Human Resources Committee on May 8th, 2007

[Prof. Harvey Lazar]

On the first question, as you noted, provinces, territories, and the federal government did sign a social union framework agreement, in 1999, with the exception of Quebec. I'm not sure if Nunavut ever actually signed the agreement; it was not a separate territory at that time. I think it's clear that the social union framework agreement requires the federal government to give notice and enter into consultations with provinces and territories if they want to change a provision. As I indicated in my opening remarks, I think the bill is clearly flawed in the sense that it ignores that agreement. That is one of the reasons I thought that provincial governments would not look kindly on Bill C-303.

Going to your second question, about the West Lothian concept, it's a good subject for academic debate. I could go on for some time about this. Suffice it to say that this has not posed significant problems in Canada in terms of the way our democratic institutions work--for example, members of Parliament from Quebec vote on amendments to the Canada Pension Plan even though Quebec has a separate pension plan. There are one or two other examples. It would not create significant problems for the governing of the country if we do not have an extensive number of provisions of this type, but the more that provisions of this type are added to the governance of the country, the more this concern could be raised that members of Parliament from a particular province are voting on issues that don't affect their province.

It's not an issue I would push at the moment. I don't think this is a principal concern for this bill. But conceptually I think the argument is correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Chong. That's all the time we have.

We're going to move to our second round of five-minute questions.

Mr. Savage, five minutes, sir.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to go back to Mr. Thompson and talk about what we need for first nations children.

We've just received these documents and there is a lot to go through. You talk about the cost of neglect. You outlined the need for systematic reform. There is something in here about $450 million; I'm not sure where I saw that. But do you have a specific recommendation of what first nations children need as a monetary investment for a specific plan?

[Jonathan Thompson]

Thank you.

We do have specific and very detailed research. The document you have in front of you relates to the child welfare situation. That is referring to the Wen:de series of reports for first nations child welfare agencies. It speaks to the main missing component, and that is the ability of first nations agencies to provide prevention.

The Minister of Indian Affairs recently announced $15.3 million for the province of Alberta first nations child welfare agencies. That is in line with the numbers we have come up with through the Wen:de research, which I believe in the first year calls for something in the neighbourhood of $109 million--I don't have the numbers in front of me.

When it comes to child care, we do not have as good an evidentiary base to target the amount, although we do talk about the number of communities that have no regulated child care whatsoever. With child welfare, the numbers are very clear; they are a little less so in the area of child care.

We're looking at the need to get a more coordinated approach to the provision of children's services. We have Health Canada doing something with head start. We have HRSDC doing something specifically with child care. We have INAC doing something in Ontario and Alberta with child care and the urban and reserve program. One of the things we're certainly trying to do, which we were trying to do within the ELCC initiative, is to get a more coordinated approach to the provision of these programs and expand them, as well. The decision to look just at those programs in terms of ELCC was taken unilaterally. There certainly are other programs that could probably be lumped in that could help support the family in a more comprehensive and efficient manner.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Okay, I appreciate that.

Are you in discussions now with government officials about how to implement this?

[Jonathan Thompson]

Yes, we are. We're working with HRSDC, Indian and Northern Affairs, Health Canada, and the Public Health Agency of Canada.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

Pastor Davis, one of the enjoyable things about being a member of Parliament is meeting people of different faith communities and listening to their views, whether we agree on all the issues or not. And it's interesting to see people like you, who come before a parliamentary committee and who perhaps are not used to the political cut and thrust, who are here because of a genuine interest in trying to promote some ideas. There are all kinds of politics involved in politics, and sometimes people get caught up in that.

You talked at one point--I was writing this down—about the need to explore “trustworthy places” for children. Does that sound like something you would have said? Would I have captured that correctly?

[Rev. Jay Davis]

Many people have said that I have said many things--so yes.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

And you've been very honest.

[Rev. Jay Davis]

I've tried to be.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

What you're saying is that you're not opposed to this bill so much as you want more for children--more assistance, more help, more guidance for children. I know a lot of people who would agree with that but who would see well-trained workers and regulated child care spaces as being that place, as being ideal to explore as a trustworthy place for children to go.

My sense is that you would say that could be the place, but lots of places might fall under that category. Is that right?

[Rev. Jay Davis]

Absolutely. In fact, at this moment in time we as a faith community are trying to build a safe environment for children to participate in this community. It's a $6.5 million project. So we're not opposed to that. But as a parent, I know this too: no one can pay any institution to love my child enough. If I desire to have my child at home....

I'm not looking to diss the institutional side of things. And maybe the $1,200 does not go far enough when you're looking at absolute needs of people I'm working with, the working class, the working poor, the low-income people. Maybe that's not enough either. All I'm throwing out here is that I want to see things get better overall, and it just doesn't appear that this bill will provide the solutions I'm looking for.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

Thank you, Mr. Savage. Your time is up.

Ms. Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Davis, unfortunately, I wasn't here and... Is there a problem? Can you hear me?

[Rev. Jay Davis]

Yes.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

I was unable to hear your presentation. You said that the child care system was good and that you had nothing against a system like that, but that this does not go far enough. I have the impression that you are talking instead about a stay-at-home-mother salary program for women who decide to keep their children at home. Are these not two separate issues? On one hand, there are child care centres that meet the needs of some, and on the other, there are assistance programs for parents who want to stay at home. Do we really need to consider these two problems together?

It took Quebec 35 years to get the current child care system. Nevertheless, efforts are underway elsewhere to improve the situation for parents. More specifically, there are measures designed to help parents who have children, like programs that enable them to leave the workforce for a certain amount of time, up to a year.

What do you think about this?

[Rev. Jay Davis]

What do I think about this? I don't mean to be redundant in any kind of way, but I think we have to discover something that works.

If this is something that can truly be linked together, I think it will be more positive. I don't like to see visions that go a different direction. It's very complicated when two different streams of thought are going. I personally would like to see something come under one focus to see it more broad-based, more wide open, whether that be partly involving institutions and educational centres as well as somehow some component that would involve parents making the choice to raise their child and have support. This would be especially among low-income families--I don't know the technically proper word there--who I work with who want to raise their children according to their values, their principles, their core belief systems. There needs to be a component in that.

There's a way to do that--although don't ask me how. I believe, I really do believe, that with hard work, there will be a solution that answers both in an equitable fashion. Where I am, we're working on that all the time. We're working on equitable solutions for challenging situations, crisis management, and all kinds of things, on an ongoing, daily basis where we are a facilitating ministry.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

I wanted to know how you would do that. In Quebec, when my son was born 35 years ago, we tried to set up a program like that. After all of these years, this is the result we obtained, and we are very proud of it. If, within the next 35 years, you come up with something that is quite broad-based, that you want, that's great.

I'd like to ask Ms. Tennier a question. Is your opposition to child care centres a question of principle, a way of punishing the Liberals, or is it really that, in your opinion, the Quebec system as it stands is really not good and there is nothing that can be done with it?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

You have one minutes, Ms. Tennier.

[Kate Tennier]

I'm sorry, what was your question?

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Is your opposition to child care centres a question of principle—according to which children must be with their families—or do you really have concrete complaints against the system as it is run in Quebec?

[Kate Tennier]

I've used full-time child care myself, and I've run a gender-equity career day at the school that I last worked at, so I'm all for that. But I would not put my child in a day care. I saw the best of the best in Toronto, and it's not good enough for my children. I would not put them in a day care centre. If that's the choice of person B, that's what they can do. But we need to have equality of funding. That is what we've said all the way along.

My husband and I wanted to share the child care duties, so he worked on the weekend; I went in early. Those kinds of situations are not being helped by this. We would be sacrificing so that others could have more than their share, and if we go to this hugely bureaucratic day care system, which.... Listen, the NICHD, which did one of the only longitudinal studies in the world on day cares, has come out saying there is a small increase in behavioural problems that is still noted by grade six.

So to answer both, no. Choice--choice is what Liberals are supposed to be about, and that's what we're about.

Also, to your point, as an educator, I know it is not always the best option for children.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

Thank you, Ms. Tennier.

Thank you, Ms. Barbot.

We will now move on to Ms. Chow.

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

This is for Mr. Thompson. If we have universally accessible child care for first nations children, especially for special needs kids; available in northern and remote communities; culturally sensitive, developed by the first nations communities themselves; with adequate funding that is sustained and from one source, rather than five, six, ten different project bases, with no core funding; holistic, with funding for building infrastructure; coordinated, so that it is a wraparound service with parents involved sometimes, and other times, if they work, they may not be.... Having that kind of vision, if we could do it, would it make a dent on the number of kids, the 27,000 first nations children who are now in care or being taken because of any number of reasons? Would that really help?