THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 26, 2021
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 4 p.m. (ET), by videoconference, to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 of Part 4 of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021, and other measures.
Senator Chantal Petitclerc (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon. I am Chantal Petitclerc, senator from Quebec, and I have the privilege of chairing this committee.
Today, we are conducting this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology via videoconference.
[English]
Before we begin, let me remind you of a few suggestions we feel will assist you in having an efficient and productive meeting.
First, the participants are asked to have their microphones muted at all times unless recognized by the chair, and you will be responsible for turning your microphones on and off during the meeting. Before speaking, we ask you to please wait until you are recognized. I will ask the senators to use the raise hand feature in order to be recognized. Once you have been recognized, please pause for a few seconds to allow the audio signal to catch up to you.
[Translation]
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk and we will work to resolve the issue. If you experience other technical challenges, please contact the committee clerk with the technical assistance number provided.
Please note that we may need to suspend during these times as we need to ensure that all members are able to participate fully in the meeting.
[English]
Finally, I would like to remind all participants that Zoom screens should not be copied, recorded or photographed. You may use and share official proceedings posted on the SenVu website for that purpose.
Let me now introduce the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting today.
[Translation]
We are pleased to welcome Senator R. Black, Senator Bovey, Senator Frum, Senator Dasko, Senator Forest-Niesing, Senator Kutcher, Senator Manning, Senator Mégie, Senator Moodie, Senator Omidvar, and Senator Moncion.
Today, we are concluding our study of the subject matter of several divisions of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.
To date, we have heard from close to 40 witnesses over the course of approximately 12 hours. Today, with our next two panels, we will be looking at Division 34 of this bill. This division authorizes payments to the provinces for early learning and child care for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 2021.
Without further ado, I would like to introduce the witnesses from the first panel.
From Employment and Social Development Canada, we have Karen Hall, Director General, Strategic and Service Policy Branch, and Elizabeth Allen, Director, Strategic and Service Policy Branch.
I invite Ms. Hall to make her opening remarks. We will then open the floor to questions.
[English]
Karen Hall, Director General, Strategic and Service Policy Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Good afternoon, senators. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here this afternoon.
As the chair indicated, my name is Karen Hall. I am the Director General of the Social Policy Directorate in the Strategic and Service Policy Branch at ESDC. I am joined by Elizabeth Allen, a director who works in the directorate. We are here to speak about Division 34.
As noted, this division provides for the appropriation of funding for early learning and child care to provinces and territories for the fiscal year 2021-22. More specifically, the division includes three elements:
First, it provides statutory authority for payments to be made to provinces or territories in connection with the bilateral agreement for early learning and child care in this fiscal year.
Second, it provides that the minister may establish terms and conditions in respect of those payments under the bilateral agreements.
Third, it provides that the maximum total amount that may be paid to the provinces and territories is $2.95 billion.
Taken together, the purpose of the statutory appropriation for this fiscal year is to ensure that the federal government is able to transfer funding in respect of this fiscal year to provinces and territories as soon as the bilateral agreements are signed. Funding for future years will be provided through voted appropriations on an annual basis, as has been the case under the existing bilateral agreements that have been in place since 2017.
I will turn to some additional context. Budget 2021 proposed investments of up to $30 billion over five years and $8.3 billion ongoing for early learning and child care, including Indigenous early learning and child care. As part of this announcement, the government proposes to work with provinces and territories to make meaningful progress towards a system that works for families, so the budget proposes $27.2 billion in funding out of the $30 billion for provinces and territories. This funding would be sufficient to reduce the price of regulated child care by 50% by the end of 2022 in all provinces and territories and to $10 a day by 2025-26, as well as to increase the supply of high-quality, regulated child care spaces across the country and to support a growing and qualified early childhood educator workforce.
The budget also proposes funding through the Enabling Accessibility Fund to help make child care centres more accessible for children and parents and child care workers with disabilities.
The budget also proposes that a national advisory council be established to provide expert advice on early learning and child care-related issues and challenges, and the council will be supported by a federal secretariat at Employment and Social Development Canada, which was established through the Fall Economic Statement 2020, and the budget has proposed additional capacity funding through Budget 2021.
Senators, the COVID-19 pandemic has shone a light on the importance of early learning and child care for families and the economy. Parents, in particular mothers, rely on affordable, quality child care to help them enter, re-enter or remain in the workforce. In the context of recovery, this is also true for women who want to complete their education, up-skill or open a business.
Access to high-quality early learning and child care also contributes to children’s future academic success and their overall well-being.
Finally, the economic impact of child care is substantial. As outlined in the budget, studies show that for every dollar invested in early childhood education, the broader economy receives between $1.50 and $2.80 in return.
Currently, the government is focused on working with provinces and territories to reach agreements to expand regulated child care with the funding announced in Budget 2021. The budget builds on the collaborative approach the government has taken with provinces and territories since signing the multilateral framework on early learning and child care in 2017. That framework outlined key elements of the common approach to child care, such as core principles, prioritization of investments in regulated child care and an agreement to report publicly, working from a common set of indicators.
Three-year bilateral agreements were established with each province and territory starting in 2017. These agreements were extended for one year, last fiscal year in 2020-21, which together has represented an investment of $1.2 billion over the last four years. Within each agreement, provinces and territories commit to an action plan that outlines specific priority areas for investment and common indicators that are reported on annually as a condition of funding.
Similarly, the government collaborates with Indigenous peoples through the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care, or ELCC, framework that was co-developed with Indigenous partners in 2018 and with an additional investment over the next five years proposed in Budget 2021.
Finally, just beyond the funding proposed in the budget and the framework, there is a number of additional elements under way to support early learning and child care more broadly. I want to bring your attention to them. These elements were initially funded through Budget 2017. Funding for them was made permanent through the Fall Economic Statement.
First, to support innovation and evidence-based policy, the Early Learning and Child Care Innovation program is fostering cutting-edge practices to support the changing nature of early learning and child care. In addition, the department, ESDC, has a data-and-research mandate to fill data gaps, measure progress and inform decision-making in early learning and child care. Work is under way with Statistics Canada and researchers in the field to enhance the evidence base. In addition, a data-and-research strategy will be developed over the coming months to guide this work into the future, informed by advice from the expert panel on early learning and child care data and research, whose two-year mandate ends June 1.
In closing, the first year of funding that we’re here to discuss in Division 34 is instrumental in setting the path forward to establishing a Canada-wide system with the provinces and territories. I would be happy to respond to your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Yes, let’s move to questions. Senator Bovey is the deputy chair of this committee.
Senator Bovey: Thank you, Ms. Hall. I very much appreciate your remarks.
I would really like to know more about the government’s plans as to how you intend to and are working with the provinces in order to reduce the average fees for regulated early learning and child care outside Quebec by 50% by the end of 2022. I could be wrong, but in my reading of Division 34, the territories are not mentioned, but you mentioned them. I would like you to confirm that they indeed have the same access to their share of funding for early learning and child care.
Ms. Hall: Thank you for the question.
I will take the second part first. The funding does apply to territories. My understanding is that, in the jurisprudential language, the legal language, a reference to provinces also includes the territories. The intention is certainly that the funding will also be available to the territories.
In terms of how we will work with provinces and territories, first of all, we are entering into negotiations with the provinces and territories so there are some limitations on what I will be able to speak about today. However, I would note that we have very strong relationships with provinces and territories in this area. We have had bilateral agreements in place for three years, which were extended last fiscal year, and in fact the Fall Economic Statement made the Budget 2017 funding permanent. We are actually in the process of negotiating extensions to the old money at this point in time. The relationships are strong and collaborative, and there’s a strong foundation on which to build. As we move forward, we will be guided by the multilateral framework. We will be working from the foundation already laid within the framework and also the existing agreements.
Senator Bovey: So that framework and those foundations are consistent, or is it a different set of frameworks for each province? I guess I’m asking what is the national base.
Ms. Hall: Sure. There is one framework. It’s one that all provinces and territories, save Quebec, have signed. Quebec has indicated that, while it chooses to preserve its autonomy in this field on its territory, that it is in agreement with the principles of the framework broadly. We do have that national foundation that all provinces and territories have indicated that they support, which is a very important element for this file. It should be able to move the Budget 2021 agreements forward.
Senator Bovey: Thank you.
Senator R. Black: We know that rural, remote and northern communities face increased difficulty in accessing a multitude of government services, including child care. Will any of the funding outlined in Division 34 be earmarked to specifically support these rural, remote and northern communities?
Ms. Hall: Thank you for the question.
Within the existing agreements, there are already commitments and work under way to provide greater access to child care in rural and remote areas, including for Indigenous communities. The intention is certainly that rural and remote child care will be an important part of the Canada-wide system going forward.
There is a recognition of the difficulty that can arise in finding child care in rural and remote areas. They are known colloquially as “child care deserts.” Those deserts can also occur in urban areas, but certainly lack of availability of child care has been noted as an issue in rural and remote contexts.
Senator R. Black: Thank you very much for your answer.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, Ms. Hall, for being here today.
I want to start with a question about the overall $2.95 billion. How is it distributed across the provinces? Is it on a per capita basis? Is that how you’re going to distribute the dollars? Is it a per capita basis of the total population of a province or per capita with respect to the age of the children or the proportion of the population that are children of a certain age? That would be my first question. I have a couple of others.
Ms. Hall: Thank you.
In terms of the allocation methodology, further information on the methodology will be forthcoming in due course, but I’m not able to discuss that today.
Senator Dasko: We don’t know whether it’s per capita or anything about the distribution of the dollars? Okay.
I want to dig a little deeper into the question that Senator Bovey asked. I know you can’t reveal any details of your negotiations, but I am just thinking about my own province of Ontario. I want to get into the weeds a little bit. What are the factors that you will be looking at with the Province of Ontario? What are the discussion points? What are the factors that are in consideration when you’re dealing with Ontario?
Ms. Hall: Thank you for the question.
I would say these considerations apply broadly to all provinces and territories, recognizing the provincial-territorial jurisdiction for child care as well as the unique circumstances that each province and territory find themselves in.
Certainly, the budget was very clear with respect to the commitment on fee reduction and how important that is, so fee reduction will be an important part of the conversation.
Similarly, as with the agreements in 2017, space creation will also be an important element in terms of just ensuring broader accessibility to child care across the country.
The budget also laid out some other elements that will be important considerations as we move forward — the workforce, and ensuring that the workforce is a size that’s able to support the system, and well trained to support a quality system, as well as inclusion for people with disabilities and also for Black and racialized Canadians, official language minority communities, Indigenous Canadians and other ethnicity groups.
In addition, there are also requirements related to reporting and some wording in the budget related to ensuring a strong evidence base going forward.
For all provinces and territories, as we approach the negotiations, those will be some of the considerations we are focused on.
Of course, we will be working in partnership with provinces and territories, and so the priorities and unique circumstances that each province or territory has, their goals and the particular policy context that they work within will also be very important elements as we’re working with them to conclude agreements.
Senator Dasko: How are private providers of child care treated in the negotiations and in the distribution of funds to the provinces?
Ms. Hall: Thank you.
The budget has laid out that the priority will be on not-for-profit care but recognizes the role that for-profit care plays within the system and that for-profit providers will be included within the system.
More broadly, there is a question about private providers, whether they are regulated or licensed — some are and some are not. So the focus of the framework and the federal funding, in existing agreements and going forward, will be on regulated care, which will include some private providers but potentially not all.
Senator Dasko: That’s very helpful. Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much to our witnesses for being here today, for your presentation and your very hard work and dedication to this really important file. It’s good to see.
Many of us on this Zoom call have had children and grandchildren in daycare. We know that child care workers have traditionally been undervalued and underpaid. Are there any strategies being considered to ensure that this devaluing doesn’t continue, and specifically, will there be components in the bilateral agreements to ensure that child care workers are valued and properly remunerated for the essential work that they do?
Ms. Hall: Thank you for the question. Let me take that in two chunks.
In terms of what’s already in place, I’d like to go back to the Fall Economic Statement, which proposed or provided $420 million in this fiscal year in support of the early childhood education (ECE) workforce. That will be distributed to provinces and territories on a per capita basis and will be provided in order to support the ECE workforce. There will be good flexibility in terms of how they use that funding to support their child care workforce: things like education, bursaries or other methods that can support the workforce. That funding is in this fiscal year and is designed to begin to acknowledge the importance of the workforce.
In addition, the Fall Economic Statement outlined that there would be an ECE workforce strategy that would be developed by the federal government and provincial and territorial governments that would take a more strategic look at the issues facing the sector and would provide a strategy, a way forward, to begin to address some of these issues. Work on that strategy is beginning in the federal-provincial context and will be ongoing over the coming months to develop a strategy that really does point the way forward.
Looking forward, in terms of the Canada-wide system, the budget did acknowledge the importance of the child care workforce and the rates of pay that the child care workforce faces at this point in time. Recognition of the workforce and support for operating expenditures related to providing child care would be elements that we would be considering or discussing with the provinces and territories in terms of the use of the federal funding.
Senator Kutcher: I understand that to mean it’s on your radar but you have not landed yet.
Ms. Hall: Yes, I think that’s fair. It’s certainly on the radar, and there has been a substantial commitment of funding. In terms of the way forward, we’ll be working with provinces and territories to light the way, and then the Canada-wide system is, I think, grounded in recognition of the importance of ECEs.
Senator Kutcher: I’m looking forward to seeing that and having our country value these people who are looking after our kids in a much better way than they have been valued.
A slight shift in the next question: how will the impact of this policy direction on the health and the developing health and well-being of Canada’s children be evaluated? How will we know that it has worked or hasn’t worked and for whom?
Ms. Hall: Thank you for the question.
As we move forward with the Canada-wide system, reporting from information and data will be a very important element to ensure, with a federal investment of this size, that we know what the impact has been. In the short term, we will have reporting, some of which will be negotiated, so there will be limits to what I can say today, but the intention would be to capture the impact of the federal investment on the ground in concrete terms — for example, fee reductions, space creation, inclusion, similar to the indicators that are already in play today, the common indicators under the multilateral framework.
Now, in terms of drawing broader population-level impacts out of the federal funding, of course, those are long-term questions that require long-term data sources, often longitudinal data sources, to be able to trace the impact over time. One of the things that we’re doing with the data and research funding is working with Statistics Canada to determine what can be done to enhance that evidence base in order to provide researchers with the data that they need into the future to be able to make those kinds of assessments.
Senator Moodie: Thank you very much, Ms. Hall, for coming to speak to us today and enlightening us on this very important change in child care for Canada.
I have a couple of questions, but I’d really like to continue the discussion around data that you just left off. In terms of looking ahead and understanding, I understand and you were quite frank about gaps in data. You did mention gaps and the realization that there are gaps in your understanding of the data, but you also plan to work with StatCan, as you just indicated, moving forward. I wondered if you had any plan to look at specific data around the child care needs of Black, Indigenous and racialized communities. I’m really interested to know if you are planning to obtain disaggregated data that will shed some light on affordability and accessibility of child care for these groups in Canada just to give us an idea of the impact this initial investment will have on these groups. That’s my first question for you.
Ms. Hall: Thank you for the question.
Certainly, being able to track the impact of early learning and child care for groups that have been defined within the framework as vulnerable groups is something that is very important. There is currently some reporting that the provinces and territories provide in terms of how the funding has impacted low-income families or others.
Looking more broadly toward disaggregated data and Black and racialized communities, there is not an abundance of data so there are challenges in determining the data sets that are available and how that can be measured in an effective way. StatCan has done some work related to data linkages that I think will be bearing fruit in the future to allow more disaggregated data and intersectional analysis to allow us to further our understanding of the impact of early learning and child care and also the reach of the program as well in terms of how it is benefitting various communities across the country.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
I want to dig a bit deeper into the question you alluded to in your discussion with Senator Dasko about private versus not-for-profit providers that might be included in the spectrum of providers in this area. You have not spoken in much detail around this, but my sense is that standards and quality expectations are going to be a big part of this exercise and will be linked quite firmly to funding. Can you expand a little bit on that?
Ms. Hall: Thank you.
Quality is really at the core of the system that the government has indicated it is planning to move forward with in the budget. High quality is one of the key foundational elements of the new system, and it really will be central. Often, regulated care can be taken as a proxy for high-quality care. Regulation is not a panacea. It sets a minimum standard, but it does set a standard with regard to ratios, programming, physical space, et cetera. The framework does focus on regulated care and the federal funding has focused on regulated care in order to have that extra layer of assurance with regard to quality and safety of the children who are being cared for.
Quality is one of the things that will be up for discussion in negotiations with provinces and territories in terms of how we can work together to ensure that we have the highest-quality care possible, and that will be grounded in evidence. There is some good research that has been out recently on quality. In fact, there is a body of literature dating back a number of years, and there are some new reports that will be arriving from various quarters that should help to point the way forward in terms of what really makes the greatest difference in terms of providing quality early learning and child care.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My thanks to Ms. Hall. The Quebec child care system is considered a model, and the province is, in a way, a pioneer in this type of service. However, it still faces the challenge of the use of child care by wealthy families competing with the use of child care by low-income families. Do you see this as a problem? If so, could this problem be avoided in the system that you are putting in place in other provinces? Have you thought of any potential measures to prevent it?
[English]
Ms. Hall: Thank you for the question.
Certainly, the system in Quebec has been a model for the rest of Canada. It has been in place for a number of years, and it has a strong record of success. The Quebec system is not perfect, and there are lessons to be drawn from the experience in Quebec.
In moving forward with the Canada-wide system, it will be important to ensure that there is access to quality early learning and child care for low-income families, as well as for families from racialized communities, official language minority communities and others across the country. Ensuring equitable access to those spaces will be something that is important moving forward and will be discussed and negotiated with the provinces and territories as we seek to reach bilateral agreements with them.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Ms. Hall, for being with us today.
As you can imagine, we’re all pleased and excited about finally coming close to a national child care program in this country. I want to focus my question on the first year, the $2.95 billion that you will spend, because the first year may well set the pace and set the foundation for success. At the end of the first year, when you will have hopefully spent the $2.95 billion, what will success look like for you?
Ms. Hall: Thank you for the question. That’s a very interesting question.
The $2.95 billion is for the first year. The government has outlined in the budget a first marker for the system in terms of fee reduction of 50% for regulated child care spaces by the end of 2022. The first year’s funding cannot necessarily be taken in isolation but can be seen as a first step or part of achieving that first milestone in setting the system up for success in the long run. Elements such as support for the workforce, strong attention to inclusion and successful implementation of the enabling accessibility fund investments to help ensure physical accessibility of child care centres will also be important in terms of setting that foundation.
Senator Omidvar: If you are unable to spend $2.95 billion, are you able to carry it forward, or does it get lost in the grey fog of the Consolidated Revenue Fund?
Ms. Hall: There are two different potential scenarios there.
If we do not reach agreement with a province or territory, then the statutory appropriation for this year would expire. We would need to seek a re-profile through the usual process, the appropriations and supplementary estimates process, to bring that funding forward, and that, of course, would be under the purview of the Minister of Finance.
There is a second scenario. Where we do reach agreement and a province or territory is not able to expend the full amount of funding in this fiscal year, the bilateral agreements do include carry-forward clauses that do allow a certain proportion of the funding to be carried forward into the next fiscal year, with agreement of ESDC, carefully circumscribed, in order to provide that extra flexibility.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you. That’s good to know. It depends province to province, as always.
Ms. Hall: It will depend on the circumstances, yes.
Senator Omidvar: I want to transition to the workforce, the early childhood educators. I understand from your presentation that the system will transition these workers from non-regulated to regulated, and that will be a significant transition for many who work in the sector. Whether it’s informal or formal daycare in large urban settings, to a great extent these are going to be immigrant and minority women. Are there any considerations being given to grandfathering to the new system, or will there be a hard stop at a certain point whereby if you’re regulated, you’re in the system, and if you are not able to be regulated, for whatever reason, you’re out of the system?
Ms. Hall: Thank you for the question. Let me back up one step.
The current federal funding is directed toward regulated child care. What is intended for the Canada-wide system is a continuation of that approach where the federal funding will go to support regulated child care, and then provinces and territories can make decisions as to how they wish to fund — or whether they wish to fund — unregulated child care within their provincial or territorial system. At this point in time, the government has articulated a focus on regulated child care. That is one of the foundational elements of the new system.
Senator Omidvar: Are you providing any support to the provinces to ramp up the capacity of unregulated workers to become regulated workers?
Ms. Hall: In terms of the workforce funding, provinces and territories will have some choices in terms of how they choose to use that funding. In addition, there can be work under way, for example, with the federal funding that is provided or with provincial and territorial resources to consider how to bring child care operators who are currently unregulated into that regulated system.
Senator Omidvar: Okay. Thank you for your answers. I appreciate that very much.
Ms. Hall: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: My question goes back to what you were saying about the investment. For each dollar invested, there is $1.50 to $2.80 in return. Could you give us a little more on productivity?
Ms. Hall: Sure. Thank you for the question.
This is an area where there has been quite a bit of ink spilled. If you look at the economic evidence, a range of studies has been undertaken — including quite recently — that underlines the economic importance of child care and the impact it has. The impact is a longer-term impact. It helps women and families go to work. It has an impact on growth and GDP and a follow-on impact on government revenues and expenditures.
Taken as a whole, there is a range of estimates of the impact of child care, or the return on investment, as it can be known, ranging from $1.50 to $2.85. As well, there are other estimates that consider portions of that or have a broader focus.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
The productivity that is being raised with early childhood and child care hasn’t been talked about a lot. We haven’t heard a lot about that as opposed to just looking at the expense.
I have a couple of other questions for you. One is about the safeguards. You were speaking about factors you would be looking at that would apply to all, factors like recognizing each province, the fee reduction, an important part of the conversation, and the availability of enough workforce to provide quality investment. Could you talk about safeguards? How are you going to be monitoring the dollars that are being provided and the use of the money that is put forward?
Ms. Hall: Thank you for the question.
Monitoring and safeguards are an important part. These are substantial sums, and ensuring that the funds are spent according to plan is certainly an important element.
Currently, with the existing agreements, there are already strong accountability measures in place. First, each province or territory reports to the federal government each year on the results of the federal investments. Then we roll up those provincial reports and publish a national report. The 2017-18 report has been made public. There will be further reports coming out in time that provide an overview of how the funding has been used. That reporting in itself is important.
Then in addition, we do have provisions that require provinces and territories to provide audited financial statements to the federal government that demonstrate the uses to which the funding has been put. That provides just an extra layer of assurance that demonstrates exactly how the funding has been used. Moving forward, it’s anticipated that those same sorts of measures would be an important part of ensuring accountability for the funding that will be provided.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
The Chair: We have time for a quick second round. If we all stick to one question to the witnesses, and one answer, it will ensure that everybody gets a chance.
Senator Bovey: Ms. Hall, I very much appreciate what you said about the territories. I have a great interest in the North, the Inuit peoples, the Arctic and those very small communities that are so far apart from each other yet integrated. I wonder if you can talk a bit — I appreciate you can’t get into detail — about the availability of the workforce and how you hope to be able to ramp up to regulation the child care capabilities.
Ms. Hall: Thank you.
The challenges of providing child care in the North, with the dispersion and the distance, are certainly recognized. The territories have, as a whole, made good use of the funding that has been provided in terms of workforce training and innovative ways to provide the existing workforce with training. They have been able to pivot during COVID to ensure that they are still able to provide that training during the travel constraints and other issues that COVID has brought along. Going forward, certainly the workforce will be an important element for the territories.
I would say, too, one thing I haven’t spoken much about today is the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care initiative. There is substantial funding to First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities that flows through a separate pot of funding — a separate initiative to the PT funding — which is also supporting quality and Indigenous-led child care, including in Inuit contexts.
Senator Dasko: I have a question about the regulatory framework that is being used. Is it a framework with elements that the federal government stipulates? Or is it the regulatory framework that a province has such that the setting is considered regulated if it falls into the provincial definition of regulation? That’s kind of a general question. Just to dig a little deeper, does the regulatory framework include anything that involves minimum levels of training and/or staffing levels in child care settings? That’s a bit of a mixed question.
Ms. Hall: That’s great. Thank you.
The regulation for child care is a provincial and territorial responsibility under the constitution, and so it is provincial and territorial regulations that govern child care within each jurisdiction. There are many common elements across the country and some that are unique to each jurisdiction. Those regs have grown up over time as those systems have grown, based on the priorities of the residents of that jurisdiction.
In general, the regulations do provide for minimum required training, staffing ratios, potentially the square metres required per child at which age, how much time outdoors, the sort of behavioural modification techniques, if any, that may be used, food, at what hours and how much food has to be provided. They do really set out the context in which child care occurs. They are not a panacea. They do set a minimum standard, but it is a minimum standard that grounds the system in each province or territory.
Senator Kutcher: I think we all agree that robust longitudinal data is needed to understand the impact of these interventions. There is also no need to reinvent the wheel. Statistics Canada, prior to the pandemic, did a survey called the Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth. We got about 45,000 kids across the country from 0 to 18 years. That’s already been conducted. The methodology is quite robust and needs enhancements in some parts. It could also be improved by a specified sampling of children less than six years of age and then following them longitudinally as well. It would have the bonus of also getting the rest of Canada’s kids. Are you in discussions with Stats Canada about potentially linking with an improved and enhanced Canadian survey of children and youth to answer these questions?
Ms. Hall: Thank you for the question.
We are in very good contact with Statistics Canada on a number of fronts. We have funded new surveys, for example, the SELCCA, the Survey on Early Learning and Child Care Arrangements, which provides a new data source. We’re planning surveys of providers. They have done some work with the Business Register to help us better identify child care businesses. There is also a range of research studies that have been undertaken.
In terms of what may be possible with the NLSCY, the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, that work is ongoing. We are looking at a range of options to determine what could be done within the available funding envelope and the most effective way to move forward.
Stats Canada has also been doing some thinking about use of the NLSCY sample and what could be done to bring that data into current day and to determine if there is any useability of that sample using innovative methods. The jury is still out on that, but they are looking to see what future use that past survey can have.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: Ms. Hall, I want to ask a quick question about what you foresee. Budget 2021 commits $30 billion, I believe, over five years to build and scale up universal child care and early learning system. You talked a little bit about the first year and what you wanted to see, what you saw as the success factors — fee reductions, support for the workforce, accessibility fund becoming invested. How do you see the next year and the years after? How do you see the scaling up to $30 billion?
Ms. Hall: Thank you for the question.
In terms of how we go over those five years and where we end up, it is a very important question. We do have two key markers. We have the first fee reduction marker of 50% by the end of 2022, and then we have the $10-a-day marker by 2025-26. Those are the two key quantitative targets that were articulated in the budget. As we move through the five years of the initiative, achieving those two milestones will be a key element of success.
The Chair: Thank you. Does that answer your question, Senator Moodie, for now?
Senator Moodie: Yes.
Senator Omidvar: I would like to shift the discussion a little toward labour force participation of women. There is an assumption that, with more child care, more women will move into the workforce and, therefore, the gender participation gap will be addressed. That is a reasonable assumption to make, but do you actually have forecasts and projections of benchmarks and indicators to measure, as we go into the strategy? What are your forecasts for women entering the labour market as a result of daycare? At times, there may be men also who will be entering the labour force as well. I just want to get some idea from you how you see this trend going in the future with the availability of quality child care.
Ms. Hall: Thank you.
Certainly the availability of child care will make a difference for bringing women and others into the labour market. Certainly it’s mothers. It’s secondary earners who have, within the context of the couple, the lower income. Potentially, it’s also single parents. There is a whole range of parents who could be impacted.
They can be affected in a couple of different ways. One is, with lower child care costs, people may decide to join the workforce. For example, a family could be looking at child care fees of $1,500 a month for two toddlers. That’s a substantial expenditure that could deter that secondary earner from taking a job or going to work because the child care costs are so high.
In addition, it may also impact people who have reliable child care to let them work more. That may impact their work effort. They may be able to work an extra shift if they have child care for their child on the weekend, if they are a shift worker, et cetera.
The budget does include a forecast of the impact. I believe it’s around 240,000 individuals who will be drawn into the labour market. Then the budget works through the impact.
Quebec does provide some interesting lessons in this regard. As we look at the labour force participation impact, particularly for women, over the course of the implementation of the Quebec child care system, we do see very substantial impacts.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: My question is on salaries. In P.E.I., for example, salaries are very low for child care providers. They have a continual turnover of staff. In Quebec, I know that they are unionized. What kind of safeguards are you looking at to bring the salaries to a level that is sustainable for the system but also for keeping the workers in the workforce? Do you have anything on this in the agreements that you would have with the provinces?
Ms. Hall: Thank you for the question.
The attraction and retention of these early childhood educators, the ECE workforce, is a very important issue toward the Canada-wide system. The $420 million that was provided this year in support of the workforce is really intended to recognize those challenges and to help PTs make early efforts to attract and retain their workforce.
Moving forward, certainly, as the budget noted, wages in this field are not high. As we look toward the Canada-wide system, we’ll be working with provinces and territories in terms of the operating funding that is provided within their systems to reduce fees, improve quality and ensure that the workforce is recognized.
Senator Moncion: Having a unionized Canadian daycare system or daycare provider would be a way to safeguard good wages for all these workers, but thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Hall, for answering our many questions. It has been very helpful.
[Translation]
We are now ready to hear from our next witnesses, as we continue our study of Division 34.
Our witnesses are Morna Ballantyne, Executive Director of Child Care Now; Craig Alexander, President of the Alexander Economic Views blog, Chief Economist and Executive Advisor at Deloitte Canada; and as an individual, Ken Boessenkool, J.W. McConnell Professor of Practice, Max Bell School of Public Policy, at McGill University.
We will begin with Ms. Ballantyne, followed by Mr. Alexander and Mr. Boessenkool.
[English]
Morna Ballantyne, Executive Director, Child Care Now: Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable senators.
I am Morna Ballantyne, Executive Director of Child Care Now, Canada’s national child care advocacy association.
In her budget speech, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland described the government’s child care plan as the culmination of a half-century of struggle. Indeed, my organization was founded 40 years ago following a national policy conference that brought together 900 delegates, mostly women, to address the growing — [Technical difficulties].
The Chair: While we work to solve those sound issues, we will continue with the other presenters. We will hopefully get back to Ms. Ballantyne later.
Craig Alexander, Chief Economist and Executive Advisor, Alexander Economic Views and Deloitte Canada: Thank you very much for this opportunity to talk to you about a critical economic issue.
In point of fact, the pandemic created a health crisis and economic crisis but also revealed that Canada had some very deep structural weaknesses. We saw this in terms of the inadequate income support that EI was going to provide. It revealed the challenges facing how we care for seniors, but it also showed the criticality of child care as economic infrastructure.
I’m an applied economist and economic forecaster, spending years in financial institutions, including being the chief economist at TD Bank, and I’m currently the executive advisor at Deloitte. You might think it is odd to hear a macroeconomist talking about early child education, but over the last 10 years, I’ve done a number of studies making the economic case.
What do we need to think about if governments are going to subsidize child care? We could see during the pandemic that child care was absolutely critical to having parents being able to participate in the labour market. The natural reaction to that might be, “Well, we now know child care is important,” but what you need to ask yourself is, when children are in care, how are they spending their time? Because there is the opportunity to use that time to help develop their skill sets. In point of fact, the science of brain development tells us that children begin learning and developing at a very early age, long before they enter the primary education system, and that means early learning programs can help develop cognitive and social skills that actually put them on a better path for life. Thus, I think that any investment with public tax dollars should not just address child care but should meaningfully have early learning at its core.
Canada has historically under-invested in early learning. When we look at enrolment in early learning programs relative to other OECD countries, enrolment in Canada is low. So, too, is duration, and duration actually has the biggest impact on skills development. The more years you have of early learning, the stronger your skills development is. Also, more early learning in Canada is delivered by non-certified early childhood educators, so this also creates a quality issue.
I would argue from an economic point of view that there are benefits to parents, to children, to society, to the economy and to government from investments in this space. We know from the Quebec experience the impact it can have on labour participation. The work I’ve done suggests that it could add around 90,000 women to the labour market, but the estimates are upwards of 300,000. It also helps reduce barriers to female success in the labour force because women unfairly carry the burden of family responsibilities when it comes to child care. Now, correlation is not causation, but if we look at other countries with very high early childhood education enrolment rates, what we find is wage gaps in those countries are also much smaller. It also takes stress off of parents, making parents more productive.
Beyond the benefits to parents, there are benefits to children, and this basically goes into their essential skills training and their soft skills training. One of the things that often comes up is that some studies will show that on the cognitive skills side of things, children that don’t have early childhood education can catch up, but you have to ask yourself at what cost. If we look at, for example, B.C., it spends $1.6 billion a year in special education programs. I actually believe that if we do a better job in early learning programs, if more kids have high-quality early learning programs, we will actually address development issues earlier and that will actually reduce the cost to the primary education system and the secondary education system of some of the special education requirements.
The economic multiplier, the return on investment that you get, has been studied a lot. There are a lot of academic studies on this. The estimates range from around 1.5 for every dollar invested to upwards of $5. When I was at the Conference Board of Canada, we did a very long-term study looking at the aggregate benefits, not just the impact of labour participation, which is often where the lowest multipliers come in, but when you start factoring in the potential impact for children and the economy, you get significantly higher multipliers than those cited in the budget. From a budget point of view, I think it’s absolutely reasonable to use the most conservative estimate. All I’m saying is that there is an upside risk. If you have that additional economic multiplier, that will generate more income in the economy, which generates more taxes, so there is a fiscal impact. One of the studies that looked at the Quebec experience showed that in aggregate, over a period of 12 years, the Quebec system generated more revenues than it had cost.
There are also benefits to society. The children that benefit the most from this are children from disadvantaged backgrounds and low-income households. Now, that might make you think that the policy response should be to target this simply at low-income and disadvantaged households, but that would be a mistake. What we know from early childhood education centres and the outcomes that children have is that the children from classes with a broad scope or broad spectrum of participants of different socio-economic backgrounds have far better outcomes than those in programs that are narrowly focused on one segment.
In point of fact, from my point of view, I think this can be one element of a tool kit to help to address inequality. It can also address some of the poverty issues by raising labour participation. Just for example, in 2017, 43% of families with mothers outside the labour force had an annual income of below $36,000. In my mind, this is an investment that is good for the economy in the short run in terms of raising labour participation when we have an aging workforce. I think it will reduce barriers that women face in the labour market. I think it’s good for children. I think it’s good for the economy. I think it will create more resilient children and more resilient workers in the long run. I strongly advocate for a universal, high-quality early learning and child care system that is curriculum-based and delivered by certified educators.
What we need to ensure is that the funding is adequate and sustained. I think it should be funded like education, not through tax credits, because I ultimately think this is about education. We’ll need adequate numbers of certified ECE educators. This probably means we will have to pay more for those educators to address issues like the high turnover rate and the numbers of ECE educators that start their careers there but then leave because ultimately it isn’t a career path that provides them with an adequate income. We need to ensure that any public money invested here is achieving its goals, so it’s very important for the federal government to invest in data and tracking of performance and outcomes.
I think it’s also important to enhance awareness of the benefits of investments in this space, because ultimately, the people who are most opposed to investments generally think this is glorified babysitting and they don’t fully appreciate what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about is education. I once did a call-in show and had somebody call in when I was talking about one of our early education reports when I was at the TD Bank, and the person said, “I don’t want my tax dollars going to this. I went past one of these facilities and I looked in. Do you know what those kids were doing? They were playing. Why should my tax dollars go to pay for them to play?” I had to sit there and bite my tongue. You are going through all the answers to this. It’s sort of like: No, don’t say that, don’t say that, don’t say that. Finally, it’s like, “You do know that’s how they learn, right?” There are misperceptions around investment in early education. So I think we do need to make the investment but also promote the benefits. Ultimately, the investment has to cover the operating costs but also the infrastructure behind it.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, and I’m sure we will have many questions.
Ken Boessenkool, J. W. McConnell Professor of Practice, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, as an individual: Thank you, senators. I’m going to quickly go into my five minutes here.
A trifecta of policy tools — cash and tax support for parents, regulating child care spaces and funding child care spaces — describes Canada’s current system of child care. This system provides a great deal of policy flexibility.
Into this trifecta of policy tools, the federal government recently announced in its budget a huge injection of cash. The budget says that federal funding will flow as soon as “. . . bilateral agreements are reached . . .” to “. . . make meaningful progress towards a system that works for families.”
I think there are some good things about this plan. First, Ottawa is starting this process acknowledging that child care delivery is provincial. The federal government does not intend on imposing a single agreement on all provinces or even the nine provinces outside of Quebec. This is, in my view, a good thing.
The second good thing is that this is a plan to build on the existing infrastructure. This can be seen in the interim objective to reduce parental contributions by half and an eventual goal that continues parental contributions of $10 per day. While these are admittedly just federal aspirations, the fact remains that Ottawa clearly intends to maintain parental payment rather than blowing up the system to create a free, universal, one-size-fits-all pre-prekindergarten for kids as young as two, as some have been proposing. I think this continued parental involvement and non-one-size-fits-all are both good things.
There are also some bad things about this plan. First, Ottawa has done nothing to fix the biggest child-care program that the federal government actually runs. The federal child care expense deduction is a rich program, for rich people, designed for a misogynistic age. The child care expense deduction needs to become a refundable credit so that it is more generous to middle- and lower-income families and based on family income, not the lower-income spouse on which the current credit is based. Not fixing the child care expense deduction is a bad thing.
Another bad thing is that despite all the hype and excitement around the budget, the stark reality is that the budget plan on child care is little more than the opening bargaining position of the federal government. It is all aspiration, with the perspiration depending on negotiations with the provinces.
From a provincial perspective, we’re pretty much where we were prior to the budget in terms of the types and styles of provincial child care programs, only now there is a bunch of new federal money being offered to boost those programs. In my view, it’s not even clear from the budget documents if the federal plan requires the provinces to put up their own money, despite what is clearly a federal aspiration for the provinces to put up half. Yet, therein lies the opportunity.
Now that the federal government has played its hand, all attention should and will turn to the provinces. Collectively or individually, provinces now have an opportunity to build and play their hand to make the system better. Some provinces may wish to copy the Quebec model, with a cheap per-day program existing side by side with a generous refundable tax credit for those outside of this cheap per-day program. Other provinces could reform the provincial portion of the child care expense deduction, as Ontario has done, converting it into a refundable tax credit, as I just mentioned, and propose voucher programs to subsidize new child-care spaces, as I recently wrote for McGill University. And maybe one or two provinces could try to build this free, universal, one-size-fits-all pre-prekindergarten for kids as young as two, although there is nowhere near enough money to fund such a program, which I think would be a mistake in any event. Each province should get to work designing its own preferred system and deciding how much additional money it wishes to put up to pay for that system. Provinces should counter federal aspirations with their own aspirations, and then we can get into the perspiration and figure out what it will look like.
Now, this is neither tidy nor neat, but it’s Canadian, because we are a federation. By injecting dollars into provincial programs prior to reaching agreements with the provinces, Ottawa has, in my view, gotten things a little backwards. Still, there are good reasons to think both levels of government can muddle towards a better outcome if that’s really what they want to do, and if they did that, it would be a big win for Canadian families.
Thank you for inviting me.
The Chair: Thank you for this presentation.
Ms. Ballantyne: In her budget speech, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland described the government’s child care plan as the culmination of a half-century of struggle. Indeed, my organization was founded 40 years ago, following a national policy conference that brought together 900 delegates, mostly women, to address the growing child care crisis. This is 1982. The workforce participation of mothers with young children had been rising sharply since the 1960s, and without access to secure, safe child care, mothers were being forced to cobble together insecure and unsafe arrangements. Many were being forced into part-time jobs, and some had to give up paid work altogether. Long before the pandemic, we knew the central importance of child care to the well-being of children, to the economic security of families, particularly mothers, and to the strength and growth of the economy. For 40 years, we’ve said that the way to make high-quality early learning and child care affordable, accessible and inclusive is through publicly funding a universal publicly managed Canada-wide comprehensive system of early learning and child care.
The federal government says this time they’re going to do it. Budget 2021 brings total federal spending on ELCC over the next five years to $34 billion and a minimum of $9.2 billion annually thereafter. This is sufficient leverage to persuade every province and territory to partner with the federal government, but if the federal government doesn’t use its spending power to transform child care, it will be money and opportunity wasted. The federal budget promises to bring down parent fees significantly. It promises more not-for-profit child care, and it speaks to the need to raise the low compensation of early childhood educators. The federal objectives will have to be reached through negotiations with each province and territory.
We know from evidence within and outside Canada what is required to build a child care system. I’ll share four key elements.
One: Licensed child care operations must be fully publicly funded. Parents should contribute a small proportion of the cost through low, affordable fees. This would make access equitable and would end the dependence of providers on parent fees to keep their doors open. It’s this dependence that put the sector on the brink of collapse during the pandemic.
Two: Expanding the supply of services must be made a government responsibility. The market should no longer decide where, when or what kind of child care programs open or close.
Three: T workforce strategy to address recruitment, retention and program quality must be implemented. Competitive compensation must be a first priority.
Four: Expansion of the system must be limited to the public and not-for-profit sectors. This is the only way to achieve the budget’s objective of a quality, equitable system.
Cynics say the budget’s child care promise will never be realized. Naysayers say the federal government is overstepping in imposing a one-size-fits-all solution. We say it can be done and it can be done right if governments are guided by evidence. We say the federal government has a right and an obligation to build social infrastructure that will give parents real choice with respect to child care, provide a bridge for women to paid employment and put the country on a path to economic recovery.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to all three of you. We have many questions for you but not that much time. We really wanted to hear the three perspectives. We will try to be disciplined as we go through the questions. The first questions will go to our deputy chairs.
Senator Frum: My question is for Mr. Boessenkool. Hi, Ken.
An editorial in the Financial Post said about this plan that it downplays the serious complexity of working with the provinces on a cost-shared program, especially given the state of provincial finances, expectations of rising health care costs and Ottawa’s history of reducing the share of the cost it pays once programs are established. Simply put, it’s not clear how most provinces can afford a big, new cost-shared program with the federal government. Ken, I was intrigued in your comments. You said there is no requirement for the provinces to share half the cost, but that is the expectation for how this program will work. Could you please address that further?
Mr. Boessenkool: Thanks, Linda. It’s good to see you again.
I think what we have in the budget is an opening negotiating position, and it reflects the aspirations of the federal government. I don’t want to get into all the legal side of what the federal government can and cannot do with its spending power, but it might be worth the committee looking into that because there are restrictions as to what Ottawa can actually do when it comes to telling the provinces the form and nature of the programs that they design. I view this as the opening negotiating position of the federal government. As I read the documents and as I talked with people who didn’t agree with my perspective on what child care should be, they agreed that there is no requirement here for the provinces to put up half the money or double the money. There is just a bunch of federal money on the table, and there are a bunch of aspirations.
Since 2017, the federal government has had a bunch of child care agreements with the provinces —
Daniel Charbonneau, Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Boessenkool, can I ask you to slow down just a little bit, please?
Mr. Boessenkool: Sorry. I want to get it all in.
What the federal government has agreed to with the provinces, since 2017, is a set of principles, but they are not a set of delivery mechanisms. Those are up to the provinces. The federal government doesn’t run a single child care centre. The federal government doesn’t regulate a single child care centre. Those are all done by the provinces.
I think going forward — as I said in my opening remarks — the provinces need to come to the table. They need to say what it is they are willing to fund with the federal dollars. They need to indicate what additional dollars, if any, they wish to put on the table. As a result of that, we’re going to have 10 very different child care programs across the country that reflect the needs of the different provinces, and I think that’s great. That’s exactly what should happen. The federal government has basically said, “Here is some money,” and now it’s time for the provinces to say, “Here is how we are going to use that money.” If that’s 10 different programs across the country, that’s just fine. That’s the way federalism works.
Senator Frum: So you don’t have to be a cynic to say that the plan as currently described is not what is going to happen?
Mr. Boessenkool: I think the plan as currently described could be what happens in some provinces. However, about the idea that we’re going to have universal, free or even $10-per-child child care across the country for everybody: (a) it’s not going to happen because the amount of money on the table is a fraction of what that would cost; and (b) that’s not how federalism works. The provinces decide how to run and oversee the child care system. The provinces will decide what they are going to do.
My read of the budget is that this is a bunch of federal aspirations that provinces react to — as I said now a number of times — and they can react to it in different ways. I think the federal framework that they have put on the table is fairly loose and fairly open, enough for most provinces to fit, and we’re going to have some fun negotiations going forward.
Senator Frum: Thank you.
Senator Bovey: I would like to thank all our presenters. I have two quick questions, one for Mr. Alexander and one for Ms. Ballantyne.
Mr. Alexander, you mentioned that people leave the child care profession now because it’s not a career path. Do you not think that this plan can, in fact, make it a career path so we can have some sustained careers in early childhood education?
Ms. Ballantyne, I note on your website that you feel we’ll all turn to the consultative review that the Quebec child care system is doing now until mid-June. I wonder what you think of the Quebec model and what concerns you think are going to be raised in this consultative review. Thank you.
Mr. Alexander: With respect to the turnover of staff in early childhood education, my discussions with early childhood educators and ECE centres is that many of the graduates from ECE programs — like half of them — don’t actually go into being an educator in the field. There are a lot of trained ECE graduates that are not using the diplomas they have achieved. Then there are those that go into the field. There is an enormous turnover rate, particularly around the five-year mark. Graduates from ECE diploma programs enter the field, work for about five years, and then they tend to leave.
Senator Bovey: Can’t that change?
Mr. Alexander: One of my central questions has been about why that is. The answer is often that, given the pay scales that they have, after about five years, they say, “This is not enough,” and they start looking for other employment opportunities that are not in the field.
When I was doing the different modelling in terms of assessing the economic impact of investments in this space, one of the costs I had to build in was increasing the compensation. I basically narrowed the gap between primary school teachers and the existing early educators. I narrowed the gap by half. I didn’t close it, but I narrowed it by half in an effort to basically provide them with an income that would create more retention and/or attract more of the graduates from the colleges to actually pursue a career in that field.
Ms. Ballantyne: Thank you for the question.
I just can’t help myself. Craig Alexander’s reply is why we say compensation has to be the first priority.
With respect to Quebec, we were very pleased that in the Throne Speech, the economic statement and then in the budget, the government said it would look to Quebec for the lessons and not for importing and imposing the Quebec model.
What is not understood by many people outside of Quebec is that Quebec does not have a single system. You could actually say it has at least two. Part of what Quebec does is publicly finance early learning child care in two ways. It subsidizes services directly, both not-for-profit and for-profit services. It funds them directly — what we call operational funding — and then it funds services indirectly by providing parents a tax rebate.
The fees that everybody speaks to — the low fee of Quebec, which is now $8.35 a day and indexed to increase the first of each January — applies only to the child care that is provided and subsidized directly by the government.
What we know from studies is that the quality of the directly funded child care in Quebec is better. We know that there are significant wait-lists for that because there is huge demand for that child care — greater demand for that kind of child care than the privately unsubsidized unregulated child care.
The lesson we draw from that is why we say that an essential element of system-building is for public funds to go directly to the operation of services. Don’t put the money into the hands of parents because that just reinforces a market approach to child care. It needs to be publicly funded; the supply must be publicly funded.
I just want to correct one thing that Mr. Boessenkool said. The provincial governments don’t operate child care either. The child care in Canada — even in Quebec — for the most part is operated by not-for-profit organizations or individuals and some for-profit. This is not a publicly managed system and publicly funded system. And it doesn’t work. That’s what needs to change.
The Chair: Thank you for those comments.
Senator R. Black: Thanks to our witnesses. I did have questions for each of them. I’m going to limit it to one question, and if I get a chance later on, that’s fine. If I don’t, it’s okay.
Mr. Boessenkool, are there other policy measures that you think the Canadian government should or could implement that would better support families as they seek access to child care services?
Mr. Boessenkool: Thank you, and thank you to Ms. Ballantyne for correcting me. I meant to say that provinces currently oversee and regulate child care, not fund and run them. They do fund them.
I said in my opening remarks that the federal government currently has a child care expense deduction. That child care expense deduction was designed in a past age. It’s based on the lower-income spouse. It reflects, as I said in my opening remarks, a misogynist view of how child care should work — that the secondary income of a family is discretionary. I think we should change that. I think we should change the child care expense deduction into a refundable tax credit for child care. As Ms. Ballantyne just said, Quebec has this in place for the many families who don’t use the publicly funded $8.35-a-day child care, and Ontario recently put this in place for their child care system, so Ontario and Quebec have the most generous tax support for child care. That should be a priority for the federal government, because this is a program that the federal government actually runs. Why don’t they fix the program that they actually run before they try to meddle in what the provinces do? I will not quite ever understand that.
I also think that the provision of child care spaces is important. We can look at things like this: What would it look like if every time a child was born in Canada, they got a one-time voucher of $5,000 or $10,000 that could be brought to a child care centre? A lot of people, when they have a newborn, have a lot of stress and anxiety about finding a space. Why don’t we give them a voucher that they can bring to a local child care space that allows that child care space to create new spaces? That would make sure that funding flowed to the places we need it. We know where children are born. Sometimes sending money around by the federal government is done by equal per capita and we aren’t sure it’s going to the right place. It would directly benefit families, and it would put more money into the system to build more spaces.
Those are two things that I would put a high priority on, fixing the tax support the federal government currently runs and providing a voucher to new parents to help construct new spaces.
Senator R. Black: Thanks for your ideas.
Senator Moodie: Thank you to the speakers today for presenting to us. I greatly appreciate your viewpoints.
This first question is for Mr. Alexander, and. I hope Ms. Ballantyne will also comment. Child care is increasingly viewed as an economic policy that leads to greater prosperity. What do you believe will be the impact of universal child care, should we be able to implement that, on our GDP, on our productivity and for children in the long term?
The second part of the question is this: We heard from previous speakers that this system will have a blend of not-for-profit as well as private providers, against which funding will be overlaid and certain requirements of quality and productivity around early childhood education would be applied. As you discuss the long-term, downstream impacts for child care on the well-being of children — specifically on their health, their development, their educational potential and their long-term productivity — do you think we can achieve that downstream impact by the proposed approach that the government is pursuing?
Mr. Alexander: Thanks very much for the question.
With respect to productivity, this goes directly into the estimates that are made in terms of the economic return that you get from investment in this space.
The immediate investment is the increase in labour participation for women. If you have women with skills who are forced out of the labour force, that has a depressing impact on productivity. When women are out of the labour force for a period of time because of having children and then re-enter the labour market, it is often disruptive to their careers. It can actually set them back and create a permanent shift in their career path. From a potential point of view, it means you aren’t realizing the productivity of that individual.
When we look at children, we can see that high-quality early education programs can increase cognitive and social skills. If we think about those cognitive skills, we’re basically talking about literacy, numeracy and thinking skills. On the productivity front, there has been work done that shows for every 1% increase in literacy, you increase labour productivity by about 1.5%. There is actually a very strong productivity argument to this.
Moreover, if you give children a better start so they are more school ready, they will be able to build on those skills through the primary and secondary education systems. If you have a developmental issue for a child, it’s actually easier and cheaper to address it earlier in life than later in life. Giving children a better start actually puts them on a better path, which could then turn into future success. Individuals with higher literacy rates are more likely to finish high school. They are more likely to go on to post-secondary education. They are more likely to do continuing education.
If we think about the workforce of the future, we need a workforce that will have the strongest skills possible. Right? When we’re thinking about how to up-skill workers from the current recession, those workers who don’t have the foundational skills of literacy, numeracy and essential critical-thinking skills will have an enormously hard time up-skilling in response to a labour market shock like the one we just had. Similarly, children in the future need to be as resilient as possible. That means giving them the best foundation in terms of their essential skills.
Do I think we could achieve this? The answer is, yes, I do think we could achieve this. I completely agree with the earlier comments around the fact that we live in a federal state. It’s perfectly fine to have each province implement this program in the way they think best. But if the federal government provides good tracking, good data and good analytics around the outcomes for children, you will probably find that, over time, the models move towards those that are actually delivering the best outcomes. The federal government can play a very good role in terms of providing evidence on how early education and child care are doing. That will put pressure on provincial governments to move in a direction that improves quality.
Ms. Ballantyne: I would simply add to what Mr. Alexander said. There is an important element in terms of the benefits of early learning and child care. So much depends on the quality of the programs, and the quality of the programs depends so much on the education and training and ongoing professional development of the staff. Again, this is why compensation is critical — because it’s very hard to have high-quality staff if we’re not paying high-quality compensation.
The other thing I would say is, not even looking down the road, the evidence is absolutely clear that, for children, it’s about their well-being and it’s also about social inclusion. You get that through a universal program. You don’t get that through a program that some access and others don’t.
In terms of the economic impact, we commissioned a study that used data collected by others. I’ll just give you some figures. Of course, a lot of assumptions go into this, but we can look at other jurisdictions and other countries that have put in place a publicly funded universal system. In Norway, for example, the take-up rate of families saw 93 to 95% of children up to the age of 12 enrolled in child care programs. If you’re looking at that kind of coverage, we will need to create a large number of spaces, employ a large number of people and, in fact, strengthen a sector that is already pretty strong, the early learning and child care sector.
We estimate, in 10 years’ time, if done right, the sector would generate between $63 billion and $107 billion to contribute in additional dollars to our GDP. Women’s labour force participation would increase by 725,000. The sector itself would generate and employ an additional 200,000 people, again mostly women. The sector would create all kinds of jobs from the inputs that a sector like the early learning and child care sector would need to be able to function. That would be in addition to all the economic benefits down the road that Mr. Alexander spoke of in terms of child health and well-being.
Senator Moodie: Thank you both very much.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you to our three outstanding presenters. It is very interesting testimony. I have three short questions that I hope can be also answered briefly.
Mr. Boessenkool, my first question is to you. You have accurately described the perpetual state of fed-prov negotiations as aspiration and perspiration. I like that. No doubt we will get a variation of standards, quality, input and outcomes as a result of this. My question to you is about the national advisory council that has been announced as part of this initiative. Is this more aspiration, or how would you imagine putting some teeth into it?
Mr. Boessenkool: I can answer that succinctly. If I were to design it, I would do exactly what Craig Alexander just said, which is to make it a data collection and data dissemination body. We need to know what works and what doesn’t work. I would encourage you to look up a Kevin Milligan study that showed bad outcomes from the Quebec child care $10-a-day program. There are different kinds of data. I would ask that body to collect, disseminate and publish detailed data on what works, on child outcomes and all the rest. That’s what I would do with that body.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
Mr. Alexander, a question for you: Ms. Ballantyne spoke about the high uptake in Norway always cited as an example, the 93 to 95% uptake on the child care program. Can you project that with a similar uptake in Canada, if we ever get to that, that we will also experience a bump in our domestic birth rate?
Mr. Alexander: Countries are not the same. When I think about the potential bump to labour participation in Canada, I basically look at where labour participation is for men relative to labour participation for women. When I look at where that stands today, even if you get an increase in labour participation of women of only 1 to 2 percentage points — which would be significantly less than in Norway — you’re looking at adding about 90,000 more women to the labour market, so you are going to get a big bounce out of that. Pierre Fortin has done modelling that looks at the Quebec experience and simply says: What if we replicate the Quebec experience across the rest of Canada? The number he gets is closer to 300,000.
I would stress that even if I use the most conservative numbers, I actually get a very big increase in both labour participation and outcomes. Fundamentally, I think education is the great enabler. I also think that some of the barriers women face — not all, but some of the barriers women face — are related to the fact that they carry disproportionately the burden of care of children.
Senator Omidvar: Am I being naive in assuming that if we make it easier for people to have children and have them looked after, that Canadians will have more babies?
Mr. Alexander: I have no idea whether it would have an impact on the fertility rate. If it doesn’t, we’re going to have a good return on investment; if it does, we’re going to have an even better return on investment.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
Ms. Ballantyne, I get your passionate advocacy for higher wages and compensation for early childhood educators. Perhaps you could educate us briefly on the cost of getting an ECE degree. How long does it take and how much does it cost? I want to put that into context for all of us.
Ms. Ballantyne: First, the minimum qualifications vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We’re in a very unfortunate situation in Canada right now because of the difficulty around recruitment and retention. There are large numbers of staff working in child care who don’t meet the minimum qualifications. Exceptions continue to be made to regulations just to be able to keep the sector open. These are the desperate circumstances we’re in right now. The pandemic, of course, has made things even worse.
Most jurisdictions require two years of post-secondary schooling. We think it should require more.
The other thing is we shouldn’t just be looking at the educational requirements for early childhood educators but also the leaders of programs. Right now, there are no minimum qualifications or education programs to be a director or supervisor in a program. All that needs to be changed and, again, will require changes in compensation.
I should say, though, because Mr. Alexander made the point, that there is a lot of debate about whether or not money should go into training and professional development, and if that is the solution to bringing more into the field. The problem we have right now is retaining educators in the field. We are not going to be able to expand the system, whatever the system looks like, in any jurisdiction — and this is true for Quebec as well — unless we address the workforce. That’s why we think that, as part of the agreements, there must be provisions that require provinces and territories to develop a workforce strategy and that the federal funds could be used to support that strategy.
Mr. Alexander: To add on to that, it looks like a lot of the turnover is when early educators hit around the five-year mark. That is remarkable to me, because I know that with most occupations, the first couple of years you’re still an apprentice. You’re still learning your trade. It’s only when you get to years three, four and five that you’re actually a trained expert in your field. What is happening is that we are losing experienced educators and replacing them with recent graduates, and I think that has an impact on the quality of the programs. The retention issue is really important.
The Chair: Thank you for those answers and for that precision. It is very interesting and concerning, in fact.
Senator Kutcher: This is a jump ball. ECE-credentialed staff are known to be undervalued and under-compensated. What do you think the minimum income and working conditions should be? Do you think that bilateral agreements can achieve this equally nationally, avoiding the large differences in compensation across provinces that we see in some health care professions, such as medicine, for example?
The Chair: Do you have someone specific you want to answer that question, Senator Kutcher?
Senator Kutcher: No. “Jump ball” in basketball means anybody go for it.
The Chair: There you go. You lost me in translation. Who wants to go?
Ms. Ballantyne: I’ll jump for it. I’ll grab it. I’ll be brief.
I think it is impossible for the federal government — jurisdictionally and for a whole lot of other reasons — to set a minimum wage or a wage grid for early childhood educators across the country.
What the federal government can do is use its spending power, use this opportunity of negotiating agreements, to ensure that the issue of wages is addressed. What we need to see in each jurisdiction is a competitive salary grid that would set a base rate, and that would be determined from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Of course, early childhood educators should be involved.
The point was made earlier by the federal government officials when the question of unionization was raised. This sector is largely not unionized. Early childhood educators do not have collective bargaining power. They have to rely — at least at this stage, until there is a system in place — on governments intervening and deciding that, for the sake of building a system, for the sake of ensuring that child care is high quality, for the sake of making sure we can actually recruit the staff we need to expand the system, that they set minimum standards with respect to wages, and they have to be above the minimum wages that are set.
When the previous Ontario Liberal government moved to increase the minimum wage, a large percentage of early childhood educators would have been under $15 and special financial assistance would have had to be given to the sector to be able to bring the salaries up to $15 per hour. That’s how poorly paid ECEs are.
Mr. Alexander: I think Morna said it very well.
In addition to whatever the federal government negotiates with individual provinces, if we go back to the notion of the federal government collecting data and monitoring the impact that is taking place, what you’re probably going to find is that the quality of the programs is related to the compensation of the workers in the sector, and over time, that should improve. The system should evolve in a direction. Right now, one of the reasons early childhood educators are not paid more is because there isn’t a market appreciation of the value of the services they’re delivering. If you start to objectively measure outcomes and measure the outcomes that different programs have, then you’re going to start to actually have a market that becomes more transparent around the quality of the programs and the impact that those programs are having.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Boessenkool, did you want to add to that before we move to the last question?
Mr. Boessenkool: One sentence: We neither will nor should have a single universal national system for this.
The Chair: That is loud and clear, thank you.
Senator Dasko: I’m going to ask a question that I used to like to ask in my former profession, and I won’t get into what that was. In any case, each one of you has different goals for the system and outcomes that you think are important. Do you think that the federal government has put too much money into this, have they put too little money into it, or are they putting in about the right amount to achieve the goals that you think are important? Each one of you can answer as you see fit. Thank you.
Mr. Boessenkool: Once a pollster, always a pollster, Senator Dasko?
I will choose none of the above because we don’t know. Different provinces have different aspirations and different goals, so I think the answer is 10 different numbers in 10 different provinces.
Mr. Alexander: I did a piece of work for the Conference Board of Canada where part of what we were estimating was the investment required to get to enrolment rates and average duration rates of other OECD countries. The amount of money in the current federal budget is almost bang on what our estimate was for the costs. I think that the amount of funding is in line with what I would hope would lead us to an outcome that at least puts us on average with the OECD. The key will be how the money is used.
My last comment is that I do want a universal system. Unquestionably, I want a universal system. It’s just that, in Canada, we live with federalism. The federal government can’t impose it. I think of this like health care. Provinces run the individual health care systems. When we started to launch a national health care system, the federal government put up money and eventually it evolved into the health care system we have today. Will we get a universal system immediately? No. But this is the right step in that direction.
Ms. Ballantyne: I would say it’s the right amount of money, in part because what we asked for, almost to the dollar, is what was in the budget.
More importantly, it’s enough money to be able to get the provinces and territories to the table. There are a couple of really important things about the budget commitment. It’s long term — five years with a suggestion that is ongoing. Also, there is a hint in the budget that it will be adjusted depending on evaluation, so it could increase.
The other is that it’s really important that it’s federal money. It’s not a cost-share program as we know it, and it has been misstated as a cost-share program. The provinces do not have to spend a dollar to get a new federal dollar. That is critical because the provinces have less fiscal capacity than the federal government, especially at this time.
The other thing that is crucial is that more money would be a problem. What’s really important is that the amount of money each year increases. We have to build the system gradually. We have to give ourselves at least 10 years to achieve the goals that we want to achieve.
The Chair: Thank you. Thank you to my colleagues, and thank you so much to our three witnesses. You have been at the same time equally interesting, relevant and helpful. My apologies; we rushed you a little bit. If there is anything that comes to mind later, the feel free to send it our way. We are always interested to read what you have to say, even after the meeting.
Honourable senators, this is our last panel for today. In fact, this is how we conclude our review of Bill C-30. To conclude today, we will now hear from the Honourable Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. Minister, welcome back to the Social Affairs Committee. It’s always a pleasure to have you at our committee.
[Translation]
Minister Qualtrough is accompanied by officials from Employment and Social Development Canada: Graham Flack, Deputy Minister; Atiq Rahman, Assistant Deputy Minister, Learning Branch; Elisha Ram, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch; Karen Robertson, Chief Financial Officer; and Cliff C. Groen, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Benefits and Integrated Services Branch, Service Canada.
[English]
Minister, I would like to invite you to make your opening remarks.
Hon. Carla Qualtrough, P.C., M.P., Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. May I say that the team I have with me from ESDC is indeed some of the best thinkers and hardest-working public servants we have in Canada. I’m so blessed to have them.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that I’m joining you from the traditional territory of the Tsawassen and Musqueam First Nations.
Thank you sincerely for this invitation. I always look forward to appearing before Senate committees. As you all know, I have the utmost respect for the work you do.
Senators, Budget 2021 is about three things: finishing the fight against COVID-19; building a fairer, greener and more resilient economy for everyone; and creating jobs and growth.
[Translation]
Since the beginning of the pandemic, our government has put Canadians first, by providing them with the support they need to continue to make ends meet, while staying safe and healthy.
With many workers still unemployed or working fewer hours, we will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to help Canadians.
[English]
This is why, in Bill C-30, BIA1, we propose additional weeks of support through our recovery benefits as well as an extension of the temporary measures introduced in the EI system. Bill C-30 would increase the number of weeks available for the Canada Recovery Benefit to a maximum of 50 weeks and, for the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit, to a maximum of 42 weeks, for claims established between September 27, 2020, and September 25, 2021.
You may recall that the various Canada recovery benefits were created in parallel to new EI flexibilities we introduced last fall. One step further back, last spring, because we saw the shortcomings of EI as a response to the pandemic, our government made the strategic decision to go outside of the EI framework to provide immediate support to COVID-affected Canadian workers.
When we transitioned workers back to EI last September, we introduced flexibilities into the system to allow more people to access benefits. We implemented a single national minimum unemployment rate and hours credit for regular and special benefits, a minimum weekly benefit rate of $500 and simplification measures to allow faster payment of benefits.
Budget 2021 proposes a continuation until September 2022 of many of the flexibilities we introduced into the EI system. These include a national entrance requirement of 420 hours for both regular and special benefits, as well as a minimum entitlement of 14 weeks of benefits. It also includes a reduced earnings-based threshold for fishers and for self-employed workers who have opted in to access special benefits coverage. Additionally, there are modifications with respect to the treatment of reasons for job separation and monies paid on separation. Finally, the existing seasonal pilot is extended until October 2022. The one permanent change to EI is the extension of the duration of EI sickness benefits to 26 weeks.
[Translation]
In terms of next steps for EI, we are committed to modernizing the program to better reflect the way Canadians work and to improve access to benefits.
A strong EI system will support a healthy labour market.
[English]
Before moving briefly to the other divisions of Part 4 in the BIA1, I would like to recognize that some senators have specific concerns with respect to the boundary lines of EI regions. I would be happy to answer your questions and hear your thoughts and suggestions on this issue.
Briefly, for the purpose of completion, I note the following is proposed in Part 4 of Bill C-30 as well: reforms to the Social Security Tribunal that would make appeals more client-centric, simpler and faster; a one-time payment of $130 million to the Government of Quebec to offset costs related to aligning the Quebec Parental Insurance Plan with our COVID EI temporary measures; and waiving interest on Canada Student Loans and Canada Apprentice Loans from April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2023.
Senators, with all this being said, I remain as committed as ever to ensuring Canadians get the support they need to finish the fight against COVID-19 and to best position our country to come out of this pandemic stronger than ever. I’m confident that we can get there together and deliver for Canadians.
[Translation]
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, minister. We do have questions. We will begin with one of the deputy chairs of this committee.
Senator Bovey: Thank you, minister, for being with us today. I just want to say how much I appreciate the work you have done throughout the pandemic, which has been a difficult time for everyone. The resilience of Canadians has shone, I must say, despite the difficulties many are facing.
Today, it’s Division 34 of Bill C-30 that is on my mind. We read in Budget 2021 that:
Access to affordable early learning and childcare will increase women’s labour market participation and shrink the gender participation gap as more mothers enter the workforce.
With that, I have a two-part question. First, I would be interested in knowing what your government’s forecasts are for the increase in labour market participation by parents, especially women, that could result from the proposed investments in early learning and child care.
Second, we have heard that many child-care workers leave the field in five years because of the lack of pay and the fact that it’s not a career path. Can you illuminate us as to whether you feel early childhood education and early childhood care is and can indeed be a career path? Thank you.
Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you for those really very important questions on child care.
To answer your second question first, I absolutely think it is and I think it must be. One of the things we’re working hard in my portfolio in ESDC is around sectoral training initiatives. We are targeting and working with Minister Hussen and his team to create a more professional development model that is streamlined across the country, both to recognize certification and to acknowledge the importance of the work that these workers, usually women, as you pointed out, do.
We need to take a hard look at our systems. As much as we can invest in inclusive, accessible child-care spaces, we need well-paid, well-trained individuals to teach our kids. My focus on the ELCC file is primarily on the training of workers in this field, because the more spaces we create, the more properly trained and well-paid — to your point — ELCC workers we need. But I’m also very interested in the inclusion aspect of this particular file, particularly as I talk to parents of kids with disabilities and parents with disabilities themselves in making sure this system is truly inclusive.
In terms of the increase in labour market participation of women that this will promote or will result in, I apologize; I don’t have that number at my fingertips. I don’t know if Graham or one of the team does. I know and I’ve read a lot of the studies that have proven as a matter of course that the more women who have access to high-quality, affordable child care, the more women we will have in the labour market and the more productive our economy will be.
Graham, do you have that? I apologize. I don’t have the ELCC labour participation numbers.
Graham Flack, Deputy Minister, Employment and Social Development Canada: Our modelling, looking at the Quebec experience, would indicate that we could expect a labour force participation increase by women of between 7.5 and 8.5 points higher labour force participation.
The other thing to model, though, which is trickier, not just from nonparticipation to participation, is higher levels of participation, that is, women who would be working part time who, with the right child care arrangements, would be able to move to a full-time arrangement.
The modelling is based on the real-world experience of Quebec. Quebec, as you will know, went from the lowest participation by women in the labour force when they introduced the $10 model to the highest labour force participation by women in the country.
Thank you.
Senator Bovey: Thank you.
Minister, I appreciate this. Let’s talk about training for a minute. Training, education, universities and colleges are primarily provincial responsibilities. However, the federal government does put a great deal of money into research. It puts a great deal of money into capital projects for universities. It puts money into student scholarships and bursaries. What can the federal government do to increase the numbers of people who want to undertake early childhood education training and perhaps move it from being primarily in the college system into more research-based and the higher levels of university studies? Would that help develop a career path?
Ms. Qualtrough: Absolutely, senator. Thank you for the question.
One of the things, as you have said, historically, because training falls primarily within provincial jurisdiction, the investments made by the federal government are primarily through transfers to the provinces, which have established training networks and systems and know what is happening in their regions. In this budget, we diversified our training strategy somewhat to recognize that there could be relationships between the federal government and specific sectors, such as ELCC, which is also mentioned in the budget as one of our target sectors, but also working with sectors so we then create a model of training that works for the sectors for the jobs that are going to be created, the jobs that are there, up-skilling people and creating this lifelong learning culture around training. We also introduce what we’re calling community-based training models, whereby you go into a community and you identify the needs in terms of jobs and workers and opportunities, and you work with the community on the training that would suit their community best to fill those jobs and access those opportunities.
We’re diversifying in terms of the training. We’re getting into the business of doing, primarily because of the success we’ve had working directly with industry associations through the Red Seal Program, but really taking the opportunity to hear from a sector about what they need, the kind of skill set their workers would benefit from and working directly with them. That will create a national network, but also a national standard around the professionalization of early learning and child care.
Senator Bovey: Thank you very much, minister.
Senator R. Black: Thank you, minister for joining us this evening.
We’re talking about Division 34 of Part 4 today, but you did put the offer out there earlier in your opening remarks to talk about EI boundaries. I know our colleague, Senator Griffin from Prince Edward Island, has a significant concern about the two boundaries that are included in P.E.I. and the inequality that they create in a very small piece of land mass and the inequity that comes with it. Is there any hope of seeing changes there at some point in the future to create a more equal opportunity for folks getting Employment Insurance?
Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you.
Of course, you’ll always hear me say there’s hope. We always strive to do better. There is activity going on right now that may ultimately result in a different outcome in terms of the EI zones. That’s, of course, the review that is currently under way by the EI commission. Every five years, they review the boundaries of EI to see if they are still proper and still match the labour market realities of the region. That’s happening right now. It took a little longer because of COVID, but once their recommendations are received by ESDC officials and me, and ultimately go to cabinet, we’ll be in a much better position to determine any potential boundary changes. That could happen through this process, and I’m committed to letting that process play out.
However, the uniform national entrance requirements of the 420 hours, coupled with the minimum duration of benefits of 14 weeks, in the meantime, will help address this issue, at least in part, because you won’t now have a situation where two people in P.E.I., who have the same accumulated number of work hours, one having access to EI and the other one not having access. They both have the 420 and the 14-week minimum. That’s an immediate partial solution based on the flexibility we’re introducing in the budget.
The other thing I’ll note is if you look to Schedule 4 of Bill C-30, you’ll see listed all the EI regions now included in the seasonal pilot project, and both regions from P.E.I. are included. Seasonal workers in both regions of P.E.I. will have access to the additional five weeks that the seasonal pilot provides, so again, slightly helpful, but not, as I hear you, a complete fix.
I guess the bigger, longer term and, for me, the most important fundamental opportunity here is as we move into our consultations to modernize the EI system, really digging in on the boundary and zone issue, seeing if it’s the way to go in the future and what, if any, changes we could and should be making to the system.
Senator R. Black: Thank you very much. I will make sure that our colleague reads the blues, so to speak.
My question now is to you or your colleagues. What kinds of data will be used to inform the development of the Canada-wide early learning and child care system? Will this data be revisited to review the system in any kind of timed increments to ensure the program remains up to date and financially viable?
Ms. Qualtrough: I’ll pass that to my officials. Just as a recollection, ELCC is not my file within ESDC, so they have better information than I do.
Senator R. Black: That’s fine. Thank you.
Mr. Flack: One of the elements and pillars of the strategy the government has announced is a data element to enrich the data we have in the area. We are setting up a secretariat at ESDC and strengthening the data to be able to measure success from a wide range of angles, including the ones you raised. There is interesting academic work that has been done in this area in Canada looking at PISA scores, longitudinal studies around impacts on kids in different forms of daycare and different qualities of daycare and what those outcomes are. We’re hoping to be able to enrich that data set on a more permanent basis.
Senator R. Black: Thank you very much.
Senator Moodie: Minister Qualtrough, it’s always wonderful to see you here at committee. Thank you for bringing your team along.
Minister, I was just reviewing your supplementary mandate letter a few days ago, in which I noted you had been tasked by the Prime Minister to support the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development on a process for evaluating GBA+, with a goal of enhancing the framing and parameters of this analytic tool and with particular attention to the intersectional analysis of race, indigeneity, disability and sexual identity, among other characteristics.
During our committee study, minister, we have repeatedly asked officials from your department to provide us with disaggregated data that speak to the impacts of various measures within the budget and to share with us the relevant GBA+ analysis and, unfortunately, often we have never received the needed data or requested data.
Minister, the question I have is centred around Canadians. How can Canadians trust that this government’s policies are driven by the best available data? Disaggregated data is necessary to ensure we have a detailed picture of the needs of diverse populations, yet we have heard from multiple officials that this government does not have the disaggregated data available to justify the implementation of many of the measures in this bill. How can we be sure, without data, that this budget will not reinforce the systemic barriers faced by many Canadians?
Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you, senator. That’s a really important question.
I spend a lot of my time, particularly around disability, but trying to understand intersectionality between disability and gender and being a racialized or Indigenous Canadian. I will openly admit that there is a lot of work to be done by the Government of Canada in terms of getting disaggregated data that we can use and piece out in different ways in order to ensure that we’re maximizing the reach of our programs.
One of the things that the ministers you mentioned and I have been working on is going beyond GBA+ and away from a model of layering different lenses, if you will, and what a true intersectional, inclusion-type lens on decision-making would look like. This is a big ship to steer. We have been proudly moving towards making sure we put on a disability lens, a gender lens and an Indigenous lens, but the next step is putting all that together in a coherent intersectional way to ensure that we understand the impact of any particular program on an Indigenous woman who can’t see very well and lives in rural Canada. It’s harder than you would think, but we’re working on it.
I know that Graham can provide more specifics. He and his team of DMs are working hard on the disaggregated data piece.
Mr. Flack: Yes. There has historically been resistance to disaggregated data. For example, when I was at Public Safety Canada, there was opposition to the notion that we would provide crime data based on, for example, racial characteristics. I would say there has been a sea change in the last few years in the openness and, indeed, absolute necessity of getting disaggregated data.
The best recent example we have that we can give you is we worked with Statistics Canada to change the most important labour measure we have, which is the Labour Force Survey. In that data and the questioning Statistics Canada does for the LFS, they do identify characteristics that have allowed us to disaggregate the data for racialized Canadian and give a really good picture of what was happening during COVID. That’s indeed how we were able to get that picture. Statistics Canada is the key aggregator and collector of the data. Anil Arora, the deputy there, has shown an openness to moving in this direction.
Particularly in our department, we have such intersection. Minister Qualtrough is responsible for disability and inclusion, many of our programs have a huge gender lens, and there is huge Indigenous programming we do through the department. We see a need to get that data, and we are moving down that path.
Senator Moodie: Thank you very much.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, minister, and your team for being with us today.
I am also going to take the liberty of focusing on EI. In 2011, I co-chaired, with Roy Romanow, the Mowatt Institute’s review of the EI system. What we determined then, roughly 11 years ago, I believe sadly still holds true. It is not a system; it is a patchwork. It has carve outs. It has boutique regulations governing certain regions versus others. It is, as we called it then, a postal code lottery.
I understand that the EI Commission is reviewing the system, but what I would like to know is, what are the principles that are being used to review the system? Are they the principles of equity, fairness, access, timeliness? We heard from witnesses that this review will take two years, and they said two years is too long because people are wanting it now. Low-income workers, gig workers, cannot afford to wait for two years. What is your response to them?
Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you for the question and for your passion on this file.
I think a lot about EI. I really believe that COVID shone a light on the system that many have known, as you have for a while, has been broken and exclusive and needs to be fixed. It needs to be fixed immediately while we balance the request for stakeholders to take action and with the request for stakeholders to be included and consulted on what we should do.
A lot of studies have been done on EI. I completely agree with you about the patchwork nature of this system. The system has been built upon by successive governments with different pet projects and different focuses. Some have injected more social policy-type parameters to what was, at its core, a basic insurance scheme. It’s really complicated and cumbersome and doesn’t reflect the way Canadians work today.
With that in mind, the principles that I think should underpin a functioning, high-performing EI system in Canada would include access, so making sure there is equity of access to benefits; adequacy of benefits that people can live in dignity with these benefits; equity across regions; equity amongst workers; limits of disincentives to return to work; and finally, overall, it has to promote a healthy labour market. When I talk about EI and I challenge people to think big and ask what they would do differently, those are the six principles that I keep very close to my thinking on this matter.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you. That was a very fulsome answer. I really appreciate that.
What about timeliness? Should we be satisfied with a review that ends in two years and takes another two years to implement the recommendations? People are wanting it now.
Ms. Qualtrough: I agree with you 100%. I’m smiling because I am not known for my patience within the department. I’m somebody who wants change and I want it now. I want to blow up systems and make them better. Rest assured that this is something I’m constantly challenging officials to do. Again, there is a bunch of considerations at play.
Absolutely, the changes we put in place temporarily last year and for the next year lay the foundation for where I anticipate the system is going. All of the elements that you see temporarily are in play in terms of a permanent way forward with this particular program.
When we look at how quickly we can do this, it’s not just a matter of determining our desired policy outcomes. We have to, as I said, balance the need for consultation and stakeholder input. We have to look at the cost. Although these big changes seem really important, they will impact premiums, so we have to decide if we do one big item that costs a lot, how will that impact the ability for us to do other things within the system?
There is time associated with making the systemic changes that we want. The order, the sequencing, of the changes will be really important. If we decide to do A, B and C, that means we can’t do D yet. Maybe we want to do D first, but then we can’t do A first. There is a real operational reality check I have to give myself regularly because I want to do everything all at once.
Then, of course, there is just the practical. Can we do whatever change through legislation? Through regulation? It’s not just the utopian EI system. It’s the practical. How do we do this as quickly as possible? In what order should we sequence the changes? Where do we have to dig in on consultations or where is there a general consensus? We have to check in with a few stakeholders.
All that is in play. That is how we are trying to mitigate the frustration that I think you’re alluding to, or maybe outright saying and that I share.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, minister.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you to all of the witnesses. Minister, it’s lovely to see you again, albeit virtually.
My question is about the early childhood side of things. It’s necessary to have robust longitudinal data to understand the impact of these policy developments in the ongoing healthy development of children, both in the short term and the long term. Currently, there exists no ongoing longitudinal study in Canada that provides us with that information. Would you consider reinvigorating the Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth, perhaps by enhancing the sample of children less than six years of age, so that we can both understand how children are impacted by these policy changes in child care and early learning and how this impact can be then followed into pre-puberty and post-puberty years?
Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you, senator.
I would personally be in favour of any tool we could use to get the exact type of data you’re referring to — this longer-term longitudinal impact study — to really get a broader and more in-depth understanding of outcomes.
Graham, can you talk a little about how we’re pairing our ELCC system with more robust data collection and if the Canadian Community Health Survey is in play?
Mr. Flack: The secretariat being set up is designed to work not only at the federal level but with provincial governments as well. Often, they have better access to this data, and they are often the ones administering it. Those are the sorts of things we want to take to that table to determine from expert advice what the best things are to do and to have at that table not only the federal level but the provincial jurisdictions and territorial jurisdictions, so they can follow through on that as necessary.
So yes, we are willing to look at all of those pieces. Gathering data is one of the components of the early learning and child care strategy. I don’t think decisions have been taken yet, because the secretariat is only on the cusp of being set up and we want to consult with provinces on this, which have been operating this at scale.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that.
I will put in a plug for having a solid look at that. This has been the only huge-sample-size ongoing longitudinal multi-wave, and it’s so essential. We have learned from multiple studies of early child development that we need to follow these kids into adulthood to be able to see the strength of some of these early interventions. I would appreciate that you have a look at that.
Secondly, minister, I was pleased to hear about your focus on enhanced training for ECE providers. It is important and exceedingly necessary. We heard earlier today, however, that workforce retention is a substantive concern and that it is due in large part to undervaluing and under-compensating ECE staff. How will this issue be addressed by the federal government going forward on a national scale?
Ms. Qualtrough: That’s an important question. It’s so pivotal as we move into the caring economy piece of the work we’re trying to achieve.
It’s about really valuing the work. What I expect and what I hope is that as we professionalize credentials, as we streamline and make the system the same across the country in terms of access to training and as we lower the cost of actual day-care spaces, from that will come the recognition that is long overdue for the value of this work, and therefore, people will be paid more.
I know that sounds fluid, and that isn’t a systemic or structural necessity of what the base pay should be. I know Minister Hussen has been thinking a lot about that. Maybe Graham could again share some of that thinking, but from my perspective, on the training piece of this, it’s really important that we offer training incentives, lifelong learning and up-scaling all the time, because you’re right. We see a lot of people enter this field, get some experience and then take an opportunity elsewhere because that opportunity pays more or is steadier in terms of the type of work. We really need people to stay in these systems.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for that. We’ll loop back to find out what you did.
We’ve heard a lot about the economic benefits of these early childhood education return-to-work force benefits, but we have not heard anything about the social benefits. There is some data I’m aware of — it’s not an area I’m an expert in — about improved parent-child relationships and improved parenting skills — these soft social improvements. Is there work your department has done to show how this kind of intervention actually may improve those aspects of Canadian society?
Ms. Qualtrough: I will flip this one to Graham because he’ll be able to answer it quickly.
Mr. Flack: We can get you what we have in the area, but that part is less well studied than the areas of impact on children in terms of longitudinal studies or impact on labour force participation. There is less data in that space. But yes, there is some, but it’s largely been done at the academic level. We have not had a history of deliberate investments in this data space. That’s something we hope to change with the creation of the secretariat.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. If you can send us what you are referring to, that would be appreciated as well.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Let me preface my question with the very embarrassing statement that I’m sporting a broken nose due to a minor accident that occurred this weekend, so I apologize for my appearance. My joke, of course, is that you should see the other guy.
Minister Qualtrough, I want to thank you sincerely for appearing before us, bringing your team along and for answering our questions, as you always do, in such a forthright and fulsome manner. I truly appreciate that.
I do have a couple of questions for you, and I’ll start with the simplest one. The pandemic has brought to light so many inequalities. One of those is in the various markets. The pre-pandemic economic situation is one that will be very different if you look at the pre-pandemic versus the post-pandemic. We only have to compare the restaurant industry to the renovation industry. Anybody buying any lumber lately would agree. We can observe the very opposite effect of the pandemic on the entertainment industry versus the outdoor recreation industry, so to speak. My question for you is this: Has and will the government take into account these economic inequalities or uneven impacts of the pandemic when it’s developing its measures to help the affected workers? If so — and I’m assuming so — how is that being accomplished?
Ms. Qualtrough: Senator, for what’s it’s worth, you’re talking to the legally blind cabinet minister, so I can’t see your face.
“Absolutely” is the quick answer. We could have an hour-long conversation about how the pandemic has accelerated some of the trends that were already starting and how it has completely pivoted massive industries and sectors. We’re trying to respond to that in a number of different ways, first of all, through job creation — trying to create jobs and help subsidize employment in particular areas — but also through training. That might be training in foundational skills, so whatever job you end up in, you have these transferable skills that will go throughout your life and career with you, but also in our sector-specific initiatives where we invest in programs and solutions that allow workers to quickly pivot to a different industry. We recently did a pilot project with a program out of Toronto where they offered 40 servers who had worked in the restaurant industry for years an opportunity to retrain into telemarketing and telesales because of the same kinds of skills and enjoyment they got with interacting people. Over a quick amount of time — two to four weeks — 97% of them got jobs coming out of it. It’s about being very intentional in the space and unapologetically targeting the jobs we know are out there or the skill sets we know to be necessary in training people for those jobs. It’s not just training to train, if you will.
There’s so much more I could say, but I don’t want to take up all your time.
Senator Forest-Niesing: It is wonderful that you are taking such a targeted approach. Thank you so much for that.
As I was reading the various measures proposed in this bill to help those who are otherwise not entitled to Employment Insurance, caregivers and other groups, it appeared to me in many contexts that the process for accessing these supports is becoming increasingly complex. This is despite the very promising simplicity of the emergency measures that were made available to Canadians in the very early stages of the pandemic. This increasing complexity is leading me to ask you, minister, whether any serious consideration is being given to a minimum guaranteed income. As I was listening to your earlier response, you were outlining the six main criteria that you take into account when you consider Employment Insurance goals or objectives. It seems to me that they’re very much in common with the objectives of a minimum guaranteed income. Is the government looking at that option? If not, what would be holding it back at this point, despite the fact that so many have asked for it, including the Senate National Finance Committee?
Ms. Qualtrough: Again, that is another topic we could have an entire meeting about, senator.
I can tell you that, absolutely, as we move out of the emergency phase and into recovery, you will see more front-end integrity measures built into these programs. Of course, it was at first a pure attestation base. “Do you have a social insurance number? Can you tell me that you lost your job because of COVID?” We needed to get money out through CERB. As we move forward, we still have to do all the back-end integrity with those files. We are trying to find the balance where we assume more risk because we don’t want to take that long for delivery, but there will be more rigour at the front end of the process to avoid fraud.
On the bigger question of universal basic income, or UBI, we talk a lot about targeting versus a universal-type benefit system where people have a minimum level of income no matter where you are, where you live, who you are and if you can work or can’t work. We always come back to giving more to the people who need it the most. Right now, we have the Canada Child Benefit which gets to poverty, to some extent. It’s lifted hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty for the 0-18 crowd. We have the 65-plus crowd. But we don’t have working-age Canadians necessarily covered at the federal level in terms of being able to live with dignity.
My focus is on the creation of a new Canada disability benefit for people living with disabilities in that age category. Right now, while I think the general goal is to provide people with this minimum living income, we are choosing to target it at specific populations in order to give them more.
I would tell you and Minister Hussen would tell you that there are pilot projects. They are thinking about it in his shop. Again, I don’t have a lot of time, and I apologize, but I’m happy to follow up and get you that information. I just don’t have it at my fingertips.
Senator Forest-Niesing: It sounds like I have to buy you a cup of coffee at some point.
Ms. Qualtrough: Agreed.
Senator Forest-Niesing: I’d love that. Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, minister, for being here, back at the Senate. It’s great to see you again and to hear from you.
I hope you don’t mind if I stay with some of the questioning we have been asking earlier today on the child care initiatives. In the work that the government has done, the Quebec model has been touted as a kind of ideal. You’ve put forward funding for five years. Do you think, in the end, the systems across the country will look like the Quebec system? Is that what you’re striving for? Is that the goal of the child care initiative, given that the Quebec model is touted so strongly by the government? I want to get a sense of the vision of the child care system that you see coming out at the end of five years.
Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you, senator. I hope I do this justice.
Having sat on the ministerial working group for the development of this particular program, I think the system we’re striving for is one that has learned lessons from the Quebec model but has, at its core, the principle of low cost, or it should be affordable so more people can access it, and it should be high quality. These were the principles driving the Quebec model, but it wasn’t perfect. It was a bumpy road. Our job is to learn from that experience and not repeat the same missteps, if you will. Certainly, at its core, the principles are the same.
Maybe Graham can add something more in depth, but that is how I see it.
Mr. Flack: We already have framework agreements in place with all the provinces and territories. Those framework agreements leave flexibility. For example, all jurisdictions have agreed that this funding will go to regulated spaces, but there is flexibility within the regulated space. Some provinces have a higher percentage of not-for-profit; others have a higher percentage of for-profit.
The delivery mechanisms are different. As you know, some provinces have chosen to move their formal education system down to a lower level, so universal access for all children at age four. Some are even looking at age three. Others are putting more of a focus on before-and-after care and what not.
Those framework agreements are designed to allow flexibility for provinces with common principles around a regulated system, more accessible in terms of price. The government has announced its intention that it hopes provinces would be able to, with the federal resources, reduce costs by an average of 50% by the end of 2022, for example. They hope to increase the number of spaces over time to the point that it would meet demand.
I would not say it is a cookie-cutter model, but it is one in which there are core principles to which all the provinces and territories have currently signed on.
Senator Dasko: Can you confirm for me that the federal government is intending to cover the costs for kindergarten across the country? That is something I have heard. Can you confirm that’s one of the things you’re intending to do?
Mr. Flack: That would be subject to negotiations with the provinces in terms of what is included in the system. That is a form of early childhood education. To the extent that incremental spaces were added that way, that is something that could be contemplated, but we have not formally opened those negotiations for the next round with the provinces. That is something that provinces have raised as an issue. For example, some jurisdictions have indicated they have a desire to move kindergarten down to a lower level and make it more universally accessible. That something that we could consider being a funding partner for. Those are issues that are on the table.
Senator Dasko: That is true then. I heard that, so I wanted to confirm that with you, that it is being seriously considered. Imagine the federal government funding kindergarten across the country. That’s quite something, isn’t it. That would be quite an incredible development when you think about it.
The Chair: Senator Mégie, I read that your question has been answered. This is great.
Minister, I do have one question before we move on to the second round. My question has to do with Division 32, the one on the increase of the OAS pension by 10% and the one-time payment of $500. The reason I’m asking this question is that we had a few witnesses on this committee who were worried that maybe this will be creating two categories of seniors. What happens with the ones from 65 to 74? In fact, I got a letter from a Canadian in my office saying this exact thing. What do you tell them?
Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you for the question, Madam Chair.
This was something our government ran on in the 2019 election, and it’s premised on the understanding that we all, God willing, will age. By the time you hit 75, a couple of things are happening. You have started to deplete savings. Your incremental costs of care are going up, and you have a 40% likelihood of having some form of disability. All that together results in greater financial need at 75 than at 65.
This is not writ large, absolutely. We are always talking about how we can do better, but the decision to make a 10% increase across the board for OAS was in recognition of the more precarious life circumstances that are known to happen at 75, as I described, which doesn’t mean to say that we are not open to conversation of doing more for seniors, but the first step, and a pretty big step, was a 10% increase of OAS across the board for everyone 75 and older.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
We do have time for a second round. Minister Qualtrough, I know you said you can stay with us.
Ms. Qualtrough: I apologize. I’m not known for being quick in my answers.
The Chair: We very much appreciate the time you’re giving us.
Senator R. Black: Minister, I’ve heard a number of times this idea of a secretariat, and it first came up when I asked a question about data. Do you have an estimate of the annual costs of setting up this secretariat, and annual costs?
Ms. Qualtrough: Graham does.
Mr. Flack: I’m frantically looking for it. I will get it and put it in the chat function.
Senator R. Black: Thank you, minister, for being with us.
Senator Bovey: Thank you again, minister, and I thank your staff for being here too.
We talked a lot about provinces. Many of you know I am hooked on the Arctic. I think we all agree that the situation in Canada’s North is quite different, with the communities so far apart from each other and the integrated impacts of one issue on another. I’m back on Division 34. How are we going to train and sustain early childhood educators in the North so we can begin to make what I would hope would be a solid difference in the education and training of our northern and particularly Indigenous northern citizens?
Ms. Qualtrough: That is a really important question.
We recognize in the ELCC model that there needs to be discussions with Indigenous communities and how the learning and training will have to be respectfully modelled after what those communities identify as their priorities.
I think, Graham, you’re better positioned than I am to give more detail than that.
Mr. Flack: I guess the framework program we have in the department is the ISET program, the Indigenous Skills and Employment Training Program. That really is a model for how we transfer the resources to the relevant entity, and they really take control of what the local needs are and how they best meet those needs. There’s reporting back where we can measure the results of this, but it does allow tailoring at that local level to those local needs. There is sharing between communities of best practices. We’ve found that’s been a critical element. We have taken the same approach on the Indigenous early learning and child care component in all of its elements where we, through a distinctions-based approach, allow development to take place at that community level without us having the same kind of strictures we would normally have in a program.
Senator Bovey: It would allow for traditional knowledge and Indigenous languages.
Mr. Flack: Indeed. In the ISET program and in the early learning and child care space, Indigenous languages — which was my responsibility in my last department at Canadian Heritage — are a very critical component. Many of those leaders in the early learning and child care space would say one of the most important components they would identify in terms of restoring cultures is Indigenous languages. As you know, many of the Indigenous languages we have in the country are near extinction. When we meet with those leaders, youth is very much seen as the hope for this, so that’s determined at a community level.
Senator Bovey: Thank you, and thank you, minister.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, minister and staff for still being with us.
I want to pivot to Division 23, which is all about the minimum wage of $15 an hour. At the committee last week, we heard from stakeholders, obviously from business and from labour. As you can imagine, minister, on one side, the new federal minimum wage is the entrance to the pearly gates and, on the other side, it’s a quick descent into a nightmare, and never the twain shall meet. But it is important to find the truth, and we recognize the truth must lie somewhere in the middle. I wonder whether you would support the creation of a low-wage commission to do exactly that, uncover the truth in a non-partisan, non-stakeholder kind of manner. Jurisdictions such as Germany, Japan and the U.K. have all benefitted from studying the impact of the minimum wage and leaching out the biases around it. I just think it’s about time we had such a commission. What do you think, minister?
Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you for the question.
It is a concept that I know a little bit about. It certainly doesn’t fall within my portfolio. It would be the Minister of Labour. But again, you’ll never hear me shy away from creating an opportunity to learn more, especially if it’s to the benefit of both provincial and federal jurisdictions in the space of employment. So much of our business and so many of our workers are actually within provincial jurisdictions, so if there would be an opportunity to learn and share those learnings with the broader workforce, I think that would be a fantastic idea.
Senator Omidvar: It would be the role of the federal government, though, to set it up.
Ms. Qualtrough: Absolutely. I’m saying we could share the learning with areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Senator Omidvar: Absolutely. Thank you, minister.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Flack, for this answer in the chat room to Senator Black’s question. To put it on the record, the answer is that the ELCC secretariat is $12 million a year. Am I correct?
Mr. Flack: The funding profile bounces around, $7.8 million — I’ll get the full profile, because it does move around, and we’ll provide that to the committee tomorrow.
The Chair: That would be much appreciated.
I believe we have no further questions. I do want to thank you, Minister Qualtrough and your team for being here, for your time and for the thoroughness of your answers. It is very much appreciated as we are concluding the 11 divisions that this committee had to study on Bill C-30. Thank you very much.
I do want to say thank you to my colleagues. I want to say a special thank you to our team behind the team. I see our clerk on site in Ottawa, under the measures required at this time, making sure that we can meet virtually. It is so much appreciated. Thank you for making this happen for us and for Canadians.
(The committee adjourned.)