauses 7(3) and 8 don’t cohere: the commitment to the Official Languages Act, yet no mention of official languages in long-term funding.
We have linguistic minority communities — the English community in Quebec and the French communities in the other provinces and territories. Professor Larocque, you have, on page 2, made recommendations for amendments, because clearly this is being communicated very loudly to us. You have clause 8 amended and the preamble.
I know, Mr. Racine, that you as well presented to HUMA an amendment in clause 8 for a financial commitment, which you reiterated to us today.
I’d like you to tell us briefly the importance and whether, in fact, the two amendments you’ve put forward to us, Professor Larocque, are the way we should go.
Mr. Larocque: The recommendation I made I think is identical to the one made by CNPF. The Commissioner of Official Languages made a similar if not identical recommendation as well because, as you said, Senator Seidman, it does not cohere with the rest of the sections in the statute.
For the reasons outlined in my memo, there is a risk. There is a legal, juridical risk to that of basically harming and depriving official language minority communities of rights to which they otherwise would have been entitled had the statute been drafted with more care. This is an occasion to fix it.
The second recommendation I make is to, as we say, put belts and suspenders on it. By adding this paragraph that I suggest on page 2 of my memo to the preamble, we make the link between clause 7(3) and the commitments under the Official Languages Act to take positive measures to support education in the minority language, starting in early child care. This is a commitment that was explicitly made in the Official Languages Act, and, therefore, by reminding courts of this commitment in the preamble, we basically tie everything together, including clause 7(3) of this act, clause 8 and the preamble. I like things to be neat and coherent, and this, in my sense, would go a long way to ensure that.
Senator Seidman: There is no commitment to the Official Languages Act in the preamble. That is interesting. Now I am made very much more aware of that fact.
Mr. Larocque: There is no mention of the Official Languages Act in the preamble of Bill C-35.
Senator Seidman: Thanks for tying all of that together for us.
Senator Osler: Thank you, witnesses, for being here today. My question follows on from my colleague Senator Seidman’s question. It is for Mr. Racine and Professor Larocque.
I represent the province of Manitoba, where four out of five Franco-Manitobans live in Winnipeg, but unlike New Brunswick, Manitoba is not an officially bilingual province. Based on Statistics Canada data, within the past ten years, the demographic weight of Manitobans that could speak French has dropped. I understand and support the importance of early childhood as a crucial time in children’s development, particularly for language.
Do you believe your suggested amendments would reinforce the bilateral agreements between federal, provincial and territorial governments on early childhood services in terms of funding commitments to official language minority communities across Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Racine: Yes, certainly. There are federal-provincial-territorial agreements at the moment. In the agreements, there are principles regarding official languages. The needs of francophones must be taken into account.
The agreements have been in place since 2017. There is no funding to support francophones in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. It’s done well in some provinces, including Manitoba, where there are fairly firm commitments.
When there’s no firm commitment to funding, that’s what happens. We have some fine principles, as in clause 7 of the bill. What’s really needed is a financial commitment. That’s where we see tangible results. In provincial action plans, like Manitoba’s, when there’s been a firm commitment to francophones, with an amount of money and a number of spaces, we’ve seen the results. When it’s just a nice principle, it’s vague, and we see absolutely no results. It’s important to include this in clause 8 of the bill.
Mr. Larocque: I’m going to piggyback on my colleague’s comments by reiterating the importance, as I said in my opening remarks, of being explicit in bills. When it comes to language rights, the courts are skittish. They don’t want to go beyond what the legislator has said on paper. You have to specify your intentions clearly on paper.
Secondly, I say yes to the territorial scope of agreements from coast to coast. This will make it possible to make firm commitments. As clause 8 says, there’s also the temporal aspect, the long term. It’s not just geographical, but temporal; it’s in the future. Governments change, laws remain. The law has to be permanent and ensure this long-term financing.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Thank you to our witnesses today. I wanted to refer to an earlier comment about the discussion in the House of Commons on this matter. There was significant discussion in the House dedicated to the opportunity to amend section 8, and they didn’t. In fact, no members brought it forward. There was significant discussion about education for official language minority communities and recognition that it’s essential to protect them from assimilation to preserve culture. I think we are all very supportive of that here.
That is what section 7 is about. It deals with the criteria for funding and it makes clear that those communities must be included and that this must be reflected in all the agreements. Section 8 is about something different. Section 8 is about the mechanisms, the pathways, by which money is distributed through agreements with provinces, territories and Indigenous governments — existing pathways for mechanisms of distribution of funding.
I also want to point out that when I asked the government about altering section 8 and including in an amended bill a new pathway for funding directly to communities, which is not the policy intent of this bill, I was told — and I’ll give it to you straight — that the Government of Canada already has long-standing funding relationships with the provinces, territories and Indigenous bodies, which are their pathways for distributing money. I was also told that there are concerns, frankly, about negatively impacting these relationships, especially with Indigenous people, by adding new funding commitments. New pathways to official language communities, or to any particular community, are not recognized as a funding pathway, but a community. The established partners or funding mechanisms will be the way that money is distributed to provinces, territories and Indigenous communities to provide ELCC services within their jurisdictions.
My question to all of you is this: What would your response to this be? It’s about a mechanism for funding. It is not about omitting a group.
Ali Chaisson, Executive Director, Acadian Society of New Brunswick: We have institutions that we have fought long and hard to create. The one that comes to mind that best alludes to the question you’ve asked, Senator Moodie, is our francophone school boards, which are the only para-public institutions, other than municipalities in certain provinces, that we fully control. School boards are obligated under provincial law to adhere to all of the financial obligations and the correction of measures that their respective auditors general will do in due course.
In terms of a pathway, that would be a para-public entity to a government entity. In terms of francophone communities, they are probably the easiest way to adhere and create a pathway that would be acceptable, as opposed to putting in a situation and system where not-for-profit organizations or others would be responsible for that level of engagement.
There are existing institutions and pathways. I’ve always believed — I’ve been in front of many committees over the last many years and I’ve always brought forward the same point — the time has come that the federal government enable direct conversations between the federal government and minority-language institutions, in particular, in this case, school boards.
School boards at their own behest could create structures and put the mechanisms in place to their delivery agencies, and it would be one less level of government. I think in terms of being able to have direct access to where the rubber hits the road, it would be an interesting corrective measure.
Senator Moodie: Does anyone else want to comment?
The Chair: You don’t have time, but I’ll allow anyone else to comment. I’m not sure I heard a direct answer to your question, so maybe we can get it from others?
[Translation]
Mr. Racine: Just to be very clear, we’re not asking for a new funding mechanism; we just want to make sure that within the framework of federal-provincial agreements, the needs of francophone minority communities are taken into account.
We understand very well that there are two funding mechanisms, but in the mechanism that affects the provinces and territories, it must be very clear that the needs of francophones must be taken into account, and that this be done not just in terms of principles, but in terms of financial commitment.
Mr. Larocque: If I may, I’d like to add to that.
Clause 8, on the other hand, specifies that funding is passed on through agreements between the federal government, the provinces and the territories, and not directly to the communities, and that’s not what’s being asked for and reflected in the suggested amendments.
So it’s not a new mechanism that’s being proposed here, but quite simply, as my colleague suggests, taking into account the linguistic rights of official language minority communities in a firm long-term commitment.
Senator Cormier: My first question is for Mr. Larocque, and then I have a question for the Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick.
As I understand it, given the jurisprudence, the importance of including official language minority communities in clause 8 is essential to the cohesion of the bill as a whole and to the interpretation a court would make of it, should it end up before the courts.
Mr. Larocque: You’ve understood very well.
Senator Cormier: Second point: If I understood correctly, in clause 8, if we include official language minority communities, that doesn’t mean that the federal government must negotiate directly with the communities as such; did I understand correctly?
Mr. Larocque: I agree with your reading. In fact, that’s what clause 8 provides. Funding is to be granted primarily through agreements with provincial governments, not with communities, not with the CNPF or the FCFA or some other entity, but directly with governments. That’s how federal transfers are made. Clause 8 doesn’t change that.
Senator Cormier: My question is for Ms. Arseneau Sluyter and Mr. Chaisson — in fact, I’d like to congratulate you on your election as president of the Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick and on the moving testimony you gave us on the issues affecting New Brunswick’s particular situation.
What I’d like to know or better understand with you, even though I have a good idea of the situation, is that this framework legislation makes it possible to create agreements with the provinces. Some agreements have already been signed, as Senator Dasko pointed out, but in fact they will have to be renewed. So this framework legislation is very important for the renewal of these agreements.
Can you tell us briefly about the current challenges you’re facing in New Brunswick with the provincial government in implementing these agreements, to understand the meaning of the amendments you’re proposing?
Mr. Chaisson: At present, the province is directly involved in negotiations with the federal government, and apart from the consultations — which we’ll call “consultations,” because that’s what we have to call them — there is very little room for the community to influence how the province negotiates, and therefore how the money and spaces will be distributed and how it will be done on the territory.
In New Brunswick, it’s a special situation, as you know, senator. We have a different linguistic regime, and section 16.1 of the Charter gives a very organic specificity to New Brunswick’s linguistic regime. For Senator Moodie, apart from Indigenous people, only Acadians in Canada recognize collective rights. In that sense, it’s very important for us to have a say in federal-provincial negotiations, and to be able to intervene at an early stage. We have to make sure that our proportion — I don’t like that term — that the right proportion is able to deliver the programs we need within existing frameworks.
However, to conclude, there’s a big difference between equality and equity. As you well know, some regions have difficulties: labour, availability of space, accessibility. So, there’s a gap, and I have the impression that we’ll have to think about it seriously during these negotiations. That’s why it’s so important that these communities have a place at the negotiating table, that they have a say in this, to ensure that when the money is transferred from the federal government to the provinces, we’ll be able to make adjustments to avoid continuing this two-tier development.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Larocque.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My question relates to paragraph 7(1)(a) and is for Mr. Larocque; if we have time, I’ll ask the other members of the group for their opinion.
If we look at this provision, it’s as if the money is earmarked to facilitate equitable access, including service provided by public, not-for-profit child care providers.
My question is this: Since you said we needed to be explicit in the law to avoid courts finding certain concepts unclear, if we want public funds to exclusively finance public child care services, do you think this wording is correct or would it be open to interpretation? In the text, it says “in particular those that are provided by public and not-for-profit child care providers.”
Mr. Larocque: Which provision are you referring to specifically?
Senator Mégie: Paragraph 7(1)(a).
Mr. Larocque: The word notamment is open to several interpretations. Sometimes it means, as the English version reflects, “in particular,” but sometimes it means “including”; these are two nuances. The term sometimes conveys two different meanings. That’s why we have an advantage in Canada: With the co-drafting of laws in both languages, we can cross-interpret, and thus bring out the shared, common meaning. If you look at the English version, you’ll see that notamment means “in particular.” So that’s what we’re trying to emphasize. If that was the question, I hope I’ve answered it correctly.
So, is it unclear? Personally, that’s not what I focused on in my analysis, which was on clause 8. In light of the amendments made by the House of Commons to subclause 7(3) and paragraph 7(1)(c)... Let’s say that it’s the way these three provisions work together that creates a problem for clause 8. Because clause 8 —
Senator Mégie: I didn’t want to get to clause 8; I just wanted to... In fact, we don’t want them to line the pockets of private child care companies.
Mr. Larocque: I don’t want to venture into that area; I’m not an expert in this field.
Legislative interpretation is more up my alley.
Senator Mégie: What do you think about taking public funding and funding private child care centres? Should we keep that money exclusively for public organizations?
Mr. Racine: Actually, that’s a big question. As a matter of principle, we think it’s important to invest in the public system, first and foremost. You know, we’re so short of daycare services... Far be it from me to discredit the organizations, because we have for-profit francophone organizations and we need all types of services to succeed.
I’d like to point out one important thing that’s often overlooked: In our public non-profit sector, there’s a lot of social entrepreneurship. These are highly innovative people who come up with new solutions. A sense of enterprise, even in the public sector —
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Racine.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you to our guests; this is a very important conversation.
I have a question for Mr. Racine and Ms. Arseneau Sluyter, if we have time to get both answers.
I’d like you to help us highlight the crucial importance of access to French-language child care in a minority setting, and in the context of what I think is a possible snowball effect, a domino effect.
You illustrated this a little while ago. Let’s take the example of a young francophone: in his English-speaking daycare environment; he may go to an English-language primary and secondary school, where he will make English-speaking friends. Can we even think of an impact on his future involvement, on his participation in his community and, consequently, a potential impact on the vitality of this community? If so, is this documented and quantifiable? Do we have any data to that effect?
Mr. Racine: Thank you for the question.
In my testimony, I was talking about a francophone family, a family from Alberta with two francophone parents and their 4‑year-old daughter who understood French, but always spoke to her parents in English. These parents, even though they were French-speaking, were tempted to believe that if the little girl went to a French school, she would fail, so she was sent to an English school. Our experience in the field clearly shows that as soon as children enter an English school, it’s all over, even in immersion. Basically, everything happens in English, and it’s often very difficult to get these children back. Experience in the field shows that it’s very difficult.
As soon as people switch to the English-speaking side, within a few years, they forget French. Some French-speaking parents now speak to their children in English, because French is out of use. We don’t have statistical data, because as soon as people switch to English, we lose them. We do, however, have statistical data showing that the rate of assimilation among francophones is very real. In our opinion, it starts in early childhood.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Moodie: I just wanted to make another final comment here that it really isn’t within this committee’s mandate or the scope of the bill to create new funding pathways. I think we all agree on that.
The provinces would provide school boards with the money that would support minority language groups. That is the official pathway that exists right now for provinces and territories.
Some pots of money and investments in this area over the years have certainly suggested that Canada has been consistent in putting money forward to this, $14 million over five years for training official language community educators, $50 million over five years to build the sector further, and the Action Plan for Official Languages is the pathway for that.
What has been the outreach, your outreach and that of other members of your community, to the provinces and municipalities, who effectively decide where the money goes once it enters the funding mechanisms that exist? That is the pathway, isn’t it?
Mr. Chaisson: Over the years, organizations have produced many reports. The Commission nationale des parents francophones was known years ago to have produced a report called Où sont passés les milliards $?
At times when the federal government proceeds to transfer money to provincial coffers, and I’ve done the exercise myself many times, you’d have to be a very capable forensic accountant to figure out where the money goes. I’m not accusing anybody of anything. I’m just saying when the federal government transfers $50 million to Newfoundland for French education, when $50 million leaves Ottawa, the provincial government should see $50 million. But suddenly you don’t see $50 million; you see $45 million. And two years later, when the auditor’s report comes out, it is all of a sudden $32 million. It is extremely difficult to trace the money.
Once it’s in provincial coffers, there is a multitude of associated fees. Some provinces decide to pay their own bureaucrats with federal dollars when that money is supposed to arrive at a community level.
I’m not going to open a can of worms here and say that everybody is guilty of a whole bunch of things. I’m just saying that oftentimes what the communities lobby to gain versus what they eventually receive is not always the same.
The Chair: That leads me to a final question to you, Mr. Chaisson. Would having an amendment in the bill correct that situation? Because the obfuscation of how money flows is still in the system.
Mr. Chaisson: If I’m sitting at a table where I have negotiated and I agree that we will get $250 million over five years, I know that we’re supposed to get $250 million over five years. If I’m sitting at a committee at a ministerial level and I’m able to follow the pathways of this funding over the course of the time of the agreement, then I can actually make adjustments.
If we’re never at the table and we have no availability, no visibility to understand what’s going on, it becomes relatively nebulous.
The Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses. This has been a fascinating conversation. I thank you very much for your wisdom. Colleagues, we are adjourned now.
(The committee adjourned.)