I don't even know.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. This afternoon I want to make clear what this bill intends and what it would do. I would like to also allay the concerns, where I can, of those who have voiced opposition, by addressing first misunderstanding or misinformation about the bill's intent and impacts, and by presenting from the outset two amendments to the bill that we will put forward to address some of those concerns.
The bill was designed with positive intentions, not to weaken but to enhance current provincial and territorial early learning and child care systems; not to curtail but to expand the current range of choices available to Canadian parents and children.
I'm going to start with the premise that we agree on certain things. The first premise is that we all agree that good parenting and early learning opportunities are crucial for the future development of children. And I think we all agree that parents are responsible to help their children grow and thrive. And I think we also all want to offer the best and the widest range of choices to those parents, so that they in turn can offer the best head start for their child.
The question, Mr. Chairman, is how do we achieve this? The answer is, by doing better than we now do in Canada. According to this year's report by the Council for Early Child Development prepared by Dr. Fraser Mustard, the cost of early childhood behavioural and mental problems is estimated at over $30 billion. Costs could be reduced by 50% if a more comprehensive learning and child care system were in place.
According to this report, Canada ranks dead last, or 30th out of the 30 OECD member countries, including most European countries, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, in the area of early childhood education. We spend one quarter of 1 % of our GDP on early childhood education, that is less than the United States and a fraction of what developed countries spend, or 2% overall. The report qualifies Canada's early childhood education program as a “chaotic mess”. This bill aims to correct this situation.
The aim of Bill C-330 is to make public day care services the cornerstone of Canada's social policy. If enacted by Parliament, this Bill would provide adequate and stable federal funding to guarantee universal access to learning and early childhood services, thereby giving all Canadian families more choice in these matters.
I've met parents in Victoria who were told that they must wait seven to eight months before they could get their name added to a wait list. Some parents start seeking out wait lists as soon as they know they're expecting.
One parent said to me, “If I got a space in June,”--and this was quite a few months ago--“I'd pay two months of child care just to keep the space for my son, and that's a lot of money for me.”
Another person said, “We're moving up on some of the wait lists, but the closest we've come is number 12. It's just not an option for one of us to stay home.”
This bill is for countless parents who find themselves in similar circumstances.
I would like to state what this bill would not do, in contrast to some misunderstandings and misinformation that you may have heard.
The bill would not interfere with a parent's right to choose what is best for his or her child. It would not pass judgment and would not limit the child care options available to parents. Rather, it would give parents more choices in terms of providing their young children with the best possible learning opportunities. This new quality option would be readily accessible and affordable and in keeping with the latest scientific data and cutting edge practices in the field of early childhood education.
Furthermore, the bill would not infringe in any way whatsoever on provincial and territorial jurisdictions with respect to child care service delivery. It would not pass judgment on or restrict the excellent programs provided by certain provinces and territories. Rather, under the bill, provinces and territories would receive funding to expand and improve upon the child care and early childhood education services offered to parents and their children. In other words, this is enabling, not restrictive, legislation.
After we introduced this bill, we went out to collect input from a broad range of sources. Or we did this again, because we had already done so before introducing it. But in this case we sought input from provinces and included elected officials, parents, ordinary working people, community groups, and so on. We've tried to allay some of their concerns. Further to that endeavour, I can confirm that we will bring forward two amendments to this bill.
The first amendment would recognize regulated or licensed family child care providers, as determined by the province or territory.
Secondly, I acknowledge and respect the role that the aboriginal head start program and other aboriginal-specific programs play in Canada's child care infrastructure and recognize that it needs to be recognized in the act. I look forward to the testimony of the Association of Friendship Centres, who will guide us in this regard.
I'd like to speak to one final concern I have heard, which I believe requires clarification. I've been asked, “What about parents who don't want public child care?” My answer is that I respect the choice of parents to stay at home. In fact, I believe that these early years are unique and precious times for parents. But sadly, it's not a realistic choice for so many. I presented this bill to ensure that those parents who need it have the option of choosing affordable, high-quality, public child care, so that they can be assured their child will get the best possible start.
For those parents who do stay at home to care for their children, my bill does not cancel the Conservatives' $100 monthly payout. Let me be very clear: you do not have to take part in a new early learning and child care system, but such a system will provide new, affordable spaces as options for those parents who need them.
We've heard from countless parents who have no choice. This bill gives choice to these parents without removing choice from many others. In fact, it gives more choice to all parents who choose quality early learning and child care.
I'd like to end on a personal story that I think is relevant. My daughter is a talented educator of young children, and she herself has a three-year-old. She's decided, and they've made that very difficult choice, that they will make some sacrifices—but still, they can do it—and she stays at home with their children. Her three-year-old speaks to me in French—he's learning French—he skis; he's learning the violin. He's really exposed to a very enriched and stimulating environment.
But recently, when I visited her, I met a young four-year-old who lives a few streets down, and he is not so fortunate. His parents don't have that option; it's absolutely not a possibility. He's left with a babysitter. During a good part of his day, he watches TV. As I was watching him, it was apparent that he already has difficulty learning, and those problems are going to stay with him.
My daughter, who's an educator, said that with early intervention, the learning difficulties he has don't have to be his future. I thought this was important to relay to the committee, because it seems to me that clearly we can pay now or we can pay later. But with children like this one and the many others who do not have the opportunity of a stimulating, enriched learning environment, or who, sadly, in some cases do not have attentive caregivers and are not attended to, we will be feeling the consequences in our society collectively.
The Early Learning and Child Care Act is an investment in our future to give all children a head start: they're our future.
Thank you. I'd be pleased to answer your questions.
