Status of Women Committee on April 24th, 2007

[Monica Lysack]

Finland is a good example of this, and I had an opportunity to speak to a member of the Finnish government who was involved in the development of policy around this. Because they have a universal program, anyone who wants early learning and child care programs in Finland can access them. So because that has supported them economically, they are able to say, for families who aren't choosing that, here is—in a sense it's like a rebate, I suppose.

I was in Alberta two weeks ago and I learned that the Government of Alberta has offered a payment to families—I don't know the details of this, I just heard about it—of $100 if they are not applying for a child care subsidy. Very few people have taken them up on it because people are looking for the service first. So there's a great unmet need there, but once that need is met, then—

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

So they can, in a way, transfer that benefit to someone else. Is that it? It's not necessarily universal. If someone doesn't need that particular benefit, it somehow can be moved to someone else who is in need? Am I getting the point?

Anyway, I'll have a look at the blues after the meeting. I appreciate it. I did want to hear from Madame Harris again, and I'd appreciate that. We haven't heard too much from you this afternoon, so perhaps we could give her 30 seconds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Sorry, Mr. Stanton, your time is up, but we'll give her 30 seconds.

Ms. Harris.

[Michelle Harris-Genge]

Speaking specifically to maternity and parental benefits, as they are still tied to the EI system, it would come out of the EI surplus.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We now go to round three, and I will be able to manage two questions.

Ms. Minna, for five minutes.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

A lot of things have been said today, and some really good stuff. From my perspective, we're talking about women's economic security. So we're talking about how we make women secure financially, in their early years, during their work years, and when they retire. So we're looking at a national caregiver program to acknowledge the unpaid work at home, whether it's looking after a family member who is ill, or a child, as we're trying to do through parental leave and professional care. Neither are very effective; they're not working very well.

For professional care, we don't have dropout for CPP, so the pension buildup is gone. The jobs...women are in and out of the workforce, and I don't have to give you all the scenarios that affect the income security situation of women and ultimately their retirement income.

I want to look at what we've been talking about. I call it early education and child care. The Best Start program, which Madam Davidson referred to earlier, was established by the Government of Ontario. It was part of the $5 billion national child care program, which Ontario chose to call the Best Start program, but a lot of it was being negotiated and was going to be delivered through elementary schools, being flexible with rural communities that chose some different delivery mechanisms, because of course the province had done a great deal of consultation.

My questions to Ms. Harris or Monica or Emily.... To my way of thinking, Canada's best assets are its people, and then you work from there. To give every single child the best possible start from the moment they're born.... Tell me, is the universal early education and child care program the best way to go, as we have it in elementary schools? We have universally accessible elementary education across the country. Some choose to go to private schools, but they have money. But every child gets to go to elementary school. We didn't say you get to have a $100 voucher; we said this is fundamentally important to our society.

It seems to me that would be the same approach in early education and early development. I just need to clarify. Am I on the wrong track here?

[Monica Lysack]

I certainly don't think so. What defines us as Canadians is our public health care system, our public education system. When we look at public education, 90% of us have gone through the public education system even if, as you say, there are other mechanisms in place where there are vouchers or you can be supported to choose something else. So we believe that a public early learning and child care system is a part of what will define us as Canadians, and that all children have access to it. And we know that parents who are not employed outside the home also access those programs for their children. They think they're important. Of course, it's a good thing. When we look at Fraser Mustard's brain malleability and where we're investing, why are we investing so little at the beginning of life and so much more in adulthood when we know the brain is so much more vulnerable in those early years and that we can do so much more that will have a lasting impact?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

You just said something important that I picked up on. In my riding, one of the most popular programs is called the Early Years program. Interestingly enough, it's only accessed by stay-at-home mums, or if they work part-time. If you're working full-time, you can't leave your child there. You just go for the half day or the day. There are five major centres in my riding. They're from the $500 million that was established back in 2000, and they're very popular. Stay-at-home parents, mums in most cases, really like it because it gives their child that kind of stimulation early on.

So for me, early education and child care is a blend of the two. Providing it in an elementary school structure in larger centres—in rural Canada it's probably different—is a great way to do it because then you identify issues for the child as they go through and before they start kindergarten part-time. Do you see what I'm saying? That's the model.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Ms. Minna.

To be fair, I said I would give three minutes to the other party.

Ms. Smith, for five minutes.

You will have your wrap-up remarks.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you so much. I want to thank everyone for coming and for some very insightful comments.

Ms. Smith, I'm really interested in what you have to say, to come here to this committee as an individual, with no vested interest in anything except the caregiving and the well-being of children and caregivers.

I was very interested in what you said about valuing caregiving. I know in our family my sister stayed home with the children all the time. I sent my children to day care, and yet the work my sister did was totally, in my view, undervalued in many ways. She was a great mom, she did lots of things, but there was nothing out there for her.

Also, on what you're saying about the income splitting and the benefits of equality for women in terms of someone who's a very low-income earner as opposed to another one who's a very high-income earner, there's equality there, because often it's the woman who's the low-income earner, and the sense of dignity and the sense of investment and partnership.

Could you expand a little more? I could have listened to you all day, I really could have, because I thought you hit on some really important things that I've heard all across this country.

Could you comment? I don't want to take your time. I'll just leave it up to you generally.

[Beverley Smith]

Wow. Thanks.

I actually like the Early Years program. My daughter uses them, and I'm not against that. What I am against is that to access the Early Years program or the day care, you have to pay someone else. It still doesn't put one penny in the pockets of the mother.

I made the analogy when I was asked to comment on Dr. Mustard's study that you can go to a centre and get a lot of advice about how to take care of your kid, but if your kid needs food, reading a brochure about food is not going to feed your child. I really believe a democracy owes parents the funding going to them, and then they can go to the free Early Years centre, which is fantastic, which their taxes are paying for, let's face it, or the child care centre, which their taxes are massively paying for whether they choose to use it or not.

So I think we need to give people choices, but the choice should be with the parent. Monica and I have used the same words, but the choice is only a real choice if the parent has money to make the choice.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

On what you were saying, too, in terms of value, I know there was a recent study done on the fact, as you said, of taking the child to the person who loves the child. Some parents are dysfunctional in some areas. Most parents, I would say, always love their children, no matter what, whether they're dysfunctional or not, and they want the best for them.

Could you comment on the cost savings if we did put more emphasis on the caregiving aspect? Could you comment on the savings we would have in terms of the crime element, where the child is valued?

[Beverley Smith]

The reason I keep referring to Ms. Lysack is that I don't know if you understand that we are interpreted by the media as warring factions, and we actually have a lot in common. We have never been in the same room before, because people thought bombs would go off.

[Monica Lysack]

Actually, we were. We were at a round table that Ken Dryden hosted with—

[Beverley Smith]

Oh, were you there? I didn't know.

[Monica Lysack]

I guess I made a big impression.

[Beverley Smith]

Well, there were 19 day care people and me.

Anyway, I think Mr. Stanton asked a really good question about how to pay for this, and I think we are both concerned about that. But you have to understand that women's work has been one-third of the GDP that has been ignored. Adjusting it will actually be noticed, and it is going to cost some money.

I think we both make the argument, too, that it's an investment that you will get back, because we have so many kids now diagnosed with bullying and attention deficient disorder and stuff.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

[Inaudible--Editor]—on the crime element—because I've been working with people who have had children go into gangs and things like that—in terms of, if they'd had the proper caregiving, would that impact on that?

[Beverley Smith]

There are two answers to that.

The Senate did a study called Child at Risk some years ago, and it found that the two elements of taking care of a child that keep them out of the criminal justice system are the same caregiver for the first three years of their life; it can be a day care worker, it can be a nanny, it can be a mom, it can be a dad, or whatever—the same person, though, stability. That person should be someone who cares about that child, because kids know the difference.

Secondly, there has been a thing called peer attachment disorder, which has been found when little kids have caregivers that change every six months or year. They stop counting on the caregiver to be the stability, so they go to the buddies.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I'd like to go back to the example that you gave, Ms. Lysack. You compare this subsidy with the idea of giving postsecondary students $10,000 and telling them that now they'll have to make do on their own, find the educational services they need and try to find their way through the labyrinth of the education system.

I mention that in order to go back to the Quebec child care services model, the early childhood centres. I was there at their birth, I saw them grow, and I also saw the children who attended them. We've acquired experience that shows us the benefits of those services for the children who are now of school age.

You know that, in our child care services, we also have technicians who are trained not only to take care of children, but also to stimulate them, socialize them and even detect deficiencies or difficulties, already at that age, so that, when they reach preschool age, we can help them function better.

I think it's important to establish or put in place a universal child care system. What we're told and what we now notice is that there is a significant increase in the number of family child care services. I believe we noted a 54% increase between 2001 and 2003, and the costs vary among certain areas and certain regions, just as service can vary. In my view, it's important for the welfare of the children to ensure a certain degree of universality in the services we offer. Quebec's early childhood centres are a good model for the delivery of services to children.

[Monica Lysack]

I absolutely agree that the Quebec child care model is an excellent one. It's not without its own challenges, and it certainly experienced growing pains. So many people wanted it immediately, and of course there weren't enough facilities and not enough trained caregivers. So it has taken some time to develop and grow, but the biggest complaint is that there isn't enough, that it needs to expand to meet the growing need.

I think it's also important to note that it's very popular with families that are not employed outside of the home. I think it supports that notion that if families are given choices at a reasonable cost, then they make those choices. So it does support all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Merci beaucoup.

Ms. Mathyssen, three minutes before the bells ring.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's interesting that we keep hearing, “Where will the money come from?” Of course, we have a $9 billion surplus, or at least we had, and we see EI surpluses that go into general revenues rather than into supporting the people who should be entitled.

I have a quick question. There's all this talk about costs and what we'll have to pay. How much would be enough to pay mothers for full-time care? What would be enough?

[Monica Lysack]

That's a really good question, because as a mother myself, I can say the hardest I've ever worked was when my children were young, with all of the demands of having three young children. Yes, it would cost a lot.

Can we afford it? I don't know.

Maybe Ms. Smith would like to answer how much a full-time mom should be paid.

[Beverley Smith]

There are a lot of magazines that have done some cutesy things about that. I think the latest one in the States was $150,000 a year. I'm not actually asking for that.