Human Resources Committee on April 24th, 2007

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I've read the report you mention, and indeed the study did reach the conclusion that not-for-profits as a rule provided higher quality. We are all aware that there are some very high-quality for-profit facilities, and we all know some of them, but as a rule, that was the conclusion of that report. It certainly influenced us in our decision to proceed with the bill as we did.

It's clear that there is the same philosophical divide when there's a for-profit motive as there is, for example, with the proponents of for-profit health care. When you have to worry about making a profit out of addressing health care needs, there is less attention to the specific health care needs of the patient. Similarly, one could conclude that the attention should be on the development of the child—cognitive, emotional, and so on—rather than on eking out a profit. That was the rationale of our not-for-profit starting point in the bill.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

There have been international studies after international studies that said that as far as child care early learning services are concerned, Canada is at the bottom of the heap. It is, in fact, the worst of all the industrialized countries, and it's a hodge-podge patchwork. In places such as Calgary, a lot of workers cannot work, even though they want to, because they just don't have child care. It is now hurting Canada's productivity.

Then, some care is delivered in a way that is completely ad hoc, and as a result, some of the kids are going to school not ready to learn, and that is hurting their academic performance. As far as productivity is concerned in Canada, is it one area child care services really assist in developing?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

It is, absolutely. I just want to say very quickly that when we were in Halifax as a committee—I think the chair referred to it as friendly fire—we received the testimony of senior policy analysts with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and the comment, which I will quote, was: “It's true”—referring to what's called the negative employment or skills shortage in Alberta—“that in Alberta there's a lot of negative unemployment..... Recently, I was looking over Statistics Canada numbers, and surprisingly, Alberta has the lowest participation of women in the workforce.... Quebec has the highest.... The reason is very easy”—and she said she rechecked those numbers, because she couldn't believe it—“the day care system.”

I quote again:

There are factors in the market that work differently than just a job offer. The day care system in Quebec...encourages women to go back to work much sooner after they have children. Alberta doesn't have that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We're going to now move over to the Conservatives, and we have Mr. Brown, for three minutes.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Allison.

First of all, how does this bill ensure ghat federal funding adds to and does not merely displace the dollars provinces are already putting into child care? When I speak of this concern, the best example is this recent federal budget, where the province in which I reside, Ontario, was given $97.5 million. The Liberal premier of the province a week later in his budget allocated $25 million for child care as all he deemed to be necessary. So there we have $72.5 million which the Province of Ontario didn't allocate to child care.

How is this bill going to ensure that it adds to child care and doesn't simply displace the dollars provinces already put into child care? And I note that this government has tripled funding for child care.

Number two, Quebec's program is said to be universal, but only 50% of the parents access provincially funded child care programs. So what is the benchmark for universality, and what is the cost going to be—this is an important point, Ms. Savoie—of achieving universality? Is it going to be the 50% version of universality, which isn't universality, or actual, genuine universality?

Number three, this bill requires auditing the provinces, and audits require supporting bureaucracy. Who's going to pay for this auditing process? Is it the federal government? Is it going to be a federal bureaucracy or a provincial bureaucracy?

Number four, the bill creates an advisory committee. Will members of the advisory committee be paid, and who is supporting that? In that sense, how much of this new funding is going to be spent on administration compared with what actually goes to families?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

You have lots of questions. I don't know whether I have enough time to answer all of them, but certainly the clawback issue is one that's real and that has to be addressed in any program.

The purpose for this law was precisely to determine the modality of the criteria that would relate to the amount of financing that came from the federal government. It requires that they respect the criteria that were arrived at, understanding first how those criteria would be implemented and would be administered, and that there be a common understanding to respect the quality aspect, and universality, so that there is accountability.

I know that in British Columbia, to use again my province as an example, when the federal funding was cut, the subsidies ended to child care centres, and there was a kind of boule de neige effect affecting the costs. So there certainly has to be, I think, a process by which provinces are accountable for the money that they—

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

There are two important points I want to hear about from you before my time's up: the cost, and what your level of universality is.

What is the cost of the program?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Right now in Canada, according to Statistics Canada, 54% of children between six months and five years old are in some kind of care situation. So I would think that universality.... There are different needs in different provinces, and that's why we proposed the amendment around home day care.

There are different accommodations that this system could factor in, but certainly the 54% is a benchmark. Depending what percentage were in day care at the time this law came into being, that would represent the number for what “universality” should be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Just quickly before we move on to the next round, do you have any idea of the cost, Madame Savoie?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

What the NDP proposed was $1.2 billion, but actually, it involves no costs other than what is being funded now, because as was stated by I think members of the Bloc, this isn't a program that would occur overnight. It is anticipated—to respond to, for example, funding questions about the universality—that over time....

But right now there is money going to the provinces, and the program could start exactly on the amount of money that exists today. We have to start with an objective and we have to give ourselves the means, but it could be the basis for the law today, with no additional funding at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, thank you.

We're going to move on.

Mr. Simms, you have three minutes, please.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to make this very quick.

I commend the basis by which you've started this, and whole idea of an act per se for child care is a noble one. However, it's a question of—and this reverts back to universality—the circumstances that exist in my riding and I don't think are really distinct to just my riding. Here is the situation.

Eighty percent of child care delivery in my riding is for profit, and a meagre one at that. We have a situation by which the delivery of this is very difficult, under circumstances where it is done over one or two or three centres, similar to health care.

If this is to come into effect, from what I see it's going to be difficult for parents who live in smaller communities to get to some of these larger centres. You mentioned that the for-profit facilities, whether at home or at smaller centres, will be grandfathered. Is that correct?

But the problem that remains beyond this is that the penetration to 80% is still going to be very difficult. I want to hear that under an act this child care delivery, in the context of rural delivery, is still going to be honoured.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Yes, absolutely, and that was one of the reasons we proposed the amendment--to make it more flexible. That's exactly right. In rural areas when you go out for the harvest or whatever, there is a need for having the children cared for in a home-based type of day care setting that doesn't involve going to a large centre, absolutely. That was the specific intent of the amendment.

I'm sure Ms. Chow, as a sitting member of the committee, can elaborate on that as you deliberate on this bill, because that was specifically the intent. It was to make it more flexible, so that we're not just talking about large urban centres like Toronto, but specifically responding to those needs.

Also, even within urban centres, if parents would prefer to go down the street to a licensed home day care situation, that might--

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

In connection with the amendment you're talking about, you mentioned earlier that studies show the level of private health care is not on a par with not-for-profit care. It doesn't really paint a good picture if, for a lot of these people who can only access.... I have over 200 communities in my riding, and--

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I think we're struggling about the definition of for-profit and not-for-profit, and I think that's important. If you look at a situation in which a parent sets up a home day care, I don't think the idea is to make millions of dollars; I think the idea is the care of the children. That's the distinction we're making.

I think Ms. Chow will present a more specific definition with the amendments. What we're talking about when we refer to for-profit is a large corporate enterprise for which the money--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I have to cut both of you off here. I'm sorry, Mr. Simms, but we're slightly over. We're trying to get as many in here as possible.

Mr. Lake, you have three minutes. This will be the last questioner, and then we need to switch up so we can bring in several other witnesses. Go ahead, Mr. Lake, for three minutes, please.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Madame Savoie, we don't have nearly enough time to go into everything I have to go into, but I have several points.

First of all, you mentioned no additional funding. That's miraculous to me, since you're asking for more staff at higher wages to accommodate more kids because of the waiting lists--yet it won't take any additional funding. I find that quite miraculous. Even if it's true that it doesn't take additional funding, it means that this bill is just conditions, which I can't see any of the provinces going for.

Here is a quick question: how much per space is the normal amount across Canada per child, per year?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'm not sure. I've forgotten that. I think we discussed it at noon.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Olivia?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

It's $8,000.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

It's $8,000.

We have 1.9 million kids right now receiving the UCCB, so 1.9 million times $8,000 is...a whole lot--$5.48 billion, it looks like. I don't know. That might be wrong, but it's a lot of money.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I think you're referring to kids who receive the universal benefits, not kids who are in care.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

It's a universal program. If every family decided to use it, that's how much it would cost. It's open to every family.

I have several points, based on a lot of the things I've heard. First, you made a comment earlier that you respect the choice to stay at home, but that sadly it's not a realistic choice for many. I'd say that's a false choice you're saying there, because finally we have a government supporting families, but up to this point we haven't. Maybe they haven't had a choice because they haven't been supported.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'll refer you to--

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

You say that for those who stay at home, the bill does not cancel the UCCB, but you do not have to use child care. I would add that you didn't finish the quote: you do have to pay for it under this legislation, if you're a family staying at home.