Human Resources Committee on May 8th, 2007

[Jonathan Thompson]

Essentially, what we would like to see, of course, as I mentioned earlier, is some consideration for targeting first nations funding in the area of child care, and if there is going to be an advisory body, having a first nations representative on that advisory council.

We would support it, I think, but with certain amendments to its present condition. Those are basically the two main points.

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

You obviously indicated that there is a great need in the first nations communities for early learning and child care. Can you talk about what would have been available under the previous Liberal agreement and what would have been available if there was something under the Kelowna Accord that is not going to be available now? Can you give us the figures on that?

[Jonathan Thompson]

Actually, what I mentioned earlier was $100 million for northern children and families that was coming out of Kelowna. There was a previous commitment of $100 million that would have been targeted to south of 60, essentially, and that didn't materialize either.

When the agreements with the provinces died, there was, I believe, a certain number of dollars for people to transition back out of those agreements. And none of that was afforded to the first nations programs.

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

What replaced them?

[Jonathan Thompson]

Nothing.

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

Ms. Tennier, you've been active on this file. You've shown you didn't like the Liberal plan. You made that very clear and you were very active on that in an article on May 31, 2005, saying that “the government's plan to develop a regulated, universal day care system is unfair to the vast majority of families who want fair options”.

You've also indicated that you're not a big fan of the Quebec model, which in many ways is what a lot of us advocate and what this bill is more or less patterned on and what our previous legislation was meant to pattern.

One of the issues you talk about not liking is the lack of options. We've heard from a number of witnesses from Quebec, who almost universally indicate that the Quebec model works quite well, not only in terms of cost, but in terms of choice.

This morning we heard from the Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance. One of the things the Library of Parliament has given us about it is that in fact there is lots of choice in Quebec; that in fact, according to the Library of Parliament, each centre “is independent and has the flexibility to adapt its services within the regulations established by the province”—each of the 700 centres.

So we have heard from a lot of people who tell us the Quebec model does, in fact, work. I wonder what your response to that is.

[Kate Tennier]

First of all, Mr. Savage, you can ignore what I worked very hard to tell you today; that's your choice. The message is that a whole bunch of us, a whole whack of us have been life-long Liberals, and you alienated us. That's the first message.

Secondly, is the Quebec model giving equity to parents who choose to care for their children themselves? Could you answer that question, please?

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

I'm asking the questions, and—

[Kate Tennier]

—and I'm throwing it back. It's no, it doesn't work, because it doesn't give you full, equal choice. So that is your answer. There's no equality, no $175 a week to parents who choose to care for their children themselves. That's roughly what the Quebec government is subsidizing directly to parents. So no, it doesn't work; there's no choice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have. We're going to have a second round.

Mr. Lessard, you have five minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is fascinating to see the understanding people have both of the bill and the Quebec program.

I am speaking based on Ms. Matychuk's remarks, which are very important. She is a mother who is concerned with ensuring that her children get off to a good start in life. She and her spouse decided that one of them would stay at home, and she told us why. She seems afraid of the impact Bill C-303 could have on the willingness of a parent to stay at home. That won't change anything. I would like to hear you on the topic.

At present, 54% of families have access to the Quebec child care system. The families that do not have access to it are the ones that have chosen not to use it. Some representatives from an early childhood development centre told us that they would like to preserve and improve the system. So they are not just the users who operate the system, but also representatives of private centres. Quebec has early childhood development centres in an institutional setting and in a family setting, which are supported by the institutional centres. Quebec also has private day care centres as well as families who choose to stay at home.

Are we helping these families? Yes, more and more. We are negotiating with the federal government with a view to repatriating part of the funds that were earmarked for the parental leave program, but that were not used there. That program helped increase support for families with young children by allowing one of the two parents to remain at home for a year or a year and a half, while receiving an income. That helps get off to a better start. It is not perfect, but that contribution has led to a spectacular increase in the birth rate over the past two years.

Ms. Matychuk, how could this bill have a negative impact on parents who would like to remain at home?

[Nancy Matychuk]

Because there's only so much money, and I would imagine that a program of this kind would be very expensive. So I'm concerned, when a family like mine is already struggling to make ends meet, that we are going to end up paying more taxes to pay for a program like this.

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

Your concern is money-based. You are afraid of sharing the expenses with others, in the same way as everyone shares expenses for health care, based on a program. It is a policy choice, and I understand your argument.

Mr. Davis, I am trying to follow your reasoning and to understand your opinion of Bill C-303. Are you for or against it? You talked about Bill C-303 by sharing with us a life experience based on your position, which is considerable, but that did not lead us to understand your opinion on the bill. What is it?

[Rev. Jay Davis]

In reading it over, I just don't believe that it goes far enough. I think there needs to be more diversity. I do believe it has some valid points and some opportunity for success. I don't believe it goes far enough. There needs to be a greater option--

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

Can you give us an example?

[Rev. Jay Davis]

For instance, getting funds to the families that choose to stay at home. Right now the system appears to be working, and the $1,200 subsidy, getting it to.... A choice. I'm looking for a choice, and I just don't think it goes far enough, in my opinion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Monsieur Lessard and Mr. Davis. That's all the time we have. We're going to have to catch you on the second round.

We have Ms. Chow. Five minutes, please.

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

Canada ranks among the worst in the world for unhealthy children, experts say. This is a question for Mr. Davis. Apparently, we are at the bottom of the list of developed nations for children's health, according to the Children's Commissioner of England. The report quotes a March UNICEF report that shows that the Netherlands and Sweden rank first and second.

If you look at suicide rates for children in Canada, between five and 14 years old it was 0.7 per 100,000 children, and that's 22nd out of 29 OECD countries. So our kids are in trouble.

From UNICEF, in another study in 2005 about child poverty in wealthy countries, Canada ranked 19th out of 26 nations, with one out of six children living in poverty. So our children are not doing very well in terms of health, suicide rates, poverty, etc.

Last week we heard from a professor and he spoke on behalf of a group of doctors, and he talked about Dr. Fraser Mustard and others, neuroscientists, who said that early detection of learning disorders and learning disabilities for kids is really critical, and that one way is through decent early learning and child care programs. When you have high-quality child care programs, then a child will learn about group dynamics, about developing relationships with friends; they will come out of isolation and connect with each other. And if they have some kind of learning disability, because you can detect it early enough before the child goes to school, then the school can also connect with the child care educator so that there's a smooth transition.

This is why we are saying that early learning child care programs are critically important for our kids, especially those kids you were talking about, who have hidden problems that become full blown when they're teenagers and they end up committing suicide or they get in trouble.

How would having some kind of program like that be counterproductive for the well-being of our children?

[Rev. Jay Davis]

Again, I'm more bipartisan, in that I'm not thinking it is counterproductive, I'm just saying I don't believe it goes far enough. Yes, we need these programs, we need educational places. I'm not against that. I'm saying you have to go farther because there are families at home that can get them places and encourage them in situations and get them the help and encouragement apart from just the institutional locations. It's not that I'm opposed, or saying let's not do this at all; I'm saying let's go further.

I don't think this bill goes as far as I would like it to go. I'm advocating better institutions, but it can't be just that alone, because there are too many families that will not go into the institutional place for that encouragement and help. They won't be there. You have to create at least a broader picture of how to get involved in children's lives.

Again, just grassroots, in talking with parents, hundreds and literally thousands over the last number of years, it has to go further.

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

Sweden has a very strong parental care for young children. You can get extended paid parental leave, to be used in blocks of time up until the child is eight years old. This allows parents to take time off when the child needs them, reduce their working hours to six per day instead of eight during much of the child's pre-school years, along with providing an incentive for fathers to take a greater share of parental leave. These reforms are good sense, and that's something perhaps this committee could look at. It's not just maternal, but parental leave, and it includes the father and mother and gives more flexibility. That's something you would support.

[Rev. Jay Davis]

There are a lot of things I'd support if the bottom line is it's changing a child, but it has to be verifiable. You have to validate it at some level with the parents you're in communication with. I have to see it working, and not just statistics--not just Sweden, not just Denmark; it has to work here. You can't just adopt something from another country; you have to adapt it. We talk a lot about it, but it's not good enough; we have to go further.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have. We're going to move to the final questioner of this round: Mr. Chong, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to direct my remarks and questions to Professor Harvey Lazar, from Queen's University.

Before I ask my questions, I think we all acknowledge the need for early learning and child care. There are some out there who believe that it's best delivered by the federal government using the federal spending power, and there are those out there who believe it's best delivered by the provinces as part of their intra vires responsibilities. But regardless of whether you believe it's best delivered by the Government of Canada or by individual provinces, this bill is flawed and should not be supported. That's my view. In other words, even if you believe the federal government should set Canada-wide goals and principles for social policy, even if you like the idea of a federally driven national child care program, this bill is flawed for two reasons, I believe.

The first reason is that it flies in the face of and contradicts the social union framework agreement that the previous Liberal government signed with the provinces, with the exception of Quebec. It flies in its face in terms of the idea of accountability that underlies the agreement and in terms of the process by which the federal government would engage in social policy in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

I'm wondering, Professor Lazar, if you would comment on that aspect of this bill, and then I have a second question for you as well.

[Prof. Harvey Lazar]

You said it was flawed because it was not consistent with the provisions of the social union framework agreement, as I understand it. Did you have a second point, or was that it?

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

Yes, the second point I have has to do with section 4 of the agreement, which exempts Quebec from all the provisions of the agreement. If you're familiar with it, I'd like you to draw parallels between this and what in the Westminster Parliament has been called the West Lothian question.

In other words, we set up a situation where members of Parliament from Quebec would not have a say in the standards and principles of the provision of day care in the province of Quebec, yet would have a say in the standards and principles of provision of child care in the other nine provinces, and this is somewhat of a problem in terms of the role of members of Parliament from that province.