THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 1, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4:16 p.m. [ET] to examine Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Ratna Omidvar, and I’m a senator from Ontario.
[English]
I am the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. I would like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, witnesses and members of the public watching our proceedings.
Before we begin, I would like to suggest a round of introductions for our senators starting with the vice-chair of the committee, Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: Welcome to our committee this afternoon. My name is Jane Cordy, and I’m a senator from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion, a senator from Ontario.
Senator Cormier: Welcome. Senator René Cormier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Burey: Welcome. Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie from Ontario.
Senator McPhedran: Senator Marilou McPhedran from Manitoba.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn from New Brunswick.
[English]
The Chair: Today, we continue our consideration of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.
Joining us today, we welcome, for the first panel, in person from Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Natan Obed, President; and Amy Graham, Manager of Policy Advancement. By video conference, from the Assembly of First Nations, we are joined by Joanna Bernard, Interim National Chief; Stephanie Wellman, Director of Social Development; Jessica Quinn, Senior Policy Analyst, Social Development; and Melanie Omeniho, President of Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak. Thank you for joining us today.
Witnesses will have five minutes allocated for their opening statements, followed by questions from the senators.
Mr. Obed, we will begin with your opening remarks, followed by Interim National Chief Bernard and Ms. Omeniho. Mr. Obed, the floor is yours.
Natan Obed, President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami: Nakurmiik. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. It’s always good to be with all of you here in the Senate.
This particular piece of legislation is seen very positively by Inuit. We have worked very closely with the federal government on early learning and child care across Inuit Nunangat and wherever Inuit live, especially in the last eight years.
I am the President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, the national organization representing the 70,000 Inuit across Canada. We work together with Inuit land claim regions in Nunatsiavut in northern Labrador, Nunavik in northern Quebec, Nunavut through Nunavut Tunngavik in the jurisdiction of Nunavut, and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation in the Northwest Territories.
An effective early learning and child care system — and a system that represents and respects Inuit self-determination — is critical to address the social and economic disparities between Inuit and other Canadians. As of 2019, 52% of Inuit in Inuit Nunangat live in overcrowded homes as opposed to 9% of all other Canadians, and 70% of Inuit households are food insecure as opposed to only 8% of other Canadians. Accessible early learning and child care could help increase employment rates, which currently stand at 47.5% of Inuit across Inuit Nunangat, and it would also help address tremendous income disparities within Inuit Nunangat. As of 2019, the median pre-tax income for non-Indigenous persons in our homeland was $92,000 as opposed to the median income of only $23,000 for Inuit.
These incredible disparities in socio-economic outcomes underpin a number of different socio-economic challenges, but early learning and child care is one of those key foundations in order to build prosperity within our communities, but also for Inuit children to get a very positive start in Inuktitut and within the community. Our early learning and child care centres build a sense of Inuit identity and foster an environment that builds upon the rich language use that exists in our homes.
With those principles, Inuit have come together and created an Inuit early learning and child care, or ELCC, framework. This framework has been the basis for federal investment for Inuit in the past seven or eight years. We have a 10-year fiscal agreement with the Government of Canada on building on Inuit self‑determination within early learning and child care within Inuit Nunangat.
In September of this year, the ITK board of directors allocated the next 10 years of available funding. In doing so, they have enabled strategic investments to allow for systemic changes throughout the Inuit early learning and child care sector. With the increasingly high cost of living faced throughout Inuit Nunangat, it’s important that Bill C-35 explicitly indicates that the funding commitments that have been made will remain permanent.
As with many other witnesses that have brought this forward to this table, recruitment and retention of early childhood educators remains a persistent issue across Canada and within Inuit Nunangat. Efforts have been made regionally to increase salaries and benefits for early childhood educators and to make child care professional development training and education available to those interested individuals in communities. However, these efforts need to be supported by a federal plan to support Inuit early childhood educators that respect Inuit self-determination in collaboration with federal, provincial and territorial governments. It’s important for us now to see the revision that was made in 7(d) that now indicates direct language to recruitment and retention of a qualified and well-supported early childhood education workforce across Canada deserving of national action.
Bill C-35 establishes in law the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care. There is no specific mention of who would make up the Indigenous membership on the council, but it’s important for all of you to understand that Inuit have an existing Inuit-to-Crown partnership through the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee. These bilateral relationships also exist between Inuit treaty organizations and the federal government.
The existing work we have done in ELCC and the very specific relationship that we have with the federal government through the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee should not be undermined by the creation of the council or the associated work of that council in advising government. This is where the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, implementation actions meld with federal legislative measures, and the creation of councils and using those councils as a way to inform government on what to do on Indigenous early learning is actually a weaker mechanism than the mechanisms that already exist, which we have fought for within our relationship with the Crown.
As Inuit, we support Bill C-35, but we do put that flag before government that when you say “Indigenous” in a piece of legislation, it is defined by Inuit, First Nations and Métis as in section 35 the Constitution. But in the wording of the bill as it stands, it does not ensure that Inuit, First Nations and Métis will be working equitably within the implementation of the act and especially the council. Nakurmiik.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Joanna Bernard, Interim National Chief, Assembly of First Nations: Kwey kwey. Greetings, I am Joanna Bernard, the Interim National Chief for the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, and the Regional Chief for New Brunswick. I’m a member of the Madawaska Maliseet First Nation, and I would like to acknowledge the lands that we are having this meeting on, the traditional unceded Algonquin territory. Thank you for inviting me here today. I’m going to talk about the concerns of the AFN with respect to Bill C-35.
The AFN is a national advocacy organization that has led the advancement of First Nations priorities for caring for their children for decades. The AFN represents almost a million First Nation members. In 2018, the AFN developed a national framework on early learning and child care that outlines the vision and goals for a First Nations-determined system of child care. The vision of this framework is happy and healthy First Nations children, supported by a system of child care grounded in First Nations languages and cultures and governed by First Nations.
Our children are gifts from the Creator, and it is our sacred duty to protect them and raise them to know and be proud of their identity as First Nations. Studies have also shown that those individuals who have a strong attachment to their language, culture and traditions have better resilience to racism and colonization.
My remarks today will focus on the AFN’s concerns regarding the Government of Canada’s failure to uphold the duty to consult and accommodate as required under constitutional law when developing Bill C-35, and which is also envisioned under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Furthermore, the legislation fails to respect First Nations’ rights and jurisdiction over this subject matter.
In drafting Bill C-35, the Government of Canada did not meaningfully engage with rights holders and opted not to co‑develop this legislation with First Nations. In 2022, Employment and Social Development Canada only sought written feedback from stakeholders to inform the development of federal child care legislation. This does not constitute meaningful engagement or consultation as required by the UN declaration. The feedback that emerged from the limited engagement process pointed to the need to respect Aboriginal and treaty rights and to co‑develop the legislation with Indigenous partners, something that is notably absent from Bill C-35.
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms First Nations rights to participate in decision making that affects them. The UN declaration calls on governments to consult with Indigenous peoples and obtain their free, prior and informed consent before taking legislative measures that may affect them. The bill was amended in the House of Commons to state Canada’s commitment to obtaining the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples. However, there has been no action on this, and free, prior and informed consent has not been obtained in the case of Bill C-35.
Bill C-35 also fails to acknowledge the inherent rights and jurisdiction of First Nations to care for our children according to their cultures, languages, laws and traditions.
It is positive that Bill C-35 makes a commitment to long-term funding for child care, but it must go further to commit to sustainable and needs-based funding for First Nations. First Nations children need strong commitments to their well-being, backed by long-term funding, to address the deep gaps that decades of underfunding have created.
To address these concerns, I ask the Government of Canada to take time to meaningfully engage with First Nations rights holders on this legislation. It is critical that the voices of First Nations be reflected in the bill, which will impact our children and families for generations to come.
I was pleased to see that the bill now includes Indigenous representation on the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, but this does not go far enough. First Nations have distinct needs and priorities apart from those of our Inuit and Métis partners, and we need distinct representatives who are appointed by First Nations to represent our interests on this committee.
Finally, I urge the Government of Canada to work with First Nations to understand the current state of child care needs and to make meaningful investments to fill the gaps that decades of underfunding have created.
As you study this bill, I ask that you keep past, present and future generations of First Nations children in your hearts. I remind you of the rights of our children to grow up surrounded by their cultures, languages and traditions, and of the role that high-quality First Nations-determined child care plays in upholding those rights.
Woliwon, wela’lin, thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will now hear from Ms. Omeniho.
Melanie Omeniho, President, Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak: Good afternoon. I would like to acknowledge that I am joining you today from Treaty 6 territory in the motherland of the Métis Nation.
Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak, also known as LFMO, is the national Indigenous women’s organization democratically mandated to represent the women of the Métis Nation across the Métis Nation motherland. We advocate nationally and internationally for the equal treatment, health and well-being of all Métis people, with a focus on the rights, needs and priorities of Métis women, youth, children and 2SLGBTQQIA+ Métis.
LFMO supports Bill C-35, as it would help support the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework. Early childhood development for Métis early learners is one of the most critical stages in building a connection to oneself, one’s ancestors, culture, community and the land.
Métis women have traditionally been and continue to be at the heart of the Métis Nation. As caregivers, teachers, mothers, kookums and aunties, Métis women have always been deeply involved in their children’s early learning and child care. As those who bring our children into the world, Métis women and gender-diverse people have been especially impacted by the challenges faced in accessing early learning and child care programs.
Further developments in ELCC programming need a distinction-based approach that also prioritizes a gender-based analysis framework. Until very recently, there has been a significant absence of culturally appropriate ELCC programming for Métis children. While some great work has been undertaken to address this, notably through various provincial developments under the banner of the Canada-Métis Nation Early Learning and Child Care Accord signed by the Métis Nation and the Canadian government in 2019, there is still a great deal of work to be done, as what is currently in place is nowhere close to sufficient to meet both the needs and demand for Métis ELCC programming.
There is an urgent need to address funding gaps and Métis-specific programming gaps, and Métis-led ELCC initiatives are ever more urgent to ensure that the call for this is being met. The absent or insufficient funding and support of such programming, amidst the pressures on Métis women and 2SLGBTQQIA+ parents to continue taking part in the wage labour economy, is tantamount to pushing further assimilation of the Métis Nation.
Given the guiding principles that Bill C-35 states, LFMO recommends that the Government of Canada fund the generation of further distinctions-based and gender disaggregated data collection regarding Métis early learning and child care.
The act sets out a National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care. LFMO would like to advocate for Métis women and 2SLGBTQQIA+ parents at tables, working groups and in work undertaken to understand Métis-specific challenges with early learning and child care needs. We want to commit to long-term, systemic change by putting in place Métis-specific funding and support for the construction of Métis early learning and child care centres across the Métis Nation homeland.
LFMO would like to see the Government of Canada commit to creating more Métis-specific early learning and child care programs. Those include engaging in consultation work with Métis families from the ground up.
What is required is a commitment to the expansion of a short-term early learning and child care solution for Métis women and 2SLGBTQQIA+ parents, with an expanded focus on immediate assistance for Métis girls, women and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people and their children who are fleeing domestic violence and abuse.
We advocate for the development of targeted, permanent, subsidized Métis-specific daycare programming that is responsive to and reflective of the local costs of living and housing in each area specifically. Further targeted, permanent, subsidized Métis-specific daycare programming and funding for Métis families who have children with disabilities and other special needs is fundamentally required.
When there is space for Métis early learners as well as culturally specific tools, Métis children are better positioned to reach their full potential. If the Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with Métis people, ELCC programming that prioritizes the needs of Métis people must be upheld.
LFMO supports the passing and implementation of Bill C-35 only to ensure that Métis children have continued access to high-quality Métis-centred early learning and child care.
Thank you for inviting me here today and taking the time to hear us. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you so much, Ms. Omeniho.
We have a full house today. For your questions, you will have four minutes each, which includes the question and the answer. I intend to commit myself to your four minutes.
Senator Cordy: Didn’t there used to be a TV show where the person had a gong?
The Chair: I have a gavel.
Senator Cordy: That works.
Thank you so much. I found all of your presentations excellent and very informative. I have about 10 questions in my notes when I was taking them, but I will forego and just ask one.
You have all provided some interesting data and research that you have done within your communities. Do we have sufficient data? Do we have sufficient research into early learning and child care for First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples? From what I have read and heard from you today, we have to be very aware of differing needs that have to be met within the communities.
Could you tell me if we need more information or do we have enough data but we’re just not using it when making government legislation?
Ms. Bernard: Thank you for the question, senator.
In reference to whether we have enough data, there might be adequate reports out there that might help, but it all comes down to the development of the legislation that I feel is needed here. You can’t have one person when there are three national organizations. You have the Inuit, the Métis and the First Nations. Putting one member on a national advisory board does not adequately represent us all. Even with a bunch of papers and reports, there is a lack there.
One way or the other, I feel there is a need to really engage with First Nations, the different organizations and get everyone around the table to talk.
This has been done time and time again with other bills and legislation that they try to pass. They prepare something, present it to us and then say, “What do you think about this?” That’s not how it’s supposed to work. We need to be there from the very beginning. Nothing about us, without us. I have been saying that to every senator and prime minister that I have met. It’s important. It seems like I am sounding like a broken record here in saying it because it seems to be the same message that I’m repeating and nothing is changing. It really needs to be looked at.
You save time and money if you do it that way, too. Start from the beginning. We’re with you, and we work together and come up with something that will make sure that our rights are not infringed upon in any way, shape or form, and then you move forward and you can have these discussions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Interim National Chief Bernard. We need to hear from Mr. Obed and Ms. Omeniho in precisely one minute and six seconds.
Mr. Obed: Inuit have worked on this particular issue for decades. Currently, we have an Inuit Early Learning and Child Care Framework. That framework then leads to decision making around how funds flow into our Inuit communities based on federal investments.
We also have a joint table called the Inuit National Partnership Table on Early Learning and Child Care where federal officials work with us on the implementation of our framework.
In addition to that, we have the National Inuit Health Survey called Qanuippitaa?, and there are early learning and child care and children-specific questions within that Inuit health survey that will allow us to have very clear information and data on how our children are doing and how these investments are going to transform the socio-economic outcomes of Inuit children over time.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Omeniho, I’ll give you a little bit more time because we are out of time, and Senator Cordy deserves an answer to her question.
Ms. Omeniho: I want to specifically speak to the data issue. With data, the Métis Nation is very new in this game. It was 2019 when we first started working on early learning for our children here. There is a lot of work that has been done in those few years, but there is a lot more to do.
One of the issues that we have had is there is very little data on Métis children. Métis children have not been a part of things like Head Start programming over the decades. We’re very new to the game. It’s also a great opportunity for us to build an evaluative model that will evaluate the success of our children after we have worked with them in the early learning fields. Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Thank you all very much for your important presentations. I’m, of course, going to pursue the data question, so I’ll give you more opportunity to respond, especially Ms. Omeniho, if I might. I’ll try to orient it in a slightly different way.
We know that quality is an important indicator of success in early childhood education. What steps should the federal government take to gather comprehensive data and research insights about Indigenous children, aiming to create an evidence-based implementation plan for quality child care services? Also, what data for First Nations children and early learning and child care is available through the First Nations Information Governance Centre?
If I could start with Ms. Omeniho and give you a little more time to reply.
Ms. Omeniho: As I said, we have only started working with early learning and child care issues since 2019. As much as the Métis Nation has tried to effectively do this, we have only been funded since 2019. But we do have a national committee of all of the governing members of the Métis Nation who are collectively working together and trying to strategize and build an evidence-based model so that we can successfully monitor our children and ensure that the programming that’s offered up to them and the opportunities are reaching successful conclusions.
The whole thing for us is that we are well aware that it’s important for our children to have opportunities to grow within their culture, their language and the things that they know around them. The more opportunity that we give families to be connected to early learning education, the better success we’re going to have with parents being involved in their children’s education and having successful conclusions to having graduate students in high schools as well as universities.
Senator Seidman: Thank you. I will move on to you, then, Mr. Obed, and ask specifically about an evidence-based implementation plan for quality child care services given we know how important high quality is to the success of early childhood education programs. How can the federal government help you in aiming to create that kind of an evidence base?
Mr. Obed: Thank you for the question. A legislative base for this work is vitally important, but on the way the work happens, I would like to pass the floor to my colleague Ms. Graham for a specific detailed response.
Amy Graham, Manager of Policy Advancement, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami: Quyanainni, thank you. I think it’s important for the federal government to engage directly with Inuit organizations. Our Inuit National Partnership Table on Early Learning and Child Care has experts at the table ready to provide the information, ready to engage on any evaluations or any processes that the federal government feels would be supportive of the work. The systems are in place for engagement, and I think that we would be able to assist, if necessary.
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: Thank you to all our witnesses for being here today.
I would like to pursue the challenges you all face regarding workforce development and space creation. I wanted to ask if you could share with us, through your Inuit-Crown partnership and/or through the national partnership table, if you have had any opportunity to discuss the federal plan for workforce enhancement that you talk about and are proposing? Has that come up in your discussions? What level of satisfaction have you had?
Mr. Obed: One of the barriers to access to the workforce is child care. That has been one of the largest conversation points within our technical tables for the last decade. It goes beyond just the simple equation of having subsidized daycare. There also needs to be other mechanisms to allow for Inuit to fully participate in the workforce.
There is also a more fundamental question about participation in the community as well and the metrics that are in place around employment. Even the ones that I referenced here in my opening speech aren’t necessarily the only ones at play. What we really want are thriving, healthy Inuit communities.
Within our ELCC, we talk not only about access to the workplace but also access for parents to hunt or to provide cultural teachings, to be full members of the community. The ELCC space allows for our traditional ways of life to be breathed into contemporary life.
Senator Moodie: I’m wondering if either of you would like to add any comments on this. What are the challenges that you see for workforce development and space creation, and what kinds of discussions have you already had with the government on this?
Ms. Omeniho: I can make some comments. First of all, space availability is a significant issue in many of our Métis communities where there are very few early learning or child care spaces available. The ones that are available are not affordable to many young families who are trying to seek those kinds of services.
As far as the workplace goes, very often — especially in our younger population — many of the families are required to do various kinds of work experiences that are not a nine-to-five kind of job. Child care and early learning supports don’t exist for them. So sometimes, culturally, we have a lot to do to make sure there is opportunity for us to be able to ensure there is an opportunity for work placement as well as family-life balance. Those are things we need to do as part of our Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care programming to ensure that we can better benefit all families.
Ms. Bernard: There are 634 First Nations across Canada. I believe the needs of the First Nations may be unique in that in order to get certified or to have the government help pay for child care, the First Nation child care systems on reserve have to be certified, and they have to go through an application form. The problem in a lot of First Nations is the cost required to get it up to par in order for the children to be able to access the funding for their daycare or child care.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here with us.
My question today relates to the durability — I guess that is the term I would use — of this act. We are all very well aware of the fact that when you have a need for extensive regulations, any subsequent government can easily withdraw from them. I hope you have looked at this legislation from the perspective of a possible change in government. Do you have any comments on the durability of this bill? Could Chief Obed start, please?
Mr. Obed: Thanks for the question. Where I immediately go is in relation to the council and the ability of government over time to hear from the voices that it would like to hear from rather than from the rights-holding institutions of First Nations, Inuit and Métis. I just encourage the federal government — whether it be the Senate or the House of Commons — to understand the history of pieces of legislation that sometimes are about First Nations, Inuit and Métis, but the processes within the bills actually create a self-serving mechanism within the federal system to allow for reports and feedback to come from agents of government — appointed parties from councils — such as in this piece of legislation.
Therefore, if I were to think about the real risk in this bill, it is in relation to the council. The broad ambition of this government to be a leader in early childhood is wonderful, and we are very supportive of expressing this through legislation. However, we also recognize the symbolism in relation to the real changes that the legislation can make and the real progress we have made with government in funding for early learning and child care needs. That’s what we are championing, and the legislation, if it can help, would be wonderful. But we worry about this as well.
Ms. Bernard: Thank you very much. I do want to note that there was a question in reference to data and research that might have been done for First Nations. Could Ms. Wellman respond to that, just so you are aware of what is available and what was done?
The Chair: The question from Senator McPhedran is about the durability of the legislation into the future. Do you have a perspective on that, Interim National Chief Bernard?
Ms. Bernard: Yes, I do. Basically, the way I see it, it needs to be halted at this point in time. I’m told that consultation — there needs to be time to sit with the First Nations, Inuit and Métis to talk about the legislation because after it’s passed, it’s too late. It’s going to affect us tremendously after that. There needs to be a halt on this. I’m told that consultation is done according to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Thank you.
Senator Cormier: I will ask my question in French, so I just want to make sure you have your devices.
I will tell you this part in English. In recent weeks, we have heard that it would be desirable for a definition of early learning and child care to be included in the bill.
[Translation]
The member from the New Democratic Party Leah Gazan has sent the committee a proposal to this effect. She proposes that, for the purposes of Bill C-35, early learning and child care refer to providers of early learning and child care programs and services licensed with a provincial or territorial government, or service providers under the jurisdiction of an Indigenous governance body. What do you think of this proposal? Do you think it’s necessary to have such a definition in the bill? That’s my question to you, Mr. Obed, and to the other witnesses.
[English]
Mr. Obed: Unfortunately, ITK is not able to provide a perspective on your question. We will convene and provide one in writing to you at the earliest convenience.
Ms. Omeniho: I would also like to say that it should probably be our Métis Nation governments who are asked that question. They are probably a lot better positioned to answer that question, but I thank you for the opportunity. Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak is a policy organization. We don’t actually do the delivery of the services.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Bernard: Thank you. I do agree with getting the information in writing to you at a later date.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Interim National Chief Bernard, you spoke about co‑development of the legislation, right? What would be the first steps of that process? It’s an important one that you pointed out, and I would like to know more about that.
Ms. Bernard: Again, thank you for a great question. The way I see it — and I have been advocating for this from the very beginning — legislation, laws, bills or whatever the Government of Canada is doing needs to start to have the involvement of the Indigenous people from the very beginning. It seems to be a waste of time and money when it’s not done correctly, and according to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it’s supposed to be done that way.
Senator Cormier: Concretely, what do it mean? How would you do it?
Ms. Bernard: Basically, when the idea comes up — when it’s just a thought or an idea — just start with that, have conversations with the three Indigenous organizations and then go from there. The way to not do it is to go behind closed doors, come out with a document and then ask us what we think of it and whether we should tweak it. It shouldn’t be done that way, and that’s not co‑development.
Co-development starts from the beginning. When it is just a thought or an idea, that’s when we should come together as governments. We are a government also here. So I just want to see it done in the right way. I think it’s going to be easier to get passed. It’s going to be less controversial. There will be fewer lawsuits and court cases. It’s just a better way to do it from the very beginning, sir.
Senator Cormier: Thank you, madam. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Perhaps I can pose a quick question of my own to all three of you.
We’ve talked about the needs of Indigenous peoples and the lack of consultation, but a large number of Indigenous children actually live in urban settings. Do you believe that the bill, as currently constructed, provides targeted support for the specific needs of Indigenous children living in urban settings?
Mr. Obed: The work that we have done to date with the Government of Canada is inclusive of Inuit no matter where Inuit live. We do recognize at ITK that the needs of Inuit children who are living outside of our homeland, Inuit Nunangat, is a growing policy area and also one of partnership with southern-based jurisdictions.
Within this piece of legislation, we do not see any provisions that systematically exclude Inuit children living outside of Inuit Nunangat. We are more focused on the question of how to provide better services for those Inuit children through our existing mechanisms. We haven’t really focused on it as a point of contention with this legislation.
Ms. Omeniho: [Technical difficulties] some of the restrictions and limitations that other Indigenous people have. We have always been the urban Indigenous people, many of us, and have lived around the cities. Even in our history, a lot of these cities were developed because of the fur trade process that existed and where we had fur trade processes happening, so they have only existed because we have been a part of that urban process.
The Chair: Do you believe, Ms. Omeniho, that the bill as it is currently written meets the needs of Indigenous children in urban settings?
Ms. Omeniho: I believe if it supports Métis governments in having the resources to deliver it, it will for the Métis Nation because we deliver services to children in and out of urban centres.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Bernard: I cannot honestly tell you yes or no. I do not remember referencing that, but I do think that it’s a little unique. If it’s on-reserve daycare centres, then that goes to the First Nation government. When it’s not and it’s in an urban setting, I don’t know how you can monitor that. It would be a little difficult to understand and figure out if it will affect them. Because if they are not in the First Nation and they are in the non-native child care system in the urban settings, I don’t know. It’s definitely something to think about. Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: Welcome to you. Thank you so much for giving us your time today.
We have talked a little bit today about the issue of language. Can I ask each of you to comment on the importance of Indigenous and ancestral languages in early childhood learning?
Mr. Obed: Thank you. Inuit are very fortunate that through our resilience and the many different circumstances we have been able to retain Inuktitut, our language, as the primary language in many of our 51 communities. We are very concerned about the sustainability of Inuktitut based on the huge deficiencies within the ability for Inuit to be provided government services and education in Inuktitut, and the wraparound communications and other materials in life that very often don’t have the same funding as the official language status languages do, English and French.
This is an essential place for the foundation of Inuktitut to be transferred from generation to generation. It is not the only place. The home is where the essential transfer of knowledge takes place, but in scenarios where that is only partially able to happen, early learning and child care centres can play an extraordinary role in promoting, preserving, maintaining and passing on Inuktitut between generations. We have every intent in the implementation of our framework to do just that across Inuit Nunangat or wherever these programs are offered.
Ms. Bernard: That’s a really good question in reference to languages. I feel that the languages in child care, daycare or early learning centres are essential because there are a lot of First Nations that do not have First Nations schools on reserve, so the only place that they can get that language is through their daycare centre in the community, from birth until they go to school. Then after, when they go to school, up until the age of 12. One way for a lot of remote or urban communities that don’t have schools is that those daycare centres have languages so that the children can learn from birth until the time they start kindergarten, then all the way up until they are 12 years old because they will be going to the daycare centre after school. That’s the only place they can get that language.
This is a subject that is very hard to talk about for me. I lost my language. The Wolastoqey language is on the brink of extinction. I did go to the local schools in my community. We had no language, and no one in my community that speaks our language anymore. The need for the language is essential. It’s who we are. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Representatives of official language minority communities recommend an amendment to clause 8 of the bill. In particular, the Commission nationale des parents francophones, CNPF, is calling for a reference to official language minority communities, OLMCs, to be added to this clause, which sets out the federal government’s commitment to long-term funding.
Do you think such an amendment would have any impact for Indigenous peoples? If so, what would it be?
[English]
Mr. Obed: I was not aware of the amendment that you reference, but very often official language status for French and English is a sledgehammer that allows for those two languages to dominate in our communities. The very history of Inuit participation in Canada through health care delivery, education and government is the dispossession of Inuktitut in the face of federal, provincial and territorial legislation that empowers English and French even in our Inuktitut-dominated communities.
That is not for me to say that I want to start a fight between language communities in this country. I’m just saying that the legislative and policy outcomes create a scenario where our languages are diminished or not funded at all, even in our homeland — even in Inuktitut-dominated communities — at the expense of the sustainability of our languages.
Ms. Bernard: Thank you. I’m going to refer to Ms. Wellman or Ms. Quinn in reference to article 8 of the bill.
Stephanie Wellman, Director of Social Development, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami: Thank you, interim national chief. We haven’t looked over the specific amendments, but as the interim national chief expressed, language for First Nations is absolutely critically important.
First Nations need funding to be able to revitalize their languages in all spaces and, more specifically, the early learning and child care spaces. Thanks for the question.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Omeniho: The Michif language is one of the lost languages or a language at risk of being extinct, so I, of course, support the process that — it’s important for our children to learn our language and have exposure to it.
I don’t know what the amendment is to article 8, but I have a great deal of admiration for the way that French Canadians have been able to revitalize their language. I would like to see some of us step up our game so that our languages can be revitalized and included in legislation so that our children know that they are able to speak their language as one of the first languages as well.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Quinn: I have a comment and a question. First off, thank you so much —
The Chair: Four minutes sir.
Senator Quinn: Okay. I’ll be less.
Thank you for being here this evening witnesses.
First, thanks for acknowledging the importance of early childhood learning and development in education as foundational pieces, no matter what segment of society we’re in, because that is the future. I really appreciated the commentary you made on that.
I also really appreciated the commentary from Interim National Chief Bernard with respect to co‑development. There are examples where that has been done in the past. I agree that if we’re really going to move forward in a respectful manner, we should be looking at co‑development approaches. No question about that.
My question comes back to early childhood development. Right across our society, we have a shortage of skill sets and competencies. Is that something that worries you as additional seats come in and additional availability in communities is there but we might not have the skill sets and competencies? Is that something you worry about? How do you deal with that?
Mr. Obed: Accreditation as well as provincial and territorial legislation around who can provide these services to children and community are at the heart of our challenges on ensuring that we can grow an Inuit-specific workforce in ELCC.
The other challenges, historically, have been infrastructure — the ability to have space — but we have been working with government for new investments to ensure we can build the spaces to then have the capacity to have more early childhood educators.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
Ms. Omeniho: I agree with Mr. Obed. The opportunity for us to do these things is based upon investment in our people to train them so they are certified and they can deliver the kind of training we need to have. I believe we need to also be involved in the development of the accreditation that these things are being put under so that it is respectful of our cultures, languages and our histories. Thank you.
Ms. Bernard: If I understood the question, it’s in regard to the capacity to be able to operate these facilities in the communities; is that what the question was? I apologize.
Senator Quinn: I appreciate the expansion into infrastructure, which is indeed another piece of the puzzle. My question was around the skill sets and competencies that might be required. How do you deal with that? Right across all sectors of society, we have shortages in qualified people to deliver services. What specific concerns does AFN have around that?
Ms. Bernard: For AFN, it would be the lack of funding in education and being able to send our people to the school, to be able to come and work within the communities and within those daycare or child care centres. It’s another increase and another thing I advocate for all the time. I hate to say it, but it’s a lack of funding. There is funding needed in the education system to be able to get our people up to par and have the capacity to operate those systems in our communities. Thank you.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you. Again, welcome, Mr. Obed and Interim National Chief Bernard. Thank you so much for being here.
I just wanted to hone in on understanding this concern about the consultative process. I was understanding that the legislation was building on already existing partnerships like bilateral Indigenous partnerships, provincial-territorial partnerships, the national and regional partnership tables, the secretariats and so on. How did those partnerships inform this piece of legislation that we’re looking at, if they did?
Ms. Bernard: Thank you.
With regard to the legislation and the work that has been done to date, there is definitely a lack of Indigenous inclusion. There are meetings with the federal, provincial and territorial ministers. I’ve been to a few of them. They are just sitting there; we’re talking, but there is not really that engagement with the different communities and the different First Nations across Canada. You can’t just have one person go into a room and call it engagement. You need to be engaging with the First Nation chiefs and members to get those reports from each of the regions, and then you gather that information. You should be able to come up with a really good report.
But when you have one or two people in a room sitting there with a few ministers, whether it’s provincial, territorial or federal, it’s not where it needs to go. Those are very important meetings — don’t get me wrong — but there is a lack of that engagement within the communities. Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues, we have come to the end of our time today, but I will leave some time for you, Mr. Obed.
Mr. Obed: From the Inuit side, perhaps we just have been working on this as a priority for a long time. Structurally, we have created an Inuit early learning and child care working group underneath our board of directors. That working group has then worked with the federal government, and we have a joint Inuit national partnership table on early learning and child care. In that particular place, we have discussed the provisions within this piece of legislation, and that is why we are coming to the table in the way we are in support of the legislation.
We also just have never heard the government say that it has co‑developed this legislation, so that isn’t something that we had considered as being in relation to something like Bill C-92, which was the act respecting Inuit, First Nations and Métis children and youth.
The Chair: Thank you. That’s interesting testimony. The sponsor of the bill has a final question. I’m going to allow her three minutes.
Senator Moodie: I wanted to rehash some of the information I am aware of and ask you for comment.
In 2018, the Assembly of First Nations, the ITK and the Métis governments all collaborated with the government to co‑endorse an Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework. Through that, vision, principles and objectives were determined, and through the distinctions-based national partnership tables on ELCC that were developed with those groups, the partnership tables included ELCC experts, program administrators, regional and community technicians, all mandated by their leadership to participate in the forum and to develop the program.
Those national tables develop policy and priorities. They co‑developed the framework.
I will just talk about what I have learned about the 15 Indigenous government partners that were consulted on this legislation. I’m wondering whether this information is correct and reflects your understanding of the participation that perhaps your group and others were part of.
Mr. Obed: For ITK, the framework, in our position, was co‑developed. That is a very distinct difference from this legislative piece, but we participated with government on talking about the provisions within this piece of legislation.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Omeniho: With the Métis Nation, it’s very much like ITK. We have an Indigenous ELCC table. Everything you said was exactly what we’re doing. We have been engaged — maybe not specifically around co‑development around this legislation — in having input into these things. We continue to do that through our permanent bilateral mechanisms. Our governments have been involved to some level.
Ms. Bernard: I believe that we have also been a part of the framework, but we have not been part of the legislation and co‑developing the legislation. The legislation, I believe, was developed, then submitted and then questions were asked later. That’s where the problem lies. As I mentioned before, it should be from the beginning of the creation of the legislation. The framework definitely helps, but that’s not consultation and it’s not prior consent. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you so much. We leave this hour with you infinitely better informed than we were. Thank you so much for your time and for coming in person and on Zoom.
Now joining us by video, we welcome Brian Maude, member of the Canadian Bar Association’s Policy Committee and member of the working group on Bill C-35; and Karolyn Bonneau, Member, First Nations Pedagogies Network. Thank you for joining us today. Witnesses, you will each have five minutes allocated for opening statements followed by questions from our members.
Brian Maude, Member of the CBA Policy Committee and member of the Working Group on Bill C-35, The Canadian Bar Association: Thank you and good evening, members of the standing committee.
My name is Brian Maude, and I join you today from Saint John, New Brunswick. The City of Saint John, or Menaquesk, is situated on the traditional territory of the Wolastoqiyik/Maliseet. The Wolastoqiyik/Maliseet, along with their Indigenous neighbours, the Mi’kmaq and Passamaquoddy, or Peskotomuhkati, signed Peace and Friendship Treaties with the British Crown in the 1700s that protected their rights to both lands and resources. I am appearing on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association, of which I am a member of the Policy Committee, and a member of the multidisciplinary working group that commented on Bill C-35.
[Translation]
The Canadian Bar Association is a national association with 37,000 members, including lawyers, judges, notaries, academics and law students. For 120 years, its mandate has been to improve the law and the administration of justice.
[English]
I would first like to recognize and thank A.J. Carstairs of the Canadian Bar Association, or CBA, National Aboriginal Law Section, who chaired the CBA working group that studied Bill C-35, for both her wisdom and her trust to share what follows with you.
[Translation]
CBA sections applaud the government’s vision of a Canada-wide early learning and child care system and its recognition of the fact that policies and laws impact the rights of women, especially those with intersecting identities such as Indigenous women, in a variety of ways and on a wide scale.
[English]
We appreciate that changes to the legislation proposed by the House of Commons Social Development Committee reiterated the government’s commitment to upholding the right of Indigenous peoples to be consulted in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent. The CBA working group recommends amendments to clarify the text of the act using the Indigenous principle of “two-eyed seeing,” or etuaptmumk, which would be consistent with the teachings of Mi’kmaq Elder Albert Marshall.
To begin, the first amendment we recommend is to clearly affirm the right of Indigenous peoples to lead and inform the development of culturally appropriate early learning child care programs and services for Indigenous children. We thank the government for including some language to that effect in subsection 6(e), but would seek further clarity on that point. Our brief recommends updated language to this effect, particularly in sections 6 and 7 of the bill.
Second, under the proposed definition of Indigenous peoples, we believe it is essential to not only include the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but also to include in the definition, “Indigenous peoples of Canada who live outside their ancestral homelands in Canada.” Our proposed definition will enable participation from Indigenous peoples who may have suffered a loss in the recognition of their status as a result of various interpretations or applications of the Indian Act.
Finally, we recommend that the inclusion of wording requiring at least one Indigenous person to be on the national advisory council, as set out in section 9. Ensuring their participation in the governance structure is essential to weave the Indigenous perspective into the programs and services as they evolve over the years.
[Translation]
Once again, I’d like to thank the committee for inviting me to appear.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maude. I admire your capacity for speed talking. We do have your brief in both official languages, and you have given us a little time.
Karolyn Bonneau, Member, First Nations Pedagogies Network: [Indigenous language spoken].
My name is Karolyn Bonneau. I am Okanagan and Kootenay from Penticton Indian Band and St. Mary’s Indian Band. I reside in the Musqueam territory.
I am here on behalf of the First Nations Pedagogies Network, or FNPN. I started with this Indigenous organization a year ago. Over the past year, I have been getting to know those whom I have come to know now as my kin, my cousins, from many different nations here in British Columbia. FNPN is all Indigenous early childhood educators with different roles and responsibilities depending on the important work we are carrying out. With our diverse educational and cultural backgrounds, this allows us to work in many different capacities with Indigenous and non-Indigenous children, families and communities in urban and rural settings, and at times a combination of both.
Most of the work we do comes from the many conversations and inspirations we bring together, and collectively co‑creating dreams, visions and pathways that we are putting into practice in early learning and child care settings that encourage cultural autonomy and strength-based community approaches.
The First Nations Pedagogies Network was created by the BC Aboriginal Child Care Society with the Early Childhood Pedagogy Network, and was supported by them from 2019 to 2023. The BC Aboriginal Child Care Society’s involvement in the creation of FNPN was part of the national First Nations Early Learning and Child Care Framework as mandated by First Nations leadership nationally and in B.C. as part of the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
What matters most for FNPN is that we continue to recognize that each nation has their own laws, cultures, knowledges and protocols, and this must always come first. When we speak of early learning and child care, it is not separate from who we are as Indigenous people and where we come from, nor is it separate from leadership, governance, education, land, animals, language and culture and our traditional teachings, songs and stories. We have roles and responsibilities to uphold what we know and what we have been practising for thousands of years, and to pass this knowledge on to share with our future Indigenous people.
As long as Bill C-35 can ensure that the First Nations Pedagogies Network and others who are doing the work we do for Indigenous and non-Indigenous children, families and communities, as I have stated previously, and get the long-term funding stated in the funding commitments section 8, which should also include the authority and the capacity for supporting these working groups and not allow funds to dissipate just when it is needed the most.
On behalf of the FNPN, I would also like to conclude with an invitation to get to know us more and have the reciprocity of collaborating in the visions, dreams and pathways for early learning and child care. Our group is fairly new. It’s from 2019. Most of our information is found on FNPN.ca.
I just wanted to thank you all for your consideration and listening to the words we are all speaking today from the First Nations Pedagogies Network. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you so much, Ms. Bonneau, and thank you for that generous invitation to get to know you better. Hopefully, we will know you a lot better by the end of this first hour.
Mr. Maude, I have a clarifying question for you. You have submitted a brief with fairly extensive amendments that you are recommending. Did you submit this brief to the Social Development Committee in the other place? If so, what was reaction to it?
Mr. Maude: Thank you for your question, senator. I didn’t submit that to the House of Commons Social Development Committee. I believe that was submitted on behalf of the working group or the policy committee prior to my involvement.
The Chair: So it was submitted, regardless of whether you submitted it or somebody else submitted it?
Mr. Maude: I was under the impression that it had been submitted. I’m not completely certain as to whether it has been.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Thank you both very much. You can speak faster than I can write, so I have partial notes here. If I don’t make sense to you, please just clarify.
I was very pleased, Mr. Maude, that you spoke about the effects of the lack of child care and how it impacts the rights of women. Every woman around this table who had young children when they were working outside the home remembers the day of panic or the night before when the child care worker couldn’t arrive at your doorstep. So thank you very much for recognizing that.
Ms. Bonneau, I was struck by your comment that every nation has their own laws, they must come first and that child care was part of that. Could you expand on that? It’s an extremely important comment to make that child care is an essential part of families and Aboriginal children.
Ms. Bonneau: Yes. I believe the whole thing was that we have our own laws, cultures, knowledge and protocols, and that must always come first. Including that into child care — each of the communities has a way of doing things. Right now, I’m in the Musqueam territory, so the things that I have been taught and learned from my Okanagan territory wouldn’t transfer. I cannot bring all of my knowledge, protocols, teachings and the ways I practised things over here. I must get to know that in relation to the Musqueam and get their permission to carry out some of the things that we were speaking to in the Bill C-35 that you want to put into place.
This is very important for me to say because in our child care settings, especially the urban settings, you might get a lot of different nations coming together and you have a lot of the children in the same group. So which language, which protocols — all these things are important to think about. It’s more than just saying, “Indigenous people who are First Nations, Métis and Inuit.” It’s more than that. What language is more important in the child care setting when you have different nations coming together?
Senator Cordy: I have also heard that Indigenous families in urban areas often hesitate to put their children into child care because they are concerned about racism and discrimination regarding their children. Are there enough child care centres within urban areas that meet the needs for Indigenous children?
Ms. Bonneau: Does anyone get to answer or is it still directed toward me?
The Chair: Toward you, ma’am.
Ms. Bonneau: Okay.
There were different things in that question. The first thing I’m going to say is that when I actually came to an urban setting from where I come from, I did not recognize many Indigenous-led or Indigenous-run child care centres. I know there are a lot of members in FNPN who actually work in these settings.
However, I do feel like those fears — like you said, racism and others — I don’t think it’s for the families; I think it’s for the educators as well. Sometimes when you come into mainstream centres and settings, it is really hard to bring our own ways of doing things into settings that might be more rigid. You don’t have a lot of room.
We are really community-based, so I feel that is one thing that I have noticed is missing with the mainstream, when it is not fully Indigenous and you don’t have these things in place for Indigenous families, communities, the children and the parents. That’s the number one thing I have noticed. I’m not sure if that answered your question.
Senator Cordy: Yes. Thank you.
The Chair: I have a question to Mr. Maude. I’m looking at your proposed amendments. You are suggesting that the national advisory council should include at least one Indigenous person.
I appreciate the principle behind what you are suggesting, but I’m worried about the “operationalization” of that principle. Would you expect that the regulations would develop the process by which the one — or at least one — person would be chosen? There is so much variation; we have First Nations, Métis and Inuit. How would the government go about selecting or appointing these people?
Mr. Maude: Thank you for your question, Madam Chair.
Just to cycle back to your previous question, the brief was submitted to the House of Commons committee. I received confirmation of that.
With respect to your second question, in terms of the regulations, we would need to see the text of the regulations in order to know how the government had intended on fulfilling that particular amendment, were the government to approve that amendment. The theory behind it, as you had suggested as well, goes to the “nothing about us, without us” principle. It would also track the wording that’s previously in the legislation as well. With respect to the Indigenous-led aspects of the programs, having an Indigenous member on the national council would ensure that and would also track with the wording in subsection 11(1) of the legislation as well.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Moodie: My question is to Ms. Bonneau.
What does your organization expect to be the outcome of this bill? Will it be useful in your efforts as an early childhood education organization that is focused on this work to ensure that you are able to provide high-quality, affordable and culturally relevant care in your community?
Ms. Bonneau: That’s a very good question.
Senator Moodie: What do you think is the outcome? Will the bill help you?
Ms. Bonneau: I have thought about it a lot. There are a lot of parts in the bill that would be very beneficial to First Nations Pedagogies Network. There is a lot to list, but the only thing that I’m really excited to actually share is the part where it says long-term funding. That is so important for working groups like First Nations Pedagogies Network that depend upon funding like that each year to continue in our capacities.
When I read that part, I feel like that actually speaks to the First Nations Pedagogies Network to be able to be sustainable, continue and not be wondering if we will have to apply or find new capital funding for us to operate each year.
The rest all speaks to things we have been doing in our own working capacities and roles.
One thing that I personally, as an early childhood educator and being Indigenous myself — you had a part in the bill that speaks to UNDRIP, which is really important. It just needs to be a little bit clearer how that’s going to happen for the Indigenous communities. I heard it in the earlier panel: How do you take a bunch of these different, diverse nations and speak to each one of them? But I do see that it could be beneficial in that sense.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My question is for Mr. Maude. I’d like to begin by congratulating you on the exceptional quality of your bilingualism. I’ve looked at your amendments. My question concerns the amendment you’re proposing to clause 8.
You indicate, in the first sentence, that your amendment aims to identify the federal government’s long-term funding toward the early learning and child care system for Indigenous and non-Indigenous children. That’s in the first sentence.
In the second sentence, your amendment specifies that this commitment is achieved through agreements that the government will enter into with provincial or territorial governments, Indigenous governing bodies and other entities that represent the interests of all Indigenous peoples.
Do I understand from your wording in the first and second sentences that your proposed amendment indicates that agreements for young non-Indigenous children are with the provinces and territories? Is that what I understand your proposal to mean?
Mr. Maude: Yes, Senator Cormier, that’s basically it.
Senator Cormier: Doesn’t your amendment create a new entity with which the government will have to enter into agreements?
Mr. Maude: No. The idea of the amendment is to recognize that there are different players in the game, including territories, provinces, Indigenous groups and other groups. We’re basically looking to ensure that funding is clear and equal among the different groups so as not to exclude one group over others and to ensure that all groups, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, are funded.
Senator Cormier: However, does the exception of non-Indigenous groups in the second part of your amendment ensure that these groups will be subject to the agreements with the provinces and territories?
Mr. Maude: Exactly.
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Okay. I think I have scared everybody. Colleagues, we have time.
Senator Cordy: You have 30 minutes, chair, since everybody else has backed off.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: My question is for Mr. Maude. You’re proposing an amendment to clarify the scope of the definition of Indigenous peoples in the bill. You recommend adding the following: “. . . and includes Indigenous Peoples of Canada who live outside their ancestral homelands, in Canada.”
Is the proposed definition found elsewhere in legislation or case law? If so, could you please tell us where?
Mr. Maude: Thank you, senator. Yes. Excuse me, I have the exact title right here. It’s the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework. It has to do with the fact that virtually the majority of Indigenous populations live off reserve, in urban communities. It’s a recognition of the principles referred to in subclause 7(2) of the bill.
In the framework, if you look at the chapter titled “Serving families where they live,” it includes the fact that the majority of Indigenous peoples are in urban communities. We wanted to make sure that this definition was included in the bill, as it’s already recognized externally in another federal legislative framework.
Senator Moncion: Following up on that question, from a legal perspective, how do you see the implementation of the framework that Bill C-35 provides for Indigenous people living off their ancestral lands in terms of governance and bilateral agreements? That brings us to another dimension. Again, are there any precedents?
Mr. Maude: To my knowledge, there are no precedents. Different pieces of legislation contain various definitions concerning Indigenous peoples, but there’s no one single definition. There are many definitions that refer to subsection 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but there is no single definition that is represented across the different statutes.
How do we define these people or have some kind of umbrella or operating mechanism to interact with these different groups? I don’t know. There really hasn’t been any legislative language about how the government could include at least the majority of the Indigenous population who live off reserve. I’m not sure what group or mechanism the government would consider to address these people.
We wanted to make sure that, if we’re talking about Indigenous communities, we’re talking about all Indigenous communities. That reflects the fact that it’s not just Inuit or Métis communities, or communities that live on reserves; the majority of people live in urban communities.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: My question is for Mr. Maude. In terms of Indigenous representation on the council, I think I missed that. What was your suggestion? Was it that there be at least one person?
Mr. Maude: Yes, Senator Cardozo. The suggestion is that there be at least one person.
Senator Cardozo: Okay. I think that without amending the bill, we have the ability to attach observations to the government after. Based on the discussion at the previous panel, I think the suggestion was that it be at least three people so that we cover First Nations, Inuit and Métis. But that’s something we can discuss further.
Madam Bonneau, can you just talk to us about the importance of Indigenous languages in early childhood education?
Ms. Bonneau: The importance of Indigenous languages in child care settings is extremely important. My Okanagan language is very close to being extinct as well. I heard it earlier. Speaking Indigenous languages in any setting — it doesn’t have to be in an early child care setting — is extremely important to our young children in exposing them to the language. I don’t even know how to put all that in words in a few minutes.
For me, it’s important to have the children actually learning it, hearing it and seeing it, and right now, we don’t have anything put in place that actually says that it has to be done that way. I have read inside Bill C-35 that it does have space for that to actually happen so that bringing in language is not just an option — it is actually amended so that the language of the children and families that are attending must be spoken, shared, written and taught.
That’s the importance for me. I didn’t get the chance to do that. I had to learn from my family, and I was lucky enough to come from a fluent speaker. There are three in my family — my older uncles — so I was lucky enough, but not everyone has that opportunity. I would like to just say how important it is to make sure that it happens in all settings, not just Indigenous child care settings. I would like to see it all over.
Thanks.
Senator Cardozo: Can I just press a little further? The benefit for kids is understanding it from an intellectual point of view, but it also helps young people understand a sense of their own origins, background, ancestors and who they are. It goes deeper in the sense of developing a sense of being and pride in one’s heritage.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but would you agree with that?
Ms. Bonneau: Yes, I totally agree with that. In one of my opening statements, I note how important it is that we, as Indigenous people, don’t separate language and land in all our teachings. This is super important. It is exactly what you just said — self-identity.
In a setting that is so important to children and where they get sent for hours a day, all day, it’s important to get to be proud of being Indigenous.
I was lucky enough to have that, and I have been in settings where now I’m teaching others. Right now, I’m in a non-Indigenous early learning space, and even when I share some of my teachings, I find that’s very empowering for myself too as an Indigenous person to know how when I share this knowledge and these words to other people, they get excited and start to learn. Thanks.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you for that.
The Chair: I have a question for Mr. Maude. I want to thank you and the CBA for your written submission.
You heard, perhaps, in the previous panel the concerns of the AFN about the lack of meaningful consultation. Can I make an assumption or not that you were consulted, the CBA policy working group, on Bill C-35? Did you have meaningful interaction with the government?
Mr. Maude: I can’t speak to any interaction that we had specifically with the government. The CBA’s various sections tend to comment on various pieces of legislation when that comment period is offered to us. I don’t know that there was any specific consultation directly with government other than our normal interaction with government on an advocacy basis.
The Chair: Thank you. The CBA has presented us with a fulsome range of improvements to the bill, and we appreciate that. From your point of view, Mr. Maude — and, clearly, you know these improvements that you have suggested — which ones would you say are the most essential to improve the bill?
Mr. Maude: I don’t know that I could prioritize, Senator Omidvar. As long as the notion of “nothing about us, without us” is pervasive in the legislation, I think that would be crucial.
Going back to Senator Cardozo’s question with respect to our recommendation that section 9 specifically state that one Indigenous person be on the council, that also flows from the — there are some recommendations that are in the legislation and some aspirational language, if you want. For example, in section 11(1), where it mentions the importance of having Indigenous participation, it’s aspirational, but it’s not mandatory. If there is something that’s mandatory that is in there, that would at least set a floor for something that would allow to be built upon.
I like the idea of having at least three members on the council that would be from the various Indigenous communities, but if we could have something obligatory in the language in the legislation, then that would at least require that there be that consultation and interaction with the various communities, at least on a one-person basis to start.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: I’m thinking about ongoing consultation around the building of a child care system. What are your thoughts about the existing partnership tables that the Government of Canada has with all three groups in which they continue to have dialogue about a number of things, including child care, and they have also raised concern about not seeing this overturned — I’m using my own language there — or in any way diminished.
But that strong relationship and dialogue exists. What is your thought about that? Their concern specifically was around the national council in some way interfering with that.
Mr. Maude: I would defer to Ms. Bonneau on that.
Senator Moodie: No, it would be for you.
Mr. Maude: For me?
Senator Moodie: You comment specifically about this.
Mr. Maude: I don’t know that I have any background in which I could comment on the existing interactions between the various governing levels on other aspects of other programs. The mandate that I have here today is to comment on Bill C-35. Forgive me; I don’t have any in-depth knowledge in respect of any government interaction with any other groups on other pieces of legislation.
Senator Moodie: Their concern is that the existing opportunity they have for dialogue in their partnership tables not be, in any way, interfered with by the national council. So with that caution, I’m wondering about trying to ensure that there is a parallel system of communication is what this potentially could be.
Mr. Maude: Forgive me, Senator Moodie. I would have to take that back to the working group. I don’t have any information on that.
Senator Moodie: Thanks.
Senator Cormier: My question is for Ms. Bonneau. It’s almost more of a comment, but I want your thoughts on it.
You made really moving comments about the importance of language and learning language for building one’s self-identity and building communities. I wonder — and it’s not necessarily asking for an amendment, but do you think it would be relevant for us to think of an observation that would reinforce that dimension? I can relate to your comments not because I’m from the Indigenous community, but coming from a linguistic minority community and knowing the importance that daycare facilities have on children and on the whole community. So I wonder if you think that an observation could be relevant to highlight and reinforce what you just said. What are your thoughts on this?
Ms. Bonneau: Yes, I like what you just stated there, an observation to make them important. Let me just ask a question back: You are speaking of having someone observe these to see if these exist or are happening?
Senator Cormier: What I meant, actually, is we can bring amendments to bills, but we can also put observations that are not part of the bill but messages that we send to the government to reinforce some messages that we think are important in the implementation of the bill. That was what I was thinking of.
Ms. Bonneau: Oh, yes, for sure, that would be something that I think that any Indigenous group would appreciate that, just to have those — yes, more specific so it’s not so — when you are talking about language, culture and how important it is to community, you can’t just sum it up in one sentence. I like the way that you just worded it, where you could observe all these things and write these things in different ways to ensure that it has the essence of how important language is in these settings. Yes. I agree.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for your presence here tonight. Very appreciated. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bonneau.
Mr. Maude, I believe Senator Moodie has raised a point that we would like some clarification on. You have made a proposal in section 9 that the advisory council includes at least one, and we have talked about three. Senator Moodie has made the point that the partnership tables that are currently talking government to government would possibly not take well to that because it would get in the way of their direct contact and conversations with the government. I appreciate you can’t answer that question now, but perhaps you could get back to us in writing after you have talked to your colleagues at the CBA on that.
Mr. Maude: Of course.
Senator Burey: Thank you to all the guests for coming. Ms. Bonneau, thank you so much for being here. Thank you for sharing your passion about your work. We all feel it; I feel it. The early childhood pedagogy and looking after children.
Now, you did mention that one of the things that you really liked about this bill was the potential for sustainable funding, which you said you were really happy to hear. Of course, that has a lot to do with the workforce.
But apart from funding, is there anything else that you think we need to know to improve the workforce of early childhood educators?
Ms. Bonneau: Would I say just one thing? There are a lot of things. But if I had to pick one thing, for me, it would be —
Senator Burey: I didn’t say one thing. You can tell me a few.
Ms. Bonneau: Okay. That would be great.
What I see to help the workforce, especially for early childhood educators in general — it doesn’t necessarily have to be Indigenous — is the way we get certified and what we have to do to go to school.
It’s called an early childhood education diploma. You get your early childhood educator, infant toddler and special needs. Right now, there are options to be able to do those. You can take early childhood education assistant, then maybe go into doing the full early childhood educations. It’s a long process. It takes a long time.
You think after two to three years, you would have a degree in this, but you don’t. You get these certificates. I went further and got a Bachelor of Early Childhood Care and Education at Capilano University. I have a masters in early childhood education now.
I feel we need to change the way that it’s an option. I feel you should have to take early childhood education, infant toddler and special needs. I think that would help with the workforce in general in saying that we do need early childhood education assistants. However, I feel when we do one course and we get into working, it gets so hard to go back to actually take the rest of the full early childhood education. I feel that’s something that I have seen with my own eyes. I really had a struggle with having to go back and get these certificates to be able to create more capacity for children under three. There are very limited infant toddler educators out there because you have an option of taking infant toddler or special needs after you get your full.
I don’t know if that answered your question.
Senator Burey: Yes, it does. Thank you so much.
Senator Cardozo: I was really just going to make a suggestion. If we do want to pursue the issue of Indigenous representation, perhaps we could consult with the people who were here on the previous panel from the perspective of “nothing about us, without us” type of approach.
The Chair: Thank you for that suggestion, Senator Cardozo.
We wish to really thank Ms. Bonneau and Mr. Maude for their time spent with us. We are very appreciative of your points of view. I hope you will see them reflected in one way or the other when this committee submits its report to the Senate.
(The committee adjourned.)