Bill 46 overhauls the Educational Childcare Act to strengthen how Québec screens and polices people involved in subsidized and non‑subsidized childcare. It makes Québec police forces the primary body to carry out investigations to determine whether a person presents an impediment to working with children, creates a new advisory Comité d’examen des empêchements to review potential problems, and sets clear rules on attestations that a person has no impediment.
Beyond vetting, the bill gives the Minister and inspectors sharper operational tools: immediate suspension obligations for permit holders when a staff member is implicated in serious allegations, an inspector power to order evacuation (with an automatic suspension if a whole facility is evacuated), automatic revocation where services are provided while suspended, and new monetary penalties for a range of breaches. It also prescribes special procedures for persons who recently arrived in Canada or who lived abroad long-term and introduces models for standard childcare agreements and updated rules on medication protocols.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires Québec police forces to conduct suitability investigations for a wide list of individuals linked to childcare (applicants, directors, staff, volunteers, household members, drivers, and certain coordinating‑office staff). Police issue either an attestation that no impediment exists or an attestation of a potential impediment that a designated third party (Minister, permit holder, or coordinating office) must assess, sometimes after consulting the new committee.
Who It Affects
Applies to permit applicants and holders (natural persons and entities), directors and shareholders, staff and regular volunteers, persons living in licensed home providers’ residences, home childcare coordinating offices, legal persons supplying replacement staff, and Québec police forces tasked with the checks.
Why It Matters
Shifts the screening workload to police with standardized attestations and a formal review path, while adding enforcement levers (immediate suspensions, evacuations, fines and automatic revocation) that can materially change operations and staffing decisions at centres and home-based providers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill rewrites how Québec assesses whether someone is suitable to work with or around children in subsidized and non‑subsidized childcare. It defines an expanded list of people who must be investigated — not just permit applicants but also directors, shareholders, on‑site staff, regular volunteers and trainees, drivers who transport children, household members of home providers, and key coordinating‑office employees.
Investigations are carried out by Québec police forces; they search specified databases for offences such as sexual misconduct, violent behaviour, fraud, theft, arson, and drug offences (with pardoned offences excluded according to the Criminal Records Act). After the police check, they issue either an attestation establishing no impediment or an attestation of a potential impediment listing the relevant information.
When a potential impediment is flagged, the next step depends on who requested the investigation and who is implicated: the Minister, a permit applicant or holder, or a coordinating office becomes the ‘‘third person’’ responsible for assessing whether an impediment exists. In many cases that assessment requires the opinion of the newly created Comité d’examen des empêchements, an appointed panel of at least three members chaired by a lawyer.
The committee reviews the police information and issues a reasoned written opinion to the third person and the person concerned. If the third person finds an impediment, they issue a notice of impediment; otherwise they issue an attestation establishing no impediment.
The law requires boards of directors to authorize any issuance by a legal person.Attestations establishing no impediment are generally valid for three years; a new application filed at least three months before expiry keeps the previous attestation alive while the new process runs. Special, expedited processes apply to people who have lived in Canada for less than one year (their own written statement may suffice initially) and to people who have resided outside Canada for a year or more (they must provide a statement about conduct abroad that the assessing third person must take into account).
The Minister can also demand a new investigation where new information arises, and failure to follow up can terminate an attestation’s validity.Operationally, the bill tightens on‑the‑ground safety responses. Permit holders must immediately suspend any staff member implicated in certain youth protection reports, in ministerial investigations, or in complaints deemed justified where continued presence could seriously compromise children’s well‑being; suspended staff must declare suspensions when applying for jobs.
Inspectors or investigators may order evacuation of all or part of a facility where children’s health, safety or well‑being could be seriously compromised; a whole‑facility evacuation automatically suspends the permit for that facility. The Minister gains express authority to refuse, suspend, revoke or refuse to renew permits in cases including ‘‘lending a name’’ to someone who would be refused, failure to disclose charges or convictions, false declarations to obtain subsidies, or misrepresenting subsidy status.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Québec police forces must conduct ‘no impediment’ investigations for a broad list of individuals (applicants, directors/shareholders, on‑site staff, volunteers, drivers, certain household members and coordinating‑office staff) and may charge fees set by regulation.
Police issue either an attestation establishing no impediment or an attestation of a potential impediment; the latter is sent to a designated third person who assesses it, often after getting a written opinion from the Comité d’examen des empêchements.
An attestation establishing no impediment is generally valid for three years; filing a new application at least three months before expiry extends validity until a new attestation is issued, but a notice of impediment ends validity immediately.
Permit holders must immediately suspend staff in specified high‑risk situations, and inspectors may order evacuation of all or part of a facility — a whole‑facility evacuation suspends that facility’s permit by operation of law.
The bill creates monetary penalties (ranging from $500 to $50,000 depending on the offence), allows automatic revocation if services are provided while a permit is suspended, and gives the Minister discretion to refuse or revoke permits where someone is ‘lending their name’ or has integrity concerns managing public subsidies.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Who must be screened and how police issue attestations
This block lists in detail the categories of people subject to a ‘no impediment’ investigation and makes Québec police forces responsible for conducting them. Police must check for specific types of offences and then issue either a clear attestation or a ‘potential impediment’ attestation describing the facts that warrant further assessment. The mechanics matter: the attestation is the paper trail that triggers the next legal decision and must be shared with the applicant and, where applicable, the third person designated to assess it.
Responsibilities, attestation validity and limited exemptions
These provisions assign day‑to‑day obligations: permit holders and recognized home providers must ensure relevant personnel hold valid attestations, attestations last three years, and a fresh application filed three months before expiry keeps the prior attestation active while the new check runs. The bill allows limited employer exemptions from repeat checks for personnel who have a recent attestation and submit a sworn statement of no intervening offences or suspensions — a narrow compliance shortcut with conditions.
Special procedures for newcomers and long-term residents abroad
People who have lived in Canada for less than a year undergo a lighter initial process based on a statement about past behaviour; if issues arise, the attestation pathway and committee review can still be triggered. Conversely, anyone who lived outside Canada for a continuous year or more must submit a detailed statement about conduct abroad; that statement is added to the police attestation for the third person’s assessment. The bill thus balances practical limits on police access to foreign records with a requirement that assessing bodies consider conduct outside Canada.
Comité d’examen des empêchements — advisory review panel
The bill creates an appointed committee to examine police disclosures and give written, reasoned opinions on whether an impediment exists. The committee is small, unpaid (expenses reimbursed), chaired by a lawyer, and its opinions are sent to the assessing third person and the implicated individual. The committee is advisory but is mandated in key cases and thus standardizes interpretive judgments across otherwise disparate assessors.
Immediate suspension and evacuation powers
Inspectors and investigators may order evacuation where children’s safety could be seriously compromised; a whole‑facility evacuation automatically suspends the permit for that facility. Separately, permit holders must immediately suspend staff implicated by youth protection reports, ministerial investigations, or serious complaints; suspended staff must be notified in writing and can submit observations within 10 days. Those obligations shift substantial onus to permit holders to act quickly on risk signals.
Expanded grounds to refuse, suspend, revoke or refuse renewal
The Minister gains explicit authority to refuse or cancel permits where an applicant or director/shareholder ‘lends their name’ to a problematic actor, where the holder fails to report new charges or convictions, makes false declarations related to subsidies, or deceptively implies services are subsidized. The Act now provides for automatic revocation if a permit holder continues to provide services while suspended and prescribes prior‑notice rules with a 15‑day opportunity to respond except in urgent cases.
Fines, delegated rule‑making and operational standards
The bill adds fines for failure to meet several duties (failure to inform the Minister, failure to ensure attestations, allowing children into evacuated areas, etc.) with scaled ranges for individuals and organizations. It also directs the government to set fees police may charge, timelines for committee opinions, training standards, medication protocols and models for standard childcare agreements, giving the executive branch significant rule‑making capacity to fill in operational details.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Children and families — tighter screening, quicker removal or suspension of implicated staff, and an evacuation power aim to reduce exposure to serious risks and increase rapid responses to imminent danger.
- Parents working atypical hours and some Indigenous communities — the bill allows, with ministerial authorization, childcare for school‑age children under atypical schedules and enables agreements for children from Aboriginal communities not offered school‑based childcare.
- Home educational childcare providers and coordinating offices — clearer rules on who must be screened, standardized attestations and a guide prepared by the Ministère provide legal clarity about documentation, responsibilities and permitted exceptions.
- Government officials and inspectors — the Minister and inspectors receive clearer statutory grounds and automatic legal effects (e.g., automatic suspension on evacuation, automatic revocation for breaches), reducing administrative ambiguity in urgent safety actions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Permit holders and childcare providers — they must ensure staff attestations, carry out immediate suspensions where required, and may face fines or permit action; administrative and legal compliance costs will rise, particularly for smaller providers.
- Québec police forces — the bill makes police responsible for all formal investigations and allows regulated fees, increasing workload and requiring processes and database access for childcare‑specific checks.
- Legal persons supplying replacement staff and coordinating offices — they must obtain and manage attestations for staff they provide and may need board resolutions to validate issuance, adding governance and recordkeeping burdens.
- Prospective staff and recent arrivals — applicants who have lived outside Canada or in Canada for less than a year face extra documentation, sworn statements and follow‑up checks, which can delay hiring and raise administrative friction.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core tension is safety versus operational fairness and capacity: the bill prioritizes rapid removal of potential risks to children by centralizing police checks, enabling immediate suspensions and automatic legal effects, but that same approach increases administrative burden, creates reliance on police capacity, and grants broad discretionary standards (e.g., ‘lending their name’) that can produce swift, disruptive consequences for providers and staff before fuller review occurs.
The bill raises immediate child‑safety standards but introduces implementation friction and several open questions. First, shifting the investigative gatekeeping to Québec police forces centralizes responsibility but also creates a dependency on police capacity and timelines; the text contemplates a framework agreement and fee schedule but leaves many operational details to regulation (timing targets for police and the committee, fee levels, and the consequences of missed timelines).
That arrangement risks regional variability in turnaround times and may create bottlenecks in staffing if attestations become the hiring bottleneck.
Second, the information flows and sharing mechanisms the bill establishes sit at the intersection of child protection, criminal records, privacy law and immigration history. The law requires police attestations, committee opinions, and statements about conduct abroad to be exchanged among police, the third person, the Minister and the committee.
Those exchanges reduce ambiguity but heighten privacy and data‑handling burdens and may expose assessors to legal challenges if records are incomplete, misinterpreted, or if foreign‑jurisdiction statements cannot be independently verified. The bill mitigates this by allowing initial assessments based on sworn statements for very recent arrivals, but those lighter processes could either fail to catch risky histories or trigger retrospective investigations that disrupt services.
Finally, several substantive standards are deliberately vague: ‘‘lending their name’’ is a subjective criterion that gives the Minister broad discretion to refuse or revoke permits; similarly, the test of whether a person’s behaviour ‘‘could reasonably cause one to fear’’ a lack of integrity is fact‑intensive and likely to produce case‑by‑case adjudication. Those features allow flexible protection but also raise due‑process and proportionality concerns, especially where a suspension can be immediate and where permit revocation can follow automatically from certain actions.
The regulatory package the government must adopt will therefore determine how predictable, equitable and administrable these new powers are in practice.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.