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.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for her passionate and moderate speech that puts things into perspective.

Let us not forget that, in 1997, Quebec brought forward such a plan. It was the work of Pauline Marois, whose courage allowed for great strides to be made.

I also remember that in 2006, my predecessor, Paule Brunelle, took part in the debate at first reading of Bill C‑303.

I would like to ask my colleague if the current bill does Quebec justice or if, on the contrary, it distorts an idea that was the best.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-35 and will support the bill at third reading, even though it finds the bill to be ambiguous.

The bill does not comply with the distribution of powers set out in the Constitution, which clearly states that education and family policies are not under federal jurisdiction. Although the bill states that the provinces will be able to certify child care services and determine the applicable criteria, it also states that every government in Canada will have to comply with the principles set out in the multilateral early learning and child care framework.

This framework is full of good intentions and fine principles, but it is based on the federal government's supposed spending power, which Quebec does not consider legitimate or legal. One thing is clear: This bill was not tabled in the right Parliament.

I will first go into more detail about why we will nevertheless vote in favour of the bill. Then I will explain the Quebec exception and end my speech with an historical overview.

First, the bill excludes Quebec from this federalization of family policy for the next five years. In fact, the Government of Quebec will receive $6 billion in compensation for opting out of this centralist policy. In that sense, the bill respects the will of Quebec not to have the government interfere in its jurisdictions, especially since Quebec is a pioneer in child care services and a model of success, to boot.

Nevertheless, unlike Bill C‑303, the predecessor to this bill, the current version does not contain any wording on exempting Quebec. Indeed, Bill C‑303 stated the following:

4. Recognizing the unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec with regard to the education and development of children in Quebec society, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Government of Quebec may choose to be exempted from the application of this Act and, notwithstanding any such decision, shall receive the full transfer payment that would otherwise be paid under section 5.

The agreement concluded with the Quebec government spans a period of five years. Enshrining Quebec's full right to opt out of this program would help avoid another dispute between Quebec and Ottawa in case the federal government ever wants to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions as it does so well.

Passing this bill would also enable Quebec to recover significant amounts that could be used to reinforce its network and improve working conditions for workers in the sector.

By allowing Quebec to withdraw with full compensation, Bill C-35 takes into account these two opposing trends in federal-provincial relations. That sort of consideration is rare at the federal level.

Outside Quebec, Ottawa is seen as the guarantor of social progress, which results in a strong tendency towards centralization. Quebec rejects that type of interference. It would be interesting if Bill C-35 were consistent with the previous version in recognizing that the Quebec government's child care expertise is unique in North America. In fact, the international community acknowledged that in 2003.

The OECD, in its study of child care in Canada at the time, mentioned the following:

[It is] important to underline…The extraordinary advance made by Quebec, which has launched one of the most ambitious and interesting early education and care policies in North America....none of these provinces showed the same clarity of vision as Quebec in addressing the needs of young children and families....

In short, to come back to Bill C-35, public officials said that the bill was drafted with respect for the provincial and territorial jurisdictions and indigenous rights.

They also stated that the bill did not impose any conditions on other levels of government. That was the main concern of some provincial governments during the consultation process. Any provision seeking to ensure that the provinces shoulder their share of the agreement would be part of the individual bilateral agreements signed with each province and territory, agreements that must be renegotiated every five years, as I mentioned previously.

Here are some interesting figures to think about. Access to low-cost regulated child care could lead to the addition of 240,000 workers to the Canadian labour market and a 1.2% increase in the GDP over 20 years. In Quebec, the money would also serve to strengthen the existing network of early childhood education services, which is grappling with a shortage of teachers.

After the committee completed its work, it became clear that the demands of the Bloc Québécois and Quebec were not heard or respected.

Throughout the study, Quebec was cited as a model. It may not be perfect, but the Quebec model was cited on numerous occasions as being a model to emulate. However, at the amendment stage, when the time came to recognize Quebec's expertise in the bill, we saw the three other parties dismiss this reality out of hand. The same thing happened to our amendments giving Quebec the option of completely withdrawing from the federal program with full financial compensation. The only place the other members were even remotely willing to mention Quebec's expertise was the preamble, which is the only place where those words would ultimately have no concrete effect on the bill.

Although Quebec does not get the option of completely withdrawing from this program with full compensation, an agreement to that effect had already been concluded between Ottawa and Quebec. Senior officials who worked on the bill also repeatedly stated, when questioned on the subject, that while nothing would prevent the federal government from imposing conditions as part of a future agreement, the bill had always been designed with the asymmetry of Quebec's reality compared to Canada's provinces in mind. The members of the Liberal government who spoke to the bill also mentioned several times that the Liberals intended to keep working with Quebec on this file. The current agreement also pleased Quebec since it did not interfere with any jurisdiction and gave the Quebec government total freedom to spend the money in whatever sectors it wanted.

Third, let us rewind to 2022, when Quebec celebrated 25 years of the family policy. On January 23, 1997, Quebec's family policy was unveiled by education minister Pauline Marois on behalf of the Parti Québécois government. It was a visionary policy that reflected the changing face of Quebec, including the increase in the number of single-parent and blended families, the growing presence of women in the workforce and the troubling rise in job insecurity.

This forward-thinking policy has allowed Quebeckers to benefit from better work-life or school-life balance and more generous maternity leave and parental leave, and it has extended family assistance programs to self-employed workers or workers with atypical schedules.

This model is an asset. It is a source of pride for the entire Quebec nation, as studies show that every dollar invested in early childhood yields about $1.75 in tax revenues, and that every dollar invested in health and in early childhood saves up to $9 in social health and legal services. Early childhood education services have also been a giant step ahead for education in Quebec. They help improve children's chances of success and keep students from dropping out. They have a positive effect on early childhood development, help identify adaptive and learning difficulties early on, and ensure greater equality of opportunities for every young Quebecker, regardless of sex, ethnic origin or social class.

In conclusion, we also believe that a true family policy is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Quebec and provincial governments. Parental leave, income support and child care networks must be integrated into a coherent whole. In our opinion, to be efficient, this network and all these family policies must be the responsibility of the Government of Quebec alone. The Constitution clearly indicates that education and family policies are not under federal jurisdiction.

One last thing: As the Standing Committee on the Status of Women has noted in more than one report, including the report on intimate partner violence I spoke about earlier in connection with another bill, by providing quality day care that is affordable and accessible to all, we are providing women with an opportunity to fulfill their professional ambitions without compromising their family responsibilities.

What is more, this bill seeks to enhance day care services by providing a safe and protective environment for young children and especially for mothers who are seeking to escape intimate partner violence. What we in the Bloc Québécois are saying is, let us do this with respect for the expertise, but above all, for Quebec's jurisdiction. We will be voting in favour of the principle of Bill C‑35.

I will end with an interesting economic fact. According to the work of Pierre Fortin, Luc Godbout and Suzie St‑Cerny, between 1998 and 2015, with Quebec's child care services taking care of all these young children, mothers' labour force participation rate increased from 66% to 79%. We implemented this feminist measure. Yes, early childhood education is a feminist policy that made it possible for women to return to the labour market, to become emancipated and to provide equal opportunities for young children.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

What is there in this bill that would avoid another conflict between Quebec and Ottawa when the current agreement expires?

As well, why was clause 4 of Bill C-303, which provided an exemption for Quebec, not retained and incorporated into Bill C-35?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome the Minister and the witnesses who are here with us.

Minister, we can agree that Bill C-303, which was introduced by the NDP in 2006, is the ancestor of Bill C-35, with a few differences. However, one of those differences concerns me: Bill C-35 makes no mention of an exemption for Quebec, although we are well aware that Quebec is a forerunner and a leader in the area of early childhood and daycares, as you yourself have said.

It has now been over 25 years since the Government of Quebec adopted a family policy that led to the creation of a network of affordable early childhood education services that help to create better living conditions and a better balance between parenting and work responsibilities for millions of families. Given that fact, do you believe it would be useful to include a clause in Bill C-35to permit Quebec to withdraw from this program, unconditionally and with full compensation, to avoid negotiations and arguments between the federal and provincial governments every five years?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Do you think that, like Bill C‑303, Bill C‑35 should recognize the Government of Quebec's expertise in child care services, unique in North America, as the international community did in 2003?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to be on this committee with my colleagues. I thank the witnesses for being here today.

We can agree that Bill C‑303, which was introduced in 2006 by the NDP, is the forerunner of Bill C‑35, save for a few differences. There is one difference that concerns me in Bill C‑35. There is no indication of the exemption for Quebec.

Do you think it would be good if Bill C‑35 were to include a provision setting out Quebec's full withdrawal from this program, with full compensation and without conditions? This would preclude negotiations, and even disagreements, between the federal and provincial governments every five years.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, the 2021 federal budget included $30 billion in new spending over five years to fund this new national child care system. It also projected an additional $9.2 billion ongoing. That is a lot of money.

At the same time, predictability is the key issue. As much as we want to get this system in place, we also want it to be robust and reliable. What kind of impact do we think this will actually have? How will this $9.2‑billion investment impact Quebec? Can we expect to see long-term agreements?

The government has not reintroduced the clause from Bill C-303 from 2006, so I am worried about predictability and the impact this will have on Quebec.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this issue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Repentigny for her excellent speech. I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑35, which enacts development funding, maintenance and strengthening of child care services throughout Canada.

Quebec has its own way of building the services it delivers to the public and organizing its commitment to responding to the realities facing young families. It was the Parti Québécois under Pauline Marois that gave us this network of child care services that the rest of Canada dreams about today. The development of the model for early childhood centres stems from a strong network and the skills of their managers and educational staff; it is the envy of many around the world.

I would like to discuss what is involved in developing a child care system. It is not an easy task. It involves many stakeholders in our communities. Most of the tasks fall to the provincial and territorial governments. In Abitibi—Témiscamingue, the shortage of child care spaces and the shortage of early childhood educators are hindering our economic development. The money given to Quebec will undoubtedly help advance new types of projects in the coming years. For example, Adria Power Systems created spaces for its employees. Child care services are at the heart of a strategy to attract and retain workers.

The development of child care services, like that of health care services, involves many stakeholders at the provincial level. Many sacrifices were made in Quebec to allow for the development of our child care system. It is a tall order. It takes a lot of effort to open up a space in a child care centre. I would like to remind members that, to create spaces, we must compete for the same resources as the rest of society. We need project managers, architects, engineers, entrepreneurs, plumbers and electricians, every type of construction tradesperson and professional. It is important to understand that there is a labour shortage in that sector, which results in delays and increased costs.

When we open day care spaces, we have to think about getting a sufficient number of staff members to provide and maintain services for the thousands of parents who are waiting for a space that will enable them to get back to work or to school. The labour shortage has an impact on every part of society. Consequently, predictability in such an ambitious project is also a factor for success. We need to train as many people as possible who want to work and have a career in child care. We must have the wisdom to recognize and value the professions that revolve around children under the age of five. Educators are an important factor in early childhood development, and we need to recognize the value of their work by developing quality training programs in our CEGEPs and universities, while providing adequate funding. I commend these educational institutions for their contribution.

The quality of the curriculum is just as important as the quality of the care. The curriculum in Quebec has gone through several iterations and has evolved over the years. It keeps pace with the children's development and takes advantage of their interest in play to spark a desire to explore, create, reflect, learn and advance through the stages of socialization. That is the way to educate the next generation. Quebec still has to complete its network and secure the funding it needs to adapt and innovate in the area of services for special needs children. To do so, it will need to develop even more specialized care, which is desperately needed.

At this stage, the Bloc Québécois is willing to support Bill C-35 in principle so that it can be studied in committee, where witnesses will shed light on the intent and scope of the bill. The Conservatives would rather send families cheques, and we cannot fundamentally change their minds, but they will come to see that there are many benefits to developing a high-quality, accessible, flexible, inclusive and even universal child care network.

We also have some qualms about the bill. It is not a bad bill, but it bears thinking about. Our concern is that the bill fails to respect the distribution of powers set out in the Constitution. The Constitution clearly states that education and family policy are not under federal jurisdiction.

Every Quebec government has challenged the legitimacy and legality of federal spending in provincial jurisdictions. However, the framework proposed by the federal government in this bill involves the application of the so-called federal spending power. In its current form, the bill would require all provincial and territorial governments to comply with the multilateral early learning and child care framework. We will have to check whether the text is acceptable to them when the bill is studied in committee.

In the case of Quebec, the framework exempts it from the application of the federal family policy for the next five years and gives Quebec $6 billion in compensation for opting out of this centralist policy. After that, however, there is a good chance that the federal government will have a fight on its hands. Still, the framework does respect Quebec's opposition to federal meddling in its jurisdictions, especially since Quebec is not only a pioneer in child care, but a model of success as well.

However, the Liberal government added a nuance to Bill C-35, and we would like to understand why. Bill C-303, a precursor to the current bill, was tabled in the House in 2006. Clause 4 of that bill recognized Quebec's unique jurisdiction and would have allowed it to opt out and receive a transfer payment instead, if it so chose. As members of Parliament, we will have the responsibility of moving an amendment to that effect during the committee study.

The current agreement with the Quebec government runs for five years. However, the inclusion of a full right to opt out for Quebec would forestall another quarrel between Quebec City and Ottawa over the federal government's meddling in Quebec's jurisdictions, which it does so well.

Maybe the government is afraid that future governments will decide to back out and switch to another payment model for families. However, it is also true that, if we have to keep battling over funding, as we do in the case of health care, this bill will not settle anything.

Quebec's stance in its relations with the federal government is that it must have a full right to opt out with compensation. The social progress in Quebec that the federal government is looking to emulate today should not be used as a pretext for once again violating Quebec's right to hold a certain political view of its relationship with the federal government.

I would also like to point out that we can see other political movements brewing in Canada's western provinces, and those provinces seem to be starting to understand Quebec's position better.

It used to be harder for us to explain to Parliament what makes Quebec different and to get members to understand that centralization is not the solution to everything. There are plenty of reasons for wanting the federal government to stop meddling in the provinces' jurisdictions. This might be an opportunity to strengthen ties between the provinces and Quebec.

I sincerely hope that we can solve this problem. To be clear, I would like the bill to be amended by adding clause 4 of the former Bill C-303 as tabled in 2006. It would be a good idea for Bill C-35 to follow its predecessor's example by recognizing the Quebec government's unique expertise in North America when it comes to child care, as the international community did in 2003.

The passage of this bill would allow Quebec to obtain significant funding that would enable it to complete its child care network and enhance working conditions in the sector. Now that would be something to be proud of.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I am pleased to be back here in the House. I would like to thank my team in Val‑d'Or, Lebel‑sur‑Quévillon and Chibougamau for the work they are doing for my constituents. I also want to say hello to the people of Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik—Eeyou.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, which was tabled by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development on December 8.

If passed, Bill C‑35 will enshrine in law the Liberal government's commitment to maintaining long-term program funding for the provinces and indigenous peoples, as well as guiding principles for that federal funding. The bill contains no specific financial promises for the national program, but enshrining it in law could make it more difficult for a future government to dismantle.

As we know, for many years now, many Canadian families have been envious of Quebec's child care system, because child care often eats up a large portion of their household income. These families have long dreamed of being able to benefit from the same service that families in Quebec have been receiving for decades. It is therefore high time that all Canadian families were able to access child care without breaking the bank.

In 2022, Quebec celebrated the 25th anniversary of its family policy. On January 23, 1997, the Parti Québécois government's Minister of Education, Pauline Marois, unveiled the Quebec family policy, which was based on five main pillars: child care services and parental leave; the family allowance; the work premium; the solidarity tax credit; and the refundable tax credit for child care expenses.

The family policy was developed as a result of changes in Quebec's population, including an increase in the number of single-parent and blended families, greater numbers of women in the workforce, and the troubling rise of precarious employment. This groundbreaking policy allowed Quebeckers to improve their work-life or school-life balance and benefit from more generous maternity and parental leave, and it extended family assistance programs to self-employed workers and workers with atypical work schedules. This model is a valuable program that the entire Quebec nation is proud of.

Providing early childhood educational services was also a giant step forward for education in Quebec. These services increase students' chances of academic success and prevent them from dropping out, positively impact early childhood development, allow for the early detection of learning disabilities and adjustment difficulties, and ensure that all young Quebeckers start off on the same footing, regardless of their sex, ethnic origin or social class.

Considering the popular support they enjoy, the new child care centres rank among one of the greatest successes of the new social economy, being democratically managed using an approach that involves both parents and educators.

The mission of Quebec's early childhood education services is threefold: one, to ensure the well-being, health and safety of the children receiving care; two, to provide an environment that stimulates their development in every way, from birth to school age; and three, to prevent learning, behavioural and social integration problems from appearing later on. Child care services provide a conduit for instilling values, culture and language. This system helps children grow and develop more healthily from an early age. This is an important principle of childhood socialization and sharing.

In my opinion, a real family policy like the one in Quebec, which includes components such as family leave, income support and an accessible child care network, must be integrated into a coherent whole in order to be effective, so it should be overseen by just one level of government.

I myself took advantage of our child care services, and my children received an education that contributed to their success in life. It is truly a pleasure to bring a child to the centre in the morning, knowing that they are safe, that they will learn something and discover their creativity, and that they are picking up life skills by making friends they can play with.

I have to say that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-35 in principle, but we think it is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, it does not comply with the distribution of powers set out in the Constitution, but on the other, it excludes Quebec from the federal family policy for the next five years.

Let me explain. The Constitution clearly states that education and family policy are not under federal jurisdiction. Moreover, although the bill states that the provinces will be able to certify child care services and determine the applicable criteria, it also states that every government in Canada will have to comply with the principles set out in the multilateral early learning and child care framework.

This framework is full of good intentions and fine principles, but it is based on the federal government's supposed spending power, which Quebec does not consider legitimate or legal. One thing is clear: This bill was not tabled in the right parliament.

On the other hand, the bill excludes Quebec from the federal family policy for the next five years. The Quebec government will receive $6 billion in compensation for opting out of the centralizing policy. This demonstrates respect for Quebec's aversion to federal meddling in its jurisdictions, especially since Quebec is not only a pioneer in child care services, but is hailed as a model for success.

Nonetheless, unlike Bill C‑303, Bill C‑35's predecessor, there is no indication of any exemption for Quebec in the current wording of the bill. This is how clause 4 of Bill C‑303 was worded:

Recognizing the unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec with regard to the education and development of children in Quebec society, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Government of Quebec may choose to be exempted from the application of this Act and, notwithstanding any such decision, shall receive the full transfer payment that would otherwise be paid under section 5.

The agreement signed with the Quebec government is valid for five years. However, giving Quebec the full right to opt out of this program would help avoid another dispute between Ottawa and Quebec City when the federal government inevitably interferes in Quebec's jurisdiction, as it is wont to do.

During the joint announcement by the federal government and the Legault government, the Premier of Quebec indicated that the federal government would continue to help Quebec and that the agreement would respect Quebec's jurisdictions. The Premier of Quebec, Mr. Legault, said that after 2026, he will expect help from the federal government.

The passage of Bill C‑35 would make it possible for Quebec to recover significant sums that it could use to complete its network and enhance working conditions for workers in the sector. By allowing Quebec to opt out and be fully compensated, Bill C‑35 takes into consideration these two opposing tendencies in federal-provincial relations, which is rare on the part of the federal government. Outside Quebec, Ottawa is seen as a force for social progress, which results in a strong tendency towards centralization. In Quebec, we reject this interference.

However, as I just mentioned, unlike its predecessor, Bill C‑303, specifically clause 4, this bill does not provide for the right to unconditionally opt out. It is essential that this be included in order to reflect this opposing view of Canada, that is centralization outside Quebec and respect for jurisdictions within Quebec.

Finally, it would be a good idea for Bill C‑35 to emulate its predecessor by recognizing the Quebec government's unique expertise on day care services in North America, as the international community did in 2003. In its study of day care in Canada, the OECD stated that it is “important to underline...the extraordinary advance made by Quebec, which has launched one of the most ambitious and interesting early education and care policies in North America....none of [the Canadian provinces] showed the same clarity of vision as Quebec in addressing the needs of young children and families”.

In closing, it is my hope that all Canadian families will one day be able to enjoy the same child care benefits as Quebec families. We know that, in addition to giving a financial boost to Canadian families, this would enable more mothers to enter the job market. It is an investment in a better future for our children, and our children are the future.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It works out well for me to speak now because I just voted a few minutes ago. I would like us to discuss the amendment moved by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. The exemption he is seeking has already been agreed to in other bills. I have in front of me Bill C-303, which was introduced in the first session of the 39th Parliament, in 2006-2007. Clause 4 of that bill says essentially the same thing as amendment BQ-2, clause 3.1, moved by Mr. Lessard. It asks that, recognizing the relationship between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec, in certain areas, the Government of Quebec have control, having regard to its jurisdiction in relation to payments.

Heaven knows how many discussions we had about the division of powers between the federal government and the provincial governments. We had to debate it a hundred times. I think it is very important for us to preserve a balance that it was very hard for us to achieve and that we maintain a consistent course in terms of respecting provincial powers, in this case the powers of the Government of Quebec.

Thank you.

[Crystal Janes, Representative, Coalition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia]

Regrettably, Canada's current policies do not meet the needs of Canadian families. Canada has lagged behind other developed countries in its investment in early learning and care for decades, and it now has the lowest rate of access to early learning and child care programs for preschool children of 20 comparable countries.

Notably, the federal government's approach to supporting families with children introduced in 2006--the universal child care benefit--has not met its stated objective of providing families with choice. Cancelling dedicated child care transfers to provinces and introducing a taxable family allowance has not addressed family child care needs.

The situation is getting worse in B.C. Child care funding has been cut as a result of changes in the federal commitment, forcing child care fees to go up.

Our recommendation to the standing committee this year is consistent with our advice over the last number of years. It's time to invest in children. We recommend, based on the principles and accountability framework outlined in Bill C-303, that the next federal budget include the first installment of a four-year commitment to create a licensed child care space for every three- to five-year-old in the country, as the first phase in building a comprehensive system for zero to 12 years old.

The gross projected cost of meeting this first benchmark is $5 billion. Based on experience elsewhere, Canada can expect an immediate return of 40% through income taxes from increased labour force participation. In addition, Canada can expect a longer-term return of 2:1 on reduced social, educational, and health care costs as children get a good early start through their life cycles.

Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the New Democratic Party on introducing Bill C-304. We do not spend enough time talking about housing, and this gives us a chance to point out, as the Bloc has often done, that the federal government has the means to make massive investments in social and community housing. That is what it is supposed to do.

Investment should add up to 1% of federal government program spending, or about $2 billion per year. That is what the Bloc has always said. However—and this is the problem with the bill—Quebec and the provinces need to be in charge of how that housing money is spent.

The federal government must respect provincial jurisdiction by limiting its role in this area to providing funding to enable Quebec to act on its priorities and special needs. Previous agreements recognize that housing falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec.

I would like to quote from a document published by the Government of Quebec, Coûts du fédéralisme pour le Québec dans le domaine de l'habitation, an analysis of what federalism costs Quebec in the area of housing, conducted by the Société d'habitation du Québec in September 1995. On page 21, it says:

Federal housing measures constitute interference in an area under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has imposed very rigid rules for housing measures. It has also made its financial participation contingent upon a multitude of administrative rules as well as pan-Canadian objectives and criteria, making it difficult to plan interventions in a Quebec context. The presence of the federal government in this sector of activity has resulted in much administrative duplication engendering additional costs that undermine the coherence of interventions.

That was written in 1995. Nothing has changed. This bill, too, constitutes encroachment.

Quebec has the skills and the experience to take care of its own housing responsibilities. That is the point. We would be better served if we took matters into our own hands.

Quebec is calling for a transfer of all federal responsibilities for housing, provided that this be accompanied by satisfactory financial compensation in light of the criteria of fairness, sufficiency and continuity. Currently, Ottawa’s proposal is limited to offering Quebec only the administration of existing federal obligations with regard to social housing stock, which only amounts to a simple management contract. In addition, on the subject of social housing, Quebec has not obtained its fair share of federal expenditures. The Government of Quebec cannot accept this situation, no more than prior administrations were able to tolerate this. Were we to be satisfied with less than our share of financing of the federal effort for housing, this would be all the more unacceptable since Quebec's needs in this area are proportionately greater than those of the other provinces.

Bill C-304 in its current form does not respect Quebec's jurisdiction in this area. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel, if we recall that, in 2007, Bill C-303 concerning early learning and child care faced the same situation as this bill. The solution: allow Quebec to opt out unconditionally, with full compensation, as set out in clause 4 of Bill C-303. Thus, there is hope that this bill could also be amended in committee.

We are in favour of Bill C-304 being studied in committee, with one caveat: it must be amended considerably.

If Bill C-304 comes back to the House in its present form, the Bloc will not support it. The solution is to allow Quebec to opt out unconditionally and with full compensation, as was the case with clause 4 of Bill C-303, nothing less. In addition, the preamble of Bill C-304 includes the principles of housing rights that we support. However, we believe that a more thorough study should be conducted on the consequences of having these principles in the bill and on the possibility of an individual without housing turning to the courts.

Bill C-304 does, however, indicate set out the context in which this strategy must operate with specific points of action that already exist in Quebec. Consultation by the minister with provincial counterparts, which the bill advocates, will lead to subsequent procedures for settling accounts.

Under clause 3, the Minister shall, in consultation with the provincial ministers responsible for municipal affairs and housing and with representatives of municipalities and aboriginal communities, establish a national housing strategy. We do not agree with having a national strategy other than to have our share of the program funds. This national strategy is to ensure that the cost of housing in Canada does not prevent an individual from meeting other basic needs, including those of food, clothing and education.

Under clause 4(2), the minister, in cooperation with the provincial ministers responsible for housing and with representatives of municipalities and aboriginal communities, may take any measures that the minister considers appropriate to implement the national housing strategy as quickly as possible. Note that we in Quebec have the SHQ, which sets priorities. We have absolutely no desire to have our priorities set by the federal government.

The minister's powers to take the measures indicated are not dependent on the consent of Quebec. Clause 4(2) provides clearly that the minister may take any measures to implement the national strategy, regardless of the opinion of the provinces, regardless of Quebec's or the other provinces' prerogative over housing, regardless of the efforts made by Quebec and other provinces in the area of social housing, regardless of the existence of protection for renters provided by the Régie du logement du Québec and regardless of the different social choices being made in Quebec.

The intent of this bill is, in the end, to eradicate and appropriate the decision-making powers of Quebec and the provinces with respect to housing, including social housing. This is appropriating an area of jurisdiction that does not belong to it and forces Quebec and the provinces to become managers for Ottawa.

Even though Quebec is one of the few provinces to have been commended in the report by the UN Special Rapporteur because of its policy to fight poverty and because of the content of its Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms—page 10, paragraph 28—among other things, this bill ignores this reality and ignores the nation that is Quebec.

The agreement should set the conditions for federal withdrawal, including the amount and type of financial resources to be transferred. In addition, a political agreement should establish the form of compensation, namely cash transfers and tax points. Or, the agreement could require the federal government to continue its expenditures in the province concerned. The territories should also be able to avail themselves of this provision. The federal government would be required to negotiate and enter into this agreement within a reasonable time.

Rather than focusing its actions in its own areas of jurisdiction, the federal government is trying to use worthy causes to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions in order to have the greatest possible visibility. This bill, in its current form, follows that logic.

I will reiterate that we are in favour of this bill on housing but that it must be overhauled in order to respect Quebec's jurisdictions.

(Bill C–303. On the Order: Private Members' Business:)

November 21, 2007--Third reading of 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 member for Victoria.

Prebudget Consultations

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.

For me, this year's prebudget consultation process included hosting a public town hall meeting in Victoria that was well attended, presentations and attending finance committee hearings in Victoria by the committee last December, reviewing hundreds of letters and emails from my constituents and having countless conversations with folks on the street.

Throughout this process, I heard two predominant messages from the residents of greater Victoria. First, invest with vision in a more socially, environmentally and economically sustainable future. Second, that investment in Victoria should begin with housing.

They asked the government to review the massive corporate tax cuts announced in the fall fiscal update in favour of targeted measures to restore balance in our communities and in our social and physical infrastructure and to tackle climate change.

I would like to highlight a few of the excellent presentations we heard in the Victoria meetings of the House of Commons finance committee. The non-profit group, Heritage B.C., spoke eloquently about the importance of conserving heritage buildings and rehabilitating them for modern use, especially affordable rental housing. Its very pragmatic proposal would strengthen the federal historic places initiative by restoring the commercial heritage properties incentive fund and creating a federal tax incentive to amplify the success of tax measures in Victoria and Vancouver that has allowed us to protect some properties but, unfortunately, has not been supported by the federal government.

We heard from the BC Sustainable Energy Association, which expertly warned not only of the environmental hazards of the government's non-response to climate change, but also the economic hazards of being left behind as the rest of the world shifts to clean, renewable energy while we stay wedded to an obsolescent fossil fuel economy of past centuries. We must put a price on carbon to turn this around. Left unchecked, global warming could cost B.C.'s economy in the billions of dollars.

The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society identified six key actions that the federal government should take to protect healthy ecosystems in the face of climate change. I hope it considers those seriously.

The president of Results Canada made a compelling call to increase our foreign aid which he noted has actually dropped even further below our commitment of a 0.7% target from 0.34% of our gross national income in 2005 to 0.3% in 2006.

Before the finance committee came to town, I hosted a public town hall meeting to hear the priorities of my constituents that were not necessarily linked to the narrow focus of taxes. Overall, those in attendance expressed a strong desire to see the federal government re-establish its leadership role in the arena of social policy and to nurture the social contract we have together as Canadians.

However, overwhelmingly, the number one area of urgently needed investment in Victoria continues to be housing and homelessness. In October, the City of Victoria released its task force report on breaking the cycle of mental illness, addictions and homelessness after four months of work. The task force did an excellent job analyzing the problem and mapping a way forward, but many of its recommendations cannot be implemented without support from Ottawa. In fact, the report clearly identifies the past Liberal government's withdrawal from the social housing sphere in the early 1990s, along with cuts to federal transfer payments, as two of the contributing factors to our current crisis. Now the Conservative human resources minister does not even bother attending housing meetings with his provincial counterparts, pretending it is not his problem.

The chorus of voices pleading for federal help from the perspective of ethics and social justice has been joined by that of members of Victoria's business community who have come out as forcefully and unequivocally as they possibly could.

I would like to quote briefly from the testimony of the Victoria Chamber of Commerce. It stated:

...the Government of Canada needs to take a far more aggressive lead in solving the problems of chronic homelessness across our country.

So much for the absence of our federal human resources minister from the meeting with his provincial counterparts.

The Chamber of Commerce added:

In this time of record government surplus, it is absolutely necessary for the federal government to apply a focused effort to reducing homelessness across Canada, and in doing so improve the business environment for thousands of Canadian companies.

This sentiment from the Chamber of Commerce echoes what I have heard on the doorsteps in Victoria. Even in the more affluent areas, I frequently hear concern for affordable housing and homelessness mentioned on the doorsteps of homes that might cost $700,000 in Victoria. These residents understand that even if this issue does not afflict them personally, it is relevant to them because they are members of the Victoria community.

It is that community spirit, the truly Canadian quality of caring for one's neighbour and choosing to contribute solutions to our common problems, that is alive in Victoria and in communities across Canada, which the Conservatives do not seem to recognize in their obsession with tax cuts, especially corporate tax cuts that benefit the banks and large financial organizations. It shows that affordable housing is a fundamental issue that strikes the hearts of all Canadians and it shows that tax cuts are not universally popular if it means that some in our society go without.

That brings me to a couple of other areas that require targeted investment in the upcoming budget, according to my constituents.

First, it is time for the government to accept the majority will of Parliament and allow the NDP's early learning and child care act to pass. Bill C-303 has now passed two votes in the House and one in committee. Parents across Canada who desperately need affordable child care cannot wait any longer and parents who want to choose quality early learning over big box day care deserve that option.

Next, one million Canadians struggle to repay student loans, which have reached record levels, and they need help. The federal government expects to make $497.9 million in interest on student loans in the coming year. Every dollar in interest is one more dollar that a low or middle income student pays for his education compared to other students whose parents pay for theirs.

It will not be easy to level this structural inequality in our post-secondary education system. However, a good starting point in this budget would be to reduce the interest rate paid by students, to establish a system of immediate grants based on financial need, to improve options for lightening the debt load and to establish a student loan ombudsman's office to help students navigate this inefficient system.

Finally, public research informs good public policy, but it would appear that the Conservatives are allergic to both. They have cut key funding for the Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network, eliminated the federal science advisor, overruled and fired Canada's nuclear safety regulator and continue to grossly underfund research in the social and human sciences.

Meanwhile, corporate influence on Canada's campuses and in university research continues to rise because the Liberal cuts from a decade ago have yet to be adequately restored. Our colleges and universities need stable, adequate core funding that corresponds with their economic growth in order to remain internationally competitive and provide the best possible education to our children.

We need increased funding for research in the public interest if we are to avoid letting profit become the guiding factor in public health, safety and environmental decisions. Budgets 2006-07 were colossal missed opportunities to invest in key strategic areas for more sustainable--

[Sharon Hope Irwin]

Having been last before, I'll be first now.

At least four of us have talked about child care as an essential component to a national anti-poverty strategy. We would endorse that, and support and applaud the action on Bill C-303, which is currently before the House. That is a child care bill that will move us forward.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the things we haven't really talked about today, and I'm kind of surprised about it, is child care. In the last election it was a pretty important issue. I think in the next election it will be very clear that there are two very different ideologies when it comes to families and child care in this country. There's the Liberal-NDP-Bloc view that the only option worth federal consideration is a universal, institutional, top-down, unionized, nine-to-five option. Of course, it has been mentioned that there would be a choice for families who want to opt out, but that option wouldn't be worthy of any federal support, for sure. Then there's the Conservative view that we favour equality of choice for families to make the best decision for their own circumstances.

I noticed some interesting quotes. Back in September, the Times and Transcript in Moncton wrote: “The former federal Liberal government was attempting to initiate a massive, universal daycare program that would have cost Canadian taxpayers billions, all on the basis of oft-heard claims by lobby groups that it was essential and would solve the problem of massive shortages, but that were based on dubious research and questionable facts.”

Even, actually, the former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister, Sheila Copps, said the last agreement--that would be the Liberal agreement “saw some provinces rake in millions without creating a single new daycare space. The Liberal plan is a cash cow for governments while families are cash poor.”

Then actually, the current finance critic for the Liberal Party back in 2000 made, I thought, a very good statement here. He said: “I am strongly opposed to any new national day care program with the cost running into the tens of billions of dollars. Given economic realities and competing demands on government resources, these are programs we cannot afford.” That was back in 2000, and of course, I would note that this is completely inconsistent with Liberal support of Bill C-303.

I have three questions.

Generally, I'd like to know if you can tell me what action the Conservative government has taken to give Canadian parents real choice in child care?

Secondly, and a little bit more specifically, how much money has been transferred to the provinces to support creation of child care spaces? How many have been announced thus far?

The third question I had was regarding Bill C-303. Can you maybe explain to the committee why our government will not support this bill?

Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-28. In the view of New Democrats, this was an unprecedented opportunity to invest in Canadians. Instead we see a Conservative government that continues to take Canada in the wrong direction.

It was not a balanced approach. It could have provided targeted tax relief for those who needed it most, instead of providing billions of dollars in tax relief to the friends of the Conservatives, the oil and gas companies. It was an opportunity to close that ever increasing prosperity gap. However, as we have seen in many of the programs and legislation that comes from the Conservative government, it has not invested in working class and middle class families, in ordinary Canadians.

With regard to the wrong direction, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, in a 2007 paper called “Why Inequality Matters: The Canadian Case”, talks about that growing prosperity gap. It see income distribution deteriorating.

The rich and poor gap is at a 30 year high, in after tax terms, the fastest growth in the past 10 years under economic conditions that traditionally lead to it falling. There is a far greater polarization of incomes. The bottom half has been shut out of economic gains of the last 30 years, despite working more hours. As a cohort, these families raising children are better educated and working more than those 30 years ago. On average, those families are working 200 hours more a year. That truly is a prosperity gap.

In the economic statement, the government talks about delivering broad based tax relief for individuals, families and businesses. Let us do a bit of a reality check around that.

The government's own document says that families earning between $15,000 and $30,000 will pay on average almost $180 less in tax in 2008. My question has always been this. Exactly how many child care spaces, how many child care days, does $180 in tax relief pay for?

Social Planning Cowichan recently issued a report in October. It talks about quality child care. I will read briefly from that because my community is in a crisis around child care. It says:

Quality, affordable child care is crucial to the social and economic welfare of the Cowichan Region. The successful development of our children, especially in the early years, has a long term impact on our region....

Currently, there is a critical lack of licensed child care spaces in the Cowichan Region, with enough spaces to serve only 48 percent of the estimated 4,862 children under the age of 12 who need child care. For the estimated 1,047 aged three and under who need child care, there are only 165 licensed spaces, or 16 percent of the number needed.

This situation continues to worsen due to the current labour shortage and increasing cost of housing which requires that most families need two incomes to afford a home which is resulting in an estimated 70 to 75 percent of mothers entering the workforce.

Three significant barriers to providing quality child care are consistently identified by information gathered from interviews with local informants as well as the websites of many provincial, national and international organizations involved in promoting quality, affordable child care: lack of child care spaces; funding for child care services and programs; staffing, training, recruitment and retention in birth to three year services.

The economic statement would have been an opportunity to take meaningful action around child care. The Conservatives will talk about choice in child care when they talk about the $100 a month, but that $100 a month simply does not create new child care spaces.

The New Democrats have put forward Bill C-303, which calls for meaningful attention to early learning and child care. One would hope, with the kind of support this bill has garnered, that the Conservatives would have seen fit to take the opportunity in the economic statement to invest in the creation of child care spaces and in early learning. Instead, we have seen tax relief of $180 a year for people earning between $15,000 and $30,000 a year. This kind of tax relief will not create child care spaces.

In my province of British Columbia, and I know in other provinces, many industries are facing severe labour shortages. We could have encouraged people to join the labour force by ensuring there would be affordable, quality, regulated child care. This was a missed opportunity to invest in working and middle class families. This was a missed opportunity to close that prosperity gap.

Another element that is of critical importance to Canadians, certainly to those living in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, is housing. On October 22, the United Nations special rapporteur on adequate housing, Miloon Kothari, took a preliminary look at the Canadian housing situation. I will quote from his report because he says it far better than I could. He says:

Everywhere that I visited in Canada, I met people who are homeless and living in adequate and insecure housing conditions. On this mission I heard of hundreds of people who have died, as a direct result of Canada's nation-wide housing crisis. In its most recent periodic review of Canada's compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the United Nations used strong language to label housing and homelessness and inadequate housing as a “national emergency”.

This is an international overview of what is happening in Canada. People are saying that the housing situation is in a crisis.

Mr. Kothari goes on in his report to talk about why there has been a significant erosion of housing policy rights over the past two decades. Not only is the current Conservative government not taking the kind of action that is required in terms of a national housing strategy, but when the Liberals were in government, they directly contributed to the crisis that we are in today.

Mr. Kothari says:

—Even more dramatic housing cuts in the coming years as the federal government “steps out” of its financial commitments under the 1973 to 1993 national housing programme.

--Reductions in income support programs at the federal level, and in every province, that have left many Canadians with little money to pay for ever-increasing housing costs, and

--A shift in housing policy to provide support for homeownership, mainly through the tax system, while eroding support for social and rental housing.

It is clearly a failure of leadership, both under the Conservatives and under the previous Liberal government.

The Cowichan Valley fall 2006 report talks about the crisis that has emerged in Nanaimo—Cowichan. It talks about the fact that no new rental units have been built in the Cowichan region during the last 20 years, therefore the supply is scarce. Vacancy rates in private rental buildings in the city of Duncan and in North Cowichan have declined in recent years from 8.4% in October 2002 to 1.6% in October 2005.

Under rents and incomes in the same report, in 2001 more than 6% of households in the CVRD had incomes of less than $10,000, and an additional 14% had incomes of between $10,000 and $19,999 and a further additional 12.9% had incomes between $20,000 and $29,999, in total, 35% of the households. Clearly, the ability to afford rent is a significant issue for many people in the region. The proportion of households spending more than 30% of their gross income on rent was higher in the CVRD than for B.C. as a whole. Thirty-five per cent of the households in my riding are making under $30,000. The $180 tax relief is in the pockets of 35% of the households in my riding. How will $180 help someone rent an apartment when rents are rising because of the severe shortage in supply?

A national housing strategy looked at a continuum housing, from homelessness, transitional shelters, accommodation for singles and families, up to aging in place. We need a continuum. We need that national strategy. That was in the Cowichan Valley. It is no different in the city of Nanaimo.

Another report talked about the market rental and row housing vacancy. It was 3.4% in 2002 and down to 1.4% in 2005. They are turning away people from emergency shelters. Transition houses that responded cited the increasing cost of housing, both owned and rental. They also cited the increasing incidence of homelessness and raised concerns about the declining stock of rental and market housing.

A number of suggestions have been made on actions that can be taken to deal with it. It is no surprise that people in Nanaimo are calling for a range of housing types catering to different ages, family types and income levels, including smaller unit sizes to low income single adults and seniors.

Back in March, a panel, sponsored by the Nanaimo Canadian Federation of University Women, talked about the fact that there were a significant number of women in Nanaimo living on the streets. The Haven Society's Willow WAI for Women have said that 99% of homeless women generally have addiction or mental health issues, are undereducated, lack employment life skills and many commit crimes to support an addiction. They become homeless because of estrangement from their families due to violence or drug use, or marital breakdown or incarceration, or they have been evicted and lack affordable housing.

Affordable and adequate safe housing is only one part of dealing with homelessness in a community. We certainly see that very visible face of homelessness in many of our communities. The economic statement and the throne speech were an opportunity to take leadership both in Canada and internationally in a meaningful national housing strategy. It was a failure in dealing with some of these very serious issues confronting our communities.

Again, the economic statement talked about the fact that people who worked on our shop floors and assemble lines or in our forests and mills were struggling, that the manufacturing and forestry sectors were bearing the brunt of a strong Canadian dollar, that they were facing increased competition from emerging economies and that this is a difficult situation.

I argue the fact that a difficult situation is probably an understatement. In many of communities in Nanaimo—Cowichan our forestry sector reeling. Another one of the pulp and paper mills in my riding has applied for bankruptcy protection, and those are important jobs in our community. Forestry is not a sunset industry. Forestry is a vibrant and vital industry in the province of British Columbia and in other provinces across the country. We are not seeing a strategic investment and national leadership in forestry.

In my province and in my riding, raw log exports continue to be a source of aggravation. Our raw resources are being shipped elsewhere for processing as our sawmills close down. The closure of those sawmills is having repercussions for the pulp and paper mills. When the Bloc put forward a motion calling for some attention to manufacturing and forestry, the Conservatives voted against it and the Liberals abstained, instead of taking a strong stand for our forestry communities across the country.

Our critic for industry, the member for Parkdale—High Park, has compiled some good statistics. She talks about the fact that we have seen significant job loss. She said that there were job losses resulting in 8% of wood products. In British Columbia the manufacturing and forestry sector has lost 13,700 jobs. That is partly to do with the softwood lumber agreement. It did not take into consideration the downturn in the housing sector in the United States. This means the price per board foot has now dropped below that threshold, so we are now paying a 15% tax.

The economic statement acknowledged that forestry was struggling, that these were difficult times, yet there was no commitment in either the throne speech or the economic statement to develop a national strategy to ensure that our forestry sector would remain as a vibrant and vital part of our economy.

When we are talking about closing the prosperity gap, let us just turn for one moment to first nations.

First nations, Inuit and Métis across this country continue to be the poorest of the poor. One of the pillars that we know will contribute to raising people out of poverty is education. The throne speech did mention education. The minister said that there needed to be investment in skills training and development with regard to industries emerging in the north. I would argue that there needs to be a far broader plan for education in this country.

We are seeing discrepancies throughout the first nations education system from coast to coast to coast. In an article today in the Winnipeg Free Press, there is an editorial on education on reserves. The numbers here highlight the difference. On one hand, we hear the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development talking about the importance of standards and looking at provincial standards, curriculum and those kinds of things, and yet, on the other hand, he is telling first nations schools on reserve that he wants them to meet the standards but that he does not actually want to give them the same amount of money.

We have provincial standards on a per capita basis that talk about how much provincial governments say is necessary to provide an adequate education in the K to 12 system, but then we have the federal government telling first nations on reserve schools that it wants to deliver the same standards of education but that it does not want to give the money needed to do it.

Let us talk about some of these numbers. In this editorial it states:

The base funding--per student grants--from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada for on-reserve schools across Canada is lower than provincial grants, and that extends to grants that cover special education. As an example, in Manitoba the Opaskwayak Education Authority receives total federal funding that works out to $6,400 per student.

Contrast that to the Wapanohk Community School in Thompson--whose student body is almost entirely aboriginal--which is under a public school board that spends an average $9,384 per student. On average, Manitoba school boards spent $8,900 per pupil. Across the western provinces, the average was $8,386, according to a report compiled by the Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education.

There is roughly a $3,000 difference between what the province of Manitoba is spending and what is funded for, in this case, one on reserve school. This is not atypical. This is happening in provinces across this country.

In 2004, the Auditor General said that the department did not have a good handle on the funds that were required for education and did know whether or not it was actually getting results for the money it was spending.

Right now the first nations educational renewal is up in 2008 and there is something called a band operating funding formula. Here we are, at the end of November, and there still has not been agreement on this band operating funding formula. We know there are huge discrepancies. At a meeting with the department and the minister this morning, they said that it was difficult and that there were different things happening in different provinces.

We talk about a prosperity gap. First nations are certainly in the middle of that prosperity gap. One in four first nations children live in poverty, which means their families live in poverty. We know that one of the elements to raising people out of poverty is adequate education so why are we not investing in education?

The same thing is happening with the building of schools. We have schools in Manitoba that have been on wait lists forever. We have schools in Saskatchewan where, from the department's own records, there is a serious problem with the funding. We heard from the department today that it is juggling funding around when there is an emergency.

If we truly mean that we are committed to education, we need to put the money into the education system for first nations, Métis and Inuit so they have access to an adequate education.

The economic update and the throne speech are missed opportunities to close that prosperity gap and it clearly takes Canada in the wrong direction. Therefore, we will not be supporting that.

Oral Questions

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex falsely accused the NDP of somehow manipulating the process regarding Bill C-303.

I want to be very clear that the NDP, as with other parties, completely stood by the Standing Orders. It was within normal procedure in terms of the process with Bill C-303.

I would ask the member to withdraw his remarks because he has made an allegation that somehow the NDP manipulated the process when in fact we stood by the process and did what is usual practice in the House regarding a private member's bill.

Bill C-303

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday night we sat in this place ready to hear the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development speak to Bill C-303, a bill that the NDP had identified as a priority. However, when private members' hour came, imagine this. The NDP manipulated the system to delay the debate on its own child care bill on National Child Day.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary has any insight into why the NDP might have done this and whether our government supports this private member's bill.

The House resumed from November 20, consideration of the motion that 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, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

Private Members' Business

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

Mr. Speaker, last night I sat in this place ready to hear the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development speak to Bill C-303, a bill the NDP has identified as a priority.

However, when the private members' hour came I was shocked to see NDP members use procedural tricks to delay debating this bill. Imagine, NDP members manipulating the system to delay debate on their own child care bill on National Child Day.

One might ask why they would do this. Do they not want parents to hear how this bill would remove real choice in child care by limiting the options available to them? Are they afraid the public will realize that the only thing this bill would do is remove money from the provinces that do not cave in and support their one size fits all model?

Or, do they not want Canadians to know that the provinces oppose this bill and say that it would put a halt to the creation of tens of thousands of child care spaces across this country? Are those the reasons?

Or, is it that the NDP simply wants to play politics with this important issue without actually having to talk about the facts?

Child Care

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative child care policy has failed working families. The Prime Minister talks about giving parents choice, but tens of thousands of parents are stuck on long wait lists. They watch fees rise out of reach or their local day care centres close because the centres cannot find or afford qualified staff. What choice do these parents have?

Working parents know the importance of quality child care for the healthy development of their children. What about their choice?

Today's vote on my Bill C-303 is crucial. The bill would guarantee affordable, high quality early learning and child care that working families need and want and that Conservatives could not take away.

I ask all Canadians to join me in telling the Conservative government to stop restricting parents' choices and standing in the way of our children's futures.

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported, with amendment, from the committee.

National Child Day

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

Mr. Speaker, today is National Child Day, a day to celebrate the rights of children.

Sixteen years ago, Canada signed on to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, yet for 16 years Canada has had no one to monitor the well-being of children. It has had no target or action plan to fight child poverty or obesity. It has had no national child care plan.

In fact, it has had no plan for kids at all.

To make matters worse, Conservatives are doing nothing while foreign corporations are trying to buy up child care centres right across Canada. Big box child care centres have a lower quality and higher fees. Worst of all, they make 40% of their revenues from public dollars.

However, there is an answer. The NDP's early learning and child care act returns to Parliament today. I urge all members to vote yes to higher quality, affordable and non-profit child care and yes to Bill C-303.

Our children deserve the best possible head start in life. Let us stand up and be counted and support our children and their working families.

Opposition Motion—The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, I want you to imagine what you could do with $60 billion.

Canada is a relatively large country with a very small population. We need more children in Canada. We need a vibrant economy. Yesterday was child care workers appreciation day. We do know that it takes a village to raise a child. We also know that early learning and child care is critically important. The first six years of a child's life is the time when the child is learning and the child's brain is developing the most. We need to invest to help young people, our children, to learn.

One would think that Canada would be investing in early childhood education and yet that is not what I see. On a day that is supposed to appreciate child care workers, I note that those very dedicated workers have an average income of $23,000. There are child care workers in my riding in Toronto who say that $23,000 is not enough money to take care of their own kids and still be able to pay the rent. Imagine earning $23,000 today. Child care workers have two years of early childhood education training. They have a college diploma. Yet still they make $23,000 a year. That is a very low wage.

As a result there is a large turnover in child care workers. The quality of early learning and child care is not improving. Here in Canada we are at the bottom of the heap. We have the lowest dollar amount of investment in all of the OECD countries. It is a shame that we are at the bottom of the heap. Not only is that a problem but there is a very huge multinational corporation involved in child care, called ABC Learning Centres, from Australia. It is organized and owned by a person nicknamed Fast Eddie.

The corporation has seen an opportune moment. It has a different name in Canada, 1,2,3 Busy Beaver, or something like that. That corporation is beginning to take over a lot of the child care operations in Canada. It is trying to buy them up. We are beginning to see big box child care in Canada. Why is that a problem? In Australia, for example, since the big box child care operation has come onto the scene, non-profit child care centres, mom and pop operations are being taken over by the company ABC Learning Centres. As a result, the wages and quality of service have gone down.

In Canada we need to invest in early childhood education from the funding from taxes. We need to have a legislative framework in the form of Bill C-303 to say that the kind of services we are developing in Canada have to be non-profit. The 10 years of corporate tax cuts represent at least $60 billion. Each year we are losing $13 billion that could be invested in early childhood education.

Not only should we invest in early childhood education, but we absolutely need to invest in young people. It is correct to say that in the last 10 years a lot of cuts have been made to post-secondary education. Tuition fees are putting tremendous pressure on many families. Young people in universities are struggling.

We need a new grants program in order to make post-secondary education more affordable. We need to expand the eligibility criteria for the debt reduction in repayment program. We have to increase federal transfers to the provinces to reduce tuition fees. We have to increase funding to support aboriginal students. We need to look at what kind of grant program we can offer to young people.

If we are looking at productivity and investing in our future, we also have to look at investing in immigrants. We have to bring more immigrants to this country.

I note the motion says that we have to deal with the foreign credential problem. This problem has been around for many years. We bring in new immigrants and yet we do not recognize their degrees. As a result, a lot of talent and skill is being wasted in this country. The Conference Board of Canada has said that we are losing at least $1 billion in earnings because new immigrants are not able to practise the profession they had in their home country. On the one hand we do not have enough nurses and doctors especially in our rural areas, and on the other hand, we are saying to these nurses and doctors that they cannot practise their profession in Canada. That is a waste of talent in this country. No wonder our productivity is slipping.

There has been a lot of debate today about how more corporate tax cuts by some magical means would increase our productivity. A graph would show that for the last 10 years our corporate tax rates have declined from 28% to 21%. Those rates will go down to 18.5% by 2011. That is a huge amount of money.

One would think that our productivity would be rising based on the kind of theory that is being thrown out by the Liberals and the Conservatives, but it is not. It has not increased because we are not investing in our young people, we are not investing in our children, and we are not investing in average Canadian families. We are not even investing in research and development. Those are the reasons that our productivity is dropping.

We are also not bringing enough immigrants into this country. One per cent of our population is supposed to be made up of immigrants, and yet over the last 10 years we have never brought anywhere close to 320,000 immigrants into this country. At most, we have brought in 260,000 or 265,000 immigrants. Canada needs more people. We need more young families. We need to invest in them and yet we are not doing so.

We are having this very artificial debate today about the GST, about the corporate tax cuts. What is the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives? Both parties are saying they will cut the corporate tax rate by 2% each year. There has been no change. That direction was started by the former Liberal government in 2000, and the Conservative government is just continuing with that trend.

With that $60 billion, not only could we invest in children, in new immigrants, and in young people, but we could also invest in our cities, in our crumbling infrastructure, the environment, in energy, to retrofit homes, in farmers, and in artists. There is so much we could do. This is a missed opportunity.

Business of the House

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Before we begin private members' business today, I would like to remind the House that yesterday the Speaker made a statement in which he reminded the House that all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that were listed on the order paper during the previous session are reinstated to the order paper and shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the first session. This also means that those items on the order of precedence remain on the order of precedence or, as the case may be, are referred to committee or sent to the Senate.

Just as individual items of private members' business continue their legislative progress from session to session, the Chair's rulings on these same items likewise survive prorogation. Specifically, there are six bills on which the Chair either ruled or commented with regard to the issue of the royal recommendation. The purpose of this statement is to remind the House of those rulings or statements.

Members will recall that on May 4 the Speaker made a statement expressing concern regarding the spending provisions contemplated by two bills, namely: Bill C-357, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence, standing in the name of the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement), standing in the name of the member for Brampton West.

Just as was done last May, the Chair invites members who would like to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation for these two bills or any of the other bills on the order of precedence to do so at an early opportunity.

Members will also recall that during the last session some private members' bills were found by the Speaker to require a royal recommendation. At the time of prorogation, there were four such bills on the order of precedence or in committee. Let us review briefly the situation in each of these four cases.

Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits),standing in the name of the member for Acadie—Bathurst, was before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of persons with disabilities. The Chair ruled, on March 23, 2007, that the bill, in its present form, needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Bill C-284, An Act to amend the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act (Canada access grants), standing in the name of the member for Halifax West, was awaiting debate at report stage. On November 9, 2006, the Chair had ruled that the bill, in its form at second reading, needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. In committee all clauses of the bill were deleted. In its present eviscerated form, Bill C-284 need no longer be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Bill C-303, an act for early learning and child care, standing in the name of the member for Victoria, was awaiting debate at report stage in the House. The Chair ruled on November 6, 2006, that the bill, in its form at second reading, needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. The Chair finds that the amendments reported back from committee do not remove the requirement that the bill be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Finally, Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), standing in the name of the member for Laurentides—Labelle, was at third reading in the House. The Chair ruled, also on November 6, 2006, that the bill, in its form at second reading, needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation and reminded members, on April 18, 2007, that the amendments reported back from committee did not remove this requirement.

Consistent with past practice, although today's debate on Bill C-269 may proceed, the Chair wishes to remind members that the question on third reading of the bill in its present form will not be put unless a royal recommendation is received.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Child Care

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a large number of parents across Canada who say that high quality child care is a benefit to all children, that it enhances health and school readiness, that it reduces family poverty, that it promotes social inclusion and workforce productivity and that cancelling funding for new child care after a year eliminates the plans of communities to expand affordable child care to rural and other high needs communities in developing their child care plans.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to increase the funding for a national child care program and also protect child care and make it accountable by enshrining it in legislation with Bill C-303, the national child care act, to be a cornerstone of Canada, like the Canada Health Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from many parents who are desperately waiting for child care.

The petitioners have a concern that funding designated for child care has in many provinces disappeared and there is no accountability and federal legislation governing child care funding. For example, close to a billion dollars has been sent to the province of Ontario from 2005 until now, yet most of the funding has not reached child care providers or been used to create new child care spaces.

The petitioners ask that we protect child care by enshrining it in legislation with a national child care act, Bill C-303, and that we achieve multi-year funding to ensure that publicly operated child care programs are sustainable over the long term.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Allison.

I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Chong. I'd suggest that I go through my series of questions, and then Mr. Chong can go through his series of questions. You can then respond to both of us at the end.

I was a little surprised to see this bill put forward, given what we saw happen during the Liberal tenure in office. Tuition increased over 13 years, access shrank as capacity decreased, and cuts rose.

I was a little perplexed to see it brought forth by a Liberal member, especially when the member voted against the recent budget increases for university infrastructure, which added $800 million in money for universities and a $39 billion increase for the Canadian social transfer.

We already heard my colleague, Ms. Yelich, speak of the $5.4 billion annually in support for students.

In terms of this particular proposal, I want to know what additional information you could provide in terms of the completion rate for students who use these grants, the percentage of grants given out to students who would otherwise not have gone to university, and the percentage given to students who would go if they did not receive these grants.

The final note I want you to comment on is this. I think we're going to hear from Canadian Federation of Students later today. As I understand it, they have suggested in the past that increases in grants could result in the provinces clawing back the amount by raising tuition fees to meet the shortfalls created by the $25 billion that was cut by the previous Liberal government, of which, if I recall, you were a minister.

My concern on that front is this. A few weeks ago this committee met over Bill C-303. Your colleagues expressed concern that the provinces could potentially claw back child care money. We already saw Dalton McGuinty do it in Ontario, where the budget only allotted $25 million of the $97.5 million that was allotted to them.

Three weeks ago your colleagues expressed concern over the provinces clawing back. Right now we're presented with the picture that the same expectation doesn't exist on the proposal you're putting forward. Was there a side conversation you'd had with the provinces that would give you that impression?

I think the concern we've heard from student unions and the Canadian Federation of Students is a real one. Education was radically attacked during the previous Liberal government. It's a possibility that the provinces could use these funds and say it's to make up for the money the Liberals cut. It's a valid concern.

I'll let Mr. Chong ask his questions.

[Nancy Peckford, Member, Council of Advocates, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada]

I think that's very important. Doubling the commitment from $250 million to $500 million by taking the tax revenue from the UCCB would be very helpful. I think what's even more important is some accountability for these dollars. We saw in the media in the last couple of weeks how the $250 million is being put in the CST that is transferred to provinces and territories. Provinces thought they had significant money to work with. Now they've had that cut, so they're nervous about investing in long-term system building. It makes it very difficult for them to actually create the spaces that families need.

I think it's critical that we have legislation and that Bill C-303 be passed to ensure that the $250 million--and even better, $500 million--that's transferred to the provinces and territories be directed towards a system that will benefit children and their families.

[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.

[John Huether]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I'm very honoured to be able to make this presentation on behalf of Success by Six Peel. My name is John Huether and I'm a volunteer member of the executive of the Council of Champions of Success by Six Peel. In the past, I was the executive director of the Peel Children's Aid Society.

Success by Six is a collaboration of more than 40 partners from different sectors of the community, including business, labour, and human services. We are dedicated to ensuring that all children zero to six will thrive in Peel. We are committed to research, public and professional education, and community capacity building. Success by Six provides coordinating support to a variety of early learning and child care programs, including neighbourhood parenting programs. Our strength is in our multidisciplinary approach.

There are over 100,000 children in Peel under the age of five. A recent study of school readiness using the widely recognized early development instrument revealed that more than 27% of the children entering school in Peel Region were not ready to learn in one or more of the domains covered by the EDI.

In Peel, one in seven children live in poverty. Only 4,000 children have access to fee subsidy for child care within the 22,500 licensed spaces in the region. Therefore, there is a great need to increase the number of licensed and subsidized spaces within our region. To address the gap in Peel and in many other regions of Canada, significant investments must be made by both the provincial and federal governments in early learning and child care.

We're very pleased that Parliament has passed Bill C-303 through second reading for review by this committee. We believe that, if passed, this bill can make a positive contribution. It is extremely important that much-needed additional investments in early learning and child care are made consistent with the principles of quality, accessibility, universality, and accountability. Therefore, we support the express purpose of the bill as outlined.

We are supportive of the definition of early learning and child care service, which includes parent support and child drop-in centres. We are strongly in favour of the provision of substantially more child care spaces for parents and families, and support the range of options listed. We are also cognizant of the value of high-quality parenting support programs, which teach parents strategies to promote healthy development. Programs such as the Ontario Early Years Centres in neighbourhood hubs have demonstrated their value to children and parents. These parenting support services can well be combined with core child care services and programs so there is flexibility to respond to the needs of families. A full range of child care programs and parenting support programs should be supported by this bill.

We're supportive of the provisions in the bill that address quality. The reference to standards related to compensation in subclause 5(3) is welcome. The provision would support the need to increase the salaries of many professionals in the early learning and child care field who are not fairly compensated for their contributions to the well-being of children and society. In Peel, for example, the average salary of early childhood educators is in the neighbourhood of $18,000.

In examining subclause 5(3) on quality and in keeping with the above comments about parent support programs, we would urge that the criteria be written in such a way that does not preclude parent support programs being funded using federal dollars. We are concerned that the current wording of paragraph 5(3)(b) may have this result. Perhaps an additional provision related to parent-child programs in this section might be added.

Universality, in our view, is important to an effective, accessible early learning and child care program. We agree with the interpretation that this means these programs should be available to every child whose parent or guardian wishes to avail themselves of them.

There is a danger that the words “equally entitled to early learning and child care services that are appropriate to their needs” will continue to mean having equal access to waiting lists, unless greater investment is forthcoming.

We wonder if consideration could be given to setting targets for funding for early learning and child care. This could lead to Canada's investing 1.25% or 1.5% of GDP in early learning and child care, instead of our appallingly low current contribution of 0.25%.

We are encouraged by the specific reference to children with special needs in subclause 5(5). In making this provision a reality, the contributions and supports provided by specialized services to young children with special needs must be recognized. Speech and language specialists, public health nurses, mental health workers, occupational and physiotherapists all contribute to quality programming for special needs children in early learning and child care programs. Therefore, it is important to include the funding of these kinds of supports for integration, as well as appropriate teacher–child ratios within the purview of this legislation.

We welcome the accountability requirements outlined in clause 8. It is important that Canada have the ability to track the impact of its investments in supporting children in their early years.

We are also supportive of the provisions for the creation of the advisory council on early learning and child care. We know from the growing body of research in neuroscience and other sciences that the early years are crucial to the healthy development of all children. It is therefore important to support investment in early learning and child care.

Parents and families have the primary responsibility to care for and make sound decisions about their child's development. They should be supported in their responsibilities. To the significant extent that this bill supports this policy direction, it is worthy of support.

Thank you very much.

[Sue Colley, Volunteer, Code Blue for Child Care]

I won't take that much time, I think.

Good morning. My name is Sue Colley. I am the executive director of Building Blocks for Child Care, B2C2, which is a community not-for-profit development agency for child care, and I'm also a steering committee member of the Code Blue campaign for child care.

I really can't add very much to what Morna has said. I think that what we wanted to do.... Actually, Morna has given me copious notes about what's been going on in these hearings that she attended every day, and we thought it would be nice to try to simplify what we think the bill represents and why it's important to pass this bill, and present it in a simple table.

Simply, I would like to suggest that we just go through this list of what it does and what it doesn't do. First, it does not create a national program of early learning and child care. It does not direct the choices that families make for child care. We think that those are completely independent of this act. What it does do, however, is create a small number of conditions to any federal funding that Parliament decides to transfer to the provinces and territories for early learning and child care services. It does not authorize any spending or any increase in federal or provincial or territorial funding for early learning and child care, but what it does do is it makes provinces and territories accountable for any funding that they receive.

For example, if Bill C-303 became law, the $600 million in federal transfers would be directed only to those provinces and territories with plans providing comprehensive early learning and child care that are of high quality, universal, and accessible. These transfers to the provinces would have to satisfy criteria related to accountability. And I do believe that with the federal government now spending $2.65 billion that is really dedicated to early learning and child care, taxpayers would be pleased about the fact that there would be accountability for this.

It does not prevent any additional allocations. It does require that governments publicly report on how they spend federal funding. It doesn't venture into areas of provincial jurisdiction, as confirmed by the justice department in an earlier submission. It does require provinces and territories to consider the needs of children who are frequently excluded from programs; so children with special needs and children who live in rural, remote, and northern areas would be covered by this legislation. It doesn't limit federal funding only to the children of parents in the workforce. It makes programs open to all parents, whether the parents work or not. It does not address all the needs of Canadian families or children, nor does it preclude the federal government from giving children and families other supports, such as income supplements and enhanced parental leave, which we also think would be a good thing. It does require provinces and territories to address the high costs of early learning and child care, and it does require provinces and territories to address the uneven quality in early learning and child care, which means taking steps to ensure that every child attending receives a program that supports their well-being and development.

I would just add that the rest of our concerns about this bill are articulated in our brief and we also have a few other sheets that we have handed out. I just would like to add that we are very supportive of the two amendments that we believe have been proposed. One is an amendment that would incorporate language about aboriginal peoples being included in the act explicitly. And secondly, because we have never believed that family home child care is a for-profit service, we think that this should be clarified in the act so that it can be embraced within the act and within the funding.

I hope the members of the committee will see it in their wisdom to embrace the simplicity and the importance of the accountability provisions in this bill and enact it into legislation.

Thank you.

[Morna Ballantyne, Volunteer, Code Blue for Child Care]

Thank you very much.

I'm Morna Ballantyne. I'm going to share the seven minutes with Sue.

Thanks very much for the opportunity to be here with you.

I'll take a few minutes to explain what Code Blue is. We're actually not an organization; we describe ourselves as a “campaign” that has the support of a number of organizations and a number of individuals.

I was going to print out a list of all the individuals who support our campaign. I actually have a printout of half of our supporters--and it's here, but I'm not going to unroll it, because it's 85 feet long--just to give you a sense of who we represent and that we are representing large numbers of Canadians who are concerned about the state of early learning and child care in Canada.

We're very excited that Parliament and your committee are once again addressing a piece of legislation regarding early learning and child care. It's of course not the first time. This issue has been on the political agenda for many years.

I'm a parent of two children. I consider myself to be one of the relative newcomers to this issue, having been involved for 22 years. I got involved when I was pregnant with my first son.

This is an issue that is not going to go away until we have a system of early learning and child care, not just in Quebec but in all of Canada.

We want to make it clear that Bill C-303, in our opinion, which we support, does not in fact give Canadians everything that we need and want with respect to child care policy and programs. In fact, it's only one government instrument that's required. There are lots of other instruments that are required to be put in place by different levels of government, community, and individuals.

We've been following your committee deliberations very closely--I've been in attendance at every one of your hearings--and we are incredibly impressed with the attention you're giving to this issue, to this legislation. We're also impressed with the excellent submissions made by other witnesses.

But we think that there is still a lack of clarity about what this bill does and doesn't do. We've tried to summarize in a handout--in case you're wondering where that handout came from, that's from us--in a chart, some of the aspects of the bill. We hope that will help to clarify some of the myths and some of the realities.

One of the things we want to make clear is that we think this piece of legislation is actually very simple and straightforward. In fact, the representatives from the justice department testified to that.

It's certainly not advancing anything new. There's been a suggestion that it's not right or it's not proper for a piece of legislation to try to deal with this very complex issue. But in fact this legislation deals with issues that have been on the table, the subject of public and political debate and the subject of very complex federal-provincial negotiations, for many years.

Bill C-303 in fact represents a consensus of what the federal government needs to do. It also reflects what we know are the best practices in early learning and child care.

Sue is going to emphasize some of the other aspects of what the bill does and what it doesn't do.

[Martha Friendly, Member, Steering Committee, Campaign 2000]

Thank you.

I'm the coordinator of the Childcare Resource and Research Unit, and I'm a national partner of Campaign 2000 and a member of the steering committee.

I want to talk first about a couple of the main reasons that a universal system is really the best way to address the early learning and child care needs of children living in poverty.

First of all, poverty is dynamic; it's not static. This is true in Canada and it's also true in other countries. What you find is that who is poor at any given time changes over the years, and you can see that reflected in the child poverty numbers. Over a period of time, more of those children will have lived in a low-income family than the number of poor children at any one time. I think American research illustrates this very clearly also. A family can become poor if a job is lost or if there's a divorce, or through the death of one of the family members. From that point of view, it's really essential to have the support of a robust system of early learning and child care in order to meet the needs of those families if they change.

The other thing, and I think this is really important to keep in mind, is the idea of programs for the poor and universal programs, which Canada has tended to support. The statement that programs for the poor are poor programs is often attributed to Wilbur Cohen, who is one of the architects of American social security. The experience in other countries, particularly the United States, really does show that programs that are aimed at the poor are often marginalized programs in terms of recognition and support, and I think a really good illustration of this is the American head start program, which I got my start in early childhood education working on. In fact, that has never met the needs of even the poor families for whom it's intended. There are real shortages and underfunding. It's a very good illustration of the difference between programs for the poor and universal programs.

So just to pick up a couple of the elements of Bill C-303 that Campaign 2000 supports, in addition to the universal approach, first of all, the objectives of the bill that are stated at the beginning, that the primary objectives are to promote early childhood development and well-being and at the same time to support the participation of parents in employment or training and community life, are very much in keeping with Campaign 2000's principles. We would also go further to point out that there are other objectives for early learning and child care, such as social cohesion and social inclusion of new Canadians and aboriginal Canadians to bring them into a society, and equity objectives. These are very much our objectives.

We believe there is really the need for an act, because this is an issue of national importance, even though it's clearly within provincial jurisdiction, but a place for the federal government to play a role with the provinces and territories.

We support the conditions placed on universality, accessibility, and quality as merely illustrations of best practices for early learning and child care policy, and that's according to the body of empirical research and policy analysis. We very much urge accountability for public money spent, and we think the bill reflects those things in its insistence on not-for-profit services and on reporting.

I would just like to mention that we also would support an amendment, if there is an amendment, about the needs of aboriginal communities. We have aboriginal partners in Campaign 2000 who would really like specific recognition of the needs of aboriginal Canadians.

In closing, we would like to note that today, most of Canada's low-income children do not now have access to early learning and child care. I want to note that the OECD has singled Canada out to observe that, in Canada, only 20% of lone parents and 5% of disadvantaged groups are covered by early learning and child care.

I would like to really emphasize that in most parts of Canada, families of all incomes suffer because early learning and child care services do not exist in sufficient numbers or are of mediocre quality or aren't affordable. Bill C-303 is not the whole of the policy solution to this, but it's part of the policy solution. We know this is not a money bill, but together with adequate financing, a full policy framework, and political will at all levels, this legislation can be part of Canada's beginning to ameliorate the dismal state of early learning and child care.

Thank you very much.

[Laurel Rothman, National Coordinator, Campaign 2000]

Thank you.

Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity to talk with you today.

Campaign 2000 is a broad anti-poverty coalition. It's a cross-Canada coalition, founded in 1991, of more than 120 organizations to promote and secure the full implementation of the unanimous 1989 House of Commons resolution to eliminate child poverty in Canada. Clearly we've not achieved that by the year 2000, but we continue to urge all governments to keep their commitments and meet their obligations.

We're a diverse range of partner organizations in every province and territory, including low-income people's groups, parents' groups, child care providers and advocates, housing and health care providers and advocates, unions, women's groups, social planning councils, food banks, teachers, social workers, faith communities, aboriginal groups, and groups representing immigrants and refugees. Our partners in early learning and child care services include the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada; the Canadian Child Care Federation; the Childcare Resource and Research Unit; SpeciaLink, the National Centre for Child Care Inclusion; and the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, to name a few. There will be a list of partners with the brief we submit.

Since our inception we have been committed to a balance of income supports and high-quality community services that are essential and that evidence indicates are needed to significantly reduce and eradicate child and family poverty and improve the life chances of all children. We seek to raise public awareness and to bring to light evidence-based and reasonable policy solutions. We meet with all levels of government, and we're non-partisan.

Martha is going to address some other aspects of the situation.

We're here to support the legislation, Bill C-303. We're very much in agreement with the perspective that child care services must be accessible for all children, not only low-income children. At the same time, a real system of high-quality and accessible child care services is an essential cornerstone of a poverty reduction strategy. I might add that the experience in Quebec, the only province where the child and family poverty rate has continuously gone down since 1997, is illustrative. I think we have to look at it. Perhaps we can talk about that later.

From our point of view, universality means that when a full system has been developed, all children will have access to good services if their parents choose it, whether they're urban or rural, low income, middle income, or well-to-do, have a mother in the paid labour force, or they're aboriginal, Québécois, or a newcomer to the country.

There are a number of reasons we feel that the best way to meet the early learning and child care needs of low-income children is within a universally accessible system. Martha is going to address that.

Thank you.

[Claudette Pitre-Robin, Administrator, Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance]

Good morning. My name is Claudette Pitre-Robin, and I represent the Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance [Quebec association of early childhood centres]. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for accepting to hear our views on this bill.

The Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance agrees with Bill C-303, since clause 4 enables Quebec to continue its child care services program. We feel that it would have been truly unfortunate if this clause had not been in the bill, as it is important to us to be able to continue in the same direction, as Quebec has done over the past decade in developing child care services.

We currently have 200,000 child care spaces at $7 per day. Recent election commitments have led us to believe that another 20,000 spaces would be added to meet the needs of families. We feel that it is important for the Quebec government to be able to continue this approach. We are also pleased that during the course of the coming year, we should not be required to increase the current $7 fee paid by parents.

We do not have a specific brief to support our comments today, but I have taken excerpts from documents that, unfortunately, are not translated. I have left copies on the table at the back. It is a document that we worked on a few months ago to report on public investment in the early childhood development centre network and which shows the impact of these measures in Quebec.

The Quebec government currently invests $1.5 billion in the educational child care services network. That is just under 3% of the government's budget, but in our view, this investment pays huge dividends, economically and socially, and allows for the provision of universal services.

Economically speaking, we were able to measure the important contribution of the early childhood development centres network to economic activity and development in Quebec, as well as the savings generated in terms of long-term social costs.

We also determined that it led to an increase in gross domestic product. In Quebec, the level of economic activity by women of child-bearing age increased by 9% from 1996 to 2005. That increase is twice as high as in the rest of Canada. It means almost 90,000 more women in the workforce, women who are more financially independent and who have often been able to leave a life of poverty.

This has also had a very positive impact on GDP in Quebec and provides an extremely important contribution to the activities of Quebec companies, especially given the imminent shortage of skilled workers.

A Quebec economist, Ruth Rose, did a cost-benefit analysis study of a universal preschool educational program for the Conseil supérieur de l'éducation. She was able to estimate the return on investment for each dollar put into educational child care services in Quebec. Bear in mind that the Quebec government pays 80% of the cost and the parents, 20%.

The document shows many other savings, but I am going to simply tell you about the immediate impact. We have seen a reduction in social assistance spending, since mothers can work, an increase in direct income tax linked to the salaries of the mothers, and there was also job creation in child care, which broadened the tax base.

The federal government also made significant gains, which result mainly from an improved tax base and a reduction in the use of employment insurance.

It is also a critical tool for fighting poverty and social exclusion because it provides affordable educational services of high quality to families, regardless of their socio-economic or geographical situation, because development is done in an equitable fashion in all regions of Quebec.

It also enhances access to the labour market or to education for mothers. It plays a preventative role for children in vulnerable situations. It supports parents in their parental role. It also makes it possible to integrate children with special needs.

We have seen the importance, for children, of increasing income, especially in single-parent families. Poverty indicators produced by Statistics Canada show a spectacular decline, in Quebec, in the number of single-parent families facing poverty where women are the heads of the household, whereas the decrease Canada-wide, although it is significant, is much lower.

According to statistics, in 1997 in Canada, 53% of female-led lone parent families were living below the low-income cutoff, whereas in 2004, it was 40%, or 13% lower. In Quebec, the rate was 60% in 1997 and 30% in 2004, or 30% lower. So there was a 50% reduction in the number of poor single-parent women in Quebec. That is significant, and it is truly one of the fantastic objectives of this policy. Quebec's family policy has therefore had a major impact on the incidence of poverty among children and especially in lone-parent families. We cannot stress enough that this is about supporting the development of all children and that for them, it is a protection factor, especially for those living in a context of vulnerability. You all know that the majority of studies on this topic show that children from under-privileged backgrounds benefit immensely from their child care experience.

As regards universality, social equity is at the heart of the $7-a-day child care network, and often, there is a lot of criticism. On the one hand, if we recognize that it is an essential service, that means that it must be universal. The current system is such that everyone contributes to supporting the family, since a portion of the expenditures are paid by the government. We are asked why parents with higher incomes benefit from spaces at $7. Through the tax system, families that are more well-off are already paying more than $7. Facts show that once tax contributions are applied, parents that are more well-off pay more than $7, as taxpayers in the highest tax bracket account for 60% of individual income tax.

[Yvonne Coupal, Coordinator, Citizens in Favour of Equal Government Childcare Subsidies for All Children]

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the opportunity to testify today.

Let's start at the end. We respectfully recommend the following.

Firstly, all federal MPs elected to ridings in Quebec have the moral obligation to vote against Bill C-303, or at the very least, to abstain from all future votes. Bill C-303 discriminates against the children of Canada by showing prejudice and favouring only one type of child care: that of third-party child care.

Secondly, clause 4 must be deleted from Bill C-303 because it discriminates against nine provinces and the territories in Canada. It demonstrates clear prejudice by favouring one province, Quebec, which is exempted from the constraints provided by the standards, the conditions and the accountability provisions. In addition, the clause will create an intentional fiscal imbalance should it remain in the bill.

Thirdly, all reference to universality in Bill C-303 must be removed because universality is not only unrealistic, it is also fiscally unwise.

Even now we are having difficulty paying for our legislation. If bill C-303 is passed, we are doomed to pay for it with our collective credit card, also dooming the same children whom we say we want to help to bear a huge financial burden. How ironic! Ultimately, the children will be paying the bill. The pernicious effects of universality are creeping into our elementary schools in Quebec. The quality of life, the air quality and the lack of space are deplorable, because, in large part, of the universality of before-school and after-school child care programs that destroy our school infrastructure and undermine the healthy educational climate. There are only so many fish that you cram into a can, even when they are sardines. The can has a lid, but there is no lid on school infrastructure in Quebec because no-one has the courage to put a lid on Utopia. What will it take to do it one day? At the moment, ladies and gentlemen, mum's the word.

Let's start at the end. We respectfully recommend the following.

First, all federal MPs elected to ridings in Quebec have the moral obligation to vote against Bill C-303, or at the very least abstain from all future votes. Bill C-303 discriminates against the children of Canada by showing prejudice and favouring only one type of child care above all others: that of third party child care.

Delete clause 4 from Bill C-303 because it discriminates against nine provinces and three territories in Canada. It demonstrates clear prejudice by favouring one province, Quebec, over and above all others, as Quebec is exempted from the restrictive standards and conditions that will be applied.

In addition, it will create—intentionally, imagine—a new fiscal imbalance, should this remain within the bill.

I always ask myself the same questions in circumstances like these. How many of us went to daycare when we were little? The average age of your committee is around 46. I really doubt that many of you have any experience of daycare at all. If you did, how many went full time, five days a week?

And how many of us who did not attend day care as children—because we might have benefited from other care settings, like our own homes, or with a relative, grandmas, and neighbours—would have preferred to go to day care? Each of us knows the answer deep down inside.

Above all we must not deny this feeling because we have already come out in favour of C-303. There is still enough time to look once more at the whole question of child care inclusively rather than to start from a biased position that favours third-party care.

As adults, we're obliged to take a serious look at the past 10 years of Quebec's day care experiment before short-sightedly imposing a utopian dream, a dream for which the supposed benefits remain unproven to this day.

Quebec MPs are well aware of parents' concerns with third-party child care. Those who use the services know the current shortcomings: a rigid schedule, Monday to Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., no part-time service, no right to pay extra for better services for their children, even out of their own pockets. All in the name of universality.

[Beverley Smith]

Thank you for inviting me. I'm pleased to be here.

I'm particularly impressed with the teleconference, which is, I think, a way to get a lot more public and women's involvement in issues.

When you are discussing Bill C-303, I have to say that it's pretty well impossible to be against a bill to benefit children. I have, for 30 years now, argued for you to be looking at issues like this, to spend more money on children's care, to value the role of the person taking care of children, and to notice that these are pivotal years for the education of children, so that's all good.

I'm not here to criticize the bill for what it says, so much as to criticize it for what it doesn't say. It is actually excluding some important considerations legally and ethically. I've been a long-time promoter of women's rights, to value our paid labour and our unpaid labour, and to value children's rights. This bill is working for educational stimulation, health and safety, the right of women to participate fully in society in ways that they wish. All of those are good goals, but this bill is a problem because it doesn't go far enough.

This bill doesn't give all children benefit. It looks at only one lifestyle and gives it the benefits. That's a concern. So this bill, although good, needs a sister bill in order to be fair. It needs a partner to value what it left out. It did leave out children who are not in the child care settings being provided for--the third-party, non-family-based care. That is actually the majority of children. It omitted children in parental care or grandparent care; the care of a day home, a trusted neighbour, a sitter; home-schooled children; in the care of parents who telecommute, parents who take the child to paid work, parents who do paid work evenings only and weekends off-shifting. These people are also parents and they're also offering care of children, and they vote.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada signed at the United Nations, said a child has the right to be raised in the presence of the parents, wherever possible, and if the parents choose to assign a caregiver, trusting the best judgment of the parents, the caregiver can be anyone who shares their values, their language, their culture, and the things they want to endorse. The parents are the ones trusted to know the best interests of the child.

Children outside the centres are valuable too. This bill has forgotten them. In section 15 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we're told that we have to give equal benefit under the law to all children. So Bill C-303's problem is that it's not universal. It says it gives universal access, but that's a legalistic trick and couldn't hold up under a court. Access to agreeing with a policy isn't really access to equal benefit under the law.

Bill C-303 suggests a majority of women now earn, so they need this bill. In fact, it says its purpose is to help women earn. That's a problem, actually, because if we're going to value care of children, we shouldn't as a main focus be valuing those who are not caring for children. Many women in fact do earn, but they do so from home or part-time and aren't using the third-party-care style.

So this is not in any way a universal benefit program.

You have been told there are wait lists of children who need this service. That may be true in some ways, but the wait lists are a little bit inflated, because children's names appear on several lists and there are names on those lists of children not even born. So it's a little deceptive, and we're not sure the wait-list people are not just waiting for the funding.

Proponents say there's a patchwork of services and we need to standardize. You know, in a democracy a patchwork is actually a good thing because it's a quilt, it's diversity. What we have to be really wary of is something that requires a standardized one-size-fits-all treatment. That's what got us in trouble before.

Proponents of Bill C-303 say universal child care is like medicare. Universal child care is not like medicare. We all risk emergency need of medical assistance if we have sudden illness or injury. Because of that equal risk we have, we pay a universal payment for health care. Child care centres are not locations of emergency risk, and employees are key, but they're not experts the way that medical doctors are experts.

Proponents of Bill C-303 say it's like universal education. We should start it from birth. The problem is that they don't have a monopoly on education. A child is born learning; it's born ready to learn. So although a child may learn in your child care centre, it's not learning any differently from or any better than in some very high-quality homes. Therefore, we should value education wherever it's happening.

Schooling and medical care are actually moving away from the one-size-fits-all formula for funding institutions. They're actually moving towards funding the home. We're trying to get more people cared for medically in the home. It saves money.

We're trying to get diversity for home schooling and other kinds of education to match the needs of the children. So to move to a one-size-fits-all standard is out of touch with what's currently found to be best.

Also, Bill C-303 will cost $10,000 per child per year. Just for the preschoolers in the country, it would $20 billion. The day care federations are saying that their goal is to provide a day care space for every child in the country. We simply cannot afford that.

Let's look at what we can afford that is still of universal benefit. The only way we could make that affordable is to raise taxes, as they do in Sweden, to a 60% tax rate.

[Dave Quist, Executive Director, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to all members of the committee, for the opportunity to present information for your consideration on Bill C-303.

The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada is a research think tank designed to draw together the social science on issues such as the raising of our children. We believe that you, the decision-makers, should consider all the factors involved when making these decisions. To this end, I'm pleased to present a cross-section of some of our work for your consideration.

Much of this research comes out of documents before you, and it's also available in full on our website at imfcanada.org.

One of the crucial pieces of the child care debate is to best determine what it is that parents actually want. There's much rhetoric and a variety of polls of various levels of quality that have been done on this very question. Of primary importance is for officials to not presume what parents of young children want, but to actually ask them. To this end, one year ago we published the results of a survey that delved directly into this question. Copies of this poll have been included in the package that you have before you at this time.

Although there's a lot of information in the survey, please allow me to highlight just a couple of the key pieces that are pertinent to your debate today.

Of the parents who have young children and who may be actually accessing child care, 78% indicated they would prefer if a parent were able to stay home to raise their children. This did not change significantly when we factored in the gender of the parents, the geographic region they came from, or their respective level of education.

Of course, we know that having one parent stay at home is not always feasible, whether this is due to single-parent families, fiscal constraints, or other logistical considerations. To this end, we then asked the respondents what their preference for child care would be. The results that we found were quite dramatic. A majority of 53% indicated they would prefer a relative to care for their child; the following 20% preferred a family child care setting; and trailing were non-profit child care, at less than 17%, and for-profit child care, at a low of 7%.

Again, these results did not change across different break-outs based upon geography, income or education levels, marital status, urban versus rural settings, or gender. One notable exception is that the Quebec respondents had almost an even split between a relative or family child care for their child. If we adjust the results for those parents who have children under six years of age, the results remain almost identical.

It's clear to me from these empirical findings that the intent of Bill C-303 is not in keeping with what Canadian parents desire. We believe that each family has its own unique challenges, and a one-size-fits-all program is not in Canadian parents' best interest.

We believe that the government needs to honour the choices of parents, who are best positioned to nurture and raise their children. Parents who need child care for their children should be allowed to do so in the manner they deem appropriate for their circumstances.

Clause 4 of Bill C-303 notes that the Province of Quebec may exempt itself from the provisions of this bill. My assumption is that this is because Quebec has a form of provincial child care already in place. From listening to previous witnesses, I think the Quebec model has been held up as how a national child care program should indeed be structured.

With all due respect to those who are involved with the Quebec child care program, the latest evaluations clearly show some substantial failings. According to Pierre Lefebvre, professor of economics at the Université du Québec à Montréal, the Quebec policy “favours higher income families, is unfair to families who choose to care for their children themselves or do not use non-parental child care, and is not well suited to parents working part time or non-standard hours.”

Professor Lefebvre continues: “Children from low-income or less-educated families may be triply disadvantaged by being less likely to receive stimulating care at home, less likely to be enrolled in educationally oriented care outside the home and more likely to be receiving low-quality service when they are in child care.”

The economics of the system have left parents worse off. “By its very nature, the $7-a-day child care model favours a specific type of child care setting that is subsidized and state-regulated. It benefits certain parents to the detriment of others,” writes Norma Kozhaya of the Montreal Economic Institute in an October 2006 briefing note on Quebec’s child care system.

One of the main problems with child care in Quebec, using data from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development, is that children, while in a safe environment, are not learning. According to an Institute for Research on Public Policy report: “The majority of child care settings attended by the children in the QLSCD had a global rating of minimal quality, which means that they provided safety and security for the children but offered a minimal educational component.”

It's also important to note that the CBC reports there's a waiting list of 35,000 children in Quebec, and that Quebec immigration actually tells new immigrants to that province that there is a one- to two-year waiting list for child care.

In light of this comparison and the other research that's readily available to you today, the IMFC is opposed to a national system of early learning and child care as proposed in Bill C-303. It allots money preferentially to one type of care: centre-based or institutional care. It therefore does not help parents make choices. It offers one solution alone, at great cost, to the detriment of those who do not make that choice. We believe this is discriminatory.

We would point this committee to research from the U.S.-based NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, the largest, most expensive child care study ever undertaken--it has been running for close to 25 years now--which has been examining the long-term effects of all types of child care on children.

The researchers have found that high-quality non-maternal care, including that by fathers and grandparents, improves cognitive outcomes, things like a child's vocabulary and memory, but that too much time in centre-based care, even high-quality centre-based care, was related to poor behaviours, including hitting others and arguing a lot. In their latest research this spring, the researchers have shown that this negative behaviour is measurable up to and including the sixth grade.

In short, while there are benefits to high-quality care, those benefits are not limited to centre-based care, such as the care proposed under Bill C-303. Rather, the benefits are seen in many different types of care in more informal settings. The drawbacks, like increased aggression in children, are seen in poor-quality centre-based care. Currently, care in Quebec is described as mediocre. High-quality care under a state-run, state-financed system is difficult to create.

There are other issues that should be addressed here; unfortunately, time does not permit me to address those. However, in conclusion, I'll say I believe you cannot measure this issue through strictly economic calculations. These are our children, our future, and they must be measured accordingly. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard.

While we recognize there is a need for high-quality child care within society, this one-size-fits-all approach does not meet the needs of many families and cannot be supported. This bill does not address the needs of the majority of Canadians who do not wish to use institutionalized child care.

I thank the committee for your attention. I would be pleased to address any questions you have in the discussion following.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

As to the order of reference of November 22, the committee will now resume its study of Bill C-303.

I'd just like to thank all the witnesses for being here today. I know we have a couple via video conference.

We can start with you, Mr. Quist. We'll have you start, for seven minutes. We'll move then to Ms. Smith, Ms. Ward, Ms. Coupal, and Ms. Landriault.

If we can get started, I'll give you a two minute- then a one-minute warning, just so you can gauge your speech from there. It'll be followed by a round of seven minutes, followed by subsequent rounds of five minutes each.

Mr. Quist, once again, welcome, and thank you for being here today. You have seven minutes, sir.

Child Care

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I recently visited a wonderful parents and tots program in my Halifax riding. The Lions Club, supported by the United Way and municipal government, has created a space in the Spryfield Recreation Centre where preschoolers can play together in a safe, spacious setting while moms and dads can share parenting tips and support one another. That is the good news.

The bad news is that the majority of these families have been desperately seeking accessible, affordable, quality early learning and child care opportunities and such spaces are virtually non-existent in their community. Why? Because of broken promises, first by the Liberals and now by the Conservatives.

That is why it is vitally important to enact Bill C-303, the New Democrat early learning and child care act. Every child deserves that chance. Every family deserves that choice, whether home based or community based.

As with every vital social program, from medicare to employment insurance to public pensions, federal legislation is needed, resources are required and standards must be set that will allow each province and territory to apply those standards and allocate those resources for the benefit of children and families needing child care.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Yes, very quickly, I wondered if you've had a chance to look at Bill C-303, the Early Learning and Child Care Act, which Olivia Chow and Denise Savoie put forward. One of the things about it is that it makes a child care system empowered by legislation. It is secured in legislation. I wonder if you could comment on that.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I found the discussion between Mr. Dinsdale and Mr. Merasty quite interesting. To make sure the bill is equitable for everyone, we would almost have to go to two extremes.

The Aboriginal peoples’ situation shows that their conditions in terms of services are such that special provisions should be made at all times. That is the case here and that is to be expected. It is something that has to be done. I think that, if we manage to do so, eventually we will come up with some provisions enabling us to reach everyone. The people from Rural Voices for Early Childhood Education and Care can give us their opinion on this. If we can reach Aboriginal people, it seems to me that we will succeed in reaching other communities. This exercise should be one of generosity and not pettiness. We must avoid saying, for example, that one group in Quebec is receiving services and that this is not right because we have not yet got these services ourselves, and, if we cannot have services, these services should not be offered to another group. There is something unhealthy about that sort of thing and ideological positions...

When our friend Mr. Chong tells us that the Conservatives’ policies are very generous regarding more vulnerable communities, I do not understand. Indeed, the Kelowna Accord, in spite of its imperfections, was very positive. They are the ones who got rid of it. I do not want to turn this into a political issue, but we have to be clear with one another. We must not make any mistakes here; we have to tell it like it is.

Your last comments, Mr. Dinsdale, clarified the question more for me. A statement was made at the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, with whom you probably have some connections. The statement said that Bill C-303 contained some shortcomings pertaining to Aboriginal peoples, but by wording clause 8 so as to specify the particularities of Aboriginal peoples, there could be a positive outcome. The bill would be more effective and Aboriginal peoples could support it more readily. I would like to hear your comments in this regard. If by chance you have not given some thought to this question, you could send us your comments later.

I also very much enjoyed the contribution by the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada. I did not have time to consult your report, which looks quite rich, as do all the others, moreover.

I am going to conclude with an example, Madam Chair. When child care services were set up in Quebec in 1997, I was part of it. I worked on it, and my colleague too. We did not achieve perfection the first year, nor has it been achieved yet. This system serves as a model. We dared to do something. It remains that for many years the educators working within this system were paid less than zoo employees. This is the sort of thing that has been improved over time.

We could restrict ourselves to defending our own child care system so that it does not become vulnerable, but what we really want is for all of you everywhere in the country to have a good system. We are going to lend our support to one another and this way this kind of intervention will not make our system vulnerable.

I apologize for not leaving time for an answer.

[Stuart Shanker]

There are two aspects to your question, and the answer to the first is yes, absolutely, we love the kinds of wrap-around options that are available in a demonstration site like Toronto First Duty, particularly when, even in the case when parents are working and are dropping off their kids, programs are made available that suit the parents' times, where they too can have these experiences and pick up the kinds of skills we're talking about.

With regard to the second part of your question, we do study this very carefully, and we tried to explain this in the early years report that we published two weeks ago. We do see a gradient effect in our society, and by far the largest percentage of children with these problems are in the lowest socio-economic strata. Unfortunately, when we study this in terms of brain development we see significant lags. One of the most telling indicators we have is language development, and these children do lag significantly behind children from other sectors of society.

However, having said that, it is a problem that affects all sectors of society, and as I tried to point out before, the largest number of children, simply in terms of volume, come from the middle and upper classes. So it's not a problem that can be targeted, which is why we like Bill C-303. It is something that needs a universal approach.

[Peter Dinsdale]

I don't think there's any question the services are needed. In the brief we provided to the committee, we talked about the need for an early learning child care system. We were involved in some of the previous consultations leading up to this, and I certainly think it needs to occur more consistently and more effectively across the country.

The issue with Bill C-303, the way it sits today, is that it might not be the instrument we need to get to the aboriginal community. The tariff issue, the lack of jurisdictional coordination issue, and some of the access issues, we believe, are going to prevent a significant number of aboriginal people from truly accessing the program as they should.

I've heard that there's one amendment coming up on the profit thing. Hopefully someone is taking this to heart and is willing to look at it, because it's unimaginable that in the creation of a national system of early learning and child care there isn't contemplation of the challenges faced by Canada's aboriginal community.

And it's not going to get done, in our assessment, by the bill as currently constituted.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Well, they are still the new government. I guess maybe it takes a little bit of time to establish that.

One way in which the previous early learning and child care agreement was going to benefit Nova Scotia was that in Nova Scotia it was going to be used to provide better training for child care workers and also better wages. I had people suggest to me, “Look, we already have people working. Why would you want to just put money into the system and increase the wages?” But it's really unconscionable in this country that among the lowest-paid full-time workers are child care workers--and perhaps artists and other creative people as well.

Can you talk a little bit about how you think Bill C-303 might do something about training and wages for child care workers?

[Jamie Kass]

I think we've supported the CCAAC's position around grandfathering existing facilities. We understand that the small programs in child care are usually not making a profit, are in there trying to meet good-quality program standards. But all the research, including the new research by Gord Cleveland, again underscores the importance, if you're building a publicly funded system, of doing it in the non-profit system.

So when you see that there'll be an injection of public funding, then you clearly have to make sure that it's a non-profit system. We've really looked a lot at this. We had someone from Australia come on a cross-Canada tour. What they said to us was quite sobering--namely, that they opened up public funding in large ways to the commercial sector, and that child care sector now represents over 70% of the child care. It's meant that the small for-profits, including the non-profits, have closed their doors.

So what we've seen is that in fact it then will be open for those large commercial programs to come in. We think Bill C-303 is very important in that it focuses on the non-profit sector.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Everybody here supports Bill C-303.

I'd like to ask a question, if I could, to CUPE first of all.

I support Bill C-303, but the concern I have is around the not-for-profit sector. I understand some amendments are coming from the proposer. I have a great concern about these commercial child care companies, these McDonald's of the child care business, coming into Canada and sweeping up.

On the other hand, I know an awful lot of good private child care facilities that exist would be grandfathered, but if they exist now, it means they might be able to exist in the future. Do you have any concern about possibly getting to the level of child care spaces we need if we don't allow some of those to be part of the new mix?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Dr. Shanker, I listened with great attention. Are you in support of Bill C-303?

[Jody Dallaire, Chair, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada]

My name is Jody Dallaire. I am the chairperson of the national organization called the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada.

With me today is Monica Lysack, our executive director.

I'm going to be giving my remarks partly in French and partly in English, and I'm going to start in French.

This year, the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada celebrates 25 years of advocacy for quality child care. Our membership reaches more than four million Canadians from across the country, including parents, educators, researchers and students, as well as various organizations at the provincial, territorial, regional and national levels.

I am here today to express our support for C-303. When passed, this bill will ensure accountability for funds that are directed towards building a learning and child care system. All federal parties agree that we want the best possible experiences and outcomes for our children.

Child care supports healthy child development, reduces child poverty, promotes women’s equality, deepens social inclusion and advances a knowledge-based economy and therefore ongoing economic prosperity. Moreover, improving child care services will help Canada meet its commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which names child care services as one of the fundamental rights all children should enjoy.

Quality child care is a public good, and should be treated as such in terms of public policy, public investment and public accountability. Bill C-303 represents a significant step forward for child care services in Canada. This legislation lays the foundation for us to move from the current patchwork of expensive services of varying quality, funded primarily by user fees, to a framework that provides families with a choice of affordable, high-quality, community-based services, in licensed homes and centres, with both part-time and full-time programs.

The members and partners of our association envision a Canada where all children are supported by publicly funded, quality child care services. Like libraries and schools, child care programs should be a natural and expected part of our neighbourhoods. They should be available, accessible and affordable for all families that choose to use them.

Bill C-303 supports the community's vision for child care in Canada. In 2004, following a year of consultations, our vision was to translate it into a set of policy recommendations, which were put into a document called “From Patchwork to Framework: A Child Care Strategy for Canada”.

The first recommendation calls for legislation that defines and frames the implementation of child care in Canada. Our organization believes that when substantial public funding is available to build a system, as outlined in Bill C-303, new growth and expansion should be in the public and not-for-profit sector.

We advocate for the grandfathering of existing commercial facilities, as outlined in Bill C-303. This recommendation is based on the lessons learned about market failure and the current user fee subsidy approach and on extensive research about how public, community-owned and -operated child care promotes quality and accountability for public funds.

Bill C-303 acknowledges that child care falls within provincial-territorial jurisdiction and supports the communities to develop their own priorities. Having said this, we support the clause recognizing that Quebec has expanded its early learning and child care programs to ensure better accessibility than other provinces and territories.

Nevertheless, recognizing the diversity of Canadian communities does not mean accepting the existing disparity in services. All children and families, including those with disabilities, those from rural, remote, and northern communities, aboriginal families, and families from various backgrounds, should be entitled to quality and affordable child care services.

With child care legislation in place, communities and governments at all levels can work together to plan and implement a pan-Canadian child care system. We can build a system based on the existing government commitments to improve access to quality, affordable, and inclusive child care services, as outlined in the multilateral framework agreements in 2003, and we can begin to actually achieve these goals. The CCAAC has developed tools, such as a child care system implementation model, that support communities and governments in their joint efforts to advance a universal system.

Finally, legislation such as Bill C-303 is essential to accountability. Our experience in Canada over the last thirty years clearly demonstrates that we cannot leave the development of quality and affordable child care services to chance, nor can we rely solely on the minimal accountability provisions of existing intergovernmental agreements, such as those found in the multilateral framework.

Recent federal transfers have only required governments to report to the public, not to their legislatures. We note that most provinces and territories have not reported on how the federal transfers have been spent since 2004-05.

Since the only real accountability mechanism for analyzing and commenting on new investments is through public monitoring and pressure, this accountability mechanism places a lot of responsibility on communities. While community capacity-building, such as that provided by the CCAAC, can support citizens in this important work, our preliminary observations raise questions about the heavy reliance on this approach as the primary accountability mechanism when parents and community groups are already strapped for time and over-burdened.

In addition to reporting to the public, governments need to report to their legislatures. Public reporting should be complemented with legislated standards, such as those outlined in Bill C-303. Accountability for public funds requires no less.

It's easy for us to say that supporting children and families is important, but we call on our elected representatives to make these words real by passing Bill C-303.

Thank you.

[Shellie Bird, Education Officer, Local 2204, Child Care Workers, Ottawa, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Thank you.

CUPE Local 2204 represents 230 early childhood educators, cooks, cleaners and clerical staff in 12 child care centres here in the city of Ottawa, and we count ourselves among the 10,000 child care workers whom our national union represents.

Our members, along with thousands of other child care workers, support Bill C-303 because it acknowledges the direct relationship between quality early learning and child care and the need to invest in the child care workforce.

In our submission, we point out what you have no doubt heard countless times: our world has changed. A majority of parents with children are in the workforce, and consequently, millions of Canadian children require access to non-parental child care.

We also know that who these children spend their day with has huge implications for the kind of care and education they receive, yet child care workers are largely undervalued, underpaid, and unrecognized. The failure of governments to acknowledge staff as a key linchpin for quality or to take action to address chronically low wages, poor benefits, and working conditions in our sector means fewer people are coming into our field or choosing to stay once they do. We cannot expect to improve quality early learning and child care if we are not prepared as a nation to recognize the vital role the people who work with young children play.

My training, knowledge, and 26 years of experience working with young children gives me a real advantage in providing them with supportive and intentional learning opportunities that help them to grow. At the risk of boasting, I liken what I do in supporting children in our program, purposely and with intention, building their trust, their respect, their comfort and sense of belonging, and their efficacy in managing their environment to the skill and precision of a surgeon with a scalpel.

Supporting children to build relationships with their peers, find positive ways to work out their differences, to make their needs known, to share, to be angry, to be hurt and to make up, and to learn and experiment without judgment are specific skills I have developed and honed over my years, to the benefit of the children I work with. We need more of this, not less.

This bill, if adequately funded, will give our sector the ability to improve wages, benefits, and working conditions so that we can attract and retain a highly motivated and engaged early learning and child care workforce and ultimately give children what we know they need to flourish and grow and go on to become productive and engaged citizens.

Thank you.

[Peter Dinsdale, Executive Director, National Association of Friendship Centres]

Thank you.

I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for the opportunity to present before you today on Bill C-303.

My name is Peter Dinsdale and I am the executive director of the National Association of Friendship Centres.

In case you're not aware, friendship centres are community agencies that are mandated to improve the quality of life of urban aboriginal people. We are a service delivery body, not a political voice or representative body, and we are there for urban aboriginal first nation, Métis, and Inuit peoples.

Today there are over 117 friendship centres across Canada from coast to coast to coast and, hopefully, in most of these MPs' ridings as well.

According to the 2001 census, 50% of all aboriginal people live in urban areas, 50% of all aboriginal people are under the age of 25, and 50% of all aboriginal people do not graduate from high school. We are very young, very urban, and a very impoverished population. And according to research conducted by the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres, 50% of all aboriginal children grow up in poverty in this country today.

In short, we work for an incredibly important segment of the Canadian population to be served by this legislation.

Friendship centres are active in early learning and child care as well. Across the country, there are over 30 friendship centres providing direct day care facilities through over $7.5 million in programming supports. These programs are only one portion of the $19.5 million spent on general family programs out of the total $114 million provided in programming across the friendship centre movement each year.

Like all who are here before you, we have certainly read Bill C-303 and are prepared to make our comments on it. I only want to raise for your attention that we have submitted a brief that details our support for early learning and child care programming. There is no question that the friendship centre movement sees the need for a national network to be in place.

But with Bill C-303, we would like to make a number of observations, and we have some concerns based on it. We're not sure that the appropriate framework exists for directing provincial areas of responsibility with such vigour. Will the appropriate resources be secured to fund the rigorous standards outlined? However, my most troubling question and the most troubling for us in general is how this bill impacts aboriginal people and the friendship centres that we serve. How will this bill apply on-reserve?

The bill does not discuss the challenge of this program, paid for by the federal government, monitored by the provinces and territories, and administered by local profit and non-profit organizations, to navigate the jurisdictional minefields that exist in this area. It is also not clear how this bill would impact friendship centres as potential non-profit partners for the delivery of these services.

Using the lens of friendship centres and the clients we serve, I'd like to comment on five troubling aspects for us.

The first is the notion of universality. What would this mean for urban aboriginal access? It needs to be understood that equal access does not always mean equal outcomes. Given the tremendous social barriers facing aboriginal peoples, it is essential that aboriginal-specific programming exists.

It is important for a number of reasons. Culture-based programs have been shown to be more effective at reaching aboriginal clients. Intergenerational reconnection is an important element to aboriginal programming. Positive role models, community reconnections, healing for the family and their extended family, traditional skills rediscovery, and comparable services all mean a more successful outcome for that child and the parents.

The second area of concern is the notion of tariff. Even the most modest of tariffs for access will be a significant barrier for urban aboriginal people. The average income for aboriginal people is $14,533, according to the 2001 census, versus $19,000 for non-aboriginal people. Aboriginal household income is 87% of that of non-aboriginal households. And aboriginal people's unemployment rate is 19.1% versus 7.4% for the non-aboriginal population.

We're impoverished. Any tariff for aboriginal families is a significant barrier that must be addressed.

Our third area of concern centres around the notions of indicators of availability. While it is clear that the minds of the bill's drafters are turned to ensuring that the widest possible geographic access is being considered, it does not once again provide any comfort that aboriginal people are considered an important client for availability and programming.

Our fourth area of concern rests with the indicators of affordability. It states that service fees should be set at a percentage of average wages for each jurisdiction. It simply reinforces that aboriginal people will have unequal access, as our wages are far behind any average in any jurisdiction.

The fifth area of concern is around the indicators of accessibility. Once again, the drafters' minds are turned to ensuring broad access in terms of eligibility requirements, with a percentage for special needs and other geographic considerations. There also appears to be an inherent contradiction in using income levels of parents as an accessibility measure. Single parents and their prevalence in our community will certainly skew our access, and the ability to pay the aforementioned percent of the region's average wage will further reinforce that.

Finally, and maybe most troubling, the bill does not recognize the jurisdiction of first nation, Métis, or Inuit peoples to provide for their own programming and to serve their own people. It seems not to have considered aboriginal people from either a governance, service delivery, or access basis. But we want to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is no question that more early learning child care spaces are needed across this country, and this is a noble attempt to do that. However, it is our assessment that should this bill in its present form become law, it will have a minimal impact for aboriginal peoples for all the areas raised.

Once again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I look forward to any questions you might have.

[Carol Gott, Co-Manager, Rural Voices for Child Care]

Good afternoon.

My name is Carol Gott, and along with my colleague Jane Wilson, I co-manage Rural Voices for Early Childhood Education and Care.

Rural Voices is a broker of knowledge, learning, and best practices in early childhood education and care locally, provincially, and nationally.

Each of you has our submitted brief, so our intention today is to say a few words to summarize our views.

Jane and I both volunteer our time and energy to provide this link between rural, remote, and northern communities across Canada because we know first-hand how difficult it is to develop responsive, flexible, quality services in our rural communities for families and children.

It is difficult, but not impossible. It's not impossible, but it's certainly not probable, simply because, as a country, we have not made it a priority to ensure that every child in this country receives the best start in life and that every parent, regardless of their work status, receives our utmost support in their parenting role.

This will not be achieved by leaving leadership on child care issues at the provincial-territorial arena alone. To hope that, as a country, each province and territory will have the political will or the financial ability to ensure equity of access to quality child care services and supports is not socially responsible. For decades, child care has been the jurisdiction of provincial and territorial governments, yet the most critical issue in rural, remote, and northern Canada remains access to quality child care services. This is true whether you are in rural Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia, the Yukon, or any other province or territory in this nation.

We can only assure equity of access to services through federal leadership, a leadership that begins with the approval of Bill C-303.

As each community across rural, remote, and northern Canada sees themselves as different and distinct, so does each province and territory. Although this diversity does us well at a local level, it hinders our ability to act as a nation, a nation that needs to strongly support our youngest citizens.

We have research that affirms the benefits of quality child care for children and families, and now recently we have rural research from the University of Manitoba that affirms the economic benefits of child care as well.

We can tell you, from our travels and work with Rural Voices across this country, that the benefits of quality child care for children, families, and communities are much more powerful and long term than any document could adequately attest. Although it's only a beginning, Rural Voices believes that Bill C-303 will develop a framework to support the challenges that rural, remote, and northern Canadians live every day.

Thank you.

[Judy Streatch]

Nova Scotia signed. Your colleague down the way was at the ceremony. The Government of Nova Scotia of the day definitely did sign.

But I see a big difference between that agreement and Bill C-303. The challenges I articulated earlier, whether it's jurisdiction or the administrative costs that would be downloaded to the provinces, are real. The biggest challenge in Nova Scotia would be the inability for anyone other than a non-profit to offer child care in the future. We cannot do that. Today over 50% of my centres in Nova Scotia are commercial. I need the commercial sector to sustain family home day care. So for me, that component is a reality piece that I can't ignore.

[Janet Davis, Councillor, City of Toronto]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to participate in your deliberations on Bill C-303. I'm pleased to be here in person to represent the City of Toronto and to express, on behalf of city council, our full support for the provisions of Bill C-303.

I'm a member of Toronto city council, vice-chair of our board of health, vice-chair of the community development and recreation committee, as well as the children's advocate for the city of Toronto.

I'm here with Petr Varmuza, the director of Toronto Children's Services.

I too am a parent of two children who were fortunate to attend excellent regulated child care from infancy to school age, and who have benefited as a result.

Toronto is Canada's largest city and sixth-largest government, and home to a diverse population of 2.6 million people. The City of Toronto manages the largest child care system in Canada outside of the province of Quebec, with a budget of $336 million in 2007. As you know, in Ontario municipalities have a legislated role in the delivery and management of the child care system.

Toronto recognizes the significant contribution that high-quality, accessible, and affordable child care and early learning programs make to the healthy development of young children and the economic and social well-being of families and communities.

Toronto's child care system provides a range of services for over 65,000 children, including directly operated and community based licensed group child care, family home child care, after-school and summer programs, family resource centres, and special needs programs for children from infancy to school age.

Currently the city provides child care fee subsidies for 23,844 children in 16,000 families. Of those who receive subsidies, 50% pay no fee. Despite the size of our programs, Toronto still only provides services for about one-quarter of the children who need child care, and there are over 10,000 children on our waiting list for subsidized child care.

As you can see, Toronto has made a major commitment to child care and has a critical interest in the future of child care legislation and funding in Canada. Toronto's child care system is guided by a comprehensive service plan and operating criteria with established principles, service levels, program priorities, and program standards to ensure quality.

Toronto's service plan is focused on providing equitable access to services, high-quality programs, and planned growth in underserved age groups and communities. However, the city has been unable to make any significant progress, as the public policy environment and financing of child care and family programs has shifted dramatically over the past 12 years. Federal and provincial governments have changed program and funding priorities, forcing the city to change policy directions, fund services beyond its legislated cost-sharing levels, and often struggle simply to protect rather than expand services.

This has made the municipal role in service delivery and management challenging and unpredictable. Under ECDA, the previous Ontario government invested all the federal transfers in programs other than child care. This became known as the “ABC” policy--anything but child care.

Under the federal-provincial early learning and child care agreement signed in 2005, the Province of Ontario developed the Best Start plan to expand child care and early learning programs for children under six. As required by the province, the city developed a three-year service and infrastructure plan in partnership with school boards and other community service providers to develop new integrated models of service delivery.

Our plan is here and I've brought copies for you, if you're interested.

Toronto created over 3,000 new licensed spaces and 2,000 fee subsidies in 59 centres in the first year of Best Start. This was funded through the federal transfers, of course. An additional 3,400 spaces were planned, and provincial transfers were slated at $125 million annually. All expansion under Best Start or any new future funding program in Toronto will be delivered in the not-for-profit sector, or delivered by our municipally directly operated sector.

In 2006, when the federal-provincial early learning and child care agreement was cancelled, Ontario chose to distribute the final year of funding over four years. As a result, funding for Toronto was reduced from $125 million to $27 million per year.

These funding changes have meant the cancellation of further expansion under our Best Start plan, and a serious funding shortfall for the remainder of our child care system. Toronto is now facing a shortfall of $35 million, which, if not solved by the end of 2007, will result in the loss of 3,500 subsidized spaces.

The 2007 federal budget allocated $97 million to the province of Ontario for child care. The 2007 Ontario budget allocated $25 million for child care this year, and $50 million next year. Toronto has been allocated $6.8 million in 2007, and $9.1 million in 2008, far short of the $35 million needed to prevent service cuts, and far short of its per capita share of the federal funds. The remainder of the federal funds transferred to Ontario have not been allocated, and there is no indication whether they will go into child care or into other government priorities. The Ontario finance minister told the Toronto Star that the funds did not have to go to child care because they were unconditional transfers.

Toronto and other municipalities in Ontario, the level of government responsible for delivering programs, want and need a national legislative and regulatory framework to ensure that funds slated for child care go to child care.

Toronto supports Bill C-303 because it enshrines in legislation the critical elements of a Canadian system of high-quality early learning and child care services. This important piece of legislation will provide a legislative and regulatory framework to ensure that federal funding is transferred to provinces and service providers for high-quality child care and early learning programs; it will create a funding framework that requires provinces and service providers to meet criteria and standards that ensure programs are accessible, high-quality, universal, and developmental in nature; it will ensure that programs are delivered on a not-for-profit basis--and that is important, and we support it; it would require provinces and service providers to develop plans for a system of service; it will provide, through new reporting requirements, transparency and accountability for spending, which is also important to Toronto and to other municipalities in Ontario; and it will establish an advisory council to monitor and report on the operations and effectiveness of the act. We support this as well.

This is important legislation that will assist in protecting and enhancing early learning and child care in Toronto and in every province in Canada. Toronto is not alone in supporting federal child care legislation. Other municipalities, as well as provincial and local organizations, fully support the establishment of a national child care program entrenched in legislation and will be submitting letters of support to your committee.

In closing, I want to say that Toronto’s ability to succeed depends on the ability of our residents to contribute to the economic and social life of our city. Toronto’s future also depends on our ability to ensure that all children have the best chance possible to succeed. Investing in high-quality early childhood programs achieves both these goals.

In closing, I wish to urge members to support Bill C-303.

[Charles Dent, Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Government of the Northwest Territories]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, committee members.

I'd like to thank the committee for providing the opportunity for the Government of the Northwest Territories to make a presentation to you this morning in respect of Bill C-303.

We're concerned by the manner in which this bill will insert federal influence into an area of jurisdiction that is exclusively provincial and territorial in nature. That this is proposed with no consultation with our territory is unacceptable. Just as our government consults with aboriginal governments when appropriate, such as when considering a wildlife act, we expect and deserve the same consideration from the federal level.

It is especially frustrating when this bill comes forward with no expectation that there will be new money attached. Right now, the lion's share of money expended in the early learning and child care field in the Northwest Territories comes from the Government of the Northwest Territories' coffers. This year, we have increased the funding in our early childhood programs by 20%.

We are concerned that, should this bill pass, it will make it difficult for us to renew the funding agreements we have with the federal government, which, while being minor parts of our total spending for early learning and child care, are nonetheless important to the operation of our system.

Before I get into some specific comments on Bill C-303, I would like to provide some background about the Northwest Territories. I hope this will help explain the implications that Bill C-303 would have on the way we support the delivery of early learning and child care programs and services in the Northwest Territories.

I would like to begin by giving you some of the demographics of the Northwest Territories.

We have 32 communities in the Northwest Territories. The largest is the city of Yellowknife, with a population of approximately 19,500, and the smallest is Jean Marie River, which has a population of 70 people.

It may interest you to know that the school in Jean Marie River has seven students this year. Given that, I'm sure you'll understand that it's very unlikely we'll see a child care centre developed in that community or in others that are similarly small.

There is no or very limited road access to the majority of communities in the Northwest Territories. Many are only accessible by road during a brief winter ice road season. The remoteness and isolation have a great impact on many things in a community, including the availability of program materials. Facility development or activities requiring resources require detailed planning well in advance in order to place equipment orders for arrival by barge once a year, or residents must face the high cost of flying in materials.

The NWT population is approximately 50% aboriginal, with our smaller communities being primarily aboriginal. There are 11 official languages in the Northwest Territories, and we are seeing significant declines in aboriginal language use by our young people in many regions.

The Northwest Territories has a very healthy employment rate and a very low unemployment rate, but the territories-wide nature of those numbers masks the sometimes very high unemployment rate in our smaller communities.

Currently the Northwest Territories has 110 licensed early learning and child care programs operating. These include child care facilities, part-time preschool programs, family day homes, and after-school programs. From these programs, we have access to 1,711 licensed spaces for families.

There are licensed early learning and child care programs in 28 of the 32 communities in the Northwest Territories. The majority of full-time early learning and child care programs are within the city of Yellowknife.

Right now, the individual needs within each community determine the type of program that is required. Many small communities deliver programs on a part-time basis, recognizing the needs and hours of employment in a small community. A lot of our programs are offered by family day homes.

We believe fundamentally that early learning and child care programs in the north must be community based. This means programs are developed and operated by community groups or individuals to meet community needs. They know what's best for their children.

Locally determined and locally driven programs not only provide the opportunity to reflect the individual community needs but also allow a focus on language and culture of the community. In recent years, we've been working to help revitalize aboriginal languages by providing young children with opportunities to learn their language. Following the Maori and Hawaiian examples of language nests, in 2003 the Government of the Northwest Territories began investing funds to assist existing early learning and child care programs to develop their program into a language nest.

Aboriginal children who attend these language nest programs have daily interaction with elders and speakers in the language and culture of the community. Traditional practices and ways of learning are used in the centres, and operators ensure that a variety of learning styles are addressed.

We're finding that language nests in the north are inspiring parents and other adults in communities to learn their aboriginal language.

Mr. Chairman, family day homes can also support immersion in the language and culture of the community through exposure to traditional language, ways of learning, and culture.

The proposed bill would require the Northwest Territories to meet certain criteria to be able to access federal funding supports. We agree that it is important to strive to achieve programs and supports that promote quality, universality, accessibility, and accountability. In fact, we already have well-established standards and reporting processes in place.

We know these reflect the realities of our jurisdiction and support the development and operation of culturally appropriate child care spaces. We are concerned that new federal standards developed as a result of this bill may impact on the mandate of the Government of the Northwest Territories for early learning and child care and may remove the flexibility that is inherent in the way authority and jurisdiction are divided among provinces and territories and the federal government.

Mr. Chairman, a national early learning and child care act will be hard pressed to deal with the diverse needs and circumstances across the country. The factors involved in providing early learning and child care opportunities in rural, remote, and isolated communities are quite different from those of large urban environments.

Bill C-303 stipulates that funding be linked to a requirement for service to be provided through not-for-profit individuals or groups. While the bill proposes to grandfather for-profit service providers that are in the place prior to the coming into force of the act, new for-profit individuals or groups will not be included. This causes us significant concern.

Right now, family day homes provide 40% of licensed child care in the Northwest Territories. Family day homes are not registered not-for-profit organizations and they fill a valuable need in our small communities, where there's limited infrastructure and little need for larger programs.

As you would expect, there is turnover in family day homes over time, so if this bill proceeds we fear that when it comes time to renew the agreements we now have with the federal government, we will find that we are unable to equitably support a vitally important part of our day care system. That result would greatly impact the flexibility we have in using a range of service providers. In turn, this will impact the availability of services to children and their parents.

As well, since family day homes are run for profit, this would also limit the opportunities for individuals in our smallest communities, where employment prospects may be limited from setting up a for-profit service as a career choice.

Mr. Chairman, the fiscal reporting that the bill calls for would also cause problems in the north. Clause 8 calls for a report to Parliament within 60 days of the end of the fiscal year. Meeting such requirements will be a challenge for small operators. We don't require reports from operators that quickly now, and ensuring that they could meet that sort of deadline so we could report to the federal government would require more support. Funding to support administration to comply with such reporting would be better used for programming to support children.

In conclusion, early learning and child care is clearly a provincial and territorial jurisdiction, allowing provinces and territories to meet child care needs in this diverse country. We take that responsibility seriously.

I don't think this bill is necessary. We already cover these matters through our existing territorial legislation that reflects our unique situation in the Northwest Territories. We have the NWT Child Day Care Act, which lays out the requirements for child care programs in the NWT, including licensing, operating requirements, and offences. Regulations further lay out the duties of child care operators, physical requirements for child day care facilities, daily programming, nutritional standards, health care, hazards and emergencies, and staff qualifications and training.

We can't help but note the clause referring to the unique circumstances of Quebec when it comes to delivering early learning and child care programming, and respectfully suggest that all provinces and territories be recognized similarly.

We don't need more rules to deliver quality programming in our territory, Mr. Chairman, we need more money. While we would welcome a meaningful federal contribution to assist us in supporting quality early learning and child care in the north, it will not be meaningful if it's done in isolation, with no input from the territory.

I encourage you to scrap this bill and press the federal government to continue discussions with the provinces, territories, and early childhood stakeholders to ensure that decisions about investments in early learning and child care support the diversity of Canada--its geography, communities, and families.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Judy Streatch, Minister of Community Services, Government of Nova Scotia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. My name is Judy Streatch. I have the privilege of being Nova Scotia's Minister of Community Services.

I am joined today by a representative from our department to help provide Nova Scotia's view regarding Bill C-303. l would like to introduce Virginia O'Connell, director of early childhood development services. Mrs. O'Connell manages the licensing, monitoring, policy, and standards for all licensed child care centres in the province. She has worked in the field of early childhood development for more than 25 years.

Personally, as a mother of four and a teacher for 15 years, I am passionate about the direction, progress, and diversity of early learning and child care in Nova Scotia. Let me tell you a little about the progress we've been making.

Nova Scotia offers programs that support families and foster healthy child development between the ages of newborn and 12 years, in accordance with the Nova Scotia Day Care Act and regulations.

In recognition of Nova Scotia's commitment to quality child care, my government created a 10-year early learning and child care plan for Nova Scotia last May. In developing the plan we took into account consultation sessions and heard from more than 2,600 Nova Scotians regarding their specific issues and priorities, including from commercial and non-profit licensed child care centres and parents. They told us to increase salaries, decrease the cost of care for all families, increase funding for child care, assist in stabilizing the workforce, provide more accessible child care for children with special needs, and increase spaces in licensed child care centres and family home programs.

Folks, l'm happy to say that we're doing all of this. The early learning and child care plan provides a foundation for licensed child care in Nova Scotia that will promote a more inclusive, accessible, and equitable system. To achieve this, we are focusing on the needs of Nova Scotian families by investing more than $137 million in our plan. The recent federal budget provides an additional $7 million per year to support the creation of child care spaces in our province, and it complements our made-in-Nova Scotia child care plan to further help our families access quality care for their children.

We will provide the opportunity, through capital funding, for the creation of at least 1,000 child care spaces. We are creating 550 more portable, subsidized spaces for low-income families. Funding for children with special needs will double.

We recently announced the child care operating grant funding. It provides funding per occupied space for children and infants, and is a key component of the plan to help stabilize the system and facilitate enhanced recruitment and retention of staff while allowing centres to consider future expansion.

We have also made available $1 million in repair and renovation funding across the province to make energy-efficient and accessibility improvements to centres.

We have embarked on our long-term vision for quality and sustainable child care in our province. As you can see, Nova Scotia has a plan, and our plan is well into the development of a child and youth strategy that will address the needs of children, youth, and their families by improving the accessibility of a range of supports and services. Our vision is this: that all Nova Scotia children enjoy a good start in life and are nurtured and supported by caring families and communities.

Bill C-303 presents a serious intrusion by the Parliament of Canada into an area of provincial responsibility. Although Bill C-303 does not compel the federal government to transfer funds to provinces and territories for the purpose of providing early learning and child care programs, it does establish criteria and conditions that provinces and territories would be required to meet related to the expenditure of these transfers.

The provision of early learning and child care is a provincial responsibility. Bill C-303 defines the means by which child care is delivered within each province and territory.

The bill refers to specific criteria. Nova Scotia's plan is built on a set of principles that includes each of the bill's criteria. In fact, these principles have their basis in the word CHILD--comprehensive, high-quality, integration, longevity, and developed on the basis of evidence and accountability.

As you can see, Nova Scotia is not standing still. We are already on the path of implementing a range of services and programs that reflect the diverse needs of Nova Scotian families.

Bill C-303, as federal legislation, would be used as a policy instrument to implement a one-size-fits-all approach to child care. Folks, one size does not fit all in Nova Scotia.

In order to access the funding that would need to accompany the bill, each province or territory would have to abide by all components of the bill's criteria and conditions. This approach would strictly limit the design and delivery of our current and future programs. This approach would require that all funded programs be regulated by provincial governments, and that all new programs or services be delivered by a non-profit agency or service. This would stifle provinces and territories in the creation of new and innovative programs that do not meet these restrictive requirements.

In order to meet the requirements of the bill, taxpayers' dollars would have to be invested in additional administrative and infrastructure costs rather than enabling the development and implementation of programs to best meet the needs of the young children and families of our province. Its administrative and reporting requirements would hamper Nova Scotia's current efficiencies and effectiveness with respect to the initiatives we already have under way and that already envelop the requirements of Bill C-303.

Nova Scotia is moving forward. We are doing so in respect of our families, our children, our early childhood sector, and our diverse cultural and geographic environments. We are currently amending our day care regulations and creating new family home regulations, heightening the standard for care and early education.

We also know that some services needed to support families, such as family resource, parent education, and early intervention programs, require further funding allocations to grow and reach out to the community if we are truly ready to provide comprehensive integrated programs and supports to families. Bill C-303 would severely limit this work.

Our hope as a province is to partner with the federal government to make those initiatives that are respective of Nova Scotians and that enable the flexibility to truly make a difference in the lives of children and families.

In closing, I would like to say that Nova Scotia wishes to continue to be an equal partner in the implementation and development of programs that will best serve the young children and families of Canada and Nova Scotia. We do not need Bill C-303 to do this.

The 2001 ECD and 2003 multilateral ELCC agreements are good examples of how governments have negotiated to provide additional funding to early childhood development, learning, and care programs and services. Nova Scotia would prefer to negotiate agreements like this with the federal government rather than having conditions imposed upon us.

I thank you very much for the opportunity to provide you with an overview of the great strides we are making on child care in Nova Scotia, and for listening to our views on Bill C-303.

Thank you. Merci.

[Jeanette MacAulay, Deputy Minister, Department of Social Services and Seniors, Government of Prince Edward Island]

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair, and members.

Thank you for the opportunity to present to you. I wish to express the regrets of Minister Gillan to the table. He had hoped to join you, but I think the Premier may be announcing something in the next two or three days, and he doesn't want to leave home. That's why I'm here.

The Government of Prince Edward Island has worked closely with provincial stakeholders in the early childhood sector to develop a plan for early child development that meets the needs of our children. We have also shown leadership in work with colleagues from other jurisdictions. In fact, Minister Gillan, the Minister of Social Services and Seniors, has been the co-chair of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers Responsible for Early Learning and Child Care, which created a national vision to guide early child development.

The 2000 First Ministers' Agreement on Early Child Development and the 2003 Multilateral Agreement on Early Learning and Child Care were precursors to this work, and established an important focus in our province on the early years. With funding from these agreements, Prince Edward Island has made significant progress in the support of healthy child development and specific early learning and child care needs.

For example, our province has implemented a universal newborn hearing screening program; financed a province-wide best start home visiting program in collaboration with family resource centres; improved programming for children with special needs in our licensed child care centres; implemented a community-based, integrated kindergarten program; developed curriculum resources, program delivery, and parental engagement supports for all licensed early childhood programs; and enhanced the child care subsidy program so that more low- and middle-income parents can access licensed early learning and child care programs.

The province of Prince Edward Island has unique needs and strengths. We understand the long-lasting impact of quality early childhood experiences for our children. In February, Premier Binns announced details of a long-term plan for investment in regulated child care programs in our province.

Our framework is built on working with our local early learning sector to address the principles of quality, universality, accessibility, and accountability. Our government was successful in advancing the vision for early learning and addressing these principles in concert with our provincial partners. I believe this is the essence of what this bill is trying to accomplish.

However, Bill C-303 has a number of features that are problematic for provincial and territorial governments. I would like to highlight those impacts for Prince Edward Island.

P.E.I. has approximately 8,500 children aged five and under, and a high rate of labour force participation among mothers of these children. At 80%, it's the highest in the country. P.E.I. is in an enviable position. We have licensed spaces available for 46% of our children from infancy to age five. Canada has spaces for less than a quarter of our children.

There are three points that I would like to highlight when discussing the impact of Bill C-303: overlay with provincial jurisdiction, exclusion of private operators, and impact on small jurisdictions.

One, Bill C-303 is prescriptive regarding funds provided for programs that are in an area of provincial jurisdiction. A national vision should support our collective effort to enhance the awareness and understanding of quality early experiences, while enabling jurisdictions to respond and evolve based on the specific local needs of children and families. Governments cannot, in good conscience, do anything to further restrict the child care sector. We would be in effect crippling an already fragile system by imposing further funding restrictions such as those described in Bill C-303.

In P.E.I. we are seeing a high rate of turnover in staff and operators, and our centres are operating below capacity, at 67%. Like all provinces, we are committed to supporting and strengthening our early learning sector and need federal support in doing that, but we all have unique features that need to be understood.

Prince Edward Island has just implemented a new direct funding grant program to centres that will be based on adhering to quality principles. We have also enhanced our child care subsidy program and doubled the number of infant spaces available in our province.

Our provincial challenge is to complement planned provincial initiatives for children and families in P.E.I. by encouraging flexibility, supporting new and existing partnerships, and being creative within the existing system. This needs to happen in concert with our local communities and be reflected in our provincial child care act and regulations, policies, and practices.

Second, Bill C-303 would limit funding to early learning and child care programs administered by the provincial government or operated on a not-for-profit basis only. Of our early childhood centres in P.E.I., 46% are non-profit and 54% are private.

The majority of our full-day centres--in fact, 74%--which also offer our community-based kindergarten program in a seamless day setting, are also private. This is an enviable component of our community-based program for parents who work. Sixty percent of our licensed early childhood centres that have children with special needs, and 90% of the centres that provide infant care, are private centres.

As you see, private operators on Prince Edward Island provide invaluable services to parents and communities in areas that are not well compensated and that require extensive investment of human and material resources. Private and non-profit early childhood centres are equally distributed across urban and rural communities. Both auspices are viewed as integral components of our communities.

Some communities would feel a significant impact, and our sector would be divided, if funding were allocated according to the criteria of Bill C-303. Prince Edward Island prefers to use the term “private” rather than “for profit” because these centres are not businesses that carry healthy profit margins, if any.

Third, Bill C-303 establishes a mechanism for the transfer of early learning and child care funding from the federal government to provinces. Funding levels based on a typically per capita formula do not allow smaller provinces to fully implement systems that realize the obligations outlined in Bill C-303.

In conclusion, we are committed to working with our partners to strengthen an early learning and child care system in P.E.I. that is based on broad availability, accessibility, universality, and the capability of measuring and monitoring quality.

A national vision by the federal government is indeed supported and encouraged. However, the unique circumstances of jurisdictions need to be recognized, and adequate funding should align with provincial planning, priorities, and realities. However, as outlined in Bill C-303, the criteria and conditions required to be met for the transfer of funds to provinces and territories are onerous, inflexible, and without consideration of existing provincial plans. They would result in an erosion of our system, not a strengthening of our child care sector.

Thank you.

[Christian Beaulieu]

It depends on the instrument creating the appropriation, the authority to pay the provinces. If you have proposed legislation like Bill C-303, the purpose of which would be to attach conditions to transfers to provinces, the purpose of the bill is to set out those conditions. The bill could very well set out as well what provinces are to do to account for the use of those funds.

If you take the example of SCPI--I forget what the new name is--that's a contribution program. It's not established by legislation per se. Of course there is a broad appropriation in the annual appropriation acts, but for the rest, the program is established via policies of the Treasury Board. There are terms and conditions governing the program, and it is by virtue of those terms and conditions that agreements of a legal nature are entered into with each and every organization.

The agreements are quite stringent in terms of the accounting they require from organizations. Legislation could be as stringent. Parliament has to choose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 22, 2006, Bill C-303, we will now pursue going through the bill and hearing some witnesses.

I would like everyone to welcome, from the Department of Human Resources and Social Development, Mr. McCombs and Mr. Beaulieu.

I believe you gentlemen have a short statement, and then we can hear some questions from our members of Parliament relating to Bill C-303. Once again, gentlemen, thank you for being here this morning.

You have the floor with your opening statement.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd also like to thank our witnesses for joining us this afternoon to present their views on Bill C-303.

Speaking more directly to Mr. Lévesque, Ms. Bélanger and Ms. Elson, I'd like to say that despite your status within a so-called bipolar system, I appreciate the fact that you have overcome this situation and emphasized the positive side of this for society. You have put your personal interests aside. I appreciate that very much, particularly as your experience with the existing system is well recognized today. That doesn't take away from the fact that you have rights and interests to defend.

As parliamentarians, we also must gather information from all interested parties. Recently, on April 20 in fact, we heard from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which voiced an entirely different opinion. Yet, it also professes to speak on your behalf. Its findings were at the opposite end of the spectrum. It noted the following:

To ensure that new daycare spaces can always be created on the basis of demand, we urge you and your committee to reject this bill and ask that all jurisdictions work together to ensure [...]

Am I to understand then that the federation is not speaking for you and that you distance yourself from this position?

[Susan Elson, Executive Director, Davar Child Care Society]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. My name is Susan Elson, and I represent the Alberta Child Care Network Association. I am also the executive director of Davar Child Care Society here in Calgary.

I would like to thank the committee for providing the opportunity to share the views of the Alberta child care community.

The Alberta Child Care Network Association is an umbrella organization, which was formally established five years ago but has been active since 1986. The association represents a significant number of child care centres and family day-home agencies in organizations across Alberta. Our membership includes both non-profit community-operated child care as well as private owner-operated programs. Collectively the members of our organization provide quality child care service to thousands of Alberta's children and their families.

The Alberta Child Care Network Association mandate includes promoting quality child care on behalf of the children and families of Alberta, supporting early childhood educators through training and education, examining and evaluating government policy and initiatives as it pertains to child care, and promoting public awareness and education as it relates to child care. I would like to clarify that “child care” in Alberta, as I'm defining it today, includes licensed and monitored child care centres and approved family day-home agencies.

I would also like to acknowledge the support and progress that Alberta Children's Services and the Alberta provincial government have provided to the child care community in our province.

I am speaking today to let you know of the Alberta Child Care Network Association's strong support for Bill C-303. In Alberta, as in every other province in Canada, we have struggled for decades to meet the high demand from families for high-quality, affordable child care services. We have watched as federal investments meant for child care have come and gone, some of them helping to make improvements, supporting minor initiatives, and some being invested in one-off programs, which have not had a lasting impact in building an early-learning child care system.

In the federal 2007-08 budget this year, Alberta has seen a cut in federal transfers of $92 million, which was to be transferred to Alberta communities to help address the critical shortage of child care spaces, to address quality through the Alberta child care accreditation process, and to continue to improve the wages of early childhood educators. With no accountability mechanism, $117 million was reduced to a mere $25 million. This is why the Alberta Child Care Network Association supports Bill C-303, an act that would ensure that federal investments in child care are directed to further development of the early learning and child care system that Albertans, and indeed Canadians, need and want.

In Alberta we are struggling even more than other provinces with recruitment and retention of early childhood educators to care for children because of the horrendous labour force shortages in our province. Under-resourced child care centres continue to compete in a labour market that engages in bidding wars to pay much higher wages. Alberta's workforce is crippled by the lack of available child care spaces. Parents who wish to combine parenting and employment simply cannot find or afford the care they need to support them in their employment and/or training. The cost of living in Alberta is high. In most two-parent families, both parents must work just to afford a place to live. Child care is not a luxury for families; it is a necessity.

We have worked hard in Alberta to improve early learning and child care services. Our accreditation system has done much to improve the quality of early child care services in Alberta, but there is much more to be done. Alberta's children deserve better. They deserve the guarantee to quality that Bill C-303 will provide through the principles of quality, affordability, universality, and developmental programming.

In recognition of Alberta's significant aboriginal population, we would further urge you to dedicate federal funding to aboriginal governments to ensure that aboriginal families under federal jurisdiction receive comparable resources to build their own early learning and child care services.

While our membership includes both not-for-profit community-owned child care programs as well as private owner-operator programs, we recognize the need to build a public child care system much like our public education and public health care systems.

Child care simply cannot be left to the marketplace. We have seen how the market approach has failed not only families, but also the committed operators who provide the services. Bill C-303 recognizes owner-operators as an important, if not critical, part of the foundation on which the system should be built. All of us, community-based and private, share the deep desire to provide high-quality, affordable, accessible, early learning child care services to Alberta's families. It's something that can only be achieved with the legislative framework that protects and supports the building of a system. Existing owner-operators are faced with the same challenge and will benefit from increased protected resources that will allow them to enhance the quality of their programs, pay substantial wages, and perhaps eke out a living that is more than an act of goodwill.

While the Alberta child care community has worked hard to achieve progress in many areas, the fact remains that significant financial investments by both the federal and provincial governments are required to build the child care system that is so desperately needed, not only in Alberta, but in Canada. Governments have an obligation to ensure that these investments are protected and publicly accountable. Therefore, we call on the members of the committee and the government to pass Bill C-303 , the Early Learning and Child Care Act. I encourage you to support Bill C-303. It's the accountable thing to do.

Thank you so much for your time today.

[Sylvain Lévesque, President, Quebec's Private Daycare Association]

Good day everyone.

The Association des garderies privées du Québec is pleased to present its point of view to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in its consideration of Bill C-303, which passed first reading on May 17, 2006.

Bill C-303 is another step forward in the planned improvement of services to families in Canada. It is important for the 500 or so childcare centres in Quebec and for the association that represents them to provide information to the committee based on their invaluable contribution to the educational childcare service system that has gradually been established since 1997.

[Monica Lysack]

Absolutely.

First of all, it's important to note that there is a tremendous amount of inequity in the patchwork we have out there. We don't have a system; we do have a patchwork. Another committee, the HUMA committee, is meeting right now and considering child care legislation, Bill C-303, that will provide a legislative framework to guarantee standards around investments, so that the progress made through the bilateral agreements would not be lost and a new government couldn't simply come in and stop that progress.

You raised the question about whether the current investment is contributing to the patchwork. Even though there's an investment, $950 million was basically taken away, leaving $250 million, so it's not like a new investment, but a cut. Then that $250 million, because it's not part of a framework or there's no accountability for it, gets thrown into these one-off initiatives that don't actually deliver results. Some of the tools we've been working on at the CCAAC are policy tools that help us measure what happens if a province invests money in subsidies and whether that actually addresses affordability. In fact, we're finding it doesn't, necessarily, because fees will go up. So it's really important not only to have good solid investments, but to have those investments within a framework guided by the QUAD principles or something similar.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 22, the committee will now commence its study of Bill C-303.

I want to ask the committee, if they would indulge me, just quickly to have a look at the sixth report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, which is in your package. Let's have a quick look at it, and if there are no issues with it, perhaps we could quickly adopt it. If there is going to be a lot of major discussion, then by all means we will have to deal with it after.

These are the recommendations for what we're doing. It's the updated calendar for what we're going to be looking at over the next few weeks and going into June.

If everyone has had a chance to look at it and no one has any concerns, then I would ask whether we're able to adopt it at this time.

Mr. Savage, go ahead.

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

Right now we have four meetings scheduled on Bill C-303.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Would it make any sense to flip Bill C-284 and Bill C-303 and do Bill C-284 first?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Those are the two motions I wanted to deal with.

To deal with Mr. Savage and Ms. Yelich, would we like to add another day to Bill C-303? Is that what you're suggesting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Right now we've allocated what was recommended, which was two days. We can certainly add to it in June, as Ms. Yelich was suggesting for Bill C-303. That's not a problem.

We have a motion on the table to extend the sitting days. If I have no further discussion on it, I'll call the vote.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I have it in front of me. The way the schedule works right now is that when we're done with them next week, we're going to start with Bill C-303, then the employability study, and then Bill C-284. That is the way it's going to work, as we decided on the subagenda.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Chair, just for clarification, Bill C-284, then, will come when we're finished Bill C-303?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're going to finish up the employability study and we're going to do Bill C-303 and Bill C-284. That is correct. That is the order we're going to follow.

The other thing I want to suggest, not to cloud the issues here, is about the motion of Ms. Redman that came forward. Mr. Lessard proposed, because of the way the motion was written, that we deal with it in May, which we do not have in our calendar right now.

I would encourage you all to go back to your whips to deal with the fact that Mr. Lessard has made a motion that makes a lot of sense: that we have a chance to look at it in the fall, because we are jammed up.

We also have the fact that we don't want to be sitting any more than two days a week. I know that will be coming up for a vote tomorrow night.

So I would encourage you to talk to the whips. It's not that we're trying to put if off, but we have a calendar that is full right now, and unless you want to start sitting three days a week again, that is an issue.

That was a very good motion, Mr. Lessard, that you put forward.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

Just on this bill, I understand the importance. Bill C-303 is a very important bill and requires sufficient time. Bill C-284 is also very important. I met today with some students, and they asked me the status of it, so I'm glad this came up today.

Will it be the next study we do after Bill C-303?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, trust me.

There's another issue coming up that we need to deal with as well, with regard to Karen Redman's motion, which I want to just touch on before we finish.

The motion we have before us, Mr. Martin, is that pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, the committee requests from the House an extension of 30 sitting days to complete the study of Bill C-303.

If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question.

(Motion agreed to)

There's one last motion that we need to move.

Ms. Dhalla.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's not a bad.... I know there are witnesses on both sides who would like to come, and we're limiting it to four days. Why don't we deal with the issue, first of all, of the sitting days, which we need to extend for Bill C-303 and as well for Bill C-284? Why don't we deal with that issue first? Then we can entertain adding on another day or so to this.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, I move that the committee request from the House an extension of 30 sitting days to complete the study of Bill C-303.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I will call the members back to the table so that we can deal with the issues we have at hand. Then we can hopefully dispense and move on to what other members have to do for the rest of the day.

Under new business, we have witnesses coming in on Bill C-303, so we need to look at a budget, which you have in your package, that would give us an opportunity to be able to bring some witnesses in to talk to us. We've set aside some days that we've all agreed upon. I believe it's four days to hear witnesses—to hear the sponsor of the bill, and we have some provinces coming in, and then to hear people for and against the bill.

I would like you to have a look at the budget you have before you. It is something that has been put together by the clerk. What we want to move is that the budget of $23,400 to study Bill C-303 be adopted.

Is there any discussion on that? It's pretty straightforward, something that's been put together as a suggestion by the clerk. Do we have any discussion?

The question is, all in favour, then, of the budget...?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

We're going to consider Bill C-303, not the employability act first? Why don't we wind up the employability act while everything is there? Wouldn't it make sense to have it in the order we're studying it?

I can understand with the Auditor General's report; that happens. But--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lessard, Ms. Dhalla, Mr. Martin, and I were there. There was unanimous consent in terms of the suggestions for the work plan.

If you take it down to where we are today, we're on March 27 and we're meeting from 9 until 12. We will cancel the meeting tomorrow. The meeting tomorrow has been cancelled.

This has the workup for the rest of the year, looking at the employability study, being able to draft Bill C-303 and Bill C-284, and then looking at starting a study of the prosperity gap in September. This gets us to the end of the year.

If there are no concerns, my suggestion would be that we approve the fifth report.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today. I am pleased to table the first petition on behalf of the hard-working families of Hamilton Mountain about the lack of child care spaces in our community.

On the day that yet another early year study confirms that Canada is dead last in investing in early learning and child care, the petitioners are expressing their frustration with the government's ABC approach to early learning which under the Conservatives has come to mean anything but child care.

The petitioners are asking Parliament to invest in real early childhood education by passing the NDP's Bill C-303 to create significant child care spaces through a national, high quality, universal, not for profit, affordable and accessible child care system.

Bill C-293--Development Assistance Accountability Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, on May 13, 2006, you included Bill C-293 in a list of private members' items with possible royal recommendation issues. Following interventions in the House, on September 19, 2006, you ruled that the bill, as it was introduced, requires a royal recommendation.

You found that the creation of an advisory committee and new reporting requirements for ministers:

--require the authorization of spending for a new and distinct purpose.

As such, clause 6 and clauses 7 to 10 cause the bill as a whole in its current form to require a royal recommendation.

On February 1, the bill was reported from committee with numerous amendments.

Without commenting on the merits of this bill, I would appreciate your consideration of whether this bill still requires a royal recommendation under Standing Order 79, for two reasons.

First, while the committee deleted clauses 6 to 8, the bill as amended continues to include clause 9, and the provisions that had been in clause 10 have been substantially incorporated into clause 9. Given that your previous ruling concluded that clauses 9 and 10 required a royal recommendation, I would welcome your ruling on whether the bill still requires a royal recommendation.

A second aspect of the bill that may require a royal recommendation is that the bill would establish new conditions and criteria respecting the provision of official development assistance beyond those in the initial bill.

The committee amended clause 3 of the bill to provide for a definition of “official development assistance”, which includes that it be “concessional in character”, that it “conveys a grant element of at least 25%”, and that it “meets the requirements set out in section 4” of the bill.

Clause 4 of the bill places restrictions on the provision of official development assistance. Clause 4 was amended in committee to change the wording in subclause 4(2), obliging the minister to “consult with governments, international agencies and Canadian civil society organizations” before spending official development assistance. Clause 4 was also amended to provide a new subclause 4(3), which places a new condition on the calculation of official development assistance.

Authority for official development assistance is currently provided in subsection 10(3) of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act, which provides the Minister of Foreign Affairs with authority to develop and carry out programs in relation to the minister's powers, including for the provision of assistance to developing countries.

You did not consider clauses 3 and 4 in your initial ruling on Bill C-293 on September 19, 2006. However, there have been new developments since that time.

In your ruling on Bill C-303 on November 6, 2006, you found that adding new conditions and criteria to an otherwise authorized expenditure requires a royal recommendation and that the clauses of Bill C-303:

--which relate to the making of transfer payments according to the specified criteria and conditions, require a royal recommendation.

This principle should apply to Bill C-293 as well, which would impose new conditions on government spending.

Other precedents make clear that adding new conditions to an otherwise authorized expenditure require a royal recommendation. For example, on April 23, 1990, Speaker Fraser ruled that a royal recommendation was appropriate because the bill in question would:

--change the conditions and qualifications that were attached to the original legislation recommended by the Governor General.

This is exactly what clauses 3 and 4 of Bill C-293 would do, by imposing new conditions on development assistance.

Therefore, due to the committee's amendments and in light of your ruling on Bill C-303, the government believes that Bill C-293 continues to require a royal recommendation.

I would respectfully welcome your ruling on this matter.

Opposition Motion--Government Policies

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

Mr. Speaker, recently the Prime Minister received an F for child care and for failing ordinary families. Since 1993, we know there have been a lot of promises for families and children. Whether it was a national child care program or funding, there have been numerous promises and yet to date there is no national child care program. We have seen funding agreements and broken records. Unfortunately, starting on April 1 this year, $650 million will be taken out of the child care plan.

Is it not time to invest in child care? Is it not also time to pass Bill C-303, the early learning and child care act, put forward by the NDP, so we can enshrine in legislation the concept of a national child care program that is accessible, universal, affordable and high quality? If we do this, every family that needs child care will be able to get it.

Child Care

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, families in Burnaby--Douglas face a child care crisis of fewer spaces and higher fees.

Families know that the Conservatives' $100 a month baby bonus did not help provide child care because it covers only a fraction of child care costs. Many know that at tax time they will lose again as part of that allowance gets taxed back. They also know that losing the young child supplement hurts families too. They know that the Conservatives' cancellation of the early learning and child care agreement has made things worse.

The B.C. Liberal government, another conservative government with a huge surplus, now claims it has to slash important programs due to federal cuts. Child care resource and referral centres will disappear. Child care operating and capital funds have taken a hit. Parents of special needs children had to fight when even support for the child care development program was threatened.

We need spaces now. We need a legislated, universal, quality, affordable, not for profit child care program with stable funding. That is what New Democrats have put forward in Bill C-303, our early learning and child care act.

The House resumed from November 21 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by acknowledging the particular efforts of my colleague from Trinity—Spadina on this bill.

I will conclude the debate by saying that the early learning and child care act can be the cornerstone of social policy for Canadian families for generations.

In this debate we have established the value of quality early learning opportunities to give our children the best possible start. We have established the link between child care early learning and the welfare of Canada's social fabric and economy.

The debate then comes down to the question of how to create a truly universal, quality child care system that respects parents, the provinces and territories.

Everyone but the Conservatives knows that their claims of providing universal choice in child care are bogus. A single mom from Victoria wrote to me because she cannot afford to stay at home with her two little girls, nor can she afford both rent and child care on her salary. What choice does $100 give her?

The Conservatives, on the other hand, have spent $2 million to advertise this $100. They have spent $27 million delivering the cheques. Now they talk about $250 million for private child care spaces and they do not know how to spend that yet. Their proposal will leave many families behind.

In contrast, the early learning and child care act would ensure adequate, stable federal funding to guarantee truly universal access to public child care that would give every Canadian family the choice between quality child care or staying at home.

The Conservatives argue that Bill C-303 imposes one size fits all child care on the provinces. This is patently absurd. The bill actually expands the capacity of the provinces and territories to provide flexible child care options at the hours and locations parents need.

For those parents who choose to not participate in a public system, Bill C-303 does not remove the $100 baby bonus boost of the Conservatives. It would do what that money will not do. It would create child care spaces that every Canadian family could afford.

I am disappointed because the Conservative government has not yet agreed to make this bill subject to a royal recommendation. Tomorrow's vote will finally require it, I hope, to recognize that two thirds of Canadians rejected its child care plan in the last election.

We are open, of course, to proposals for changes that could be presented in committee. In fact, our objective at this stage is to draw attention to the need for Canada to have a public child care network and to have a practical discussion on how the federal government can best contribute to it.

Quebec's child care network is a model in Canada's otherwise bleak picture in this area, according to the OECD.

We are thrilled to see that the Bloc is able to help the rest of Canada get inspired.

I would like to close with a story. When I was in Halifax a couple of weeks ago for a committee study on the employability of Canadians, the Conservative member on the committee that day spoke of Alberta's negative unemployment, otherwise known as a skills shortage. The response from one of the witnesses struck me as appropriate to our debate today. This was not a child care advocate, but a senior policy analyst with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business no less. She said:

It's true 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...the day care system.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--

No wonder the province that has all those well-paying jobs is having trouble motivating women to enter into the labour market.

The bill before us is crucially important. It confronts the cynicism of an individualistic world of everyone for herself or himself. Bill C-303 represents Canadians working together to create a better life for Canadian families, to give the best possible life to our children. Let us make it a reality.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill C-303, the proposed early learning and child care act, introduced by the member for Victoria.

Canada's new government recognizes that one of the most important investments we can make as a country is to give parents choices when it comes to caring for their children. We take our commitment to support parents' choice of child care very seriously. There are strong reasons why we are pursuing choice in child care.

First, it is one of the key priorities we promised to pursue during the recent election. We work to keep our promises.

Canadians voted for a platform that put choice in child care as a top five priority. We reaffirmed our promise of choice in child care in the Speech from the Throne. We committed the funds in budget 2006. We have delivered on that commitment to Canadian families through our universal child care plan. A promise made, a promise kept.

The second reason we believe in choice in child care is because of the benefits it delivers to every Canadian family.

Unlike the inadequate and ineffective approach envisioned in Bill C-303, our new universal child care plan recognizes that no two Canadian families are alike. We understand that parents with young children balance their work and family lives in different ways and for different reasons.

We are very aware, for example, that the services provided by day care facilities open 9 to 5 are simply not an option for the many Canadian parents whose schedules require that they work evenings, weekends, split shifts or 12 hour shifts. Neither is standard day care the answer for parents taking evening courses to enhance their skills. Standard day care is an equally unrealistic option for farming families, for families working in the fisheries, and for the many Canadians with young children who live in rural or remote communities.

Moreover, as a recent Statistics Canada study confirmed, almost half of Canadian parents continue to find ways to stay at home to care for their preschool children themselves.

Unfortunately, Bill C-303 lacks the flexibility that would enable parents to make the choices they want. While this bill fails to properly respect the expertise of parents, it also fails to respect the established roles and responsibilities of the provinces in the realm of child care service delivery. On the contrary, what Bill C-303 proposes is tantamount to an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.

This act would impose singular, one size fits all criteria and conditions on provincial governments in order for them to qualify for federal early learning and child care funding.

I want this House to take note of the irony in this bill. The previous Liberal-NDP coalition in this House had the opportunity to implement this one size fits all day care program this bill reflects, but it did not. In fact, the Liberals were promising one size fits all day care for 13 years and for four elections, and never delivered a single additional care space directly from the federal government.

While I have no doubt the member for Victoria is sincere in her desire to help families, I believe she should look at the reasons why this proposal has consistently failed.

The reasons are that most families cannot, or do not, fit into a one size fits all program, and no government can afford the incredible cost of formal day care for every Canadian child.

Given the wide range of parental situations and needs, and the diverse needs of our provinces and territories, we have developed and, more importantly, acted on a child care plan that responds to the diverse circumstances and real needs of Canadian families. Our plan represents a flexible, balanced approach that would enable parents and communities to develop the child care solutions that work best for them.

This is a plan founded on respect for parental expertise in deciding what is best for their children, and for the roles and responsibilities of the provinces in delivering child care services.

However, it is important to mention that there is another long term benefit to Canadian society of providing greater choice to parents. That benefit is that many more Canadians may decide to become parents or, if they already are parents, they may choose to have an additional child.

Offering Canadian parents greater freedom to decide such important questions for themselves has tremendous importance for the future of our home and native land. That is because our national birthrate has now fallen well below replacement levels. Canadian women are now having 1.5 children, on average. The replacement rate is 2.1. Anything less means a nation begins shrinking rather than growing. This could lead to serious problems.

As the baby boom generation begins to retire, our shrinking birthrate will start to have its impact. Fewer children now means fewer people entering the workforce in the coming years. Fewer workers means fewer taxpayers able to contribute to valued social programs. Our pay as we go public pension plan was predicated on the idea that a certain ratio of workers to retirees was necessary to be self-sustaining.

It is in the interests of Canadian society and our various governments to do what we can to encourage and support family formation and child rearing. Providing families with as much freedom as possible to make the child care choices that are right for them can further this goal.

As the House is aware, our universal child care plan has two parts: a universal child care benefit and a child care spaces initiative. Together these two components represent an investment of close to $12 billion over five years to improve the lives of Canadian families, an investment that is more than twice that proposed by the former Liberal government.

Allow me to elaborate for a moment on the first component of the plan, the universal child care benefit. This direct benefit to Canadian families helps them to choose the type of child care that works best for them.

This past July, parents across Canada began receiving the benefit of $100 a month for each child under the age of six, a benefit they are free to use for the best interests of their own children. For example, they can apply the $1,200 a year toward the cost of formal day care, or they can use the benefit to pay for occasional babysitting, or for child care help from a grandparent or a neighbour. If parents so choose, they can purchase educational resources like books and supplies for their preschoolers, or they can use the benefit to pay for special outings to a museum, a zoo or a gallery. As I noted earlier, we respect parents' choices and this is what the benefit delivers.

I should mention that the day our universal child care benefit came into effect, my daughter Kate was born. I can well relate to the many families who are not able to access or utilize nine to five day care. Like many other Canadian families with the employment or geographical circumstances I just mentioned, my wife and I live with circumstances that make nine to five day care at the same formal day care facility impractical. However, for us, that benefit will come in handy for babysitting and educational supplies for our Canada Day baby.

I have heard from many parents who appreciate the difference those monthly cheques make in their lives. In fact across Canada 1.6 million families with 2.1 million children now receive the benefit. Families who are already registered for the Canada child tax benefit, which account for 90% of those 1.6 million families, receive the universal child care benefit automatically.

However, we want to ensure that all parents with preschoolers receive the benefit. To this end, the government has been very active in reaching out to the families not currently registered for the Canada child tax benefit to encourage them to apply. Our outreach efforts include a special website, radio ads, and print ads in national and local daily papers.

The government is proud to support the choices of all Canadian parents in trying to give their preschoolers a strong start in life.

Canada's new government is equally committed to the second component of our universal child care plan that will provide a flexible approach to child care spaces that meets Canadian parents' diverse needs. The new child care spaces initiative will provide incentives that can be translated into more child care options in large urban centres and rural areas, or for the many parents whose work hours do not fit the standard nine to five model.

In designing this initiative, we have been consulting with the provinces and territories, as well as businesses, communities and non-profit organizations to tap into their expertise. Furthermore, a ministerial advisory committee was named by the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development to advise her on the design of the child care spaces initiative. The committee, chosen for expertise in child care, work family issues, community organizations and the needs of employers, will present the minister with a report outlining its advice and recommendations later this year.

This responsive, flexible approach which respects parents' choices and expertise and the roles and responsibilities of the provinces is in keeping with our promise to Canadians. For these reasons, we are unable to support the narrow solutions to child care and early learning proposed by the member for Victoria in Bill C-303.

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-303, the early learning and child care act. Early learning and child care spaces are a necessity for Saskatchewan. Creating spaces are incredibly important for addressing the growing labour gap in Saskatchewan and providing parents the option of affordable and accessible child care spaces as they take on employment, learning or training opportunities, or simply desire a child care choice.

Although I am supportive of the intent of this bill, it calls attention to the loss of the early learning and child care agreements that the previous Liberal government reached with the provinces, as well as the Kelowna accord. Child care agreements were created in consultation with each of the provinces, and met unique challenges and opportunities for each province.

The Kelowna accord met concerns of aboriginal leaders and encouraged the first nations, Métis and Inuit communities to proceed with their own plan that responded to the challenges of their own communities and opportunities as well. As a result, communities and provinces were able to take the lead and ownership of their own child care programs.

The NDP has reasons for attempting to claim to be child care champions. To openly admit the truth that it played a major role in scrapping the Liberal child care agreements causes it the same unease and discomfort it has had to confront about assisting the Conservatives in scrapping the Kelowna accord. Perhaps this resulted in short term political gain, but it represents terrible progressive policy.

What is most disappointing to me about the NDP's and the Conservative Party's betrayal of the child care agreements is that they strike a blow against Saskatchewan. Both the Saskatchewan NDP government and the conservative official opposition Saskatchewan Party recognized this and have advocated for the agreements to be honoured.

This March both parties joined together in the Saskatchewan legislature to unanimously pass a motion introduced by the Saskatchewan learning minister. The motion expressed Saskatchewan's dissatisfaction with the federal government for cancelling early learning and child care agreements with the provinces, and not fulfilling the previous Liberal government's commitments.

The reason for this show of unity is clear. The situation in Saskatchewan is dire. A recent University of Toronto study revealed that only 4.9% of children under 12 years of age had access to regulated child care spaces in Saskatchewan.

The Liberals responded to this alarming situation. The Saskatchewan NDP government and the previous Liberal federal government signed a five year $146 million agreement in principle last year, with Saskatchewan receiving about $22.6 million in the first year and $20 million for the next year.

The province's child care plan would extend pre-kindergarten services to all four-year-olds in the province, add 7,200 new child care spaces and increase training for early childhood educators. Moreover, with the Kelowna accord $100 million was dedicated to early learning and child care spaces on reserves. In Saskatchewan on reserve populations are increasing at an incredible rate and early learning and child care opportunities are very limited.

The Saskatchewan legislature is also united in its support of the Kelowna accord as well. In March the provincial NDP government and the Saskatchewan Party joined yet again to pass a unanimous motion calling on the federal Conservative government to implement that accord, but the Conservatives have not listened to this show of unity. Instead, they have decided to cover up the truth.

One of the most often repeated lines by many Conservative MPs is that the previous Liberal government did not create any child care spaces. On April 11 the Prime Minister stated in question period that “the Liberals did not create any child care spaces”. On April 25 the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development went further stating in question period that “spaces were never created by the previous government”. This would be a fantastic argument if it were true. However, it is false.

Spaces were created and the Conservatives are taking those spaces away. For example, in Ontario where the federal-provincial child care agreement had time to be implemented, 8,000 spaces were created. These spaces benefited all regions, rural and urban as well.

The Regina Leader-Post in fact revealed on May 29 that child care spaces were created in the social development minister's own riding of Haldimand—Norfolk, with more on the way. Badly needed spaces were created in the minister's own rural riding.

Here is what her constituents are saying, which she would hear if she were not so busy avoiding Caledonia. Norfolk County Mayor Rita Kalmbach stated, “I do know we are in need of spaces, no doubt about it. We the country, the municipality couldn't kick in its own money to establish these spots that we've lost, nor could the school board”.

Jodi Guilmette, who oversees child care programs in Norfolk County, said that the Conservative plan “limits the flexibility we have in terms of offering services to families in our community. We don't have any capital funds to create the structures to house the programs families need and that's our biggest challenge”.

Many other rural voices added their support to the Liberal plan as well. In the August 10, 2006 issue of the Western Producer the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the largest agricultural organization in Canada, voiced its support for the Liberal plan saying that without direct investment spaces in rural areas will not be created.

The Conservatives are using a plan of deliberate deception saying that no spaces were created because they have no plan of their own to create any child care spaces. They have simply tried to ignore the problem and fake up a plan while abandoning the child care agreements and the Kelowna accord.

Their fake plan is a tax credit plan which has a proven history of failure in Canada. In Saskatchewan the exact same plan was tried, did not have any take up, and simply withered away.

No spaces in rural or economically disadvantaged areas of cities will be created since there are few large organizations that operate in those areas and they are the only ones who can afford to set up the spaces. Moreover, the plan completely ignores large youth populations on reserve because of the different tax environment.

Finally, there is literally no plan of maintaining any spaces even if they could be created. There is only a one time credit or grant. This is a hollow, fake plan. There is not much hope that the Conservatives will learn from any of these mistakes since key players in child care are not involved in the advisory committee, notably no aboriginal organizations.

In fact, when the social development minister was questioned on November 1 by the member for Churchill on the involvement of aboriginal people in making the child care spaces initiative, the minister's reply was: “We do not do racial profiling”. What kind of garbage answer is that? Nobody asked a question about race. It was a question about how to ensure that the fastest growing population of Canada was fairly represented in this initiative.

No doubt, sooner or later the Conservatives will realize that the only plan that can reliably open up spaces is the Liberal plan. The Liberal plan provided the predictable reliable investment that rural and remote communities need to set up these spaces.

As for the Conservative family allowance, misleadingly referred to as the universal child care benefit, I am fully in support of giving parents assistance to help with raising their children, but there are inherent flaws in the family allowance and tax changes that have been made that hurt families and need to be changed.

The family allowance is taxable with new Conservative tax grabs introduced in the 2006 budget. Families stand to lose a lot of the payment. First, the Conservatives threw a lot more parents on to the tax rolls, 200,000 in total, by cutting the amount that people can earn tax free by $400.

Second, they hiked up the lowest income tax rate from 15% to 15.5%. This hike affects people making up to $36,000 which is slightly above the average income in Saskatchewan.

Third, they did a double whammy on all families and married taxpayers. They slashed the amount people could claim for each eligible dependant and also their spouse or common law partner, both by $340.

These outright tax grabs claw back not only what families can get from the Conservative family allowance, but also leech family income far before and far beyond the time families can receive the benefit. This is shameful.

As a final insult, the low and middle income monthly young child supplement has also been clawed back, pretty much drying up any new support that the family allowance would give to low and middle income families.

The Conservatives could have honoured all of these child care agreements this year and fully funded the Kelowna accord, and could have still dedicated over $11 billion to paying down the debt. But the Conservatives chose not to support the early learning and child care spaces. They chose not to support first nations, Métis and Inuit children and young families, and then they went after adult literacy, health programs and funding to museums.

If the Conservatives really wanted to cut wasteful spending, they would do well to look no further than their useless tax credits for spaces. Freeing up that money would go a long way to adopt the Liberal plan of direct investment.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-303, introduced by the member for Victoria.

Before I begin, I would like to remind the House that Canada's new government understands the importance of supporting families to ensure Canada's bright future. Our support for Canadian families is so determined that upon taking office we made child care one of our government's top five priorities.

In just a few months since taking office, our government has introduced and, more importantly, acted on a universal child care plan, a truly remarkable feat when one considers that the previous Liberal government entertained promises on child care without delivering a single space or benefit in 13 long years. Illusions ultimately lead to disappointment. This government has provided real support directly to all families with preschool age children and, second, Canada's new government is supporting the creation of new child care spaces.

Our universal child care plan represents a flexible approach. Its components benefit the family, and new child care spaces do not demand an either/or decision. Rather, this plan offers flexibility so that parents and communities can find solutions that work best for them.

Our plan does not impose on other jurisdictions, as do the conditions and criteria laid out in Bill C-303. Our plan is one where one component complements the other.

Our new government's approach to child care is a balanced approach which recognizes that parents are the ones best placed to choose the type of child care that best suits their specific needs. Central to our program is the universal child care benefit that places money directly in the hands of parents, $100 per month for each child under age six. This benefit gives parents the freedom and the flexibility to make decisions that address the unique needs of their families.

Our government's response to child care has sparked positive commentary from coast to coast. For example, an op-ed piece in the New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal called it a “profound statement” that this government values the efforts of Canadian parents, including stay at home parents. A Vancouver Sun opinion column praised our plan's flexibility for parents, noting that the extra $1,200 “may make the difference between working full- or part-time while the kids are small”. The paper also stated, “It also helps parents who work shifts--something 'day care', by definition--can't handle”.

Shockingly, the meanspirited NDP, which claims to be in favour of supporting the child care needs of Canadians, is actively trying to gut this important social program. Just recently at the human resources committee, the NDP social policy critic, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, introduced a motion that would in effect take away the universal child care benefit from Canadian children and families just in time for the holiday season.

Nevertheless, Bill C-303 is an inadequate and inappropriate attempt to address the child care needs of Canadian parents and represents a significant intrusion into provincial and territorial jurisdiction. The one size fits all approach it endorses, much like the agreement signed by the former government, does not work for the diverse child care needs facing Canadian families.

As the findings of the April 2006 Statistics Canada report “Child Care in Canada” showed, the factors that contribute to a decision regarding a family's caring arrangements are multiple and diverse. The report stated, “The use of certain types of care differed with respect to a number of characteristics, including the community in which the child lived, the income level of the child's family and the parental place of birth”.

Another notable finding of the report was that despite the increase in the number of families with both parents working outside the home, almost half of children under the age of six are primarily cared for by a parent at home. The report concluded that no one form of child care stands out across the country. In fact, child care patterns vary by region, by the child's background and by some family characteristics.

Consequently, if we are going to have a truly objective debate on child care in Canada, we must recognize that no one size fits all approach, such as the one proposed in Bill C-303, will adequately address the needs of Canadian parents.

We recognize that there are many parents who need child care outside the home, be it provided by a day care centre or by another means. That is why, as part of Canada's universal child care plan, Canada's new government is committed to introducing new measures to help employers and communities create new spaces where they are needed.

Budget 2006 backed up this commitment by designating $250 million per year to our child care spaces initiative to support the creation of new spaces. These spaces will be designed, created and delivered in the communities where parents live and work and raise their children.

Our approach will seek to make certain that these new measures work for all businesses and non-profit and community organizations. Moreover, we will provide incentives that will seek to create child care spaces for large urban centres, for smaller rural centres and for parents working a standard nine to five work day and those who are not, while remaining respectful of existing provincial and territorial systems and jurisdictions.

However, as we go about creating these spaces, we are steadfast in our determination not to rush into a poorly designed, top-down, government imposed approach to creating child care spaces. Instead, we will work in conjunction with businesses, non-profit employers and community organizations, as well as the provinces and territories, to draw on their experience and create new child care spaces.

To advance this initiative, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development recently named a nine member advisory committee to advise her on the design of the child care spaces initiative. This committee, made up of experts in the fields of child care, work-family issues, community organizations and employers, is scheduled to present the minister with its recommendations in the coming months.

In summary, through Canada's universal child care plan, Canadians will find new avenues for innovative and quality child care that will help address their individual needs. Essential to this plan, and what so clearly differentiates it from the approach outlined in Bill C-303, is its acknowledgment of the unique needs of Canadian families and the provision of flexibility to address these needs. This principle serves as a central tenet of our universal child care plan.

To sum up, the former Liberal government's one size fits all approach to child care did not address the diverse needs of Canadian families. Now the NDP is proposing one size fits all child care legislation. On that note, I wonder if the NDP members would explain why, even though they have been vocal--when reporters are near--about a child care crisis for the past decade, they have not once, before 2006, brought forward a private member's bill or a motion on child care for debate in the House during that time.

The fact is that while the NDP pays lip service to child care at election time and when the TV lights are on, Canada's new government is taking real action on our commitment to child care. We are providing parents and the provinces the flexibility and the freedom they need to choose the type of child care that works best for them.

For all of these reasons, I will be voting against Bill C-303. I urge all hon. colleagues to do the same.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in support of Bill C-303, the early learning and child care act. I commend my NDP colleagues from Victoria and Trinity—Spadina for their efforts to bring the bill to the House.

This is an important evening for Canada because the bill is about the future of Canada. Nothing is more precious to us than our children and nothing is more important than investing in our children.

I will begin by quoting someone I admire greatly, Stephen Lewis, the former UN envoy for HIV-AIDS. He said:

Everybody now understands, I think…that early learning and child care fused together is the kind of objective which any civilized society strives for, and that it becomes an indispensable and vital dimension of a child’s life, enhancing all of the family characteristics which shore up the child, but profoundly influencing in the most positive imaginable way the opportunities for the child.

The science on this is also very clear. In the landmark study, Reversing the Real Brain Drain: Early Years, the hon. Margaret Norrie McCain and J. Fraser Mustard found that the evidence from the neurosciences was clear that the early years of development, from conception to age six, particularly for the first three years, set the foundations for competence and coping skills that affected learning, behaviour and health throughout a person's life, and that, in view of that evidence, the period of early childhood development was equal to or of greater importance for the next generation than the periods spent in education or post-secondary education. Their findings led them to recommend that early childhood development should have high priority for policy makers.

However, we saw with previous Liberal governments, year after year, majority government after majority government, surplus budget after surplus budget, that they failed the children of Canada. They failed to bring in a national child care program. It was only until, tainted with scandal, at the very last minute they finally tried to introduce some funding for child care. However, they failed to bring in what this bill would bring in, which is a national early learning and child care act.

It is not surprising that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development noted that Canada was and is in a free fall behind other industrialized nations when it comes to early learning and child care services. In fact, it found that out of the 20 OECD member states, Canada was at the bottom of public spending on child care. Canada spends a mere 0.3% of GDP on early childhood services and we failed to make progress on other OECD recommended standards, such as the fact that child care services outside of Quebec remain fragmented, relying on underpaid child care workers and a combination of high parent fees and small subsidies for low income families.

What does this mean for Canadians? In Toronto, 70% of mothers are working and one-third of our children are living below the poverty level. Forty per cent of low income children live in single female parent families. We know that high quality care benefits all children but it benefits children in poverty most. In fact, good quality care is one of the essential pathways out of poverty for families. However, almost 10,000 children in Toronto are on the waiting list for subsidized care.

I just want to give a couple of examples in my own community. The Early Enrichment Day Care Centre in my community has the names of 160 infants on the waiting list and once a child's name is on the list it can take up to two years before the child is actually accepted at the centre. After a child turns two, the parents can no longer put their child in infant care. They must then try to put the child into toddler care. However, if the child has not been in the infant care, the infants who were in infant care get first choice. When these children lose out on toddler care they then lose out on the preschool care. If a parent does not have their child in the infant program, the child may not receive child care at all.

Let us look at the Macaulay Child Development Centre. Unlike Quebec, where child care costs parents $7 a day per child, infant care at the Macaulay Child Development Centre costs $65.18 a day or $1,400 a month. What family can afford $1,400 for one child, let alone two or three? Yet at the Macaulay Child Development Centre, the waiting list has close to 500 children. Not all of them are infants, but a number of them are.

I also want to read for members a plea I had from a supervisor at a local child care centre in my riding: She wrote:

As the supervisor of a local childcare with a wait list of 72 preschoolers (minimum 10-12 month wait list), the time has come for a National Child Care Strategy.

Many of our parents do not qualify for subsidy under the current rules but struggle to pay the high cost of full fee care. Many have had to make alternative arrangements using unlicensed care because of not being able to afford care or have access because the wait list is so long.

We are located in a Public School that is quickly running out of free space to use as well and without the promised Child care dollars (that included monies to create and build spaces), we have no choice but to keep telling parents, I'm sorry, we are full. You may be lucky to get a space next year.

This is a tragedy for young people in our country. It is simply not acceptable. The Conservative alternative to this of offering an allowance to parents does not improve the choice of parents seeking child care. It does not help the parents who are on that 500-child waiting list. It does not create one new space for children.

It is time that we addressed the failure of both the Liberal and the Conservative governments in Canada. That is why this bill is so critical.

I have not often taken to quoting the head of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge, but I will also quote him this evening. Mr. Dodge said recently:

In an increasingly complex and competitive world, furthering our national economic welfare will depend importantly on the quality of our labour force...the first step to improving skills is to build an excellent infrastructure for early childhood development, feeding into a school system that effectively teaches basic skills.

It is clear that early learning and child care programs promote children's well-being and strengthen the foundation for lifelong learning. David Dodge gets it. Stephen Lewis gets it. Quebec gets it. The OECD countries, besides Canada, get it. And now, thanks to the NDP, we hope that after this bill passes the children of Canada will also get it and will get the child care that they need and deserve.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-303, which was introduced by a colleague from the NDP.

We have some reservations about this bill because child care services are the responsibility of the provincial governments, specifically of Quebec. Hon. members know that Quebec set up a very sophisticated child care service that responds to public pressure expressing a need to help men and women, but mostly women, who have jobs and want their children to have a safe place to be cared for while they are at work. This program is part of an integrated service to help all Quebec families.

We have carefully examined Bill C-303. I would like to read its title.

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.

Hon. members have to understand how a title worded that way could bother the Bloc Québécois. Nonetheless, we went further and there is indeed an exemption. I will read clauses 3 and 4 to explain how the Bloc Québécois came to accept this bill.

3. The purpose of this Act is to establish criteria and conditions that must be met before a child care transfer payment may be made in support of the early learning and child care program of a province or territory.

Nonetheless, there is an exemption.

4. Recognizing the unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec with regard to the education and development of children in Quebec society, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Government of Quebec may choose to be exempted from the application of this Act and, notwithstanding any such decision, shall receive the full transfer payment that would otherwise be paid under section 5.

It is no surprise that, thanks to this exemption, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, because we understand that all Canadians would very much like to have access to quality, safe day care services where children can not only have access to such services, but also be socialized with other children at various levels and from different cultures.

As we all know, Quebec created its own child care program. Furthermore, the previous Liberal government wanted to create a national child care program.

I remember that when I sat on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, I expressed my position at the time to the NDP and the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, who was involved in the project. I explained to him why Quebec deserved to be treated with sensitivity. I think I got my message across. We worked on it and I tried to explain to them how Quebec could not be dependent on the federal government and subject to federal standards and criteria, while Quebec was in fact the leader in child care services for all Quebeckers, and even a leader beyond Quebec.

We are very pleased to see that we were successful and able to convey the sensitivity that was required in introducing such a child care program.

We are very disappointed that the Conservative Party, which is now in power, completely scrapped the project. Thus, we will not see the creation of such a child care program for all Canadians. Furthermore, this has a financial impact on Quebec, which should have been paid $800 million, because Quebec was entitled to opt out with full compensation. The Quebec government invests some $2 billion a year in child care services. Under this bill, it could proceed in its own way.

For example, Quebec could use that money to fund all of its programs for families. Quebec is helping its families in a number of other sectors by spending more than $4.493 billion on child assistance, the work premium, the Quebec sales tax credit, the childcare tax credit and parental leave.

This shows that Quebec is proactive overall and should perhaps be even more so. This bill could enable the province to invest even more funds. The NDP's Bill C-303 satisfies us in part because it has the kind of flexibility we want.

We know that the Conservative Party decided to offer families dubious assistance by giving them a $1,200 allowance. As we all know, this allowance is considered taxable income, which means that most families will not really get $1,200. Depending on a family's income, it might get only $700. We know that childcare services cost a lot more than that and that those costs are incurred by the population as a whole. We want to give people a choice.

What choice did the Conservative Party give families and everyone else in Canada and Quebec? That being said, I would add that Quebec now has its own childcare services, so this issue does not matter as much to us.

The only choice is to accept the $1,200 allowance. There is virtually no child care available for $7 a day, a price the public can afford. We know that low-income and single-parent families cannot afford $25 to $30 a day for child care, because they earn minimum wage in some cases. Clearly, the Conservative government did not think about all Canadian families when it offered the $1,200 allowance, and it would be easy to challenge the policy's fairness. The government did not come up with a better offer than $1,200, paid for by Canadian taxpayers.

I would also like to raise another sore point regarding this practice. Some child care costs $7 a day, while full service costs $25 to $30 a day on average. Families paying that amount can deduct their child care expenses from their taxes. Out of 435,000 children, 200,000 receive child care services in Quebec. That means that the families of 200,000 children are not claiming their tax credit. This service therefore costs the government nothing, because these 200,000 families are not claiming a federal tax credit. The government is therefore saving money.

This is creating a shortfall in Quebec that is equivalent to the investment in child care. The Conservatives lack sensitivity and do not understand this. Because of child care in Quebec, Quebec families are claiming fewer tax credits, and the unclaimed amounts are remaining in the Conservative government's pockets and coffers.

The Conservatives say they want to help Canadians. That would have been a good way to help them, because the $1,200 is a direct subsidy for families. Instead of using tax measures and a non-refundable tax credit, the government wanted to take a different approach. We criticized this during the election campaign. Nothing more can be done for Canadians.

I am glad to have taken part in this debate, and I would like to commend the work that my colleague from Trois-Rivières has done on this issue. She has taken over the child care issue, and I am pleased that she has conveyed the Bloc Québécois message very proactively.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my support for Bill C-303, the early learning and child care act.

The bill is based on the Liberal child care plan and the side agreements between the previous Liberal government and 10 provinces. Those agreements were all cancelled by the current minority Conservative government.

Yesterday Canada marked National Child Day. It is an opportunity to assess how we are meeting the needs of this and future generations of young Canadians. Sadly, the Conservative Party is moving backward by cancelling our investment in hundreds of thousands of new child care spaces.

Canadian families have been advocating for more choice in affordable and high quality child care. The minority Conservative government has chosen to ignore their call and has cancelled the agreements that were struck with the provinces. Despite what the government claims, this will take away the choice for most working families. Years of discussion and planning have all been thrown away and our country has been set back more than 30 years when it comes to child care accessibility.

In my riding and all over the country there is a great sense of disappointment that funding for creating new child care spaces has come to an end. Waiting lists for child care spaces continue to grow and costs continue to rise, yet the Conservatives have done nothing to help the situation.

Earlier in the year the Conservatives promised to work with business and organizations around the country to create new child care spaces. What have they done? Whom have they consulted with? How many spaces have they created?

As anyone who has visited the government's universal child care website will know, this website reveals the lack of seriousness the Conservatives are displaying toward the challenge that Canadian families are facing. It has no substance, no clear plan, no direction. It is just a bunch of empty rhetoric that does nothing to ease the concerns of families who are waiting for a day care space for their child or for women who are compelled to put their career or education aspirations on hold because they cannot afford the day care spaces that are available.

The government's poor child care policies have frustrated Canadian working families. Many families were surprised to learn this past summer that they will no longer receive the Canada child tax benefit supplement. More than three-quarters of a million families were disappointed to learn that they will no longer receive those benefits and they had no notice or early warning.

One would find it hard to believe that given all these failures, early childhood learning and education was one of the now forgotten five priorities of the Conservatives. If creating child care spaces is a priority for the government, I would hate to see what it would have done if it was a secondary issue. Then again, we have seen what the Conservative government has done to reduce wait times for receiving health care. Nothing. We have seen what it has done to tackle climate change and the environmental challenges we are facing. Nothing. Similarly, we have seen its simplistic approach to preventing and reducing the spread of crime. We have seen how it misled Canadians on the income trust file. We have seen how it is damaging Canada's long-standing foreign policy tradition of diplomacy and promotion of peace that all Canadians are proud of.

It comes as no surprise to many Canadians that the Conservatives never intended to take the issue of child care seriously, but it sure is very disappointing.

While many other countries around the world have realized the importance and urgent need for a systemic approach to child care that provides children equal access to reliable high quality early childhood education and care, the current government has reversed the progress our society has made over the past few years. That is really too bad because studies have shown that early learning positively affects the child's ability to learn later on in life. These studies have also shown that it helps children develop social skills.

All of those outcomes would have a significant positive impact on Canada's economic, social and cultural growth and development, not to mention that the availability of high quality day care would provide parents with real choice if they wanted to stay at home with their children or if they wanted to send them to a trusted and reliable day care centre while they pursued their career or educational aspirations.

Thanks to the Prime Minister and his Conservative government, a national child care strategy has been removed from the national agenda. The Prime Minister has decided to absolve himself from this great responsibility. He has instead downloaded the responsibility to parents. He claims that a taxable $100 a month allowance is a child care strategy. The truth is that he wants Canadian children and families to fend for themselves.

Parents who cannot afford to stay at home or send their children to an expensive private day care institution will not find the Prime Minister on their side willing to accept the responsibility of the challenges for the collective well-being of our society and our future.

The Conservatives' taxable $100 a month allowance is a child bonus that would be helpful to any family, but would it actually cover the cost of child care? The average cost of child care in my city of Mississauga is about $800 to $900 a month. Similar rates are found around the country. Of course, this is assuming that a parent can find a child care space. How is this taxable child care bonus supposed to help with the creation of affordable and accessible child care spaces?

I have been repeatedly told by many Canadians and child care advocacy groups that their needs are urgent. Why are the Conservatives completely ignoring these needs? Do the Conservatives think if they dismiss these calls and if they pretend that this is not a real issue that it will go away on its own, that somehow, affordable child care spaces would be created out of thin air?

It is high time the government faced reality and accepted its responsibilities. Canadians will no longer tolerate partisan rhetoric or empty promises. Canadians want to see some action. Canadians want to see a real plan for the development of a systemic approach that will establish high quality early childhood education across the board.

I urge the Conservative minority government to step up to this national necessity. We are risking the future of our country if we continue to pretend that these challenges do not exist.

Canadians have told us that this is a priority. The Conservatives cannot hide behind a gimmick and assume that they have addressed these needs. This is beyond political partisanship.

The government must acknowledge its responsibility and act on it now. We need to see real results in the creation of high quality, accessible child care spaces. That is why I am supporting Bill C-303.

The House resumed from September 25 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-303--Early Learning and Child Care Act--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader and Minister for Democratic Reform concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-303, the early learning and child care act, standing in the name of the hon. member for Victoria.

I would like to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for raising this matter as well as the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord and the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh for their comments.

In his remarks, the parliamentary secretary pointed out that clause 5 of the bill gave the Minister of Finance the authority to make transfer payments to the provinces, provided that the criteria and conditions set out in clauses 5 and 6 had been met. He asserted that the making of transfer payments in this way would require the expenditure of public funds in a manner and for a purpose not currently authorized.

As hon. members know, funds may only be appropriated by Parliament for purposes covered by a royal recommendation, as explicitly stated in Standing Order 79(1). Proposed legislation seeking either authority for new spending or for the use of approved funds for distinctly new purposes must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

Having reviewed Bill C-303, I am in agreement that the provisions in clauses 5 and 6 of the bill, which relate to the making of transfer payments according to the specified criteria and conditions, require a royal recommendation.

The hon. parliamentary secretary also raised the question of whether Bill C-303 breaches the rules of the House because it is dealing with an issue that has already been decided. He made reference to provisions of the Budget Implementation Act, 2006 by which, in his view, this House had dealt with the issue of funding for early learning and child care.

The principle that the same question cannot be raised twice during the same session is a well-established part of our practice. I refer hon. members to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pages 476 and 477.

However, the fact that the House cannot consider the same question or two very similar questions in a single session should not be interpreted to mean that the same general policy area cannot form the basis of more than one debate. Provided that separate and distinct proposals are put to the House, the issue of funding for early learning and child care may be debated again in the House.

In conclusion, I concur with the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader that Bill C-303 provides for the making of transfer payments by the minister in a manner not currently approved. The bill, therefore, infringes upon the financial initiatives of the Crown.

In its present form, I will decline to put the question on third reading of this bill unless a royal recommendation is received. The debate is currently on the motion for second reading. This motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate.

Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-303 introduced by the member for Victoria.

This bill has a number of flaws. A closer review reveals that this bill would represent a significant intrusion into provincial and territorial jurisdictions by imposing criteria and conditions on provincial and territorial governments in order for them to qualify for federal early learning and child care funding. Putting aside for a moment the legal challenges which this bill would face, the imposition of the standards referenced in this bill speak to a larger philosophical difference between the NDP and Canada's new government on the subject of support for Canadian families. While I believe we share a common belief that the federal government has a role to play in supporting the child care needs of Canadian families, we differ with respect to what form such support should take.

The former Liberal government's one size fits all program did not work for the diverse needs of Canadian families. Now the NDP is proposing one size fits all child care legislation. In distinct contrast, Canada's new government has brought forth, and more important, acted on a universal child care plan based on providing choice for parents. This plan also recognizes and respects the roles and responsibilities of the provinces and territories for delivering child care services. Parents in the provinces need flexibility and freedom to choose the type of child care that works best for them. Our universal child care program allows them to do just that.

I would also note that the program we have delivered as a government is one that recognizes the whole issue of choice. For many years Canadian families have been requesting, in fact demanding, that there be equity and fairness in the support that Canada's government delivers for families. Unfortunately, that support has not been forthcoming until very recently.

In our recent budget we fulfilled an election promise that we would deliver $1,200 per child under the age of six, per year. A family with two children would receive double that amount, and with three children, triple that amount. It is a significant amount of money and much more than was ever delivered under any previous government.

Unfortunately, the member for Victoria is actually proposing a bill which runs counter to the promises we made to the Canadian public in the last election. What she forgets is that on January 23 Canada elected not a failed Liberal government, not an NDP government, but a new Conservative government which was going to live up to its promises. That promise was to deliver equity and fairness to families across Canada, hard-working moms and dads who try to deliver enough resources to their family, to raise respectful children and to provide them with a lifestyle consistent with Canadian standards. We have delivered on that promise. We intend to continue to do that as we put the emphasis on young children in our society. The House will notice more legislation coming forward from our government which will put the focus on protecting children. For example, I have brought forward a private member's bill that will address the issue of luring children over the Internet.

Our child care policy is focused again on the child. It is focused on the very families that need the help, the ones trying to raise respectable citizens for our country, children who are going to be future leaders.

Bill C-303 is simply the old solutions being regurgitated. It would address the issue of the administrative costs of delivering child care through government agencies. What we have chosen to do with our plan is to focus in on driving and delivering the resources and the funds directly to the parents who need it.

Unfortunately, I have to speak against the bill. I strongly support our government's move toward providing the $1,200 per child per year child care allowance.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak about child care. First, I would like to talk about Quebec and its family policy. According to the 2001 census, Quebec had 450,000 children under the age of 6. Of this number, 200,000 are already in the provincial day care network. In addition, it is estimated that 110,000 children are in full- or part-time care outside the network. This family policy therefore clearly meets a real need.

The family policy is built on three main pillars: early childhood centres, the refundable tax credit and parental leave. The refundable tax credit is a quarterly allowance paid by the Government of Quebec, based on family income, household income and number of children. A refundable tax credit does not have the disadvantage of the $1,200 paid out by the Conservative Party. Families receive this tax credit, and it is not clawed back at the end of the year, regardless of their income. Parental leave allows mothers and fathers to stay home longer after a child is born.

In all, Quebec spends $4.5 billion annually on family support, in addition to parental leave, which is funded by Quebec pension plan contributions. In our opinion, day care goes hand in hand with family policy. We also think that a true family policy is a provincial responsibility exclusively. Parental leave, income support and the day care network must be combined in a coherent whole. In our view, for the sake of efficiency, this entire network, all these family policies, must come under provincial jurisdiction alone.

One function of day care centres is to pass on values, culture and language. That is why we maintain that the government closest to the people is better able to meet those needs.

Last week, at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, francophones living outside Quebec told us how much they would like to have French-language child care to facilitate early language learning and promote the survival of the language.

We know in this House that the Bloc Québécois opposed the taxable $1,200 allowance and suggested a refundable tax credit for all families. Lower-income families would have benefited from this deductible amount.

We feel that this measure is definitely not a child care service. It represents a social program, at most, and not enough money to be useful. I was infuriated to learn that, in July and August, the government sent out paper cheques in the amount of $100, rather than send them electronically. The operation cost $2 million.

Doing it that way allowed the minister to attach to the cheque a message for the parents, indicating that the universal child care benefit was paid directly to families because the government believes that parents know better than anyone what is best for their children.

In my opinion, the government is clearly trying to play politics at the expense of Canadian children. This must not be tolerated.

Bill C-303 has proven to be quite a matter of conscience for the Bloc Québécois.

On one hand, this bill does not respect the federal-provincial jurisdictions as set out in the Constitution. In our opinion, the Constitution clearly states that education and family policies are not federal jurisdictions. Furthermore, under this bill, child care service providers would have to commit to respecting a series of federal criteria regarding child care. The provinces would also have to commit, given the purported spending power, the legitimacy of which has always been contested by the Quebec government. In our opinion, this bill clearly was not introduced in the right Parliament.

On the other hand, this bill excludes Quebec entirely from this federalizing of family policies.

It respects the motion unanimously passed in Quebec's National Assembly on November 3, 2004, which states:

That, in the negotiations with the federal government on the implementation of a new Canada-wide child care program, the National Assembly support the Government of Quebec in its efforts to obtain funding with no strings attached and in the respect of Quebec's constitutional jurisdictions.

We also see that by accepting the social union agreement and by agreeing to align their family support policy with child tax benefits, the provinces, except Quebec, have allowed the federal government to take the leadership role in matters of family policy. Outside Quebec, the federal government has truly become the master of family policy.

We believe that passing this bill would allow Quebec to recoup the $807 million the Conservative government is denying us as a result of tearing up the agreement on funding child care. That is why we are in favour of this bill.

When the Liberal child care program was announced in 2004, reaction from defenders of this child care service truly showed us the difference in where Quebeckers and Canadians stand. In Canada, this announcement was seen as a promise to create the Canada-wide network of child care centres that people were looking for, and we can understand that. However, in Quebec, the child care service network already existed. The only thing Quebeckers saw in the child care program was just another unconditional transfer.

We would like to be relieved of the financial burden we are suffering as a result of the fiscal imbalance. We are making a tremendous investment in our children and families and we want proper financial compensation for our efforts.

Bill C-303 takes into account, which is quite rare—we have not seen much of this at the federal level—these two opposing tendencies in federal-provincial relations. In Quebec, we reject interference, but outside Quebec, Ottawa is seen as the guarantor of social progress, which is highly conducive to centralization.

In Bill C-303, with clause 4 allowing a right to opt out with full financial compensation, we believe this takes into account these opposite views of Canada; these two very different ways of seeing things.

We believe Bill C-303 recognizes the unique expertise of the Government of Quebec in the area of day care in North America. This recognition comes three years after the OECD had already stated the following in a study on day care:

There are, however, positive developments that are important to underline:

The extraordinary advance made by Quebec, which has launched one of the most ambitious and interesting early education and care policies in North America. ... none of these provinces showed the same clarity of vision as Quebec in addressing the needs of young children and families.

Therefore we support this bill. We only want the best for all Canadian children. Let us create a day care program that will meet those expectations.

When the member for Victoria spoke of equality and inclusiveness, it was clear that creating a policy enabling children to grow and to develops is very important to her. In my opinion, by investing in day care we are visionaries and we are thinking about the future. By supporting day cares activities focussing on socialization that lead to learning at a very early age, we will eliminate a great deal of illiteracy and violence in our societies. It is important to have a vision for the future. It allows us to create a progressive society, a society where education is a priority.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I speak today in favour of Bill C-303 which establishes criteria and conditions that must be met before a transfer payment may be made to a province or territory to support an early learning and child care program. Of course, I support the bill. It is almost a replica of the Liberal program for early learning and child care which began in 2004.

In 2005, all 10 provinces signed on to our program, indicating a cross-Canada recognition of the societal need for this program and a commitment of cooperation to achieve it. These signed agreements were the first steps toward putting in place the foundation of a national early learning and child care program and serve as the framework on which Bill C-303 is built.

The framework includes the values of equality, universality, accessibility and development; values that are upheld in Bill C-303, values that we, the Liberals, support.

How strange it is that the sponsoring party of the bill, the NDP, chose just last December not to support an almost identical program but chose instead to join with the Conservatives and the Bloc and cause the government to fall. Canadian parents who have told us about the desperate shortage of child care spaces and were thrilled by our program were not amused by the antics of the NDP at that time. However, here we are, less than a year later, with an NDP bill seeking to resuscitate a program that it helped to kill.

We all know that one of the NDP members travelled to the Middle East in the summer. It was very well publicized. In retrospect, I think she must have taken the road to Damascus while over there. She must have seen the light, converted her colleagues on her return and now we have the bill.

Is it a sign of the NDP repentance for its cynical vote last December, a vote that dashed the hopes of Canadian parents desperate to find quality child care for their children? I do not know about that but I do know the Liberals are committed to helping parents.

We brought in the child care expense deduction years ago to help offset the cost of child care. We also introduced the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit supplement to help parents. We allocated $5 billion for child care for 2006 through to 2010. In the election campaign, we promised another $6 billion to take this program forward to 2015.

When one considers the additional money that would have been invested by the provinces and by the municipalities over those years, one can safely assume that Canada would have been building a good child care system for its citizens. Now instead, from the NDP, we have a piece of paper, Bill C-303, but no money. Only the government has money to allocate, which takes us to the Conservatives.

The Conservative Party did not want to spend $11 billion on early learning and child care and instead cancelled the hard won agreements with the provinces and now send out cheques to parents of $100 per month per child. There is no early learning component attached to this money and it is such a paltry sum that it might only pay for two or three hours of babysitting each week. In addition, it is taxable. Whatever parents do, I can say to them that they should not spend it because when April comes they will receive a bill from the revenue agency.

The Conservative program is a deception. It is called the universal child care benefit. It is not universal. First, the parents of more than 100,000 children do not receive it because information about how to access it was so poorly done.

Second, it has little to do with child care because the amount is so small it does not make a dint in real child care costs.

Third, it has absolutely no early learning component. Early learning, both social and cognitive, is the critical component in a good early childhood experience. The OECD report released last week shows Canada last out of 20 nations in public spending on child care.

Now, with the cancellation of the Liberal agreements with the provinces and territories, Canada is the only country in the OECD without a goal, a plan and a budget for early learning and child care.

The journalist, Susan Riley, said it in the Ottawa Citizen better than I can. Last March she said:

When it comes to practical results...and even Conservative fiscal orthodoxy, [the Conservative] child-care plan makes no sense. Critics say it won't do much to give young children a head start....

So why is the prime minister, and...the minister so unwilling to compromise? In the absence of other compelling arguments, the answer has to be ideological. [He] doesn't...believe “the state” should “replace” parents when it comes to child-rearing [and] said...“the only experts on raising children were called Mom and Dad”.

This is a divisive and dishonest characterization of a complex issue, and many working parents, who make up the significant majority, [of parents in Canada], know it. Same goes for the [minister's] insulting suggestion that the Tory program will help parents “who want to raise their own children”--as if moms and dads who have to work full-time are some derelicts, or not really parenting.

This language will appeal to social conservatives...having been forced to comprise on samesex marriage and abortion, this may be the Prime Minister 's gesture his long-suffering “family values” caucus.

She concludes that the Conservative cheques are “no substitute for a national network of well-designed, well-staffed [child care] centres”.

Here we are today with a piece of paper, Bill C-303, from the NDP and the government opposite ideologically opposed to implementing it. I predict that Bill C-303 will pass both in the House and in the Senate, but that the government will not reallocate the necessary funds to change the words of the bill into reality for Canadian families.

How can we work to bring that reality to Canadians when the bill is the opposite of Conservative ideology? Maybe we can fit it into another piece of Conservative ideology. Let us examine where the Conservatives are spending taxpayer money.

To an observer, it might seem they are in love with uniforms and weapons because most new spending is going to the military to increase the number of servicemen and women, to buy more transport for them and new equipment for active combat. In addition, border guards will get new guns and training to use them. The finance minister has also set aside considerable funds for prisons, in his words, “for the anticipated increase in the number of prisoners”. More people in uniform.

Yes, the government loves uniforms and guns.

Therefore, with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek, may I suggest that the government might fund child care if we make a few amendments to Bill C-303.

First, I think the government would like it if we made uniforms mandatory. Second, it would also like it if we made marching to martial music a part of the curriculum. Third, story time could revolve around war stories. Fourth, target shooting could begin at age three.

Yes, the government might support such a program but, unfortunately, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc would probably not because it would go against their shared desire to build for Canada a peaceable kingdom.

In summary, I do support Bill C-303. I reject the vision of the government for Canada's future. I prefer the vision articulated in Bill C-303 based on the Liberals' child care policy and plan.

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

Mr. Speaker I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill C-303, the proposed early learning and child care act introduced by the member for Victoria. This is a crucial issue.

Canada's new government recognizes that one of the most important investments we can make as a country is to give parents choices when it comes to caring for their children. We take the commitment to support parents' choices in child care very seriously, and choice is definitely the operative word here.

Canadians voted for a platform that put choice in child care as one of their top five priorities. We promised choice in child care in the Speech from the Throne. We committed to it in budget 2006, and now we are delivering on that commitment to Canadian families through our universal child care plan.

Our plan represents a flexible, balanced approach that enables parents and communities to develop the child care solutions that work best for them. This is a plan founded on respect for parents' expertise in deciding what is best for their children and for the roles and responsibilities of the provinces and territories in delivering child care services.

Bill C-303, in contrast, lacks the flexibility that would enable parents to make choices they want. The legislation fails to properly respect the expertise of parents or the established roles and responsibilities of the provinces and territories in the realm of child care service delivery.

On the contrary, what Bill C-303 proposes is tantamount to an intrusion into provincial and territorial jurisdictions. The bill would impose singular, one size fits all criteria and conditions on provincial and territorial governments in order for them to qualify for federal early learning and child care funding.

Unlike the inadequate and ineffective approach envisioned in Bill C-303, our new universal child care plan recognizes that no two Canadian families are alike. We understand that parents with young children balance their work and family lives in different ways and for different reasons. We are very aware, for example, that the services provided by day care facilities that are open from nine to five are simply not an option for the many Canadian parents whose schedules require that they work evenings, weekends, split shifts or 12 hour shifts. Neither is standard day care the answer for parents taking evening courses to enhance their skills.

Standard day care is an equally unrealistic option for farming families, for families working in the fisheries and for the many Canadians with young children who live in rural or remote communities. Moreover, as a recent Statistics Canada study confirmed, almost half of Canadian parents continue to find ways to stay at home to care for their preschoolers themselves.

Given this wide range of parents' situations and needs, we have developed and, more important, acted on a child care plan that responds to the diverse circumstances and real needs of Canadian families.

As the House is aware, our universal child care plan has two parts: a universal child care benefit and a child care spaces initiative. Together, these two components represent an investment of close to $12 billion over five years to improve the lives of Canadian families, an investment that is more than twice that proposed by the former Liberal government.

Allow me to elaborate for a moment on the first component of the universal child care benefit.

This direct benefit to Canadian families helps them choose the type of child care that works best for them. I am pleased to inform the House that this past July, parents across Canada began receiving the benefit of $100 a month for each child under the age of six, a benefit they are free to use in the best interests of their own children. For example, they can apply the $1,200 a year toward the cost of formal day care, they can use the benefit to pay for occasional babysitting or for child care help from a grandparent or a neighbour. If parents so choose, they can purchase educational resources, like an educational DVD, for their preschoolers, or they can use the benefit to pay for special outings to a museum, for example.

As I noted earlier, we respect parents' choices and this is what the benefit delivers. Some 1.6 million families with 2.1 million children will receive the benefit. Families who are already registered for the Canada child tax benefit, accounting for more than 90% of families, received the universal child care benefit automatically.

However, we want to ensure that all parents with preschoolers receive the benefit. To this end, the government has been very active in reaching out to the families not currently registered for Canada child care tax benefits to encourage them to apply. Our outreach efforts include a special website, radio ads, print ads in national and local daily papers, and special efforts directed at aboriginal, minority French language and ethnocultural communities.

The government is proud to support the choices of all Canadian parents trying to give their preschoolers a strong start in life. Canada's new government is equally committed to the second component of our universal child care plan that will provide a flexible approach to child care spaces that meet Canadian parents diverse needs. The new child care spaces initiative will provide incentives that can be translated into more child care options in large urban centres and rural areas. It can also provide flexible hours for many parents whose work hours do not fit the standard nine to five model.

In designing this initiative, we have been consulting with the provinces and territories, as well as businesses, communities and non-profit organizations to tap into their expertise. Furthermore, a ministerial advisory committee was recently named by the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development to advise her on the design of a child care spaces initiative.

Chosen for expertise in child care, work-family issues, community organizations and the needs of employers, the committee will present the minister with a report outlining its advice and recommendations this fall. I would like to note for the interest of the House that this report will be available to the general public.

This responsive, flexible approach which respects parents' choices and parents' expertise, along with the roles and the responsibilities for other provinces and territories, is in keeping with our promise to Canadians and Canada's own promise for the future.

For those reasons we are unable to support Bill C-303 proposed by the member for Victoria.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, very quickly, in response to my two colleagues, I would remind the Speaker that it was the Speaker's invitation for members to comment on whether we felt Bill C-303 required a royal recommendation. That is clearly what we are doing here. We thank the Speaker for his invitation and we hope he will make a speedy ruling on this.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On May 31, 2006, you invited members to comment on whether Bill C-303 would require a royal recommendation. Without commenting on the merits of this private member's bill, it is the government's view that the bill does require a royal recommendation.

Subclause 5(1) of the bill provides that:

The Minister of Finance may make a child care transfer payment directly to a province or territory in each fiscal year to support the early learning and child care program of the province or territory....

That would happen if certain conditions were met. These conditions are expanded upon in subclauses 5(2) and 5(5) and clause 6. In other words, subclause 5(1) would provide authority for transfer payments.

Some members could argue that a royal recommendation is not needed because the bill defines “child care transfer payment” in clause 2 to mean:

a cash contribution or financial transfer in respect of early learning and child care services that may be provided under an Act of Parliament to a province, territory, institution or corporate entity.

However, the bill would still have an effect on appropriations made to provinces for early learning and child care under any other federal act, including future appropriation acts. It thereby affects the purpose for which those appropriations are made.

Mr. Speaker, you have reminded the House that the principle of the financial initiative of the Crown requires that a royal recommendation be supplied for an appropriation as well as for any change in the financial purpose of an act. This is clearly the case with Bill C-303. Even though it purports not to appropriate money directly, it would alter the purpose of an appropriation granted through another act.

I would also like to raise a second question with regard to the bill, which is that it reopens a question already dealt with by the House in the 2006 budget and the budget implementation bill, Bill C-13, which received royal assent on June 22, 2006, namely, the question of funding for early learning and child care.

It is a well recognized principle that the House cannot be asked to make a decision on a question, such as the second reading of a bill, if it has already voted on the same or a substantially similar question. Standing Order 18 is explicit that:

No Member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.

This bill was introduced seven days after the House adopted ways and means for the Budget Implementation Act, 2006, which provided funds for early learning and child care without strings and which provided explicitly in paragraph 5(c) of part 6 that the funds could not be retained or constrained in any way. The bill is clearly an attempt to reopen that question through the back door.

On this basis, Mr. Speaker, you may also wish to consider whether the bill should be ruled out of order at second reading. We thank you for your attention. We look forward to an early ruling on this matter.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

moved for leave to introduce 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.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am proud to present to Parliament, on behalf of the NDP, our bill on early learning and child care.

We in the NDP believe this may be the most important piece of new legislation, not just in this Parliament but in every Parliament since the Canada Health Act was established. The legislation we are introducing today is based on the principles of quality, universality, accessibility, accountability and educational development.

With the challenges currently facing our society, child care should not be an afterthought or luxury. With this act we aim to enshrine national child care into legislation to protect and build child care for future generations.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)