Human Resources Committee on March 21st, 2007

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

When I hear over and over again the amount of money that's going into the child care allowance under the pretext of giving parents choice, I have to wonder if the Conservatives have met the sorcerer's apprentice. Anyone who would say that $100 child allowance would allow a parent to make a choice, the choice between staying at home and going to work, in Victoria, my riding, the most expensive city in Canada...I don't know. I'd like to find out what kind of medication they're taking, because I wouldn't mind some of it.

Just to put it on the record, an analysis of the Quebec child care system indicates that 40¢ out of every dollar invested in its child care services is returned to the provincial economy the following year, primarily in increased taxes arising from the high labour force participation. So the linkage between employability and early learning in child care opportunities is so clear.

I would like to speak to a few of the other guests we have today. From the perspective of your association, you expressed the need for workers and you indicated that there had been some serious losses because of the lack of workers. I believe Mr. Garcia-Orgales mentioned that if there is a continual need, why not go through the regular process, so that the immigrants who do come will have some rights as Canadians and will have some protection under the law, which doesn't seem to be the case with foreign workers at the moment?

[Gregg Badger]

Actually, the workers who come here under these programs do join a union and they do have the same rights and receive the same pay as Canadians do. This low-skilled...it is still a pilot project. It's hopefully going to become a permanent program. But this is different from the skilled worker program, which is available to bring in skilled workers on a permanent basis.

Low-skilled can come here. They can become, in some provinces, provincial nominees, so they can become permanent residents. But they are low-skilled workers at the outset. This is a relatively new program to help fill that need.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

So they work with other regular employees in the same working conditions and with the same pay scale?

[Gregg Badger]

The same pay, the same working conditions.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

[Gregg Badger]

Ten per cent of a workforce in a meat plant would be a lot, when it's foreign workers.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Okay. They're at exactly the same pay scale. That's useful.

[James Laws]

The employers need to demonstrate that they have exhausted looking for workers in Canada. If you visit the meat packers, they have fairly large human resources departments that are constantly looking for workers.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I appreciate that in some industries, in some sectors, it may be the case. I think we occasionally hear of misuse where there are Canadian workers, but it's more convenient to hire workers in that way because there are fewer responsibilities in some sectors. It doesn't appear to be the case here.

[Gregg Badger]

No. In fact, as I mentioned, it costs the employer a lot more to hire these foreign workers. If he could find Canadians, he would do so, because this costs more.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Sure. Thank you.

[Jorge Garcia-Orgales]

I want to clarify my position. I never mentioned that these workers are not unionized or are treated differently. They are sometimes treated differently when there is no union in the workplace, but our main concern is not particularly the unionization or the wages. It's the threat that you have a contract that will expire, and it could be or could not be extended. Depending on what happens, you could or could not become Canadian through the new regulations. It gives complete insecurity to the workers. If there is a situation in the workplace, will they align with their co-workers or will they feel pressure to be closer to their employers? That's number one.

Number two is the issue of the rights of people. As the meat sector council mentioned, this has been the situation for years and years, it's becoming worse, and it's costing employers a bunch of money. Why don't they bring them through the Canadian system and keep them there forever? They then wouldn't have to spend money in another 24 months to bring in another bunch or to reapply. Bring them in, use the application system, get them in, and they'd have the rights of any other Canadian worker. If you don't find workers here, let's find them some place else, bring them in, and let them stay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move to Mr. Chong for five minutes.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank you all for your presentations. I would like to put a few questions to Mrs. Lysack.

I want to thank you, Madam Lysack, for your presentation.

I don't doubt your sincerity or your belief in your proposed system of child care for the country. I don't doubt that you truly believe it is the right way to go. But with the greatest of respect, I disagree with you on two major points.

The first is that it is not the responsibility of the Government of Canada, the federal government, to run a day care system.

It is a provincial responsibility in Canada. Similarly, education is also a provincial responsibility.

We have provincial jurisdictions in this country that are primarily responsible for things like education--primary school education and secondary school education. In many respects early childhood learning and childcare are really extensions of that system. Much in the same way as we would never dare to tell a province how they should run their public education system in terms of the number of students in a classroom and the standards they should apply, our view is the same with respect to child care--it is a provincial area of jurisdiction.

We as government believe there are certain areas of provincial jurisdiction where we should use federal spending power to effect national priorities. Those include health care through the Canada Health Act, infrastructure through national infrastructure programs, and research and development through various funding mechanisms like the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the like. But when it comes to education--public school education, primary school education, and child care--this is really best delivered by provincial and local governments, through a mix of for-profit or not-for-profit providers. That's our view.

Cross-jurisdictional programs, like the national child care system you're advocating, are fraught with cross-jurisdictional difficulties. The case in point is that when we took government, the secondary agreements for this national child care program had not yet been signed with all the provinces. For example, New Brunswick had refused to sign the agreement because they didn't agree with the standards and the view of the Government of Canada on this so-called national system.

Even when we took government, the agreements with all the provinces hadn't been finalized, precisely because it's an area of provincial jurisdiction, and some provinces didn't want us intruding into their jurisdiction. The country is broad and big enough that what works in the megalopolis of the greater Toronto area may not work in rural Saskatchewan. We believe it's best delivered by provincial and local governments.

There's another thing I disagree with you on. We have put a lot of money into support for families, and specifically support for child care. The old proposal was $1.2 billion a year for a national system. We have put $2.4 billion into the universal child care benefit that people ridicule as being only $100 a month, but that's double the money per child in this country compared to the old $1.2 billion system.

In addition to that, we're providing $250 million a year in capital incentives for provinces to build new spaces. We are also—and this is the big one—enhancing the transfers to the provinces, as announced in Monday's budget, by $16 billion in new money over the next seven years. That averages $2.3 billion a year in enhancements to the Canada social transfer, which is used by provinces to deliver social services, social programs, and education. The full picture here is that we have poured significant new money into the budget to enhance that transfer, which is one of the reasons provinces like Quebec are very supportive of it, and one of the reasons we have moved on this issue.

Do we believe in a nationally run, centrally run, national child care system? No. Do we see the need for child care for Canadian families? Yes, but we believe that's best delivered through provincial governments, local governments, and enhancements to the social transfer, which we've delivered on.

I just put those two points on the table, with the greatest respect. I don't doubt your sincerity and your belief in what you are doing, but I strongly disagree with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Chong. That's all the time we have.

[Monica Lysack]

I don't have an opportunity to respond, even briefly, to the comment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You may respond very quickly.

[Monica Lysack]

First, I want to say that I actually agree with much of what you have said. Your approach in welcoming healthy debate about public policy is what makes the democracy of Canada so great. Organizations like ours need to continue to have a voice to raise those issues. The fact that we differ in some areas is a healthy thing, because that's how we get to better solutions. We disagreed vehemently with some of the things the previous government was doing as well.

There is a large misunderstanding about nationally run day care. I don't think anyone has promoted the idea of nationally run day care. I'm a former member of the Government of Saskatchewan and negotiated agreements like the ECD agreement and the multilateral framework agreement. It's absolutely an issue of provincial jurisdiction and needs to be recognized that way. That approach supported a transfer but, within this great federation, some equality of service across the country despite those regional differences.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're almost out of time. I know that Mr. Merasty had a couple of quick questions, and then we would have Mr. Lake. Then we're going to wrap up, because we need to deal with the motion before us.

Mr. Merasty.

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

Very quickly, yesterday I talked about employability and the aboriginal population being mobilized to meet some of the needs that are out there. We won't, unfortunately, have time to get into that, but not enough is being done in that area for this emerging population, which for many provinces presents a competitive advantage.

The second thing is that a big factor in employability is access to child care. I direct this to Ms. Lysack. I've asked the government about child care on-reserve. You look at these policies, and there is federal jurisdiction on-reserve. I can't see any of these policies creating one single space on-reserve. We have 50% of the population under the age of 18, and 50% of that population probably under the age of 10 or 11. The need for child care in economically marginalized areas and on-reserve is probably at its greatest in those areas, and yet not one of these policies actually addresses that.

I haven't any answers from that perspective. I don't know if your organization has looked at that at all.

[Monica Lysack]

In my own personal experience, having worked with reserves in Saskatchewan on developing child care services, you are right, it is absolutely the most critical need in the country. Clearly that is an area of federal jurisdiction, and yet when this government a year ago terminated the agreements with the provinces and territories, they gave a one-year notice, or transferred the funds for that one year. However, the funds that were allocated for on-reserve aboriginal child care were cut immediately, so they didn't even have the benefit of that.

That, to me, is ludicrous and quite mean-spirited. We all know the poverty and marginalization issues that our aboriginal people are facing on reserves, and we're in the position of having international aid organizations come to sponsor our aboriginal children on-reserve, yet this government is immediately cutting. They didn't even give them the grace period of one year that they gave to the provinces and territories. To immediately cut that funding to on-reserve child care is just shameful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Merasty.

You have time for just a couple of quick questions, Mr. Lake.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back to child care, if I could.

Ms. Lysack made a couple of the comments during her speech, and at other times. She talked about the universal child care benefit being “punitive to working mothers”, which implies that it actually punishes them compared to what the situation would be if they didn't have it at all. That is an unbelievable comment.

Second, she made a comment that eight out of ten children do not have access to the child care their parents want for them. The flip side of that would be that only two of ten children actually have access to the child care their parents want for them. Anybody who actually considers that statement in light of much research, the Today's Parent poll, the Vanier Institute poll, and just common sense.... Just through talking to parents--for any of us in the room who have door-knocked--even if you are on the other side of the issue, you would realize that the idea that eight out of ten children do not have access to the child care their parents want for them is absolutely ridiculous. I find it odd that they, coming from a research-based, federal government-funded organization, could even throw a number like that out there.

She used the phrase “early years form the foundation for the child”. Finally we have something we agree on. I do believe that early years form the foundation for the child, and I guess I would ask who should decide what the foundation should be. Should it be the government that decides what the foundation should be, or should it be the parents?

I would argue that your organization is simply driven by an ideology that children are best served by a government-run day care system. She uses the word “universal”. Universal means everyone, so in other words, everyone would send their kids to a government-run day care institution. But not everyone wants to do that.

The Liberal plan simply funded parents who were wanting to send their kids to day care. There was no other option. The Conservative plan gives the same amount of money to everyone. It gives the same amount of money per child to every parent across the country. Whether it be the universal child care benefit or whether it be the child tax credit that we're talking about, it treats every parent the same, and those parents can make the best decision for their family. No one has ever suggested that the universal child care benefit is supposed to pay all of the costs of a child care program for a child. It is supposed to enable parents to make the best decision that they can make for their family.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lake, I've just been informed that this indeed is the 15-minute bell, because we have so many votes tonight.

Mr. Lessard, I apologize for that. We have fewer witnesses tomorrow and we will get to your motion. We'll make it a priority tomorrow.

I did not realize the bells would be starting early. We are about four minutes into a 15-minute bell, so my suggestion is that we're going to adjourn.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here and for taking the time.

The meeting is adjourned.