Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 24 - Evidence - June 7, 2007
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 7, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 10:45 a.m. to study the state of early learning and child care in Canada in view of the OECD report Starting Strong II, released on September 21-22, 2006, and rating Canada last among 14 countries in spending on early learning and child care programs.
Senator Jim Munson (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Acting Chairman: Good morning to everyone. This is the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on the state of early learning and child care in this country. As has been mentioned on a few occasions but bears repeating, the premise of our study is based on a report of September 2006 from the education committee of the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, entitled Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care. This report outlined progress made by 20 countries in responding to key aspects of successful early childhood education and care policy and offered examples of new policy initiatives adopted in these areas.
This report rated Canada last among 14 countries on spending on early learning and child care programs, stating that the national and provincial policy for the early education and care of young children in this country is still in its initial stages and coverage is low compared to other OECD countries.
Concern was raised in the Senate about this conclusion and about the general state of early childhood education and care in Canada. After a healthy debate, it was agreed that our committee would examine these issues.
This morning we have two witnesses. Your evidence will be important to us. Our first witness is Shawn Tupper is the director general of social policy, Human Resources and Social Development Canada.
Our next witness is Dr. Gordon Chong, chairperson, Social Housing Services Corporation. Dr. Chong is the former chairperson of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Child Care Spaces Initiative. A dentist, Dr. Chong has over 25 years of experience in public life. He told me moments ago that he sat on the City of Toronto council for a few years and worked with the chair of this committee, who is away today. He served 25 years in public life, including serving as an elected official in municipal government.
Welcome to you both.
Shawn Tupper, Director General, Social Policy, Human Resources and Social Development Canada: Thank you for your invitation today. My comments are primarily intended to provide you with an overview of the federal government's commitment to supporting families with young children, including the area of child care. I understand you have a particular interest in Canada's level of investment as presented in the OECD's report, Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care. I will also try to provide some of the context in terms of support provided by the Government of Canada, including the recent initiatives under the Universal Child Care Plan and how that fits into the broader range of supports that are provided to Canadian families.
As you know, within Canada, all orders of government — federal, provincial, territorial and municipal — play a role in supporting families with children. I will focus my remarks today on the role the federal government plays in that regard.
In September of last year, I had the pleasure of being in Italy for the release of the OECD's report, Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care. The report addresses early childhood education and care policy approaches, and outlines policy initiatives undertaken by 20 participating countries, including Canada, since it launched its work in 1998.
As of late, there has been much discussion in regard to Canada's level of investment. The chairman pointed that out in his opening remarks. I note specifically the chart that appeared in the OECD's report, showing Canada's 2003 investment says 0.2 per cent of GDP, which, from the government's perspective, has been reproduced — we believe somewhat erroneously — elsewhere. I suspect you have heard from witnesses who have spoken about that chart, and I will speak to our analysis later in my remarks.
It is difficult to make comparisons among countries for a number of reasons. First, the OECD acknowledged that the figures in its report cannot be readily compared because reliable figures are often not available. Data is a big challenge that all countries confront when analyzing and assessing the state of child care and child development. Most countries have different interpretations, particularly in the area of pre-primary care, which results in a difficult assessment as to how those numbers look and whether one can compare them.
Second, unlike other countries' investments, which may include child care expenditures, Canada's figures in this report include only junior kindergarten and kindergarten. In other words, our figures exclude investments in early learning and child care.
Third, because the chart focuses solely on services, and only those for children aged three to six, it does not provide, in our view, a complete picture of countries' full range of investments in child care. This is significant for Canada since direct supports to families with young children, transfers to provinces and territories, and significant investments in maternity and parental benefits make up a considerable share of the investments that we make in Canada for young children.
Historically, the federal government has applied a range of policy levers to support families in caring for their children. These include direct income supports, such as the Canada Child Tax Benefit, CCTB, and the National Child Benefit Supplement, NCBS, for which investments have increased from $6 billion in 1999-2000 to $9.2 billion in 2006- 07. It is worth noting that a number of jurisdictions have chosen to direct the savings they accrue as federal benefits under the NCBS to child care initiative investments that they make within their jurisdictions. In addition, the federal government has long provided supports to enable parents to stay at home to care for their children, such as Employment Insurance maternity and parental benefits and a Canada Pension Plan child rearing dropout provision. As well, support to working parents to offset the costs of non-parental care is provided through the child care expense deduction.
In addition, through the Canada Social Transfer, the federal government has continued to increase the amount of funding it provides to provinces and territories to enable them to improve the programs and services for which they are primarily responsible. Under the 2000 Early Childhood Development Agreement, transfers to provinces and territories have increased from $300 million in 2001-02 to $500 million per year, and that number is holding constant. Funding under the 2003 Multilateral Framework for Early Learning and Child Care has increased from $25 million in 2003-04 to $350 million this year.
The federal government also invests in direct delivery of programs and services for Aboriginal children, including the First Nations and Inuit Child Care Initiative, Aboriginal Head Start On Reserve and Aboriginal Head Start in Urban and Northern Communities. As well, early childhood development support is provided by the federal government for military families.
Research tells us that families are faced with many pressures and choices when it comes to balancing work and family. For some, it may mean relying on some form of non-parental care; for others, off-shifting or flexible work arrangements; and for others yet, it may mean one parent staying home full time.
In 2002-03, 47 per cent of parents who were working or studying still used parental care as their primary care arrangement; 53 per cent relied on some form of non-parental care, such as child care centres and pre-schools, as well as family day homes. The majority of families that rely on non-parental care do not use licensed child care; instead, they rely on relatives, neighbours and family friends.
In 2006, the government introduced the Universal Child Care Benefit, which is intended to provide parents with resources to offset the cost of whatever type of care they choose to use. The Universal Child Care Benefit provides each family with $100 per month, up to $1,200 per year, for each child under six years of age. The benefit, which began in July of last year, goes to 1.5 million families for almost 2 million children each month. In total, we estimate that $2.4 billion a year will be provided to families with young children through this benefit.
Recognizing that the availability of child care spaces is also a challenge faced by many Canadians, Budget 2007 confirmed a federal commitment to support the creation of child care spaces. As part of this commitment, the Government of Canada undertook consultations with a range of stakeholders, including provincial and territorial governments, businesses, commercial and non-profit child care providers and community organizations, to inform the design of the initiative.
In addition, in the fall of last year, a ministerial advisory committee composed of community leaders, employers and child care experts, was established to provide advice on how federal levers could best be used to support the creation of child care spaces. Dr. Chong will obviously speak more to that and the committee's findings.
The recent federal budget also announced that transfers to provinces and territories through the Canada Social Transfer will be increased by $250 million to support the creation of child care spaces. This will bring the total to $1.1 billion in transfers to the provinces and territories in support specifically of early child development and child care in 2007-08. That amount will increase by 3 per cent each year — it has an escalator. This reflects the fact that provinces and territories have primary responsibility in the area of child care services, and require flexibility to build on and enhance their existing child care systems.
The federal government also announced, in Budget 2007, a 25 per cent investment tax credit to employers to create child care spaces for their employees; and a new $2,000 child tax credit, which will provide up to $310 in tax relief for each child under 18 years of age.
Coming back to the chart found in the OECD's report, I would like to use this opportunity today to let the committee know the data dates back to 2003 and perhaps is not an accurate reflection of the status of our situation today. Since that time, investments have increased at both the federal and provincial levels.
In 2007, Canada's forecasted investment in both direct supports and provincial-territorial transfers for services related to child care will exceed $9 billion. That amounts to about 0.75 per cent of GDP and will continue to grow. This figure does not include provincial or territorial expenditures for junior kindergarten or kindergarten. I do not have access to recent data on provincial and territorial expenditures in those areas, but I expect that would bring the total expenditure to just under 1 per cent — 0.95 per cent — of Canadian GDP.
I will conclude my remarks there. I hope that has given you a flavour and a sense of the breadth of activity currently happening in the country, primarily within the context of the federal system. I look forward to the discussion with you today and, indeed, would be pleased to follow up with you in terms of providing any detailed background material on any of the material I have spoken about.
Dr. Gordon Chong, Chairman, Social Housing Services Corporation; Former chairperson, Ministerial Advisory Committee on Child Care Spaces Initiative: I thank honourable senators for the invitation to appear before the committee.
I am speaking to you today in my capacity as the Chair of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Child Care Spaces Initiative. The Ministerial Advisory Committee, MAC, was made up of eight committee members representing a diverse range of views and expertise as employers, child care providers, and leaders in the non-profit sector. We were appointed in September 2006 by then Minister Diane Finley, former Minister of Human Resources and Social Development Canada, HRSDC, to provide advice on how best to meet the diverse child care needs of Canadian families and to understand the employers' various roles and interests in child care. Former Minister Finley asked us to develop recommendations for the implementation of the initiative. We were also asked to provide advice on the best way for the federal government to expand the availability of child care spaces across Canada and to suggest ways to measure and monitor the success of the initiative. We were asked specifically to focus on federal levers. It is fair to say, given the time constraints, that we had our work cut out for us.
As a starting point, MAC reviewed the historical development and the social and economic context of child care in Canada. We also looked at current child care challenges from the perspective of families, caregivers and employers. Furthermore, HRSDC told us about the results of the consultations that they conducted over the summer and early fall on the initiative. As an aside, these consultations were extensive and all of us were well briefed on them. HRSDC officials met with provincial and territorial governments; small, medium and large employers from a range of sectors; child care providers; parent organizations; and national and regional stakeholders and experts in each province and territory. The committee also benefitted from a conference call to hear the views of provincial and territorial deputy ministers of social services. I personally had informal conversations with many of them as well.
We then explored and examined a sampling of the range of child care options that exist in Canada and the complexities and challenges of finding child care. Members made visits to various types of child care sites, and we reviewed the evidence from many national and international studies and reports, the OECD report among them. The committee reflected on what is and what is not working in the sector, what can be done to facilitate the development of new child care spaces and to enhance, enrich and stabilize new and existing spaces. We also focused on how the initiative could ensure investment in high-quality child care while respecting the diverse needs and preferences of all families from across the country.
As a committee, we recognized that contemporary Canadian families are getting smaller, more mothers with young children are working outside the home, more fathers are involved in child care and more grandparents are in the paid labour force. We also recognize that child care use among families differs.
The committee submitted ten recommendations that focus on four approaches or strategies that the Government of Canada could follow to deliver the Child Care Spaces Initiative. In keeping with our mandate, we kept our focus on actions that could be taken by the federal government using federal instruments, while being respectful of the important roles that provinces, territories and municipal governments play in regulating and supporting child care across the country.
The first of four approaches to action is to increase the supply of child care spaces. We recognize that in some cases new spaces are needed, while in other cases, existing facilities need investment to update, enhance or expand their spaces. The government had indicated a special interest in involving employers, so the Ministerial Advisory Committee recommended a mix of incentives to encourage them to participate in the creation of spaces.
The second approach was to decrease the demand for child care spaces to address the issue of availability of spaces. In doing so, we explored ways to better support parents who are at home with their children either on a part-time or a full-time basis.
The third approach suggests that the Government of Canada build upon the new Universal Child Care Benefit through other measures to help parents' ability to pay the cost of high-quality child care. Finally, the committee recommended a communications approach that would increase awareness and understanding of child care needs for employers so that they are aware of the ways in which they can support child care for their employees, and for parents and caregivers so that they are aware of and understand the ways in which they can access federal supports for child care.
The committee took a broad approach that reflects the complexities of child care in Canada. We submitted our report to Minister Solberg in January 2007. The report reflects the committee members' experiences as well as their discussions and deliberations about how to effectively address the gap between the current supply and the rising demand for high-quality child care spaces.
We trust that our advice provides the government with a broad array of options to consider for future investments in child care.
In conclusion, I bring the perspective of not only municipal experience but also as a father and grandfather. I have four grandchildren from five months post-fertilization to three years of age. The doctor would appreciate what I am saying. In going through that process, I did other reading with respect to early childhood development. I have that list of material with me for those who are scientifically inclined and those who are not. In this committee, senators have a unique and unprecedented opportunity to review the state of child care and early childhood development with respect to education, et cetera. Canadians and Canada are sufficiently mature and confident in considering the criticism in reports from other countries. Obviously, we take that into consideration, but I would hope that we will be more proactive than reactive and chart our own course in this important area of child care, child development and education, and how that is part of a continuum for all Canadians.
Senator Callbeck: First, Mr. Tupper, I will ask you about the government programs you mentioned. Under the Canada Social Transfer, money going to the provinces for child care spaces will be increased. What are the criteria? Can the provinces spend the money on anything they want or do they have to spend the money according to certain criteria?
Mr. Tupper: We are just about to embark on discussions with the provinces and territories in that respect, so we have not reached an agreement. The budget stipulated that the money would transfer subject to a discussion between the levels of government. We anticipate that with respect to the $250 million, the new reporting will be done in the context of their current reporting, which they do under the 2000 and 2003 multilateral agreements. In those contexts, there is agreement across all governments on the measures that they will look at and the principles against which that reporting occurs.
Senator Callbeck: Nothing has been worked out yet with the provinces.
Mr. Tupper: That is correct.
Senator Callbeck: You mentioned the 25 per cent investment tax credit to employers who create child care spaces for their employees. Was that not tried in Ontario, where it did not work?
Mr. Tupper: They had such a program in Ontario and brought it to an end because it did not work. Hopefully, Mr. Chong can speak to this as well. We had anticipated that perhaps it was an idea whose time had come. We have heard from employers that they have an interest in such a mechanism in part for a competitive advantage to attract employees and in part because they are good corporate citizens and have a desire to provide benefits to their employees. Certainly, we heard from some employers that they were interested in some type of benefit, so that is what the government has done in the last budget. It is impossible to say at this time what the uptake will be. However, from the discussions we had over the course of last summer and fall, we anticipate that in this era, there is an interest.
Senator Callbeck: I have great difficulty with the 2000 Child Tax Credit. For example, a single mother who lives below the poverty line does not pay income tax. Therefore, she cannot take advantage of the credit. Why would the government bring in a program that excludes the people that should benefit the most from it?
Mr. Tupper: The government has a basket of initiatives in place, some of which are universal, some of which are available to all Canadians and some of which are targeted to lower-income Canadians. While that might not be an advantage for someone who lives below the poverty line, there are other initiatives, such as the NCBS, which is targeted more to low-income families.
Senator Callbeck: As I said, that one truly baffles me.
Dr. Chong, you talked about decreasing demand for child care spaces and about amending the maternity and parental benefits. Was there any discussion by the MAC about women entrepreneurs being able to pay into some kind of fund to provide them with maternity benefits?
Dr. Chong: We looked at that area to try to reduce the demand and align the infant and toddler stages of child care better. We wanted to decrease the infant demand, simply because it is labour-intensive and more costly. Based on what has happened in Quebec, there is an appetite for families to have the mother stay home with the child up until that age. When there is congestion in a network, one tries to reduce the demand. That was one reason.
The second reason was from an intellectual point of view as well. The French magazine L'actualite in December 2006 and January 2007 had articles about the latest developments in neuroplasticity, neurogenesis and other things. From an intellectual point of view, that intrigued us.
If I can supplement what Mr. Tupper was saying about the employment insurance, we felt that modern contemporary families need assistance with increased mothers in the workforce. Clearly some form of assistance is needed — more than direct payments, perhaps indirect payments. The employment insurance fund made eminent sense, because they pay into the fund and employers were expressing an interest. The Ontario scheme was aborted because it was not well-thought-out. However, every employer that we spoke to, from the progressive, enlightened employer who had on-site child care for his employees and deemed it an extremely important tool for recruiting and retaining employees, to those who have smaller and medium-sized businesses clearly recognized that it was an advantage and a benefit that families could use. They themselves did not have the wherewithal to do it. They were interested in supplementing and helping, but they could not do it.
The mindset, the commitment is changing now that employers, many of whom have their own children, are becoming more enlightened; they just cannot see a mechanism. The committee, because of its time constraints, did not have an opportunity to look at the details. Conceptually, we believe it is the right thing to do, and we encourage the government to move in that direction. Hopefully, this committee as well can take carriage of that concept and urge the government to do it.
Senator Callbeck: Do you feel it is the right thing for women to have some type of fund that women entrepreneurs can pay into and get maternity?
Dr. Chong: I missed that part. We looked at self-employed people as well and recognized that in Quebec, the employment insurance actually covers the self-employed. While no system is perfect, we thought the government could go to school on what was happening in Quebec and elsewhere. The government should take an eclectic approach to dealing with this issue now. We, as a country, can move forward in a much more mature and confident fashion than simply reacting to criticism of our existing system.
Senator Callbeck: Was there much discussion on women entrepreneurs? This was a recommendation in the Prime Minister's task force, tabled in 2003. I was involved with that task force. It went across Canada. This is one thing that women entrepreneurs everywhere were telling us they really needed. The number of women entrepreneurs is increasing tremendously every year, and women are very successful at small business.
Dr. Chong: We had a woman entrepreneur, Victoria Sopik, a mother of eight, on our committee. She has done innovative things in Toronto and Calgary on this issue. We recognize, as a principle, that not only women but also male self-employed entrepreneurs are not covered. This was an area worth exploring further. If there are the resources and inclination, it is a worth while thing to do. As a committee, we felt there are not enough options out there now to have substitute child care for families who either have to or want to work.
Senator Cochrane: We heard from witnesses yesterday that Manitoba had vacancies in their child care centres for children. Were you aware of that?
Mr. Tupper: We are aware that it is a big country. That is a critical element of this, that there are pockets or regions of the country where there may be space availability. Equally so, there are pockets and regions of the country where there are no spaces available and there are huge pressures in the communities. I suspect, in Manitoba, you may have parts where there is availability and equally so in rural areas they probably have greater challenges.
Senator Cochrane: In your position with the department should we not have data about which provinces have spaces available and which are in need of them? We were also told yesterday that there is a lack of data to assist us addressing many of the problems. Also there is a lack of research. Dr. Friendly, from Toronto, told us her research was closed down due to lack of funding. Would you like to address that lack of federal funding? You are from the federal government, are you not?
Mr. Tupper: I am indeed. Human Resources and Social Development Canada spends millions of dollars annually on a variety of funding in the area of social policy, particularly with respect to child care and early child development. It is probably safe to say that there is not enough money to support all of the research that may be desired, so priorities are set and decisions are made.
In the case of Dr. Friendly's work, that has always been a priority for the government in terms of investments annually. That will continue as we have indicated through a public process right now; we have invited tenders for future research in the area in which Dr. Friendly specializes. The provinces produce a fair amount of research and data with respect to their own jurisdictions.
One of our difficulties is a type of black hole. We know much about licensed day care, children who are in formal recognized day care programs, but we do not know much about the decisions that parents make. Almost half of the population is children who are cared for in the home or through a private arrangement. We do not know the ``why'' of the choices that parents have made, whether it is a question of space availability or whether they choose simply to keep their kids at home or use a private arrangement. That is an area where investments could be made.
Senator Cochrane: Yesterday, Professor Douglas Willms said, ``We do not have a national study on early childhood education and care. We have the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, but that is something quite different. It does not look in enough detail at what kinds of programs children are in, nor does it look at the kind of supply-and-demand issues you are talking about.''
That is what he said. I would like to know if your department agrees with his assessment. If so, what is being done to address this gap? How much money is the department spending specifically in areas of child care?
Mr. Tupper: With respect to your broader question, part of our difficulty, of course, is that the federal government does not have jurisdiction in the area of child care and development. We have our own sort of Starting Strong situation. Among OECD countries, there are countries that have agreed to principles and that pursue those principles in different ways based on the conditions they face in their countries. Equally so, in Canada, 13 jurisdictions have responsibility for delivering their child care programs. They have agreed on a set of principles but have chosen different methodologies and models against which they will pursue them. It is a question of what we lack. We know what is happening in each province. We do not create a national picture of that and the snapshot that compares them. That is, in part, because provinces and territories do not want to be compared.
Dr. Chong: There should be more research across the country with respect to the educational component of child care and development, but we could learn from some of the long-term studies that have been done in the United States. In the early 1990s, the Carnegie Corporation of New York instituted much research. There was the High/Scope Perry Preschool Study done from 1962 to 1967 of roughly 125 children in socio-economic deprived circumstances. There was long-term follow-up, including research done in the neurosciences and behavioural sciences as well. That does not necessarily mean that the Canadian situation would be identical, but if we have things in common with any country, it is certainly the country south of the border. I encourage the librarians to dig out some of that material for the committee.
Senator Cordy: Like Senator Callbeck, I am a bit puzzled by the tax credits for child care. The people who we try to help are those who are most vulnerable in our society. People living in poverty and earning low income, the working poor, are really struggling.
I was an elementary schoolteacher, and I saw latch-key kids because the parents could not afford child care. That is a reality. Sometimes, as Canadians, we like to believe those things are not happening, but when one is in the school system, one sees it. I cannot understand why we would reach out and say that we are helping the needy, but these people are not making enough money to pay taxes, so it is not beneficial to them.
Mr. Tupper: Part of the difficulty at the federal level is because we do not deliver the programs, we cannot design them.
Senator Cordy: A tax credit for those who are not even making enough money to pay taxes is a federal program. To say we do not deliver the child care is very true, but, from the tax perspective, we are the people who set the parameters for that.
Mr. Tupper: I offer the view that while we may use the tax system as a lever to directly impact on at least some Canadian families, we also work with our provincial and territorial colleagues in terms of the government funding that is transferred directly to provinces. It is the provinces that are the deliverers of programs where they can create subsidy programs and deal with issues around costs and where they do make the investment in infrastructure.
The federal government has chosen to put the money in the hands of the people who are actually delivering those benefits on the ground. Therefore, you do not see the federal government directly involved in the kinds of areas you are talking about, but we try to put our money into those areas at the provincial and territorial level.
The Acting Chairman: There is no reporting or tracking of that, is there?
Mr. Tupper: Under the 2000 and 2003 agreement, all of the provinces are committed to annual reporting. You will now say they are all behind in their reporting, and indeed that is the case; partly because, since 2004, there has been much confusion within the sector. The move to the bilateral negotiations that began in 2004-05 changed the scope of what people expected to be reporting on. The change in government and the shift in policy focus then created more confusion within the system with respect to the expectations of the federal government on provincial reporting.
I was in front of a House committee recently where this same question came up. As a result of our response, which was indeed that the provinces are behind, we received many phone calls from our colleagues.
All I can say today is that we have been assured that the provinces are committed and that they are now seeing a commitment from the federal government — my shop — which is also late in its reporting. We have an agreement and now an ongoing commitment that that reporting will occur. Our reports are about to be published, and we understand from all provinces and territories that they are in the midst of producing their outstanding reports.
Senator Cordy: I would like to move to the Canada Social Transfers and the increase of funding that will be sent to the provinces, which you said was in the last budget. I would like to talk about the issue of accountability. Many of us were on the committee with Senator Kirby when we did the health care study. We know the reality is that it is a challenge when one level of government actually handles the on-the-ground work and the other level of government provides the funding.
I am wondering about the accountability aspect as well. You said that you are now in negotiations with the provinces. The reality is that the provinces do not like to have strings attached to money that they are receiving from the federal government.
How, in fact, will we be assured as a committee and as Canadians that the provinces will be held accountable and the money will be spent in the manner in which it was intended?
Mr. Tupper: In part, once the reports are out, hopefully the data will demonstrate that.
Senator Cordy: That data is from early 2000.
Mr. Tupper: Activities in expenditure data would be for the previous year. For instance, the 2006 data is due out in November 2007.
Senator Cordy: What is the trend in the past of when we actually get the data? We know when it is supposed to arrive, but when does it actually get to us?
Mr. Tupper: We get back to the point that it is late. Aside from late reports, all of the indicators would suggest that, indeed, since the year 2000, the provinces have been making the investments that the 2000 and 2003 agreements identified simply from growth in the system.
In 1998-99, the system stood in the range of 325,000 or 340,000 child care spaces. Today, child care spaces across the country amount to just under 800,000 spaces. We have seen a considerable growth in the system over the last seven years. While we have not got the reports, we can certainly see indicators that the system is growing, and we assume it is happening with the money we are investing.
Senator Cordy: You have given us some of the numbers. I wonder if you would send a list to the committee of how child care spaces have increased over the past number of years.
Mr. Tupper: I would be pleased to do that.
Senator Cordy: I wonder if that could be broken down yearly and province to province.
Mr. Tupper: I have it all.
Senator Cordy: I would like to ask about the $100 a month. Again, I am going by anecdotal evidence that I receive from phone calls or by running into people in the supermarket or whatever. Nova Scotia, certainly Halifax, is not one of the places where we have empty spaces. There are, in fact, waiting times. I know somebody called me and had to turn down a promotion to Toronto because there was a six-month waiting time for child care, and they had no family in Toronto. Therefore, they had to turn it down and stay in Nova Scotia because they had already been on that waiting list and now had a child care space for their child. Those cases are true but anecdotal, so it is not data that we can readily quote.
What has the $100 a month done in terms of creating better child care in Canada? It has been in effect for almost a year.
Mr. Tupper: The intent of the $100 a month was to put more money in the hands of parents to enable them to make choices. Oftentimes, people say it has not created a single space. That was not the intent. The intent was to offset costs.
I have heard people say it is just not enough, but I have equally heard people say — it is still not enough — but if you only have $200 or $500 of disposable income a month, $100 actually does make a difference. I have heard a complete spectrum, probably as you have.
Anecdotal evidence is quite important, because it is from the mouths of people I serve and on whose behalf we all work. In our consultations, we heard many of the same things you did. I would point to the variety of initiatives that are supported by federal, provincial and territorial governments that hopefully can address the variety of demand that exists across the country.
Senator Cordy: I also heard of someone who knew nothing about the program. Their child was just over a year old. I was flabbergasted. Those of us in government sometimes believe the whole world knows about the different programs. In fact, I wonder how many people do not know about them. Now, when children are born, I assume hospitals provide information. There is a gap where people are not aware of these programs.
Mr. Tupper: In our first month of operation, in July of last year, when the first cheques went out, we had a catchment of 89 per cent of people who are eligible. Within three months, that number had risen to 95 per cent of eligibility. Our goal for this year is 100 per cent. However, I must say that it is a bit of an artificial goal, because children turn 7 and become ineligible, and some children die.
Senator Cordy: Do you have access to tax forms?
Mr. Tupper: We built the Universal Child Care Benefit, UCCB, on top of the Canada Child Tax Benefit, so we had ready infrastructure. That is how we got to 95 per cent coverage so quickly; we built it on existing infrastructure.
As you pointed out, we are now also able to bundle information about that program with information about all sorts of other programs that new families would be interested in, whether they are new families to Canada or new families insofar as new births.
Senator Cordy: If somebody sends in their tax form and it shows they have children under seven years of age, but they are not receiving the benefit, does your department ensure they will receive it?
Mr. Tupper: The Canada Revenue Agency delivers the UCCB. My understanding is that they are doing their best to cross-reference information.
Senator Cordy: I am wondering about research. A number of witnesses have told us that there is not enough research on child care and providing good-quality early childhood education. I can understand that there would be good studies done in the U.S, and I feel we should certainly look at them, but they are not a replacement for studies done in Canada.
Yesterday, we heard that research that has been in place at the University of Toronto since 1985 has recently lost its funding. Considering what we have heard from witnesses and documentation we have read about Canada needing more research in this field, has the dollar amount for research been reduced?
Mr. Tupper: The situation at the University of Toronto with respect to the research and the relationship with the university, as I understand it, had nothing to do with the question of federal funding; it had to do with the priorities of space allocation at the University of Toronto. That organization has since established ties with the University of Guelph.
With respect to research funding, Dr. Friendly is in the midst of finishing her current work under her current funding arrangement. We are about to release another call that will introduce new funding for exactly the same purpose.
Senator Cordy: That was just an example, not necessarily specific. Overall, has funding gone up or down in the past year?
Mr. Tupper: I am not an expert. Under the Social Development Partnerships Program — and this in part answers the previous question as well — we will continue to invest $139.6 million over the next five years in support of government priorities for children and families.
Senator Cordy: What was the funding amount before that?
Mr. Tupper: I do not have that number with me.
Senator Cordy: Could you send us that information as well?
Mr. Tupper: Absolutely.
Dr. Chong: I want to pick up on both the question and the answer. The biologic sciences and the research that is done all across the globe applies equally well in Canada as it would apply south of the border and in France, Germany or anywhere else. Much research has been conducted with respect to child development, both from a neuroscience point of view and a behavioural science point of view.
In the last decade, the two sciences that were operating in silos in the past are coming together. Some of the research is confirming intuitively what we thought culturally and some of it is not. I will leave you a list. This is an area in which I believe some of you will be extremely interested, especially if you come from a teaching background. It fascinated me.
As I said at the outset, if you want to read a good, relatively short article, in the December 2006 edition of L'actualité there is an interview with a French neuroscientist, Dr. Boris Cyrulnik, who is in his 70s now and who has spent a lifetime on this particular issue. He has said that the greatest discovery in the last 10 to 15 years has been neuroplasticity or, more accurately, cerebrocortical plasticity. Recently, a talented Canadian, Dr. Norman Doidge, has written a book called The Brain That Changes Itself. He divides himself between Toronto and New York. He is a psychiatrist by training, but he spent several years pursuing the latest developments in that area.
That has huge implications for how we deal with child rearing and education going forward into the future. I am certainly not one who believes a huge, monolithic system should be built. Some of my closest relatives have taught at the primary and secondary levels. I encourage this committee to delve into this issue and come up with something that will be genuinely proactive and fresh. Please do not simply react to reports that have been done. Reports can be written, and professionals, as well as media, sometimes torque a story, if I can put it that way.
The Acting Chairman: Being a member of the media for 32 years, how dare you say that? I am joking. Of course, spin is what makes the world go round.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: This is a high point for me in my days in the Senate. After listening to my colleague Senator Cochrane, we may have to ask the Senate to extend the mandate of this subcommittee, because we are just beginning. It is similar to throwing bait to a fish. This work is very important. We are seeing the value of our work each hour we spend here.
It concerns me when either or both of you, or any of our witnesses, talk about spaces. The new terminology is to talk about early childhood learning and quality child care; spaces are spaces. It is like putting someone into a house and saying: Go to it; there is no support for you. I have heard a similar argument from Habitat for Humanity Canada: It is not enough to just build a house.
That is a great concern. When we are talking about spaces, we have to tie it closely with early childhood and quality child care programs.
I get the impression from you — Mr. Tupper especially — that you are discrediting the OECD report. I can understand that you have said it has been used erroneously; perhaps the use of the figures has been erroneously reproduced. I can understand the difficulty in comparing finances, especially with our federation, with some other countries that are not a federation of provinces or states.
Before asking my question, I wish to point out that the OECD report deals with more than just the funding. Perhaps we should have included this in the reference to the Senate committee. For example, Canada ranks fourteenth out of 20 countries in children aged zero to three in regulated early learning and child care programs — I am trying to get away from just the dollars — and we rank last, that is, twentieth out of 20 countries in the access of three to six year olds in early learning and child care programs. Again, these figures are several years old and may not be totally accurate.
This is the first time I have heard the report criticized so heavily. My mentor is Dr. Fraser Mustard. I heard him speak two weeks ago at an Atlantic conference on early learning and child care. I would like to hear more substance in your opinion of the total report. If you just look at the spending chart, it is difficult to compare. However, I want your opinion, Mr. Tupper, on the entire report and the entire process vis-à-vis OECD reporting and Canada.
Mr. Tupper: I am glad you posed that question. Indeed, my comments were with respect to the specific chart on spending.
Our understanding of this report is that it is not a comparative analysis. It does not rank. It simply lists people based on the data that they have. I understand that they say that within the report. This is not intended to be a comparative analysis. With respect to expenditures, that is certainly the case.
With respect to the process, Canada absolutely endorses the process and the work of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We are a member country. We contributed to the funding of this particular report and to the follow-up work that came out of our meeting in the fall of last year in Italy. We are a member of the network now being formed, and we are making financial contributions to that. We absolutely endorse the work and the principles. All of the governments in Canada reflect similar principles when looking at quality, accessibility and all of those foundational elements. I have misled you if you have that impression. I apologize.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Thank you. With regard to both of you, especially Dr. Chong, I have read your report word by word. It is a very fine report.
You include a recommendation that there be accountability of spaces. You use the word ``quality.'' You do not use the phrase ``early childhood development or early learning'' in the report. I do not believe it is used in the report once, but maybe I am wrong. Certainly, that is not the emphasis.
Mr. Tupper, you said that since we do not deliver, we cannot develop programs. The effort in the 2004-05 bilateral agreements was compared to being the next greatest social program in Canada following medicare. With medicare, we did insist upon standards and accountability to the federal government. I would have to go through each province again to see what was agreed to, although I have some of that in the speech.
It seems to me that at that moment in time, and subsequently for two years or less, we were insisting that the money be used for quality and that there be programming around early childhood learning and development and not just spaces. I would like both of you to comment perhaps on this debate between providing money for spaces without any criteria that involve programming based upon the most recent knowledge of early childhood learning and child development.
While I know we have excellent universities to the south of us, and we have worldwide distinguished scholars there, I do not think we will be looking to the United States as an example of how to develop universal child care programs in Canada.
Dr. Chong: I do not know where to start. You are right in that we should not simply refer to spaces, but that was the mandate and direction we were given. We have to use the words given to us. I do not feel any member of the committee, myself included, ever looked at spaces without a body occupying those spaces, irrespective of the age of the children.
With respect to child development, we all know that, whether it is south of the border or across the pond, children generally — human beings — develop the same way. Sometimes, as Canadians, we close to door to what we can learn from the United States, and I do not feel we should. We should be eclectic. We have enough grey matter to sort things out as to what is and is not good. I would not close the door to that.
I believe what Dr. Mustard has done in his two reports is tremendous in the sense that he has become a strong advocate for early childhood education. I have also heard him say that there are different ways of raising children. Specifically, most of the focus in Toronto — and I can only speak of Toronto because my experience has been there — on child care has been primarily in socio-economic areas where the children do not have the wherewithal, whether it is in downtown Toronto or any other urban area, certainly in North America, Canada and the U.S.
I believe it has gone from a focus on helping the most needy, as you put it earlier, to taking money and spreading it all over. I believe we should optimize and maximize the taxpayers' dollars. There certainly should be accountability in how taxpayers' dollars are spent. I have never been involved in federal-provincial relations, so I do not know what things happen. However, I do not believe it is any different than between the provinces and municipalities: If they are given money, they have to account for it one way or another. Everyone likes no-strings money, but money should never be transferred with no strings.
The early childhood educational component is a controversial, arguable discussion in the sense that we all want to give our children and grandchildren the best possible start in life. However, for upper middle-class families, that is much easier. Almost any health care professional will say, ``If children can hear, see and do those things, as long as you can ensure they can sense through their eyes and ears, there are many things that they will naturally develop in a middle-class setting that in a deprived setting they may not.'' This has nothing to do with the committee, but that is why I would not want to see dollars spread. I believe in targeting.
Senator Trenholme Counsell, you make a good point that we should be looking at that. As a continuum, the educational establishment, the way it is set up now, cannot withstand additional responsibilities until they get their current act together. Your past experience would probably bear me out on that.
Mr. Tupper: It is a very interesting discussion because oftentimes I do go into rooms and we can talk about spaces and nothing else. I walk away feeling unfulfilled.
I will provide some information about the history of the development of the bilateral and multilateral agreements. I believe it will answer your question, because it has very much been an evolution. I wish I had been in this job for all of that time because it is fascinating.
In the 2000 agreement, the focus was on early development, which is fairly broad because it is about the cognitive, behavioural and social elements of development of children. The agreement also includes support to families, issues around parental knowledge and education, and the more fundamental aspects of care and how we balance the needs of families and children.
With the 2003 agreement — after two years of operation of the 2000 agreement — they negotiated a more focused agreement, which was very much about child care, with one segment of what would be captured under the broader heading of early childhood development. The intent, as I understand it, was that they had identified some specific gap areas and wanted to make more investments to fill those gaps. Indeed, the 2003 multilateral agreement was very much focused on early child care and learning.
You have absolutely hit the nail on the head. It is that understanding of how it has all evolved and, indeed, how it all fits together. We do not necessarily want to engage ourselves in a debate about one or the other. I have been a year in the job now. In the consultations through the summer, when I started the job early last year, I had a sense that we could talk about spaces and a child care benefit, et cetera. I learned in meeting with families — and also with the experts — that we do have to understand the context against which these new investments would be made.
Fundamentally, that is why the government changed its language, its platform, when it was elected. Its initial discussions with respect to what it intended to do with the Universal Child Care Plans changed. It had originally said it would be a federal initiative, but instead, in Budget 2007, the government invested $250 million into the provincial and territorial governments. The reason it did that is because we now have a better understanding that there is a need to build on the existing systems. We understand that it is not just a question of building a box that a child gets placed into, but rather of endorsing the systems that provinces and territories are creating such that they can choose whether they put their investments into wages or into curriculum and development for child care providers. It may well be a capital investment in infrastructure. We came to understand out of all of the discussions that occurred through 2006 that it cannot be the federal government that is spending that money. We do not want parallel systems or initiatives happening that are not intimately tied together. That is why the funding is flowing to the provinces through the Canada Social Transfer, CST.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Must the money be used for spaces or could a province decide to use a part of it for training staff, for instance? Is it per space, which is what I understand?
Mr. Tupper: The federal government has stated its intent, which is that it is increasing the funding by $250 million and asking the provinces to create spaces with that money. I should not have let you talk first, though, because, indeed, the CST money is unconditional. The provinces can spend that money as they choose.
Dr. Chong: Are you speaking generically?
Senator Trenholme Counsell: We have to clarify this. I have asked this question two or three times of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The amount of money the provinces get is on a per capita basis. I have a list here. Is it going into the Canada Social Transfer?
Mr. Tupper: Correct.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Are there strings attached? I want to add to this. This is the question I have asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate and have not got an answer. Dr. Chong, in his report, very wisely recommended that this go into a designated fund for child care spaces, but that fund has not been established.
Mr. Tupper: That is correct.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: It is being lumped in with the Canada Social Transfer. What accountability are you requiring, let us say at the end of the first year, in terms of creation of spaces? I guess it is only in terms of spaces.
Mr. Tupper: By definition, monies transferred through the Canada Social Transfer are unconditional. While the government states an intent — and indeed in Budget 2007 it broke out the CST to identify specific funding with respect to not only child care, but also post-secondary education — that is simply a statement of intent of why the federal government is making that money available. However, the CST, by definition, has never been conditional.
One of the reasons we negotiated the 2000 and 2003 agreements is to put a political commitment around that money. As I indicated earlier, while the reports are late, the indicators all tell us that indeed the provinces are taking that money as they committed to politically through those multilateral agreements and investing it in the child care system, because we have seen that kind of growth. We are again asking them — and we are embarking on those conversations with our colleagues now — to say that this $250 million is intended to provide support to build more spaces, because we are hearing through our consultations that there is a lack of space. We will ask them to report on that in their upcoming reports, how they spent that money and whether it created new spaces.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Have you any legal ability to ask them to account for those funds? Why did you not put it in a dedicated fund?
Mr. Tupper: I cannot answer that.
Senator Cordy: I was under a different impression when you answered a similar question for me. I thought you said that you were negotiating now with the provinces and that the money was being spent in the area of early childhood education, child care. Now my understanding is that they will give a report, but if they have not spent the money for early childhood education, then too bad; there is nothing you can do about it. Is that correct?
Mr. Tupper: Basically, yes.
Senator Callbeck: I find that amazing. In answer to the question that I asked, I understood you to say that there would be negotiations with the provinces.
Mr. Tupper: There will be. Those negotiations, just as they were in 2000 and 2003, will be around our mutual commitment to do something. You asked me if there is a legal authority, a legal commitment or a legal mechanism that the federal government has on monies that are flowed through the CST, and the answer is no. They are political commitments by orders of government to do something, but the CST has never had conditions, as I understand it. There are expert people in the area of that type of funding and the flow of the CST.
Senator Callbeck: What will the negotiations be around? If there are no stipulations with respect to the $250 million that goes into the CST, provinces can spend the money on education or however they want. I do not understand, when you say there will be negotiations around the $250 million.
Mr. Tupper: For us, the discussion will be how they will report. We are not getting any feedback from the provinces or territories in terms of strong disagreement here. Historically, since the year 2000, what has happened across orders of government is that there has been a collaborative approach. There is an agreed-upon set of principles and approaches. The provinces have lived up to the terms of the 2000 and 2003 agreements. Based on practice, we have no reason to assume that they would take the money and do anything with it other than spend it on what it is intended for.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Tupper, has this always been the case?
Mr. Tupper: Are you referring to the CST?
Senator Cochrane: I refer to the money that has been given to the provinces and their accountability.
Mr. Tupper: Under the Early Childhood Development, ECD, and Early Learning and Child Care, ELCC, agreements, that has always been the case.
Senator Pépin: If you will allow me, I will speak French.
[Translation]
Your report notes that during the summer of 2006, employers in general were unwilling to provide day care services, but perhaps would be interested in participating some other way. Women entrepreneurs want day care services, but generally speaking, employers are not willing to provide them.
Could you elaborate further on this topic? What kind of participation are you talking about? If day care services were available in the workplace, it would certainly make it much easier for parents, especially low-income parents, to access child care.
[English]
Mr. Tupper: Dr. Chong certainly will speak to what he heard through his committee. Through our consultations, we heard that if one makes widgets, one does not know how to approach the whole issue of creating child care, et cetera. We heard from employers that they were willing to enter into partnerships with experts who do know how to create child care. Therefore, they would make those investments through a contractual relationship with the child care provider to come in and set up a centre within their organization.
That can be done a multitude of ways. They could come in and do a for-profit child care on-site, where the employer offers a subsidy or they could simply choose to create spaces where employees pay fees. There are a number of ways to do it. However, we heard the employers saying, ``We make widgets; we do not want to be child care experts.'' Therefore, we wanted to look at ways to facilitate relationships there.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: I read a number of articles elsewhere that surprised me. Quebec is reputed to be the province with the highest number of day care spaces and the highest rate of growth of day care services. For example, it is reported that between 2001 and 2004, 60 per cent of all new day care spaces were created in Quebec, and that 43 per cent of Canadian children enrolled in a day care in Canada lived in Quebec.
Can you explain to us why more day care spaces are being created in Quebec? I do not imagine that the province's birth rate is as phenomenally high as it once was years ago.
[English]
Mr. Tupper: Quebec has always been at the forefront within the social policy domain generally. Certainly, the creation of the child care system — the five-dollar-a-day system that is now seven-dollar-a-day system — has had a huge impact on access and has permitted families to make those choices. Quebec chose to make the investment and to build that system. Other provinces have just not made the same kind of investment as Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: So then, accessibility is the key?
Mr. Tupper: Absolutely.
Senator Pépin: Day care services are far more accessible.
Mr. Tupper: That is correct.
[English]
There is also a question about quality and the balance of creating an accessible system that also has quality. There would be a debate, I believe, across jurisdictions about whether Quebec has met some of the quality standards that other provinces are pursuing.
Senator Pépin: We heard about it yesterday.
[Translation]
Recommendation number 5 calls on the government to provide day care services in the workplace, for part-time workers, for instance. According to the report, this would be a major incentive.
Since I was on hand, along with Ms. Jeanne Sauvé, for the opening of the first day care on Parliament Hill in 1983, I was wondering if many more day cares had been opened. Is the federal government demonstrating some leadership in this area, or is its record similar to that of the provinces?
[English]
Mr. Tupper: In my 20 years in the government, I have always been aware of child care spaces that were available to government employees through our respective departments. In my current department, we are split in location between Place du Portage, Phase IV in Hull and Place Vanier in Vanier. We are in the midst of a discussion with a child care provider to create child care spaces at our Place Vanier site. The federal government is making those investments. How they work depends on each department, because I do not believe it is a federal program so much as it is individual departments making those choices. However, those services are available in at least some departments but not all. The federal government has shown some leadership in permitting those investments.
Senator Pépin: I wish we could have the same leadership for our employees. I have been trying for nine years to have another one for the staff of the senators. Up to now, we do not have any spaces available.
Dr. Chong: I will add to the Quebec situation. In the January issue of L'actualité there is a great article about the fertility rate increasing after the employment insurance was expanded, the duration and the benefits. It clearly does have an effect if one wants to increase the fertility rate in the country.
The Acting Chairman: This is a tremendous topic. It is a topic that we really care about. With that kind of care, we have a second round of questions coming up. If you have time, we will continue as long as we can, because child care is important in all of our lives.
I have a nuts-and-bolts question for you, Mr. Tupper. How does the federal government report on its own jurisdictional responsibilities, especially First Nations, Inuit, military families, immigrants and refugees?
Mr. Tupper: We do two activities and expenditure reports, one with respect to development and one with respect to child care. Then we have a third report that is called the well-being report. We are supposed to produce those on the same schedules as the provinces and territories. All of our reports are now in production, in printing, and will be available to the public shortly.
Senator Fairbairn: This is obviously an important issue, and it comes with huge financial responsibilities in order to do it right. I would like to know whether the Department of Finance Canada is planning to evaluate. Is there a system of evaluation of the child tax benefits within five years? Is there a process that you have on hand to ensure everything is working the way you want it to work and being used properly?
Mr. Tupper: Within my department, we are actively engaged. It is difficult for my particular area because I do policy; it is hard to do evaluations of policies without having programs attached to them, and the programs sit with the provinces.
I will get back to you about what specifically the Department of Finance does with respect to tax initiatives. I am not aware of a schedule or what they are doing specifically with evaluation, but I would be pleased to find that information for you.
At the broader investment level, all of the provinces do evaluations of their programs. Those are done independently of their reporting under the ELCC and ECD agreements. There are evaluations available on provincial investments.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Tupper, because you are the director general of social policy for HRSDC, I want to relay to you things that parents and several mothers have been telling me.
The federal government has long provided supports to enable parents to stay at home to care for their children, such as Employment Insurance, maternity and parental benefits. They have been telling me that these benefits are first class. I do not have the research here, but I know there is research to support this. When a child is born, the bonding that occurs with the mother is absolutely essential for everything that will go forward when it comes to positive aspects with the children. The initiative of allowing mothers to stay at home for a year with the child after they are born is first class. That is what mothers have been telling me. I wanted to pass that along to you. As a mother, I know the aspect of bonding is important.
I understand that a major challenge in the child care system in Canada is recruiting and retaining staff.
Mr. Tupper: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: Can you explain to us why this is the case? What can be done to address this issue?
We were told that other countries are faring better in this regard, such as France. They do not have this concern; they are doing well. Are there lessons we can learn from their experience?
Mr. Tupper: You have posed a question that I have asked many times. The number one question and the number one issue that I confronted in our tour over six months last year was recruitment and retention. We are not paying people enough. They are entering the training programs, obtaining their certificates, but using those as stepping stones into other careers. We are not getting a system built up where we have that stability.
It is an area of provincial jurisdiction, and it is a question of how the provinces choose to make those investments and where they place their funding.
Senator Cochrane: I was particularly interested to hear from previous experts about behavioural issues that are empirically linked to child care.
Yesterday, Professor Kevin Milligan said that it was found that children's behaviour becomes more aggressive, they suffer more anxiety and are more hyperactive if they are spending a lot of time away from their parents. He explained that in the past five years, several authors using different data from different countries have found similar results about the behavioural outcomes.
Is this consistent with your information? Are these outcomes a function of child care quality? What can we do to ensure more positive outcomes for the children? You or Dr. Chong could answer. We are looking for child care quality when we put our children into child care centres.
Dr. Chong: That is a big topic, and there are a number of studies, including studies that go back to the 1960s and 1970s that Jay Belsky did when he was here and following that in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, I believe.
You talked about infant bonding. Those were theories proposed by John Bolby back in the 1950s and 1960s. There is an element of truth to it, but there are also studies that demonstrate when child care workers are paid well enough and there is not a huge turnover, the child will bond with a caring adult. In most cases, it happens to be the mother to begin with, but it does not preclude the child feeling stable with another adult.
When family circumstances change, that stability is no longer there and children are adversely affected. Whether it is a family or a child care centre caring for a child, it is the stability of the care that is important. It could be parental or non-parental. Some of the studies indicate that, but, over time, provided the differences are not extreme, the clinical significance is not that important.
Unfortunately, I have to refer to work done both here and in the United States that demonstrates that there are experiences that children from age zero to three automatically obtain from normal circumstances. Unless a child is subjected to extreme deprivation, as in the case of Romanian infants, who were severely deprived and isolated, most children under normal circumstances, unless we lock them in a closet, whack them over the head and do not feed them properly, will grow up normally.
The studies that show child care is not good, in most cases it is because there is a turnover. There is a turnover because child care workers are not paid well. They are not held in sufficiently high esteem so that they stay in the profession.
Those are all factors that have to be considered when we read and evaluate a study. That is why I hope the committee will delve into this with greater detail, because there is an opportunity to put a Canadian stamp on this issue.
It is not a question of whether child care is good or bad. It depends on the relationships and the bonds built up between the provider and the child. In some cases, if there is a high turnover with poor-quality child care, one will have the problems that some of these studies indicate.
Senator Cordy: I could not agree more with Senator Cochrane's comments about parents either sharing or one of them spending the first year of the child's life at home.
As someone who went back to work a short time after my child was born, I feel that would have been very beneficial. I believe it was the initiative of Minister Jane Stewart, so maybe we can give credit to a mother for bringing forward that type of legislation.
My question has to do with the setting up of child care spaces in the business place. With respect to what I have read about that — I do not have the information in front of me — I believe it was the head of the independent business association of Canada who said that they are not in the business of child care.
Many businesses in Canada are small businesses, so they do not have many employees. For them to commit to setting up child care facilities is an undertaking they might not be willing to make.
Dr. Chong, in your executive summary, you stated that consultations as well as the committee's own experience has shown, however, that employers are concerned about getting directly involved in building, operating or providing child care and would rather work with existing child care providers. That certainly coincides with what I have read in the past on that topic.
Other information I have is that setting up physical accommodations for child care is a small fraction of the money that is involved in caring for the children. In fact, I heard was that 80 per cent of the cost is the day-to-day operation. If one receives 20 per cent to initially set up, as a business one will still have substantial costs.
Earlier, Senator Callbeck said a similar program had been attempted in Ontario that did not create a single space.
I am not sure I agree, but why do we believe businesses will buy into this? Whatever I have read to date has been that they are not interested in buying into this.
Dr. Chong: In the report and our visits, there is clearly a concern that employers have in providing additional benefits — child care being one of them.
There are some employers who are sufficiently big and have an enlightened outlook. Part of it is self-serving in the sense that they realize it is important for families to have access to child care, and they look at it as a recruitment and retention tool.
There are the huskies of the world who will deal with that and some of the bigger employers, such as the federal government and others. We also recognize — and the report indicates — that the small- and medium-sized businesses do not have the wherewithal to do it but want to do something. We are suggesting that there are ways they can band together. In Toronto, there are large institutions, such as the banks, that got together and have one child care centre to service a number of employers.
They are becoming more enlightened. Human resource professionals are aware of the fact that it is good to have a happy work force, because when someone goes on maternity leave — 18 months is better than 12 months, in my opinion — it costs two to three times to replace a good employee. Therefore, employers who have a longer-term view of their business are more open to that and not averse to becoming involved in some way.
You will notice that one of our recommendations was that if an employer sets up a child care centre, they should be allowed to write that off as a capital cost allowance faster in the first year. We recognize as well that it is the operating costs that really create the problem. There are direct ways; this government has chosen to give $100 to families. There are also indirect ways, which is why the Employment Insurance fund was looked at and the creation of an arm's- length, third-party administered fund.
It is not to suggest the department would not be any more transparent, but from an optics point of view, taxpayers and the population may be more open to a stand-alone fund. We have plenty of examples of that at the federal, provincial and municipal levels where funds are operated.
To answer your question directly, the Ontario venture was probably poorly conceived and executed. That does not mean that employers, as a concept and principle, do not want to do it. Small employers just cannot do it, but they would love to have supports that would allow them to provide it.
Senator Cordy: I agree. Businesses are becoming more family friendly, in the same way that businesses have set up gyms in their workplaces. I understand now they are setting up sleep pods in their workplaces.
Dr. Chong: Separate units, however.
Senator Cordy: That is right. Let us clarify that.
You made reference to small businesses getting together in Toronto. It could work in Toronto, but it cannot work in Musquodoboit or East Bay, Nova Scotia, smaller communities where there are several small businesses or one or two.
The model sounds good on paper, to have workplace child care spaces. Parents would be very pleased to have a child care space at their place of work, because it would be so much easier for a multitude of reasons.
Government tends to be pretty rigid. If it does not fit a square peg in a square hole, often there does not seem to be flexibility for programs. I see that when people call me about concerns they have. They are the round peg trying to fit in the square hole. Computers do not talk to one another, et cetera. That is where my concern lies. By its very nature government is rigid. You made mention of a special fund, but that is not part of the child care policy we have seen to date being implemented by the government.
Dr. Chong: That is one option among a number. In smaller rural communities, there are community groups actually aligning themselves where there is a community centre, so they would have the critical mass to actually do it.
We talk about grandparent care. We recognize there are grandparents who continue in the work force, just as I do. If people are creative and innovative there are opportunities where some grandparents may do the child care for a period of time, which is why we talk about the 60-day new grandparent possibility.
Sometimes as we age, it is very difficult to think outside the box. If they are prepared to do that, there are options. We want to give families a menu of choices.
I do not believe $100 to families is the be all and end all, either. The way I interpreted that was that this government wanted to demonstrate that families will quarterback what their child rearing is. That is only one option. There are indirect ways to make it economically easier on families where both parents have to or want to work for professional or economic reasons.
We have not provided sufficient options in this country. This is 2007. I started in the child care business — if I can call it that — back in 1980. At a political level, I have been involved in this for some time. We do not provide enough options. We do not provide either indirect or direct money for families that need it now, who cannot make ends meet.
I have repeated myself three or four times: Your committee has a truly unique opportunity to make some really interesting recommendations. You are not confined by time, whereas we were.
Senator Cordy: From 1980 to now, we still have basically nine to five, Monday to Friday child care.
Mr. Tupper: Those are some of the issues that made all of the discussions interesting. On the advisory committee there were two employer representatives; one who provided a child care program within his organization — and it was a small organization. He was making a sizable corporate investment on behalf of eight of his employees for about 12 children. It was extraordinary. He simply made the choice.
Equally so, we talked to universities where they run child care programs, and they say it is very difficult for them to sustain a program. We have eight months of more than enough demand and then we have periods in our year where it is hard to keep people on the payroll. There are seasonal impacts.
When we were in Newfoundland and on the West Coast talking to the fishers and foresters, it was incredible. Also in Nova Scotia, fundamentally they have Halifax as their big urban environment. Everything else is a hub model, building on infrastructure that people share. They have to look at very different kinds of models that probably will not be predicated on an employer's approach to this.
Some employers are not interested in the nine to five model, which is why I started talking about it. They are looking at the flexible arrangements and how they can provide emergency care. They are making innovative choices in terms of partnerships and investments where they can provide flexibility to families. It is to the benefit of the company, but it makes parents' lives easier if they do not have another worry.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Mr. Tupper, this dialogue is going very well. It is getting more understandable as time goes on.
Did you receive reports on the use of the dollars in the first year of the agreements signed in 2004-05 — in other words, 2005-06? If so, would we be able to find out what the provincial governments did, with the exception of Quebec, with those dollars in 2005-06?
In answer to one of Senator Cochrane's questions, you implicated that the money was always sent and the provinces did what they wanted with it. I do not have exact dates. You will have that information. In year 2000, we had $2 billion for early childhood programming. My understanding is that money was specifically designated for very valuable programs for children, the Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program, the Community Action Program for Children, CAPC, and others. CAPC has resulted in a huge network of family resource programs across Canada.
Mr. Tupper: Only a handful of provinces have released their activities and expenditures reports covering the 2004-05 agreements. Yes, they are reporting on that. The other provinces will report on that when they release those reports. That money would be incorporated into their activities and expenditure reporting.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Can we obtain reports?
Mr. Tupper: I can tell you where you can get them from the provinces that produced reports and also the other provinces yet to produce their reports.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: That will be important to us to see what happened.
What about the $2 billion from the year 2000? That money was targeted to children's programs.
Mr. Tupper: At that time, there would have been a mix of mechanisms used to flow funding. Funding has flowed under the Canada Social Transfer, as has always been the case. Other initiatives that have flowed money though contribution agreements et cetera, those are inherently conditional.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Therefore, there are precedents, in terms of the federal government, where if the will is there and the decision is made, money can go to specific programs for children.
Mr. Tupper: If there was an appropriate dynamic in terms of federal-provincial discussion, that could be negotiated.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Dr. Chong, in your grandfatherly way, you said that most children will grow up normally.
We have just released a new education plan in New Brunswick, and that plan identifies 20 to 30 per cent of children reach kindergarten not ready to learn. Is that normal or is it not?
Dr. Willms, in his research, tells us that about 40 per cent of children reach Grade 2 or Grade 3 at the age of eight or nine not being able to read properly. If they are not ready by eight or nine years of age, if they are still learning to read and not reading to learn, they will carry that for the rest of their lives. Is this normal?
Much of what we are learning now on early childhood development is about the potential of a child's brain, if it receives the proper stimulation in the proper environment. I am not saying the home cannot do that, but we have 70 per cent of mothers in the work force. What do you mean by normal?
Dr. Chong: I will clarify two things. When I talked about strings attached, I am old enough to remember the Canada Assistance Plan, when it was the Canada Health and Social Transfer before it was separated. Normal, middle-class children growing up in normal environments, meaning the brain-expectant experiences, provided they do not have a hearing or vision problem, will get the normal stimuli that we all got as children growing up. However, where there are impoverished circumstances, they may not. Most early childhood neuroscience and some behavioural sciences now show that culturally transmitted values, such as reading or learning to play a musical instrument, must be taught. They will not be normally absorbed.
If I gave the impression that they will just automatically know how to read, that was not my intention. I separate what is normally expected stimuli in the environment from those that are culturally transmitted, which one must learn. Nobody absorbs how to read or play the piano or violin; that must be taught. Reading and literacy has only been around for a few hundred years.
Having said all that, I still believe that scarce resources should be targeted to the neediest. In Toronto, for instance, if one lives in Rosedale and Forest Hill, unless the parents are neglecting their children, those children will do fine. I know Dr. Mustard refers to that in his second report. However, the reality is that in families where parents and grandparents nurture their children normally, that will not be a problem. It is a problem in social housing communities, such as Regent Park, where they do not have the opportunity to experience things that middle-class and upper middle-class children have.
I went to elementary and secondary school in downtown Toronto and had classmates from Regent Park. Part of my thinking is shaped by that. I have read both reports prepared by Dr. Fraser Mustard, Margaret Norrie McCain and Stuart Shanker. I understand some of the points they make, but in their reference to the Abecedarian Project to the Perry Preschool Project, they have not actually reviewed the 20-30 year follow-ups. That report for some reason condensed those studies, and the follow-ups have shown the early gains found in the children at ages six, seven, eight and 12 began to evaporate, so that they ended up the same as other middle-class American children — those studies were done in the U.S.
The benefit of those projects was that those socio-economically deprived children were exposed to an environment that they normally would not have had. That in itself would be beneficial to them, because they then were able to move on to careers and self-fulfilling lives. That is why Dr. Mustard's reports and his advocacy had such a huge impact. I do not necessarily, nor do I believe many other scientists would agree with every interpretation put forward in his reports though.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Dr. Willms, on behalf of the federal government and Statistics Canada, is completing a study on vulnerable children. He is one of the chief researchers in the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. He has graphs showing vulnerable children. They are children not ready for school and who have many problems. We are talking about the economically disadvantaged.
If we look at Canada, the largest number of vulnerable children in this country is in the middle socio-economic class. Therefore, the children in middle-income groups are not doing fine necessarily, nor are those in the super-rich groups — and this is a reliable study on behalf of Statistics Canada. The largest number of children in Canada who have problems in their development and learning, numerically, are in middle-income groups.
Dr. Chong: I am suggesting if there are parents who have the wherewithal and are not doing their job, then that is a problem that the parents will have to rectify.
When there are scarce resources we cannot scatter them across the landscape.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: That is a big debate.
Senator Fairbairn: You spoke about the importance of helping the early child care in difficult areas of our society. I do not suppose there is a more difficult part than our Aboriginal communities on this issue, either in the provinces or territories.
OECD's report, Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care found that child care may be funded for children living on-reserve or in Inuit communities but access to spaces has not been sufficient to meet that demand. Has the availability of child care to those parts of our society changed since the OECD report was released? Could you give us an idea of which government departments are specifically involved in this part of this very big issue?
Mr. Tupper: I spent 10 years developing the government's response to the residential school situation. Having 10 years dealing with the abuse of children, it is nice to be on the other side looking at how to help children.
My department provides the single biggest program through the First Nations and Inuit Child Care Initiative with funding in the range of $57 million a year. There are two programs that come out of Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada dealing with Aboriginal Head Start. The Health Canada program is on-reserve. The Public Health Agency is for Northern and Inuit children. Additionally, there are two programs funded by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, which are historical carryovers started in 1968. They are agreements with the provinces of Ontario and Alberta, where that department flows funding to the provinces for First Nations child care.
Federal spending amounts to about $160 million a year. That has grown considerably since 2000. The catchment of our child care spaces program, through Human Resources and Social Development Canada covers about two-thirds of First Nations communities, over 400 of the 600-plus existing communities. It is tied to other programming offered through my department related to employment, and it is Aboriginal human resources agreements. We are trying to create a bigger bang for the buck by looking at various social issues within communities and trying to support families in different ways that allow them to get jobs and pursue training, et cetera. Therefore, child care becomes a critical element of that beyond the issues of the quality of spaces provided.
With respect to adequacy of the numbers of spaces for the on-reserve population, we are currently looking at and analyzing the situation. Our sense is probably further investments needs to be made, but we have not finished that research yet.
The Acting Chairman: The Ministerial Advisory Committee on the Government of Canada's Child Care Spaces Initiative recommended an increase in the ``Child Care Expense Deduction (CCED) to $9,000 per year for children under 7 and $6,000 for children 7-16 effective 2007.''
What is the average cost of child care for children under seven years of age in full-time child care? What might be some of the advantages of increasing the child care expense deduction? What might be some of the disadvantages?
Dr. Chong: I cannot provide the cost of child care. It varies. Maybe Mr. Tupper can. It goes anywhere from $800 to $2,000 a month depending on whether it is infant, toddler or preschool care.
The reason for recommending that deductions be increased was another way of putting additional monies in the hands of families. How that would increase the usage, I cannot say. I will defer to Mr. Tupper.
Mr. Tupper: I am not the tax man. I can provide you with our analysis and sense of what it would do with respect to the expense deduction.
At a national level — and this is very misleading — child care focused on infants less than two years old averages just over $5,600 per year. For children over two years old, it is slightly less, $5,200 per year. If one lives in downtown Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, one spends probably $8,000 to $12,000 per year for child care. If one lives in a smaller community, depending on the facilities, one may spend less than $5,000. That would be the least expensive, but it varies by region.
Dr. Chong: The committee recognized that no matter what is done more money must end up in the hands of families. Whether it is direct or indirect, we felt it was worthwhile. It may be several billion dollars, but the recommendation came forward because we felt it was important enough that money be spent in this area. We did not think it would be a pittance. We realized it would be a big sum.
The Acting Chairman: We want to thank you both very much. This was two good hours of learning. I have told people that I spent 32 years as a journalist asking questions and now I have to do my homework. We will go into camera for housekeeping purposes for three or four minutes.
The committee continued in camera.