Human Resources Committee on May 3rd, 2007

[Dave Quist]

How much clearer can I be, sir?

We have private foundations and private independent donors. If other records are indicated, we file with the Canada Revenue Agency through Focus on the Family Canada, which has been in Canada for almost 25 years as a non-denominational support group for families all across Canada.

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

Mr. Quist, we have a responsibility here. We have to put your opinion into the form of a report and make recommendations to the House of Commons. We have to know on whose behalf you are speaking. So who is it? That is all I am asking. When someone comes here, says that his name is Yves Lessard and that he would like to present evidence on his own behalf, he does so as Yves Lessard. If you are here as Dave Quist, the same applies. But you are here in the name of an organization called the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada. Someone is behind that, someone calls the shots. Where do you get your money? When we know who pays the bills, we know who is talking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm sorry, Mr. Lessard, that's all the time we have. You had seven minutes, sir.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I'll give him two minutes of my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, you won't. You're going to have seven minutes.

Nice try, though.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

He was very generous the last time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I didn't realize we had the discretion of the chair until last week. I'll have to go away a little more often to find out how to do this job better.

Go ahead, Ms. Chow. You have seven minutes.

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

Mr. Chair, I recognize that it is your job to keep order, but would you not agree with me that we need to know who is behind Mr. Quist, and we do not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I thought he was pretty clear on that.

Go ahead, Ms. Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Chair, the reason I did that is that Mr. Lessard was generous enough at the end of the last meeting--

[An hon. member]

I heard there was hara-kiri all over--

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

No, he was offering time for each other, and Mr. Savage was also, so there was a great deal of--

[An hon. member]

A great deal of consideration.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

That is why I continue that tradition.

I have some letters here. One is from British Columbia, and there is a huge number of letters, over 200, but I thought I would pick one or two because they go into this whole argument about parents, stay-at-home moms and all that. Just give me a minute. I thought I'd read it. And of course they are writing that this legislation is good for children, families, our communities, and our economy.

One reads like this:

Currently fewer than 20% of families in BC have access to quality, regulated child care, yet our finance minister is proudly stating that “jobs are looking for people” in our province. Without a way to insure child care for parents, these jobs will continue to “look for people”. How long will it be before employers leave the province if they can not find employees? Already 44% of BC employers are reporting labour shortages. Child care is everyone's business! It affects multiple areas of our society--parents, children, employers, business owners, co-workers, and grandparents, to name a few. We need to get past the argument “Should a parent (mother) stay at home to raise children rather than work?” The fact is “Parents (including mothers) work.” The argument is a smoke screen that deflects the issue. The fact is some parents have to work--they have no choice. Parents who work need reliable, affordable, quality child care. Provincial governments need to be accountable for the child care dollars they receive from the federal government. Bill C-303 will make provincial governments accountable for spending any money received for child care on child care”.

And that's from Cathy Cross, Port Alberni, B.C.

I guess, Helen, you are from B.C. and others here are parents and mothers who are saying they have to work, maybe because the income level is not high, or the dad's income level is just not high enough, and this mom has to work. In that case, what do you do? You need to have child care--and quality child care.

There was discussion about training. If we have to have child care, then surely we need to have decent quality and training. If that is the case, then I know early childhood educators take two or three years of education in college, so they are very well trained. We want trained child care workers who get adequate pay so they can make a living, so they can take care of the kids of parents who work.

I see complete logic in all these letters. What would you say to a parent like Cathy Cross? What would she do to her parents?

[Helen Ward]

You seem to be confused about what the word “work” means. Every mother is a working mother. That's a feminist slogan promoted by the National Organization for Women in the United States.

What do you mean by stay-at-home versus working? I do paid work in my home and out of the home. I do unpaid work here and there. I'm not being paid right now and I'm working pretty hard.

When you talk about quality, that's very important. We are totally in favour of child care. We do child care. Child care means the care of a child, and parents like me...I'm a low-income, single parent. I'm the one you say you care about so much. But with the work I've done looking after my child, I've been subsidizing day care expenditures by being unpaid and unfinanced in the care that I do.

I know parents who both have full-time paid jobs who do not use and do not want to use day-care-centre-based care. They off-shift. They arrange their lives. Those who prefer and believe that day-care-centre-based care is the best care for their child and their family should use that care and try to find it, if that's what they believe is best, but first, they are entitled to accurate, full information about their choice, and second, they are not entitled to more financial support from the state for that particular choice. That was the Liberals' policy in 1999, and we would agree with that.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Surely, I think, Mr. Quist would agree with this “love thy neighbour”, because I believe you are from a church-based organization, are funded a lot by religious organizations--

[A voice]

This has no bearing--

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Okay, whichever it is, we won't go into that.

Say your neighbour is a mother who works outside the home--to define it more precisely, in a hotel--and the father is driving taxi, with both of them working double shifts, working long hours. They're barely making their rent and are having a hard time putting enough food on the table, and their kids need high-quality child care. What do you do with a family like that?

In Ottawa, for example, there are 7,000 kids waiting for child care. In Toronto it's a huge number, sometimes 10,000 or 12,000. In Vancouver, B.C., I am sure there's a huge waiting list. What do you do with parents who end up working two or three shifts in order to make ends meet, and then the kids end up being at home, not being taken care of, because there's no choice whatsoever? What do you say to those parents?

I don't know who would want to answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I know that Sara is going to answer quickly, and then I know Ms. Smith wanted to throw in a response, but we have about thirty seconds left.

[Sara Landriault]

It's the same thing you say to your neighbour on the other side who is on welfare, a mom with three kids who decides not to go off welfare so she can be at home with her kids. It's the same thing. What are you going to say to her?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

She's being punished by the Conservative government. Because her income is below $20,000, she won't get the new child tax supplement, and then because she's not working, she doesn't get the worker's tax benefit either.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Now, we have a little bit of a debate going on here. We're over the seven minutes. We're going to move now to the final round.

I'm sorry, Ms. Smith, we'll have to catch you maybe in the next round here.

Ms. Yelich.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I'd like to thank you all for coming.

I just want to emphasize that I think we do believe child care is very important, but I think we want choice, and that's what's missing here; this bill does not allow it.

I would like to know, Yvonne, if you have any comments, given that you come from Quebec. Did you have any comments?

[Yvonne Coupal]

Mr. Lessard, earlier, you said that you were offended by remarks about the mediocrity of child care services in Quebec.

Professor Phillip Merrigan, from UQAM, in collaboration with Pierre Lefebvre, has written several comprehensive reports on the effects of day care on children. The last suggestion he gave me before I left Quebec was to ask for concrete evidence that every child in a Quebec day care is benefiting. No data provides that information. None at all.

There was also mention here about early childhood educators and how it's quite a high-profile profession now, with all the child care money that's being lauded. I would just like to say that something was changed in Quebec as far as their education is concerned.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

There are a few points that I want to raise in my five or six minutes now.

Just for starters, I would note that we are doing this in three weeks, and I appreciate the volunteers being here in such a compacted timeframe. Look at the Canada Health Act. That was done through 10 years of federal-provincial negotiations. We are certainly trying to work on child care in a very brief timeframe.

The two areas I want to look at are the withholding of payments and also universality.

On the point of withholding of payments, I have concerns with that aspect of the bill, giving governments a tool to take away child care funding. That is what this bill does. If we look at the bare bones of it, it gives the federal government a tool to take child care money away. We saw that happen in 1993, when the Liberals were in power and took $25 billion out of social transfers. We see McGuinty doing that now in Ontario. I don't know why we would want to give government another vehicle through Bill C-303 to take funds away from parents.

Right now we're all saying that we're in favour of child care, but there is $2.4 billion going toward a universal child care benefit. Mr. Dion has already said that he doesn't support that. Are we going to take $2.4 billion away from Canadian children? I'd be aghast at that. This bill would allow a Prime Minister to say to the provinces, “Do you know what? I'm not going to agree with sending you those social transfers.” It happened in 1993. It could happen again. That's a reality.

On the point of universality, subclause 5(4) states that the criterion of universality must be met in order for a province to receive funding. Right now we know that the Quebec level is 50%. Ms. Savoie said that her view of universality is 54%. So already we're leaving a bar where there are different views of universality. If this bill is passed, technically the federal government could say no province--any province, not just Quebec--meets that and so none of them gets funding. This bill is certainly not thought out very clearly.

I imagine that many of the organizations here today have concerns with that.

There were some references paid to health care. I know that is something that has been brought up before in these hearings, the universal nature of our health care that we are all very proud of. In our health care system you're not going to tell five out of ten people who break their leg, “You're going to get no help from the government, you're going to get no help from hospitals”, but that is what this does with children. It says to five out of ten children, “We're not going to help you”. It picks and chooses winners. It picks and chooses parents. It picks favourites.

Government is not about picking favourites. You're saying to a dad who works a night shift, “We're not going to pick you”. If we have a dad who wants to stay at home with his kids, we're saying according to this plan, “You're not one of us. You're not someone who we believe deserves support. Your children aren't good enough under this bill.” That is just ludicrous. The government is not about picking favourites; all children need the benefit of the Canadian government to help them with child care.

I want to know your comments and your perspectives on those two fronts--one, on how this universality principle is actually not achieved, and two, about the withholding of funds and how that's dangerous.

We could start of with Mr. Quist.