Bill C-303 (Historical)

Early Learning and Child Care Act

An Act to establish criteria and conditions in respect of funding for early learning and child care programs in order to ensure the quality, accessibility, universality and accountability of those programs, and to appoint a council to advise the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on matters relating to early learning and child care

This enactment establishes criteria and conditions in respect of early learning and child care programs that must be observed before payments are made by the Government of Canada to a province, territory or aboriginal peoples' organization in support of such a program. It also provides for the appointment of a council to advise the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on matters relating to early learning and child care.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Order, please.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 22, 2006, we are studying Bill C-303, An Act to establish criteria and conditions in respect of funding for early learning and child care programs in order to ensure the quality, accessibility, universality and accountability of those programs, and to appoint a council to advise the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on matters relating to early learning and child care. We'll continue to go clause-by-clause and look at where we are.

I wouldn't say we made a whole lot of progress in our first meeting. I'm hopeful that, now that everyone's got all their remarks they would like to have on the record, we can move a little faster today.

As the committee knows, if we get it done this morning, we won't have to have our meeting this afternoon; however, there is a possibility we may end up going this afternoon if we're not able to move forward this morning.

Once again, I will encourage the members to make their points and keep them short, and then we can move on from where we left off. We're still working on clause 2.

(On clause 2--Definitions)

I believe amendments one and two have passed. We're now on Liberal amendment L-3.

Mr. Silva, perhaps you'd like to talk to L-3.

Human Resources and Social Development

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, we believe in choice in child care. We also are investing $5.6 billion per year in child care.

However, why is that party supporting Bill C-303, a private member's bill that is against funding to the provinces? That is the question.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

The third amendment states, that Bill C-303, in clause 2 , be amended by replacing line 14 on page 2 with the following:

child care program of a province, territory or aboriginal peoples' organization by

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I just think it's our responsibility to have someone define exactly how this bill will affect first nations. It's incumbent upon us. I don't think we can vote on something when we don't know what we're voting for. This is law; this isn't just a nice little fuzzy idea. We're talking about laws. We did have other people here who were as passionately against this, and they were parents and they were representing provinces, so we still have to deal with those provinces.

I would like to ask the experts just how they see this bill forming now. Now we have this great big national program, and then we exempt one province. Then we have two provinces and a territory that are against it. Then we have an expert who watches this, who has even agreed that the Liberal plan, going way back, was probably not a bad idea to address early learning and child care, but that this was not the way to do it. Bill C-303 is seriously flawed.

My question to the experts would have to be whether they see this becoming law, and if so, how they are going to administer it.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Regarding the subamendment that was brought forward by Ms. Chow, I have just been informed that this was also brought forward by the AFN and the B.C. aboriginal association in regard to the band government. The AFN, just a few hours ago I believe, took another look at the bill, and they're the ones who have introduced the term “band government”.

For both the subamendment and the amendment itself, I think for any type of legislation, whether we're reviewing it or analyzing it and referring it back to the House, it's extremely important that it be reflective of our country. And I think it's imperative that it include the aboriginal people—first nations, Inuit, and Métis—and that we ensure that it be inclusive in nature and not exclusive.

I know all of us here, as we were reviewing Bill C-303, had very different ideas of how child care and early learning would be best delivered in the country. I respect that completely.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I deserve a second round for having been so patient.

First of all, I would like to thank the departmental officials who have come here to provide information.

When we were studying Bill C-303, we realized that there was a vacuum with respect to aboriginal communities—Innu and others—and understood during the process that amendments had to be moved and incorporated into the bill. Liberals and NDP members also put forward amendments to close the gaps in the bill. This is something that has not being done in great detail for the legal standpoint, and that concerns aboriginals communities, particularly those that come under federal responsibility.

Are there any difficulties, any conflict between the legislation that covers aboriginal peoples and the right that we are seeking to recognize through Bill C-303?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 22, 2006, Bill C-303, An Act to establish criteria and conditions in respect of funding for early learning and child care programs in order to ensure the quality, accessibility, universality and accountability of those programs, and to appoint a council to advise the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on matters relating to early learning and child care, the meeting will now commence.

Yes.

[Prof. Harvey Lazar]

On the first question, as you noted, provinces, territories, and the federal government did sign a social union framework agreement, in 1999, with the exception of Quebec. I'm not sure if Nunavut ever actually signed the agreement; it was not a separate territory at that time. I think it's clear that the social union framework agreement requires the federal government to give notice and enter into consultations with provinces and territories if they want to change a provision. As I indicated in my opening remarks, I think the bill is clearly flawed in the sense that it ignores that agreement. That is one of the reasons I thought that provincial governments would not look kindly on Bill C-303.

Going to your second question, about the West Lothian concept, it's a good subject for academic debate. I could go on for some time about this. Suffice it to say that this has not posed significant problems in Canada in terms of the way our democratic institutions work--for example, members of Parliament from Quebec vote on amendments to the Canada Pension Plan even though Quebec has a separate pension plan. There are one or two other examples. It would not create significant problems for the governing of the country if we do not have an extensive number of provisions of this type, but the more that provisions of this type are added to the governance of the country, the more this concern could be raised that members of Parliament from a particular province are voting on issues that don't affect their province.

It's not an issue I would push at the moment. I don't think this is a principal concern for this bill. But conceptually I think the argument is correct.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Your concern is money-based. You are afraid of sharing the expenses with others, in the same way as everyone shares expenses for health care, based on a program. It is a policy choice, and I understand your argument.

Mr. Davis, I am trying to follow your reasoning and to understand your opinion of Bill C-303. Are you for or against it? You talked about Bill C-303 by sharing with us a life experience based on your position, which is considerable, but that did not lead us to understand your opinion on the bill. What is it?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is fascinating to see the understanding people have both of the bill and the Quebec program.

I am speaking based on Ms. Matychuk's remarks, which are very important. She is a mother who is concerned with ensuring that her children get off to a good start in life. She and her spouse decided that one of them would stay at home, and she told us why. She seems afraid of the impact Bill C-303 could have on the willingness of a parent to stay at home. That won't change anything. I would like to hear you on the topic.

At present, 54% of families have access to the Quebec child care system. The families that do not have access to it are the ones that have chosen not to use it. Some representatives from an early childhood development centre told us that they would like to preserve and improve the system. So they are not just the users who operate the system, but also representatives of private centres. Quebec has early childhood development centres in an institutional setting and in a family setting, which are supported by the institutional centres. Quebec also has private day care centres as well as families who choose to stay at home.

Are we helping these families? Yes, more and more. We are negotiating with the federal government with a view to repatriating part of the funds that were earmarked for the parental leave program, but that were not used there. That program helped increase support for families with young children by allowing one of the two parents to remain at home for a year or a year and a half, while receiving an income. That helps get off to a better start. It is not perfect, but that contribution has led to a spectacular increase in the birth rate over the past two years.

Ms. Matychuk, how could this bill have a negative impact on parents who would like to remain at home?

[Kate Tennier]

I am Kate Tennier, from Toronto.

I will attempt one more time to explain to the Liberals why the country is against Bill C-303. The first thing Canadians do when discussing state-controlled child care is to muse about why and how the Liberals got themselves into this mess. They often wonder if you really know what it and this bill are all about. The evidence indicates you may not.

By supporting this bill you are supporting the NDP, which in its rush to impose its will on the Canadian people has become a handmaiden to the corporate bottom line, not the servant of its citizens--particularly its most needy. The NDP has developed its views based on the polemics of Canada's funded day care activists, who are inspired, in part, by the OECD directive to “offer free day care” as a way to get mothers out to work. That is explicitly laid out in this document I hold before you.

In March 2006, I spoke with a Toronto day care policy administrator who told me that the city will pay the full $18,000 day care fee for a mother to go out and earn $18,000. If a mother felt she could provide better child care herself and wanted some of that money redirected to her for that purpose, he said that wouldn't be allowed and that it would be better for her to get a job.

Olivia Chow's first comment at a Toronto child care all-candidates meeting in January 2006 was that universal day care would be good for the economy. I subsequently wrote about it in a Globe and Mail op-ed piece. Aside from the fact that Quebec's experience renders Ms. Chow's economic analysis quite wrong, we are not seriously contemplating supporting a bill that has economic growth, not the betterment of family life, as its purported goal.

I testified here almost two years ago, to the day, about the destructiveness of a national day care program and why Canadians did not want it. Convinced you were right and that the people were wrong, you pushed ahead. On November 19, 2005, rallies were held in 17 cities from coast to coast demanding that parents' child care choices rest with them, not the state. This was the tipping point that turned Canadians against your plans to bring in national day care.

It was a pity that so few Liberals took the time to listen to Canadians, especially with so many citizens saying this would be the first time ever they would not be voting Liberal, an experience I described, myself, in a December 2005 Toronto Star article.

Following a few of the many now former Liberals you ignored, there was a rally leader in Ontario who had previously led the charge against Wal-Mart muscling its way into her community, a grandmother who ran the breastfeeding support group in her maritime town, and a young Toronto mother who was resolute in her determination to be the primary caregiver while living on a family income of less than $35,000. She told me, “Kate, I was, and always have been, a Liberal, but not now. Liberals are no longer liberal and they simply do not speak for me.”

You ignored parents currently using day care centres who wanted a centre to meet their choice. You ignored Canadians--too many to count--who, accurately, do not equate early learning with day care centres.

My professional background is in education. I was a primary specialist teacher for many years. Not one shred of evidence supports the myth that children learn best in centres and preschools. Sweden found that out the hard way. Their education ministry issued a report in which they note that problems for young children actually increased with their move to early programmed learning.

You ignored a British Columbia parent, a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party, who stood in the voting booth for 15 minutes before making the agonizing decision to not vote for you. She simply couldn't allow her family to be treated like second-class citizens. You ignored the 90% of Canadians who rank day care centres as virtually their last choice. You ignored almost half the population whose children are in absolutely no form of outside care. You ignored the 85% of Canadians whose children are not even in day care centres. You ignored us all.

Finally, you ignored the truth. You ignored the research of Helen Ward, president of Kids First Parent Association of Canada, whose top-drawer analyses debunk every myth that national day care has been predicated on.

Why are you supporting the fantasy that the only thing preventing women from fulfilling their true destiny as stockbrokers, lawyers, and bank executives is the lack of day care? The truth--and you know it--is that the full impact of this program will be felt by women who will have the dubious pleasure of dropping their kids off at substandard care to take up their positions as low-paying service sector workers. Very few women are asking for the opportunity to release their inner Betty Friedans.

Finally, why are supporting the greatest NDP myth of all, the fantasy of the free lunch? The NDP are reluctant to give up their belief that obscenely expensive government programs don't cost us all dearly. Their response to families who don't want day care--also known as most of us--is that they don't have to use it. As Bev Smith brilliantly explained to a national CBC audience on March 26, the increased taxation required to fund these programs has the boomerang effect of forcing all parents into the market economy to cover its costs.

This is called the no-choice model. That women have gained control over their reproductive rights, only to lose decision-making power over who cares for their children, is an astounding irony that has been lost on very few of us.

The story goes that if you, the Liberals, get back into power, you won't be forced to fund this program, so there's no harm in passing this bill now. That's dangerous thinking, as it leaves the door open for some ill-informed Liberals to head down this no-win path once again.

Millions of Canadians have been galvanized by this issue, with support groups and networks springing up across the country as a direct response to your inability to listen to them. If you vote for this bill, the response will once again be swift and decisive. But if, on the other hand, you choose to support families, the engine that propels our country toward a bright future, in all their diversity—there's the word again—and in all the myriad ways they are currently and successfully raising their children, you'll be returning to your Liberal roots, and you will form the next government.

Notice the spike in Conservative support after the last budget, a budget that gave some help directly to parents. This could once again become the Liberal way.

Thank you.

[Kate Tennier, As an Individual]

Bill C-303 is flawed policy and flawed politics.

By the way, is there just one Liberal here? That's it?

[Prof. Harvey Lazar]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have two preliminary comments. The first is to confirm that I'm here in a personal capacity. The second is to say to the committee that my research focuses on federalism more than on child care and early learning, so my remarks will mainly be focused on the intergovernmental dimensions of Bill C-303.

I understand that the sponsors of this bill are relying on the federal spending power as the constitutional basis for what would otherwise be seen as an area of mainly provincial legislative competence under the Constitution. I am also aware that legal counsel from HRSDC has already testified concerning this spending power. I am in broad agreement with their interpretation of its scope and nature.

I would add, however, that there have long been political--I emphasize the word “political”--differences of opinion concerning the appropriate use of the spending power, and these differences reflect varied perspectives about the nature of the federation itself. In recent decades, these differences have led to several admittedly unsuccessful efforts at constitutional reform that would have placed some limitations on this power. In a similar vein, when the non-constitutional 1999 social union framework agreement was negotiated by federal, provincial, and territorial governments, Quebec excluded, it included some limitations--modest limitations, it must be said--on the federal spending power.

My only point in this regard is that notwithstanding the constitutional support for a federal spending power, its use is politically sensitive, and judging the appropriateness of conditions attached to federal transfers often involves shades of grey, rather than black and white. That is why, of course, the use of the federal spending power typically entails consultation and negotiation with provinces and territories.

Turning to the bill itself, it appears to be modelled in important respects on the Canada Health Act. I have three principal sets of concerns regarding Bill C-303. The first is that the bill is not easy to interpret. For that reason, its impact is uncertain. For example, subclause 5(4) requires that the early learning and child care program of a province or territory will “...ensure that all children resident in the province or territory are equally entitled to early learning and child care services that are appropriate to their needs”.

This might reasonably be interpreted, at least in my view, as disqualifying the early learning and child care programs of most, if not all, provinces and territories because they almost certainly do not meet that definition of universality. I note in this regard that this definition appears to go beyond the definition in the 2005 agreements that the previous government entered into with provincial governments. You might look, for example, at the agreement between Canada and Manitoba dated April 29, 2005.

Similarly, the bill requires that a provincial or territorial program be of “high quality”. This requirement is linked to subclause 5(3), where the concept of quality is developed more fully. Whether in fact any province or territory could satisfy this criterion, however, is an open question. Recent research conducted under the auspices of the Institute for Research on Public Policy suggests, for example, that the quality of early learning and child care services in Quebec is uneven at best. While Quebec is not to be subject to the conditions of this bill unless it opts in, I mention this only because even that province, which is generally assumed to be a leader in this field, might have some difficulty fully satisfying this criterion.

My second broad comment is that the bill is intrusive relative to provinces and territories. Apart from its grandfathering provisions, the bill precludes for-profit child care delivery, and in so doing is reaching deeply into provincial jurisdiction in its efforts to discourage for-profit delivery. You've heard from at least one province, probably two, to that effect. I believe that this bill goes further than the Canada Health Act, as the Canada Health Act does not, at least in my judgment, preclude private delivery of publicly insured services.

My third category of comment is that Bill C-303 is one-sided relative to the provinces and territories, apparently ignoring the federal–provincial–territorial consultation processes called for in the social union framework agreement when Ottawa wishes to amend an existing federal-provincial agreement. Bill C-303 imposes new obligations on provinces and territories without offering incremental transfers, or even assurances that current transfers will be maintained.

I would point out in this regard that the federal government, initially through federal-provincial agreements for hospital and medical services, created financial incentives for provinces to expand vastly their public delivery systems of health care services.

Once this was established, the federal government gradually reduced its share of health care spending to the point of causing a huge federal-provincial-territorial brouhaha a few years ago. The federal government has since increased, very substantially, its cash transfers to the provinces and territories for health care, but this took several years of difficult and protracted negotiation.

I recognize that since this bill was not introduced by a member of the government, it cannot, or at least should not, contain spending commitments. Parenthetically, I would say whether it actually does contain spending commitments is a separate issue that I will leave to the lawyers to debate, but I do think the committee needs to consider how to ensure that the federal fiscal commitment is a long-term one in the event that provinces and territories stand ready to move decisively in the direction that the bill intends. Were I a provincial official, I would be very skeptical of basing the expansion of my public sector on federal financial incentives unless there was a strong long-term federal political and legislative commitment on the funding side. History teaches that if provinces do not do so, they can be left holding the bag.

On a related point, in the event that transfers are to be withheld or withdrawn, subsection 14(2) of the Canada Health Act at least requires the federal authorities to consult with the affected province before acting, whereas Bill C-303 appears not to afford the same opportunity to a provincial or territorial government before punitive action is taken. In this sense, Bill C-303 is more arbitrary than the Canada Health Act.

This brings me to my last point, Mr. Chair. Put simply, it's hard for Parliament, acting on its own, to legislate effectively--and I would emphasize the word “effectively”--in the federal-provincial arena when the federal government and the provincial governments are not directly involved.

Perhaps the intent of the bill is simply to send a symbolic message and help motivate provinces and territories to encourage the federal government to return to the bargaining table. If the bill is enacted and that is its only effect, I would applaud that result. However, given the stated policies of the federal government in this policy area, I am stymied as to how, as a practical matter, this could be brought about.

If this bill is enacted but does not lead to renewed federal-provincial-territorial negotiations, it's possible that it will just sit there, with the federal authorities enforcing it very lightly. After all, Bill C-303 does not require--and I emphasize the word “require”--the Governor in Council to withhold payments when conditions are not satisfied.

It's also possible that the federal government will enforce it, leading to cuts in federal transfers for child care.

What do I conclude? First, the impact of Bill C-303 is uncertain, with the risk of unintended consequences. Second, given the lack of commitment to new fiscal resources; given the lack of intergovernmental consultation processes called for by SUFA, the social union framework agreement; given the lack of a consultation procedure for a province or territory before its transfers are withheld; and given the ambiguities pertaining to its interpretation, Bill C-303 could create a new flashpoint in federal-provincial-territorial relations.

That completes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

[Nancy Matychuk, As an Individual]

My name is Nancy Matychuk and I very much appreciate the opportunity to address this committee today regarding Bill C-303.

I am not affiliated with any official organization. I am simply expressing an opinion that I believe fairly represents many other Canadian parents who are affected by funding decisions the government makes concerning child care.

As a young adult I trained to work in child care and worked in a day care centre for a few years after completing college. I worked with a wonderful, caring, well-trained, committed group of women; I felt great affection for the children in my care, but I knew even then that if I were blessed with children, I didn't want them to spend their days in that environment. I am now the mother of five children; I have been at home with them since the eldest was born 15 years ago, while my husband has earned our income.

I think I can assume all of us sitting in this room are united in desiring the very best for the children of our society. They are dependent on us to provide the best care and early learning opportunities available. The best I have been able to give my children is to keep them home with me during those important years, and I would recommend it enthusiastically to anyone who would ask. As little ones, they are designed to be dependent on us, and I believe pushing them into premature independence is not the healthiest way for them to grow and learn. I believe that parents at home provide the most creative, specialized, calm, secure environment, and children are allowed to develop at their own unique rate through a natural unhurried process, gradually becoming confident, independent, intelligent, curious, and socially secure.

I know many will disagree with my ideal of the early childhood experience. Many will also find trying to live on one income impractical. I quite understand that not everyone wants to live the way my family lives; they do not wish to forgo breakfast cereal, vacations, cable TV, and visits to the orthodontist.

While we may disagree on what is ideal, it is certainly not my place to make decisions for anyone but my own family. Each parent has the right and responsibility to decide what their own family situation should look like. I do not need you to affirm my choices any more than you need me to affirm yours, but I wonder if we can agree that our different opinions both have validity and are well represented among the taxpaying population.

Just as another family's choices are none of my business, our individual choices are also not government business. You might assume that I want my government to say parents should try to stay at home with their children in the early years, but I don't. I most sincerely do not want my government to make any pronouncements about what is or isn't good parenting. They're in the business of governing, not parenting. Just as I would not presume to make a decision about what is best for someone else's child, the government should not presume to intrude in the business of parenting. They are not equipped for the intricacies of the task.

I believe any bill that pertains to parental issues must intrinsically provide for freedom and diversity. What message does the government send if they have only parents who work outside the home and use day care? Are they the only ones worthy of government assistance, by virtue of their taxable income? Are they the only ones struggling to pay the bills and be good parents? What about families that sacrifice much materially to care for their children at home? What about parents who both work, staggering their work hours so that one of them is home with the children? What about parents who invite extended family to live with them to help with the care of the children? Do these kinds of situations not warrant the government's notice?

[Jonathan Thompson]

Okay, thank you.

But as I mentioned before, we are moving forward. In consultation with first nations stakeholders and the federal government, we have developed a first nations ECD policy framework that includes the principles of child development, culture and language, special needs, program implementation, jurisdiction, partnerships, and certainly accountability.

I'll skip to the end and quickly mention a couple of things that we'd like to see with respect to Bill C-303. While there is an advisory council for the ministers, we'd certainly like to see sit on that council a first nations representative who can bring some specific expertise with respect to first nations child care issues.

Earlier this morning I heard mention of an exception for Quebec, and perhaps similar language or a similar clause could be used to ensure that funding is set aside specifically for first nations, if such an approach is presently happening with the Province of Quebec.

Thank you.