The Hon. the Speaker: I’m sorry, Senator McCallum, the time for debate has expired. Are you asking for leave to answer the question, Senator Arnot?

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “no.” Sorry.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: I wanted to go back to the suggestion about consultation and defining it. When we look at consultation, it’s defined by the groups that they consult with. That group defines what it means to them. To have a pan-Canadian approach hasn’t worked, and it will never work.

We live with the reality that there’s very little to no consultation that happens, and First Nations are continuously left to struggle with the legislation that we pass here, such as Bill C-91 and Bill C-92. I was talking to the Assembly of First Nations about that today. There are limited time resources, so I think this consultation —

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those in favour, please say, “Yea.”

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are senators ready for the question?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: The vote will occur at 5:26 p.m.

Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Boisvenu negatived on the following division:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moodie, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, for the third reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, as amended.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, do we have an agreement on a clock?

Honourable senators, do you give leave for a vote in 15 minutes, following the clock?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those against, please say, “Nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

Hon. David M. Arnot: Honourable senators, I rise today in this place of cool, calm second thought in support of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. This legislation aligns with the objectives of the Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework, which has set a transformative vision for Canada — a vision where every child can access the enriching environment of quality early learning and child care.

It is well known that the early years of a child’s life are pivotal. As outlined in the multilateral framework, quality early learning and child care systems are instrumental in promoting the social, emotional, physical and cognitive development of young children. These formative experiences significantly impact their learning, behaviour and health throughout their lives, especially for vulnerable children.

Bill C-35, rooted in these understandings, commits to the establishment of a national system that is of high quality, accessible, affordable, flexible and inclusive. This aligns with the framework’s commitment to these principles, ensuring that our systems respect and value diversity, responding to the needs of children from diverse backgrounds, including those with disabilities and from Indigenous and linguistic minority communities.

Colleagues, much of our debate on this bill has been, in my view, a collective effort to ensure that this legislation does not omit or ignore these groups of children, and further, that this bill does not omit or ignore the charter rights, the human rights, the Indigenous rights and the treaty rights obligations that are afforded to these children through citizenship or treaty. The amendment that we passed just yesterday responds to those obligations.

Even with this amendment affirmed, however, there is no room for complacency.

Today, I want to emphasize just how imperative it is that we affirm the existing rights-based obligations of not only this bill but, more broadly, the existing rights-based obligations of minorities in all future deliberations. It is our fundamental role as senators.

In relation to Bill C-35, I will begin with the Crown’s obligation to Indigenous children. As Regine Halseth and our colleague the Honourable Senator Greenwood, before she joined the Senate, stated in a 2019 report:

There are also unique structural and systemic factors that enable or hinder Indigenous children’s development, including lack of community-focused, culturally safe and accessible, health, education, child welfare, and social services systems; legislation, policies and agreements that contribute to (un)healthy family or community environments; and unresolved jurisdictional disputes over which level of government is responsible for funding programs and services for Indigenous peoples. . . .

A comprehensive early learning and child care system must consider these factors, particularly in terms of resolving jurisdictional concerns. Why? Because it is in the interest of children; it is in the interest of reconciliation; it honours the treaties; and because of the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples.

I recall the words of the late Saulteaux Elder Danny Musqua, who relayed oral history from his grandfather who was present at the Treaty 4 negotiations in 1874 at Fort Qu’Appelle, now in Saskatchewan. His grandfather spoke about an elderly Saulteaux speaker who:

. . . inquired about the “learned man” who was taking notes for the Treaty Commissioners. On being told that this was a learned man, the Saulteaux exclaimed, “that is what I want my children to have. That kind of education is what my children must have.”

He was hoping for integration into the new economy, not assimilation. He got assimilation instead.

The importance of language, culture in the education and early learning of Indigenous children cannot be overstated. Early learning is not merely a pathway for future success. It can embody and crystallize cultural heritage, traditions and identity.

In providing early learning and child care, we are acknowledging that it incorporates Indigenous languages and cultures. Child care fosters belonging and identity among Indigenous children and ensures the vitality of these languages for future generations.

In Saskatchewan, as in other Prairie provinces, First Nations communities are young and growing. In February 2007, in my role at the time as Treaty Commissioner for Saskatchewan, I submitted a report to the federal government about the successes and the challenges of fulfilling the covenant that was created by the treaties. That document acknowledged that First Nations:

. . . are struggling to retain their languages, cultures and important teachings of their elders, to achieve practical forms of governance, to achieve economic self-reliance, and to live as healthy individuals within healthy families and communities. These are not the conditions that the treaties promised.

For the First Nations in Saskatchewan, language is fundamental to the understanding of Treaties Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 — treaties that cover every square metre of the province of Saskatchewan. A central principle in that is that “First Nations have distinct perspectives and understandings deriving from their cultures and histories and embodied in First Nation languages.”

Responding to unique cultural and linguistic needs fulfills a critical element of the treaty relationship. It demonstrates the commitment to reconciliation, and it also ensures the long-term well-being and development of Indigenous children.

Education, particularly in the early years, is a bridge to understanding, respect and reconciliation. It is a powerful tool that can help mend the gaps created by historical injustices, and it honours the spirit and intent of the treaties. The treaties are not relics of the past. They are, in fact, living documents, and the principles in those treaties are as good today as the day they were entered into.

In this chamber, there has been much well-thought analysis and talk about reconciliation and economic reconciliation. Elders in my home province also call for spiritual reconciliation, a reconciliation which requires affirmation of the cultural and spiritual traditions of First Nations in Saskatchewan, and clear actions designed to re-instill traditional values, languages and cultural ceremonies.

I believe that this investment will also contribute to self-sufficiency for this and future generations in the Cree culture. This is known as pimâihisowin, part of which is the pursuit of iyinîswin, the ability to develop a clear mind.

This past June, the Greater Saskatoon Catholic School Division announced that it would construct a new school known as the St. Frances Cree Bilingual Elementary School. This school already exists but in a different building.

This school has 700 students. Saskatoon Tribal Council Chief Mark Arcand stated that the St. Frances Cree Bilingual Elementary School is the largest Cree language school in Canada, if not the world. I am hopeful that this school will serve as an example and encourage the provision of Indigenous language and child care.

More broadly, Bill C-35 must afford all children the ability to develop a keen mind. This bill and the framework apply to all children.

Senate study and debate has focused on the recognition and the support of the development of early learning and child care programs that are culturally relevant and linguistically appropriate for all children. This means investing in programs that are developed in partnership with all communities, respecting their cultures, identities and languages. It means heeding the lessons from other jurisdictions, as highlighted by the Senate committee, to prevent the commodification of child care, especially in ways that might overlook or undervalue the importance of culturally specific care.

The Senate committee’s meetings on Bill C-35 further highlight the importance of collecting comprehensive, valid, timely and comparable data. This is crucial for monitoring, evaluating and improving the effectiveness of our early learning and child care systems.

The committee’s meetings also emphasized the importance of ensuring equal opportunities and access for children with disabilities in line with the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada, in 2012, in the Moore case set out the parameters of accommodation for children with learning disabilities in school systems. More broadly, it affirmed that programs must be based on subjective, child-centred individual needs of each child.

As a former Chief Commissioner of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, I can tell you that while the jurisprudence on accommodation of children with disabilities took a leap forward with the Moore decision, the actual funding, provision and tracking of the system — the data points — remains very murky. One can hope that the maxim, “What gets measured gets managed” will prove true in, it is hoped, the best possible way.

I am mindful of the standing committee’s debate over respecting language rights and bilingualism, particularly in provinces such as New Brunswick, which has a unique constitutional status concerning its two linguistic communities. This aligns with our national commitment and our Charter obligations in supporting educational opportunities for citizens from official language minority communities throughout their lives.

Colleagues, I am grateful for the effort of our colleague the Honourable Senator Cormier and his pursuit of clarity of Indigenous language rights and minority language rights through the amendment of this bill.

From first-hand experience, and on a much smaller scale, I witnessed the establishment of commitment to official bilingualism in a small, 20,000-person city in Saskatchewan. The path to success was not straightforward. As a result of the effort of many people, however, under the banner of the Canadian Parents for French organization, many children, including my own, were able to become fully bilingual in the school system.

The rights of child care-age children must be respected, whether they are part of an official language minority community, they have a disability, they are Indigenous or if they have an intersectional identity, including one or more of the above.

Accessing, obtaining and advancing individual rights through the courts, as in the Moore decision, is not only unnecessarily burdensome for a parent or parents — very costly — but also resolution through the courts will not likely be effective or it will not benefit the school-aged child that actually starts the litigation because it takes too long and is too expensive. To be clear, the need to seek recourse through the justice system for rights-based obligations is a demonstration of failure of the system, which I mentioned earlier today.

The First Nations Child and Family Caring case reminds us all of this, and that the rights of child care-age children must also be respected across jurisdictions.

Colleagues, Bill C-35, as amended, considers the Charter rights, human rights, Indigenous rights and the treaty rights obligations in the provision of child care. As is often said in this chamber, no legislation is perfect — I also said that today.

Bill C-35 is sorely needed, and we must support it. This legislation represents a significant step forward in building a more equitable future for all Canadian children.

This is not about a one-size-fits-all solution. It is about creating an inclusive system that responds to the needs of Canadian families. It embodies our collective commitment to ensuring that every child in Canada, regardless of their background or abilities, can thrive and reach their full potential.

I will be voting in favour of Bill C-35. I encourage you to do that.

I offer my thanks and appreciation to our honourable colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to Senator Cormier, who reached out to me, and to all others who are speaking for the needs of children in this chamber. Thank you very much.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: We will suspend and resume our sitting at eight o’clock.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moodie, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, for the third reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, as amended.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, it is almost six o’clock, and pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until eight o’clock when we will resume, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, not to see the clock.

Is it agreed to not see the clock?

Hon. Marty Deacon: Honourable senators, I rise to speak on this important piece of legislation: Bill C-35. We’ve heard from many of you during this debate, bringing to bear both your experiences and background on why this legislation is so important for those in your communities. Tonight, I’d like to add what this legislation will mean for my Region of Waterloo.

From 2016 to 2021, Waterloo was the sixth-fastest growing large urban centre in Canada. Young families were moving there because of access to the economy in the Golden Horseshoe and a growing job market. I have to say that the Region of Waterloo, with its eight townships, is a mighty fine place to live.

An influx of young families will, of course, bring with it much more demand for early childhood education and child care. As is the case across much of the world, gone are the days when one parent — almost always the father — would earn an income while the other parent stayed at home. Now both parents often have to work. Often, this is out of necessity, but, as we’ve discussed over the course of this debate, this has unlocked untold economic potential for our country, and has allowed women to enter the workforce and pursue a career outside the home.

But this comes at a cost for those who have children and young families. They often have to make a hard choice in how their children will be cared for in those early and formative years.

Consider that, as recently as 2022, families in the Waterloo Region were forced to pay between $9,012 and $23,939 annually for one child to be in full-time licensed child care. And now consider that the most recent census results show that the median after-tax income of households in the Waterloo Region is $81,000. At the median cost of child care that I just referenced, the average family in Waterloo, and many other communities, would have to spend roughly 20% of their household income for a child care spot. With two young children, that’s about 40%.

Families look at these costs and have a stark choice to make. Is it even worth it for both parents to work if one parent is barely covering the costs of child care? If they decide it’s not, it goes without saying that, too often, it is the mother who makes the decision to stay at home. While this is only a temporary arrangement before the children are old enough to attend school, I don’t need to explain to this room — of high-achieving individuals — what even a few years of interrupted professional development means for one’s career. Not only is this a loss to the individual, but to the economy as well.

You’ve heard the statistics: Forcing mothers to stay at home because child care is unaffordable has a negative impact on the economy. We will always respect moms who choose to stay home.

Part of this unaffordability, especially in growing regions like Waterloo, is due to a lack of child care spaces. Costs are high because there are so few spots to go around. Currently in Waterloo, 7,000 children are on the wait-list for child care. Some haven’t even been born yet, but if parents wait, their child will be in school before a spot is available. So this conversation — about whether it’s even worth it for both parents to work — is happening inside thousands of households in my region.

Colleagues, that is why I was so happy when, last year, 98% of Waterloo child care operators opted into the $10-a-day program — when a deal was reached between the federal government and the province as part of the Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care system — and it’s why I was even more thrilled when, just two weeks ago, through this agreement, the provincial government announced they would provide the region with $97 million to help create 3,725 child care spaces over the next three years.

This included an announcement that early child care workers enrolled in the Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care system will get a 19% pay raise, and they will see their pay increase, on average, from $20 an hour to $23.86 an hour, as of January 1. This is good news.

It’s this latter point, colleagues, that I want to focus on at this moment. For this program to work, we need qualified, motivated staff to work in these centres with our young children. To do so, potential workers need education. They need training. It’s not the kind of vocation that one can take on a whim. There needs to be some stability and the promise that Canadians — who want a career in this field — know these jobs will be there for them once they complete their training.

It’s the kind of stability that this legislation offers. It enshrines into law the federal commitment to early learning and child care that is needed for this system to grow and thrive. Specifically, for those who wish to embark on a rewarding career in early childhood education, clause 7 states:

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 and must, therefore, aim to

. . . support the provision of high-quality early learning and child care programs and services that foster the social, emotional, physical and cognitive development of young children, including through the recruitment and retention of a qualified and well-supported early childhood education workforce, recognizing that working conditions affect the provision of those programs and services.

Colleagues, I had the special privilege of working in, with and for education for over 35 years. Working first-hand — and sometimes on the classroom floor — with families, child care leaders and early learning leaders, they taught me so much. I had the opportunity to pilot early learning programs, such as Strong Start which helps young learners get a jump on their literacy and numeracy. Before I finish, let me take a moment to take you back a few years.

As I look about the Senate, being a young child, or the parent of a young child, might have been a while ago, and it might have been quite different for most of us. Many of you are grandparents and great-grandparents.

In my education system leadership, I had the opportunity to work with Ms. Mary Lou Mackie. She was an executive superintendent of learning who was passionate and relentless about the conditions for success and our inclusion for all students and their families. She advocated very hard to change our structures to improve early student learning — one example being full-day kindergarten and the Extended Day Program in Ontario.

What is the Extended Day Program, you ask? That is basically where child care comes to the students. Their day is extended in the classroom, and it’s a seamless daycare that comes into the classroom so that there’s less disruption on our students rather than the child care taking place in a separate facility. It was a significant and fabulous change for our young people.

Ms. Mackie, like many of us, was inspired by the late Charles E. Pascal — the prime architect of full-day kindergarten and extended day learning in Ontario. I would like to share a quote with you today. This was said by Pascal while he was the special advisor on early learning to the Premier of Ontario and the executive director of the Atkinson Foundation:

In my view, there can be no better measure of progress of our society, our nation, than how well we support the youngest of our young through a shared and consistent commitment about the needs of all of Canada’s children. Like a teeter totter with a decentralized block of cement dropped on one end, our nation seems up in the air. While we still have some glue left that seems to define what it means to be a Canadian, the obvious binder being universal health care, we need more . . . much more. High quality early childhood education which is a key determinant of health, one that can dramatically reduce health care expenditures, should be the stuff of getting our nation moving to a more cohesive and balanced society.

Charles Pascal passed away earlier this year. If he hadn’t, he would be sitting front row watching this debate. His passionate commitment to building an education system that enshrined high-quality early learning and child care has continued to resonate with many and challenge some. Pascal’s views were not partisan; rather, they reflected deeply held principles, supported time and again by research. He believed that fragmented policies and structures can and do prevent the kind of progress necessary to improve the quality, accessibility and affordability of early learning for children, parents, guardians and governments alike.

Senators, I have seen first-hand how wonderful it is when these things go well. I have also seen the repercussions when they do not. This legislation, in formulating principles that I think tick every box that we need ticked at this moment, will ensure that these early learning and child care programs succeed in every region, in every community, from coast to coast to coast — not just mine.

It’s not merely throwing money at a problem. It’s creating a scaffolding with which early learning and child care can grow and thrive in this country, and not just for those who can afford it but for all Canadians. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Honourable senators, I am so excited to speak to this bill. This is a passion of mine and has been for many years. Before I start, I want to very much thank Senator Moodie for her excellent job as sponsor of this bill. Boy, I’ll tell you, it’s been a long time coming.

I also want to say congratulations to Senator Cormier and others who fought fiercely and passionately for the amendment that was passed yesterday. I had informed Senator Cormier and Senator Poirier before that I would be voting against it. I think you know, from the passion I seem to have found to articulate to you what I believe are the legislative, legal and order of law parameters, that I feel strongly about the issue of federal-provincial jurisdiction.

I did vote against it, but I took the time, with the help of Louise Mercier in my office, to pull the Canada-Ontario agreement. We heard much about this, but nobody entered it into the record, and I want to do that.

In recognizing that it’s a provincial jurisdiction, and in this case I’m talking about my province of Ontario, we looked at the Ontario agreement and the language that the federal government insisted on in the negotiations, which appears in this. I believe that whenever there has been an agreement signed thus far, the same language appears. I haven’t checked them all, so I’m not going to assert that, but that’s what I have been informed of.

Let me read to you, from the “objectives and areas of investment” section, so tying it to measurement and investment, the overarching objectives that have to be met. One of them is inclusivity, and it’s very clear here in the agreement: “Ontario commits to develop —” put in by the federal government and negotiated with the provincial, but the jurisdiction is provincial “— and fund —” with federal and provincial dollars “— a plan that supports access to licensed child care spaces for . . . .” And there are a lot of categories that we would imagine for inclusivity:

. . . for vulnerable children and children from diverse populations . . . children living in low income families, children with disabilities and children needing enhanced or individual supports, Indigenous children, Black and other racialized children, children of newcomers to Canada. . . .

The point I was making yesterday about these agreements was a very specific reference to the subject of our amendment yesterday: official language minorities. Later, it talks about what that means, but official language.

We know what that means: “Where possible, to report the annual public expenditures on child care programming dedicated to children from . . . .” these various groups, and let’s be straight-up — we have not had reporting requirements like this before in a whole range of programs where we seek to know whether we have made progress, but the numbers aren’t there. The federal government negotiated with the province by funding collaboratively and placing respect in their jurisdiction to reach these goals.

Specifically, with respect to the amendment yesterday, they commit to, and Ontario commits:

. . . to maintain or increase the current level of licensed child care spaces offering French-language programs and licensed spaces offering bilingual programs for children age 0 to 5 by fiscal year 2025 to 2026 and continue to meet or exceed the number of French child care spaces for children age 0 to 5 proportional to the population of French speaking people in Ontario by fiscal year 2025 to 2026 . . . .

It goes on.

The point I want to make is that these agreements we enter into when there are funding agreements in federal-provincial jurisdiction, we have not in the past had such explicit direction that could be monitored because there was no monitoring; there was no data. This promises to fix that, and I think we will be able to, at an appropriate time, measure the results that will also be in response to the amendment that was passed by this chamber yesterday, and we will be able to see the success — or not — and hold accountable the funding partner here.

There’s also a commitment, by the way, to appropriate development of these plans going forward with representatives of all of the diverse groups who should be involved in this, so the duty to consult, which doesn’t apply to all groups — morally, maybe — which doesn’t include the province, has been written into the federal-provincial agreement.

I want to go on with where we are — and my history. Some of my friends have looked at my history and said, “Can’t you keep a job?” I keep doing different things in my life, but they have all built up to an experience which has helped form my approach to things and my sense of my values.

My first job out of university in the early 1970s was as a director of a child care centre. It was a for-profit child care centre. I learned a lot and came out of that fully committed to universal access to non-profit, quality child care, and those aren’t buzz words. They make a difference.

I can tell you about the broken equipment that kids were injured on. I can tell you about the poor quality of meals. I can tell you about our getting a call from the Ministry of Social Services two days before an inspector showed up — every time an inspector was coming. What we had to go through to clean the place up and make it look great for those inspectors belies the problem, where profit is a motive to up the revenue, and it comes at the expense of our most precious assets — our kids. I very strongly believe that. To me, this bill doesn’t go far enough on that, but it does speak to the preference for that and to working with provinces to try to achieve that.

I was also — here is where I start to admit how old I am — a founding member of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care. I was a member of the Ontario Federation of Labour Women’s Committee. I was a representative on the coalition that came together to look at child care, and I was a representative for the Ontario Public Service Employees Union at that point in time.

We started our work — are you ready for this? — in 1981. We’ve been working for years on the issue, but this coalition, which led to the establishment of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, was formed in 1981. We issued our report, which I’m going to talk about in a second, called Daycare — back in those days we called it “daycare,” not “child care.” We’ve graduated from older language. We’ve evolved and transitioned. The report was called, in 1986, Daycare Deadline 1990. Keep that in your mind.

I want to talk for a moment about some of the recommendations that came out of that report. For any of you who are interested in that report for a historical review and to see the relevance today, our office will gladly provide you the link to it. You can find it online.

I mentioned that we started this work as a coalition with labour, community partners and others in 1981. Reading from the report, there are a number of recommendations. I won’t go through them all. Let me just highlight that they are divided into — our province of Ontario, for example — what Ontario must do, what the federal government must do and what the roles of municipalities, labour and management are. There are numerous recommendations under each of these. Within the “what Ontario must do” category is a number of things, including — by the way, we were looking for implementation then of a $5-per-day space subsidy, right, which would do nothing today. Had they done it then, we would be in a lot better situation — implementing that immediately and move for the rest of the recommendation implementations by 1986.

On what the federal government must do, okay, please understand the relevance of the bill before us. They must create a national child care act to demonstrate a federal government commitment to the philosophy of universal child care as a public service that should be implemented. The act would replace the Canada Assistance Plan as it relates to daycare services and provides funding on a universal basis.

You remember how many years ago that was. You know what we’re doing today with this bill. I sometimes wonder.

There is a really interesting section on the role of municipalities and labour and management, and I want to pay tribute to those in the trade union movement who stepped ahead, before the Ontario government, before the federal government, and created workplace-based child care programs. One of the first was what was then — it might have even been the United Auto Workers, or UAW, and then the Canadian Auto Workers, or CAW, and now Unifor, and their particular focus was auto plants and the shift workers and the impossible situation of parents working shifts in terms of getting the appropriate care for their kids. They stepped forward. Many other trade unions did, in public the sector, in what we call the MUSH sector in Ontario — municipalities, universities, school boards and hospitals. Many of those workplaces have them now.

The unions came forward with that. Management helped make it come to fruition, and there was also incredible support from many municipalities who have played a role and who have expanded on their own, out of municipal tax dollars, the provision of these programs which really should be at the provincial and federal level, which we’re achieving now. I pay tribute to all those people who were the early leaders in that situation.

There also are so many organizations to say thank you to for the work that they have done continuously for so many years. I read the submission from Dr. Gordon Cleveland, who is now a retired associate professor of the University of Toronto, a specialist in the analysis of child care and base costs, and he and his team are the ones that came up with the statistics you might remember from years ago, that every dollar invested into child care saves $7 — that was back then; it’s more now — in terms of costs of social services, supports for families in poverty, a whole range of things.

He, by the way, back in the 1980s, I think it was, was the key adviser on child care to prime minister Brian Mulroney. So let’s not think that this is a partisan approach. We may have differences of how to deliver it, right? That’s fair enough. That’s about implementation. But I believe every senator here, and to a certain degree, other than other reasons to perhaps oppose it in the House of Commons, every one of us wants the best for kids and the best education, and we recognize that. I’m looking at Senator Seidman because I’ve listened to many of her speeches. We recognize what these investments will mean and how important they are.

To all of you from Quebec, I thank you for the leadership that you and your province have shown over the years, because we have been lobbying to follow Quebec for many, many years.

Organizations like the Ontario Nonprofit Network — I think of the YWCA and the years that they have invested in trying to bring about these improvements. Campaign 2000, Martha Friendly — there are so many people, like former lieutenant governor Margaret Norrie McCain. She, through her time in leadership that continued over all of these years, has continued to invest and support and lend her voice to getting to where we are today, so I am thrilled about that.

I don’t want to take long. We’ve got a lot to do tonight, but let me say this is a historic moment for this country. It is a historic moment for all of us as legislators to be here and to participate in this, and it is a historic moment — forgive me for personalizing this — for me personally because I have been working on this issue since at least the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Now, looking at that, in 1981 we started the process of writing this report. We consulted all across the province. In 1986 we issued our report. We wanted this done by 1990. It’s now 2023, so it’s 33 years later. Let’s pass it, make it law and make a difference for the kids in this country. Thank you very much.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Rebecca Patterson has a question. Senator Lankin, would you take a question?