Human Resources Committee on March 21st, 2023

[Martha Friendly]

I ask whether I can table a paper we produced that summarizes all this research. I'd be happy to do so.

I want to mention the second reason why I make this recommendation. The reality is that child care, especially when there's public funding available, has become a favourite asset for international private equity firms—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Ms. Friendly, I have to ask you to conclude your comments. You can table any documents you have. You'll have opportunities in the questioning round.

[Martha Friendly]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Go ahead, please, Ms. Farris. You have five minutes.

[Maureen Farris, Director, Strath-MacLean Child Care Centre]

Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the child care community. I'm grateful to be here, today, to share with you some areas of concern regarding Bill C-35 and the Canada-wide early learning and child care program from the perspective of a director, as well as others throughout the child care community, including educators, families and children.

I would like to start by acknowledging that the intention of Bill C-35 is an honourable one: a national child care plan that includes high-quality, accessible and affordable child care for all who need it. Bill C-35 is certainly moving in the right direction. However, there are parts of the bill that require refining, in order to meet the core principles it initially set out to meet: affordability, accessibility, inclusivity, quality, flexibility and collaboration.

Bill C-35 sets out a vision and core principles for a national child care plan, and the child care community is appreciative that this committee and the federal government are working to build on the plan and improve it, in order to make it accessible to all Canadians. To do so, there is a need for the expansion of child care programs and improvements to compensation that values educators. We need trained early-childhood educators to make expansion possible.

BillC-35 is intended to ensure equity and sustainability. In its current state, the Canada-wide early learning and child care plan, or CWELCC, is not equitable or sustainable. This program is terrific in theory, facilitating access to high-quality early learning and child care programs and providing funding to make child care more affordable for families. However, it is vital that the federal government look at the actual impact this program has on families, children, educators and organizations.

I would like to acknowledge that the Canada-wide early learning and child care program is fantastic for our families. These families have access to high-quality early learning programs that are now more affordable. This is incredibly important to the families we serve. However, as I mentioned, CWELCC is not equitable. It is not equitable for families on the wait-list that currently don't have child care. As the media continues to report on $10-a-day child care, our wait-lists are growing daily, which leads to further inequities.

In Peterborough, which is where I'm from, we have approximately 3,500 children on the wait-list across the city and county, and that number continues to grow. While this may be a provincial jurisdiction, simply put, we do not have the educators or physical space to create more child care places. We cannot create access to affordable child care without qualified, well-paid educators. It's important to recognize there is no access without educators.

The Canada-wide early learning and child care plan is also not equitable for families with children in care but whose children are not all eligible, under the guidelines of the program. For example, in our organization, we have several families with a school-age child in our before- and after-school programs, for which they pay $24 per child per day. These children have siblings in our preschool program, for which the family pays $19.85 per child per day. The children in our before- and after-school programs are there for a maximum of four hours of care. The children in our preschool program are there for up to 10 hours of care and receive all the associated education and outdoor programming, as well as two snacks and a hot lunch daily.

As you can see, families pay significantly more for less programming and fewer hours of care for their school-age child. Where is the equity in that?

We also have families that, beginning in the fall, will have two children in our primary after-school program. One of their children will be in grade 1 and the other in junior kindergarten. The JK child is eligible for the CWELCC fee reduction, whereas the child in grade 1 will not be eligible. As a result, these families will pay $17 for the child who is not eligible for a fee reduction, but only $12 for the child who is eligible. These children are in the same program with the same educators, and with access to the same programming and snack. Everything is the same, yet families will pay $5 more per day for a child who is not eligible. Again, where is the equity in that?

Furthermore, CWELCC is not equitable for educators. Bill C-35 states that high-quality early learning and child care programs will be provided through the use of a qualified and well-supported early childhood education workforce. However, in Ontario, at least, that is certainly not the case. While I again acknowledge that wage grids are a provincial and territorial jurisdiction, I would like to share, with this committee, some facts about the workforce in Ontario. As of January 2023, early childhood educators in Ontario are eligible for a wage floor of $19 per hour. As that amount includes wage enhancement, the wage floor is actually only $17 per hour.

Governments at all levels must focus on recognizing registered early childhood educators as professionals. They are professionals who educate our children, following a curriculum and a pedagogy routed in child development practices.

These professionals educate and care for young children, support their families and work collaboratively with other educators.

They are governed by the College of ECEs, as well as a code of ethics and standards of practice, while working within guidelines laid out in the Child Care and Early Years Act. ECEs are required to strictly adhere to all of these.

Our registered early childhood educators are not glorified babysitters. They need to be given the respect of a professional, which includes a professional wage—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Ms. Farris, please conclude shortly. If you could, bring your comments to a conclusion.

[Maureen Farris]

Certainly. I'm sorry about that. Let me skip ahead.

Both the federal and provincial governments are promising to increase child care spaces. However, it's impossible to do so without the workforce to support and sustain this. Without adequate staffing, we cannot create more spaces.

As someone who operates two child care centres and sits on various committees, I can tell you that the biggest hurdle our child care community is currently facing is staffing. In fact, even the media is honing in on this. They admit that child care will be facing a staffing shortage and a staffing crisis by 2025.

I would argue that we're already in that crisis. What you may not be aware of is the incredible amount of pressure on frontline staff.

In spite of all the mounting pressure, Bill C-35 does not contain a clear staff retention plan. We need strong leadership in developing a workforce strategy. Otherwise, creating more child care spaces and, therefore, ensuring access to quality care are unrealistic expectations.

I have a lot more to say, but I will conclude, because you've asked me to do so.

It is my hope that the ideas shared at this committee meeting will help to refine Bill C-35 and the national child care plan so that they remain an excellent solution for families and their children, and that they are also equitable for educators, while being sustainable for organizations.

Investment in the early years is the best use of national funds. Every dollar invested in early learning and care is returned exponentially in our communities and the economy.

Bill C-35 needs to ensure that the focus is on the welfare of children, which is ensured through high-quality early learning and care provided by qualified early childhood educators.

It is truly my desire, and that of the child care community, that Bill C-35 does what it originally intended, which is ensure high-quality, accessible, inclusive and affordable child care for all who need it.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Farris. You'll get a chance to expand on that during questioning.

Before we open the floor to questions, I want to advise that I anticipate adjourning around 5:50. Before we do that, we need a few minutes to discuss our plans going forward, since we've had two meetings displaced because of other agenda items.

I will now open the floor to questions. We will begin with Ms. Ferreri for six minutes.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you so much.

Thank you to our witnesses.

As the critic for this file, I've had the opportunity to listen to thousands of parents and families.

Ms. Friendly, what's really disheartening is that I feel, whether you intended to or not, that you're really pitting these home-based, entrepreneur, small-business-operated child cares against the public system.

My child went to a home-based child care. It was amazing. If you say that they don't have quality, I feel, as the critic, it is my job to voice that they are absolutely quality people who look after our children. I want that on the record.

I'm going to turn to Andrea, if I may call you that. In your comments, you mentioned the risk of creating a system that offers more bureaucracy than care. Can you explain to the committee what you mean by that?

[Andrea Hannen]

I would argue that it's already happening.

The data collection and the reporting requirements under the CWELCC program are pretty labour-intensive for child care licensees.

I've talked with a lot of licensees about this. The consensus seems to be that at minimum, so far, the CWELCC is taking about four hours of a supervisor's time every week, just for the paperwork related to the CWELCC. That's over 200 hours per year that could have been used to help support frontline staff or to work directly with the children.

I can quote one of our own operators about this. He said that the impact is that the time he would normally use running his day care is now dedicated to reading government memos and responding to demands for data and reports. It used to be that he would get emails from his staff with room inspections, playground inspections and so on, and he would either send them a quick note to thank them for keeping up the quality, or stop by their work areas to go over any issues they may be having. Now he can't do that. He doesn't have the time. He's stuck in the office, rather than interacting with staff and families and being able to monitor quality and equipment needs.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you for that.

I think it does take a village to raise a child, as we've said multiple times, and we need all all hands on deck here to work together.

The CBC recently reported that 16,000 kids are enrolled in the YMCA's 35,000 licensed spaces. That means there are 19,000 kids who don't get access to care in the YMCAs of the GTA. Every new centre that opens or gets renovation money to create more spaces seems to be sitting empty or is not at capacity. Do you think the quality is going to be compromised in combination with what Andrea has just told us about making this bureaucratic?

I would like to direct that to Ms. Farris.

[Maureen Farris]

Do I think that the quality would be compromised in what capacity...?

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

With the way the bill is currently written, do you think quality will be compromised for child care and accessing child care?

[Maureen Farris]

I genuinely worry about the ability to provide quality care if we don't have the workforce to support and sustain it. In all my commentary on this, I keep coming back to “it's all about the workforce”. We are currently in a staffing crisis. We have an incredible shortage of staff in the area, and that's why we can't create spaces either.

Yes, I do worry about the impact on the quality if we can't get the staff we need to support these programs.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you.

Andrea, if I could go back to you, could you give an example, or is there an example, of another time when a government program designed to increase access to child care has actually resulted in centre closures?

[Andrea Hannen]

Yes, it has, actually. I would say that happened when the Province of Ontario rolled out its government-run full-day kindergarten program in public schools—FDK. Prior to that, a lot of Ontario families relied on licensed child care centres to provide kindergarten programming.

In the first five years of the full-day kindergarten rollout, which moved a lot of the kindergarten programming into public schools, Ontario lost more than a thousand licensed child care centres. Those centres provided child care spaces not just for kindergarten-aged children, but for children in all age groups. It seemed that the smaller not-for-profit centres were actually the hardest hit by that.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you so much, Andrea.

Ms. Farris, do you feel that with the way Bill C-35 is currently written it could create a two-tiered system of child care? Basically, those who are lucky enough or who win the lottery have a spot, but those who are waiting do not.

[Maureen Farris]

Yes, I definitely do have concerns. That exact system could happen.

As I've mentioned, there are so many children who sit on the wait-list and do not have a space, and there are operators who have chosen not to opt into CWELCC and can therefore provide or offer spaces to those families. Yes, that would absolutely create a two-tiered system. Families who could afford to pay for more expensive care would be able to do so, and families who can't may get substandard care, unfortunately.

I do feel that this bill has the opportunity, though, to support the not-for-profit sector in securing and building better spaces.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you so much.

I need a quick yes-or-no answer from all three of you. You can just shake your head. Yes or no, were you consulted by the government on how to improve or create a national workforce strategy to meet the demand of the labour crisis in early childhood educators?

For the record, Chair, none of them are saying yes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Ferreri.

We have Mr. Collins for six minutes, please.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks to all the witnesses for appearing today.

I've had the opportunity to meet with non-profit care providers in Hamilton. I've also had the opportunity to read some recent information that was provided at my former place of work at the City of Hamilton as it relates to the progress we're making parochially in the city of Hamilton. I can say the legislation to date has been a game-changer for us in my neck of the woods. We're seeing 200 to 300 spaces a year that will be created over the next number of years. We've seen families receive reductions in their fees in the thousands and thousands of dollars.

But I do have some concerns I want to raise today. They're really about the implementation and the service delivery and about how the provinces are helping or not helping as relates to many of the issues that have been raised by witnesses.

Maybe I'll turn to Ms. Friendly.

First and foremost, as relates to the non-profit versus profit scenario that's been talked about and highlighted today, and certainly has in our past meetings with other witnesses, I heard something today that I had to scratch my head about, which was just that if somebody has a licence, a government licence, then it must be true that they're providing the same level of service across the board, whether they're a for-profit or a not-for-profit. I've been an elected official for a long time. I would point to the provision of long-term care services in the province of Ontario as an example of how just because you have a licence, that doesn't mean you're doing it properly and it doesn't mean there's the same level of service and outcomes.

Can I ask your opinion as it relates to some of the comments that were made previously about the provision of services in the not-for-profits and the outcomes of those versus those in the private sector?

[Martha Friendly]

A licence is supposed to be a floor. It has never been assumed that a licence, in other words being compliant with the regulations, translates necessarily into quality. Quality is above that. The Ontario government used to say that very clearly. I'm quite familiar with the research on quality of a whole variety of kinds. It is true that licensed child care centres actually have variable quality even if they're licensed. I think you have to dispel that myth. A licence is not the same as quality.

The issue of for-profit and non-profit child care has been with us in Canada for as long as I can remember. I've been working on child care since the 1970s, and the discussion is always the same. Putting that aside, it is definitely clear that the motivation to make a profit, which is usually the objective of a business—and this is not to say anything about anybody on the panel here, because I've never seen your centres, Maureen.... In general, research in a wide number of areas shows that the quality of for-profit child care is not as good as that of non-profit and public child care. A lot of it would have to do with the need to make a profit.

Most of the budget is for staff, so when you have a child care budget, 85% to 90% in a non-profit budget is generally for staff compensation. If you're going to make a direct profit, that's the best place for it to come from. That's why wages are generally lower, turnover is generally higher and education is lower, because even in places, in countries or provinces, where there is a wage scale, you can hire lower on the scale so you get less-expensive staff.

There is other research that looks at things like decision-making and what impact that has on staff. If you think about what makes quality, it's reflective, well-qualified staff who have the latitude to make decisions about what they're going to be doing in their programs. Sometimes—not always, but sometimes—you find very intrusive kinds of decision-making from higher management. When you get into larger companies and you move out of owner-operated centres, very often you have decisions being made by a head office in another country.

So I think the picture of why quality is—

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Ms. Friendly, can I interject? I appreciate that answer. I have less than a minute now, and I'd very quickly like to ask you about what you're hearing from service providers.

When I met with service providers in Hamilton, I met with Wesley, St. Matthew's and Umbrella Family centre representatives. They talked about quality and specifically about wages. We've heard a lot about the province's floor that they've established here. It's hard to attract and retain people for $18 or $19 an hour. What are you hearing in that regard in terms of what the province should be doing as it relates to retention of and encouragement of people to get into the industry with higher wages?

[Martha Friendly]

Wages are kind of the core of the workforce issue. While they're not all there is to it, they're undeniably the core. I think in Ontario that wage floor, which is so low, and it actually is only of benefit in those instances where the lowest wages are already being paid. It brings them up to a low standard. I think a lot of people working in the sector are really offended by it.

I think coming out of the pandemic, when people working in child care worked really, really hard in difficult circumstances, it was their 15 minutes of fame. They were briefly essential. Now they're not so essential when it comes to paying them better, and even talking to this sector about what it is they want—career ladders, further education, and the opportunities you would get in better-paid work.

I agree with Ms. Farris about the workforce. It is absolutely central to the success of this program and it is absolutely essential to expansion, which is another really important issue we've touched on. I'm hearing that the workforce doesn't buy the wage floor and isn't going to come back for those kinds of wages in Ontario.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Friendly and Mr. Collins.

Ms. Bérubé, you have the floor for six minutes.