Status of Women Committee on April 24th, 2007

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I was just making a statement to you. I was going to ask a question after, but I'll do that next time.

[Monica Lysack]

I just had additional information about the rural—

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You will be given an opportunity in the next round.

Ms. Mathyssen, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you very much for the wonderful information that you've provided.

I'd like to start with Ms. King and with Ms. Lysack. I was quite intrigued by the information you provided. You said that in Quebec, which has a very excellent universal, regulated child care program, we've seen a reduction in child poverty, and that there is a return on the investment in terms of what the government has invested.

I was doing some other research and I found data that said that for every $1 invested in child care, between $2 and $17 is returned to the community. Children at risk benefit greatly from the investment. Ultimately, it has a cost benefit to the entire community. It's like our health care system; it provides a profound and noticeable benefit.

I wonder if you could just expand on that. I was quite interested in it.

[Monica Lysack]

That return of $2 to $17 on the investment of every dollar seems like a huge range, doesn't it? There are a number of factors to be considered in that.

Around the issue of child poverty, I just want to first of all acknowledge that somehow we are very sympathetic to the term “child poverty”, but let's face it, children are only poor because their mothers are poor and their families are poor. Most often it is lone-parent families with mothers whose children suffer the most, so this is an important related question.

Women's economic security is greatly tied to the well-being of their children. Child care can address that in two ways. It can ameliorate the effects of poverty in homes in which the resources are not available to provide as much stimulation and opportunity to children as there might be in other higher-income families. It's hard to spend a lot of time reading to your children when you're looking for food and wondering where your next meal is coming from. That's an important consideration.

That range of $2 to $17 is certainly very much reflected in the fact that the highest return is for those in the most vulnerable circumstances. The lowest return—the $2 return in the Canadian U of T study I think is probably what you're referring to—was really a very conservative estimate around tax returns and very much less on the social returns. It really didn't consider the impact on vulnerable families; all families were treated more or less the same in the research.

It is astounding to think of Quebec. For every dollar that it cost Quebec to provide that universal child care system in that first year, 40¢ was returned, mainly through women's increased economic security. So here we have a really strong argument for supporting women's economic security through child care.

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

I wanted to take it one step further. We've talked about the parents and economic security of the family, and of course that's important in terms of the quality of life and the opportunities that the child experiences, but I come from the education system, and one of the things I was very interested in, or noted as an educator, was the disparity in preparedness among those children coming in. I taught at the secondary level, so by the time I saw these little souls, they were pretty well hard-wired, for better or for worse.

Further to that, we know that the first six years of a child's life are absolutely critical in terms of laying the foundation for their success. One of the things I saw was that by the time they came into my classroom, the learning disabilities, the problems in terms of coping and making adjustments for whatever challenges they might face were gone.

In your brief you talked about the patchwork of services across the country—excluding Quebec, of course—and the fact that this inconsistency exists. It brings me back to the concern about children and the benefits of child care and early childhood education. I'm wondering, does the current federal child care plan, the arrangement that's in place now, contribute to these inconsistencies? Does it undermine the possibility, or our hope, that children have a better foundation so that they can be contributors?

[Monica Lysack]

Absolutely.

First of all, it's important to note that there is a tremendous amount of inequity in the patchwork we have out there. We don't have a system; we do have a patchwork. Another committee, the HUMA committee, is meeting right now and considering child care legislation, Bill C-303, that will provide a legislative framework to guarantee standards around investments, so that the progress made through the bilateral agreements would not be lost and a new government couldn't simply come in and stop that progress.

You raised the question about whether the current investment is contributing to the patchwork. Even though there's an investment, $950 million was basically taken away, leaving $250 million, so it's not like a new investment, but a cut. Then that $250 million, because it's not part of a framework or there's no accountability for it, gets thrown into these one-off initiatives that don't actually deliver results. Some of the tools we've been working on at the CCAAC are policy tools that help us measure what happens if a province invests money in subsidies and whether that actually addresses affordability. In fact, we're finding it doesn't, necessarily, because fees will go up. So it's really important not only to have good solid investments, but to have those investments within a framework guided by the QUAD principles or something similar.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We're going to the second round.

Ms. Neville, for five minutes.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you all for coming today, and thank you for the very substantial briefs you've brought forward.

I have a number of questions. I'll put them out, and if I have more time, I'll ask others.

Ms. Smith, I want to follow up with you—Ms. Minna raised it—on the pension benefits for caregivers that you identified. You referenced Italy, and you have some knowledge of it.

Have you looked at the Canadian system that is currently in place—our CPP? Is there a way that caregivers could benefit from the CPP through voluntary contributions, if one has the capacity to make that? Have you looked at that as an option? Have you looked at any other options through the tax system whereby caregivers could benefit? I'd be interested in your comments.

Ms. Harris-Genge, I'm interested in your comments, particularly on the importance of self-employed workers. You may be aware that this committee began a study of self-employed workers and how to provide benefits for them. It's not as straightforward as we thought it would be. It doesn't appear that EI is the way, but rather setting up a separate structure for it. I'm curious to know if you've done any more work on that and if you have any thoughts on what that structure should look like for self-employed women. I know my own daughters have dealt with that issue and it's a challenge.

I'm also interested in this issue of flexibility that you're promoting. While I support it in principle, I'm wondering how it's funded and if you've given some thought to that. I'll stop there and come back if I have time.

[Michelle Harris-Genge]

I can answer first. As far as further research into self-employed workers, we haven't been able to do so. But speaking to the option for self-employed workers to pay in, that was something that was brought forward as far as our consultations with women and their equality-seeking organizations. We heard that women would prefer that--an opt-in, opt-out. As far as the mechanisms that can be put forward, I'm not really sure how to answer that.

One thing that could really help self-employed women is the reach-back program, which I spoke to in one of our recommendations. If there were a three- to five-year reach-back period, that would encompass a number of women who have recently become self-employed.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

So that would reach back to a period when they were employees.

[Michelle Harris-Genge]

When they were employees, yes.

There is a mechanism that is currently in place. It's called the self-employment benefit program. You could utilize that mechanism to help self-employed women get EI benefits for maternity and parental leave.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I'll come to you in a minute, Ms. Smith.

In our own party we had a task force on female entrepreneurs. The two issues that came up over and over again were the importance of child care, the availability of quality child care, and the issue of self-employment and paying into the benefits.

I only have five minutes, so Ms. Smith—

[Beverley Smith]

Just to whip right through some of those points, a lot of female entrepreneurs are in the home because they want to be with their children. Child care does not address their need.

On the EI flexibility, have you considered having a man's contribution qualify the wife to be at home with the child? Hers qualifies him, because the child is both of theirs.

I spoke on a New York talk show. With regard to the pension question, they apparently give pensions for soldier years because that was service to the nation. The government pays those pension benefits. It could be something we could think about. Parenting is a societal benefit, and maybe the state should pay the contributor's portion during those early years of the child.

I even talked to Paul Martin on a radio show. I couldn't believe it. I said, “Would you let us contribute?” No. We're not allowed to contribute, as homemakers. They won't even take our money, so that's how low we're considered. We have to fix that problem.

If you'll give me one more second, the reason I stayed home with my children was to provide early education. Even though day cares provide it, all parents provide it, and some of us provide the absolute Cadillac version. That's why we're home.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We now go to Ms. Davidson for five minutes.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and again thanks to each of the presenters this afternoon.

I want to go to Ms. Smith, if I could, please.

In the brief you gave us, you say that in 1995 at Beijing we joined all the other member UN nations and promised to start to tally in the value of the unpaid care roles, and so on. Then you talk about Nellie McClung in 1915. I think it drives home the fact that we've talked about this, and for years we've indicated that we were going to move and we just haven't done it. We just haven't been able to get there.

I'm really hopeful that something is going to come out of this committee this time. I think we've all researched it. My colleague talks about different groups that came together and talked about entrepreneurial women and so on. I think that's great. There should be lots of data that we can draw on, and hopefully we can come to some conclusions. Again, I really thank you for the results you've given us and the possible solutions. I think there's some great information here.

You go on to say that feminists for over 10 years have been asking for more status for the care role and how vital it is that we extend our recognition of choice and dignity to caregiving. I couldn't agree more. I think that's very important. You also say there is no such thing as a non-working mother, and all of us as women know that as well. I was fortunate enough to be able to stay home and raise my child and not have to go out to child care—not that I don't think child care is good, but that was my choice, and I think it's very important that parents have the ability to have that choice.

I would like to go down to number 7, where you talk about tax breaks for those who use day care and for those who do not use day care. I think that is something we've been overlooking. We've talked about the day care end of it, but we've not talked a whole lot about those who would prefer to provide the service themselves. As we look around this room, we can see that there is a wide divergence in thought on that. Some of us would prefer to provide the service ourselves if we can; some would prefer not to; and let's be honest, there are some who probably would be better to go outside for child care, if we want to be very honest about the situation.

You talk about funding day care spaces from the top down for creation, infrastructure, and so on, and how we have to not fight against day care, but fund both day care and non-day care equally. How would you envision that would be done? You talked a bit about tax breaks and funding per child. Could you elaborate more on the process that we could look at to do this?

[Beverley Smith]

I would approve of funding a significant amount of money, for example, $5,000 to $10,000 per child, and let the parents purchase or arrange their child care things.

I know that the day care movement has been so strong, so powerful a lobby, that it actually has the ear of government, and it's hard to deny their case. You are well down that road anyway, and you are probably obliged to fund day care itself, but what I would ask for then is to fund non-day care also. They do that in Europe. When we compare our day care systems to theirs, we forget a few key things.

In Germany, from what I hear, women work only part-time; the day care is right down the street and they see the kids over the noon hour. It's quite a different situation. In Calgary, for example, you may be driving to a different suburb, and you don't see your kid for the next 10 hours. We have to look at options, but if you're going to fund—you're asking me for the formula—obviously we're going to have to fund some day care and fund parents.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Is Germany a model, or Norway? You mention Norway in your brief. Which one do you think we should look to?

[Beverley Smith]

I think you can look to all of them. Austria has vouchers for parents. Norway has funding for parents at home. I just read something today about Czechoslovakia, I think it was, that it gives a three-year maternity leave. Why don't we look at Europe, because they actually do understand how to balance it. They are leaders in child care, but they are also leaders in recognizing the value of home care. Sweden, the role model, the poster government for national day care, just fell. That government just fell, so the people want more than just funding day care.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We now go to Madam Demers, cinq minutes, s'il vous plâit.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being here.

Ms. Harris, are you familiar with Quebec's family policy?

[Michelle Harris-Genge]

Yes.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Earlier you talked about replacement income for a couple that has, for example, one child. You only talk about the family policies of other countries, such as Norway and France, which have family policies similar to that of Quebec. However, you say that you wouldn't want a program similar to Quebec's because you want a federal program.

I don't understand. Quebec's family policy, which includes the child care system and parental leave program, made it possible to increase births by 6% this year. We expect an 8% increase next year. Birthing centres are filled to capacity; the number of births is incredible.

Don't you believe that a measure such as this might help to improve the situation in your province?

[Michelle Harris-Genge]

Yes, definitely. I think Quebec has shown itself to be a model for the rest of Canada.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Ms. Smith, I entirely agree with you when you say that parents should have the choice whether to stay at home with their children or to put them in child care.

Don't you think that giving parents such small amounts of money makes them think that women are cheap labour? We're talking about $1,200 a year per child under six years of age.

You also referred to the election promise made by Mr. Dumont's Action démocratique du Québec to pay families that take care of their own children the sum of $5,200 a year per child of preschool age. Women who stay at home do so because they want to give their children everything they can, but they also want to have the choice. I find it hard to understand what you said earlier.

Can you explain your position on the subject?