It’s getting late. I thought I could count on my colleague Senator Cuzner to put a hand on my arm in case I fell asleep, but he’s not here.

Thank you to everyone who spoke before me in favour of the motion. I agree with your comments. Thank you to Senator Patterson, who made it clear that Indigenous communities and official language communities should work together, and that this bill and amendment do not go against either of them.

Colleagues, thank you for giving me this platform tonight, and thank you for the kind words when I was sworn in. It was very touching. I hope I can live up to all the praise.

I am speaking to you not long after my appointment because I cannot stay silent concerning the motion to amend Bill C-35. Who am I? The answer will give you some idea of the reason I am rising.

I come from Chéticamp, a small French-speaking Acadian enclave in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Today, about 2,500 people there still speak French.

In 1991, francophones and Acadians from Nova Scotia were spread out across a dozen or so villages and accounted for about 3.9% of the population, or 35,000 people. Today, 26,775 Nova Scotians still speak French as their first language, or 2.8% of a population of more than a million.

I grew up in Chéticamp, but I went to school in Moncton and Paris. Before I became a lawyer at age 37, I worked as a journalist and radio producer for Radio-Canada, and I also worked in the community development sector at the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse. I am very familiar with Canada’s Acadian and francophone communities, because I have travelled all around my province and from one end of the country to the other.

At school, I did all of my classes in English in my village, except for French class and, as of grade 9, history class. At the time, the school board was made up of about nine unilingual anglophone members who decided the curriculum for dozens of English schools, as well as for the school in Chéticamp, which may have also been an English school. Needless to say, French education for Acadians was not that school board’s priority. The Indigenous senators will no doubt understand what I am talking about.

As for education in Nova Scotia and section 23, in 1982, with the adoption of the Charter, I thought that our community would finally get its French school, but I could not have been more wrong. In 1985, we had to organize a “yes” campaign, a petition to respond to a plebiscite by the municipality, which had no recourse and no jurisdiction over the matter. We also had to show the government that we did indeed want a French-language school. We had to deal with being labelled as separatists and racists by the anglophone media and the general public.

The people who were against French schools argued that graduates of a French-only school in Chéticamp wouldn’t speak English at all. I can tell you that, by the age of five, my daughter already spoke English. I wasn’t the one encouraging her to do so.

At a public meeting attended by roughly 500 people, the warden of Inverness County at the time said, and I quote, “Over my dead body that there will be a unilingual French school in Chéticamp!” Well, that reeve has since passed away, and God bless him, because we got our school. However, it was not without repercussions. People were threatened, a car was set on fire by the folks who were against it, and to this day, some people are still identified based on whether they were in the “yes” camp or the “no” camp. I’ll let you decide which side I was on.

At the time, I had no idea that, seven years later, I would be a lawyer, let alone that I would be standing before you today to share all of this.

Nova Scotia, notwithstanding the party in power, did much the same thing in every Acadian community in the province, asking the communities if they wanted a French-only school. This led to conflict in every community and delayed the provincial government’s obligations to establish some French-language schools, despite section 23 and the Charter, which was enacted in 1982.

On a personal note, my daughters were born in 1988 and 1990 and graduated in 2000 and 2002, both from our old school that had been around for over 40 years. During that time, a brand-new English-language school was built, as would be the case in Chéticamp, Margaree and Belle Côte, and many of our Acadian students attended it. Needless to say, many of them were assimilated.

Honourable colleagues, you may be asking yourselves why I am telling you all this. Bear with me — I intend to make a parallel between Bill C-35 and the amendment proposed by Senator Cormier. I will talk about the history of minority language education in Nova Scotia. In order to do that, I have to talk about Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education).

This case, which went up to the Supreme Court of Canada, dealt with the right to French-language schools for the Acadians and francophones in Nova Scotia. In 1998, 16 years after the enactment of the Charter and section 23 guaranteeing the right to official minority language education, the province had yet to award the funds necessary to construct, renovate or provide the programs needed.

In his decision, Justice Leblanc declared that although the province did not deny that the Acadian and francophone minorities there were guaranteed an education in their language, it had failed to deliver on its promises. Here is what the judge said in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6.

Paragraph 4 notes that:

Although the government eventually announced the construction of the new French-language school facilities, construction of the promised schools never began. . . .

Paragraph 5 notes that:

. . . the real issue was not the existence and content of the applicants’ s. 23 rights, but the date on which the programs and facilities would finally be made available.

Paragraph 6 notes that:

. . . the respondents had not given sufficient attention to the serious rate of assimilation among Acadians and Francophones in Nova Scotia. The Province treated s. 23 rights as if they were but one more demand for educational programs and facilities, and failed to accord them due priority as constitutional rights. . . .

This situation from Nova Scotia is not unique. Cases like Doucet-Boudreau can be found in most provinces and territories, as parents of the francophone minorities had to go to court over a number of years to obtain the right to have their children educated in their language.

That brings me to the proposed amendment. Official language minority communities are mentioned three times in Bill C-35, but not in the preamble and not in clause 8 on funding.

The amendment takes nothing away from the bill. It simply adds to clause 8 to provide that the funding is also for official language minority communities. The courts would need to take that into account in the event of legal action.

It is a statement that removes any ambiguity as to whether the funding applies to minority language communities. You may have heard this quote before, but here is what Professor Larocque, who holds the Research Chair on Language Rights at the University of Ottawa, told the committee:

Without the proposed amendment to clause 8, official language minority communities risk being deprived of the federal funding they need to maintain their early learning and child care programs and services over the long term.

He went even further and said that we would be wrong to think that the current version of the bill, without the amendment, guarantees funding for minority language communities. On Friday, I spoke with Suzanne Saulnier, the executive director of the Centre d’appui à la petite enfance de la Nouvelle-Écosse, or CAPENÉ, which was established about 30 years ago. This association includes about 16 francophone child care centres in Nova Scotia, in other words, all francophone child care centres in Nova Scotia.

Here’s what she told me:

Despite a federal-provincial agreement signed on July 13, 2021, very few new spaces have been created specifically in French-language child care centres for the Acadian community. Despite the 18 new spaces announced for the Wedgeport region, these spaces are still not available because of school construction delays. We submitted a request for funds in February 2022 and again in October 2022, but we are still waiting to receive the additional funds promised under this agreement. There are not even any spaces for little ones from 18 months to 3 years of age.

We represent 16 Acadian and francophone child care centres in the province, but we have no idea how much money will be coming our way under this new agreement, how much has been set aside for Acadians, or when we will get it.

Furthermore, our association has no seat at the consultation table created following the agreement, despite our 30 years of involvement.

I note the comments by Senator Cordy about the funds that Nova Scotia is going to allocate to child care. However, what guarantee do we have that the province’s Acadians and francophones will receive their share?

Nicole Arseneau Sluyter, president of the Acadian Society of New Brunswick, with whom I spoke on Friday, said she was in favour of adding official language minority communities to clause 8, because that would do more to guarantee funding, if ever the matter went to court.

She said, and I quote:

There aren’t enough daycare centres in French, and some parents have no choice but to enrol their children in English-language schools. As a result, their children end up losing their mother tongue.

Perhaps francophone parents in each province and territory will not be obligated to take their respective governments or administrations to court in order to get francophone daycares, but, as senators, are you willing to take that risk? I’m not, given the recourse in Nova Scotia and what Suzanne Saulnier told us. I’m still not seeing any results following the signing of the new agreement in 2002.

As for the Indigenous people of this country, even though this bill makes multiple references to them, nothing is guaranteed.

Our communities are not in competition with each other. They need to work together to claim their share so that they have early childhood education centres for generations to come.

I am here to tell you that, even if we adopt this small amendment, which is not even in the preamble of the bill, there are no guarantees that my province will provide francophone child care spaces, and even if it does, there are no guarantees as to when that will happen. The situation is similar in the other provinces.

I would urge you, honourable senators, to vote in favour of the motion. Thank you very much.

Honourable senators, I am honoured to have my first opportunity to speak in this chamber. I didn’t think that I would speak here so soon after taking my seat, and I do not have any stories prepared to share, but I am certain that I could never equal the storytelling of Senator Prosper. I am just going to leave it at that.

I am, however, hopeful that, over the next months and years, I will show my spark, as he has asked us to do.

I am speaking in favour of this amendment to Bill C-35 because it fits with my goals to give voice to equity-seeking groups and to address the issues that impact the social determinants of health and social justice.

Colleagues, Bill C-35 is an important piece of legislation to support the federal government in working with the provinces, territories and Indigenous people to build an affordable, inclusive and high-quality early learning and child care system for families across Canada, and to support equitable access to early learning and child care.

I have to say that early learning is my priority because of the implications around early childhood development and how it impacts that.

Bill C-35 is another significant step toward ensuring the system remains in place long into the future so that generations of young Canadians can get the best possible start in life.

Both of New Brunswick’s official languages are spoken in my family. My husband is a proud Acadian.

Our family and our children were fortunate to live near the capital city of New Brunswick, where we had access — in the late 1980s and early 1990s — to quality early learning and child care in French, thanks to the existence of the Centre communautaire Sainte-Anne, and later they went to École Sainte‑Anne as well.

I would just like to say that, historically, this was made possible by Louis Robichaud, followed by Richard Hatfield. They were two New Brunswick premiers, who, although they were on different sides, and one after the other, were both committed to equal opportunity: Chances égales pour tous.

This is how my children received the opportunities that they did.

I wish for and want all children to have those experiences, especially the English and French linguistic communities across this country. Early learning is vital to early childhood development as a social determinant of health.

Early learning should be recognized as an important part of the education of our children, and we should put in place whatever we can to ensure the protection and promotion of that education for our linguistic communities. In fact, in New Brunswick, education is protected under section 16 and section 16.1 of the Constitution. However, early learning has never quite made it as a real part of education, and it needs to be.

I will be voting in support of this amendment. I would urge you all to do so.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Thank you to my colleagues from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and thank you, Senator Aucoin, for sharing your story. It really underscored for me the importance of the amendment moved by our colleague, Senator René Cormier.

Thank you, Senator Kingston, for your remarks about the importance of what our previous leaders in New Brunswick did for our population.

Tonight, I would like to make a couple of final observations. I think that Senator Cormier did an excellent job of underscoring why clause 8 is so deserving of the amendment that he has proposed.

I would like to underline a couple of other things: The other place sent us this bill with amendments from their committee. It gave us the opportunity to look at a good bill, and the opportunity to have sober second thought about how we improve it. I believe that is what our job is. And I understand the pressures — at this time of year — of bringing legislation through the process. However, I also believe that the House, the other side, made amendments in clause 7. But as our colleagues have so frequently pointed out, it didn’t really ensure the long-term security of the programming aspect by ensuring that the finances were properly addressed in clause 8 of the legislation. I believe that is something that is so essential.

I had the pleasure of sitting in on the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee for one of my colleagues who could not be there. Therefore, I was a voting member, if you will, and it was so impressive to hear the dialogue taking place in that committee. That particular evening, officials from the Province of New Brunswick, my own province, were there, and so I had the opportunity to speak with them before and after the session. I thought their presentation was a strong and good presentation. I thought they responded to questions in a fair, equitable and open manner.

One of the questions they were asked was whether the bill is adequate as is and whether it helps their province. The answer was yes. Debate was stopped because we ran out of time. The chair of the committee was so eloquent in recognizing that there were other questions. The question I had, which would have been my follow-up question and which I had the opportunity to put to them afterwards, was this: Yes, it helps strengthen our position, but would it be stronger for the province to ensure that clause 8 had the amendment that we were talking about tonight? They agreed that, yes, it would. I did not have the opportunity to ask that question in committee, so I am outlining that for tonight.

I am speaking as a senator not just from New Brunswick but from Canada, where we have linguistic minority rights across this country — as Senator Aucoin so eloquently described with the story he grew up with in the province next door to mine. Senators, there are other areas of Nova Scotia that had that same experience. The southwest part of Nova Scotia, as you all know, is also similarly challenged. I think it is our responsibility to do our sober second thought and strengthen this bill without doing it unjust harm, noting that the other side agreed unanimously with what they did. However, I think they made a small oversight by not doing exactly what Senator Cormier is trying to achieve in his amendment. We are duty bound to at least put that amendment back.

My colleague Senator Ravalia noted today that we just did something like this with another bill that went back with an amendment. It was accepted, and it is back over to the Senate — as I understand. Surely, the other house intended to bring a stronger document. I think the sober second thought has made it that much stronger again to ensure that it will be a little more difficult for future governments to change funding arrangements for linguistic minority groups in any part of our country.

Therefore, I am rising tonight to thank Senator Cormier for his foresight because it is forward-looking to ensure that our country really wraps its arms around official bilingualism. We must also keep in mind Indigenous rights in our country. This is something we are duty bound, quite frankly, to pass and send back to the other place so they can then agree or disagree. That is their privilege.

I think it is our duty to strengthen this bill in the manner that has so eloquently been outlined tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Cormier, for the amendment. Thank you all who have contributed.

I have a prepared text that I am going to read.

Let me begin by saying that what I will try to do is present the government’s position. The government does not support this amendment, as Senator Cormier knows — I was in committee for the clause-by-clause consideration. I will try to do so in as clear a way as I can as a member of a minority language community whose government is not particularly friendly to my community despite the privileges that we have enjoyed for centuries. We have had a far easier time than those of you in the French communities outside of Quebec.

I do understand the importance of this to you. I certainly understand the passion with which you and others in this chamber have embraced the amendment. I respect that. Our identities are important to us. They are precious to us. They are who we are. Our language is the vehicle through which we see the world, much less express ourselves in the world.

I hope you hear my remarks in the spirit in which I am offering them. I am not going to put on my constitutional lawyer hat, although it probably comes out that way when I give you the legal analysis that the government, at least, believes is correct. As well, I am not going to pretend that this amendment, if it passes, is going to kill the bill or — what was the expression — cause the cathedrals to fall or something. It was “sink the armada” — no, none of that.

I have argued against amendments before in this place with less and less success, it seems, as the appetite for amendments in this place seems to grow more than to my taste. However, the will of the Senate is what — we are all here to serve Canadians, and I signed up for this gig seven years ago believing, as I still do, in the independence of the Senate and our duty to do the best we can to improve legislation.

I also believe that it is never possible as humans to be rational as opposed to emotional. Our intelligence and our judgment as we now understand them through neuroscience and, indeed, through the wisdom of our traditions, frankly — we did not need neuroscience to teach us that — as human beings, we bring everything to the table.

You can read it, and what you will hear me say, I am saying to you through my own eyes and wearing the hat that I wear. You can take it. You can discount it. I do appreciate your attention to the preamble. Now I will get to my speech.

I will speak briefly to this amendment, but the government cannot support it. It is not because the objective is not worthy. It is because, in the government’s view, this amendment is actually not consistent with the fundamental intent and purpose of this bill. The purpose of the bill is set out in clause 5.

The purpose is to:

(a) set out the Government of Canada’s vision for a Canada-wide, community-based early learning and child care system and its commitment to ongoing collaboration with the provinces and Indigenous peoples to support them in their efforts to establish and maintain such a system . . . .

Responsibility for early childhood care is exclusively provincial or territorial or is in the hands of the Indigenous communities that have the constitutional right to self-government and have the responsibility. It is their responsibility to set up, manage and determine it.

Further, the purpose is to:

(b) set out the government’s —

— the Government of Canada’s —

— commitment to maintaining long-term funding for the provinces and Indigenous peoples for the establishment and maintenance of that system;

(c) set out the principles that guide the ongoing federal investments in that system . . . .

Colleagues, Bill C-35 only applies to the federal government, which is enshrining in legislation a long-term commitment to building and maintaining a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. The bill respects provincial and territorial jurisdictions and does not impose any conditions on the provincial and territorial governments or on Indigenous peoples. The provinces and territories will maintain their jurisdiction and responsibilities regarding early learning and child care.

Colleagues, let me remind you that all of the Canada-wide early learning and child care agreements signed with the provinces and territories, apart from Quebec, contain clauses about supporting and respecting the rights of official language minority communities according to every jurisdiction’s context and priorities.

As an example, the existing bilateral child care agreement between the federal government and the Government of New Brunswick includes the following:

New Brunswick commits to develop and fund a plan to ensure that new space creation ensures diverse and/or vulnerable children and families — including children with disabilities and children needing enhanced or individual supports, Indigenous children, Black and other racialized children, children of newcomers, and official language minorities — have spaces equivalent to or greater than their share of the population in the province or territory.

Senator Cormier’s proposed amendment, as we know, intends to include reference to official language minority communities in clause 8 of the bill. The intentions are laudable, but it would be inconsistent, colleagues, to recognize English and French linguistic minority communities alongside the provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples responsible for the design and delivery of the early learning and child care programs and services outlined in clause 8 of the legislation. Legally speaking, English and French linguistic minority communities do not have the same status or the same role in delivering early learning and child care programs and services, nor in building and maintaining this Canada-wide system, as do the provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners.

It has already been mentioned that the bill contains multiple provisions highlighting that the funding for child care must include investments for official language minority communities. Clause 7 specifically articulates the federal principles guiding how federal investments are directed for early learning and child care across Canada. These include the efforts in the development of agreements with provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples — the specific bilateral agreements upon which this framework sits and guarantees the ongoing federal funding to those funding partners.

The Government of Canada is absolutely committed to supporting official language minority communities in early learning and child care. For example, the government’s Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-2028 contains an existing investment of more than $60 million over five years into early learning and child care in francophone minority communities.

In relation to Bill C-35, clause 7 highlights the funding commitments for the official language minority communities. Let me put on record these specifics:

Paragraph 7(1)(c) states that the investment must support the provision of early childhood care:

 . . . from English and French linguistic minority communities, that respect and value the diversity of all children and families and that respond to their varying needs . . . .

Subclause 7(3) states that federal investments in respect of early learning and child care programs and services must be “guided by the commitments set out in the Official Languages Act.”

Subclause 11(1) states that the minister must take into account the importance of forming a council that includes official language minority communities, referring here to the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care.

Colleagues, I would like to point out that in both paragraph 7(1)(c) and subclause 7(3), the definitive use of the word “must,” rather than the subjective use of the word “may,” is used. This is a commitment of the federal government in its responsibility to fund those partners acting within their jurisdiction.

Clause 8 of this bill speaks to the funding and delivery mechanisms of early learning and child care. These are the provinces, territories and Indigenous partners who are constitutionally responsible, not official language minority communities.

The bill was drafted to ensure that the government respects the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, as well as respects and upholds the rights of Indigenous people, including the right to self-determination.

Colleagues, this was not incoherent. This is not ambiguous. This is not an oversight. This was very deliberate. This was a deliberate distinction drawn between the principles to guide the funding and the beneficiaries, including language communities in minority situations as well as others to whom access to fair, affordable child care is a priority, and those bodies — provinces, territories and Indigenous governments — who have the constitutional responsibility to create and deliver these systems and to receive the funding for these systems.

Respectfully, despite the arguments that you have heard, there is, in fact, a potential problem for including the linguistic communities in situations of minority in clause 8. A government official stated it at committee. I will quote again for those of you who were not at committee. This is a repetition of the point that I just made to some degree, but I’m quoting from the government official at committee, who said:

. . . legally speaking, English and French linguistic minority communities do not have the same status or role in delivering ELCC programs and services and in building and maintaining this Canada-wide system as the provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners do. Adding a reference to that group, then, in clause 8 would create the expectation for dedicated and increased funding. . . .

. . . support for specific groups, such as English and French linguistic minority communities, are very importantly and appropriately captured in that guiding principles clause, which was already amended at HUMA in clause 7 in subclauses (1) and (3).

The official went on to say:

Adding another mention of official languages in Bill C-35 could, per our understanding, legally be seen as specifically excluding federal support for other systematically marginalized groups, such as children with disabilities, who aren’t listed.

Beyond jurisdictional roles and responsibilities, I think this amendment also raises questions around support for Indigenous languages, which are not mentioned in the legislation . . . .

Colleagues, sometimes best efforts may result in unintended consequences. I have no doubt that neither Senator Cormier nor anyone else in this chamber who has spoken for or who will vote in favour of this amendment has the intention of potentially excluding support for other marginalized communities not listed. However, the balance between constitutional jurisdiction and the federal commitment to fund relies on specific wording — or lack of wording in this case.

We have heard reference to statutory interpretation, but it cuts both ways. If there is a risk that the exclusion of language might cause a potential consequence down the road for those communities seeking vindication from their province because that is where the responsibility lies, so, too, would the inclusion of some words potentially cause problems, applying the same principles of statutory interpretation to those who would not be otherwise included in the amendment to clause 8. The government lawyers reviewed this carefully. They considered it in the other place. It is their view that the amendment is not appropriate for these reasons.

Senator Moodie outlined the following in her second reading speech:

. . . clause 8 of the bill commits Canada to maintaining long‑term funding, primarily through agreements with the provinces, Indigenous governments and Indigenous entities.

Amending clause 8 with an additional entity could conceivably, as a matter of potential statutory interpretation, add another funding commitment, and it is concern for that that underscores the government’s opposition to this amendment because provinces and Indigenous peoples have legal and jurisdictional roles to play in the creation and delivery of these whereas minority language communities — like my own in Quebec or those of yours in other provinces — simply do not.

Notwithstanding that our rights are constitutionally protected in many ways in education and the like, our status is, nonetheless, different from the provinces, territories and Indigenous governments.

Bill C-35 also aims to respect and enforce the rights of Indigenous peoples, including the right to self-determination. As officials have pointed out, Senator Cormier’s amendment could raise questions about support for Indigenous languages. This is certainly not what Senator Cormier and those who support his amendment intend to do, but it could lead to section 8 being amended or split.

Senator Cormier is right to say that the wording he proposes in his amendment is found in other bills. This point was not necessarily raised in today’s debate, but it was, and rightly so, during the committee study of Bills C-11 and C-18.

In these bills, however, the wording is used in a specific context. The suggested wording for section 8 of Bill C-35 does not appear in these bills. As I said earlier, this is not necessarily consistent with the fundamental objective of this bill, which is to guarantee federal funding to the provinces, territories and Indigenous governments who are responsible for providing daycare spaces for Canadian families.

Please don’t misunderstand me. The Government of Canada sees the value of official language minorities in early learning and child care. That is why it is referenced in every single provincial and territorial bilateral agreement, again, outside of Quebec, which has an asymmetrical arrangement. The existing funding agreements actually lay out the official language minority communities’ intentions, and clause 7 of the framework legislation in Bill C-35 captures that as a matter of principle.

However, it is the position of the government that amending clause 8 would be improper. Here I’m clearly testing your patience by repeating the same thing over and over again, but clause 8 is exclusively focused on who and what actually delivers what these bilateral agreements promise, and that is the provinces, the territories and Indigenous partners.

What’s more, as you may have seen this week, early childhood education advocates from across the country, including New Brunswick, publicly called for us to pass this bill without any other amendments. Groups such as the YWCA, Child Care Now and the Canadian Labour Congress wrote to remind us that, 50 years ago, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended that the federal government take immediate measures to adopt a “national Day-Care Act” under which federal funds would be made available for the building and running of child care centres.

They wrote that, at this stage, colleagues, Bill C-35 is sufficiently robust to ensure equitable access to child care for generations to come.

For all of these reasons — and I appreciate that you have indulged me longer than I had intended to speak — the Government of Canada, and I as its representative, simply cannot support Senator Cormier’s well-intentioned amendment, and I would invite you to consider my remarks and vote against the amendment.

Thank you so much for your patience.

Would the senator take a question?

Thank you for your remarks, senator. My question is pretty simple, and that is that I think all of us, when we were appointed — certainly since 2016 — had a tremendous interaction with the Prime Minister who reminded us that he would like us to give serious consideration to his policies but to add value where we thought value was necessary and strengthen that process.

Clause 8, I think, is greater certainty, and if this chamber, in its wisdom, decides that, “Yes, we are going to accept the amendment,” would you agree that it’s not the government that we send it back to? We send it back to the elected chamber, which includes government members, of course, but it also includes the entire chamber. Shouldn’t that be our job, if we agree, to let the elected chamber vote and decide whether they agree or not?

Well, the answer, of course, is yes.

I was appointed as an independent senator. Some of you weren’t here during that time, but, with all due respect, that’s true. However, it begs the question. We are here to apply ourselves to improve legislation, consider the arguments that we hear and apply our best judgment to them.

I have tried to offer you an analysis of the bill and a reading of the bill as to why clause 7 is structured as it is and why clause 8 is structured differently because I do believe — and I offer for your consideration — that, in fact, it was a very carefully thought-out distinction, which recognizes the commitment of this government and the commitment of each government that has entered into the bilateral agreements that preceded this legislation to respect the rights of linguistic minorities to have access to daycare services in their language. Indeed, in many cases, provinces may very well contract with the communities and support them in the creation and/or expansion of those services, and yet at the same time respect the constitutional obligations of the provinces, territories and Indigenous governments, who are the ones under our Constitution who have exclusive jurisdiction to decide — rightly or wrongly, for better or for worse — how many spaces and how those will be organized for the benefit of their citizens.

Of course, if the Senate passes this amendment, it will go back to the House. We’re in a minority Parliament, but it’s a government bill so the government will then be seized with it, as will the rest of the House, and they will decide how to respond to our amendments.

Despite what you sometimes hear in this chamber, the House has been very respectful of the Senate amendments. But that doesn’t mean they’ll accept anything just because we think that it’s better and that it improves it. In this case, the government does not believe that this improves the bill. They actually believe that this would be a mistake.

No, the armada will not fall — sorry, I’m grasping at that image, Senator Omidvar. The temple will not fall. The skies will not collapse. But that’s not the measure of whether we should support an amendment or not.

We’re serious legislators here — we all are — and this amendment has been advanced in a serious, responsible way — 100%. But it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily correct. There are different points of view. The government has a different point of view than this amendment, and I have tried my best to put it on the table.

That’s a long-winded answer to an easy question.

I’ll be brief as well, senator, if you’ll accept another question.

Senator Poirier and Senator Aucoin shared their experiences with respect to coming through their communities and how it affected them and their families. Do you think that the amendment would help reduce the risk of assimilation?

I’m going to be brief only because I’ve been invited to speculate on things which I’m not confident about and which, quite frankly, I don’t think the Government of Canada should presume to be confident about either.

The fact is that we have before us an amendment to a piece of legislation dealing with the central funding clause in a project of law, which is also surrounded by principles that are guiding it. It is the position of the government that this amendment is inappropriate and does not belong in the funding clause for the reasons I’ve belaboured with your indulgence. I can’t comment on that question. That’s not what I hoped for — not for the French-speaking communities outside Quebec or, quite frankly, my own community in Quebec.

Senator Gold, thank you for your speech. You raised a number of important considerations that we all need to take into account. I appreciate all the other contributors to the conversation tonight.

I am, on the one hand, very attracted by the amendment — and by the essence, goal and spirit behind our approach in this chamber of supporting equality measures; however, I’m very troubled by the points that you bring forward with respect to federal-provincial jurisdictional issues.

Having been in a provincial government and knowing when we railed against the feds for stepping into our territory, and knowing this is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, I think that we may be in danger of doing what we believe from a policy perspective would improve the bill. But is that our job here from a policy perspective? If it could endanger the bill or its effectiveness, I want to know more.

Can you be more explicit about why this could be detrimental to the goal that we’re all expressing support for here in terms of Senator Cormier’s amendment? Are there other related examples, like health care — where the provinces deliver most of it, but it is a bit of a shared jurisdiction compared to others — or immigration or climate control agreements with the provinces, or is there something different about how this has been constructed? If this is different, tell us. If it is not different, then I may start to question supporting the amendment because maybe it’s just not our jurisdiction.

Thank you for the question. That’s a really good question and not an easy one to answer. This is more like the health care example than it is the one about climate, and the reason is that climate is truly a shared jurisdiction constitutionally, as the Supreme Court has pointed out. Health care isn’t. Health care and education are exclusively provincial.

Those of us — I don’t want to say those of you — I’ve lived in Central Canada, Quebec and the West. There are those in this chamber who bemoan the fact that way back when, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council interpreted federal power in a very narrow way and expanded provincial power to such a great degree that all the essential levers of the modern state are provincial — health care, education, labour relations — but that has been our reality for 100 years, and we’ve had to make do.

The way in which the federal government has played a role in health care is through funding, through its spending power, which in my province is not a universally accepted practice, by the way. We take it for granted. I lived and taught law in Ontario for many years and studied law in B.C. I support this spending power because, frankly, it’s allowed us to do things.

This is like health care. You can attach conditions to the funding for the provinces and territories to some degree; we do that with health care. We say that we can claw back money that we give to the provinces if it’s not accessible to all, or we will attach conditions with regard to reporting data, to go back to an earlier discussion on another bill. But with health care, we don’t tell the provinces, “You have to spend it.” We can’t legislate based on the spending power.

Here too, the Government of Canada has entered into agreements with Ontario, B.C. and Alberta. In those agreements, to make it clear, the money has to support minority language communities, those who are disabled, racialized communities, Indigenous communities and those who live in remote areas. That’s okay because those are contracts, but the money flows without the conditions. The conditions are bilateral and negotiated. I’m sorry, the rusty professor came out.

It’s more like that. This is not that the Government of Canada has the ability to necessarily stick in its funding commitment an ongoing commitment, either for itself or more importantly for the provinces, to continue to fund, in this case, minority language groups. The feds don’t have the jurisdiction to impose that on the provinces.

That’s why, at least in the judgment of the Government of Canada, the lawyers and policy folks who drafted this bill, section 8 should remain clean and focused only on those who are responsible for delivering the funds and to whom they would flow. I don’t know if that answers the question.

It helps. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Gold, for your comments, and in particular the preamble to your comments about identity. I appreciate them; they were authentic and sincere.

I’m going to invoke the law professor in you — rusty or not — by reading from the witness testimony of Professor Larocque, who had a great deal to say about clause 8. He said this:

. . . when Parliament is silent in one part of the law but explicit in other parts of the law, courts are entitled to infer from that that it was an intentional silence.

He continued, saying:

By not mentioning official language minority communities in clause 8, we essentially allow a court to eventually conclude that this was the legislator’s intention, since specific mentions are included elsewhere in the bill, but it is silent . . .

— in the founding clause.

I wonder how the law professor in you would rebut that.

Thank you. I have enormous respect for law professors. I’m looking at our colleague Brent Cotter and others. But those of you who have been in the business know we don’t always agree. In fact, we make our reputations by disagreeing with each other. There is politics in academic life too, as many of you know.

I’m going to demur to the professor’s point. When courts look at this, in my opinion, they will understand very clearly that the exclusion from section 8 of reference to minority language groups was deliberate and intentional. It was to make it very clear that there is no funding obligation that the Government of Canada is assuming on itself in this law. There’s a lot of funding that flows from the federal government to minority language communities, thank goodness. One can certainly argue that there should be more.

But there are no funding commitments attached to the federal government with regard to this bill in section 8, and it does not indirectly impose on the provinces and territories vis-à-vis the language communities within their jurisdiction.

With respect to the professor, I think the conclusion they will draw will be that this is a coherent, unambiguous attempt to distinguish clearly between the principles governing how this program should be rolled out in the provinces, territories and within the jurisdiction of Aboriginal governments and what the federal commitment is for the ongoing funding to those constitutionally mandated partners who have to deliver it.

Would Senator Gold agree to take a question?

Of course.

I’m pleased that you answered “of course.”

Senator Gold, I’d like you to explain to us the government’s reasoning in this case. You drew a parallel with health, which is also a provincial jurisdiction. Here, we’re talking about early learning and child care programs. We’re also talking about fundamental rights.

You emphasized the deliberate nature of the government’s choice in Bill C-35. Does this deliberate nature mean that there’s no will on the government’s part to include a clear condition to ensure services for minorities in the provinces or territories? Does it mean that this is more a question of political will to not include it, rather than any other obligation?

That’s why I want to make a connection with fundamental rights. We talk about people’s right to express themselves in their own language. The federal government says it wants to protect and encourage respect for both official languages and Indigenous languages, but it seems that your justification shows that there’s no will to go that far.

Thank you for the question, senator. This gives me the opportunity to hopefully clarify the rationale behind my position.

The starting point is the bilateral agreements negotiated in the past with the provinces and territories, respecting the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada and the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces and territories in this area.

In the context of these negotiations, as I pointed out — except for Quebec — in each agreement there is a bilateral commitment to protect and respect not only the right to services for children from linguistic minority communities, but also for other groups in the province or territory, because each jurisdiction has its own unique characteristics.

That is the starting point. This ensures respect for the jurisdiction of the provincial and territorial governments and the Indigenous governments that negotiated these agreements, but all agreements contain these guarantees.

If we want to move forward, we need to rely on the provinces and territories to put money and resources on the table to train those who will take care of our children. It’s not just a cheque from the federal government that will miraculously create thousands or hundreds of thousands of spaces. I don’t know the exact number of spaces needed, but it’s huge.

We are counting on the provinces and territories’ ongoing commitment to providing Canadian men and women — whether they are single parents or, as is more and more common, both parents need to work — with affordable daycare spaces for their children. Let’s not forget the intergovernmental dynamics of this program, which is based on federal-provincial collaboration.

I apologize for giving such a long-winded answer, but it is important to really grasp where this is coming from. The starting point is the provincial-federal agreements that establish guarantees and uphold the constitutional rights of our official language minority communities.

I don’t know if that is a satisfying answer to your question, but it’s the best I can do.

Senator Gold, would you take another question?

Absolutely.

Thank you. In your speech, you mentioned, and I heard the same thing several times, the respect that the government has for official language minority communities.

In New Brunswick nowadays, the French-speaking population accounts for between 30% and 33% of the total population. However, funding for daycare for young children isn’t at 30% or 33%, it’s at 16%.

How can we say that we are respected in our situation, as a linguistic minority, when we don’t even receive the funding that is needed, and which is there? We’re not asking — and the amendment does not ask — for more funding. It does not change any of that. All we’re saying is that we should work together as we go forward so that — by the time of the next negotiations, and in the bilateral things that we will be working on, going into 2025 — we can make sure that the percentage becomes a little bit higher in order for francophones to get what they need to be able to live using the language of their choice, as well as live the culture that they have had from a very young age. That’s what this is all about: It’s about fewer people having to go through the tribunals to get everything done.

If you’re saying that is the respect that we have, then nothing in the amendment is changing any funding. Nothing in the amendment is taking anything away from Indigenous peoples or their language rights. We’re trying to find a way to get closer to what is the reality. There is, absolutely, big respect for the people who are in the situation of linguistic minorities.

I really hear you; I really understand. I tried, and I hope that I succeeded. I certainly tried because it’s important to me to not imply, much less play into, the notion that we’re somehow trying to pit ourselves against each other. That’s not what the government’s objective is in this bill, and it’s not at the heart of it — it’s opposition to this amendment.

It’s not fair that the funding for child care spaces in your province, or in any province, doesn’t match the needs. I’m accepting — as a rough measure of that — that the funding is far less than the percentage of the population; I take that as granted. But that is essentially inadequate funding from your province, is it not?

The additional funding that the federal government is making available to the provinces once they sign an accord — which your province has done and includes the commitments to fund — is the vehicle through which the Government of Canada hopes that more spaces will be filled to meet the full needs of all New Brunswickers, whether they are English-speaking, French-speaking, rural or urban.

What the legislation stops short of doing — or doesn’t want to even suggest that it is doing — is imposing specific funding obligations on the provinces with respect to the groups who are the legitimate beneficiaries of the spaces to be created. Those groups, which are addressed as linguistic communities and others in the other parts of the bill, are there because they’re important. The federal government’s responsibility, as it sees it, is to provide the funding to the provinces. They need to negotiate the bilateral agreements which include and respect the constitutional principles and rights of Canadians, including those of linguistic communities.

I regret if it feels like it is not respectful. The Government of Canada does believe it is respecting its constitutional jurisdiction. It is respecting the rights of linguistic minorities in each and every bilateral agreement that it signed. It is not enough. I understand that. I have heard the speeches. I really feel the speeches.

That is, nonetheless, how the government reads its responsibilities and reads the legislation that it brought forward.

Does the senator have a supplementary question?

Yes.

Would you take a supplementary question, Senator Gold?

In respecting all that you have just said, I do not see the danger or harm in accepting this amendment. This amendment is trying to continue this negotiation and bilateral agreements up to 2025, that at least they will consider talking in those negotiations with the provinces so maybe we can get closer to this.

Don’t you agree that there is nothing harmful in this amendment? Actually, it may be opening up another window of people thinking of the possibility of what is included that may not be respectful to our minority languages.

Again, I understand the argument. I won’t apologize for giving you a legalistic answer, but the advice of the government lawyers who analyzed this is that unfortunately — however well-intentioned — there is, in fact, a risk of including it in clause 8. It is not necessary, in the government’s opinion, because the bill itself already commits the federal government in whatever it does to respect the Official Languages Act.

Everything the federal government does has to respect the Constitution of Canada. The Constitution of Canada includes education and rights to linguistic minorities for their institutions, whether it’s in section 16 or other sections in other areas. The Constitution creates obligations on both levels of government. There is no way — short of a “notwithstanding” clause, which this government is not in the habit of using — to avoid those constitutional obligations.

The legal advice that the government had in drafting this was such that it was not appropriate, that it could have unintended consequences, as I tried to say before, and that it was not necessary in light of the principles and the obligations that are already there, whether in the bilateral agreements or in the Constitution itself.

Senator Gold, I’d like to hear your thoughts on the federal government’s responsibility under the Official Languages Act, Part VII in particular, and on taking positive measures. Under the new Official Languages Act, the government committed to working on taking positive measures in its relationships with its partners to ensure the development and vitality of official language minority communities.

How can the government justify its commitment to taking positive measures under Part VII of the act when it comes to the problems that you identified? How can the government justify not agreeing to include something that, as we already said, doesn’t infringe on Indigenous people’s rights, or any rights?

My underlying question is this. Can you tell me how you determine the difference between a guiding principle and what is referred to in clause 8 as a funding commitment?

Thank you for the question. The obligations set out in the Official Languages Act are important. It is a quasi-constitutional instrument. I think the government takes all its responsibilities very seriously.

Nevertheless, this bill is not an official languages bill. It’s a bill that would create a framework to continue funding child care spaces negotiated and delivered by the provinces and territories. As I said, I don’t want to repeat myself, but it’s — I may have missed something, but these are two separate situations — it’s not necessary, and it doesn’t negate the Government of Canada’s obligation to Canada’s linguistic communities in the context of the Official Languages Act to say that, in another context — That brings me to your second question.

When there are the principles that guide the agreements and delivery of this program, I think it’s completely consistent for the Government of Canada to say, on the one hand, that a distinction is made between those who receive the money and those who are responsible for creating the spaces and, on the other hand, that the government determines the principles that must guide the delivery of spaces in the provinces and territories, and in negotiations between the federal government and its provincial and territorial counterparts. That’s why the principles in clause 7 and the other clauses already mentioned are so important. This will guide the federal government when it renews agreements with the provinces. A reference to the Official Languages Act is also included in the bill.

Again, I think I’m probably repeating myself too much, but that’s the way the government sees it.

I have a very brief question for the Government Representative. Do you have an alternative to propose with regard to the protection of linguistic minorities?

For once, I will be very brief with my answer.

No, I have no alternatives to propose. The government is of the view that this amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate. Ultimately, we will soon put it to the vote and see. At least I hope that’s the case. Ultimately, it is up to us to decide. I’ve done my best to explain the government’s point of view. Ultimately, we will proceed with the vote. If the amendment passes, the House of Commons will consider it with the respect it typically gives our amendments, and we will see whether a message comes back or not. That’s all I can say. No, I have no alternative to propose.

The answer is yes. Yes, I will, senator.

That is a good question. You are a very good law professor and a good lawyer, and it’s a bit of a tricky question. I do not mean that as a criticism.

No. I was drawing an analogy between health and this. I do not want for a moment to suggest that the federal responsibility — whether to Indigenous peoples, peoples with disabilities or people in linguistic communities — is exclusively a matter of, “We will wash our hands of it but here are a few bucks.” I’m not suggesting that. The closest analogy, in response to Senator Lankin, was that this is much more like health than it is about climate where there are trade and power and then there’s the general power. You know? That’s all I was saying.

Respectfully, Senator Cotter, that is not quite the reason why the government opposes this. Again, we are looking at legislation and asking ourselves, as Senator Cormier did and as the witnesses did, “Well, it’s really good now, but what happens in the future?” Without this language, then maybe a court might conclude that the absence of clause 8 means that we can wash our hands of the requirement. It is a speculation on the future based upon a particular, totally credible principle of statutory interpretation.

The Government of Canada’s concern about this amendment — the reason it opposes it — is not dissimilar. It is saying, “Look, if we put it in there, there could be unintended consequences in the hands of a court or in the hands of a review, and it was not intended.” This bill was not intended to create those kinds of funding obligations.

This bill represents a commitment to the people of Canada, regardless of language, region, disability, lack of disability or circumstance, to ensure they have access to the child care spaces that they need. It has been a long time coming.

The Government of Canada, because it was able to secure the collaboration and cooperation of all provinces and territories, was able to actually build, for the first time, a national system. It is relying upon the provinces and the territories to deliver the goods. It is relying upon the dynamics of federal — I use federal‑provincial as a shorthand — collaboration, negotiation and orchestration in order to deliver this for the benefit of Canadians.

It is not about not wanting to add one more group. It is worrying about the potential consequences down the road that would be inconsistent with the purpose of this bill, as I said at the start of my more or less prepared remarks.

I know this does not satisfy those of you who are passionately supporting this, and I respect that. It is, nonetheless, the government’s position, and I offer it to you humbly and with respect.

Honourable senators, this is one of the most exciting and interesting debates that I’ve seen in this place for a long time. I say “exciting” from an intellectual perspective. I listened to the speeches made by Senators Moodie, Cormier, Aucoin and many others. I wish to pick up from the question that my colleague Senator Bellemare put forward.

In sober second thought, we often give our best advice to the elected chamber. If we were to pass this amendment and say, “This is our best advice, and these are the reasons why” — and my colleagues have outlined them much better than I can — it gives the elected government and the House of Commons the opportunity to consider what we are saying to them. They can either accept it or put something else forward. As Senator Bellemare said, “What other suggestions are there?”

That’s what’s happened in many cases where we’ve made amendments, they have accepted some, changed some and then come back. We would be saying to them, “This is what we think needs to happen. You’ve perhaps got some concerns about, perhaps, the constitutionality. Can you come back with something that takes care of those concerns and meets these concerns?”

I am asking: Isn’t this a good opportunity to have that kind of dialogue between the Senate and the House of Commons?

Thank you, senator, for that question.

At one level, of course, when we pass an amendment, it does give an opportunity for the other place to reflect upon it. Our job is to use our best judgment and, where we think appropriate, to suggest, propose and pass amendments to improve legislation. But, of course, you are not saying or asking me — that’s true in theory.

But, surely, our role as legislators is not simply to throw things on the table and see what the other side wants. That would be irresponsible. We are not summoned here to just be a generator of ideas. An algorithm could do that, quite frankly.

We are here for sober second thought, and “sober” is an important part of this, right? It means that we actually have to consider it. “Second thought” also implies that we have a different role than the elected officials, that the policy choices that they make, the decisions to go with this instrument versus that instrument, are worthy of our consideration.

We may think we have a better idea. We may think that we are smarter than them. Maybe sometimes we are and, maybe, sometimes our ideas are better, but we need to respect the fact that we are here to adequately assess whether what they did fits within the constitutional parameters, respects minorities and all of those criteria we use to decide when an amendment is or is not appropriate.

Finally, “thought” is what we are doing. We have heard excellent speeches by Senator Cormier and many others arguing passionately why this is an important measure and why it doesn’t do any harm. I have not tried to suggest that it does harm. I really have tried not to do that because I am telling you what I believe. I am not sounding alarm bells here. I don’t think that this is an appropriate exercise for us.

In my view and in the government’s view, if we read the bill carefully — many have, but, of course, not all of us have. To be frank, we can’t. If we’re not on the committee and if we haven’t decided to make this a priority, then we haven’t read the bill in the same way as Senator Cormier and many others in this chamber have, that I have or that the government has when they drafted it.

If you read the bill, look at the architecture of the bill and put it in the context of the constitutional divisions of power — I’m not saying that this is an unconstitutional amendment. You didn’t hear me say that. I’m not saying that. But if you look at the constitutional division of powers and who is responsible for what, then the bill makes sense. You can disagree with it; many of you will vote for this amendment because you may believe everything that I say but still disagree. The Senate will decide. When you no longer are asking me any questions, then we can get to the vote.

Hear, hear.

“Hear, hear,” says my friend Don Plett.

With respect — and I appreciate your question — it would be irresponsible for us on this and on any other bill to just say, “Well, it doesn’t matter; they will decide.” That’s an abdication of our role. We have a responsibility. People will disagree about the boundaries. And, again, I am not using an argument — I’ve used it before and I promise I will use it again — that we are stepping outside our role here. Right? I am not saying that.

I’m not saying that we owe deference, therefore we should not amend. I’m saying that this amendment on policy grounds, on drafting grounds, on statutory interpretation grounds and on intergovernmental grounds is not an appropriate amendment. It is well-intentioned and animated by a fierce, necessary and loyal commitment to the survival of our linguistic communities in situations of peril, in many cases.

In a heartfelt plea, please do not ask me any more questions unless you really have not heard the answer, because I’m repeating myself ad nauseam. Let’s get to the vote, and que sera, sera.

Senator Forest, you had a question?

Senator Gold, we see that being a professor is in your DNA. I sense that the government’s big concern has to do with respect and meeting its obligations under our Constitution. The proposed amendment in this case may help create an opening.

A comparison has often been made between education and health, both of which fall under provincial and territorial jurisdiction. As you said, the role of the federal government is to provide the funding, through agreements, to help the provinces and territories assume that responsibility.

The second part of the amendment says exactly the same thing. I do not understand why the left hand does not do the same thing that the right hand is doing when it comes to health care. The second part of the amendment says the following:

(2) The funding must be provided primarily through agreements with the provincial governments . . . .

If there are indeed agreements, then we can assume that both parties have agreed on a situation that is mutually satisfactory and meets the constitutional obligations of each party. I do not understand. The amendment clarifies and confirms certain things. In the context of these agreements, respect is a guarantee by which the constitutional obligations will be met.

It will be hard for me to give a brief answer, but I’ll do my best. The clause as written in the bill is a subclause. According to the government’s legal counsel, as I’ve explained many times, there is a risk of unintended consequences if we include a reference to the language committee.

Senator Cormier split this provision in two by proposing and insisting — no, maybe that’s not the right word — by saying that it would fix the problem because it’s in two parts now. The officials were asked that question at committee: “Do you think that splitting this section in two will make a difference when it comes to the possible interpretation of this section?” Their answer was clear: It would not change anything. They don’t think it will make a difference. In fact, regardless of how the clause is worded, whether it’s formatted as one subclause or two or as paragraphs (a) and (b), in this context, according to the government’s officials, it doesn’t fix the issue.

Senator Gold, I need to ask you a question. Responsibility for minorities in this country lies in the federal government’s spending power and responsibility. What I am reading here in this amendment is not something we have seen before. In any case, I didn’t see it, and I asked different people if they had seen a copy of the agreement signed between the federal government and the Government of New Brunswick, for example, which, according to you, contains certain obligations.

As Senator Poirier pointed out, the province of New Brunswick provides only 16% of seats when it should be providing 33% of seats for New Brunswick’s francophone community. It is therefore up to the federal government, using this provision, to make up for what it is unable to accomplish through the agreement with the province. That’s where I see the federal government’s responsibility. Apart from New Brunswick, no other province in Canada has a constitutional responsibility to its minority communities. Some provinces have legislation, but in practice, if an agreement exists with a province that does not respect minorities or the commitments made to them, that becomes a federal responsibility.

I am going to give a two-part answer. First, the responsibility for protecting the rights of linguistic minorities does not lie solely with the federal government. No, that falls to all governments, according to the Canadian Constitution. Section 16 binds all governments. What is more, section 15, which gives the right to equality, also has indirect implications that link all levels of government. That is the first thing.

As for the federal government’s responsibility, in the context of the Official Languages Act, it is clear that all levels of government share the responsibility for government-funded programs that help minority communities, or the responsibility to finance the program designed to ensure that anyone who so wishes can be funded or supported when they want to take legal action against the government if their rights are not respected.

With respect to New Brunswick, as I said in my speech, the existing agreement includes a commitment according to which the federal government requires certain things from the New Brunswick government. I have the text in English.

I’ll read it again:

New Brunswick commits to develop and fund a plan to ensure that new space creation ensures diverse and/or vulnerable children and families — including children with disabilities and children needing enhanced or individual supports, Indigenous children, Black and other racialized children, children of newcomers, and official language minorities — have spaces equivalent to or greater than their share of the population . . . .

Evidently, and sadly, it is true that that’s not the case now, but under this agreement, the situation should improve. If it doesn’t improve, thanks to these agreements, the Government of Canada will be able to stop supporting the provincial government. There’s no denying that it’s ultimately the responsibility of the provinces to create child care spaces and honour their obligations and the agreements they make with the Government of Canada when it gives them the money to administer these programs.

Are senators ready for the question?

You are not ready for the question? Sorry, I heard a “no.”

All those in favour of the motion, please say “yea.”

All those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “yeas” have it.

I see two senators rising. Is there an agreement on the length of the bell?

Pursuant to rule 9-10(1) and the order adopted on September 21, 2022, the vote is deferred until tomorrow at 4:15 p.m., with the bells to ring at 4 p.m.