Evidence of meeting #70 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was children.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
The gentleman in question did not recognize it. He even resigned as a minister so as not to recognize it.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
We're not going to open up that debate, because we'd be here a lot longer.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
This is a question of democracy. Is he going to align himself with the decision of the House?
I do not know much about it, but I think that he will.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
The sponsor of the bill, Madame Savoie, said in the beginning that there would be two amendments. The first one is to amend it to “provide as family child care services by an individual authorized under the provincial or territorial law to do so.” That is specifically in there to ensure the greatest amount of flexibility, so that in rural areas, for example, it wouldn't be one-size-fits-all. It could be the time, or it could be part-time or transportation issues. Any number of things could operate from a home base. As long as it's regulated, we know there will be a certain standard.
So that amendment should take care of some of the concerns people have talked about.
The second amendment we talked about a few meetings ago was on aboriginal child care--precisely what Mr. Dinsdale was talking about. I think there is a discussion going on between Mr. Alfred Gay, of the aboriginal congress, and other groups that are interested in aboriginal child care issues on the best way to make the amendments. Is it through amending the accessibility part, the accountability question, or the question of payment or tariff, without going over the jurisdictional problem? After all, it is really the province that determines this. But if it is on the reserve, how would that fit?
The original draft of the bill made the assumption that because this bill was very broad, in general it would deal with the needs of the aboriginal community. But spelling it out very clearly might be even better, because it is very clear on children with special needs, for example, so why not other areas? That is coming in the amendment. I just want to make sure people know that.
Having said all that, I would welcome--and so would other members--suggestions on how best to amend it so we do not violate the jurisdiction question, but also answer the fear, which I totally understand. Certainly we do not want any child left behind if we can put a bill together.
Perhaps folks here have some suggestions. Welcome to our process. We are planning to do the amendments on May 10, so there are not a lot of questions. There have been quite a few discussions already in the community, but we don't know the precise wording yet.
Is there any response on that?
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Is there any response? No.
I want to come back to the farming communities. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding. I hear--especially from the Conservative members of Parliament in the House of Commons--every time we debate child care, the argument that it's always about urban centres and doesn't deal with farming communities. My experience tells me that whether it's the seeding or whatever, in many families both parents are working to support the farm in some way.
So perhaps you can describe your experience on how it works in some communities. Lay it out and describe what that child care looks like.
4:50 p.m.
Co-Manager, Rural Voices for Child Care
I'll take a few minutes and then I will let Jane continue.
We both come from rural communities. I live on a hundred acres outside a small hamlet called Feversham. It is a farming community, and 20 years ago it had no services within about an hour's drive. It was part of a region that took an hour to cross, top to bottom and side to side, that in fact had no services. It was a large rural region without a city or a town within it.
Through a very active community process that involved all sectors of the community, we not only developed child care options, we developed quality child care options, some of those being centre-based in communities as small as 300 children, which, when working in partnership and in an integrated way with other services in the community, have served those families and children very well and have been there for over 20 years. Not only are they sustainable; they continue to grow and to focus on the changing needs of families and children in their communities and the surrounding area.
Although that probably seldom happens across Canada, there certainly are examples in other provinces and territories as well.
I'll let Jane say a few things about her community as well.
May 1st, 2007 / 4:50 p.m.
Jane Wilson Co-Manager, Rural Voices for Child Care
My home community has a population of 90 people. We've had a regulated, licensed child care program there with quality care for almost 20 years. We've expanded into six neighbouring communities through the integrated hub model. We have provided child care to over 250 children through sharing spaces and services, with one common board of directors throughout the region—so that our volunteers don't burn out—from six different communities. We have won the Prime Minister's award of excellence for child care.
Rural child care is possible. Our smallest community is 90; our largest is 450. Rural quality child care is totally and completely viable, sustainable, and doable—and much needed.
4:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Thank you.
We're going to go on for five minutes to Mr. Lake, please.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I want to start with the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada. My first question is for Ms. Dallaire.
Actually, first I want to make a comment. I noted a bit of a change of tone today and a sort of focus on common ground. In your comments, you talked about all federal parties agreeing that we're concerned about the best outcomes for our kids. We can definitely share that common ground; we do agree. We may disagree on how to get there, but we agree that this is important.
I want to ask you a little bit about universality. Ms. Savoie came before the committee and stated that 54% was her benchmark for universality. I'm curious what your benchmark for universality would be.
4:55 p.m.
Chair, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada
It is spelled out in more detail in the package we submitted, in our policy recommendations “From Patchwork to Framework”. What we are advocating for is a range of programs where I believe it's 50% that are designated full-time spaces. The rest are according to families' needs: either drop-in centres, part-time services—
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
What percentage of the zero-to-six population should be in child care? What should our target be?
4:55 p.m.
Chair, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada
I don't necessarily believe children should be in child care. I believe that parents who want to choose child care as an option should have that option, so we need to factor in enough spaces that, for families who are actually choosing and where the parents are working, the spaces are available.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Chair, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada
They would carry a parent user fee for parents who can afford it; and for the parents who cannot afford it, that fee would be waived.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
One of the things Ms. Savoie said when she was before us is a direct quote about this bill, that:
actually, it involves no cost other than what is being funded now.... [R]ight now there is money going to the provinces, and the program could start exactly on the amount of money that exists today.
...it could be the basis for the law today, with no additional funding....
Do you agree that we don't require any additional funding?
4:55 p.m.
Chair, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada
Ideally there would be additional funding to actually start building child care in the provinces, but my understanding from the bill is that there is no funding requirement; that it would apply to existing funds; and that as we move forward and invest new funds, they would need to be invested according to those parameters.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Then in clause 7 of the bill, it says that “...all or a portion of any child care transfer payment to that province or territory for the following fiscal year be withheld.” It basically says the only thing this legislation would do is give the federal government the ability to take back the money. It doesn't actually give any extra money. The option that this bill seems to provide, as I'm reading it, is no more funding, and maybe less.
Do you think that's a good idea?
4:55 p.m.
Chair, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada
If the provinces aren't meeting their obligations under the agreement, that could mean the funding--
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
The funding would be withheld at that point.
I was interested to hear Mr. Savage's comments. I think he's finally come around a bit, because he referred to the Liberal record as “so many years of wandering in the wilderness”. I thought that was interesting.
I want to talk a bit about that. The Liberal government was in power for almost 13 years, wandering in the wilderness. You worked with them and you lobbied them, yet no legislation was ever passed or even created. Can you tell me why not? Do you have any thoughts on that?
4:55 p.m.
Chair, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada
I didn't realize that question was directed to us, unfortunately.
