Finance Committee on May 17th, 2017

[Morna Ballantyne, Executive Director, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to be here with you this afternoon. I'll try to get through this before the bell rings.

There is no longer any dispute that parents in Canada with young children are in desperate need of greater government support. High-quality child care is limited and financially out of reach for the great majority of families. Consequently parents, and particularly mothers, are forced to find alternatives. They withdraw from the paid workforce, lessen their attachment to it, or delay entry, or they turn to more affordable, lower-quality, makeshift child care arrangements. The damage to children's well-being, to women's economic equality, to family security, and to the Canadian economy is severe and well documented.

The Liberal Party of Canada's election platform promised economic security for the middle class and help for modern Canadian families. As part of this commitment, Canadians were told that the Liberal Government would ensure the availability of “affordable”, “high-quality”, and “fully inclusive” child care for all families who need it.

Neither the first or second Liberal government budget delivers on that promise. The 2016 budget gave only one year of funding for early learning and child care in 2017. The 2017 budget allocates funding in each subsequent year until 2028, and yet the sum of money to be transferred to the provinces and territories each year falls far, far short of what is required to build a fully comprehensive child care system over the next 10 years. The funding starts in 2017 at only $500 million. By 2022 it will have increased by only $50 million. That amount has to be divided up between 10 provinces and three territories. To put this in perspective, the Province of Quebec alone already spends $2.5 billion a year on its child care program.

Further, following the tabling of the budget, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development publicly stated that the government's intention is not to help all families access affordable child care but rather to target the support to those with low and modest incomes. In other words, they are abandoning the middle class when it comes to child care. They are acting in direct opposition to the contemporary international consensus and the overwhelming research that affirms that a universal approach is more effective than a targeted one. Only a universal and comprehensive approach can generate the well-documented economic benefits of early childhood education and care, help all Canadian families and give them the choices of child care that they seek, and sustain ongoing public support.

More importantly, the research tells us that universal early childhood education and care is the best way to meet the developmental goals we wish for all children, regardless of their family's social or economic status. The direction that the government is taking on child care is not just insufficient. It also it runs contrary to evidence and actually sets us back.

This is also true of the related changes to the maternity and parental EI benefits set out in Bill C-44. During the public consultation process on these changes, the most common reason given by those who supported the government's proposal to extend the leave period to 18 months was the lack of available affordable child care for children under 18 months. However, reducing parents' EI parental benefits so that they can stay on leave longer is a bad substitute for affordable quality child care for all. What would really help working parents before and after the birth or adoption of children, in addition to affordable child care, would be easier access to maternity and parental benefits and higher benefits. As it is, too many parents don't qualify or can't afford to forfeit their regular paycheques. Changing the EI program in line with the already tested Quebec parental insurance program, the QPIP, would be a much more positive step forward.

I have provided to the clerk of your committee our organization's very short brief on the proposed changes and why we think they are wrong. I hope you will give it consideration as you debate division 11, part 4, of Bill C-44 .

Thanks for your consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ballantyne, for your direct approach. I was hoping the bells might be delayed, but no such luck.

Ms. Ballard, as an individual, go ahead.

[Melodie Ballard, As an Individual]

My purpose today is to speak to the changes occurring as a result of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017, specifically changes to the maternity and parental leave benefits from the Employment Insurance Act and Canada Labour Code.

For those of you who are not familiar with my story, it was the inspiration behind MP Mark Gerretsen's private member's bill, Bill C-243, an act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy and amending the Employment Insurance Act.

In 2014, I unexpectedly became pregnant. At the time, I was working a dangerous job. I was not able to continue in my position with my employer while pregnant, due to the many hazards of the job, and my employer was not able to offer me accommodation by way of a suitable temporary position. I discovered then that there was no coverage, federal or otherwise, for an early pregnancy leave from a dangerous job. I became very entangled in our system, dependant on programs that weren't designed to sustain me in my situation.

I campaigned the issue to the 41st Parliament, without result. Not one to give up easily, once the 42nd Parliament had settled in, I took the issue up again with my new local MP. From there, in an effort to amend the issue, Bill C-243 was created.

My early maternity leave and parental leave was a tumultuous time in my life, wherein I a gained a lot of insight into what it's like to be a vulnerable person, failed by our social system. I am now in what I call “the hamster wheel of poverty,” having to constantly concern myself with housing, moving, affording basic needs, and parenting, with little energy and resources left to actually improve my situation.

This is the result of a social system that has not kept up with both the cost of living and the diverse needs of the population. This is what happens when cost of living is not delivered, and it's worth considering that I am more expensive to society in the hamster wheel than if I had just had a proper leave program to begin with.

I hadn't expected to fall into a federal aid gap. I didn't know there was one. To say I am disappointed with my maternity leave experience is an understatement. I am devastated, but I'm also solution driven, and playing a part in improving the system is giving purpose to my pain and allowing me to move on. While the upcoming changes to the maternity leave from the budget tabled on March 22, 2017 are what can be best described as a small step forward in the right direction, they are most welcome all the same.

I've noted a common theme from families and professionals offering feedback on the maternity and parental leave program in Canada, and that is simply the ability to customize a leave that works best for their growing family. Our circumstances, abilities, priorities and aspirations are so varied in this country. As Canadians, we need options that acknowledge those diverse needs.

I am pleased to see this budget allows for the addition of an extended leave option and more flexibility in timing the start of maternity leave. I must, however, criticize the payment of parental benefits over a long period, at a lower benefit rate of 33%. The lower rate disincentivizes use and is less likely to be found as a viable option to low-income or single-parent families, but it is an option that adds flexibility for some families, and with the attitude that it can be improved upon in the future, I support it.

While I understand that protecting the 15-week maternity leave period from the pressures of work for the purpose of safeguarding health and allowing child-parent bonding is extremely important, I encourage you all to look at parental leave a bit differently, because 33% of most people's income is not going to meet their cost of living. Either the federal government needs to meet the cost of living, or the regulations restricting income earning on parental leave need to change. People from low-income households especially are being alienated from these services. Adding flexibility for low-income people, without added cost to the government, is key in broadening Canadians' abilities to customize their parental leave.

I am not aware of an EI program that allows for a combination of receiving benefits while partially working, but if the federal government cannot afford to offer the cost of living during parental leave, then it's not useful to low-income families. For these families, or even parents in competitive careers who are torn between quality time with their children and not falling behind at work or on bills, please consider it. Consider, for example, that in a typical 40-hour work week, 22% of pay—the difference in this case—comes from just nine hours of work.

Consider allowing a recipient of parental leave, who does not otherwise receive a top-up from work, or whose income is below a threshold, to select the 18-month leave and top themselves up by working up to 18 hours in a biweekly period, or 22%, if they wish.

This flexibility would benefit low-income families. The result would be six days a week with their child instead of forgoing the program and only getting an average of two. While working to strengthen the middle class, let's make sure we're dropping ladders down the poverty pit, so that the middle class is not strengthened on the backs of people in poverty.

I applaud Minister Morneau's tabled budget changes for maternity and parental leaves and the government's efforts in improving the system.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you all for your presentations. We will get each party on at least once and probably once more.

We will start with Mr. Sorbara for five minutes.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, everyone. It's great to have everyone here today.

The comments this afternoon give me a lot of perspective. I have two kids who are four and six. We lived downtown in Toronto before we moved up to where we live now, and we had to go through the day care system there. We know what the waiting lists are all about. We know the expense of up to $2,000, sometimes a little more than that, per month of day care costs, and even in the suburbs, it's very expensive.

Our government has put into place a number of different measures to help families, because every family has different needs and some are unique and some are more standard in terms of workweeks and so forth. In my view, there's never been one size fits all.

We introduced the Canada child benefit, an extra $5 billion a year to Canadian families every year. Now we've put a substantial amount of funds, over $500 million a year, for child care—we've come to agreements with the provinces—aimed at helping those who need it the most. And I agree with that perspective and that view.

I thank you, Ms. Ballantyne, for your comments.

I do wish to ask Ms. Pullen something, because I think in our budget there were two things that were very substantial: the consolidation of the caregiver tax credit and the nurse practitioner expansion.

How profound—and I use the word profound—was that change for rural Canadians, looking at it through a rural lens, to allow nurse practitioners to be more involved?

[Dr. Carolyn Pullen]

I can't overstate how excellent this news is. Provided the budget is passed, we really view it as a win-win-win situation. My statistics are accurate, that over three million Canadians—from my in-laws who live in Peterborough to over 600 indigenous communities across Canada—are provided care primarily by nurse practitioners. This will not mean more benefits, but faster access to benefits that patients have long been entitled to. This will mean significant improvements in quality of care and quality of life for many, many Canadians.

In addition, nurse practitioners and physicians alike will greatly appreciate this enhancement to the efficiency with which they can deliver care.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Pullen.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to stop there. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Deltell, go ahead, please.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

It's Mr. Albas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of you witnesses for being here today, and unfortunately we don't have enough time to ask each one of you as many questions as we might have. I'm going to focus my questions on Mr. Cunningham.

Mr. Cunningham, I do appreciate your bringing some of these examples here. I have an email here from an emeritus professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, at the Centre for Heart Lung Innovation. He has basically said that there is comparable risk for cancer and COPD—and COPD is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—when you smoke a marijuana cigarette or a regular cigarette. Would you agree with that?

[Rob Cunningham]

I think the carcinogenic contents of the smoke are similar. The difference tends to be how much people consume, meaning the dose response. Most people smoke a small number of marijuana cigarettes per month compared to tobacco cigarettes. If somebody were smoking a comparable number of marijuana cigarettes, the risk could be similar, but there aren't that many people who do that.

In terms of second-hand smoke, again, the contents are similar, and that's why governments are moving to ban marijuana smoking wherever smoking is banned.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I would also suggest, though, sir, that there is a difference between a regulated cigarette, when it has filters and certain standards for contents and whatnot, and a rolled marijuana cigarette.

Is that correct?

[Rob Cunningham]

There are no actual regulations for tobacco cigarettes—and marijuana cigarettes vary. They're not all the same. It may very well be the case that a marijuana cigarette is smoked more intensely than a tobacco cigarette.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Yes, but there is no filter or whatnot as well, which I'm sure would have something to do with that. I have spoken with some doctors in regard to this, and, as I said before, there is a comparable risk.

Your presentation here is quite helpful, because Minister Morneau is going to speak with his provincial counterparts on the subject of how much marijuana should be taxed. Are you calling for a similar regime as for cigarettes?

[Rob Cunningham]

A similar regime for marijuana?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

You're suggesting on behalf of the Cancer Society—

[Rob Cunningham]

Yes, I think there is going to be a level of marijuana tax.

One of the important things in the bill is that you get to design the system from the get-go to prevent contraband. There is a measure to have better markings and better tracking and tracing systems from seed to sale, which don't currently exist even for tobacco. That is an opportunity to get things right.

I think the intent initially is to have a low tax rate and then over time to increase it, first to take a big blow to the illicit market, and then eventually there will be further increases.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I'm really happy that you raised contraband tobacco. It is becoming quite a problem.

We've seen products in British Columbia that have been made in Ontario and Quebec and are now spreading right across.... I've even heard anecdotally that they've seen some in international markets. Contraband tobacco is a big issue, and part of the reason, some people allege, is that when you go with higher excise tax and other forms of taxation, that makes it infinitely easier to get someone to switch from a legal product to an illegal product.

Are you worried at all that by increasing excise taxes, as you suggested, you may actually aggravate that?

[Rob Cunningham]

British Columbia has done very well compared to other provinces in terms of having lower levels of contraband. In fact, there are no illicit sales on first nations reserves in B.C., or the western provinces, with regard to the smoke shacks that are widely prevalent in Ontario and Quebec.

Our view is that the tobacco industry exaggerates the level of contraband. The studies that they fund and they do are flawed.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

High prices do not change behaviour—

[Rob Cunningham]

They certainly reduce smoking.

Ontario and Quebec have a low—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I'm trying to understand what you're getting at.

[Rob Cunningham]

Higher tobacco taxes certainly reduce smoking, especially among kids, who are more price sensitive.

The issue we have in contraband today in Canada is because of illegal factories located on a handful of reserves in Ontario and Quebec. That's the source for the bulk of the contraband that we have. Western Canada is far away and there are much better control systems, so the contraband levels are much less prevalent.

Ontario and Quebec have the lowest tax rates, but the worst contraband. That's an indication that it's not related to tax levels but rather proximity to supply and the illicit factories.

There is potential for action. This increase is relatively small in the big context, but at the same time contraband prevention measures that are complementary could be implemented.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Mr. Dusseault.