THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 8, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4:32 p.m. [ET] to study Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.
Senator Jane Cordy (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: My name is Jane Cordy, and I’m a senator from Nova Scotia and the Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. I’d like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, witnesses and members of the public who are watching our proceedings this afternoon.
Before we begin, I’d like to do a round table and have the senators introduce themselves.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I am Senator René Cormier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Osler: Gigi Osler from Manitoba.
Senator Burey: Welcome. Sharon Burey, senator from Ontario.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I am Chantal Petitclerc, a senator from Quebec. Thank you for being here.
Senator Mockler: I am Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I am Marie-Françoise Mégie, a senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Gold: I am Marc Gold from the province of Quebec.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, everyone. For our first panel today, we welcome, from the New Brunswick Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Julie Beaulieu Mason, Deputy Minister, Francophone Sector; Michel LeBlanc, Assistant Deputy Minister, Early Childhood Development; and Lisa Lacenaire, Executive Director, Policy and Planning. Welcome to all of you and thank you so much for joining us.
I remind witnesses that you have five minutes allocated for opening statements, followed by questions from our members. We have a lot of members, so if you go over the allocated time, I’m afraid I’m going to have to stop you. Keep that in mind. If you would start, Ms. Beaulieu Mason.
Julie Beaulieu Mason, Deputy Minister, Francophone Sector, New Brunswick Department of Education and Early Childhood Development: Thank you very much for having us this afternoon.
We are here today to give you an appreciation of the New Brunswick early learning and childcare system in order to help you in your deliberations on Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. More specifically, we would like to share our realities regarding the minority francophone language community in New Brunswick and the early learning and child care system.
New Brunswick’s early learning and child care system is based on building a network of high-quality, accessible, inclusive and affordable early childhood services for New Brunswick families no matter where they live and in the official language of their choice.
[Translation]
New Brunswick has welcomed the federal investments in early learning and child care with enthusiasm. The recognition of the impact of early learning and child care found in Bill C-35 reflects the objectives of our own child care sector.
New Brunswick created an optional designation program in 2018 in order to have early learning and child care facilities offer affordable, high-quality and inclusive services by removing barriers linked to family income, children’s ability and needs, language and minority settings.
The designation program was incorporated in the Early Childhood Services Act in spring 2022. This provincial legislation requires operators to select and use a francophone, anglophone or Indigenous curriculum. The language in which staff are trained and the language of service must align with those chosen curricula, and the educators must participate in annual professional development on the curriculum. These curricula are unique to each group’s realities.
My department is proud of what we have accomplished. We want to continue improving how we deliver these services and provide access to more families.
[English]
In order to achieve this, we needed to better understand the needs of parents by region and by official language. That is why the Government of New Brunswick recently launched a provincial child care wait-list. The wait-list currently has approximately 3,500 children.
[Translation]
Of these 3,500 children on the wait list, 761 have not indicated a language preference for service. This poses a risk for the vitality and viability of our French minority language in New Brunswick.
To better understand this reality, New Brunswick has spent the last year conducting an in-depth analysis of parents’ needs for French-language early learning and child care spaces. The analysis included the use of statistical data from the 2021 census and community engagement sessions. This information is being used to determine where spaces will be allocated for each linguistic community. Francophone spaces now make up 34.4% of all spaces.
[English]
In the Canada-wide agreement, New Brunswick committed to increase the number of licensed child care spaces to reach 59% coverage provincially. The provincial coverage prior to signing the agreement was 44%. The breakdown was approximately 39% coverage for the anglophone population and 59% coverage for the francophone population.
[Translation]
While this could signal that the francophone families are well served and that we are meeting their needs, the reality is that this is not the case. Research demonstrates that francophone families in New Brunswick require child care services at a higher proportion than anglophone families. A study in 2006 explains that this is primarily because of two factors. One, workforce participation by both francophone parents is higher than that of anglophone parents, and, two, the mobility of families is at play. According to the data, migration from mostly francophone families from the north of the province to the south takes young families away from their support networks toward more urban centres and employment opportunities.
Space creation objectives can therefore not be a one-size-fits-all approach for New Brunswick. They must respect the regional specificity and linguistic profiles of our communities.
[English]
That is why we are here today. We ask that any amendments proposed to Bill C-35 enhance the work that has been done up to date with the Canada-wide agreement and enable us to continue to build on our successes. We do not want to step back from the province’s foundational work.
[Translation]
We have a robust, comprehensive, publicly regulated and managed system governed through the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. This system promotes real equity as well as the protection and promotion of the minority language.
We have the opportunity, thanks to the early learning and child care agreement and Bill C-35, to offer affordable, accessible, high-quality and inclusive early learning and child care services to more children in the language of their choice.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Beaulieu Mason. Now we’ll go to questions.
Senator Seidman: Welcome and thank you very much for being with us today and for travelling a long distance to be with us.
On October 18, when appearing before this committee on Bill C-35, the federal Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, the Honourable Jenna Sudds, indicated that the intent of the bill is to ensure that the provinces and territories will benefit from “. . . a sustained federal commitment to early learning and child care, including a commitment to long-term funding.”
In your view, does Bill C-35 in its current form fulfill that stated intent?
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: Thank you very much for the question. As mentioned in my opening remarks, we welcomed with enthusiasm the initiative of the federal government with respect to the early childhood investments, and we welcomed as well Bill C-35 with that same enthusiasm because it helps to ensure the longevity of that investment. We are fully invested and have worked very hard and very well with our federal colleagues to implement what we have put in place, with the designation, with the changes to our Early Childhood Services Act and so on. The alignment is very strong. It helps us to go further, so we’re very supportive and appreciative of Bill C-35.
Senator Seidman: In other words, you’re saying yes? I’m trying to understand. In its current form, the bill does fulfill the intent of a sustained federal commitment to early learning and child care, including the long-term financial commitment, yes?
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: Yes.
Senator Seidman: Okay, good. Thank you very much.
Senator Osler: Thank you very much for your testimony today. First, let me offer congratulations on the work you have done in New Brunswick. Reading through your brief, I see you are on a positive trajectory towards a commitment of 59% of licensed child care spaces and that francophone spaces make up 34.4% of all spaces, while francophones make up 30.4% of the New Brunswick population.
In the brief, you’ve also said:
We ask that any amendments to Bill C-35 you propose enhance the work that we have done up to date . . . .
As you just explained to Senator Seidman, in its current form, the bill is satisfactory to you. Could you help me and this committee understand, given the good work you’ve done so far, what other amendments do you see that would enhance the work that you have done?
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: Thank you for the question. Maybe to reinforce a little bit why we’re here in relation to that, it does pertain quite specifically to the status in New Brunswick as the one and only officially bilingual province. Our francophone population, as you noted, is 30%, so it’s a significant proportion of the New Brunswick population. Understanding and representing their needs is really key for us to be able to continue to grow and to maintain the services that we provide to francophone families.
Having followed some of the other witnesses whom you’ve received and some of the amendments that have been brought forward, that has really prompted us to be here today to support some of the initiatives. In particular, there was one amendment that was brought forward by Mr. Larocque around the financial proportion to ensure there is consistency throughout Bill C-35 in the application of the place for minority francophone communities. We felt it was important that we represent that need and that it’s not lost as part of potential discussions and deliberations that you will have today.
What we’ve put in place operationally, through our agreement but also in practice, has been very much aligned to those needs in our communities, understanding both the locations where we need to create more spaces as well as the language in which those services need to be provided. We’ve done that from an operational standpoint. We want to ensure that will continue operationally and through the work we’ll do in the future when we aren’t necessarily the ones at the table. The longevity can be ensured through language in the act, so that’s why we’re here to support those changes.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: Welcome to our proceedings. My question follows up on my colleague Senator Seidman’s question.
You have progressed so well in terms of understanding and working to understand the needs of your community and driving what we have all talked about: the need for data and understanding. I’m curious to know how the original agreement discussions went. Did you find the government supportive in your unique needs? That’s the first part of the question.
The second part of the question reflects back to what she asked, which is how you were able to progress so well with an existing understanding and partnership with the government on this. Do you really think you need to change the bill to continue this good work?
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: That’s a great question. I’ll do my best to answer, and maybe if my colleagues want to add on, they can.
We do have quite a lot of data and quite a bit of understanding of our communities in New Brunswick. What may set us a little bit apart from some of our colleagues in other provinces and territories is perhaps the structure that we have. Early childhood development is part of the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development in New Brunswick. In our structure, we have a Deputy Minister for the Francophone Sector — myself — and a similar counterpart for the anglophone sector.
The education piece for our K-12 schools has functioned that way for quite some time. We’ve adopted some of those same principles operationally, and we’ve put in place some of the same approaches in terms of our curriculum development and the programs we deliver. They are very much aligned to our two linguistic communities. I don’t believe there are other structures in other provinces and territories that are quite organized that way. The knowledge that we’ve acquired over many years in that functioning from an operational perspective has enabled us to have good collaboration with our community groups, with the various portions of the francophone community and engagements with the associated community groups that we often connect with.
The collaboration we’ve had with our federal counterparts has been very strong and fruitful. There are some really interesting conversations we were able to have in sharing that perspective that is unique to New Brunswick based on our operational structure, as well as the proportion of our communities that are represented in this way.
Again, in terms of the work that we’ve done to date, I’ve not felt the need, necessarily, based on the agreements that we have — keeping in mind that it’s a five-year agreement; we’re just at the table now negotiating the action plan for the next three years and the details of that agreement — I’m not worried about what we’re doing currently. The reason we’re here is more for the longer term. After five years, when there’s a new agreement, let’s make sure we have continuity.
Senator Moodie: Did you request to appear before the House of Commons committee?
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: No, we did not.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Welcome to my fellow New Brunswickers. Thank you for the work you are doing. I’d like to discuss your concerns from a longer-term standpoint. You were pretty clear in your presentation that, in spite of progress, the reality is that francophone families are not well served. In your arguments, you clearly illustrated the challenges you face when it comes to francophone child care centres.
I want to focus on the long term. Let’s say clause 8 of the bill were amended to specify that the federal government committed to maintaining long-term funding for official language minority communities — and thus New Brunswick’s French-speaking community. Would that create any discomfort or difficulties in your relationship with the federal government, in terms of negotiating agreements? Would you see it as a problem if the bill were to include a firm commitment by the federal government to official language communities?
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: The short answer is no. It would not be a problem, since it basically reflects what we put in place in our agreement. It’s consistent with our current agreement.
The longer we can keep this approach, the better off we will be going forward, but it doesn’t create any problems today vis-à-vis what we have in place.
Senator Cormier: In that sense, then, you see maintaining financial support for New Brunswick’s French-speaking community — because that’s exactly what we’re talking about here — as vital to being able to build a child care system, one that incorporates both public and private sector participation. As we know, the private sector plays a significant role in New Brunswick’s regime. With an eye to the long term, does that make sense?
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: In the long term, it would give us the ability to continue the work we started and keep moving in that direction. That’s where a commitment to long-term funding would be very useful: we would be able to continue our work to help the province’s francophone minority communities.
Senator Cormier: Very good. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Burey: Thank you for coming. I was reading this and seeing all the data you provided. I would say it’s music to our ears. I know I only have four minutes.
I really wanted to dig a little bit deeper. You have said that you have a robust, comprehensive, publicly regulated and managed system governed through the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. I did read your Early Childhood Services Act today, and I was so impressed.
Are there provisions in that act that would guarantee the funding of minority languages? We have a lot to learn from you in New Brunswick. Are there provisions within your own act that provide for minority linguistic services, as you have outlined?
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: That’s a great question. I will turn to my expert to help answer that question.
Lisa Lacenaire, Executive Director, Policy and Planning, New Brunswick Department of Education and Early Childhood Development: There would be nothing directly linked to financing. It would come based on the fact that we need to provide a francophone curriculum, and the services would align with that curriculum. At the department, when we’re working on developing a francophone curriculum, it would be different from what we are creating for the anglophone curriculum. They’re very distinct. They reflect those groups and their realities.
So it would not be directly, but because of some things like that, we’d have to finance.
Senator Burey: I’m hearing an indirect funding mechanism to ensure minority language rights.
Ms. Lacenaire: Yes.
Senator Burey: Okay. The other question is this: Could there be any unintended consequences to changes to Bill C-35 as we have it? Because it is working very well for you. I’m excited to see all of this.
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: That’s another excellent question. That’s a little bit the question that we’re here to ask you — to have that lens.
We spent a little bit more time looking at the suggestions brought forward via the various witnesses with respect to the linguistic rights. We’ve spoken to that today. What we’re less aware of is what other amendments have been brought forward and suggested. Therefore, with the other amendments you are going to be considering in the coming hours, we ask that you consider the lens of New Brunswick’s minority languages and the minority community in New Brunswick.
So I’ll throw the question back to you.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: First, I would be remiss if I didn’t thank Senator Cormier for his leadership. His questions and comments clearly show that he knows the issue and especially New Brunswick. My hats off to him. He has long been familiar with the issues affecting New Brunswick, and Bill C-35 will have a significant impact for the entire country.
Deputy Minister Beaulieu Mason, Mr. LeBlanc and Ms. Lacenaire, I also want to commend you for your leadership vis-à-vis the Acadian community in New Brunswick and the Atlantic region. Oftentimes, we look to you, in New Brunswick, and what you have done — I just heard senators refer to that. Keep up that leadership. I have no doubt it’s something the English-speaking community appreciates and respects as well.
On October 26, 2023, University of Ottawa Professor François Larocque appeared before the committee. He said, and I quote:
Clause 8 of Bill C-35 should include an explicit reference to official language minority communities…
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.”
Would you support such an amendment if it were proposed? If so, why?
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: The amendment is very much in line with what we put in place and what we’ve been able to establish as far as practices go. It clearly reflects the needs of New Brunswick’s francophone minority community and the importance of representing the province’s bilingual status. In that regard, the answer is yes, we support and appreciate the suggested amendment. We see it as being well aligned with our work and the practices we have already put in place. We want to make sure that the commitment is ongoing, that it continues into the future, after the first five-year agreement.
[English]
Senator Mockler: Could you share your perspectives on the issue brought forward by the Acadian Society of New Brunswick? I think that’s pertinent because they’re also an important stakeholder.
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: The Acadian Society of New Brunswick has taken some of the same amendments perhaps a bit further. There is a continuum. We have established good practices today in terms of the approach we’ve taken to identify the needs for spaces, the location for spaces and the space per region. I believe the first amendment that you were sharing takes us down the path of what we have established and well places us to be able to continue to do the work we’ve been doing.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator McPhedran: It’s really more a point of information that I’d like to be able to have on the record.
It is absolutely true that in the Constitution Act, 1982, only New Brunswick is mentioned as having official bilingualism. I would like to share, though, that the province of Manitoba certainly considers itself to also be an officially bilingual province. That is through litigation and some very clear decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada and Courts of Appeal.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for that, Senator McPhedran. It’s important.
Senator Quinn: Thank you for being here today.
I want to follow up a little bit on Senator Mockler’s questions with respect to the proposed amendment that was tabled by the university professor. We’re talking a lot about New Brunswick. I’m from New Brunswick and I appreciate that, but in reading what the professor proposed, I saw that as something that’s applicable across the country where minority language rights and approaches would be more enshrined in the legislation because of what he proposed. Is that something that is a fair comment or a fair observation?
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: I would have a similar read as you have noted. I am not in a position to be able to speak to the position of the other provinces. I appreciate the comments of the senator who spoke before you as well.
I cannot necessarily represent other provinces and their points of view, but, certainly, as New Brunswick has often been a leader when it comes to official languages and minority rights, perhaps this is a place where it can benefit other regions of the country as well.
Senator Cardozo: I just wanted to ask you more about your negotiations with the federal government. You’ve been in negotiations with them, and we’re dealing with the act which kind of puts all those negotiations into an act instead of going about it the other way. Usually you do the act first and then the negotiations, but I guess the negotiations happened.
I know very little about those negotiations. I wonder if you could just share with us a little bit about how that has been proceeding and what kinds of things you talk about.
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: Sure. I’ll start, perhaps, and then Michel LeBlanc can add on as required.
The negotiation process was, I’d say, in a sense split into two time periods. The initial negotiations took place approximately two years ago. They were on the overall agreement and went through some level of — not necessarily line by line, but essentially what the main agreement consisted of and reinforced in terms of practices.
At that time, we also negotiated the first two years of an action plan. We were asked to produce an action plan for the first two years, so for 2021-22, and we are now at 2023-26. It’s a five-year agreement. We are now negotiating the second portion of that five-year agreement.
The overall agreement has very high-level orientation and principles. The action plan is much more specific, and it’s driven primarily by the province in terms of how we will reach each of the objectives of the overall agreement. That’s where our team has the financial envelope as well as the main portions of the agreement that talk about affordability, accessibility — so the creation of spaces — the quality of services and inclusion.
All of those are left, essentially, to the provinces and territories or Indigenous communities to identify how we will reach those objectives and, of course, the financing needs to match how we will reach those objectives. That’s what we are negotiating now.
Senator Cardozo: On that last point of inclusion, did you have a discussion about bilingualism or French-language minority communities?
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: No. We’ve treated the language access mainly through access and through the creation of spaces. Inclusion has incorporated more of ensuring that everyone has the ability to have access to services, regardless of their socio-economic status and whether they have additional needs —
Senator Cardozo: Sorry I’m pushing back; the clock is ticking.
At any point in the negotiations under any heading, has there been discussion about French-language minority communities and child care in French?
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: As part of the portion that we talk about the creation of spaces, it’s an important component within our action plan. We identify very clearly that we are looking to create spaces where there is a need, so where we don’t have child care spaces, or where we need to grow more seats because there are more children. Our wait-list gives us very instrumental information associated to that.
We’re going that step further to say not only where there are no spaces but where there are no spaces by language and ensuring that we’re targeting, through the approach that we’ve taken in the province to create those spaces, and that we’re creating them where we need them and in the language of choice of the parents.
Senator Cardozo: Thanks very much. Very interesting.
[Translation]
Senator Gold: Welcome. On behalf of my fellow senators, I want to congratulate you on the tremendous work you are doing for your constituents.
[English]
It’s a testament, I think, to how — at least in your province and in others — provinces are taking the responsibility seriously to provide services to their community, including those who are in a minority linguistic situation, as I am in my province of Quebec; although, we are not as directly affected in this bill, perhaps.
My question is very simple: In the work that you’ve done and will continue to do — and it’s an echo of Senator Mockler’s and others’ questions — bluntly, do you need the amendment to keep doing your work and succeeding as you are? Yes or no?
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: As we are, perhaps not with the agreement that we have in place today, so it’s really more from a longevity perspective that we support the amendment.
Senator Gold: Great. Thanks and keep up the good work. Hats off!
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: As we’ve heard, billions of dollars are being allocated, and people have concerns. What will happen when it’s over in 2026? Is the fertility rate taken into account? As we know, the rate is dropping. Should Bill C-35 include measures to keep up with changing demographics?
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: That’s a really interesting question. You’re right, the fertility rate is dropping. I can talk about things in my province. We’ve been experiencing that in New Brunswick for more than a decade. The population has really been declining for quite a few years now. I think our counterparts in the Maritimes are seeing that as well.
However, we are also working to bring in an increasing number of newcomers. The immigration and migration rates we’ve seen in New Brunswick over the past two or three years are really something. The immigration rate has gone up. Families from other countries are moving to New Brunswick and other parts of Canada. We give them a very warm welcome. We are all struggling with labour shortages in various sectors, so this is a big focus of the work we are doing in the province.
The families we welcome, despite the fact that the birth rate may be stagnating or declining… The number of newcomers and new families with small children — and we’re seeing this just as much in early childhood learning as we are in schools — has increased by about 5.5% in New Brunswick. That’s pretty significant for our province. It’s the highest growth rate we’ve seen in more than 30 years.
I think it’s important to factor in demographic weight in the long term. I would like to think — I hope, anyways — that the province will continue to grow and that the funding we need will keep pace with that growth.
Senator Mégie: Thank you very much.
Senator Moncion: I have a couple of questions. How many spaces will be created under the new agreement?
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: The objective of the agreement is to create 3,400 new spaces for the province of New Brunswick. That’s the total target.
So far, we’ve created 1,395 new spaces in the province. I can give you the information for children from zero to 24 months.
Senator Moncion: No. I’d like to know what percentage of those 1,395 spaces went to francophones.
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: I don’t have those numbers with me, but I could check and get back to the committee with the answer.
Senator Moncion: Very well. You said earlier that francophones made up 30% of New Brunswick’s population.
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: Yes.
Senator Moncion: According to my quick math, 30% of 1,400 is about 420 new spaces for francophones. My understanding is that the number of spaces that were dedicated to francophones in your province may not be quite that much. Does Bill C-35 provide any protection, if you will? You said how important your province’s legislation was, since you are the only officially bilingual province. It’s just protection.
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: I’ll try to explain. The 1,395 spaces were created in two phases. We filled a certain number of spaces that were empty. The idea behind some of those spaces was recreating or restoring spaces and working with early learning and child care centres to make the spaces available to children. That was an initial quick approach to create the spaces we needed to accommodate our families.
Beyond that, in January, we launched a request for proposals. The process was established to create new child care centres or new spaces in existing centres. We set up the process so we could target the spaces on the basis of region and language.
That first request for proposals was based on the best information we had at the time, mainly data from the 2016 census and the 2016-21 birth rate. On the whole, that’s the information we had. We didn’t necessarily have the better-quality information from the 2021 census with respect to spoken language and mother tongue.
The first request for proposals included a smaller proportion of spaces for francophones. I’ll repeat what I said earlier: the proportion of francophone families or spaces amounted to a larger share of the population. Since we were in a better position initially, we weren’t trying to fill as many spaces for francophones under that first effort.
Senator Moncion: Therefore, 1,900 spaces were created, and only 300 of them were for francophones. That is not proportionate. That’s information I just received. I’m trying to understand something. How will Bill C-35 help you? How will you protect francophones’ rights in the agreements you are going to sign? The community does have needs. We know that when children aren’t in a francophone setting from an early age, English takes over pretty quickly.
There is some protection. Bill C-35 is also meant to provide some protection.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Do you want to comment quickly?
[Translation]
Ms. Beaulieu Mason: I think we can check the numbers and give you a better understanding of how many spaces were created and in what proportions. We could follow up with you on that. We would like to see more protection in Bill C-35 to make sure that it does indeed meet the needs of the francophone community.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Your presentation was great. The brief that you sent was very helpful before we started our meeting today. Your comments and your answers were concise, straightforward and clear. It’s a dream for people who are listening to the answers, so thank you very much.
This brings us to the end of the first panel. I’d like to thank the witnesses very much for your time. I know that the planning for a presentation takes far longer than the actual presentation.
We will now proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. Before we begin, I’d like to welcome the officials from Employment and Social Development Canada. They are with us in the room today, and they are here by video conference. If we wish to ask a question from anybody, any of these officials, they will come to the table and answer the question.
The officials we have with us are Cheri Reddin, Director General, Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care; Kelly Nares, Director, Federal Secretariat on Early Learning and Child Care; and Christian Paradis, Director, Federal Secretariat on Early Learning and Child Care. By video conference, we have Michelle Lattimore, Director General, Federal Secretariat on Early Learning and Child Care.
Before we begin, I’d like to remind senators of a number of points. It’s the teacher in me, sorry. The first one is if at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that we are all dealing with the same clause and all have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
Second, in terms of the mechanics of the process, I wish to remind senators that when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of the clause. So, first in the bill — first amendment, if we have them.
Third, if a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind you that in committee the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but rather to vote against the clause. Don’t ask for it to be deleted; vote against it.
The fourth thing to remember is that some amendments that are moved may have a consequential effect on other parts of the bill, and we had that discussion at our committee about a previous bill that the committee dealt with. It would be useful if the senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in the bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.
Fifth, because no notice is required to move amendments, there could, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
Sixth, if committee members ever have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, you can certainly raise a point of order. That’s always open to everybody. As chair, I will listen to arguments, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of the matter and make a ruling.
The committee is the ultimate master of the business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling should be sustained.
I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call, which obviously provides unambiguous results. If anybody wishes to have a roll-call vote, then that is your prerogative as well.
Finally, senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question. Are there any questions on any of the above? If not, then we will proceed with clause by clause.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed. Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed. Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed. Shall clause 2 carry?
Senator Cormier: No.
[Translation]
I’d like to move an amendment that has gone out to the committee members. I’ll read it first and, then, I’ll explain.
The amendment reads as follows:
That Bill C-35 be amended in clause 2, on page 3, by adding the following after line 14:
“official language minority community means English-speaking communities in Quebec and French-speaking communities outside Quebec. (communauté de langue officielle en situation minoritaire)”.
Here’s my explanation. As the amendment indicates, it would add a definition of “official language minority communities,” specifying that the term refers to English-speaking communities in Quebec and French-speaking communities outside Quebec. The amendment is necessary in order to harmonize the language in the bill and goes hand in hand with my next amendment, number RC-C35-7-5-33.
Paragraph 7(1)(c) of the bill refers to “English and French linguistic minority communities,” whereas subclause 11(1) refers to “official language minority communities.”
It’s worth noting that the addition of “English and French linguistic minority communities” to paragraph 7(1)(c) flowed from an amendment proposed by MP Leah Gazan during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the other place.
The reference to “official language minority communities” in subclause 11(1) was subsequently proposed during clause by clause by MP Joël Godin. That may be why the terminology is inconsistent.
Furthermore, even though the term “official language minority communities” isn’t used or defined in the updated Official Languages Act, people expressed concerns during the pre-study of Bill C-13, the legislation to modernize the Official Languages Act.
At the time, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages heard that the term “French linguistic minority communities” could cause confusion. Does it include the francophone minority of Quebec given that French is the minority language in Canada and in North America? The intent is actually to capture French-speaking communities outside Quebec. That concern applies to this bill as well.
I’ll conclude by pointing out that the new version of the Broadcasting Act and the Online News Act, which we adopted, as did the government, both refer to the term “official language minority communities” and contain the same definitions proposed in this amendment.
That’s my explanation. If anyone has any questions, I’m happy to answer them.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Cormier.
Senator Seidman: Thank you, Senator Cormier. I don’t really have a question for you. I appreciate the fact that you’re trying to harmonize the terminology in the bill so that it’s consistent right through the bill. It also allows the language later on to be much more focused. It does not have to have a lot of descriptive words, so I think it’s important from that point of view.
I also think that you’ve respected what is seen as the concept in this country, and that is the official language minority communities — there’s the English minority community in Quebec and the French minority communities in the other provinces in the country. So, officially, there are these two official language minority communities, and you have respected that in this definition and as it’s interpreted throughout the rest of the bill, so I thank you for that.
Senator Moodie: I want to thank the senator for your amendment. Thank you very much. This is a technical amendment, so I appreciate your reasoning.
Just looking at the legal precedent that was set in Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, which was recently brought into law and to which Bill C-35 refers to in clause 7(3).
That law uses the term “English and French linguistic minority communities” and not “official language minority communities.” In terms of harmonizing with existing bills that refer to official languages, in this regard, this amendment that you bring forward would take this bill out of step somewhat with Bill C-13 and the most recent Official Languages Act.
I’d be guided by the officials to correct me if I’m wrong on this. I’d like to ask, Madam Chair, if the officials might comment on this.
The Deputy Chair: Who would be best placed to answer that?
Michelle Lattimore, Director General, Federal Secretariat on Early Learning and Child Care, Employment and Social Development Canada: I’m happy to answer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Perhaps I could just offer the following to support the committee’s deliberation on this proposed amendment.
Bill C-35, as you know, is federally focused legislation with a goal to enshrine the federal goals, vision and commitment of a Canada-wide system over the long term. To some extent, including a definition of official language minority communities expands beyond the policy scope of the bill. It is our understanding that this is a definition that isn’t required to support the interpretation of the act, whereas some of those other definitions that you see — for “Minister,” “Indigenous peoples” and “Indigenous governing body” — are more required because it speaks to their role vis-à-vis Bill C-35.
Adding a definition of official language minority communities could have implications beyond early learning and child care. As Senator Moodie has noted, the legal precedent that we see — including in Bill C-13 — does use the term “English and French linguistic minority communities” and not “official language minority communities.” There is certainly some concern that only defining one such community could raise concerns for why others are potentially not defined in this act.
I would also raise one final note, which is that the Government of Quebec does not recognize English-speaking communities as a minority within its territory, so the language we see in Bill C-13 may be more inclusive of what we’re attempting to get at with this legislation.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you for that explanation. We still need to be aware of the debates that took place during the study of Bill C-13 on this subject, but also of the amendments made to Bill C-18 and C-11, which were aimed at clarifying the terminology to make sure we knew what we were talking about. The Government of Canada has agreed to use this terminology to ensure that there is no ambiguity. For the sake of consistency, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to use the same terminology in Bill C-35, which deals with the federal government’s relationship with the provinces. We know that, in the responsibilities associated with the implementation of the Official Languages Act, the vocabulary used to clearly define an “official language minority community” is crucial in the relationship between the federal government, the provinces and territories; it must be absolutely clear.
So I don’t understand the challenge posed by terminology that is constantly used to define official language minority communities. For the sake of clarity, I don’t see why there would be any deficit or challenge in proposing this definition, which seems to me to clarify rather than blur what we mean by “official language minority communities.”
It’s more of a comment to fuel the discussion and enlighten our colleagues, because this issue of terminology is crucial in agreements between the federal government and the provinces. So it’s very important. Official language minority communities have official status. It isn’t terminology that’s pulled out of a hat or done through some bit of magic. This is terminology that’s used very clearly by the federal government itself.
Senator Moncion: Thank you for allowing me to speak in support of what Senator Cormier said. Bill C-13 proposed an asymmetrical legislative framework to recognize the vulnerability of French in Canada and North America. The purpose of Bill C-35 is quite different. In this case, it is justified to clearly define the group targeted in the relevant provisions of the bill, namely official language minority communities, or OLMCs.
Senator Gold: Thank you, dear colleague, for the explanation.
[English]
I’m going to express myself in English so I can be clear. The government does not support this amendment, and I’ll try to explain why.
You’re correct, of course, that the language you’re suggesting appears in Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 in the specific context of those bills. However, as the official pointed out, it’s the government position that the most important bill to deal with the important issue that you raise is the law of official languages in Bill C-13. Here, I think clarity as legislators and following drafting conventions is our fundamental job. In that regard, it seems to me that it is appropriate in Bill C-35 to not deviate from the definitions that are in the Official Languages Act, which is the quasi-constitutional act that governs all aspects of our laws and our practices, including the application and interpretation of this law.
It is not necessary and, indeed, may introduce confusion. But most importantly, the drafting convention in matters of this in a law that is so intimately tied to the quasi-constitutional status of Bill C-13 is, with respect, to use the language and the definitions in Bill C-13. For that reason, the government is not able to support this amendment.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: After listening to Senator Moncion following Senator Cormier’s remarks, I fully agree with them, and I support the amendment, because I don’t think there will be any confusion. However, if we leave things as they are, that’s where we run the risk of confusion when, one day, someone takes Bill C-13 and Bill C-35, if we don’t keep the same terminology that is officially recognized by the federal government, we’re going to shoot ourselves in the foot in other situations and with other bills. I don’t think there’s any confusion. Now is when we risk creating confusion if we don’t make this change.
Senator Petitclerc: I have a question, and I don’t know who can answer it, but I’m looking for some clarity. Senator Gold, you said that it isn’t necessary to have this definition in Bill C-13. I can understand that it’s not absolutely necessary. What I’m having trouble understanding — and in my thinking I suppose it’s not absolutely necessary in the best of all possible worlds — is why we’re not doing it out of a concern for precaution and safety; how can that be harmful? I don’t know who could enlighten me, if that’s possible. Senator Gold, perhaps you could help me.
Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. The officials are in a better position to answer you. There is a close link between Bill C-13 and this bill with respect to the promotion of communities, in other words, anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec, regardless of how they are described in everyday life. In the bill, it would be a mistake, and it’s neither necessary nor desirable to change the expression found in a quasi-constitutional text. The officials have already given their opinion. I don’t want to repeat what they said, but if they have something to add to that, it could be beneficial.
[English]
Ms. Lattimore: Thank you for the opportunity to respond. I think I would just echo what we have heard from Senator Gold. There is no definition in Bill C-13. There is no requirement from a drafting convention perspective. The intention with this legislation is to remain aligned with the most recent legislation we’ve seen in terms of Bill C-13. Beyond that, I’m not sure that there’s anything additional that I can offer.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: There is confusion in the bill directly if the terms aren’t well defined. In the bill as drafted — that’s the reason for my next amendment — there’s reference to both terminologies. We’re talking about official language minority communities. We’re talking about the bill; it’s included in the bill. We’re also talking about francophone and anglophone linguistic minorities; that’s in the bill.
The bill uses the term “official language minority community.” I think it’s perfectly consistent to include a definition that clearly defines what we’re talking about. There’s some inconsistency right now, since there are two terminologies being used. We don’t lose anything, and there are no notable adverse effects if we add a definition that clarifies the terminology already in the bill.
[English]
Senator Moodie: I’ll try to wrap this up. My own feeling is I don’t think this resolves any significant gaps in the bill. We have heard that it does not align with the current norms and the bill that we aim to align it with. I question whether it warrants the delay in the adoption of this bill. I’d like to call the question, Madam Chair.
The Deputy Chair: There has been a request to call the question.
Honourable senators, there has been a request, too, for a recorded vote. I’ll ask the clerk to name all of the senators who are entitled to vote at this time. Would you do that, please? That includes ex officio members. Go ahead.
Senator Cardozo: Madam Chair, could you restate what we’re voting on essentially?
The Deputy Chair: I will do that. Senator Cardozo, we’ll get those who are entitled to vote, their names, down first, and then I will read the amendment that has been brought forward.
Emily Barrette, Clerk of the Committee: We have the Honourable Senator Cordy, the Honourable Senator Burey, the Honourable Senator Cardozo, the Honourable Senator Cormier, the Honourable Senator Dasko, the Honourable Senator McPhedran, the Honourable Senator Moodie, the Honourable Senator Osler, the Honourable Senator Petitclerc, the Honourable Senator Mégie, the Honourable Senator Seidman and the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C.
The Deputy Chair: Are there any questions? If any member who is present does not wish to vote, even though you are entitled to vote, you may withdraw from the table now.
The clerk will call the members’ names, beginning with the chair, followed by the remaining members’ names in alphabetical order. Members should verbally indicate how they wish to vote by saying, “yea,” “nay” or “abstain.” The clerk will then announce the result of the vote. The chair will then declare whether the motion is carried or defeated.
That Bill C-35 be amended in clause 2, on page 3, by adding the following after line 14:
“official language minority community means English-speaking communities in Quebec and French-speaking communities outside Quebec. (communauté de langue officielle en situation minoritaire)”.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Cordy?
Senator Cordy: Nay.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Burey?
Senator Burey: Abstain.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Cardozo?
Senator Cardozo: Abstain.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Nay.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: Nay.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: Yes.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Moodie?
Senator Moodie: Nay.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Osler?
Senator Osler: Nay.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: Yes.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Gold, P.C.?
Senator Gold: No.
Ms. Barrette: Yeas, 4; nays, 6; abstentions, 2.
The Deputy Chair: The motion has been defeated. We’ll move on.
Shall clause 2 carry, yes or no?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I’d like to propose an amendment to clause 7, at page 5:
That Bill C-35 be amended in clause 7, on page 5,
(a) by replacing line 11 with the following:
“programs and services — giving priority to those that are”;
(b) by replacing line 18 of the French version with the following:
“tif, qui respectent les normes établies par les gouver-”.
The reason for this amendment is that on several occasions, when we were questioning witnesses, I asked whether it would be wise to fund all private or public daycare with public funds. Wouldn’t it be better to fund only non-profit child care? The majority of the witnesses said yes, except for one guest from New Brunswick. He had one reservation, which was that, given that New Brunswick lacks child care resources and that some people are opening private daycares, if we state categorically that we only want to fund public daycares so that it’s fair, it will hurt them in terms of resources. We rethought that and decided that if we prioritized public daycare providers, funding would prioritize that. The reason for the “tif” is because there is an “s,” and “sans but lucratif” is singular; that’s all.
The main objective is to use the words “en priorisant” in paragraph (a) in the French version, rather than saying that funding must absolutely be reserved for the public.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Thank you very much. I appreciate and agree with the intent of this amendment. I think we all want to see and to continue to see an expansion of the public and not the for-profit care. Nevertheless, I will be voting against this amendment for a few reasons.
Clause 7(1)(a) says:
support the provision of, and facilitate equitable access to, high-quality early learning and child care programs and services —
— and I emphasize the following phrase —
— in particular those that are provided by public and not for profit child care providers . . . .
My understanding of this section would be that it can be interpreted as prioritizing quite strongly not-for-profit and public child care. If that is generally accepted — certainly, that’s how I read it — I feel this amendment would be effectively redundant and an unnecessary change.
I also think that it’s potentially disruptive and certainly may be unnecessary. I think we have a clear commitment from the government already, including a recent example to ensure — and I’m talking about the example in the news that we’re all familiar with — a focus on not-for-profit and public child care. It is in many agreements existing right now, in the first round of agreements.
We should continue to be vigilant — there’s no question about that — to see progress continue over time, but this amendment really does not help us, I would propose, at this time.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I’m going to add a comment after what the senator said. In the English version, it says “in particular.” Maybe that could be used? In the French version, when you say “notamment,” it doesn’t translate exactly what the English version says.
[English]
Senator Osler: If Senator Gold wants to respond to Senator Mégie, then I have a question about the second part.
The Deputy Chair: If we could finish up with this, that would be helpful.
Senator Gold: Thank you. The government doesn’t support this. I would like to ask a question of the officials, if I may, but just on the last point, Senator Mégie. Thank you.
[Translation]
I fully understand the objective, which is quite laudable, but I think that, as Senator Moodie mentioned, the priority is there, in the facts and the agreements. As for the question of the English and French versions — and I’m looking to the officials — I think that, again, in the legislative convention, the words “in particular” and “notamment” mean the same thing. I would add — I may be wrong — that the words “en priorisant” are rarely used in our legislation. I can ask the officials to clarify this.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Lattimore?
Ms. Lattimore: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do remember this being raised when we appeared with the minister, so perhaps some additional context could help.
The policy frame that underpins the Canada-wide system is one which reflects a commitment to growth in the not-for-profit, public and family-based child care sector, without question. I think the committee has heard testimony that speaks to the need to focus on growth in that sector to support the sound use of public funds. It’s a sector which also tends to yield higher-quality programs and services. That’s really the frame which this Canada-wide system and this legislation intend to reflect.
That said, given the unique early learning and child care, or ELCC, landscape across the country — remember the Canada-wide system is a system of systems — there is recognition that licensed for-profit child care will continue to play a role. Colleagues from New Brunswick spoke to that earlier.
Our teams work with provinces and territories to support the growth of quality child care spaces across the country while, at the same time, ensuring that families who are in existing spaces, including some for-profit spaces, will benefit from more affordable care.
Changing notamment to en priorisant would not be as reflective of this current landscape of ELCC. My understanding is the same as what Senator Gold has spoken to, namely, that notamment, looking at the English would be legislatively interpreted as “in particular.” The current language in clause 7 reflects the ELCC landscape, as mentioned, given the current reliance that we have on for-profit care in some jurisdictions, while still conveying the need to prioritize growth in the public and not-for-profit sector.
Anything more than that, I would just suggest, could raise concerns with provinces and territories about eligibility for early learning and child care providers, particularly in jurisdictions that are implementing cost-control frameworks with a limited growth of the for-profit sector while still ensuring that funds are being responsibly stewarded. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Before I turn to Senator Osler, is there anybody who wishes to make a further comment on this?
Senator Cardozo: Are we commenting on the amendment that Senator Mégie has suggested?
The Deputy Chair: Yes, we are.
Senator Cardozo: Okay. I have two thoughts.
The Deputy Chair: Just specifically to the comment, can I go to Senator Osler and then come back to you? Thank you.
Senator Osler: Thank you, chair, and thank you, Senator Mégie.
I have a question regarding clarification of part (b) of your amendment, “. . . replacing line 18 of the French version with the following . . . .” When I look at your amendment and compare it to line 18, the only difference I can see in the amendment is “tif” versus “tifs” in the original text. Is that the only change? You’ve removed the plural?
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Yes, take out the plural; that’s just it. It’s “à but non lucratif”; it’s a purpose. It’s singular.
[English]
Senator Osler: That’s just more technical? Not the content? Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: I don’t disagree with the suggestion of the amendment by my colleague, but as we go through clause-by-clause study of a bill that has come to us from the government, part of my evaluation is whether we need to amend this. I go back to what I might call the “Shugart protocol” or his idea that we should exercise that power with restraint.
My thought is that we have the ability to amend every bill that comes to us. When I started, I’d heard the figure that we were amending about a third of the bills, and I thought that was a useful thing. It was a nice number in that it was high enough that we were doing our work but not too high that we’re always stepping out of bounds. I understand that figure is more like 50% now. On my part, I feel the need to be a little more restrained.
In terms of amendments to government bills, as with the previous amendment that we voted on, I want to think about whether it is really necessary. Is it absolutely necessary, to use an earlier term? Or is this more or less good enough, recognizing there’s a whole government, there’s a whole Parliament in the other place, and we are independent senators?
There’s a fairly high bar that I want to see when we amend a bill that has come to us from the government. I don’t feel that is the case here.
Senator Dasko: I would like a little bit of clarification with respect to the clause that’s there now, “. . . programs and services — in particular those that are provided by public and not for profit child care providers . . . .”
Does this phrase — I’m asking this of the officials — manifest itself specifically in the current arrangements with the provinces, or is it mainly manifested on the growth side of child care services? Or is it equally present in all aspects of the arrangements? I’m trying to understand the impact and where the impact is of the existing clause.
Ms. Lattimore: Thank you for the question. The language that is used in the bilateral agreements right now refers to the use of the word “primarily.” That growth of the Canada-wide early learning and child care system will be “primarily” in that not-for-profit and public space, which is very much aligned with the language that you see reflected in the current draft of the legislation.
Senator Dasko: It’s with regard to the growth as opposed to —
Ms. Lattimore: That’s correct.
Senator Dasko: Okay.
Senator Seidman: I’m trying to understand this as well because I understand from the testimony we heard the issues around the public-private distinction. But if I look at, for example, New Brunswick’s agreement, because we just had New Brunswick at the table, if you read it, under “access” it says that New Brunswick commits to use federal funds “. . . predominantly to support not-for-profit . . . .”
It seems to me that there is, in fact, a tendency to use that kind of language in the agreements, and although I understand what Senator Mégie’s excellent intentions are, I am happy with the language, in particular on notamment, because it does reflect what is currently in the agreements, even if they are futuristic. I think we heard that these agreements are in place for the next five years. I’m happy enough with the language as it is in the current bill.
Senator Gold: I have a question for the officials, if I may. Can you confirm that I understand this correctly? Every province has existing systems in place, and they are inadequate to meet Canadians’ needs, and that’s why the federal government, which doesn’t have any jurisdiction in this area, is nonetheless entering into these agreements. This bill will provide the funding for provinces to expand those numbers.
My understanding is that in the discussions with the provinces, territories and Indigenous governments, the idea is to build on the existing network, giving priority to public spaces, and certainly it’s to make sure that there are more spaces and more affordable spaces for Canadians. Ultimately, this is the partnership between the provinces, territories and Indigenous governments, which actually have to deliver the spaces, and the federal government, which can supply the funding.
It’s normal, natural and desirable that the focus be on growth. We certainly don’t want to take away any spots, because there aren’t enough to go around right now as it is. Is that a correct characterization of the intergovernmental processes that underpin and will be supported by this bill?
Ms. Lattimore: I think that’s exactly it. Moreover, what you have described, Senator Gold, in using the word “underpinning” is really pointing to those bilateral agreements as being the centrepiece of a Canada-wide system that allows for regional specificity, recognizes this system of systems and puts officials in a position to be able to work closely with provincial and territorial officials and Indigenous partners to build on what already exists to support the spaces that Canadian families already enjoy, but to ensure that as we build forward as partners, we are building primarily in that not-for-profit and public space.
Senator Gold: Thank you very much.
Senator Moodie: I’d like to call the question.
The Deputy Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Mégie that:
That Bill C-35 be amended in clause 7, on page 5,
(a) by replacing line 11 with the following:
“programs and services — giving priority to those that are”;
(b) by replacing line 18 of the French version with the following:
“tif, qui respectent les normes établies par les gouver-”.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Deputy Chair: No?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. The amendment is defeated.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Obviously, since the first amendment I put forward wasn’t adopted and there’s acceptance, let’s say, of the diversity of language or the inconsistency — I think — of the language in the bill, I’m going to withdraw this amendment. Obviously, it won’t find any takers, because it was intended to standardize the language used in the bill. I still think it would be important to do so, but given that the first amendment wasn’t adopted, I’ll be consistent and withdraw this amendment.
[English]
Senator Seidman: I again concur that it’s disappointing, because what we have here now in paragraph 7(1)(c) on page 5 — and those would be the lines that Senator Cormier was trying to amend — is “. . . including children with disabilities, and of children from English and French linguistic minority communities . . . .”
However, if you go to page 7 — and I think this is what Senator Cormier was trying to propose to us earlier — at the top of page 7, clause 11(1), lines 1, 2 and 3, now we say, “. . . including Indigenous peoples and official language minority communities . . .,” so the language is different here in those two clauses. Here is the problem, in my opinion. We’re going to drop it, but it is an inconsistency in the bill. We have two different references to the official minority language communities. I’m just emphasizing the sadness I feel at doing this.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I’d like to agree with what Senator Seidman has just said. At the very least, we must be consistent in the bill about the vocabulary we use to name what we name; otherwise, we’re creating confusion or the possibility of confusion.
I understand that we don’t want to make amendments to the bill, but when it comes to consistency in the same bill, since we’re naming an entity in two different ways, it seems to me that you don’t have to be a lawyer to recognize that there’s a real discrepancy in the vocabulary.
I’m glad that Senator Seidman raised it; I’d like to move my amendment again, but the thinking has to change in this regard.
Otherwise, we’ll be left with a bill where there will be inconsistencies in how people call themselves. Would each of you like to be named in two different ways? That’s it. We’re talking about an important legislative document.
So I’m speaking to it, Madam Deputy Chair, to get some feedback, and to know whether I’m going to move the amendment again. I’d like to hear from Senator Gold or the representatives on this issue of inconsistency.
Senator Gold: We can’t deny the facts or what is in the bill, but we must remember that the change you mentioned, honourable colleague, was introduced as an amendment in the other place. That’s why this problem exists.
May I suggest that attaching an observation to this in order to clarify our understanding that the purpose of this bill — notwithstanding the appearance of another phrase that isn’t defined, because the definition was rejected — isn’t to change the meaning of the word, that is, to be consistent with the Official Languages Act? I think you’ve raised an important point, but the government won’t support an amendment in this regard. However, I think an observation would be welcome to clarify the committee’s intention with regard to the appearance of this phrase.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Did you want the official to comment also? I’m not saying you should or shouldn’t. You just mentioned it earlier.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: No, no. Obviously, I find that…. I’ll be very frank; it’s very clear that the government doesn’t want any amendments. However, the fact that we accept that there are definitions that aren’t consistent, because the government doesn’t want amendments…. It seems to me that, as legislators, as parliamentarians, our responsibility is to help clarify the bill. I’ll stop here. Although I think it would be good to add an observation, it seems to me that we had the opportunity, in this case, quite simply to standardize the language.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Did you say earlier that you were withdrawing your amendment?
Senator Cormier: Yes, I said I was withdrawing, but I said that I would like a conversation around this now, just to make sure that —
[Translation]
Senator Gold: I appreciate your candour, and I’ll be frank in my response. Before it was amended in committee in the other place, the bill was consistent with the Official Languages Act. Unfortunately, this crept into the bill. What I’m suggesting now, as responsible legislators, not to take a step forward, because it would be a step forward not to use the expression in Bill C-13…. To convey the intent that we would like to see the bill align with Bill C-13 — which it does — I think an observation would at least establish the will and the intent of this committee. That’s all I wanted to suggest. I realize it’s not necessarily satisfactory, but the bill was consistent with Bill C-13 before it was amended by the committee. If we go ahead, the cure will be worse than the affliction.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Perhaps you can decide between you who’s going to bring in the observation tomorrow.
Senator Gold: It would be my pleasure.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I think we’ve come full circle in this conversation. I want to say that I quite agree with you, Senator Cormier. I want to say that, because we’re not here to amend the bill — Senator Cardozo, I hear what you’re saying very clearly — and we’re not here to propose amendments lightly. However, if we detect something that happened when other amendments were introduced in the House of Commons, we still have a certain responsibility.
Words are important, words count, and if you’re going to say, “Here’s the right terminology,” there has to be consistency in the bill. I just wanted to say that and also to say that yes, I do agree that adding an observation is the minimum we can do to at least document it. However, we need to be very aware that an observation is not a change in the legislation. We must also be aware that what we choose not to do now will be even more difficult to revisit later. So it’s still a decision that shouldn’t be taken lightly, but if we’re comfortable with this inconsistency in choice and with the differences, we should at least be aware of the decision we’re making, in my opinion.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Seeing the time, we’re already one minute over, and we will continue this tomorrow.
Senator Gold: Did we vote on clause 7?
The Deputy Chair: Yes, we did.
Senator Gold: And it passed?
The Deputy Chair: Yes, it did.
Senator Gold: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Yes, it did. So we will be looking at clause 8 tomorrow at 11:30.
(The committee adjourned.)