Evidence of meeting #71 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 parents.
A recording is available from Parliament.
President, National Family Childcare Association
Only two seconds, please.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Ms. Smith wanted to get a comment in, and then we have to move to our next round. We are over time.
Ms. Smith, I know you have a comment, quickly.
As an Individual
I find the tone of the debate is becoming very emotional and confrontational, and I don't think it's useful.
I feel that because I'm on video conference I'm actually being forgotten, which is another issue. I don't even know who's speaking because they haven't been identified. So that's a little technical thing.
But I think that there's so much hurting feelings going on at those tables right now, I'm very sad that we're not keeping to the real benefit, about what's good for children. It's really sad to watch. I think Ms. Chow, for example, is arguing as if she's the spokesperson for women's rights and we are actually talking about valuing unpaid labour, the third front.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you very much.
We're going to finish the second round here.
Mr. Lake, you have five minutes.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Yes, I think it's interesting to note the combativeness of the opposition parties. I think they're realizing the shortcomings of this bill. And it's interesting how combative they get when faced with parents who simply want a choice and want to be treated fairly under a system.
I noted that Ms. Dhalla talked about pitting stay-at-home moms versus working mothers. I would point out that that's exactly what this bill does. It pits one type of parent over another type of parent, one family against another, and it does so because it wouldn't treat them all fairly.
I would note that in our program right now we have $5.6 billion allocated to families. It is three times as much as the Liberal Party had in theirs. The funny thing is that they don't argue with the numbers. What they seem to take issue with is the allocation of that money. In fact, I think one of the members, Mr. Savage, was quoted in the House of Commons as saying that the child care credit does nothing. I would think that some of you might take some issue with that.
They basically say there are some choices worthy of help and that some choices aren't worthy of help. I'd like to hear you comment on that. I think most of you would be in the category where your child care choice isn't worthy of financial help. Could you comment on that?
I'll start with Mr. Quist first, actually.
Executive Director, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
Thank you very much.
Certainly our research has shown that the vast majority of parents would prefer to stay at home with their children to raise them. We know that's not always feasible, though, so I want to throw something else onto the table for you to consider as a part of that, which many other countries have looked at, and that is some form of endorsed or stronger maternity/paternity program that allows parents in this situation you just spoke about, Ms. Chow, if I can speak directly with that, but also in other situations....
Many countries around the world have used that, combined with a form of family income splitting that allows the family taxation level to be even lower. That way, it allows that single-income parent, that dual family but single-income family, to reduce their level of income in order to meet that first choice, which is for one of the parents to be able to stay home to raise their children.
As qualified and as good as many child care workers can be, I believe the best child care worker is mom or dad.
As an Individual
Many people are saying that some women can't afford to stay home and so they need day care. Ms. Chow likes that argument. I would like to welcome you to look at one past that: why can't they afford to stay home?
We have created a tax system that has made it so they can't afford to. One of the ways to remove family allowance is to remove the dependant child deduction; one is to not allow income splitting; one is to have the personal deduction so low compared to what it used to be; one is to have no more family wage; one is to have no pension benefits for the caregiving years; one is to have the child tax benefits that we have dependent on paid work outside the home; and not having universal maternity benefits.
Those are all policies that governments have put in place to prejudice being able to afford to be home. Surely as a government you could think of creative ways to make it affordable for a mother to be with her baby. What kind of society do we have where that option is not the protected option, that we're protecting the option to not be with your baby?
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Thank you, Ms. Smith.
I actually want to direct a point to Sara, if I could, because I'm limited in my time.
Sara, you have three kids, did you say? How old are they?
President, National Family Childcare Association
This week they are three, five, and eleven.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
So had you started having kids right now, under the new Conservative plan, and raised those kids past age six, you would collect, in total, $21,600 over the course of that time period for three kids through from birth to age six.
President, National Family Childcare Association
I'll trust you on the math.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
So $21,600, yet consistently all three of the other parties refer to that as nothing. Can you tell me, would $21,600 over the years with your kids help you, or do you think it as nothing?
President, National Family Childcare Association
Oh God, I'm still at $100 a month—actually, $200 a month. This month I'm dropped down to $100 a month. But hey, honestly, it's something I've argued all the time. That $100 a month actually helped take care of the kids, not by paying schooling for me or anything like that. It was dog food, toys, games, ABCs, letters, all that. That, to me, is all child care.
As to the dogs, I live in the country. Do you all know what fishers are? They're nasty little buggers that can take down a full dog. They're like weasels.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I want to interrupt just one more time, because I want to bring up one little scenario, and I want you to think about this scenario.
I want you to think of two neighbours, a single mother with a young child, say, two years old, and a couple with, let's say, two kids, two and four years old. The single mother works as a waitress because she wants to work. It's something she's done for a while. She works evenings as a waitress, and she really, really trusts the couple next door. So she pays the couple next door to watch her child in the evening while she goes and works as a waitress, and it actually helps the couple next door to balance out their own child care situation so that they can do what they think is best for their kids. Because they have this little extra income from watching the other child, they are able to have a parent stay home with their kids too. So you have what is definitely a win-win situation.
Under the Liberal plan, both of those families would actually subsidize other parents to send their kids to day care. Do you think that's right?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Okay, thank you very much.
We're now going to move to our third round. We have Mr. Russell. You have five minutes, sir.
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's good to be here. I'm the MP for Labrador. I must say, as a visitor, a fill-in this afternoon, it's one of the most energetic and animated discussions at a committee that I've seen in some time.
I would say the witnesses' views are very much in line with the Conservative Party of Canada. What the Conservative Party members espouse is obviously exactly what Ms. Smith would espouse, or Ms. Ward would espouse, or Mr. Quist would espouse.
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
That's my view and my impression, and I just wanted to share it with you.
President, Kids First Parent Association of Canada
You're wrong. You're very wrong.
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
You're in very, very, very close alignment with the views of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Mr. Russell, the panels have been structured in a way that is for and against the bill. Definitely the individuals here today are against this bill, but there were those who were for it as well.
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
I'm just making comments. I'm getting there.
By way of a question, Ms. Smith and Ms. Ward particularly, and Mr. Quist, what are legitimate forms of child care? You could give me a quick list--just you three.