Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 20 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Friday, April 20, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 9:03 a.m. to study upon the state of early learning and child care in Canada in view of the OECD report Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care, released on September 21-22, 2006, rating Canada last among 14 countries in spending on early learning and child care programs.
Senator Wilbert J. Keon (Deputy Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, welcome everyone. Today the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology holds its first meeting in its study on early childhood learning and child care in Canada. Last September the education committee of the Paris-based OECD released a report outlining the progress made by 20 countries in responding to key aspects of successful early childhood education and care. In that study, Canada was rated last among 14 countries on spending on early learning and child care programs. Our colleague, Senator Trenholme Counsell, was deeply concerned about this and asked the Senate to look into the matter and, hence, our committee.
This morning I am pleased to welcome, as our witnesses, representatives from the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada. This organization is dedicated to promoting quality, publicly funded child care accessible to all.
Jody Dallaire, President, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada: I want to commend the Senate for taking on these hearings. I think it is refreshing that we will have a public policy discussion about child care and the future of child care, given the results that Canada finished last in an international comparison on investment in early learning and child care.
I believe you received a copy of the prepared speaking notes for today. I will highlight different sections of those notes. I will introduce you to our organization and share with you our vision for early learning and child care in Canada. I will outline some of the challenges we face in Canada regarding early learning and child care, and outline our recommendations. I will make some concluding remarks. I will then invite my colleagues from across Canada to share some of their challenges.
My name is Jody Dallaire; I am from an Acadian community in New Brunswick. I am the chairperson of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada. It is my pleasure to be here today.
This year the CCAAC celebrates 25 years for advocating quality, universal, non-profit early learning and child care in Canada. We have been doing this for quite a few years now. We envision a Canada where families are supported by community-based quality child care services that are publicly funded, like schools and libraries. We believe child care programs should be a natural and expected part of neighbourhoods, available, accessible and affordable to all who choose to use them; a vision shared by other countries and highlighted in the OECD report Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care.
We work toward achieving our vision, which is supported by our membership that reaches more than four million Canadians across Canada including parents, caregivers, researchers, students, as well as various organizations. Yet support for child care in Canada extends far beyond membership. Poll after poll shows that the majority of Canadians support increased funding for quality early learning and child care services and learning.
Why do we have this vision for child care in Canada? Child care promotes healthy child development. It is good for children, reduces child poverty and advances women's equality, deepens social inclusion and advances a knowledge- based economy, and therefore ongoing economic prosperity.
In 2004, our organization produced a policy document called From Patchwork to Framework: A Child Care Strategy for Canada, and we have submitted a copy of that document to the committee.
This public policy document responded to the broad and growing interest by various levels of government and the public for quality and investment in early learning and child care services. It is based on the policy recommendations made by the OECD and provides a blueprint that outlines the funding and policy components essential to develop an accessible, effective, inclusive and accountable child care system. Today, three years after publishing this document, Canada unfortunately, has only made small steps on child care. Overall, outside of Quebec, we are no closer to a pan- Canadian child care system. In fact, federal funding that is specifically dedicated to improving regulated child care services in provinces and territories has been reduced from $950 million last year to $600 million in this year's budget.
This funding reduction goes against the research that shows the benefits of investing in quality accessible early learning and child care programs. The evidence indicates that Canada can afford to do for younger citizens and their families. The OECD review of access to early childhood education and care, Starting Strong II, affirms the widespread recognition among other member countries that early childhood education and care provides social and economic benefits that warrant significant public investment. It is disturbing to note that of the 14 countries Canada classes last in investment in early learning and child care services.
Given Canada's lack of measurable progress for child care, it is important for us to revisit the recommendations made in From Patchwork to Framework to reflect that lack of tangible progress made.
Here are some of the challenges that we face across Canada, which will be highlighted in more detail later by my colleagues. The current patchwork approach to child care in Canada has led to a child care crisis in most of Canada, outside of Quebec. To this day, less than 20 per cent of children in Canada outside of Quebec have access to regulated child care spaces. The spaces that are available to families when they can locate child care, the fees are prohibitive to parents. We do not follow the international trend. Across the world, most parents pay 20 per cent of the operating costs of the early learning and child care programs. Here in Canada, the majority of the operating costs fall onto the parents. Because of this reliance on parents' fees, staff wages are very high, contributing to constant staff turnover rates that affect quality of care. This is concrete evidence that the market-based approach to child care is not working and that Canadians require a greater investment in public resources for early learning and child care programs.
Our recommendations are based on the OECD recommendations, namely, a comprehensive and coherent child care strategy. We also recommend other policies that will help families balance work and family responsibilities; that is, a family policy. In our original From Patchwork to Framework document, we outlined a 15-year legislative and funding strategy for high quality, universally accessible and accountable child care system for all children under the age of six. Three years later, we are now updating our regulations due to the lack of progress. That is why we are calling for the implementation of a child care system for all children between the ages of three and five as the first benchmark toward this goal.
Our strategy fully acknowledges that the provinces and territories have jurisdiction over child care services and that federal government has a duty to be proactive on pan-Canadian issues. The reality is that Canada stands as one of the few economically advanced countries that have yet to produce a child care strategy. Canada must develop and enact legislation.
The hearings will be starting on Bill C-303, so we do have an example of legislation in Canada for child care. We also need supporting child care agreements to ensure that the money invested in the different provinces goes to building a child care strategy for each province and territory.
This legislation would entitle children to child care services that are universally accessible, non-compulsory and that promote the optimal development of young children. It would provide parenting resources, enable parents to work, study and care for other family members, and participate in their community. To achieve this benchmark, provinces and territories must reduce their reliance on parent fees and subsidies and look instead to a focused public advancement strategy that is accountable for measurable improvements. They must look at key program indicators that provide direct public funding to both increase the quality and affordability of existing services as well as the creation of new not-for-profit, inclusive community-owned spaces.
In conclusion, the place to start is with children between the ages of three and five. Over the next four years, federal funding should be prioritized to both support and require provinces and territories to plan and develop part-day and full-day child care opportunities for all children aged three to five. Provinces and territories may choose to integrate these services within the school system or they may deliver them in community-based licensed pre-school centres and family daycare homes.
Regardless of service location, public funding must support access to quality programming for all children and their families and support parents. We can afford it. Canada's debt is lower than the OECD average and we are the only G7 country to have a federal budget surplus every year since 1997, ending in fiscal year 2005-06 with a $13 billion surplus. Most provinces are also in a surplus position, providing a combined total of $13 billion additional public resources in 2005-06 alone. The estimated incremental gross annual investment required to achieve the first benchmark for all children aged three to five is approximately $5 billion. While such an investment brings a two-to-one return on investment, two economists estimated what the return over the long term would be on every dollar invested. It would be a $2 return. We also have evidence from Quebec. In the early stages in their investment in child care, they saw a 40- cent return for every dollar invested.
The net incremental child care system cost of $3.5 billion for three to five year olds fits well within Canada's existing fiscal framework. Also in conclusion, we are submitting a number of documents that lay the foundation for our position. There is Trends & Analysis: Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada 2004; Early Learning and Child Care Services for Canada: Building Advantage from the Foundation; Building Advantage from the Foundation; Down Under is on top of early childhood programs; Child Care Policy: Making the Connections: Child Care System Implementation Model; and Caring about Employability. Those outline in more detail where we are coming from and where we base our position.
Donna Riddel, Manitoba Representative, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada: I am from Manitoba. I am a parent of four daughters who have all attended quality child care in our community of about 250 people. Rural child care has provided an invaluable service to me and our family, from quality, flexible child care to parenting programs and cooking programs — all the supports that families need today. I would be happy to discuss that further, later in our conversation.
I have three reports this morning from the Child Care Coalition of Manitoba: Childcare as Economic and Social Development in Parkland; Childcare as Economic, Social and Language Development in St-Pierre-Jolys; and Childcare as Economic and Social Development in Thompson.
These documents show that the economic return on child care in rural Manitoba is $1.58 for each dollar. That is a preliminary finding and is not over a long span. I am sure those investments will increase over time.
Manitoba is trying to do the right thing for child care, even in the absence of federal funding. Our government is committed to child care but our hands are tied to a certain extent without support from the government. The author of these documents said the other day that it is like watering the lawn with a teaspoon. The grass will stay green but the lawn will not grow.
Susan Harney, Vice-Chair, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada: I am from British Columbia and am the chairperson of the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C. Together with our partner networks, we represent over 80,000 members and spaces.
B.C. child care is in crisis. Despite the fact that the vast majority of parents in B.C. work, child care services remain unaffordable, accessibility is limited to a very few, and retention of staff is a problem everywhere.
Refusing to participate in creating a community plan that would move child care forward, our provincial government continues to squander money on one-off programs and grants that do not address wages or the creation of desperately needed daycare spaces. In fact, although B.C. has a strong economy, our provincial government has cut funding to child care services and resource centres and passed on those cuts to parents in the form of higher fees.
In B.C. we know that without strong national leadership, money alone will not solve our problem. Our crisis can be solved, though, by political will and political leadership, both provincially and federally. I have been advocating for child care in Canada for 25 years. Please, do not let our kids down again.
Monica Lysack, Executive Director, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada: I am the Executive Director of CCAAC. Our member from Saskatchewan, John Ellis, is ill this morning and not able to be here. I have a background with Saskatchewan and will be happy to try to answer any questions you may have about Saskatchewan.
Previous to my role with the Child Care Advocacy Association, I was employed by the Government of Saskatchewan and was a member of the national steering committee for this OECD report, so I am happy to answer any questions about the international review team as well.
I have also done a fair amount of work on policy development for child care for children with special needs and would be happy to answer questions about that subject.
Lynell Anderson, Senior Project Manager, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada: I am a project director with the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada. I am a CGA and have been involved in child care for about 20 years, first as a parent and then, when they learned I was an accountant, I became the treasurer of the society. That was my opening, but I grew to be involved in the association. I come from B.C., and the focus of my work with the advocacy association is on the financial side of investing in child care. I work with both communities and governments to understand what the financial investment needs to be and how it can advance a system.
Susan Elson, Secretary, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada: I am from Calgary, Alberta and am the Executive Director of Davar Child Care Society, which is not only a family day home agency but also has a centre- based program. I am also the co-chair of the accreditation agency, which is unique to Alberta, and I am on the executive of the Alberta Child Care Network Association as well as on the executive of the advocacy association.
Alberta has great news. Investments continue to be made in child care through our accreditation program and pre- accreditation program as well as education and support. However, families are still struggling. There are no spaces readily available in the communities of need. We have seen a decrease in spaces as costs increase in Alberta for, among other things, real estate and utilities. Waiting lists continue to grow at alarming rates, and every family should be entitled to regulated quality child care.
Elizabeth Ablett, Ontario Representative, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada: I am the Executive Director of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care as well as the Ontario representative for the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada. We are, similar to the CCAAC, a non-profit organization and have been in existence for over 25 years. We work very closely with individuals, communities and partner organizations from around the province in a number of sectors and different types of communities.
In Ontario, we have a plan which, over the past few years, has started to lay a foundation for a provincial system of early learning and child care. The real challenge at this point is that there is a severe shortage of accessible, affordable, regulated high-quality spaces for the children that need them. Under 11 per cent of children under 12 years who have working mothers have access to a regulated space, and the sustainability of the spaces that do exist at this time is being compromised by under-funding at several levels. It is a real challenge. We are very pleased to be here and will be happy to answer any questions you might have.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much. I would like to have another go around at an in-depth presentation of the financial payoff that you speak of, the return of $1.50 on the dollar or $2 on the dollar for the investment made in this area. I believe that over the next decade or so we will see tremendous pressure in Canada to develop a true knowledge-based economy. We really have no choice when you consider that many of the richest countries in the world have as their only natural resource the intellectual wealth of their people. There is no better place to start than with our children to work toward this goal.
Perhaps, Ms. Dallaire, you could lead off and then some of the others could join in in giving us on the committee a little more of an understanding of how this pays off in economic terms.
Ms. Dallaire: In Quebec, the 40-cent return on the investment was due to the additional employability of women. Women in Quebec were either not in the labour force because they could not access quality programs, or they were underemployed because they could not take positions with higher responsibility because of the lack of child care. With the increase in availability and the affordability of child care services, these women were able to be better employed and were paying higher tax revenues.
Ms. Anderson has a financial background, so she may add to what I am saying.
In Quebec, they also estimated the return for children in decreased spending required later. When you invest early, there are fewer problems in school as children are ready to learn when they arrive in school, so it requires less investment over time for children.
I can speak best about New Brunswick because that is where I am from and based, and where are embarking on a couple of long-term processes. First, our provincial government has committed to a long-term planning strategy for child care, recognizing the importance of investing in child care. Second, we are looking over the longer term to become a self-sufficient province not so reliant on federal transfers. The self-sufficiency task force recognized that child care would be part of the strategic infrastructure required so that New Brunswick could become self-sufficient over time.
Ms. Anderson: I was part of a review of the international literature on the economic returns on child care. Ms. Dallaire mentioned the Canadian study that shows a two-for-one return, which was part of that review. The two-for- one return is a future return, although it starts to happen immediately, as the Quebec experience proves.
Of the two-for-one return, about one half of that comes from the child development benefits and about half from the labour force participation being strengthened. We can see right away in Quebec the 40-cent return is immediate, but the child development benefits happen as Ms. Dallaire mentioned, down the road in terms of improved school performance, health and employability.
We know from international research that all children benefit from quality child care. There are economic realities associated with that. Vulnerable children benefit even more. The two-to-one return is the international minimum. A recent California study shows that the returns are closer to three to one. We see the two-to-one return is the minimum return and it is even higher for children from vulnerable families.
In your package there is a briefing note called Caring about Employability, and this reinforces your point that not only do we need to think about a knowledge-based work force down the road but in order to get to that place, we need to invest now. Child care actually has a two-pronged approach. With child care, we can allow parents to study and work, improve their work force participation now and build a knowledge-based work force in the future. It has that two-pronged effect.
Ms. Harney: If I may add to the child development piece, there often is a belief in our country that it is okay for the grandma or the auntie to take care of the children. I am a grandma and I love to be one.
Part of the return of the child development piece is having trained staff who understand the development of young children. We are able because we see our kids on a day-to-day basis pick up early signs of learning disabilities, of speech and language difficulties. It is much easier at the age of three or four years of age to make those corrections and get kids in line, if there are waiting lists, than if you wait until they enter the school system at five or six years of age .
Sometimes our movement is looked on as somehow we do not like informal care. It is not that we are mean-spirited or we do not think there are caring individuals in Canada. Unless you are trained in the understanding the development of young children and the benchmarks of their growth, you can be caring but you cannot be necessarily knowledgeable in those pieces. We see that in day-to-day work with children.
Mom will come in and say, I am the only one who understands my child. At three years of age that is not okay. We can start speech therapy in the classroom and move the child into classes with speech therapists, so that at five years of age, when the child is ready to go to school there is no teasing.
Grandmas, aunties and informal neighbours, are wonderful and nice to children, but they do not have those important skills. It is important to look at a trained work force.
Ms. Riddel: I wish to add something to Ms. Harney's report regarding the viability of rural communities and how more farm families must look off the farm for income. She indicates that child care support creates jobs. Parents are more available to work for pay when children are cared for. In addition to allowing parents to work, child care also provides employment to child care workers. Additional job creation and economic benefits occur from child care's direct and indirect spending. The existence of services such as schools, hospitals and child care centres create further opportunities. Locations with good services help attract and retain long-term residents for our rural communities.
She also indicates that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities supports a national rural child care system to support families in rural communities. That speaks to the $1.58 she found with that child care investment in rural Manitoba.
The Deputy Chairman: If there are no more comments on that, we will move to Senator Munson who would like to ask a question.
Senator Munson: Thank you very much for being here. There is much information in front of us. The information on New Zealand's investment caught my interest. I do not know if anybody can talk to that and put it on the record about how New Zealand's investment seems to have paid off for early childhood development. I am referring to the article I read through. I can table it. If somebody can speak to it, that is fine. If not, it seems to be a model of what can happen.
I went through the whole thing. I am wondering if one of the child care advocates can speak to it a bit.
Ms. Anderson: New Zealand several years ago made a long-term commitment to a child care strategy and they have been living through that commitment. It is a comprehensive strategy. The OECD recommends we have to coordinate policy and investment and make sure they are working together in a cohesive way. New Zealand provides an example of that cohesiveness. Their 10-year plan has three key components that we need to consider as well. First, they are committing a significant investment to a trained and well compensated work force. Second, they have expanded the spaces. The spaces are available in communities in a range of settings that include family homes, centres, and schools, all of which have quality and access standards. Third, they have used public investment to ensure affordability. They are looking at a block of time, moving up to 20 hours a week now, where all families have free access to the child care programs. Parents needing additional time, pay on top of that 20 hours.
Their 10-year plan shows they are working towards professionalizing the work force that is commensurate with primary teachers becoming integrated into the education system. The other key thing to note is that all of this is based on a curriculum that is very respectful, inclusive and grounded in their indigenous population. From those who have been to New Zealand and I have not, we hear it is a beautiful and wonderful thing. Children and families are embracing it.
I know from studies we are already seeing improved school performance over time. We can provide research on that, if you are interested.
Senator Munson: Is it is a national program?
Ms. Anderson: Yes, it is a national program and in comparison, New Zealand has about the same number of children as the province of B.C. and they invest 10 times the level in operating funds to child care programs as compared to B.C. That puts it in perspective in terms of the public investment.
Senator Munson: It is an interesting model and we should look at it when we deliver our recommendations.
How do your organizations survive? It is about money and people come here and you represent fine organizations, but is it getting tougher to survive, to at least be a voice here?
Ms. Lysack: As the Executive Director I am person who probably worries the most and wonder if we can meet our commitments to the people we pay. In our 25 years of history as the CCAAC, we have relied extensively on volunteers. When I hear us referred to a special interest group, I am quite amazed. Yes, we are a special interest group: All of us are interested in the well-being of children and overall how that impacts our society. All of us came into this as parents, or people, involved in the community and had a great passion for the well-being of children.
That is our special interest, the well-being of children. I do not think any of us make apologies for that interest. Recently there have been insinuations about us making big bucks. I can assure you none of us do. As I said, most of it is voluntary.
It is important to note that the CCAAC, while we rely on memberships and donations to sustain our organization, our memberships are $15 because most of the people who are child care supporters are parents struggling to pay child care fees. There are some people working in the field earning as little as $8 an hour for the work they do.
We do not raise a lot of revenue that way. It is supplemented by contract work mostly with the federal government. Currently, we have three projects we receive funding for on a fee-for-service basis. One is with the Status of Women that we fondly call our women's equality project. We committed to developing public education materials. We have been working on a public education video and some policy papers around school age children highlighting the importance of child care as an economic issue for women.
Our second project is Child Care Policy: Making the Connections, of which Ms. Anderson is the project director, where we look at the accountability of funds transferred into child care. It is interesting because you can transfer money into child care, invest it in one-off things and not see any payoff. We have always been concerned about accountability for public dollars and what you are getting in return for that. It is not enough to say we are putting public dollars into child care. How effective are those dollars and what are we getting in return? Ms. Anderson can speak more in-depth to that subject.
The third project we have is policy pedagogy and quality, which is looking at international curriculum frameworks; not a day-to-day what children do but as a value statement. In this OECD report, Canada was identified as the only country that actually does not have a vision for early learning and child care. What are we trying to do in Canada? Is it simply labour force attachment for parents? Are we looking for a place to put children where they will be safe and healthy while their parents are engaged in other things, or is it about child development? I think all of us believe that it is both things. We have not had much of a public dialogue, and sometimes our provincial and territorial governmental partners have had struggles around that issue. Does it fit into education or social services? What are we trying to achieve?
Those are the three projects. There are no more calls for proposals, so I know many organizations similar to ours are closing their doors. I know our sister organization, the Canadian Child Care Federation, recently laid off the majority of their staff. The trends and analysis paper you received today was produced by the Childcare Resource and Research Unit at the University of Toronto through federal government funds.
All of this research and accountability will be lost very quickly if we do not see availability of funds for these projects.
Ms. Harney: When Ms. Lysack referred to the federation laying off one-half of their staff, I would add we have three staff people. Their jobs, separate from the contract work is to get our message out here in our nation's capital and to make connections across the country.
I do not know of three other single folks that do that kind of work. Let us be clear that they work long hours for little pay. I think that is reflective in every province across the country as well. Child care advocates are doing this off the side of their desk and working long hours.
Senator Munson: What disturbs me as a former reporter of 32 years, this is a public forum this Friday morning, and there is not one reporter in this room to bring this to the attention of the nation's capital. To me, it seems there is a crisis in our community. If you are closing down doors, who suffers? Children suffer, and as a nation, we suffer later on.
We will try our best to bring this to light. I will defer for the moment to Senator Trenholme Counsell and others before I get angry. I will come back to other questions.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much, Senator Munson. For those who do not know, Senator Munson was the force behind us doing a study into autism, albeit a bit brief as we are under a lot of pressure. As you know, getting at this problem is also getting out there early in the educational system and having kids exposed to people that can understand this and pick it up at the right time.
We will move to Senator Fairbairn. I have to tell you, Senator Fairbairn is a great pride to us in the Senate as a tremendous champion of literacy. At her recent urging, we had fascinating hearings into literacy, affecting adults in particular. This is very much music to her ears. She would like to interface with you a bit more.
Senator Fairbairn: Thank you very much. Having you here today is definitely music to my ears. On the other hand, the stories you bring to us are disturbing. I thank Senator Keon for mentioning literacy. Senator Trenholme Counsell and I have been partners in this for a very long time. Her part of it has always been based on the issue of children in this larger area. It is very troubling.
I want to thank you for being here and for what you do. I know the stress, pressure, frustration and I am sure sometimes anger that comes when you see something so obvious and yet those who rule our nation or our provinces do not seem to get it.
On another issue entirely, we recently had a good group of people who spoke to us about a new report that is either already released or about to be released by Dr. Fraser Mustard, probably a name most of you know. He has a profound and passionate belief that the future of our country, our ability to compete and to be the best we can. He bases his work on exactly what you are discussing here today. He always said after 18 months all the nerve ends are together and the kids are ready to go, so if you cannot get it at the beginning, where do they go? This is probably one of the most profound issues in our country, yet it receives rather limited attention.
You talk about your difficulties because of lack of funding, and you mention that there are no longer calls for proposals and we no longer have the National Literacy Secretariat. As you well know, over the last months a lot of money has been taken away and then kind of put back. However, the old system is not there, and it is a system that gets down on the ground.
I wonder if you could explain that to us in terms of your system of calls for proposal, what it did and what it is not doing now. Without that, you do not have a chance to fight your battle for the bucks.
Ms. Dallaire: I can speak as both the board chair for the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada and also as the staff person of the New Brunswick Child Care Coalition. We receive part of our funding for some of our project work on women's equality in Canada from Status of Women Canada.
I would like to highlight that the criteria for funding has changed. We do research and advocate for policy changes; we do not create child care spaces. We advocate for policy changes at the government level so that children have access to regulated child care. Those types of projects are no longer eligible for federal funding. For example, in my province of New Brunswick, if you wanted to start a transition house, you would be eligible for funding, but if you wanted to advocate the end of violence against women, you would not be eligible for funding. In our case, that means that has closed the door to that pool of funding for some of the project work we have been doing over time toward women's equality.
Ms. Lysack: The previous calls for proposals addressed a number of layers. National or pan-Canadian organizations such as ours that do higher level policy work certainly benefited, but I must also point out, as Senator Fairbairn said, right on the ground there were a number of wonderful initiatives. Relatively small pots of money accomplished great things.
With my own experience in working with children with special needs, one very small project that was funded — small in terms of funds — was a project that supported centres to improve their quality so that they could include children with special needs. Prior to that, we were looking at a deficit model where we would look at children and would have to obtain a diagnosis. I am sure you have heard about the difficulties in autism. In those early years, we often see that a child does not seem to be thriving but we do not know what is wrong. Diagnosis to get additional funding for supports just does not happen. Those children were being excluded from programs, yet they were the children whose parents felt that they would benefit the most from being in a social situation.
This particular example was an on-the-ground support for someone to go into a centre and work with the people there to improve the quality so that children with special needs could be included. It was coordinated among the provinces of Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. It happened in the three different provinces, then was coordinated and wrapped up.
These are the things we learn from. That very small pot of money was seed money to show how things could be done differently. Since that time, all three of those provinces have learned from that experience and implemented changes that have better served those vulnerable children and their families.
It seems particularly cruel, from my point of view, to cut resources at that community level for centres that are already under-resourced, have good hearts and would like to meet the needs of a more challenging population.
Senator Fairbairn: One issue that is linked very closely is that of parents who are having difficulties. You are the place where the children have their best chance. We have a problem creating a skilled work force, and part of that problem is that over 40 per cent of our adults in Canada are at such a low literacy level that they cannot become quickly skilled to get into today's exciting but difficult work force. This is sometimes not an issue for those who support the cuts and changes to early childhood development. This is true in the province of Alberta. That parents with all the good will in the world cannot do it makes it even more important that those who can help and teach and lay a learning base for children so that they have a fair chance can do their job. The doors seem to have been, if not shut, at least made less open.
The rest of the country sees our beloved province as rolling in dollars and paved with gold. Calgary is a very productive and vigorous city. Has Calgary cut into the early childhood development issues deeply? Is it also a place where there is a strong desire within parents to have their children at home for a variety of reasons but may not have the capacity to teach them.
Ms. Elson: As you know, in Calgary real estate is a problem. The idea that a two-income family can have one parent stay home and pay for a $400,000 mortgage is ludicrous. There is a sector of our community looking for nanny care while both parents go out to work, but there are very few stay-at-home parents in our community in Alberta.
Alberta has been very fortunate to have a children services department that works very diligently on our behalf. Having said that, 60 per cent of our spaces are owner-operated. When you are looking at developing new spaces, with the cost of real estate, you will not be able to develop another daycare centre without a significant increase in capital funds.
We are finding now that many people are selling their real estate, their child care centre, and we are losing spaces. There has been a negative growth in spaces in Alberta.
I want to reiterate that accreditation, salary enhancement and education have been supported in the province, but we are still in crisis for recruitment and retention. The cost of child care now equals a mortgage payment. As the demand for spaces increases and the cost of utilities and real estate increases, we are now looking at an average fee of about $900 per month for infant care and probably about $700 a month for three-to-five year old children, with a subsidy rate of $575.
Senator Fairbairn: Does that mean that many of the operations that you have had are now being forced into people's homes because they cannot afford the centres?
Ms. Elson: We have a family day home agency system, and there are about 3,000 approved family day home providers throughout the province. It is difficult even finding family child care because of the number of people who have to go out into the workforce.
Ms. Riddell: As mentioned in the report, the northern community of Thompson has had a steady decline in child care spaces since 2000. Their centres are closing because the operating grants do not reflect the increased cost of providing child care in remote communities.
Ms. Dallaire: You talked about literacy. One group that is particularly affected by the cuts to literacy and lack of services are francophones living in a minority situation. We presented to a Senate committee late last year and outlined the lack of literacy rates for francophones. In New Brunswick, the illiteracy rate is quite high and the majority of those people live in rural communities. Unfortunately, they would likely choose either part-time or full-time care programs for their children to prepare them for school. Those programs are not available in rural communities. Those parents have to struggle with the lack of literacy programs, problems related to entering the labour force, while facing a lack of programs for their children as well.
The Deputy Chairman: You are all here because Senator Trenholme Counsell arranged this meeting, and she wants to interface with you now. I encourage you to take as much time as you wish with her.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I appreciate my colleagues being here, because Fridays are usually reserved for work in our provinces. Some might be surprised that we do a lot of work in our provinces and across Canada; we are called to many places.
I am grateful to my colleagues who are here. I am thrilled and grateful to all of you for coming and coordinating this meeting with us. I thank you for your ongoing dedication and for the communication we have. We are all here for the same reasons.
It is hard to know which questions to ask because there are so many, but I will ask three questions and you can decide how you wish to answer them.
This study is based on the OECD report, which compares Canada to other countries. We have talked about New Zealand, but, unless I am mistaken, it is not one of the countries included in this report.
I recently spoke to a representative from the Embassy of Denmark which is first in a number of these graphs. The representative informed me that Denmark holds first place because of their tax structure.
Could you pick out one or two of the top countries and give us a picture of how the situation is different from Canada? Maybe it is in large part due to how much income tax is paid and therefore what the country can afford.
If you have had the chance to read it, what is your response to the new report from Dr. Chong and his committee? The report deals with child care spaces recommendations. It is dated January 2007, but it has just come to our attention in the last several weeks.
Third, it saddens me when I hear you and others talk about lobbyists as special interest groups. It seems to me that when it comes to children, we should not have this kind of language. When people hear me speak in the Senate, I am sure some might think I am quite partisan, but that is Question Period. Question Period is what it is, whether it is in the House of Commons, in the Senate or in provincial legislatures.
I am sure that everyone here, and on both sides of the government, wants the best for children. Thinking, caring Canadians want the best for children.
How can we get past this label of lobbyists or special interest groups? We never would achieve this among all Canadians listening to you, because I know how difficult that was as an MLA in New Brunswick, but that more Canadians could work together.
Those are three questions that I want you to address.
Ms. Dallaire: In terms of lobbyists, in New Brunswick we started an advocacy movement. We do not have the history of some of the other provinces, where they have had provincial advocacy groups for 25 years. We started about five years ago.
We attended a session organized by some of the child care facilities where they outlined some of the challenges they were facing. Having recently enrolled our children in quality, regulated child care, we were not aware of the situation and we were appalled at the challenges that child care facilities were facing. We were fortunate, because we had a space. We decided to form a committee, which we called Parents for Quality Care.
Before that, we were seen as parents. However, once the parents started to organize and share their experiences we became a special interest group. We are no longer seen as parents but as a special interest group.
As Ms. Lysack mentioned, most of us came to the CCAAC board as parents. It is unfortunate that now we are seen as lobbyists. It is unfortunate that governments in general — not being partisan, I think this applies to many governments' — pit different interest groups or communities against each other.
In my experience as a parent, I find that my realities in raising children have changed. I was a stay-at-home parent at times; other times I was a student studying at university; and at other times, I was working part time or full time. My reality changed, but what was consistent through it all was a lack of available programming. It is unfortunate that governments capitalize on mothers' guilt and our different realities in saying that if you stay home, you should have access to a certain program, and if you are working, the situation is different. We are pitting the different needs of families against one another, and I find that unfortunate.
At an international level, I had the opportunity to hear a lady explain what programs are available in Finland. That model interested me. It was not produced overnight but developed over the longer term. Every child has a right to a regulated child care space if one needs or wants one, be it part-time or full-time care. If a parent chooses to stay at home, for children up to the age of 3, mothers or fathers are paid a salary to stay at home.
As we move forward, whatever policy we have must look at the global picture and address families' needs in all of their realities.
Ms. Harney: If I could respond to the lobbying comment. Part of me says: Let them call me what they want as long as they listen to the message. Just call me.
I want to tell you about a child care place in East Vancouver, as you know, one of the poorest and most challenging areas in our country. It is not just about cuts; it is about the fluctuation of cuts, then a little money, and so on. You give programs hope and then take it away. This program survives because its executive director makes it survive, but it is tough times. These are kids whose parents are mostly drug and alcohol abusers. Because they worked with the kids, the parents then became involved. Soon, parents were putting up signs in the parking lot saying, ``Do not leave your old needles lying around here, our kids are here.'' Soon the parents were coming and wanting to hear about how to make nutritious snacks for their kids. Then aunts, uncles and cousins were coming because they offered a drumming program. It became a community place.
The budget cuts to the programs are cruel. The children benefit from the programs that involve their parents. The children become proud of the adults and in this Vancouver-area centre, a new culture was reborn. The children become involved in developmental programs and the parents are learning skills to survive. Shame on anyone who cuts one dollar from that program.
Sometimes we are called lobbyists because we do not have the face. When you see us sitting across the table, perhaps we do not look like the people who live in that program and we have learned to put on our black jackets and come, but those moms have not been able to find the money to come to talk to the people in Parliament or to you. It is easier to blame us who look like we have enough money for a car or perhaps even enough money to pay our rent. We do not look like the people who are struggling. Sometimes we are called these lobbyist names because of that, and I say I will take those labels, but please pay attention to the parents there in East Vancouver.
Ms. Ablett: We talked about the role of volunteers at the CCAAC and all the hours that we put in because we are committed to this issue. The label of lobbyist — call me what you want — that is only one small part of what I do, namely, that formal lobbying process of walking into government buildings and having official meetings.
The majority of our work involves in connecting with communities and engaging with individuals and parents in event and decision-making processes at all levels, whether just within their neighbourhood, at the municipal or regional level, the provincial level or the federal level. It is a process of public education and awareness building, confidence building and how to go about being involved. It is confidence building for many parents, often women, who not have been able to be engaged in these processes before.
The formal lobbying process is a small part of what we all do. Fine, call us what you want, but we are getting people involved with each other, building networks, engaging people in all these different processes and allowing them to have the confidence to participate and make their own decisions and work together.
Again, this is where these cuts to programs like Status of Women have that impact. That federal funding may be directed toward an organization on a specific project, but those cuts are so tragic because the projects are about engaging people who have not been able to be part of those processes in what is happening.
The Deputy Chairman: I have a supplemental question for Ms. Ablett. You threw out the words CCAC, Community Access Centre, I believe. Is that right?
Ms. Ablett: No, Child Care Advocacy Association.
Ms. Lysack: I will speak briefly to the issue of other countries.
None of us has tremendous expertise in the international arena. We have a smattering of experiences and Ms. Dallaire had an opportunity to meet with the author of the New Zealand Te Kohanga Reo curriculum. I have done some research in that area.
It is important to pay attention to the fact that there is nowhere in the world from which we can lift a program and bring it to Canada. We have to make a Canadian program. We can learn from many other countries, see where there are mistakes and where there is a good fit.
At the CCAAC, we have been paying attention to the Australian example because one value we have never swayed from is our commitment to not-for-profit child care. We are committed to child care as a part of every community — community-based, owned and operated — so that we are not in the situation of people selling centres because they can benefit from real estate. Public schools do not close when principals retire, but that happens in child care centres. That is why we are so committed to a deep-rooted community program.
Having said that, some of the Australian policy decisions concern us, especially the transfer of children to the marketplace. In Australia we are seeing these big box corporate child care conglomerates opening up large, poor- quality centres, squeezing out the smaller operators who are in it because they are really committed and charging huge amounts of money. They have driven up the fees so high that even with government subsidies, families can only access two or three days a week of care because the fees are out of control.
There are policy examples like that to which we must pay attention, but, overall, I have to take it back to the question of values. We have to decide what we are looking at as a country. What do we value about our children and families? I have noticed that in English-speaking countries, if you look at the list of countries in the OECD report and, particularly, the table that shows the investments, we are at the bottom. We notice that the English-speaking countries tend to be at the bottom and non-English speaking countries are higher. When we look at Canada, we see that Quebec is committed to the closest thing we have to a universal system of early learning and child care. When we look a little more carefully, we see a different way of valuing children. We hear many critics who do not want to invest in early learning and child care who say, ``You had them. You pay for them. You should not have children if you ca not afford them, so it is all your responsibility.''
It is not like that everywhere, and, certainly, my limited experience in Quebec is that is it is much more of a community approach. I had the opportunity to visit China a few years ago and tour some child care centres there, and I was absolutely struck by how important the children were to everyone, and the facilities were mind-boggling. They were beautiful facilities because everyone in the country agreed that children deserved not a church basement or some mouldy place that no one else wanted where they could get cheap rent, but specially built buildings to accommodate the needs of the children with beautiful playgrounds and well-qualified staff.
Rather than speak specifically to particular systems or policies in different countries, we must raise the question of what we want to achieve with children and families in Canada. We must ask how much we value children and how much we are willing to invest in them. Others have talked about the return on that economic investment, so when we talk about affordability, the question is whether we can afford not to do that.
Ms. Anderson: I will try to address Senator Trenholme Counsel's question about the spaces initiative. This report has been recently produced, so we will have to take more time to go through it. I will point out a few things in relation to our own strategy document and the work we have done to advance that document.
Governments have signed agreements to improve the quality affordability and accessibility of child care. We have used as a framework our report From Patchwork to Framework as a guide and the commitments from governments to develop a model that shows how we can move from where we are now to a quality, affordable, accessible system. That model is our child care system implementation tool, and it is in your package.
If we take the model down to its key components, what we learn from our international review and our work across the country is we need to have coordinated action in three key areas. We need more spaces, higher quality spaces, which happens primarily through the workforce. Therefore, we need a better-trained and compensated workforce. Therefore, more spaces, more wages and training and affordability through lower fees. Those are the three areas of action captured in a nutshell.
In addition, and as Ms. Lysack and others have described, we want to place that child care system building within a context of valuing families and parents and helping them to balance their work responsibilities. At the CCAAC we have been at the forefront of supporting the expanded parental leave that Canada has put in place over the last few years. We see child care within a broader family policy context. Those are the three areas that require action, from our view.
From our preliminary look at the child care spaces report we can see the evidence affirms much of what we have shared with you in your package and what we know today. Although it is beyond their mandate, the evidence that the committee has brought forward in support of their recommendations clearly points to a human resources crisis in this country in terms of trained and well-compensated staff. They say it is beyond their mandate so they do not have a plan or strategy around it, but they acknowledge it needs to be addressed.
They also acknowledge the need for more spaces; they clearly show how quality child care is important for children and working families. It is essential to talk about the labour force shortage in this country and the necessity of child care.
They do have a recommendation around expanding spaces through a fund to create the spaces. At the same time they acknowledge that building the spaces without the operating costs is a challenge, and so they talk about working with the provinces to make that happen. They acknowledge the need for more spaces.
Third, their report acknowledges the need to address affordability. They have suggestions around tax deductions. It would be useful to have a discussion about how effective that would be, considering the experience in other countries. They do acknowledge the three key issues that the research and the evidence that we have worked on acknowledges as well. They also have suggestions around expanding parental leave.
There is some place of commonality between what we know from our work and what we see from the evidence coming out in the advisory committee report. Discussions must focus on solutions. They have a series of recommendations and it is not clear exactly how they come together. The costing is not included in the recommendations.
We have a strategy that is costed with benchmarks for progress, timetables and targets along the way, so we would have to talk about that further. I want to confirm their report affirms the evidence we have brought forward today.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Ms. Anderson, they have an extensive and excellent list of references; however, I notice there is no list of people they interviewed or met. I do not see it, anyway. Has the association had any interface with this committee, any direct communication or been part of the process?
Ms. Anderson: We did not have direct communication with the minister's advisory committee.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Were you asked to submit a report? Were you contacted at all?
Ms. Lysack: The only contact we had was when the department did some pan-Canadian consultations. Along with other Canadians all across the country, we had a brief meeting with them. We did not have a more active role than any other citizen.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Did you meet with department officials vis-à-vis the change in program? Was there an opportunity to present to Human Resources and Social Development?
Ms. Lysack: We did not have an opportunity to meet with the advisory council. We did meet with officials from HRSDC. As I said, they did these consultations across the country, so we met with them briefly to share our implementation tool, for example, because we thought it would be useful for them to view key indicators, et cetera. It was a broad public consultation of which we were a part.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: When did you meet with the department officials?
Ms. Lysack: We met with them in September.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: You did not meet with the special committee?
Ms. Lysack: No. We did request to, but we did not.
Senator Munson: With these committees, at the end of the day we are non-partisan. We really do come to some agreement and consensus and try to work things out. I still have to ask this question, and I hope Senator Keon does not mind, but I am a Liberal progressive politician who had a very Conservative grandfather, so I am allowed to ask this question.
Have any of the Conservative initiatives created one child care space in the last year?
Ms. Lysack: No.
Senator Munson: That is a direct answer, and we need to know that. I would ask the same question if the Liberals were running this place.
Could you give me the high and low ends of the cost of child care per month? I am startled when I see young couples dropping off their children, and even the place on the Hill here is quite expensive. Is there a high end and low end in this country?
Ms. Harney: I am guessing Vancouver is probably at the high end, because housing is so expensive there as well. It is not uncommon to pay $800 or $900 for three-year-old to five-year-old care, Monday to Friday, probably 8:30 in the morning to 5:30 in the afternoon. Outside the Lower Mainland, it can be significantly cheaper, $500 or $400, perhaps. Infant-toddler care is $1,400 to $1,500 a month.
For my daughter, who has a 10-year-old and four-year-old, for before and after-school care for my oldest granddaughter and full-time care for my four-year-old granddaughter, my daughter pays $1,400 a month.
Ms. Riddell: Manitoba has the second lowest rates for child care in Canada. I am the mother of four children. When I had two children at school age, one pre-schooler and one infant, my child care fees were close to $1,300 a month. I was not eligible for a subsidy.
Ms. Ablett: In Ontario the numbers are similar to B.C., if not higher, depending on location.
Senator Munson: Are the wages for child care staff comparable to teachers? I would like to get the figures on the record.
Ms. Dallaire: Definitely not. They are nowhere near teachers' salaries. In New Brunswick we probably host some of the lowest wages in the country. Before 2001 and government investment in child care people working in child care earned minimum wage. With some government investment we have had the staff fees go up. Trained staff earns just over $11 an hour, untrained staff, $9 an hour. The wages are very low because parents cannot afford to pay higher fees to subsidize. We are subsidizing child care, but unfortunately it is on the back of the work force.
Ms. Ablett: In Ontario, the wages range anywhere from minimum wage to $23 an hour. With or without benefits is another question. A challenge for child care operators is that any enhancements to these wages in order to retain or recruit staff are often put in jeopardy at the local and municipal levels. We know of some centres that are facing cuts to wage enhancement. That is a significant amount of money that these operators must now pick up just to keep their staff. The range is anywhere from minimum wage up to $20 to $23 an hour.
Senator Munson: What are the standards in terms of training for child care specialists in these daycare centres? Do we have a national standard or is it someone who goes off to university to obtain a degree in this or is it someone trained over a couple of months to babysit children?
Ms. Elson: In Alberta there is a two-year diploma which is equivalent to level three. There is also level two, which is an one-year certificate; and level one, which is a 72-hour orientation course provided free-of-charge by the province.
Ms. Harney: The training varies across the country. That is one of our concerns for sure. If you live in Ontario, you could be making a certain amount of wage. If you move to a different part of the country, you make significantly less. Your credentials also do not necessarily match province to province.
Other studies compare the general education of early child care educators and their wages and it is significantly out of whack. We are more highly trained than what our wages reflect.
A significant issue around wages for people working in our field is that we have no pension and almost no ability to get a pension. We are mostly a female workforce and many women who have given their lives to child care have to live in poverty because there is no workable pension plan for them.
Senator Munson: Dealing with Canada's First Nations and Inuit children, can any of you provide me with a picture of how the child care system cares for them? Is it worse than we see under provincial jurisdictions or is the federal government fulfilling its obligation in caring for Canada's First Nation and Inuit children?
Ms. Lysack: I have some experience in working on reserve in Saskatchewan. When I took the international OECD team to a reserve in Saskatchewan — and it was a very fine First Nation — I was horribly embarrassed for us as Canadians. This was one of the First Nations that had a higher standard of living than others, but the Europeans were still shock and appalled.
What is even more difficult is that many of those families are trying to heal from the generational impact of residential schools. There are many broken families and many children with FASD. There are additional challenges on the reserves, yet there are fewer resources invested in those families.
I saw this from the policy perspective but also right on the ground. The people hired to work in the child care programs on the reserve were the least prepared. Again, this goes back to the values and vision question: What are we trying to do? If we are simply trying to put children on a shelf and keep them safe while their parents are doing something else, perhaps you do not need any training to do that. All you need are a set of eyes and hands. I do not think any of us believe children in this country deserve that.
As the brain science has increased and we understand more about child development — as Senator Fairbairn pointed out Dr. Mustard's work — I think we are understanding how important it is to have a well-prepared workforce. As others have expressed the challenges in our mainstream society, it is a hundred fold on reserve.
Many of us are aware of the international attention we have been receiving for children on reserve. International aid agencies are offering to sponsor First Nations children in Canada. I am shocked and embarrassed that a country as rich as Canada could be neglecting part of our population so badly that the international community feels they need to intervene.
Senator Munson: We may have failed our Inuit and First Nations children as a nation.
Earlier Ms. Dallaire talked about benchmarks, From Patchwork to Framework and the comprehensive strategy, the benchmark being three-to-five years of age. Where do the children with disabilities fit in here? How do we address that issue for those children? It is before the age of three years in terms of dealing with these young people. In that comprehensive strategy, is there a plan to deal with these young children?
Ms. Anderson: Our strategy covers all children of all ages. That is our long-term goal. We have had some federal investment and some progress, yet that progress is disparate across the country. We see the need to have a focused approach over the next four years and have a measurable goal. The place to start with that goal is from age three to five for a number of reasons. That does not preclude moving on to younger or older children, but from the federal level we are suggesting that needs to be the focus of the investment.
In our strategy, we have costed and accommodated 10 per cent of the spaces at twice the average space cost to ensure that we have inclusion properly reflected in our model. That is reflected both in our four-year benchmark and our universal all-age approach. We have done our best to ensure that our financial strategy reflects our words, which is an inclusive system.
Ms. Harney: As someone who works with children every day, I would say that when the community child care program is strong and healthy, the accommodation for all children is easy. When the community child care program is fragile and we do not know if funding is coming tomorrow or what cuts and fees are going on, it is difficult to accommodate any child. With a strong community child care system and with a bit of extra money, we can and want to include all children in the community.
Senator Fairbairn: I should know the answer to this, but I never have. When the issue of child care comes up and there is the part where, for whatever reason, some parents believe that their children must be educated at home, is there any kind of connection with those people? What are the standards? Maybe some of these people are parents who are teachers, but there are many who are not. What are the standards? Do we have any assurances that home-schooled children receive the same help and attention?
Ms. Elson: Children over the age of two who stay at home with their parents are not seen until they enter the school system. They have their inoculations from six weeks to two years of age and, as I said, are not seen again until they enter the school system.
Are there supports out there for stay-at-home families? In Alberta there are Parent Link Centres and community resource centres, a whole barrage of resources for stay-at-home parents. However, realistically, those children are not seen publicly until they enter the school system.
Ms. Dallaire: We find that across the country there is a patchwork of very few services available to parents who stay at home. In New Brunswick, it depends on how organized the local community is and how much they work together to form programs for families. In the community where I grew up, there is a very strong family resource centre that offers many programs to stay-at-home families. They provide resources to improve parenting skills and to provide some opportunity for social interaction, but that is not part of a system. In other communities, those programs are not available, or not necessarily available to the francophone minority population.
Across the country, there are few resources for parents who do stay at home. Because child care facilities are strapped financially, they cannot offer those programs to stay-at-home parents who want to offer socialization a few hours a week.
Ms. Riddel: One of our government structures, Healthy Child Manitoba, has established parent-child coalitions throughout the province which provide many resources and supports for stay-at-home families. However, one of my concerns with that is that the people who deliver those family resource programs are not early childhood educators; they are other parents. The intentions are good, but the quality is not the same.
Ms. Harney: There has been an interesting and alarming development over the last couple of years where there seems to be a segregation of when children learn. Programs have been started to address the early learning part by providing learning programs for two or three hours a week. In British Columbia, those types of programs are getting attention. In fact, a new program has started that will be free if parents attend with their children.
What is missing and is taking us down a dangerous road is that for children from 12-18 months learning does not happen between 10:30 and 11:30. Learning happens all day. It happens with changing diapers, cooing and eye contact. To presume that we will fund one-hour or two-hour learning opportunities for children each week at the expense of viewing daycare as the time to take them outside and to change their diapers while the other time is for learning, is a very dangerous road to follow. It is dangerous, not only for the development of the children, but it also creates a value that goes against all of our research and is bad for children. Children are so precious that we need to encourage that development every minute in taking those learning opportunities. A program that a parent must attend excludes all working parents. To assume that you pick up a book at 11 a.m. and not for the rest of day is not okay.
The Deputy Chairman: The committee wants to focus its report on useful recommendations. I am not very knowledgeable about this topic because, as you know, my background is in health and not education, although there is considerable crossover. It seems to me that, as in so many of our social areas where we are not doing justice to our society, we have not thought this through. We do not have a strategy of any kind.
In the next 15 minutes I would like you to speak about what kind of initiative we need to make things happen. I have heard, for example, that the professionals involved in child care are underpaid and that they do not have pensions, which is disgraceful. They have no official recognition.
Should we be advocating that the Quebec system move across the country? Should we be advocating something much better than the Quebec system? Should we be advocating something totally different? Let us have a go at it.
Ms. Dallaire: Quebec is probably the most advanced province in moving toward a universal system, but they are not there yet. There are huge waiting lists for subsidized programs. Child care is not universally accessible. The fees are affordable for those who have access to subsidized spaces, but for many families they are not affordable. Manitoba has made some strategic investments on system building.
As we move along, we need to invest not only dollars in child care, but also in a strategy as a foundation. It would ideally be part of a legislative framework where there is a law guaranteeing that whatever federal funds are invested will move us along toward a child care strategy, so that the next time the OECD does its report we are not embarrassed by not having a strategy.
In New Brunswick, we have been pushing for, as we should be across Canada, not only an investment but also a strategy so that in 10-15 years, we will know where we are going and we will have benchmarks to ensure that we get there.
Ms. Lysack: I echo Ms. Dallaire's comments. We must be accountable. It is not simply allocating an amount of money to early learning and child care and letting whatever will happen happen. It is important to look carefully at the policy lessons from the international community that are in this OECD report and other sources and identify where we want to focus our investment and how we want to achieve the benchmarks. Whether it is starting with three-to-five- year-olds, as we have recommended, or something else, we must be very clear about where we are starting and where we are going.
To highlight the opposite, how do we know that the $250 million transfer to provinces and territories will go to child care? How do we know what type of child care they will provide? In B.C., we have heard about things such as investing in toys and equipment to improve quality but having to close doors because of lack of funding to pay staff. That is an example of how we need to ensure that our investments are into something measurable that will move us toward a particular goal.
Ms. Anderson: Our strategy outlines a way to make that happen. First, what we have learned from working with parents, caregivers, others across the country and from the international evidence, points to a clear path. If anything, the minister's advisory committee confirms that. What is happening right now is not okay and we have a plan to make it better. We have a plan to measure it while it gets better.
Our plan needs a legislative framework that provides, at the high level, a set of overall standards indicators that the system needs to meet across the country. That overall level allows for provincial flexibility in terms of how they go about doing that. Our implementation model is very flexible in that sense. At the same time, quality, affordability, expansion and inclusion principles need to be met.
We have a set of recommendations around a legislative framework, with planned costs. We see it happening with federal leadership and transfers to the provinces and territories. They use those funds to invest in services that will be accountable for the quality, affordability and expansion in service that is required across the country. Not to oversimplify it, but we believe it is very achievable to implement the strategy put forward.
We want to point out two things about implementing the strategy. Sometimes there is nervousness in thinking about a new public system. There are a couple of things we want to point out about child care. First, overall we have a declining child population across the country, which should be of concern to us in a number of ways. One is that children are in this age group only once, so when we have costs out this system, we know how many children there are in the system. This group is unlike the health system in that the health system is challenged because the aging population is continuing to age. It is tough to look at the top end of where that health system is going in terms of supporting an aging population. Our child population is defined and measurable. When we have the costs, we have a real foundation for measuring this system and knowing what it will cost.
The services we are providing are also people services not technological services. One of the key things we need to come to grips with as a country is, what is the value we place on the trained, educated and caring work force for our children? Once we determine that, we have the key cost factor of our system in place. We must come to grips with that question. Then we will have the elements needed to build a good system across the country.
The system allows for provincial and territorial flexibility but not disparity in terms of what our children get around quality affordable services.
The Deputy Chairman: Who would dare address the native peoples? This is an extremely complex problem when we talk about federal-provincial-territorial relationships. We know we are looking at educating kids in at least one of the official languages, maybe two. The need for people who quite rightly want to preserve their own language and yet to compete socially and economically, they will have to know at least one of the official languages, maybe both of them. Does anyone have any thoughts on that subject?
Ms. Harney: It is not perhaps as difficult as you think if you start young in terms of preserving First Nation language and culture and adopting or helping children learn in English, for instance, which I know best, Ms. Dallaire probably in French. In quality child care programs we integrate a number of cultures. When bringing families and children together you get offshoots that are not recorded in any reports. Parents get together to start a drumming or dancing group. That happens because parents and families are together.
As long as we have spaces for children and as long as those spaces are affordable to parents and as long as the work force is as trained as they are now, it is not a difficult problem when you start early on. It is of course much more difficult when you try to capture the 18- or 19-year-old.
In terms of the plan, I would like to say British Columbia has shown us a very good example of when there are not strong accountability measures. You can put all kinds of money into provinces. I respect the fact and love the fact about our country. There are different jurisdictions and cultures in the provinces and territories. When you do not have any kind of framework or accountability, money can be squandered easily. As a taxpayer, I do not like that.
We can put fundamental values in place with some general accountability measures such as benchmarks requiring the provinces and territories to produce reports in a timely manner. Bureaucrats are very good at measuring whether you are reaching the benchmarks. It is doable, but if we slide back on the accountability piece that I think happened during the last negotiations around the provincial and territorial agreements, then we can spend a lot of money and obtain very little in return.
Ms. Lysack: On the Aboriginal question, first, it is important to recognize the incredibly important role that early learning and child care programs play in the lives of Aboriginal people in terms of maintaining language and tradition. I have seen that firsthand. For example, here in Ottawa there is a wonderful Inuit Aboriginal Head Start program where you can see children singing and counting. It is amazing. If you have the opportunity, I urge you to see that firsthand.
Second, I think it is important to acknowledge the jurisdictional issues around Aboriginal funding of all programs, not just early learning and child care. The federal government clearly has a responsibility on reserve. There is no doubt about that. There must be an increase and a transfer for those Aboriginal governments to develop and invest in their own First Nations programs. In addition, there must be a commitment to collaboration with provincial governments to deal with this on and off reserve question. Families do not stay in one place and often move as the seasons change. Nothing will solve that problem other than straight out collaboration and work. I encourage you to include that in your report.
Ms. Riddel: It should not be a matter of luck where a family lives. There needs to be intentionality when creating child care spaces. When I moved to Miami in 1996, there was no licensed child care programming. Because I am a parent and an early childhood educator we built a child care centre in our community. There are many communities in remote and northern Canada that do not have an educator with the volunteer time and capacity to create a child care space. It should not be a matter of luck where families live. Everybody should have child care.
Ms. Dallaire: I can attest to child care programs as a francophone minority living in a minority area. It has a component that preserves language and culture. As you know, we have a lot of exogamie where one parent is anglophone and the other is francophone. Without the early childhood program, we would lose our language and culture. If not for the early child care program, many families would not realize the importance of registering their children for school. If that child does not go to a francophone school, and if he or she marries a francophone or anglophone, their child loses his or her right to go to French school. It has a huge impact with regard to language preservation.
Whatever system we build in Canada has to address the needs of the Aboriginal population and the needs of francophone parents living in minority situations so that they can preserve their language and culture.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: The comment you just made was reflected in the speech that Senator Chaput presented in the Senate. As well as these hearings, we have an inquiry into the subject.
Your association has come up with a benchmark and a plan based on three-to five-year olds. I understand you are talking really about child care, and that is your raison d'être. I hope that as an association you will speak about the zero- to three-year period. We have to educate parents and give them resources, which may be child care spaces, although it is not enough just to have the child care spaces. If Dr. Fraser Mustard were here, he would be talking more about the first three years than about the years of three to five. That was the only flag that came up as I listened.
All of us want to prepare children for school, the early years, so our messaging is very important. If we want to have a positive impact, and that is our dream and hope for all Canadian children, we have to talk whenever we can and in every possible setting about the years zero to three. Those years are probably more important neurologically in terms of the development of the child's brain than the ages of three to five. Three to five is very important not only socio- economically for our country, for the working parents, but for preparing the child for school. So much of the foundation has been laid in the years zero to three.
We would not be here today if we did not have a compelling reason to ensure that at the same time as talking about child care spaces, quality child care, accountability, benchmarks, our place in the OECD, we also have a mission to talk about the early years, and including the years zero to three.
I would like to hear more about rural child care. Ms. Riddel spoke positively about it, but I do not think we have time so maybe we can include it in the body of the report.
It has been a serious, informative and well-balanced presentation. I said in the Senate that I wanted to take the politics out of this issue and talk about children and families in Canadian society. I think that has happened today. That makes all of us feel good and hopeful. There has really been a sharing. It is only one step along the way.
Thank you all.
[Translation]
Thank you everyone; this meeting was a very special occasion for us all. It gives us a good deal of hope, energy and determination to work together for Canada's families and children.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much. On that note, we will close this very productive round table. It has been a real pleasure. Thank you all for coming and sharing your thoughts with us and making our life a little easier when we prepare our report.
The committee adjourned.