SPEECH - Third Reading - Bill C-35 (Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act)
Moved third reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.
She said: Honourable senators, as the Senate sponsor of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, I am proud to begin on third reading of this bill.
I want to begin by thanking my colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for their robust study of the bill. As a member of this committee for several years, I am always struck by the insightful questions, collaboration and consensus-based approach of our committee. I am grateful to have the opportunity to serve with all of you and look forward to continuing our work together.
It’s especially meaningful for me on this occasion that the focus of this committee study was children.
To our colleagues Senators Burey, Seidman, Cormier, Mégie, Petitclerc, Osler, Dasko, Cardozo, McPhedran and Bernard, as well as to others who joined, thank you for your hard work on this bill. I also want to thank our chair, Senator Omidvar, for her admirable handling of the process and for keeping us in order. Special thanks to you, Senator Cordy, for stepping in at the end of our study. It is my understanding this was your first time chairing, although it was no surprise to me how well you led us through the clause by clause and how fitting it was to have a teacher lead us through the finishing steps of a study on early childhood learning.
In addition to my thanks to the committee members, I want to thank every single witness who took the time to appear before us or to provide us with additional information. We value and appreciate your insight.
Colleagues, as I noted in my second reading speech on Bill C-35, this is a significant commitment to a crucial dimension of Canada’s social fabric. It will immensely impact all children, women and the economy for generations to come. It is a commitment by our federal government to ensure the growth of an accessible, affordable and inclusive child care system that will provide a firmer foundation on which all Canadian families can thrive.
I will briefly remind us of the journey that brought us here, of the benefits of national child care and of the current landscape, before returning to the bill and the committee’s work.
As you heard from me in second reading, the journey to a national early learning and child care program was a long one. The ambition originated during the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and through numerous developments resulting in the 2017 Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework with provincial and territorial governments. This agreement between Ottawa and the provinces was for $7.5 billion over 11 years. The purpose was to “. . . increase quality, accessibility, affordability, flexibility, and inclusivity in early learning and child care . . .” with consideration for families that needed care the most.
Colleagues, we are all familiar with what came next. The COVID-19 pandemic was a significant shock to our society and our economy. Women were displaced from the workforce, and the progress we had made on equality in the labour force threatened to be entirely erased. The response to this crisis was a national child care program.
In Budget 2021, an investment of $30 billion over five years and $8.3 billion ongoing were committed to build and sustain a national child care system. Through this investment, the government significantly expanded the multilateral agreements and set about building something new. Their goal was a 50% reduction of average fees by the end of 2022 and an average fee of $10 a day by 2026.
You have heard me say this before: This investment in child care is a transformative project on the scale of the establishment of Canada’s public school system and public health care system by previous generations. This is a legacy investment for today’s children, who will not only benefit from it but will also inherit it for their own children.
In my view, this is one of the most significant bills you and I will deal with in this august chamber. Why? Because child care has clear and powerful impacts on Canadian society.
For children, early access to education can set them on a very strong path to future success and productivity. We know that child care better prepares children to learn in elementary school. It also provides an opportunity for them to be around professional educators who may help families identify specific needs their children may have or to address those needs early on to ensure they have support early on to be successful and to resolve the issues that may arise. By providing upstream supports, we not only help kids to be successful, but we lower costs for our education system down the line.
For women and families, access to affordable child care means the opportunity to return to work, build on their own education or to start a business. It means that both parents can now use their gifts and their skills to the benefit of their communities and to Canadian society as a whole. It means that parents — specifically mothers — don’t have to decide between their child’s well-being and their own ambitions. They can build a life they want for their families with the assurance that their children are not just taken care of but that they are thriving.
For our economy, child care represents an investment with significant returns. This is why many sectors of our society, such as private business, unions, economists, academics and many others, supported the government’s investment into a pan‑Canadian child care system. Studies have shown us that for every dollar invested in early childhood education, the broader economy receives between $1.50 to $2.80 in return. The federal government’s own estimate predicts that the Canada-wide system will raise GDP by as much as 1.2% over the next two decades.
Finally, falling child care fees means that families individually are saving more on child care and can use those savings to pay bills or to invest in their own futures.
Simply put, national early learning and child care is an investment in our families. Access to affordable child care means resilient and successful families and communities. This is what Bill C-35, along with the agreements already in place, represents. It represents a commitment not only to achieve the government’s short-term goals, but it also represents an ongoing investment to Canadian families. It will benefit all Canadians.
In my remarks during second reading, I spoke about the three pillars of the child care system today — the agreements with provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples; the investments into infrastructure; and this bill, Bill C-35, the legislation.
I want to remind us first of the agreements. The fact that all of the agreements are already in place is a crucial consideration for us as we debate this bill. Unlike other framework bills, we don’t have to imagine what Bill C-35 will look like and how it will be applied. We can see it. Every province and territory has a bilateral agreement with the federal government that is tailored to the needs of their jurisdiction. Each differs in its specific details, but all have similar broad lines and themes.
First, there is a general commitment to the vision of child care set out in the multilateral framework agreements: high-quality, affordable, accessible and inclusive child care.
All of the agreements include a list of objectives, committing to fee reductions, space creation and workforce development. All have a stated priority for investments to go into not-for-profit and public care over private and unlicensed care.
Finally, every agreement has appended to it an action plan, created by each province, that outlines how they plan to meet their commitments under the agreements.
More specifically, Canada-wide early learning and child care agreements with provincial and territorial governments include a number of commitments, such as the number of new regulated spaces to be created; the timeline for achieving the goal of $10‑a‑day, on average, fees for regulated child care; and the actions to support valuing the early childhood educator workforce, providing them with training and development opportunities. They also commit to equitable access to child care for communities with barriers to access, such as for children from official language minority communities, children with disabilities, racialized children, children of newcomers and Indigenous children and their families.
Funding agreements with Indigenous partners support Indigenous governance, while partnerships in this sector support program delivery and expand access to culturally appropriate early learning and child care for Indigenous children across the Canada-wide system.
I want to highlight that the very nature of the agreements is a positive step. As Senator Arnot pointed out just yesterday in this chamber, Western alienation and Northern alienation are real. To me, this emphasizes the value of cooperative federalism in the context of national child care.
These agreements should be viewed as a positive development for our country because they allow for the customized approach that meets the needs of each jurisdiction.
All together, these agreements are the basis for the creation of a strong, Canada-wide early learning and child care system based on the vision proposed by our federal government. It is important to note that the provinces and territories are accountable to these agreements and must respect them for a few reasons, and I will walk through these.
First, I would argue that the provinces do not want to lose the significant financial support from the federal government that makes possible this very impactful, popular and valued program. The politics of child care is a motivating factor for respecting agreements in and of itself.
Second, as mentioned, every province and territory has prepared an action plan which acts as the road map outlining how they will deliver on their commitments within their agreements. This allows the provinces and territories to implement their commitments in line with their respective child care priorities, for their respective community needs, while providing the federal government with a clear idea of the targets and outcomes they hope to achieve.
For every jurisdiction, there are round tables where the action plans are and will be regularly discussed and reviewed to ensure there is progress. Where there is not progress, the federal government can engage its partners on those issues.
Finally, every agreement has a dispute resolution and termination clause. This is important because, whereas the politics of child care motivates provinces and collaboration and dialogue at implementation tables drives the monitoring of action plans, it is dispute resolution and termination clauses within the agreements that are important last resorts that must be and remain available.
Canada’s early learning and child care, or ELCC, system is built on the principles of high-quality, affordable and inclusive care that is available for all families and children through public and not-for-profit providers who prioritize the quality of services and affordability, rather than profits. It must be care that supports cultural identity and is available to linguistic minorities from coast to coast to coast.
This program is not about bolstering private businesses or adding to their profits. It is about investing in quality, affordability, space creation and workforce development.
Yet, to be candid, colleagues, although this program has received wide support from all sectors of society, and although the government has received a democratic mandate to continue it based on these principles, we have seen that many of the provinces’ current political leadership might not be totally aligned. They might have a preference for for-profit care or might not prioritize the expansion of spaces for specific groups, such as official language minority communities or Indigenous peoples. Should those provinces be willing to go against the political tides and refuse to meet their commitments in their action plans, these dispute resolution and termination clauses become more important as tools of last resort.
I want to specifically place on the record part of the agreement regarding dispute resolution and termination. I will use my home province of Ontario as an example. Subsection 8.1 of the Canada – Ontario Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement — 2021 to 2026 states:
Canada and Ontario are committed to working together and avoiding disputes through government-to-government information exchange, advance notice, early consultation, and discussion, clarification, and resolution of issues, as they arise.
Jumping forward, subsection 8.3 states:
As the Parties take stock of progress as outlined in section 6 —
— regarding long-term collaboration —
— should there be challenges, Canada and Ontario agree to work together to explore workable solutions, including proportional adjustments to targets. The responsible Ministers for Canada and Ontario agree to consider all reasonable approaches put forward by officials to address challenges.
Subsection 8.4 states:
If at any time either Canada or Ontario is of the opinion that the other Party has failed to comply with any of its obligations or undertakings under this Agreement or is in breach of any term or condition of the agreement, Canada or Ontario, as the case may be, may notify the other Party in writing of the failure or breach. Upon such notice, Canada and Ontario will endeavour to resolve the issue in dispute bilaterally through their designated officials.
The agreement goes on to explicitly lay out the process. It is clearly defined in the agreement. Canada can terminate the agreement at any time, according to subsection 10.1:
. . . if the terms of this Agreement are breached by Ontario by giving at least 6 months written notice of Canada’s intention to terminate the agreement. . . .
Subsection 10.2 states:
After the date of termination of this Agreement under section 10.1, Canada shall have no obligation to make any further payments to Ontario after the date of effective termination.
Colleagues, the cost of non-compliance is loss of money. It is a significant and powerful driver for compliance.
This might have been a bit tedious to listen to — my apologies — but I think that reading all of that into the record is important to assure us and all Canadians listening that there is, in a very real sense, accountability from the provinces, and between the provinces and the federal government.
We actually got to see this accountability take place, in one form, just recently. I encourage you to read your own provincial agreement, as they are easy to access online.
But referring to the recent example, on October 27, CBC News reported that New Brunswick’s education minister had told reporters that the province “. . . needs to renegotiate its 2022 child-care agreement with the federal government to address a long wait list for spaces in the province.” The article goes on to explain that the province was asking for more flexibility to expand the for-profit sector rather than the not-for-profit sector.
On October 31, another report was published, this time with the Honourable Minister Sudds stating quite clearly that New Brunswick will be held to the terms of the agreement in place. This was a clear and important statement from the minister, and I believe it will relieve fears that Ottawa would compromise and be less effective.
Of course, this is true for this current federal government, but what about future governments that might not share the same ideological penchant as this current government? That is where Bill C-35 comes into play.
Bill C-35, as you heard me state at second reading, builds upon these agreements by enshrining the federal commitment to build Canada-wide ELCC into law. The bill imposes conditions on Ottawa regarding its engagement with the provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples through the vision and principles of the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework. Its adoption will provide significant assurance for those partners, the child care sector, the child care workforce and families that Canada-wide ELCC is here to stay.
I want to focus my remarks here on clause 7 of the bill, because that is where the money is. Clause 7 lays out the guiding principles for funding. These are the rules of engagement for Ottawa. These are the conditions by which the Government of Canada makes investments into child care. To put it differently, these are the essential principles that must be included in every agreement going forward.
This clause ensures the accountability of the federal government going forward. It is the stake in the ground that holds Ottawa accountable, and it is how, along with the agreements, Ottawa works with the provinces and keeps them accountable.
Subclause 7(1) of Bill C-35 reads:
Federal investments respecting the establishment and maintenance of a Canada-wide early learning and child care system — as well as the efforts to enter into related agreements with the provinces and Indigenous peoples — must be guided by the principles by which early learning and child care programs and services should be accessible, affordable, inclusive and of high quality . . . .
Honourable senators, debate on this item will continue at the next sitting of the Senate.
I resume my discussion around Bill C-35. I left off when I was talking about the section that ensures accountability that the federal government must take going forward.
It is a stake in the ground that holds Ottawa accountable, and it is how, through the agreements, Ottawa will work with the provinces to keep them accountable.
Reading from clause 7(1):
Federal investments respecting the establishment and maintenance of a Canada-wide early learning and child care system — as well as the efforts to enter into related agreements with the provinces and Indigenous peoples — must be guided by the principles by which early learning and child care programs and services should be accessible, affordable, inclusive and of high quality . . . .
The following paragraphs detail what is meant by this. Paragraph (a) tells us that federal investments must support the provision of equitable access to high-quality care with a preference for expansion in public and not-for-profit spaces. These services must be licensed, built on evidence-based practices and respond to the varying needs of children and families.
Paragraph (b) tells us that the federal investment into child care must contribute to making child care more affordable for all families.
Let’s talk about paragraph (c). Paragraph (c) tells us that federal investments must support access in rural and remote communities and the expansion of services for children with disabilities, official language minority communities and children from other marginalized groups. It reiterates the obligation for federal investments to respond to the varying needs of families, this time adding respect and the value of diversity.
I want to pause here because paragraph (c) is extraordinarily important. What it says is that the federal government must invest in child care services for children with disabilities. It is clear from paragraph (c) that the federal government must invest in rural and remote communities to ensure greater access there. It is also clear from paragraph (c) that the obvious intent of this bill is that the federal government must invest in child care services for official language minority communities.
That is an obligation that will be placed into law should this bill be given Royal Assent. It is a certainty that every family who is in a community where their official language is in the minority can expect that, by law, the federal government will ensure that its investment will allow for greater access to child care spaces so that their language, their culture, their identity can be passed down to their children and their children’s children.
This paragraph, colleagues, ensures that no one is left behind. It commits Ottawa to ensuring that funding in perpetuity for these groups continues, as is reflected in the agreements. By placing these elements within the guiding principles, it makes clear the intent of Parliament that these groups receive federal funding to ensure proper access to high-quality child care that meets their needs.
I am now moving on to paragraph (d). This paragraph tells us that federal investments should contribute to high-quality child care that supports the social, emotional, physical and cognitive development of young children by ensuring a strong workforce. Indeed, all governments have recognized the core role of the workforce, and developing this workforce is an important dimension of the agreements that are already in place and will be an ongoing part of the work of building a strong Early Learning and Child Care, or ELCC, system going into the future.
In subsection 2, we are told that the federal investments and agreements with Indigenous peoples must be guided by the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework. As I said at second reading, Canada has co-developed an Indigenous early learning and child care system with Indigenous communities and governments. This subsection has the effect of ensuring that Canada will continue to make investments based on this framework and in collaboration with Indigenous peoples.
Finally, subsection 3 tells us that the federal investments must be guided by the Official Languages Act, or OLA. As we know, colleagues, one of the purposes of the Official Languages Act is to:
support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities in order to protect them while taking into account the fact that they have different needs;
This is just one purpose. Section 7 tells us that the federal investments must be guided by the entire act. In fact, we know that this quasi-constitutional act aims to ensure the respect and substantive equality of both official languages throughout and across Canada.
This is very important. By including the OLA in section 7, Bill C-35, therefore, creates an obligation for investment to not only focus on official language minority communities now but to also consider the future development and evolution of both official languages in Canada in line with the OLA.
In summary, we see in section 7 the rules of engagement, and we can understand that there are specific obligations that Canada must respect when working with provinces to make investments in child care. Section 7 decides where the money goes, and it tells us that investments in high-quality, affordable and inclusive care that meets the needs of families through funding in public and not-for-profit places is non-negotiable.
Paired with section 8, which tells us that the Government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for ELCC through agreements with provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples, we have a guarantee of an ongoing funding commitment based on the rules of engagement already outlined in section 7. Therefore, whether you need care that is culturally sensitive and in the language of your ancestors, whether you are a parent with a disabled child in urban Vancouver or rural northern B.C., whether you’re an anglophone in Quebec or a francophone outside of Quebec, sections 7 and 8 of Bill C-35 guarantees that the federal government will continue to work toward making sure that one day you have access to affordable and high-quality care that meets your needs.
Colleagues, I have spoken at length about the bill, but I would like to take a moment to turn toward our work at committee and to specifically speak to why, in my opinion, the bill has come back to us unamended.
First of all, it is my belief that our study was robust. We met with child care workers, economists and academics. We met with community leaders and Indigenous governments. We heard from parents with children with disabilities and parents who did not currently have access to child care in the language of their choice. What we heard is that more progress is needed and is needed faster. What we heard was that Canadians believe in the benefits of Canada-wide ELCC and that fee reductions have been an important step forward. Yet, space creation and workforce development are still crucially needed.
I want to thank, once more, all the witnesses for their voice and for their time, even those with whom I did not agree. Many amendments were proposed by witnesses and during clause by clause. Nevertheless, the bill has come back to us unamended, and I want to speak to this.
Colleagues, we are building and expanding a significant and immensely complex social program, one that hinges on relationships and negotiation and one that is based on collaboration and shared vision. In this exercise, the federal government has many partners it has to work with to see this through, and I think we need to be patient as we work to build our child care system, especially when doing important things like training workers and building spaces, among other critical steps.
It also means that as federal legislators, we have to remember that Canadians want Bill C-35 to be adopted. For them, it means a guarantee that ELCC is here to stay. They are looking for this certainty.
Consider Jennifer Nangreaves, Executive Director of the Early Childhood Development Association of Prince Edward Island, who told us:
The position of the ECDA is we are absolutely in support of Bill C-35. The importance of having federal commitment to the Canada-wide early learning and child care system, no matter the government in power in the future, will allow for true system building across the country. Having access to predictable, appropriate and sustained funding instead of what we’ve been doing in the past, with grants here and there, will provide stability and predictability that will allow for strategic and long-term investments so that provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples can reach their goals in achieving a high-quality, accessible and affordable early learning and child care system.
Her words resonated with me. Canadians are looking to this bill for certainty. They are looking to Parliament for certainty. We must remember this as we deliberate today.
I believe that the committee in the other place did a strong job in amending this bill and strengthened it significantly. I’m also aware of the political tensions in the House of Commons and know that amending the bill would perhaps lead to delays in its adoption, which would create greater uncertainty for Canadians. Therefore, for every amendment, I weighed whether or not the uncertainty was worth the proposed change. I will say, honourable colleagues, that none of the amendments brought forward resolved substantive issues or challenges that I felt warranted delaying the adoption of this legislation for many months.
Therefore, I argued and voted against all the amendments that were tabled, and the majority of the committee seemed to have agreed.
Honourable senators, I want to acknowledge one concern that was heard from official languages minority communities. Many felt that they needed to be included in section 8 of the bill to ensure they continue to receive long-term funding. It is their concern that without this inclusion, the courts would assume that Parliament meant to exclude them from ongoing funding commitments despite section 7, as I outlined.
Colleagues, with all due respect, I do not agree with this concern, but I acknowledge it. I believe, as I have argued, that the rules of engagement are outlined in clause 7 — the founding principles — and that these are very clear indicators of what Parliament intends for ongoing funding to include.
Nevertheless, I have worked with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, or FCFA, du Canada, as well as with Senator Cormier and Senator Moncion, to craft a statement that clarifies this without a shadow of a doubt, and I will read it now:
I am aware of the ordinary principles of statutory interpretation and the relevant case law on language rights. In particular, I’m aware that the Supreme Court of Canada, in Caron v. Alberta, refused to recognize the existence of language rights because of the absence of explicit guarantees in the relevant constitutional and legislative texts.
Consequently, as sponsor of this bill, I wish to express a clear intention that the text of clause 8 implicitly includes a guarantee of long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services for official language minority communities.
It is my understanding that as Bill C-35 is currently drafted, the intention has always been for francophone communities to continue to be part of federal-provincial-territorial discussions, within the framework of funding agreements.
I’d like to emphasize this point: Protecting the interests of official language minority communities and other minority groups is not mutually exclusive. Often, communities intersect, and individuals are at the intersection points of several minority groups.
To conclude, I will make a clear clarification regarding terminology used in the bill on the issue of official language minority communities. I would like to acknowledge that there are indeed two different terms used in Bill C-35 that refer to official language minority communities. I assure you that despite the two different terms used, they do respect the spirit of the Official Languages Act.
I want to thank Senators Cormier and Moncion, as well as the FCFA, for their partnership and their collaboration. I look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure every child can learn and grow in the language of their families.
Honourable colleagues, thank you for your attention and your hard work. I look forward to hearing from other speakers, and I look forward to seeing this bill become law. Thank you. Meegwetch.
I will.
Thank you. First, thank you for drawing attention to the incoherent terminology used in the bill, and clarifying the intent and scope of clause 8 which deals with the long-term funding of official language minority communities.
I understand from your speech that you support the principle that protecting the interests of official language minority communities and other minority groups is not mutually exclusive.
Often, like you said, communities do intersect, and individuals are at the intersection of several minority groups.
However, in opposition to one of my amendments presented at committee, which was intended to clarify the government’s commitment to official language minority communities, you stated:
Equally concerning are some of the comments that we heard from ITK President Natan Obed who expressed concerns to us right here in this committee that this amendment would harm language rights for Inuit peoples.
Do you still maintain this position today? If so, could you clarify it, as your comments seem to contradict — in a certain way — each other?
Thank you, Senator Cormier.
In my response to your question there, I reminded you — another member of the committee — of President Natan Obed’s words. It was his own language when asked — he was posed a question by, perhaps, Senator Moncion — about how this would affect, if any, Indigenous peoples, and that was his response. His language is in the answer. It’s clear, and he did raise concern. And I stated a fact.
You asked me if I stand by what I said today; I absolutely do. There is no question that there’s an intersection of racial minorities, of language requirements and of people with disabilities. All communities are very keen to see and make sure that their interests are represented in this law, and that their children are offered the best possible child care — working together, that’s where we should focus for the future. We work to build that as a country, and we try to make sure that we ensure the rights of all groups, including rural and remote children, so that they have access to care as well.
My position stands today, and, in fact, the answer that I gave you then simply reflects the facts of what President Obed said.
Senator Moodie, thanks very much for your speech. I was hanging on to every word you were saying because, early in your speech, you were talking about no one being left behind. What I’m hearing from people in the community — not just in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but also a number of other provinces — is that there are many families who are not able to access the $10-a-day daycare. It’s available to some families, but it’s not available to other families. Then, in other instances, not only is the $10-a-day daycare not available, but there’s also no daycare available, and families are struggling to arrange daycare or child care for their children.
I know that in my own province — CBC Radio had several articles on it — there are doctors who cannot return to work because they don’t have child care. Did that issue come up during your study of the bill?
I’m sorry, Senator Moodie; your time for debate has expired.
Are you asking for five more minutes?
Yes, I am.
Senator Marshall, you are correct — we heard that. We heard that the workforce is in trouble, and that it needs to be built. We heard about fee structuring and supporting professional development. We heard about a number of key factors — gaps, if you will — of the current system.
There is no question that this is a new system that’s being built. What exists already in the landscape is a mixture of varying levels of service, varying levels of quality of service being provided and areas where there is no service. That is clear, and that was loudly heard at committee.
It’s acknowledged that we have work to do here. The provinces have outlined in their agreements how they see the action plan of moving this forward, as well as building on what exists in some places and creating something new. There is a clear recognition — in answering your question — that there are areas with gaps, like you identified.
Thank you for your speech, Senator Moodie. My question goes back to clause 8. You acknowledged that there was concern with clause 8 in terms of courts in the future, perhaps, not interpreting funding as — in the case that you quoted — being guaranteed and locked in, and funding is the subject matter of clause 8.
In your statement, you made it clear that you agree that there needs to be the guarantee that funding be ongoing. My question is this: If that is the case, why wouldn’t we make it explicit? There are new systems being developed. Why would we want to put future generations at risk of having a court review a case, make a determination that it is not explicit and, therefore, not be in favour of locking in funding for those minority groups, not just in New Brunswick but across the country?
Thank you for your question, Senator Quinn.
I’m not one for using hurried statements. I believe that there is work to be done in building our system. I believe that the legislation as written supports — and clearly states and outlines in the area of section 7 that talks about guiding principles — the who and why of what we need to support our child care system as we build moving forward.
I also believe that section 8 speaks to the funding mechanisms that exist and how money would flow from the federal government to the establishments on the ground in the provinces and territories, as well as Indigenous governments. The legislation states it clearly. The groups of children that must be protected are clearly outlined in the guiding principles. I believe that the act, the legislation, already states what it needs to.
Clearly, I believe that we need to strengthen the system and that there may be future need for improvements.
We’re starting to build at the foundational level, and there is no question that there are gaps. Anybody who would suggest this is not the case would not be giving you the truth.
Senator Moodie, you were saying that the bill is being reported back with no amendments. Are there any observations attached to it that will address the issue of lack of access to ten-dollar-a-day daycare or lack of access to any child care?
Thank you. There are a number of observations that speak to strengthening the system and funding particular groups. They do enhance and draw attention to the areas that were discussed during committee. I think they pinpoint, if you will, some of the gaps that we have seen — the need to continue work and to observe — where the government needs to improve.