Human Resources Committee on May 3rd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Now we're going to Mr. Chong, for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to do two things. The first thing is to correct the record with respect to what was in place when we took power on February 6, 2006. The second thing I want to do is highlight the reason I oppose this bill; I think the issue speaks to a broader question about political community.

On the first issue, and that is regarding the facts, the original Liberal national child care plan was really a two-step process. The first step in the process was to execute 13 bilateral agreements between the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories. The second part of the plan was to actually execute 13 bilateral funding agreements between the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories.

When we took government on February 6, the case was that in terms of the first stage of the process, the agreements in principle, only 10 out of the 13 had been signed. The three territories had refused to sign the first stage in the plan because they were holding back on base funding, in addition to per capita funding. With regard to the second stage in the process, the process that would actually trigger the funds that would flow, only three bilateral agreements had been signed; seven provinces and three territories had not signed funding agreements. The three provinces in question that had signed these bilateral funding agreements that allowed the money to flow were Manitoba, Quebec, and Ontario.

When we took power on February 6, we did three things. We triggered the one-year termination clauses in those three funding agreements with Manitoba, Quebec, and Ontario. We released the funds for the balance of the 2005-06 fiscal year, the $1 billion in funds that had been allocated, and we committed to the provinces that in the fiscal year 2006-07 we would flow the $1 billion to the ten provinces and three territories on an unrestricted basis. That was the case.

The reason I point that out is that even after all the effort on the part of the previous government, the national plan had not actually been fully executed. This serves to highlight the challenges of cross-jurisdictional programs and the problems in coming forward with a national program in this particular area.

The second point I wanted to make today had to do with national programs.

Regarding Outremont, for example, if this bill is passed and the act goes into effect, the member for Outremont will be able to vote for child care services in my riding of Wellington---Halton Hills in Ontario. But he could not vote for child care services in Outremont, because, under clause 4 of this bill, Quebec is not part of the national system.

One of the reasons I oppose this bill is what I call the Outremont question. It really is a situation where, because you're exempting Quebec from the provisions of this so-called national plan, you create a situation where the honourable member from Outremont can vote for the service levels and standards of this program in Wellington—Halton Hills--it affects the Canadian citizens of Wellington—Halton Hills--but she would not have the authority to vote for or have a say in the services and standards that would apply to Canadian citizens living in her own riding of Outremont.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I would just like to provide my colleague with a piece of information. It is very constructive.

There is a reason why it is like that: you do not pay for child care in Quebec, whereas Quebec pays for child care elsewhere in Canada. That is the reason.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Chong.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I am saying is this. We are telling Canadian citizens living in nine of the ten provinces that the federal government will have a hand in the delivery of services, in the funding arrangements, and in the setting of standards, but what we are saying to those Canadian citizens resident in the province of Quebec is that the federal government will not have a hand in it. So you create this bizarre situation where members of Parliament in Quebec can determine the minimum standards for child care in all provinces except the province in which they are resident. One could call it the Outremont question.

I put that on the record, and I think it is an important thing, because if we are to be a political community of some 32 million people in the northern half of this continent, we have to take collective approaches to these kinds of issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

That finishes our third round.

Ms. Dhalla, would you like a couple of minutes? Then we have Mr. Lake for a couple of minutes, and then we will wrap it up.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for being so kind.

I wanted to touch upon a couple of things. The discussion at some points has been heated, but we obviously have substantially different viewpoints on this side versus our friends on the other. But I think that ultimately it is important that we talk about what we think is the best approach to ensure that our children, who are our future, get the very best.

I do want to comment before I ask my particular question. If I'm not mistaken, Ms. Smith stated in her earlier comment, when my colleague asked about what type of child care was appropriate, that children in day care do not receive love. Since 54% of children are in some form of non-parental care, that is an absolute insult to those young children and those parents who have invested time and energy in putting their children in quality spaces and work with child care educators who, on a daily basis, try to provide the very best for those children. I think those children are receiving love and they are receiving care, because for many parents across the country, that is their only choice.

I did want to bring up a question that Sara commented on and also mentioned in her report. You had stated--and I know this was disputed--that according to Statistics Canada, 54% of children are in some form of non-parental child care.

Sara, how much do you think it costs for a day care space across the country?

[Sara Landriault]

It's different in every province.

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

How much would you say the average is?

[Sara Landriault]

I don't know. I'm not a statistician. In Ontario it's $18,000-plus.

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

You mentioned in your report it was about $18,000.

[Sara Landriault]

That is in Ontario. Mary Anne Chambers stated that, actually. That's not my number.

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

Would Ms. Smith or Ms. Ward have any type of figures?

[Helen Ward]

Yes, I do. The Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, as reported in the Toronto Star, said that building a day care space of quality costs up to $40,000 in a city like Vancouver. Operating a day care space in Toronto is about $18,000. That's affirmed by statistics from Sweden and the RAND Corporation in the U.S., and in statistics from B.C.

Day care requires capital cost, operating cost, training cost, and massive bureaucratic infrastructure, so the overall cost of one day care space for an infant would be at least $25,000.

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

So it's costing about $25,000, let's say $2,000 a month. And the Conservatives have tried in their own particular respect to provide some sort of choice, and they have provided a taxable deduction of almost $100 a month, which parents have very quickly realized, once they have done their taxes, is about $60 a month, and when you do the math on that, it is about $2 a day. Would you all agree, regardless of what your particular opinion is of how parents should be providing choice and what type of child care they should be providing, that $2 a day is certainly not enough for investing in child care?

[Helen Ward]

We definitely agree that it's not enough, but your plan gives absolutely nothing, and $100 a month is a small step in the right direction. It should be far more. If it's $25,000 a year, so be it--for every child.

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

I want to remind you that when the Liberals were in government, we were the party that implemented the child tax benefit, the national child benefit supplement, and ensured that we also had a child care expenses deduction. And I think the early learning child care plan by the Liberal Party was a step in the right direction, to create much-needed spaces for the 54% of parents in this country who have to or want to put their children in some sort of child care.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

[Beverley Smith]

I'm Beverley Smith. I have an answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Just a very quick response, Ms. Smith, and then we're going to move to Mr. Lake as the final questioner.

Go ahead, Ms. Smith.

[Beverley Smith]

My comment is to clarify about love. You cannot standardize love. You cannot guarantee love. That's what I meant.

I also think that we should not reduce our arguments again to emotionalism. You hurt my feelings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lake, for four minutes.

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

I was commenting on your statement.

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

I note again that as Ms. Dhalla talks about UCCB and in terms of her conversation about how much parents get, the only people she is consulting and the only people she talks about are those who use institutional day care, and those people say that it's not enough to cover the cost of day care. But you notice that the conversation never revolves around asking people who don't use institutional day care whether $100 per month is enough. A large number of those people say that it is very helpful to them, that it does go a long way to helping them out. Sara did say that it does actually go a long way to helping her out, I believe.

To me, that only highlights the problem, because the Liberals' plan gave money to a specific small subset of people and it allocated a smaller amount of money among those people, and our plan treats everybody fairly. I'm not sure I understand where the confusion lies. Our plan treats all parents equally. That's enough said about that.

One thing about this bill is that I do read this as providing a one-size-fits-all model for Canadian families and I don't see it offering parents a wide range of options and supports. Is there anybody on the group today who sees it any differently?