Good afternoon. My name is Jamie Kass. I'm the chair of the child care working group of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.
I want to send regrets from Paul Moist, the president of CUPE, who intended to be here but got fogged in on his way back from Gander, Newfoundland.
CUPE is the largest union in Canada, representing employees in diverse sectors, including child care. We are also part of the Canadian Labour Congress, which supports our position and represents approximately three million people.
Shellie Bird and I are going to split CUPE's short presentation.
Child care is a major issue for many CUPE members. Two-thirds of CUPE members are women, and women still bear the major responsibility for child rearing.
I want to start by stressing the need for a legislative framework if we are to build a national child care system. Recent federal governments have stepped back from their important legislative role of setting the framework for social programs. Instead, they favour federal-provincial-territorial agreements that exclude Parliament. These agreements, as we've recently been reminded, can be cancelled by a unilateral act, without any parliamentary debate.
Legislation provides transparency. Bilateral agreements are usually negotiated behind closed doors and often represent the lowest common denominator of federal and provincial policies. Now it appears the government is moving away from agreements, favouring transfers to provinces, with no obligation or framework to establish programs. The results are an international disgrace.
A recent OECD study found that Canada was the sole country without a goal for early learning and child care. We have not answered the OECD's call for a policy framework and improved monitoring. The annual report to Parliament, in Bill C-303, will contain information needed to develop and improve a Canadian early learning and child care system.
CUPE also supports Bill C-303's approach to the problems of commercial services. In 2004, CUPE warned about the trade consequences of establishing a publicly funded and privately delivered child care system, given Canada's obligations under various international agreements.
In a nutshell, the investment and services rules in international trade would likely apply to child care services if they're commercially provided. Both NAFTA and the GATS trade disciplines would deny governments the right to prevent foreign child care companies from acquiring a dominant position in the sector. Under the GATS, the government's ability to create and maintain standards in the child care sector would be severely limited. These are risks we must not take with the new national program.
Restricting the expansion of commercial child care is not just a trade issue. A new report underscores the importance of making sure our new cross-Canada child care system is not for profit. This national study adds to the large body of evidence that non-profit child care centres have the highest-quality care.
Our concern about commercial expansion is not alarmist. Australia's experience with for-profit care is a warning for Canadians. In 1991, Australia had a predominantly not-for-profit child care infrastructure. Then the government opened up funding for the for-profit sector. Now more than 70% of the sector is commercially owned.
The largest child care corporation in Australia, and the world, is ABC Learning Centres. In the same year that ABC's profits skyrocketed, Australia ranked extremely low in an OECD child care report.
We're pleased to see the clear commitment to a public not-for-profit child care system in Bill C-303.
Shellie is going to complete our presentation with a focus on the workforce.