Human Resources Committee on April 24th, 2007

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

That's what society does. Are those questions for me?

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

I thought you made a really good comment when you said that voters basically made the decision on January 23 “based on the Conservative promise to eliminate the existing program”, so you did indicate that voters made an educated decision, at least, and decided against this type of program.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

It was 37% who decided.

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

I just want to share some feedback, a representation of people in my riding. This is very typical. Consider two very similar Canadian families, each with two parents and two kids who are two and four years old. In both cases the first parent is employed full time and makes $50,000.

In the first family the second parent chooses to work full time, making $35,000, for a total gross family income of $85,000. The second family makes a different choice: the second parent stays home with the kids. It's a sacrifice, but they make it work. Their gross family income is therefore $50,000.

You would agree that both the stay-at-home parent and the working parent probably work equally hard, right? No one would dare to suggest that a stay-at-home parent works less hard than anyone else. Is that fair?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Absolutely.

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

To continue with the example, the parents in the first family found a good day care for their kids. They spend $16,000, if we use Olivia's numbers, for both kids, so if you simply subtract the child care costs without even considering a tax deduction, that family makes $69,000.

The second family, the family with the stay-at-home parent, still makes $50,000, so we have $69,000 and $50,000. From my understanding, this bill would basically take that pile of billions of dollars and give it all to the families making the $69,000 at the expense of the families making the $50,000.

You're basically subsidizing child care for the family making $69,000 or $70,000 at the expense of the family making $50,000. It is common sense, right? It is pretty common-sense math. How do you justify it? That's what I want to hear. How do you justify it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm going to have to cut you guys off. We've crammed a lot in. Denise, thank you very much.

If you want a quick response and you'd like to answer, it's up to you.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you. I took that more as a speech than as a question.

I think I heard somebody say a child is a child is a child.

You threw out a lot of numbers, and I wasn't writing them down. If we're living in a society, for sure we're paying for some services that in some cases we don't use. I don't use police services on a regular basis and I'm sure you don't either, but I pay for them. As a society we collectively pool our resources to respond to needs that we consider to be essential or very important. According to the experts--experts, not politicians--early learning opportunities are sadly lacking in Canada, and we're described as...I forget what the word is in English, but needing a solid program to help those kids who would not have those advantages or those opportunities, and that's what we're proposing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, Denise, thank you again.

We apologize for not having the time we need for this, but we need to quickly suspend so that we can set up our video conference. In no more than two minutes I would ask the members to be back, so that we can get right to our witnesses.

Denise, thank you for being here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We want to thank all the witnesses for being here today.

I realize we probably had asked you originally to go for seven minutes. If there's any way you could cut your presentations to five minutes, that would be helpful. If you can do five that's great, and we certainly won't cut you off. I will let you know when we're getting close to five minutes, and then you can determine what you're able to do.

Can you hear us via video conference?

[A voice]

Yes, I can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Perfect, thank you. Thank you for joining us today.

We'll start with Mr. Lévesque and Ms. Bélanger. You have five to seven minutes, and you're representing Quebec's Private Daycare Association. Thank you very much for being here 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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lévesque, I've asked a very difficult thing. I've asked you to get your presentation to five minutes, but the interpreters are having a hard time keeping up. Please slow down a bit. I know you're trying to get ten minutes into five, and I appreciate it very much.

[Sylvain Lévesque]

I will now speak about the $7 a day childcare program which has been in operation in the province of Quebec since 1997. The family policy adopted by Quebec in 1997 is, in more ways than one, an innovative, forward-looking service model.

Is it okay like that? Thanks.

The policy, which deliberately breaks with the past, has meant improved circumstances for many Quebec families. As such, all concerned stakeholders can rightly be proud of the fact that the responsible minister has taken steps to implement most of the policy's key provisions, working closely with service providers.

Regulated day care services for children from birth to four years of age are offered either in a child care centre or in a family setting by service providers acting in accordance with the educational child care services regulations.

Child care services can be provided in two types of facilities that must have a license issued by the minister. Early childcare centres operate on a not-for-profit basis, while private, more conventional daycares have the status of legal entities.

Regarding Bill C-303 in general, the AGPQ is in favour of the bill which should increase the level of funding to different provinces, thereby allowing them to increase the educational childcare services offered, while keeping sight of the main objectives of Canada's policy on child care, and the needs of the public, and to improve the quality of services offered to parents.

Quebec's daycares are supportive of this legislative initiative for the following reasons: the proposed system is respectful of the provinces' primary responsibility for child care and family services; the priority consideration given to the family-work dynamic and to the development of quality learning and early child care programs, as well as the emphasis on the accessibility and universality of services cannot be denied; because the use of public funds is involved, the proposed training and appropriate accountability mechanisms are justified to ensure efficient use of these public funds as part of the fund transfer program involving the provinces.

In spite of all this, it's important that the provinces consult with all partners in the field in order to comply with this act and its attendant regulations.

Naturally, Quebec is exempted under clause 4 of the bill in light of the special and unique nature of Quebec's jurisdiction in this field. Quebec daycares fully support this measure and want their position to be made known officially when the association that represents them appears before the committee.

The AGPQ is surprised, however, to learn about clause 6 of the bill and to note the restrictions that would apply to for-profit educational childcare centres. It is surprised because Quebec has done business with all child care services, regardless of their legal status. If the government is bringing in regulations that favour accountability and quality services for all parents, then we have to object to this particular clause which maintains that the development of private daycares should be banned. At present, the Quebec government funds 33,000 spaces in for-profit daycares, where service quality continues to improve because the government has recognized the important role these centres play and has given them financial support to offer quality services to all children.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lévesque.

We're now going to move, by video conference, to Ms. Elson. You've got five minutes, if that's possible, or as close to five as you can. Thanks.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Elson.

We're now going to Ms. Graham, from the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario. Ms. Graham, five minutes, if possible.

[Kathy Graham, Chief Executive Officer, Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario]

I'm also here to represent the Canadian Child Care Management Association.

I want to address a few items that came up in the discussion earlier this afternoon. Of course I couldn't write fast enough to have my comments here.

This bill makes the premise that there is a need for spaces, yet this bill is determined to block expansion in a ready, able, and willing private sector. Home day care operators are self-employed. They don't give receipts and they don't pay taxes, yet this bill is prepared to give them a green light to expand. Even if home day care met regulations and tax laws, this bill is prepared to accept self-employed untrained people to share in the delivery of child care, but not a licensed professional child care centre that is privately owned.

Ms. Savoie stated that the bill did not make a judgment on parental choice, yet this bill is fully prepared to take away one of those choices.

It should be noted that in Canada, generally speaking, it is not the centre that is funded; it is the parent who receives a subsidy to purchase a service. Quite often I've noticed that people say it's the centre that is funded. We really need to make sure we understand what we're stating here.

When the child care service providers learned that child care had moved forward on the Liberal budget agenda, many felt elated with the thoughts that much-needed funding would help stabilize an industry that had been crippled by years of neglect and band-aid solutions, at every level of government. This elation quickly ended with the realization that a movement was being heavily funded to steer all the funding towards a monopoly, towards a public delivery system.

One has to wonder why the push is so heavy-handed. What is the real goal of those who push parents away from their choices of whether to stay at home, or have their child cared for by a relative, neighbour, or a regulated home or licensed centre?

To address this issue, over 200 service providers from across Canada met on December 18, 2004, for discussions and the resulting reinstatement of the Canadian Child Care Management Association. The Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario feels that you can be proud, as we are, to endorse and promote the adopted principles.

Both CCCMA and ADCO members work directly in the delivery of child care programs. Together, private and non-profit agencies, and centre-based and home child care agencies, embrace the quality of diversity. We believe parental choice is essential. Parents' rights to choose from an array of programs or to stay at home must be supported by all levels of government.

The core principles agreed to by the participants rest on the underlying understanding that all regulated and licensed child care centres and programs in Canada--private and non-profit--have a role in Canada's national early learning and child care system. They should be treated equally. We all want a level playing field, fair competition, and parental choice.

Representatives, who met, from child care organizations from British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., and Newfoundland and Labrador are about inclusion, not exclusion. A number of points were ratified by the members. I won't go into all of those. This detail will be in your documents that I distributed to you.

We also wanted to talk a bit about the private sector. As we know, it brings capital investment and creates partnerships with businesses in creating spaces.

We have a personal stake in the child care facilities. They tend to bring hands-on management and cost-effectiveness. We want enforcement of higher standards and we want healthy competition among services. This means our children and their parents have the choice of excellence.

Parental subsidies should follow the parent, thereby sending clear messages as to satisfaction and quality assurances. Entrepreneurs bring many areas of expertise. We have the ability and we are motivated to work with the non-profit sector and government, at all levels.

I would also remind our committee that women represent 96% of the child care workforce. Child care is a key sector, which provides opportunities and development for female entrepreneurs.

Ironically, everything that private and non-profit operators bring to our great land.... A few individuals and researchers have been able to sidetrack you with topics that are destructive and costly. These funded groups have focused on ownership and trade issues, nothing else. Unlike all the other organizations represented by the CCCMA, our memberships are voluntary and our collective work is to raise the standards of care, professionalism, and the standards of our work environments. Our ambition is to see parents' rights upheld and to deliver a high-quality program when they need us.

Nowhere else in the world is a debate on ownership so prevalent. Nor is there anywhere else where the concept of “big box” day care is used as a scare tactic. Canada’s child care discussion is often fraught with the notion that a coined phrase of “big box” day care will creep into our landscape should private operators be allowed to operate, and that the United States would jeopardize our system. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I've enclosed in your documentation a memorandum from the well-respected trade lawyer Larry Herman, of Cassels Brock, on child care and the trade agreement. His memorandum speaks for itself. In his opening remarks he states:

It is simplistic to claim that a system of private delivery of health care and/or child care services in Canada can be attacked under trade agreements as requiring the system to be opened up to any foreign, (i.e., U.S.) service providers. The spectre of a trade despite under the NAFTA or the WTO is often used to exploit concerns over the ability of Canada or the Canadian provinces to legislate for the public good.

Big box day care is a scare tactic, nothing more. We currently have over 50% of B.C.’s child care in the private licensed sector: Newfoundland is at 85%, Alberta is at 75%, and all Atlantic provinces are treating all centres equally. Even with Quebec’s $7-per-day day care, not one big box day care has stepped foot in Canada.

From annual reports of the Child Care Information Exchange in the U.S., the largest private and non-profit operators in the U.S. have very limited interest in child care in Canada. Over the last few years that I've been following these reports, no one has made any direction this way. All continue to operate in the U.S., and those that have moved outside the U.S. have done so by the invitation of the countries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Graham, perhaps you could wrap up.

[Kathy Graham]

I work with the World Forum on Early Care and Education, and I’m heading to Malaysia next week, where I work closely with designing day cares with the largest organizations in the U.S. They are busy in Japan, Hong Kong, and developing countries. It goes beyond simple money but into philanthropic activity, where countries want impressively designed centres to attract big business--hence, the child care centre being built at Japan’s airport.

I would like to make the point that on the ranking of Canadian child care's largest organizations, the YMCA is the single biggest operation in Canada, and there are just a few other non-profit organizations operating in excess of 20 programs. In Ontario we have one private operator who operates 16 sites, and that would rank them 28th on the U.S. chart. I'll point out that in the U.S. chart, the Knowledge Learning Corporation has 2,500 centres; the second ranking, La Petite Academy, has 643; and the ninth place has 88. I wanted to demonstrate the dropping that big box day care is--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm going to have to cut you off there. Thank you very much.

Once again, we appreciate the witnesses trying to keep all their remarks short, given the time we have.

Ms. McCuaig, I want to thank you for being here. I know you're here on late notice, so thank you very much for being able to join us today.

[Kerry McCuaig, Researcher, Better Child Care Education, Alberta Child Care Association]

Thank you for allowing me to participate. I speak in favour of the bill.

In 2007, $600 million will be transferred to the provinces and territories for early childhood services, with little accountability. Even the agreed to reporting for the $350 million that's now being transferred under the multilateral framework agreement is not being met. Further, there's a signal from the federal government that reporting will not be in force for the $250 million. Moreover, funding for research and monitoring has been eliminated, preventing anyone else from keeping track of where the funding is going.

Public opinion indicates that Canadians are prepared to pay to support the early learning and care of young children, but they want assurances that their money is going to the intended purposes. Funding of $600 million is not enough to meet the needs of Canadian children and families, but it is enough to meet the demands that there be accountability for where the funding goes.

I'm going to focus on one area of the bill. I know you'll be hearing from others on it, but I will touch on the differences that the research shows between quality in not-for-profit programs and quality in for-profit programs. There has been considerable research in Canada and the United States on this issue. I'm going to confine my remarks to Canadian studies.

There has been a study from the city of Toronto, and two studies that have come out of Quebec. What we're seeing is a pattern that's remarkably uniform. Across the board there is more likely to be higher quality in not-for-profit programs than in for-profit programs. This is with the caveat that there are, of course, excellent for-profits--and I've been in them--and there are very poor not-for-profit programs. But we're talking about across the board.

The first data I will share with you is from You Bet I Care!. That looked at child care both in centre-based and family care centres in one territory and six provinces. Across the board it found about an 8% difference in quality between not-for-profit and for-profit programs. Some of the criteria are based on the differences in revenue per child, which accounts for some of the differences in quality. But the big issues were the differences in the educational level of the director, the number of trained early childhood educators in the program, the differences in child-to-staff ratio and the differences in group size. What this study found, in general, is that the not-for-profit programs were putting larger parts of their budget into staffing.

When we look at a major study that was done in Quebec in 2003, again we find that the not-for-profits are on the higher end of the quality spectrum. In this case there was a 22% difference between the CPEs and the for-profit programs. The findings are consistent: the not-for-profit programs pay a higher proportion of their wage bill to trained staff than the commercial operators; the wages are higher; and the teachers are more likely to have a college education, more likely to have taken part in regular professional development training, and they have more experience than teachers in the for-profit system.

The City of Toronto is relatively interesting. Outside of the province of Quebec, it operates the largest child care system in the country. They have their own active monitoring system. Again, their findings are that the non-profits are much more likely to put their revenues into hiring teachers who are better trained and to pay them higher wages.

Just a point that we come back to again and again, when we look at other research we find that the difference in child care is the staff. You have good staff. You have trained staff. You have staff who aren't overworked and who are reasonably compensated. That makes the difference between a good quality program and a poor quality program.

Another Quebec study is a longitudinal study on child development, which collected data on children who were two and a half to five years old in a number of non-parental care settings, both regulated and non-regulated. It found in general that quality was higher in the CPEs than in the for-profit programs.

One thing I would like to stress is that across the board, although these studies are finding a difference, overall they are finding that the quality of programs is not enough to support the developmental outcomes of children. This is why those of us in the field are after you a lot for more funding for child care, not only for more child care, but also to improve the quality of the care that is in the field.

Why should we care about the quality? Why isn't it something that parents on their own should monitor? Well, first and foremost, these are public dollars, and it's a question of accountability. And there is now a critical mass of research from a number of fields, including the neuro and behavioural sciences, and from social scientists and economists, documenting that the early years are critical to human development; it's these years between conception and age five that set patterns for health, education, and behaviour. They have a lot to do with the quality of our future population, and will in turn impact on diversity, productivity, and the quality of our democracy.

We know that 25% of five-year-olds start school without being prepared to be there; and there is a very strong relationship between school readiness and the likelihood a child will complete high school. We all pay when kids don't complete high school. Some 9% of Canada's adult population leaves school without a high school diploma. We find them scoring at the bottom levels in international literacy testing, and although they are a small percentage of the population, they draw on 35% of social transfers.

Child care is a woman's field, but unfortunately I have to quote from the guys when I argue for its benefits. Let me pull out some names: David Dodge and Tom d'Aquino, have both come out publicly in support of more investments in child care. This isn't because they're soft guys, but because they see the benefits of it.

In 2000, Dr. James Heckman won the Nobel Prize for his work on cost-benefits of investing in early childhood education. He found an eight-to-one return, higher than investments in any other stage of human capital. The World Bank is telling its members that if they want to invest wisely in human development, the years to do it are between zero and six.

Canada has a lot of catching up to do. This bill will merely ensure that the small investments we have made are used wisely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. McCuaig.

Just for those of you who do not know Ms. McCuaig, because she is not on the agenda, Ms. McCuaig is the co-author of Better Child Care Education and was a principal researcher for Early Years Study 2: Putting Science into Action, a study on the impact of the years zero to six on child brain development.

Thank you once again for being here today.

We're going to get started with our first round of five minutes, and we'll see how we make out here.

Ms. Dhalla, go ahead.

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

I'll try to keep it to five minutes.

Thank you to this round of presenters.

I want to ask a few questions of Ms. Elson, who's joining us by video conference. Could you perhaps tell our committee how many members you represent?