THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 25, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4:15 p.m. [ET] to examine Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, our witnesses and those watching our meeting today, it is with profound regret that I convey to you the news that the Honourable Senator Ian Shugart passed away earlier today. There will be an opportunity, colleagues, to pay tribute at a later time, but at this time I extend on our behalf, our deepest sympathies to his wife Linda, his son James, his daughters Robin and Heather and their entire family. I would ask that you now rise, if you are able, and join me in a moment of silent tribute.
(Those present then stood in silent tribute.)
Thank you. My name is Ratna Omidvar, senator from Ontario, and I am the chair of this committee. I would like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, witnesses and members of the public watching our proceedings.
A special welcome to Senator White, who is attending our committee for the first time. Before we begin, I would like to do a round table and have senators introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair of our committee, Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: I’m Jane Cordy and I’m the senator from Nova Scotia. Welcome to our committee.
Senator Osler: I’m Gigi Osler, senator from Manitoba.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: René Cormier, senator from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, senator from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Good afternoon, Chantal Petitclerc, senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator White: Judy White, senator of Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie, senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: Today, we continue our consideration of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. Joining us today for our first panel we welcome, in person, Julie Bisnath, Executive Director, Child Care Providers Resource Network; Peter Jon Mitchell, Program Director, Cardus; and by video conference, Krystal Churcher, Chair, Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs.
I remind witnesses that you will each have five minutes allocated for your opening statements followed by questions from our members.
Julie Bisnath, Executive Director, Child Care Providers Resource Network: Hello and thank you, Madam Chair, and committee members for this opportunity. The Child Care Providers Resource Network, or CCPRN, is committed to the well-being and safety of all children. We are a non-profit charitable organization with a mission to provide information, training, resources and support to those providing child care in a home setting. For us, child care is the care of a child, be it provided by parents, grandparents, friends or relatives, in-home nannies, centre-based educators, or home child-care providers, whether licensed or unlicensed, both of which are legal.
CCPRN was pleased to see the government introduce a national child-care strategy, but we feel that a Canada-wide early learning and child-care plan is not nearly as inclusive as it could be, and like those who share our perspective, we advocate for equitable access, quality child care and parental choice. To meet the current and expanding demand, Canadian families need all forms of child care to be accessible and affordable; limiting parental choice to one type of care conflicts with the notion of a universal plan and hinders access.
Statistics Canada data shows that Canadian families rely on varied forms of child care to meet their needs. To improve access, the plan must acknowledge home child care, both licensed and unlicensed, as a valuable component of the child‑care system. Not only does it impact expansion as they are faster and less costly to open, but home child care also meets the unique needs of Canadian families by allowing them to choose a caregiver with similar values, a shared language or a shared culture.
In partnership with their caregiver, a strong bond is established, resulting in a trusting relationship focused on the needs of the child. We know that family engagement is essential to each child’s development. We also know that learning happens in the context of relationships.
Home child care offers families flexible hours beyond the traditional 9-to-5 model, as well as a continuity of care with one primary caregiver, a feature not available in larger centres. These low-ratio, authentic and nurturing environments are found in communities, both urban and rural, across Canada.
Championing home child care is a central part of the Canada‑wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement, or CWELCC, would increase access to a diverse array of child-care options. It would also support women entrepreneurs, including newcomers to Canada. Home child care honours the experiences and unique qualities of these caregivers, many of whom are early childhood educators, who provide essential services in their communities enriching the lives of young children.
With less than 25% of children accessing licensed child care, CWELCC excludes more than 75% of Ontario’s children and families. Those choosing unlicensed child care or an in-home nanny, those choosing informal care arrangements with a friend or relative and those choosing to stay at home with their own young children. CCPRN believes that parents are competent and capable of making the child-care choices best suited to meet their child’s and their family’s needs.
There are many opportunities for the government to work with all sectors of child care, but by focusing on one preferred form of care, CWELCC promotes inequitable access and allows for the erosion of parental choice. Parents continue to choose diverse forms of child care, including home child care, licensed and unlicensed, and choosing to stay at home during the early years. They need to know that their children and their choices are valued by the government. Policies, support and funding for child care needs to be inclusive and respectful of all choices.
Even within the licensed system in Ontario, home child-care providers are unable to obtain their own licence. An option for direct licensing would have an immediate impact on available spaces allowing for greater access for families. An equity-based lens must also be applied, recognizing that Canadian families have varying access to resources and privileges. Choice in child care, along with income-based testing, would pave the way for more inclusive and equitable access.
CWELCC funding agreements need to be flexible and inclusive, allowing the provinces to transfer funds directly to parents is the most effective and efficient way to achieve these goals. Reducing administrative overhead leaves more money for reduced child-care fees for all families, regardless of their choice in child care.
In closing, I would like to share the following quote from a parent who has chosen home child care. This is from Dr. Lisa Walker, a clinical neuropsychologist:
Quality in home daycare is knowing that your child is in a setting where they have a caregiver who truly cares, who treats the child as they would their own, and who is invested in fostering the healthy development of the child. It is clear to parents when they have a caregiver who enjoys and takes pride in what they do. That passion is then reflected in how they interact with the child, the activities they plan, and the environment that they foster. Quality means parents have the peace of mind of knowing that their child is not only safe but valued. When I found Brenda, I knew that I had found a person with integrity who would provide my child with the kind of quality care I was seeking.
Thank you for your time today.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bisnath.
Peter Jon Mitchell, Program Director, Cardus: Thank you for the invitation to appear today, and thank you for the work that this committee is doing in support of Canadian families. My condolences on the passing of the Honourable Senator Shugart.
Cardus is a non-partisan think tank dedicated to clarifying and strengthening, through research and dialogue, the ways in which people, institutions and governments work together for the common good. I direct our family program at Cardus, which explores how to strengthen family stability.
At Cardus, we recognize that families use diverse forms of care to meet the needs and desires they have. Care is often costly, whether provided in a licensed facility, by a provider in the child’s home, or by a parent who forfeits income to care for their child. Child care is the care of the child, no matter who does it.
We propose policies that support parent-led decision making across a diverse spectrum of care options. Bill C-35 directs funds toward limited forms of child care, resulting in many families receiving no benefit from the program. Some estimates suggest that there are only enough licensed centre-based care for less than 30% of children, and data suggests that families with lower socioeconomic status are less likely to access this type of care. The very people who might need it most, research shows, have less access. A more equitable approach would be to support parents directly, and this could be achieved by providing the provinces and territories with greater discretion in how they direct funding in order to effectively support all families.
Although the current federal child-care strategy is flawed, in my opinion, given the trajectory of the bill through the legislative process, I’d like to offer three recommendations.
The first is to recognize that at the heart of child care are children, and the best way that policy-makers can support child development is to support families who are the primary caregivers. Bill C-35 should clearly recognize the primary role of families in child development. Subclause 5(e) of the bill echoes article 18 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to ensure that children of working parents have the right to benefit from child-care services.
The same article of the convention also states that parents and legal guardians have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child, and the best interests of the child will be their basic concern. Bill C-35 should explicitly recognize this principle that parents and guardians have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and the development of the child and are best positioned to make decisions for their children.
Second, paragraph 7(1)(a) should be amended to reflect the contribution of private providers, many of whom are small businesses run by female entrepreneurs. Provinces such as Alberta and New Brunswick bear an extra burden while attempting to create new spaces. The majority of spaces in those are operated by private providers, but their agreements restrict the number of spaces these providers can provide. The restrictions against private providers leave provinces like Alberta and New Brunswick at a disadvantage.
Third, improve the reporting process for better policy-making and accountability. Although we are now in the third fiscal year of a five-year Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreements, there has been no publicly released federal progress report to my knowledge. Little publicly available data from the provinces and territories reveal that the early phases of the implementation, have proven to be slow and complex. Cardus just released our first three provincial funding updates on the implementation of the first year of the federal program, and the reports widely show slow implementation at best.
British Columbia spent just 11% of its year one allocation in its first year, missing many of its inclusion targets. The province reports that it is unlikely to meet future inclusion targets due to challenges within the sector. Saskatchewan exceeded its first‑year space creation funding allocation, but met just 37% of its targeted new spaces. Last week, the province reported that it created approximately 5,700 spaces within the first two years of its program. It will need to create an additional 22,000 spaces in the next three years to meet its five-year commitment.
While clause 16 of the bill regarding the minister’s report has been greatly improved since first reading in the House of Commons, it lacks the specificity needed to ensure accountability. Clause 16 should be amended to include detailed expenditures and specific results for each province. The minister should make public audited financial statements and report on the progress toward specific targets identified within the provincial and territorial action plans.
As the agreements expire in the next few years, the provinces and territories will return to the negotiating table with the federal government. It’s important that Canadians have an accurate picture of the implementation of the program to determine the success of the program.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mitchell.
Krystal Churcher, Chair, Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs: Thank you. My name is Krystal Churcher, and I proudly serve as the Chair, Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs, an organization that represents operators that run for-profit, not-for-profit and licensed day home operations.
I feel privileged as a mother, child-care operator and Canadian to have this opportunity to provide input on Bill C-35. Our association does not support Bill C-35. We simply cannot support legislation that excludes for-profit child-care operators, who in Alberta represent a majority of industry participants. These for-profit operators are majority women and immigrants that have taken risks and sacrificed a lot to create regulated licensed child-care centres.
As currently written, this legislation discriminates against these Canadians by deliberately excluding them. Having stated my objections to the bill, in principle, our association agrees with others that offer testimonials that federal funding should remain predictable, sustainable and sufficient, and reflect the true cost of child-care provision, including inflationary increases in the formula. We also agree that CWELCC funding should only be available to licensed regulated programs.
We support the recommendations that a study be launched with the review of progress since the provincial signings. We would like to see the unintended challenges of this program highlighted through an evidence-based review.
We also recognize that the child-care workforce is in crisis and must be addressed with federal-level support to professionalize the Early Childhood Educator, or ECE, sector. In order to meet the accessibility intentions we need the staff in place, so we feel the bill would be improved if it included an investment for a national workforce strategy commitment.
I would also like to comment about choice in child care. I am honestly curious how many of the members of this committee have ever entrusted their children to a private child-care centre or a private school. When making that choice, did you solely base it on the business model of the child-care centre, or were you looking at other factors, like location, schedule, staff training or program quality?
Our association wholeheartedly believes that parents have the primary responsibility for the care decisions of their children, eliminating for-profit operators discriminates against care providers based on their business model, which harms the choice of families and hampers promises of quality, flexibility and accessibility. Our association recommends ensuring the language in section 7 includes all forms of licensed child care, including for-profit, not-for-profit, public and day home providers.
I believe it is all about striking a balance. While we appreciate the federal efforts to provide funding to make child care more affordable for parents, when Alberta’s child-care sector is dependent upon 70% for-profit operators, it’s vital that our province continue to carve its own path and that we acknowledge that child care is, constitutionally, a provincial jurisdiction.
While I recognize this bill will likely be passed without amendments, we believe that there will always be a demand for private options, and sweeping, idealized generalizations will simply not be successful in Alberta any time soon. We only have to look to Quebec today to see that the demand will always remain for for-profit operators.
Ensuring quality is critical to the future of our child-care system. Child care is a stringently regulated industry where quality is protected by licensing regulations required of all programs regardless of the business model. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure these regulations are met. In the testimonials from the last two sessions, many have said that the core of quality is the workforce. Research experts have reflected that areas of quality currently at risk are linked to workplace conditions, insufficient training, insufficient wages and lack altogether the professionalization of our ECE sector.
I, therefore, find myself quite confused, also trying to follow the common commentary that implies that my centre must obviously be of low quality purely because it runs as a for-profit centre. My staff are the highest paid in our area with access to group benefits plans, organized by our association, and with investments back into my program so that the daily staffing is significantly above mandated ratios.
The bar for quality is simply not set by a category of business model. Effective regulations are crucial for maintaining high‑quality child-care services in any setting. If there is evidence of a lack of quality, how are we not addressing a lapse in regulations that would account for it?
Whether you support the mixed-market child-care approach or not, we need to recognize that it exists across our country. I have heard the rhetoric around protecting child care from big box for‑profit centres, but it’s not the only face in private child care. You have female entrepreneurs, like myself, who are educators, and often mothers, who have met a need in their community. By excluding for-profit child care, we run the risk of bankrupting and eliminating small programs like mine.
I recognize that this committee is really the last opportunity to recommend that all forms of licensed child care be represented equally, and I hope that consideration will be given to the significant investment that operators like myself have made in the sector, and that parental choice will be preserved as we move forward with this program. Thank you for your time and your consideration.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Churcher, for your presentation, and to our other two guests as well.
We will go to questions from my colleagues, but let me ask a brief question of Mr. Mitchell. Based on what we’ve heard from Ms. Churcher, she has clearly stated that wages are higher and benefits are better in her centre.
Do you have information about wages in the for-profit sector for child-care workers as opposed to not-for-profit and public daycares?
Mr. Mitchell: I’m not sure that I have any direct comparisons between the two. Previous research has been done on that. There were issues that perhaps for-profits were of lower quality than not-for-profits, but it’s difficult to read through that research to understand how much of a difference that would be. Certainly, those studies are looking primarily at labour force, and of those issues, quality is quite a large area of study. It’s much larger than just workforce issues. But across the provinces, I’m not sure in terms of scale.
The Chair: Thank you. Perhaps we will look for that information elsewhere. We will go to our first question from the vice chair of the committee, Senator Cordy. You will have four minutes, as will everyone else.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. Equal, right?
Ms. Bisnath, you said that the child-care choices should be inclusive, that there should be an option for direct licences, and you said parents should have home child care and children in their home. I wasn’t quite sure how you defined that or what, in fact, that it meant.
Ms. Bisnath: I’m sorry, what home child care is in particular?
Senator Cordy: When you said the parents should be able to use home child care or child care in their own home under this plan that the government is bringing forward. I wasn’t quite sure what you meant by that.
Ms. Bisnath: Sure. Child care in their own home would be families who have a nanny who either live with them or comes in Monday to Friday to care for the children in the children’s own home. Home child care would be an independent woman who operates a home daycare where the children go to her home and are cared for there during set hours.
Under the model, you can have licensed home child care, which is licensed through an agency in Ontario, or licence not required, which is independent and not affiliated with an agency.
The provinces are all a little bit different. In Ontario, there’s no option for direct licensing. If a home child-care provider wants to be affiliated with a licensed agency, they have to be under the umbrella of that agency. There’s no option for direct licensing.
Senator Cordy: That’s what I thought it meant. When you look at a nanny for a family, would you expect the full cost of the nanny to be covered under this child-care program?
Ms. Bisnath: We advocated that the most equitable way would be for funds to go to parents to decide how they would want to spend that child-care money. So, yes, it could go toward a nanny or toward a home child care, or a centre, or maybe having grandma or grandpa do that care, or for parents who stay home, it would be to replace funds that are lost.
Senator Cordy: It wouldn’t necessarily be the whole cost. It would be just what they would receive in circumstances if their child were put in a child-care centre.
Ms. Bisnath: Yes, to go toward child care.
Senator Cordy: Yes, toward it. Thank you.
Mr. Mitchell, you spoke about the challenges in creating new spaces and you gave statistics. We’ve heard them from other provinces as well, so Saskatchewan was not alone.
What are the impediments? I know that we’ve heard them. People have verbalized different impediments, but I wonder if you could give us a concise list of some of the impediments to creating new spaces, other than staffing and burnout of staff. You made reference to salaries of home-care staffers, that kind of thing. What else would you say in addition to that?
Mr. Mitchell: Certainly the ECE, early childhood educator, labour shortage. There are labour shortages in many sectors, not just there, of course, but that’s certainly one challenge.
It’s just proving difficult to create these spaces quickly. It’s much easier to lower the cost. The provinces did lower costs, some of them even ahead of schedule, but space creation takes time and it’s quite challenging to do that, particularly in this economy. Costs of providing care have gone up.
Actioning the money out the door has been a big problem as well. Particularly in the first year of the agreements, just getting the money through different funding mechanisms has been difficult. It’s quite an administrative burden for providers to apply for these grants and for them to administer these grants as well. In certain provinces, we’ve seen that even just the administrative process of trying to deal with the sudden rush of cash and trying to get it out the door is quite challenging.
Senator Osler: Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. My first question is for Ms. Churcher. Your association submitted a brief to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, or HUMA, in the other place, In the brief, you put forth that there are too many hindrances to for‑profit operators under the Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care program, or ELCC, and that the federal government should change the plan to give more money directly to parents and allow them to choose a child-care operator, as well as to lift limits on the number of for-profit spaces that can be created. Could you elaborate on those recommendations and on how they could work to the advantage of everyone, in particular, children from systematically marginalized groups, including children with disabilities or children from language minority communities?
Ms. Churcher: Thank you for your question. We have always advocated for the funding to go to the family and to the parents to make a choice for what represents their family values and the needs of their children. I believe that having access to funds similar to what has already been shared with the committee today would allow parents in all provinces to take those funds and decide what type of care they prefer, regardless of business model or limited access to those programs in certain centres. I know that there are a lot of innovative options in private child care. We often see investments made back into centres that hit niche markets like Spanish second language programs, French immersion preschools — really different niche programming. My centre is based on social and emotional development. Those funds would allow families to find programs that target the needs their children have, to target the beliefs and values the families have. I think that when talking about marginalized communities and families that want some language development for their children, they would be able to pick programs based on those needs and what they are looking for, rather than trying to source out a space in a program just to be able to access the funds. I also believe that Alberta is leading the way in expansion right now. Our province has just recently announced that private and for‑profit operators will have access to space-creation grants in our province, which is a significant win for the private sector and for families in our province. I am hoping other provinces look to Alberta to see how they can incorporate and support all models of child care in the provinces.
I think that any time you are stunting the free market in a sector, as you are in child care, by only supporting one side of it, you are limiting choice, you are limiting options and you are bankrupting businesses like my own. Child care traditionally is a female-led industry. In Alberta, our members are largely women. A lot of them are immigrants and new Canadians that have come here to open up centres because they see a need in their community. They have skills that enable them to support children and families in their specific communities, and they are making the investments to be able to do that, and those investments are being stolen under this program, unfortunately. They are losing the values of their businesses.
So, I think we need to go back to the original intent of this program, which is for children and for families, and to provide affordable, accessible and inclusive child care. That’s not just non-profit; that is all child care, and it is the parental right to have a type of care that meets the needs of your family. So, I think we need to open it up as it was before, and if people are opening centres and can meet the health, safety and licensing regulations, they should be granted access to these programs for families.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: You provide information, training and resources to licensed and unlicensed home child-care operators. Would you explain the difference between the needs of licensed home child-care providers and unlicensed ones? How do the needs of those two types of child care differ?
[English]
Ms. Bisnath: Thank you. I will answer in English if it’s okay. I understand the question to be about the difference between the needs of licensed home child-care providers and unlicensed home child-care providers. In Ontario, which is where we are based and what we’re familiar with, home child-care providers who are affiliated with a licensed agency often have greater access to training and resources that are provided by their agency — not all agencies, but quite a number of them.
They also have opportunities in terms of networking or getting support from their home visitor who would be coming into check and offer support. Caregivers who are working independently, which is legal — it’s not required for them to have a licence — still meet all the Child Care and Early Years Act, or CCEYA, regulations, but it is more isolating, so they don’t have the same access to information in terms of training, resources or supports. So, we try to fill that need. We offer support to all home child‑care providers, parents and grandparents but we also include the unlicensed sector to give them that opportunity.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Why aren’t they licensed? Why choose not to be licensed when being licensed would give them access to the services and benefits you just mentioned?
[English]
Ms. Bisnath: So, for the most part, and we did do a survey not too long ago asking that question — why caregivers are choosing not to become licensed. The majority wants to be business owners. They are entrepreneurs. They have this independent spirit, and they just feel that the extra oversight and the administrative burden from the agencies outweigh the benefits that an agency might provide. So, the biggest issue is the daily rates; the pay cut at the end of the day is a lot. When you are with an agency, you are not making the same salary that you might make privately. We just need more options for caregivers. The option of a direct licence, where they can still be licensed, but not affiliated with an agency, would open so many doors for home child-care providers. We know that the independent providers, who take pride in offering high-quality child care, want to be recognized as such and they want to be —
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I certainly appreciate the role that women play in for-profit child care in small businesses. We heard from a previous panel that not-for-profit public services provide better service to socio-economic, ethnic and linguistic minorities.
I want to pick up on Senator Osler’s question. The child care services available to those populations are generally more complex and costly because they have to take into account socio-economic, ethnic and linguistic considerations. What can you tell us about that? Is it actually more expensive?
[English]
The Chair: Senator Cormier, we are going to hold that question. Likely, in the second round, we can come back to it.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My question is for Ms. Churcher.
If I understand correctly, you said it would be a good thing for the government to expand funding to every family that wants to open a home daycare.
Where’s the limit though? Who would have oversight over all those families if lots of mothers decide they’re going to keep their kids at home if they can get the government subsidy? What about socializing those children? Is it good for all children to be kept at home, given one or two children per family? I’d like to hear your thoughts on that.
[English]
Ms. Churcher: Thank you for your question. I will answer in English as well. I don’t believe that outside of licensed and regulated care that these funds should be shared with operators. Our association supports regulations, licensing, and health and safety standards in child care, so we do support licensed stay‑at‑home operators, which could be moms, dads, or someone who has a home who is operating it as a day home, which is a small, licensed, regulated child-care centre that can have up to six children in Alberta. We support that.
We do not support unregulated care as an association. I believe it is very important to socialize children. I created a centre based on the social and emotional needs of children and the development of those needs. I think that having a child in a social environment is very important, but I do believe that parents should choose what that social environment should be for their child and their family. I hope I answered your question.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My second question is a big one. Are you asking the government to take public money and subsidize private child care? Is that your intention?
[English]
Ms. Churcher: My proposal is that the government public funds go to families. Those are public funds. These programs are created to support families, not to exclude families, so I believe funding should always go to the parents and there should be parental choices.
I don’t see that public funds going into a private centre is anything other than strategic investment in a future workforce and social well-being of the community. I think we get lost in this program, and it is confusing as to where these funds are going, but private centres in Alberta — I can only speak about Alberta — are acting as unpaid government fiscal agents for this program. Money is carried through our centres, through all of us, non-profit and private, funded to us to then pass on to families. There is no funding going to private centres in Alberta outside of having limited access for families to a certain number of spaces that were grandfathered in when the agreement rolled out.
The new private space grant program in Alberta targets high‑need and high-demand areas. Obviously, the plan to have just a non-profit model roll out across the province and support the needs of these rural, high-need remote communities hasn’t worked so far, and they are extending that to private operators in the hope that we can bring some level of care to these communities that desperately need it. I wouldn’t see that as funding a private business as much as I would as funding a community and supporting the families in that community.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Churcher, I would like some clarification on the Alberta agreement. The document in front of me says that federal funding will create 42,500 child-care spaces to be used exclusively for licensed child care — private, not-for-profit, public — as well as family-based child care. The agreement goes on to say that federal funding will create spaces for children aged zero to kindergarten to support licensed child-care delivery in for-profit providers.
There is apparently an agreement to develop and propose a for-profit expansion plan, including a cost control framework. This is an agreement between Alberta and Canada. Do you have a different interpretation of the agreement that is in front of us?
Ms. Churcher: Two weeks ago, on October 10, there was an announcement in Alberta to extend space creation funds to private operators. Our government has agreed to release $28 million to create spaces in Alberta for private operators. These follow the same categories and guidelines as the not‑for‑profit space creation program, which has been open for some time in Alberta. Operators can now apply for this program, and if they meet the criteria of opening up spaces in these marginalized communities that are very high-need child-care deserts, then they will have access to those funds.
The Chair: Thank you for that clarification.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I’ll start with a question for you, Ms. Bisnath, and I’d like to hear from Ms. Churcher, too, if I have time. I’d like you to clarify something I’m not sure I understand. I agree with you that parents should have a choice about the care they want for their kids. And I certainly agree that different kids have different needs. We’re on the same page there.
How can some degree of consistency in terms of quality of care and level of training and expertise for the people caring for these children be ensured? Does having the range of models you told us about, especially unlicensed child care, ensure that all children have access to the same quality of care?
[English]
Ms. Bisnath: Thank you for your question. Yes, it’s a great question, and we cannot. No one can guarantee quality of service everywhere for every centre or every operator. It’s the same in every profession. Things happen; there are high-quality and lower-quality family doctors, teachers, police officers, whatever the profession is. It’s impossible to guarantee that.
For us, we feel strongly that parents are capable and competent to make the best choice for their child, and they are the ones who will hold the providers to account. It’s in the interaction at a drop-off, a pick up and in the relationship that’s formed. It’s doing your due diligence, understanding what you are looking for in child care and understanding what you are receiving in child care.
Of course, there are minimum standards and general expectations, but for us, quality goes well beyond that, and it’s not necessarily defined by a piece of paper. It’s about that relationship, the trust and the connection that the caregiver has with the child and with the family.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you. I understand what you’re saying. If I look at how it works in my province, Quebec, pretty much all the reports out there say that, essentially, in child care centres, where there’s some control over the level of education and programming, there’s some degree of consistency in terms of services, which is in the interest of the child, especially children that may come from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Shouldn’t it be our goal to at least aim for a certain level of quality that can be monitored a little? I think that would be very hard in cases where there’s no licence.
[English]
Ms. Bisnath: Yes.
The Chair: I will hold you to the second round as well. Hold that question, witnesses. We will come back to it.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses. My first question is for Ms. Bisnath.
You suggested that individuals might be licensed. Of course, we have the licensed model under this program, and licences ensure a certain standard, that’s the reason for licensing, not to make sure that everyone is the same but that there is a certain standard and all that goes with it. Are you favouring a model where individuals can self-licence?
I will also ask, since you are Ontario-based and I am Ontario-based, have you taken this up with the provincial government?
They are the key partners in this — all the provincial governments, of course. Have you taken this up with them, and what have they said about your proposals?
Ms. Bisnath: Before the national plan, we have long advocated for a provincial registry, an accreditation system, direct licensing, or a combination of all of those programs. This also speaks a little bit to your question, senator.
It would take away the middle layer of that agency or organization supervision and allow a child-care provider to be directly licensed by the government and have to follow the same set of standards and levels of requirements, but still be autonomous and independent and retain control over their own private business, as they are an entrepreneur and quite passionate about that aspect.
We have certainly brought it up many times with the Ontario Ministry of Education to have one or more of those options addressed. The last talk or commitment was put out in the Strengthening early years and child care in Ontario report that came from the Ministry of Education. There are two directives in there to look at how they can improve and maintain quality in the unlicensed sector, and whether or not there are other options to be explored, but nothing has happened since that paper came out in 2020.
Senator Dasko: If parents themselves receive the money, which is one of the things that you suggested, the licensing couldn’t actually operate then because you will have a government coming in and viewing the home? How does that work?
Ms. Bisnath: The option for direct licensing is one way where we can give home child-care providers an opportunity to become licensed and to meet some of those standards, although many of them are meeting and exceeding those standards on their own already.
Senator Dasko: I’m talking about operations in the home where there are a number of children, up to —
Ms. Bisnath: Five children.
Senator Dasko: Five children, right.
Ms. Bisnath: We did advocate for this funding to go to families to be able to choose the type of care that best meets their needs. Whether that is licensed care in a centre or in a home, or care with maybe a neighbour or a grandparent, or just to supplement their own income for staying home with their own young children, that would be a more equitable way to distribute funds. Last week, we heard one of the witnesses say that the national plan is not national and it only supports 30%.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bisnath.
I will interject with a question of my own for Mr. Mitchell. I will speak to the experience of a market-driven model in New Zealand, Australia and the U.K., where the child-care system is increasingly owned by private equity firms, even when it is funded by the public.
To a large extent, the concern here is also that public funds would be used to fund real estate acquisitions, which would then be the real value as opposed to the service value. Do you believe it is advisable for the Government of Canada to limit their funding of for-profit centres to aspects of service as opposed to aspects of real estate acquisition, corporate equity growth and other features?
Mr. Mitchell: I’m wondering if the provinces are best positioned to determine how that’s used. Certainly, I think that in most cases I’m familiar with, we haven’t seen the big box type of operations in Canada, although I can understand some hesitancy toward that.
In some of the agreements, money was limited to for-profit providers so that they wouldn’t be able to spend it on a mortgage on a building that they have. Someone in Ms. Churcher’s position wouldn’t be able to direct money to her mortgage, but she would be able to direct it to something else, and it becomes very complicated.
If we were going to engage in that kind of system, I think we would have to do it in such a way that has very clear rules for the smaller providers. If you’re really trying to target the big equity firms or whatever, you’d have to be very careful about how you would do that. I wonder if it would be easier within the provincial system because the provincial systems are different from province to province.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: It’s important that, yes, based on the current data and availability, we don’t have enough spaces. That’s not something we would contest. That is why we are building the system. That is why we are building it this way, and I have some trouble with the assertions that the system is broken when it has not yet been built.
Second, we do provide support for children and families in Canada. The Canada child benefit does that. It provides hundreds of dollars in support for families for many things, including child care.
Third, the fact that child-care businesses are dying because they are not making enough money is exactly the issue. We don’t want the bottom line of child-care providers to be the difference between someone having child care or not. Access should be built, I believe, on needs and aligned with public leaders for building communities.
This is not really about choice. No one is forced to use public or not-for-profit child care, just like you’re not forced to use private versus public education. If they want to continue to use for-profit at higher fees, families are welcome to.
I think the arguments around parental choice are also a bit, frankly, red herrings because I haven’t really heard any data, and I would ask, please, can you provide that data about actual parental choices? What would they want to do? I’m hearing about the choices they are forced to make because of the lack of availability of public care.
This question is for anyone to comment on the inherent policy choice in this bill. Canada will build low-cost, accessible and affordable child care for every family. It will take work, it will take money and it will certainly take time. We’re heading there. I want to get your thoughts on some of the comments that I have made. I appreciate your testimony, and thank you for your service in this area, to all of you.
Ms. Churcher: I’m happy to jump in to provide an answer to that. I believe in the system. I think that the intention of the CWELCC program is amazing, and as a mother of two children who has used child care in the past and paid for it, I think having affordable child-care options is such a massive relief and support to Canadian families.
I don’t believe that small child-care businesses are dying because of lack of profit. What is happening is that lack of access for families in those programs to access the affordability grants, the lack of wage top ups in those programs, lack of subsidy for families in those programs because their business model does not allow them to access the CWELCC program, that is what’s hurting businesses. That’s what is devaluing these small businesses.
As for the large for-profit child-care centres that there is concern about, those centres are massive, business-minded corporations. If you look at what is actually happening on the ground right now in Alberta, and in other provinces, those centres are pivoting their business model to a not-for-profit business model. When you’re celebrating the creation of new not-for-profit spaces under this program, are we looking at where those spaces are coming from and who’s actually creating them?
If there’s a concern about public funds funding private business, there needs to be a study or a review of where things are pivoting here. We’re not celebrating the number of new not‑for-profit spaces that we think we are in our province.
The system isn’t broken, but I think it was rolled out without understanding the sector. I work on the ground. I’m not behind a desk researching this. I am on the ground, and I am experiencing what families are experiencing and what children are experiencing under this program. It was rolled out without understanding the sector. I work on the ground. I’m not behind a desk researching this. I am on the ground, and I am experiencing what families and children are experiencing under this program. It was rolled out without consideration to the demand it would create. It has created a significant demand without the infrastructure provincially to support it.
We are losing inclusive funding in our centres — all centres. There is not enough funding or support to support the high needs of the children that we are seeing, which is creating burnout in the ECE sector. We are losing quality because people just don’t have the funds. We’ve been under a fee cap under this program in Alberta. We have not been able to raise fees across the board, non-profit or private.
The Chair: I’m afraid I have to cut you off.
Ms. Churcher: I’m sorry.
The Chair: Senator Cormier, Senator Petitclerc, will you quickly restate your question or will you pass?
Senator Cormier: No, I will ask it, but differently.
[Translation]
I’ll tell you about the situation in New Brunswick.
Francophone parents in New Brunswick want access to quality child care services. New Brunswick actually has lots of for-profit home daycares. The purpose of these daycares is to provide child care for parents and to enable parents to ensure that their children have access to quality services that promote identity construction and language preservation.
That’s the background to my question, Ms. Bisnath. People tend to think that not-for-profit daycares provide more services and ensure the quality of that type of service, kind of like Senator Petitclerc said. What are your thoughts on that? If Mr. Mitchell has time, since he talked about New Brunswick, I’d like to get a better sense of the challenges he identified for New Brunswick.
[English]
The Chair: You have one minute each because I want to get to Senator Petitclerc as well.
Ms. Bisnath: Thank you for the question. The role that we see in home child care, and I’m thinking it’s similar in New Brunswick, is that because it is a small home environment in the community, it offers greater access to whether it’s shared language, values or culture. In that way, parents are able to choose a child-care provider that fits their needs, goals, values and their beliefs, and, in that way, plays an important role in terms of quality.
Mr. Mitchell: In terms of the data, we’ve only been able to see first-year data from New Brunswick, and certainly there was a struggle to provide inclusive care, but we’ve seen it in other provinces as well. There have been specific targets set in terms of what that funding would look like, but I think it just proves difficult to action that money, to try to find out what region or where to place these daycares or where to have those services. I think it’s much more difficult than simply saying we’re going to set this target as an accomplishment. We’ll have to see what happens in year two, and see whether some progress is made in this area, but as of year one, it has definitely been a struggle. We’ll have to see.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Petitclerc, would you like to pose your question?
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I think I got the answer.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, that brings us to the end of our first panel. I want to thank our witnesses who are here in person and online. We have had a very interesting conversation, and we leave this conversation enriched with your insights, so thank you again.
Our second panel of witnesses are both in-person and by video conference. We welcome, in person, Sandra Mullen, President, Nova Scotia Government and General Employees Union and National Vice-President, National Union of Public and General Employees. We welcome, by video conference, Beth Deazeley, Registrar and Chief Executive Officer of the College of Early Childhood Educators; and Emily Gawlick, Executive Director, Early Childhood Educators of British Columbia. Thank you so much for joining us today.
Witnesses will each have five minutes for their opening statements followed by questions from members. We will begin with you, Ms. Mullen, followed by Ms. Deazeley and then Ms. Gawlick.
Sandra Mullen, President, Nova Scotia Government and General Employees Union and National Vice-President, National Union of Public and General Employees: Thank you to the chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak today. I am the President of the Nova Scotia Government and General Employees Union, known as NSGEU, the largest union in the province of Nova Scotia, and a recognized bargaining agent for over 35,000 public and private sector employees.
I’m also the national Vice President of the National Union of Public and General Employees, NUPGE, which I’m representing here today. We represent 425 members across the country. It’s made up of 13 component unions, of which the NSGEU is one.
Most of NUPGE’s members work to deliver public services of every kind in their home provinces. This includes workers in the child-care sector.
NUPGE has long advocated for a national child-care system that is universally accessible, publicly funded and delivered, not‑for-profit, inclusive and high quality. We believe that federal legislation can be the crucial tool in supporting such a system, and we welcome the opportunity to give input.
We have submitted a written brief, but I wish to highlight two main points on how NUPGE would like to see legislation support such a system.
First, in ensuring that the Canada-wide child-care system is public and not-for-profit, NUPGE would like to see legislation that ties funding to certain principles and conditions. In particular, federal funds must go toward child care that is public and not-for-profit.
There is no place for profit in child care. Private for-profit entities by their nature must prioritize profit, not the quality of service. We have seen how catastrophic this could be in the long‑term care sector during the pandemic.
Research shows that public and non-profit child care is significantly more likely to be of higher quality than the for‑profit child care. Further, evidence shows that for‑profit operations in child care are linked to poorer quality.
We are glad that the legislation in its guiding principles for funding outlines that there should be an emphasis on public and not-for-profit programs and services.
We are also pleased to see that this was maintained through the House of Commons standing committee study on the bill. I urge the committee to ensure that the legislation does not allow funding to be directed to for-profit care or for unlicensed and unregulated care.
NUPGE echoes the recommendation made by Child Care Now, of which we are a member, to add a definition of early learning and child care that clearly defines programs and services eligible for funding as those that are licensed and regulated.
The second point I wish to emphasize is high-quality child care, to which the workforce is essential. Research shows that workforce development, including the education and training of staff and high standards for their working conditions, are integral to providing safe, healthy and quality learning environments for children. However, Canada’s child-care workforce, which is made up predominantly of women, especially women of colour, immigrant and migrant women, has long been undervalued and underfunded. Low wages, lack of benefits, low unionization rates, and recruitment and retention challenges have long characterized the sector, and the situation was made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic. Workers are burnt out. They are leaving the sector, and it is difficult to attract more workers under these conditions. There is a crisis in Canada’s child-care workforce, which threatens the whole effort to build a Canada-wide system.
To address the crisis, we need to urgently improve wages and working conditions and develop a workforce strategy to recruit and retain current early childhood educators and child-care workers. We are pleased to see that Bill C-35 refers to supporting high quality early learning in child care through a qualified and well-supported workforce, and we welcome HUMA’s amendments to add language on recruitment and retention and working conditions.
We ask that the committee look at further strengthening the bill to help address the workforce crisis. Canada is in the midst of a historic opportunity to finally build a Canada-wide child‑care system, one that is universal, public, not‑for‑profit, inclusive and high quality. In this, Bill C-35 can play a defining role in ensuring that we get it right and build a system to be proud of.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. I look forward to the discussion.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Mullen.
Beth Deazeley, Registrar and Chief Executive Officer, College of Early Childhood Educators: Good afternoon, everyone. As the Registrar and Chief Executive Officer of the Ontario College of Early Childhood Educators, I’m honoured to join today’s panel and to provide our insights on the proposed legislation.
We provided similar comments during its consideration by the House of Commons standing committee, and while we were pleased to see some of the changes that were introduced there, and while we are supportive of Bill C-35, we think there is an opportunity for some further enhancements to help ensure that it will have a meaningful impact for children and families.
Our college regulates the profession of early childhood education in Ontario, which currently includes over 61,000 registered early childhood educators. Our legislative mandate is to establish registration requirements, ethical standards, requirements for continuous professional learning, and a complaint process to ensure that the interests of children and families are protected and prioritized. We also maintain a comprehensive public register of our members.
This scope of regulatory activity is unique and doesn’t occur in any other jurisdiction in Canada. In recent years, we’ve helped raise the profession’s standards by implementing a mandatory sexual abuse prevention program, by providing guidance on the inclusion of children with disabilities, and by recognizing that acts of racism and discrimination constitute professional misconduct.
While we acknowledge the importance of all the principles in Bill C-35, we want to emphasize that measures to support affordability or the expansion of child-care spaces should not compromise quality. While there’s no universally accepted definition of quality, research has demonstrated that qualified and accountable educators are the most significant contributor to early years programs that result in better outcomes for children and families. We were pleased to see the amendments that were made to the bill to reflect the importance of recruiting and retaining a qualified and well-supported workforce.
We are indeed facing a workforce crisis in child care, and while high numbers of educators enter the field each year, people are leaving at nearly the same rate. This is a significant barrier to the implementation of the Canada-wide early learning and child‑care plan, as many programs are already forced to limit enrollment due to a lack of qualified staff.
The largest child-care provider in the Toronto region, the YMCA, recently reported that they are operating at less than 50% of their capacity due to a shortage of staff, saying that only 16,000 children are able to be enrolled, despite them having 35,000 spaces. Recent announcements in Ontario seem to have focused on the creation of new child-care spaces, and while this is important, unless the workforce crisis is addressed, it will have little impact. Spaces can only be filled when they are staffed by qualified educators.
We believe it’s necessary to focus on retention of educators by addressing the systemic issues that contribute to attrition, including working conditions, program resourcing, compensation and opportunities for professional growth. If attrition from the profession were reduced by just 25%, it would give us another 4,000 additional qualified Registered Early Childhood Educators, or RECEs, over the next five years, without any increase in recruitment.
There’s also potential to incentivize the return of those who have left the profession. Our most recent membership data report shows more than 25,000 people who were registered at one time, and have now left the profession, despite still being of working age. For this reason, we were pleased to see the addition to the guiding principles recognizing the impact working conditions have on the ability of educators to deliver high-quality early learning programs, and on the viability of the programs themselves.
Our remaining request for changes relate to the composition and function of the national advisory council. We would recommend that the mandate of the council explicitly includes the responsibility to explore the issues underlying the workforce crisis and recommend solutions. We are also requesting a seat at that table. Our college is the only organization that has data regarding the qualified early childhood education workforce in Ontario, and we are the only regulatory body for ECEs in Canada. We can offer insights about the profession and the requirements for a robust system that emphasizes quality and serves the needs of children and families. We’re requesting that our college, as well as any other independent professional regulatory bodies that may form in other provinces, be included as members of the national advisory council.
These additions to Bill C-35 would help ensure that decisions are informed by data, that the public interest is at the centre of decision making and that quality remains a pillar of the program when it is implemented across all jurisdictions.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our perspective. We look forward to collaborating on this critical work, and I’ll be happy to answer any questions from the committee.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Emily Gawlick, Executive Director, Early Childhood Educators of British Columbia: Good afternoon, honourable committee members. My name is Emily Gawlick, Executive Director of the Early Childhood Educators of British Columbia, also known as ECEBC, and I’m honoured to be calling in from the land where I live, work and grow on — the unsurrendered traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples.
Through our obligations, ECEBC is compelled to think deeply, listen with intention and act ethically while bringing the collective wisdom of B.C. early childhood educators to the forefront. Since 2011, ECEBC and our partner, the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of BC, have been championing our own provincial $10-a-day child care plan. This plan advocates for a public child-care system that addresses affordability, accessibility and quality. In July 2023, our two organizations released an updated ECE wage grid recommendation that honours education and experience.
The essential factor to a quality system that supports children, families and communities is the early childhood educator profession. ECE in Canada is commonly perceived as a service for working parents rather than a public good of great social, cultural and political importance. Viewing early learning as a public good opens up a space for consideration of not only its economic benefits, but also the ethics, politics and justice essential to working with children, families and communities. The national advisory council needs to be accountable to the profession and work with academics and educators to co-create a system based on children’s rights, ensuring access to an educational environment in which all Canadian children thrive.
Current research asserts that social policies and narratives maintain our profession as gendered, racialized, marginalized and positioned as a secondary market force. However, we know that early childhood educators are not limited by these narratives. Promoting the ethical practice and complexity of this work through training, recognition and status, as well as with better pay and conditions, holds the potential to redefine what working with young children means. Government can align funding to reduce barriers so that early childhood educators can have access to further education.
For generations, the education of early childhood educators has evolved to reflect the diversities of children and families. Educators, who are predominantly female, have for too long shouldered inadequate working conditions, low wages, lack of benefits and minimal professional recognition.
The B.C. and federal governments continue to use historic levels of funding to make important progress in child care. However, to achieve the high-quality system that families can access, and the economy needs, B.C. must immediately prioritize the implementation of a fair and competitive ECE wage grid.
Bill C-35 needs to ensure that the complexities and the pedagogy of this work is recognized and supported beyond a limited narrative. After all, economic and human rights are fundamentally linked.
ECEBC is encouraged that this enactment honours Indigenous rights and jurisdictions. We must demand this acknowledgement, and identify and overcome barriers created by colonial systems and structures, and align our practices accordingly. We support the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework, and acknowledge that First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities have and may evolve their governance structures and child-care services.
In my 30-plus years as an early childhood educator, I am elated to see the incredible investments and commitments from the federal government to create an early years and child-care system. Research has shown the importance of a strong ongoing investment in a public not-for-profit licence-based model. Bill C-35 takes a progressive leap forward in recognizing that through the lens of children’s rights. ECEBC is committed to working in partnership and seizing this historic opportunity to ensure this bill fosters a system that attracts and retains highly qualified early childhood educators and represents the diversity of Canada.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We will proceed to questions.
Senators, you will have four minutes each for your questions and answers. We will start with the deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Cordy: Thank you to the three of you.
As a mother and former elementary school teacher, I have a true appreciation — I remember, with child care when the children are little, it’s like “please don’t let the sitter be sick, because I don’t know what I will do.” I think we can all identify with the comments you have made today.
I’m struck by what all three of you have done. Ms. Mullen, I’ll start with you. Congratulations for the work that you do with the NUPGE in Nova Scotia.
We have heard from other witnesses that tremendous numbers of people are leaving the child-care workforce. It is predominantly women. You have all relayed the problems that we have in maintaining and retaining qualified staff in our child‑care centres.
You have all talked about the wages and the working conditions. I also think it’s status — what the general public thinks of that career. Doctors are highly thought of; they get reasonable wages — lawyers. But the people who care for our nearest and dearest beings ever are making barely above the minimum wage, and you have all spoken about that.
How do we go from where we are to a position where people are going to be rushing to taking child-care courses and who will be recognized for their value within our society? I know that you have all made comments, but how do we reach that point? It is so important because it is a job like no other.
Ms. Mullen: Thank you for the question.
What wasn’t in my introduction is that, prior to coming to the union role, I was a civil servant in Nova Scotia. I have 30-plus years in government. Part of that worked with the subsidy and the daycare sector. I went on after this to do licensing. I have a long knowledge of the working conditions and the availability of child care.
Also, exactly what you said — the wage pattern that existed in that sector. How do you convince your children to take a post‑secondary two-year program to earn $16 an hour if they are lucky, then work in an environment where you have to fundraise to pay the light bill? It has been such a challenge. We are blessed right now in Nova Scotia to have worked with the strategy and to have made improvements there.
That is exactly the problem: We’ve gone so many years with low wages — to not be able to support your children to take that program because they could not earn a living wage coming out of there.
It is key to improve the wages in the sector. That will definitely encourage.
We’re at a lag, because there is a two-year educational program to be a fully qualified ECE. We’ve also created pre‑primary programs, I suspect, across the country, most recently for us in Nova Scotia. That has taken ECEs out of the child‑care sector, so they have been at a disadvantage. They have been very much struggling.
We see it with our own members. We represent those folks in the pre-primary program — so the different levels of ECE. It is absolutely imperative that this funding tie to the wages that are paid to folks who work in this sector, absolutely.
Senator Osler: Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today.
My question is for Ms. Deazeley. You and others have spoken about the crisis in Canada’s child-care workforce. We just heard you speaking about the retention of professional educators, reducing attrition and incentivizing return, which might be said to fall more under the provinces’ jurisdiction. In your opinion, in what way can the federal government help the retention of professional educators, either by reducing attrition or incentivizing their return?
Ms. Deazeley: Thank you for that question.
Part of the important role that can be played by the federal government here, and the opportunity that we have, is to ensure that when the Canada-wide early learning and child care program is implemented it is done so in a way that ensures that the focus stays on quality programs and the well-being of children. The way we articulate the guiding principles in the legislation and the mandate that is given to the national advisory council can help ensure consistency and make clear the expectations of the federal government in terms of how the program is implemented. That’s your opportunity there to really help ensure that the importance of that qualified and well-supported workforce stays central to the implementation of the program.
Senator Osler: I would ask that same question first to Ms. Mullen and then to Ms. Gawlick.
Ms. Mullen: Could you repeat the question?
Senator Osler: We have heard about reducing attrition of the workforce and incentivizing return. How can the federal government assist with that?
Ms. Mullen: I go back to the fact that the funding of these operations has to be tied to a wage pattern. In order for folks to come back to the workforce, they need to have a reasonable wage.
The employment market within our province, as in many of the provinces, there are so many opportunities out there. In order to go to that sector, it has to pay a reasonable wage. As Senator Cordy said, we entrust these folks with those near and dear to us. They need to be paid a proper wage.
Ms. Gawlick: I do agree with both the other witnesses and my colleagues here today. The federal government could emphasize the urgency that’s needed to strengthen the workforce. We’re in desperate need. Recent studies in B.C. have shown that between 47% and 49% of operators cannot staff what they need in their child-care centres in terms of employees. We’re having great results in bringing people into the sector with government-funded student bursaries, but we are not retaining the same people coming into the sector. The urgency seems very dire and necessary right now.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: Ms. Gawlick it’s really good to see you again. We met when I was in B.C. earlier this summer. I would like to direct this question to you.
One of the benefits of developing a national program is that different jurisdictions can learn from one another.
You are from B.C., and there are a number of best practices that could be identified coming out of B.C. We heard earlier from another witness about P.E.I.
Could you share with us some of the best practices that you have seen in your and other jurisdictions that you think the federal government could play a role in setting up as a national norm, especially as it relates to establishing a sustainable high‑quality workforce?
Ms. Gawlick: Nice to see you too, Senator Moodie.
One of the things that has been transformational for B.C. has been the recruitment and retention strategy that the B.C. government implemented. There are many ways we can strengthen and move forward, such as having direct funding that supports the sector itself, like wage enhancements or student bursaries, as well as extending that professional training and development for more seasoned educators. There is a peer mentoring program that has had great success in connecting newer educators to longstanding educators. The pedagogy network has been able to highlight the pedagogy for early care and learning for those educators to see themselves as the strong professionals they are. There are multiple initiatives, and I think we need to build that into a sustainable system so they’re guaranteed for years to come.
Senator Moodie: Thank you. I would welcome comments from Ms. Mullen and Ms. Deazeley, if you have anything to add.
Ms. Mullen: I do believe that we learn from other provinces and see some wins and positive changes. Certainly, regulated family home daycare is such an important part of this whole process. I come from a rural area. I sympathize with the folks in New Brunswick because I come from a French region myself. In order to have culturally available child care in these rural areas, and across Nova Scotia, I know that need exists.
We need to regulate them. They provide quality child care. While private child care exists, it’s not always the case that families can make that safe choice. Having regulated child care, whether it’s in a family home or if it’s in a centre, families need to know that the opportunity they have for paying for child care and accessing child care is safe, and in order to do that, as a licensing officer, it has to be regulated.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My first question is for Ms. Deazeley.
In your brief to HUMA, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, you expressed concern that the push to address the workforce crisis may end up reducing professional standards rather than addressing systemic issues.
Would you start by telling me who your members are and how your professional association would approach the problem of maintaining professional standards?
[English]
Ms. Deazeley: Thank you for that question. The profession that we regulate in Ontario is the professional educators, what’s referred to in Ontario as the qualified staff in licensed child-care programs. There are 61,000 of them currently.
To answer your question with respect to the concern expressed in our brief, it’s that there are a number of different pillars of the Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement. Quality is one of them. Access and inclusion are others. Our concern is that in the initial focus on the affordability pillar, which has led to decreasing fees and an increased demand for spaces, there hasn’t been a similar amount of focus placed on the other pillars. That sudden increase and focus on access is putting pressure on the other pillars in order to find a way to meet the demand for child-care spaces without first ensuring that there is a workforce strategy to provide qualified staff so that those spaces can actually be filled by children.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Ms. Gawlick, I really liked what you had to say during the House of Commons HUMA committee’s study of the bill about the danger of reducing early childhood education to a mere economic transaction without consideration of educational values and purposes. You also said that the education of early childhood educators has evolved over the years to reflect the diversities of children and families.
Can you tell us more about that to give us a better sense of how it has evolved?
[English]
Ms. Deazeley: Thank you for the question. Being an early childhood educator, I think about the education that I received over 30 years ago, and it is much different than what it looks like now. There is a real understanding about how competent children are within the frame of early childhood and how they are citizens and deserve to be part of society for who they are today, not only for whom they might become later on in the future. That’s critical to when we start thinking about bills that children do belong to our society today, and that’s how early childhood education has evolved; and the relationships with families and community, how we’re all connected, has really evolved.
I probably shouldn’t joke about this, but a lot of things we were taught to do are not even legal anymore within the context of working with young children. I think there has been huge motivation to look at the pedagogy and how we see children and how they interact with the world around us.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Are educators in child care centres better equipped to serve minority populations, for example?
[English]
Ms. Gawlick: Definitely there needs to be a licensed system in place that has that oversight, and the biggest quality indicator is the education that early childhood educators receive to do this complex work.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much.
Senator Mégie: My first question is for Ms. Deazeley as registrar of the College of Early Childhood Educators.
Do you know how many educators you train every year and how many are needed in the field?
[English]
Ms. Deazeley: Thank you for that question. Currently, we admit over 5,000 new educators to the profession every year. In terms of how many will be required, the estimates that we have seen from the provincial governments of their agreement contemplated in order to create 86,000 new child-care spaces above the 2019 levels and raise the number of RECEs to be 60% of the workforce, the Ontario Ministry of Education estimated that more than 15,000 additional RECEs would be required.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you. My second question is for Ms. Gawlick.
This is about funding for child care from 0 to 12. The thing is, daycare is for children from 0 to 5, but for the others, those aged 5 to 12, generally, schools take over.
Where are the educators you train? Are they working in schools? Who is doing this work with kids aged 5 to 12 in schools?
Ms. Gawlick or Ms. Mullen, please take turns to share your thoughts.
[English]
Ms. Gawlick: Here in B.C. it’s delivered in multiple ways. We have something called Responsible Adult which is a workshop you can take to work with school-age care. I know people who have their bachelors of early childhood education who do this work with school-aged care. Putting some real structure around supporting the school-age care of early childhood education is incredibly important. As we develop these bills and thoughts, we work very closely with the School Aged Child Care Association, and they’re also looking at what is needed to expand education for that part of the sector to ensure that children have really strong, qualified educators supporting them throughout their full day within a school or child-care system.
Ms. Mullen: Thank you for the question. Certainly there exists regulated after-school care in some of the centres in Nova Scotia and, I expect, in other places. We also have regulations that cover that after-school care. Supervision must be 1 to 15. These children are in classes of 25 at 2 o’clock, and then they come to a place where it’s a little different.
There is some regulation there, but because of the regulation and the program being attached to something, families can qualify for subsidies. It’s important. They may have a sibling at the same centre. It is also easier for families if that after-school care is at the school. The children are in a safe place for the duration of required child care. Yes, it is important.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: My first question is about the College of Early Childhood Educators, so it goes to Ms. Deazeley.
You mentioned yours is the only such college in Canada. I am thinking that it’s derived directly from the Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007, the legislation in Ontario. Has your disciplinary process been operating since the inception of that act?
Ms. Deazeley: Yes. Thank you for that question. The college is celebrating its fifteenth anniversary and the fifteen anniversary of the passing of the legislation which recognizes the early childhood educators as a self-regulating profession. It sets up the same structure that applies to other professionals, including teachers, lawyers and health professionals. Since that time we’ve been mandated to have a process for investigating allegations of professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity. That includes, when necessary, a process for holding disciplinary hearings and, where necessary, potentially, removing somebody from the profession.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. My next question goes to Ms. Gawlick and Ms. Mullen. Given that Ontario is the only province with this legislation, how do other jurisdictions, including your own, address regulatory licensing, disciplinary standards, maintaining standards and other such issues?
Ms. Mullen: I could speak to the Nova Scotia situation quite well. The process is well established for licensing facilities and family home daycares. An act covers children in unregulated centres; they must be less than three in number. All kinds of rules exist. When we actually inspect a facility and we identify issues, the centres are held accountable. We may get misconduct complaints from parents indicating that an ECE or a person working in a certain facility did something unacceptable or unsafe. Those matters are investigated by licensing inspectors, such as myself. A number of inspectors work for the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development; they inspect these facilities regularly during both planned and unplanned inspections. You’re bringing back memories. We have a checklist. We look at children’s records and incident reports and all those things, plus we handle complaints from families and the community. Things are investigated.
Ms. Gawlick: Here in B.C., things are similar to Nova Scotia. Our licensing act looks at health and safety and licensing the programs. Within the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, we have an ECE registry which holds the numbers and the certifications of educators. We also have a body that looks at complaints and investigation.
Senator McPhedran: What is that body, please?
Ms. Gawlick: The ECE Registry.
Senator McPhedran: Under which ministry?
Ms. Gawlick: The Ministry of Education and Early Childhood Development.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator Bernard: I have two questions. Any of the witnesses may answer. Thank you in advance.
I’m aware that some child-care centres are offering employment opportunities for people while studying for their ECE diplomas. Can you comment on the merits of this in terms of addressing issues around recruitment and retention of ECE workers?
Ms. Mullen: In Nova Scotia, at most of the regulated centres within the province, a certain level of staffing must be trained staff. They call it entry-level positions as well. Even in our pre‑primary programs, they would look at someone coming in as unqualified with the intent to seek qualifications, and they would encourage them. It’s an excellent way for the new staff to experience the role. It’s like you don’t want to become a doctor and then find out that you faint at the sight of blood. It’s a really good opportunity for folks to be mentored in those environments.
Ms. Deazeley: From our perspective in Ontario, as we are dealing with a workforce crisis, we absolutely need to think about how to remove barriers for entry to the profession for people who might be interested in obtaining those qualifications. We are certainly looking at the unqualified staff who are currently working with children and looking for opportunities for them to gain qualifications and become professionals.
We also feel very strongly that should be done in a way that doesn’t take away from the importance of the education that goes into becoming an early childhood educator in terms of learning about pedagogy and child development and the very important role that post-secondary programs play in that process. We want to ensure that the experiential part of the learning that takes place in a child-care centre is done in an environment where the student is observing and consolidating their learning. They should not be placed under the pressure of being what we call “in ratio.” They should not be working as a staff person who is on the floor and carrying all the responsibilities that go along with that. It’s something we need to navigate very carefully.
Senator Bernard: Do any of you think it is truly possible to address issues of recruitment and retention without also addressing the systemic racism and sexism that underpin these realities?
Ms. Mullen: We are on the cusp of having to do just that. We must do everything we can to ensure folks have opportunities to take the training. We hope students are supported in these efforts. Certain types of funding exist to assist centres to take in students without directly impacting ratio. I understand that role, too.
We absolutely need a national program to bring it front and centre, to recruit and retain members, to get our young family members to take that training. A two-year ECE program in Nova Scotia is required to be fully trained. We need a lot of education around supporting different cultural members going into the role. We see so many centres where a lot of immigrant workers are coming to the role, taking “lesser than” the money that should be paid to them. There’s lots to do. A national strategy is the way to support that role.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses today. This discussion has made us very aware of the recruitment and retention issues. It is very sad for me to hear that the YMCA child-care program in Toronto is only 50% filled because it doesn’t have the staff to provide the services. So many parents and children are losing out. It makes me very sad to hear this.
Clearly, one of the things needed is higher wages in the sector. What else could there be? It’s not just working conditions; it has to be higher wages.
I’m trying to figure out where the higher wages are going to come from. The program is funded by the federal government to the tune of $30 billion, and, of course, the goal is to lower the fees that parents pay from 50% in the first couple of years, or whatever it is, and then down to $10 a day. That’s a huge reduction in what parents are going to pay, but I’m trying to put the pieces together.
So if you wouldn’t mind helping me try to figure out where the money is going to come from: Are there special programs? Are there any other sources that can be drawn upon to help with the wage equation?
I ask whoever would like to answer. Ms. Deazeley, since you’re in Ontario, my province, I’d like to hear from you and the other witnesses as well.
Ms. Deazeley: That’s a wonderful question, but I think it’s one that everybody has been struggling to come up with an answer to not only currently but for many years.
However, I think what’s changing now in the conversation is the message that’s being sent by the federal government and that can be sent in terms of expectations about how this program is implemented and where the priority will lie, and the importance of ensuring not only the lowering of fees, but also balancing that with the need to ensure that the working conditions and wages are addressed so as to ensure that there is a supply of qualified educators to meet that demand. Just to follow from the question that was asked previously, the historically inconsistent undervaluing of the work of this profession is, in large part, due to the fact that it is a female-dominated and racialized profession.
Until that is addressed, and it’s addressed by recognizing the true value and worth of this profession, we’re going to continue perpetuating that problem. I think the real opportunity here is for the federal government to send a clear message that this needs to change.
Senator Dasko: Would that mean, then, that parents would have to pay more? Maybe we’re looking at not $10 a day as the end result; maybe it’s $15 or $20 a day. Anyway, I’m just putting this out as a hypothesis.
Ms. Mullen: This has been a big part of my life. My friend, who had children at the same time I did, lived in Quebec and had the $5-per-day daycare. I lived in Nova Scotia and it was not $5 per day. It’s been a part of my work life for a long time, and when the announcement of the strategy came, I was elated, and my husband took the role of asking, “Where does the money come from? Where? Where?”
So, good question. I’ll tell him you asked. I finally got him to see the light. When your daughter is here in Ottawa paying $1,800 for a 12-month-old to go to daycare for a month, what’s your incentive to have another one?
Probably that’s another discussion, but I answered that families cannot afford those kinds of dollars in child care. So by reducing the dollar per day, families, as was the case in Quebec, had more children, and more women went to work. Folks, we need people in the workforce and we need more children to help sustain our other social plans.
I do believe that the money will come from the fact that these women will go to work — so, a two-family income and all of that. Children will be cared for in properly licensed, regulated, safe environments, and the reduction in the rates of child-care costs will benefit the economy because they will be able to afford their mortgages and so on.
I might be speaking from the experience of who’s talking to me in my other ear, but I do believe that that’s where the money will come from, and that we will see it as a benefit to all Canadians across the country.
Senator Dasko: Do you mean through the tax system?
Ms. Mullen: Through the fact that they are going to go to work, pay taxes and pay into CPP, and all of those social systems that need people working. We have workforce vacancies across the country, and we need people to be able to afford to go to work.
The Chair: Thank you. A quick follow-up from Senator Dasko’s question to Ms. Deazeley: You said that this is an opportunity to send the federal government a clear message. What’s the message that you would like to send?
Ms. Deazeley: The message, I think, is the importance of the workforce and of qualified educators in the implementation of the program. So, reinforcing the idea that under those pillars that were identified, quality is a critical pillar, even if it is a harder and longer-term one to implement sometimes, and that quality depends on having qualified educators, who are supported in a profession in which they can remain for their entire career.
The Chair: Thank you. Do you believe that in the next iteration of the agreements, perhaps there should be more attention paid to public dollars going to enhance the wage force compensation?
Ms. Deazeley: I think that until the agreements focus on supporting the workforce, none of the rest of it will be able to be implemented.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I’m going to put my question to Ms. Deazeley, but I’d be happy to hear from our other witnesses. Thank you for being here.
I have a question about the importance of having educators with adequate training, respect for the profession and suitable income and recognition, of course. I know it’s important to have child care spaces, but so is adequate training.
I’m looking at how it works in my province, Quebec. Do you agree with the following? In Quebec, it has been observed that this type of child care, early learning centres, with qualified educators, has an essential impact on all children, especially children from vulnerable families and disadvantaged backgrounds. It has been observed that educators’ training help children make up for gaps in stimulation and education. Ms. Deazeley, have you seen the same thing in the field where you are? Would you say that there’s also an essential role to play for children from disadvantaged communities?
[English]
Ms. Deazeley: Thank you. I think one of the things that differentiates professional educators and the training that they receive is that they have a deep understanding of pedagogy and child development. They are trained in creating safe and inclusive learning environments where all of the children in their care can thrive. They are trained in assessing and communicating regarding the programs and their progress. It’s that training and expertise, I think, that truly equips them to work with and support all the children in their care, and so, that inclusion of children, I think, absolutely contributes to better outcomes for those children and families.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you. Do you want to comment on that?
[English]
Ms. Mullen: Exactly. Qualified ECE folks in daycare, or a family home daycare, are trained to identify things that other social networks need them to see. They are trained in safety, food safety, all of those things that are important to deliver good quality child care.
They are also trained in supporting children who have special needs, who come from situations such as in foster care or in a sad situation like that.
You may see good private child-care providers in your community, but they are not trained in all of the health and safety requirements that are out there, and absolutely that is part of what our ECE folks are trained in.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: I want to pick up on my previous question and understand better the regulatory aspects of early childhood educators.
Basically, what we have as a difference between Ontario and the other provinces and territories is that the kind of inspection and regulatory process that’s been described by Ms. Mullen, and Ms. Gawlick, is direct, from government agencies, funded through government to the industry, to the various centres and individuals, whereas with the college in Ontario has, at this point, a unique system. We have a college and funded — where your inspection process and your regulatory process is one step removed from the government.
My question is whether for B.C., or for your jurisdiction, Ms. Mullen, you are looking at this model. Or is there a level of satisfaction with what exists?
Ms. Mullen: I cannot speak to whether they are looking at a college to oversee the ECEs because, of course, we are a very small province and we have limited — the Nova Scotia Community College system is the one who provides ECE learning, as well as a couple of private ones. It is that same designation, a two-year ECE program or a bachelor of early childhood learning. I have not heard any discussion on the college. Certainly interesting to hear.
I understood at one point that we had 2,000 ECE folks in Nova Scotia working in the sector, be it from level 1 through to level 3. We have probably over 700 that we know of working in schools as well, but I’ve not heard about the college.
Ms. Gawlick: Great question. Early Childhood Educators of British Columbia has been in existence for over 50 years now, and the conversation of a college has come and gone and come and gone many times, and we are definitely looking at Ontario’s model. At this particular moment, the ECEBC, the organization, has decided that we are quite happy with the government doing this work. They supply the staff. They do the education. They are responsible for that, and we really felt at this particular moment as a professional organization that we needed to be a strong advocacy voice for early childhood educators, and some of that — you lose that when you move to a college. That was one of our key reasons to continue on with our professional organization and maybe in the future look toward a college of early childhood educators in B.C.
The Chair: Thank you very much, witnesses in-person and online, for providing us with your testimony. We leave this room much wiser than we came into it, and for that, my colleagues and I thank you.
Colleagues, there being no further business, this meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)