ISSN 0542-5492 First Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on STATUTORY REGULATIONS and ORDERS 31 Elizabeth 11 Chairman Mr. Don Scott Constituency of lnkster VOL. XXX No. 6-10:00 a.m., THURSDAY, 24 JUNE, 1982. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R� (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCK LASCHUK, John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil . FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURL AY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PH ILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, John RANSOM, A. Brian · SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vie SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW , Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verend rye Min nedosa Rhin eland Gimli Brandon West Ell ice Chur ch ill St. Bon iface Aiel Elmw ood Ki ldonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East Ri ver East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kir kfield Park The Pas Ru pertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Cha rleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Robli n-Russell St. No rbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkir k Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Bu rrows Rossmer e lnk ster Fort Garry Osborne Ri ver Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC ND P NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC ND P NDP NDP PC PC ND P PC ND P PC NDP ND P PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY REGULATIONS AND ORDERS Thursday, 24 June, 1982 Time - 10 :00 a.m. CHAIRMAN - Mr. D. Scott. MS C. DEPAPE, Clerk of the Committees: Commit tee come to order. Since Mr. Fox is no longer a member of the Comm ittee we will have to elect a new Chairman. Are there any nomi nations? Mr . Kostyra. MR. E. KOSTYRA: I would nomi nate the Member for lnkster. MS C. DEPAPE: Are there any further nomi nations? Seeing none, Mr . Scott, wou ld you please take the Chair. MR. CHAIRMAN, D.

Scott: Fir st off we can start with either finishing up Bill No. 2 and Bill No. 19 and then go on to Bill No. 21. I will leave it at the will of the Comm ittee. Is it the will of the Com m ittee to continue with the present format? (Agreed) We're on

Section 42 of Bill 2. Mr. Corri n. BILL NO. 2 - THE RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION ACT MR. B. CORRIN: I' d lik e to move an amendment in accordance with our predetermined arrangement made at the end of our last meeting with respect to

Section 16 of this bill. it's an incredibly long amend­ ment, do you have it in writing? MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have it in writing? MR. B. CORRIN: Has the Legislative Counsel submit ­ ted it to you? MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, okay. MR. B. CORRIN: Do any of the members here want . this particular amendment read into the record, it's three pages in length? The Member for Tuxedo has strong feelin gs, if he does I' m going to suggest that he read it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Filmon. MR. G. FILM ON: Mr .

Chairman, I'll just say, on a pro­ cedural matter, we've always read th ings into the record but if the commit tee is willing to accept it as printed that's okay, I understand the Member for Ell i­ ce's reluctance to read three pages. MR. B. CORRIN: Wel l, we can do it responsively if the burden is shared by the commit tee then we can all do it together, I'll read the first part and someone can read the second paragraph and so on.

But if that's acceptable then I take it we have an agreement that it will be introduced to the record as it is printed and has been submit ted by Legislative Counsel to the Chair­ person of the Comm ittee. I am advised by the Chair- 10 5 person that he is in rece ipt of it and it's in proper form. (Submit ted but not read) MOTION Incr ease on volu ntary vacat ing of single fam ily units, etc. 16(2) Where the tenant of residential premises in a building in which there are not more than 3 separate residential premises (

a) has voluntarily gi ven notice to the land lord of his intention to vacate the residential premises; or (

b) dies and is not survived by a spouse or depen­ dent who had occupied the premises with the tenant at the time of death of the tenant; notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a landlor d, upon serving on the director a statement of those facts, substantiated in a manner prescribed in the reg ulations and rece iving acknowledgement from the di rector of the service of the statement and that the facts have been substantiated to the satisfaction of the dir ector either from the statement or by an investiga­ tion undertaken under subsection (3), may increase the rent for the residential premises (

c) by an amoun t that is greater than the increase in rent perm itted under the regulations; or (

d) befor e the expiration of 12 months from the date of the next previous increase in the rent for the resi­ dential premises; or (

e) both by an amount that is greater than the increase in rent permi tted under the regulations and before the expi ration of 12 months from the date of the next previous increase in the rent for the residential premises; but upon another tenant taking possession of the residential premises, the landlord shall notify the di rector (

f) of the amount of the increase in rent took effect which shall not be earlier than the date on which the other tenant takes possession. Investigation by director. 16(3) For the purpose of substantiating the facts referred to in clause (2)(

a) or (b), the di rector may refer the matter to a rent regula­ tion officer to conduct an investigation as to the cir ­ cums tances relating to the vacating of the residential premi ses or the interests of any spouse or dependent of the deceased tenant, as the case may require, and to report the results of the investigation to the director. Application for increase re vacated premises. 16(4) Where the tenant of residential premises in a building in which there are more than 3 separate residential premises (

a) has volu ntarily given notice to the land lor d of his intention to vacate the residential prem ises; or (

b) dies or is not survived by a spouse or dependent who had occupied the prem ises with the tenant at the time of the death of the tenant;

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 notwithstanding that 12 months have not expired from the date on which the next previous increase on the rent for the residential premises first came into effect, the land lord may apply for an increase in rent for residential premises (

c) by an amount that is gr eater than the increase in rent permitted under the regulations; or (

d) before the expir ation of 12 months from the date of the next previous increase in the rent for the resi­ dential premises; (

e) both by an amount that is greater than the increase in rent permit ted under the regulations and before the expiration of the 12 months from the date of the next previous increase in the rent for the residen­ tial premises; by serving on the dir ector an appl ication for the increase in the rent. Procedure on application. 16(5) The di rector shall refer an application under subsection (4) to a rent regulation officer who shall deal with the application in the same manner as an appl ication by a land lord under

section 21 except that he may proceed to con­ sider the application ex parte and without notice to any tenant of the residential premises.

Rent increase 16(6) Where, on an appl ication under subsection (4), a rent regulation officer is satisfied that the rent paid by the vacating or deceased tenant for the residential premises to which the application relates is below the average of rents payable for other simil ar or comparable residential premises in the same building and that the reason for the low rent was not solely or primarily the conditions of supply and demand for such residential premises at the time the vacat ing or deceased tenant went into possession or renewed a tenancy agreement, the rent regulation officer may in writing recommend that the land lord may increase the rent for the residential premises (

a) by an amount that is greater than the increase in rent permit ted under the regulations; or (

b) before the expi ration of 12 months from the date of the next previous increase in the rent for the resi­ dential premises; or (

c) both by an amount that is greater than the increase in rent permit ted under the regulations and before the expiration of 12 months from the date of the next previous increase in the rent for the residential premises. Authority to increase. 16(7) Where, on an application under subsection (4), the rent regulation officer makes a reco mmendation which is confirmed under subsec­ tion 25(3), or on an appeal from a recommendation of the rent regulation officer respecting an applic tion under subsection (4), a panel issues an order (

a) authorizing the land lord to increase the rent for the residential premises by an amount that is greater than the increase in rent perm itted under the regula­ tions; or (

b) authorizing the landlord to increase the rent before the expiration of 12 months from the date of the next previous increase in the rent for the residential premises; or 106 (

c) authorizing the landlor d both to increase the rent for the residential premises by an amount that is greater than the increase in rent permitted under the regulations and to increase the rent before the expi ra­ tion of 12 months from the date of the next previous increase in the rent for the residential premises; the landlor d, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, may increase the rent for the residential pre­ mises in accordance with the recommendation or the order, as the case may be. (End of amend ment) The effect of this is to deal with the problem that was raised by landlor ds with respect to situations where tenants had been given special compassionate treat­ ment for a varie ty of reasons.

Some landlords, I think, indicated that they had elderly tenants that they gave special preference to with respect to rent increases; other land lords duri ng the course of private consult a­ tion and some during the hearing of public del ega­ tions indicated that they gave special treatment to people with various handic aps and so on and so forth.

They were concerned that the regulatory program, as proposed, would have a deleterious affect on their abil ity to regain any sort of market, if not economic rent, as a result of the artificial deflation of that unit's value as caused by the special compassiona te treat­ ment given to the tenant.

So we are proposing that, in these cases wher e a suite is voluntarily vacated by the tenant - and these would include cases, not to be facetious, wher e a tenant has passed away as well -that there will be the situation where the land lord can then recover lost rents and the ordinary provisions of the regulator y program will not apply in such ci rcumstances.

Very basically the treatment, as recited in these th ree long pages, is as foll ows: "With respect to cases where ther e are more than three separate residential premises in a bui lding, the basis for the increase will essentially be comparabil ity." In other words, one of the factors that the Rent Regulation Officer and Panel will be asked to examine and assess will be the com­ parative rents in the building affected by the applica­ tion for an increase. We felt that was the fairest way to make provision for this sort of special consideration in that respect.

We had a bit of a problem with respect to the smaller bui ldi ngs. We did n't quite know how we could deal with that in the sense it would be virtually impossible to apply the same type of standard or formula in the case of buil dings of fewer than three units. So in those cases, in the case of a vol untary vacation of a unit, the market will essentially be the determina te.

By way of short explanation and justification of the differential treatment, we do not feel that, in the case of the smal ler tenancy situations, that it will have any real bearing or influence on the total market, in the sense that it would be a major deviation from the general regulatory program that we're putting in place and we propose to put in place. So that, I think, is briefly an explanation and we'd be quite pleased to entertain questions if that is the wish of other memb ers. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Film on. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. I' ve had

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 the opportunity to discuss this somewhat with the Min ister and, just for my own understanding of it, the differences between this amendment and the one which I had left with the Mi nister as we adjou rned the last Sitting, is that this splits the two categories into rental units that occur in triple xes or smaller and those above thr ee units and it adds the restriction in those units that are above th ree unit comple xes, it adds the restriction that they will be com pared to the market in that complex and therefore they will not be able to rise above the market in that complex.

Is that corr ect? Those are the two major changes then, plus the pro­ cedural matters are spelled out more clearly about the appl ication to the di rector and so on. I know they're very complex. Mine was two pages and this is three pages and it's a little difficult to comp are, but essen­ tially those are the changes. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 16 as amended-pass. Mr . Kostyra. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Yes, just to commen t. The Member for Tuxedo is correct. The basic change from what he had indica ted to me, that he was to propose, was the two factors that he mentioned. One, with respect to those comple xes, those rental units in excess of three units, would be al lowed on volu ntary vacated premises to move up to the com­ parable level of rent for simil ar suites in the same complex and in essence his proposal has been accepted for those units that are contained in rental suites that are of three or less. MR. G.

FILMON: Can I just clarify, as well, Mr . Chair­ man, that this now giv es the fle xibil ity for the Rent Regulation Review Office to consider situations where people voluntarily vacate after a longstanding term in a rental premise that, if they leave voluntarily mi dterm or if someone should die and so on, that there is the opportunity for the landlord to then move in and do whatever impr ovements, painting, decorati ng, what­ ever and apply for an increase at that time and is not bound by one increase every 12 month lim itation under those special cir cumstances as wel l. That's taken care of here.

Is that corr ect? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Yes, it is.

Again, only to the max­ imum, in the case of rental units or comple xes in excess of th ree suites, subject to the maximum of the comparable rent for similar units in that complex. it's really to take care of a situation that was brought to our attention, as the member will recal l, du ring the public presentations to this Commit tee wherein a number of landlor ds outlined situations where partic­ ula r tenants, for reasons of that tenant's economic situation or longstanding period of time that they've rented with that particular landlord, wher e they're paying rents considerably lower than the going rate with in that complex and that, once that person leaves, it was felt that the land lord shouldn't be forced to maintain that situation when, indeed, the actual rent levels for simil ar suites was considerably high er. it's real ly to take care of that particular situation, Mr.

Chai rman . MR. G. FILMON: No further questions, Mr. Chairman. 10 7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine.

Section 16 as amended-pass. Now we move on to

Section 42-pass:

Section 43- pass; Okay, one second, Mr. Tall in would li ke to make a comment. MR. R. TALLIN: We have the French version of the Motions that were made last week, or rather earlier this week. We don't have the French version for what has been presented this morn ing. In addition, in preparing the French version of the Amendments, the translators came across a numb er of what they thought were areas that could be impr oved in the French version. Anybody who wants copies of the French version of the Motion can have them, we have copies of them here.

But I would lik e permission of the Commit tee to make further changes in the French version to impr ove the language that is used if that is perm issible and also to put in the French amendments. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed? (Ag reed) Mr. Kovnats. MR. A. KOVNATS: A question to the Legal Counsel. I hope I haven't misunderstood. Am lied to bel ieve that the French version is different than the Engl ish version? MR. R. TALLIN: I don't think that it's different in any substantive way although I'll have to ask the transla­ tor.

They just thought that in some cases there would be better language used to express the same idea. Is that correct? In some cases it's a matter of consis­ tency in the French langua ge where they've used dif­ ferent lang uage in the French to express the same idea where the same language is being used in the English version, and that sort of thing. MR. A. KOVNATS: I don'twantto really extend on it.

I was just a little bit confused as to the statement and I thought that maybe they had come up with a better law for the French version than they had for the Eng­ li sh version and I thought it was a little unfair but I th ink I had misunderstood and I understand that now. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Preamble -pass; Title -pass; Bill be reported -pass. BILL NO. 19-

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: Next we'll move on to Bi 1119.

An Act to amend The Land lord and Tenant Act. We'll wait till the Clerk gets the amendments passed and we'll go clause-by-clause. Shall we proceed?

Section 1. 2.1 (1 )(a)-pass; 2.1 (1 )(b)-pass; 2.1 1 (

c) Mr. Corrin. MR. B. CORRIN: I have an amendment, Mr. Chair per­ son, in this respect I would propose THAT this clause of the Landlor d and Tenant Act as set out in

Section 1 of the bill be struck and the follow­ ing clause substituted: "Except in the case of service requir ed under Sec­ tions 70, 77, 104 or 108, by mailin g it post page prepaid by regi stered or certified mail add ressed to the person

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 at the latest add ress of the person, known to the per­ son required to give or serve it." Just very generally, the reason for this is to attempt to standardize the giving and sending of notices with respect to the various provisions of this Act.

These are notices that pass, of cour se. between landl ords and tenants and the specific change here is that notices, general ly, will be capable now of bei ng served by regi stered or certified mail in the manner set out in the amendment, as opposed to personal service, with the exception of the four sections recited and mentioned in the amendment. These four sections all deal essen­ tially with notices for Orders of Possession. These are cases where a land lord is moving to evict a tenant and remove him or her from occupation of a premi ses.

So it was felt generally that, in these cir cumstances. we should retain the req uirement that service be person­ ally affected. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any comment?

Section 2.1(1)(

c) as amende d-pass: Sect ion 2.1 (2)-pass: That is the finish of

Section 1. Page 2. Are there any amendments on Page 2? Page 2-pass: Page 3. Are there any amend ments on Page 3? Page 3-pass: Page 4. We have an amendment here I bel ieve. Do you want to go section-b y-section? Sections 11 to 16 were each read and passed.

Section 17. Mr . Corrin. MR. B. CORRIN: Mr. Chair person, I'm movi ng an amendment THAT Bill 19 be amended by add ing, imm ed iately after

Section 17, the following section: Subsection 111 (2) of the Act is repealed and the following subsection is subsitituted therefor: Service of Order 111 (2) in order for possession granted under

Section 110, shall be served on the tenant to whom it is di rected. To explain this, basically we're providing a conces­ sion here with respect to provisions that were consi­ dered to be somewhat onerous with respect to the obl igations that the Act formerly im posed upon land­ lords respecti ng the req uirement that Orders for Pos­ session, these are orders that were made by the court after proceedings were dealt with in a judi cial manner, requ iring that those orders be personally served on tenants to whom they were di rected.

In a sense. the amendment is to remove that req uirement and ther e­ fore such orders could in the future be affected by mai ling, regi stered or certified ma il, addr essed to the person at his or her latest addr ess.

The feeling was that a person who had alr eady received notice of a heari ng, by way of personal service and notice of the landl ord's wish to make an application for an order for possession and a person who had partici pated in a hearing or had defaulted and not attended a hearing after rece iving proper personal notice, was probably not going to be prejud iced by mail deliv ery of the actual order. it's a small step to try and ameli orate the effects of the Act as it affects landlords.

Sometimes we're advised that personal service can be somewhat costly and in these cir cumstances. it was perceived as being probably redundant. 108 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, are there any further com­ ments?

Section 17 as amended-pass;

Section 18- pass:

Section 19 Mr. Corrin. MR. B. CO RRIN: This is an amendment, Mr. Chai rperson. THAT the proposed subsection 116(1) of The Land­ lord and Tenant Act set out in

Section 19 of Bill 19 be amended by striking out the words and figur e "and not more than 4 months" in the 4th and 5th li ne ther eof. This is simply to bring the provision with respect to The Landlo rd and Tenant Act into line with the changes that were made earlier in the week to the residential rent regulation bill. Members will recollect that the provision that notice of rental increase be made within a 3- to 4-month period prior to the termination of the rental period was changed insofar as the ceiling was taken off.

There will be a min imal provision that there be notice prior to 3 months, but it cou ld be more than 4. lt could, for that matter, be anything between 3, I suppose, and 12, depending on the circums tances. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments?

Section 116(1) as amended-pass; 116(1 .1 )-pass: 116(1.2) - I belie ve there's an amendment here, Mr . Corrin? MR. B. CORRIN: THAT the proposed subsection 116(1.2) of The Landlor d and Tenant Act as set out in

Section 19 of Bill 19 be amended by striking out the words and figur es "subsection (1.1) does" in the first line thereof and substituting therefor the words and figur es "subsections (1.1) and (2) do." So, again, it's in order to affect consistency between The Landlord and Tenant Act and the rent reg ulation bill. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 116 (1.2) as amended­ pass:

Section 19 as amende d-pass;

Section 20- pass:

Section 21-pass:

Section 22-pass:

Section 23-pass: Page 6-pass:

Preamble -pass; Tit le-pass: B ill be reported . That finishes Bill No. 19. BILL NO. 21 - THE COMMUNITY CHILD DAY CARE STANDARDS ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: Next we have on the agenda Bill No. 21 The Comm unity Child Day Care Standards Act. We have a number of persons wishing to appear before the comm ittee and I would li ke to, unless the Min ister wants to make any ... Ms Ph illip s would you like to make any introductory comme nts? Mr. Evans. HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, I think the usual procedure is for us to hear the delegations and get thei r suggestions, comments and then from there proceed to cla use-by-clause.

MR. CHAIRMAN: First off could I cal l Mrs. Aleda Turnb ull. Mr. Eyler. MR. P. EVLER: Could I suggest you call for any out-

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 of-town presentations first if there are any? MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that the wish of the comm ittee? (Agreed) Mrs. Turnbull would you mind if there are any out-of-town delegations we could hear them first. it's 10:30 now and we have, I wou ld say, close to 30 people to hear, so do we have any out-of-town delega­ tions? Ma'am could you please identify yourself? MS G. CORDES: I' m sorry, I'm not from out of town, but with baby-sitter problems and what not, I just wonder if I could present; I'm No. 2 on the list so I think I do take objection to that. MR.

CHAIRMAN: We'll get there this morning, I'm sure. MS G. COR DES: I'll have to leave at 11 :30 to meet my chil dren. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, is there anybody from out of town then? Fir st off, someone with another emer ­ gency. Yes, Mr . Kovnats. MR. A. KOVNATS: I think that possibly we're bending the rules and I'm not against bending the rules because you have to give consider ation to some peo­ ple but, just as was just brought up, there are some other problems for people that are in town and they should be given the same consideration.

Might I sug­ gest that we proceed in the manner in which the list is printed and could we have a copy of the list. MR. CHAIRMAN: I' m sure you can. Mr. Min ister. HON. L. EVANS: Well, Mr. Chairman, in keeping with Mr . Kovnats' suggestion, the Mem ber for Niakwa, I think what we shoul d do is try to be as accommoda t­ ing as we can to the people here and, ther efore, what I would suggest is we hear those who do have to get away who happen to live in Winnipeg, or wherever, plus those who do come from out of town.

I think the mem ber would agree that we want to accommoda te those who will have difficulties so I think in that way . we wi ll be fair to everybody and I don't think it'll cause us undue dislocation in our proceed ings. So, I' d lik e to suggest, Mr. Chair man, that we hear those, first of all, who definitely have to get away, although I mu st say, Mr.

Chairman, we will be meet­ ing, if necessary, tonight as well and tomorrow and I belie ve on Saturday morning as well if necessary, so we're prepared to sit as long as we have to to hear everyone out and to get the views of the various organ­ izations and individuals. To fa cilit ate, in a reasonable way, is to find out who on the li st must get away, for instance, this morn ing and then after that go to those who are from out of town and who may be inconvenienced by not being brought up earlier, rather than later. MR. A.

KOVNATS: I've got to ag ree with the Honour ­ able Minister that there's nothing wrong with what he has said, except that with the type of association that these people have most of them would be wanting to get away and there's no reason for them not to be 109 wanting to get away, inasmuch they are mostly in a business that requir es their personal attention and I don't think that we can give that special consideration; inasmuch as these people migh t be a little reluctant to make a complai nt; inasmuch as they are making a presentation and they want to be heard fairly.

I think that maybe we should follow the rules and not bend them as was originally suggested and just carry on with the list the way it is. I know we're wasting time but ... MR. CHAIRMAN: My concern is that we're alr eady starting to waste time, I' d li ke to start off by bending the rules and ask Ms Cordes if she wou ld come for­ ward please. MS G. COR DES: Thank you very much fort h is oppor­ tunity and I suggest my particular problem is what this Bill is addressing and I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak quickly. My name is Georgia Cordes and I' m here today representing the YWCA.

The YWCA appreciates this opportunity to verbally express our whole hearted support for the introduction of a Commun ity Chil d Day Care Standards Act. Such

an Act has long been a goal of our association. One of the primary goals of the YWCA, historically, has been to develop the potential of gir ls and women through a wide variety of growth experiences and to nurture and support the broad concepts of the Womens' Movement until true equality of opportunity has been achieved. We have a longstanding concern with child care services arising from our commitment to women. In particular, the roles they take as mothe rs, as well as memb ers of the labour market and volunteer sectors, heig hten our need for social assessment of child care supports to the fam ily unit.

Both com mun ity and par­ ent share responsibili ty for chi ldren. The commun ity responsibil ity is to recog nize and meet the legiti mate needs of today's fam ily. Day care centres can act as a resource to assist in enriching parenting abili ties. Acting out of com munity concern the Winnipeg YWCA has responded to certa in chil d care needs of the fam ily through its varied recreation programming for childr en dur ing hol iday and vacation periods. In addition, it has provided a child care service for a number of years for chi ld ren of all the participants tak ing

part in programmin g; for volu nteers working on behalf of the YWCA; for students attending cl asses at the nearby Adult Education Centre; and for women requiring such services on an occasional basis while downtown.

In December of 1977, the YWCA made a presenta­ tion to the United Way Comm ission on child care services in Manitoba endorsing the foll owing: That qual ity day care should be accessible to those requir­ ing it, regardless of economic status; that day-care funding and programs be devel opmental and preven­ tative in direction; that day care respond to childr en with special needs; that day care be imp lemented by trained staff, rather than volu nteers and that their salaries be adequ ate; that Lunch -and-After-School programs be an integral part of day care; that day care meet the needs of fami lies of school-age childr en dur­ ing school holid ay and vacation periods.

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 In 1979, a letter was sent to the Provincial Govern­ ment supporting and urging imp lementation of the United Way study on day care, with further focus on a more active role for the Provi ncial Child Care Office.

In 1981, the YWCA Board supported the four recommendations chosen by the Coalition on Day Care, of which the YWCA is a member. as priority concerns from the United Way Day Care study and those were: that fam ily and group day care and Lunch-and- After-School programs must be expanded under the Provi ncial Day Care Program to ensure that all chil dren requiring service receive care in a safe, supportive and stimulating environment: that a Day Care Act must be passed to set and provide for the enforcement of provincial standards for program­ ming, staffing, nutrition and space: that all fam ily and group day care and Lunch-and- After School pro­ grams must be lic ensed and a subsidy available to parents using these programs: and that provincial funding must ensure adequate staff salaries and pro­ grams and more equitable sharing of costs between the parents and the province.

In October of 1981, a letter was sent to the Provin­ cial Government supporting provision of adequate day care and establishment of a Day Care Act. We urge that the regulations referred to in Bill 21 will reflect the concerns which have been itemized and to this end the YWCA will look forward to continu ed input. I thank you for this opportunity to present the YWCA position on day care services. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Ms Cordes. Are there any questions to Ms Cordes? MS G. COR DES: If there are no questions, I just have a couple.

I understand that there will be hearings during the summer months to provide public input into the formulation of regulations and I just won­ dered if he had some time frame. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Evans. HON. L. EVANS: We haven' t got a specific time frame but we will be in communication with various organi­ zations and groups, including yours, to advise you.

We'd lik e to be as expeditious as possible but I don't lik e to pin myself down right at the moment to say exactly the week or the day that we can begin but we do wish to proceed expeditiously and my Legisla tive Assistant, Miss Ph illi ps, will be very much involved in that as well. So we'll make every effort we can to commun icate with you and other organizations. I just want to assure you we want to do it as expeditiously as possible. MS G.

CORDES: Could I just put forward that I note that there wasn't much time to look at the printed bill. lt only recently was available in printed form and per­ haps what proposed regulations do come forward, if we mi ght have a little bit mor e advance tim e in order to see them in printed form, and also the suggestion has been made to me that if these hearings are provided over the summer months, it would be hel pful for those of us who are looking after our childr en during the summer holi days, perhaps it migh t be possible to have 110 a day care, chil d-care setup arranged here for those of us to be able to utilize, to speak to the development of these regulations.

HON. L. EVANS: Mr . Chairman, I should point out to the delegate that we wouldn't necessarily have hear­ ings here. They will not be of that type. We will not be this formal. We intend to go th roughout the province to the community, to the people, rather than having formal hearings here as such, and meeting maybe with one group at a time rather than with all groups at one time. All I'm saying is there are various combinations of doing this. lt may be that when we go to one particular centre, we may talk to several groups at one time or one part of the city, it depends.

But we'll certainly give you lots of notice and, if possible, give you as much information in advance so that you can read and peruse. MS G. CORDES: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms Cordes. Aleda Turnbull, please. MRS. A. TURNBULL: Thank you very much, Mr . Scott. I have a couple of pieces of printed material that I would like to ci rculate before I be gin. Would you do that?

The printed material that we are circulating is a paper entitled "Standards in Day Care" and this is the agreement that the Coalition has come to through a very long process of community consultation with the day care community, with parents. with teachers and so on. We have been work ing on coming to this agreement since we began the United Way hearings. We have had many, many community meetings and ironed out a great number of the details in these. We'd li ke you to consider them very seriously as they do represent a concensus of the opinion in the commun­ ity about this matter.

The second piece of material that I have provided for you is a list of those organizations in the commun ­ ity who have endorsed the standards that we are proposing. As you'll see from reading that list, it is fairly extensive and represents really a very broad cross

section of Manitobans. I would lik e to start then with some introductory remarks. To be gin with, it giv es me a great deal of pleasure to address you today. I, along with other community people, have been working for many years in order to come before you to offer our comments and our remarks and our support and our criticisms of the proposed commun ity child day care Act. This is an im portant day for the citizens of Manitoba, for the parents and the childr en who are in day care, for the day care workers who have developed the present day care system in this province.

We appreciate thi s opportunity to come to you. I am spe aking today on behalf of the Coa lition for Day Care. This Coalition was formed in the spring of 1979 to lobby for the im plemen tation of the United Way Report recommendations. The United Way Repor t on Day Care was fir st published ih the fall of 1978 and it came about as a result of the appointing of a com­ mi ssion by the United Way in the spring of 1977. Fol-

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 lowing the appointment of the commission, there were extensive commun ity hearings where parents, boards of day cares, citizens, medical people, trade unions came to the United Way Comm ission and expressed their concerns about the day care system in the province and suggested methods of im proving and extending that system. So we went through this whole process of the com­ mission. We came to a concensus there and, in that report, there were 67 recommendations. To date, I believe it's three of those recommendations have been acted on.

So the governments have n't really been moving awfully quickly to resolve this problem, but we are pleased that we now have a day care stan­ dards Act. This is certa inly another recommendation of the report and we'll deal with a number of substan­ tive issues that were discussed in the United Way Report. I would lik e to tell you a li ttle bit about the United Way commission, just to establ ish the level of com­ munit y input and concern about this.

The United Way establi shed a broadly based communit y commit tee in which approximately 65 organizations were repre­ sented and this commit tee appointed the commission and oversaw the work of the comm ission and received the report at the end of that process. The attempt there was to establish the mid dle ground and to work that out very carefu lly and that's exactly what the comm is­ sion did. The report was very warmly received by this large representative group, which had concerns about child care in our community.

After the report was finished and the United Way received it and so on, it was felt that it was go ing to be necessary to continu e the lobbying effort and, as a result of that, the organi­ zation that I speak for was formed. So it has been a very broad participatory process which has brought these commendations to you today and I would ask that you consider them seriously. I would lik e to proceed then, to go through a number of what I see as the background and pertinent issues in the field of day care.

I would first lik e to draw your attention to the fact that there are presently 20,000 children, pre-schoolers, in paid care in the Province of Man itoba. We currently have somewh ere between 6,000 and 7,000 full-time lic ensed subsidized . spaces in the province. In my understanding of the estimates for this year, we would have somewh ere under 1 ,000 new spaces. So, we are lookin g at around 7,500 full-time spaces in the province and around 20,000 chi ldr en in full-time paid care in the province.

That means that we're basically running a system on the taxpayers' dollar which deliv ers service to about one-third of the people who are paying for th is kind of care in the commun ity. We feel that this is a very unjust situation because there is no basis for establ ishing who should be in the li censed, supervised child care system and who is out of the licensed, supervised child care system and who is out of the lic enced supervised child care system.

Other than first come, first served and older child­ ren, it really is very simi lar to running a school system at public expense and saying that only one-third of the chi ldr en of the province may go to that system and that the basis on which the childr en may go to this publicly funded system is whether they happen to li ve close to a school; whether they happen to be involved 111 in organizing a school; whether they're in the remote areas of the province or I would suggest with regard to the situation with infant care, whether or not their childr en are the most needing of schooling or not. lt really is a very unfair, unjust system that we currently have.

The University of Saskatche wan, in Reg ina, did a study, a statistical study, on day care needs and use in the Province of Saskatchewa n. They have fewer spa­ ces than us, but there is no reason to believe that the situation isn't parallel. They've got about a quarter of their children in li censed subsidiz ed spaces as opposed to a third. What this study group found was that some fam il ies were paying up to 40 percent of their total income for day care.

Now, these are people who are struggling to stay in the work force, who are generally earning minim um wage and who support the core values of our society and are doing it with great difficulty. I would suggest to you that this is really a concern for the government, that there are mainly women in our community who are wor king with one or two children and paying for them them­ selves, because they can't get into the li censed sub­ sidized system, and they're paying up to 40 percent of their income for this service. We really feel that this is an issue that needs to be rectified in the very near future.

We seem to have a lot of money in this province for capital expend itures and vario us other things which have been priorized as more im portant than the care of our young ch ildr en, and I really wonder at a system that supports bridges and high ways and so on over the needs of young children. We know that numbers of these young chi ldr en who are in the unli­ censed system are getting very poor care.

One of the reasons that the Manit oba Teachers' Society has endorsed the Coalition is that they are receiving these ch ildr en into the school system, and are under standing very clearly the problems which arise from ch ildr en who spend their fi rst five or six years in unstimulating unsafe environments, and the expense is being transferred to the school system and those are only in situations in which critical issues have not arisen about the actual safety of children.

I don't lik e to present a lot of anecdotal evidenc e, but I thi nk the legisla tors really need to know some of the situations that have arisen as a result of this unli ­ censed system. The demand for day care is so high and the provision of it is so inadequate that in the community that I work in, St. Bon iface, in one year we had two day cares being cl osed down by the City of Winnipeg under the Public Health Regulations. One of those day cares had 25 childr en and one lady run­ ning the day care. The kids were in the basement with the tele vision.

The other one had around 20 children and the kids were being locked outside in the cold, fall weather. This is how the autho rities became aware of this because the neighbours phoned in because they couldn't tole rate observing this situation anymor e.

So that there are chi ldr en out there right now, today, this mor ning, who are being badly cared for as a result of the lack of priorizing of services for the 13,000 chil­ dren who are cared for outside of their fam ili es in unlic ensed, unsupervised settings where the staff ratios in some instances are absolutely ridic ulous; are detrimental to the health and the emotional develop­ ment of children. Something really needs to be done

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 about that. The second general issue that I wou ld lik e to raise for you is that the chi ldr en in our commu nity who are most vuln erable, who are not even old enough to speak and tell the ir parents about the kind of care they are receivi ng, that is, the infants to two-yea r-olds are the ones who are mostly in the unlicensed settings.

There are under 100 places for zero to two-year old children in the province, so that the majority of these kids , and you know no one has accu rate statistics on how many ther e are, but one would estimate that there are 6,000 to 7.000 of them in these unl icensed settings. Now we know from child development people who have studied this for numbers of years, from medical people, that the first two years of life are absolutely crucial in one's emotional, intellectual and even phys­ ical development.

Yet these are the chi ldren that we are exposing to these unreg ulated, unsupervised set­ tings and this is obviously not in the public interest. lt, in fact, amounts to a scandal that our commun ity is allowing this to continue. The grou p day care centres in our province cannot really provide infant day care because of the per-diem rate which is set up to acco mm odate the staff ratios for chi ldren who are two-and-a-half to six. Some of them are providing small numb ers of spaces, mainly by taking money out of their other programs and impoverishing that even more.

But this situation, you know, simply is not tolerable and I don't see any mon ies in the current Estimates even to do anything about this. I really would suggest to you that this is something that really must be looked into. The third issue relating to accessibili ty in day care is that Native chi ldren in our province living on reserves have no access to day care whatsoever. In other words, our policy is absolutely discri mi natory on the basis of race and residence.

The reason for this, of course, is the split jur isdiction in social services between the province and the Federal Govern ment and nothing has been done to rectify this situation. We know that on the reserves in our provinces we have a very high child population as opposed to adults. In the commun ity generally, there are about 35 percent of the population are under 19. On many reserves we're looking at a ratio that is closer to 67 or 70 percent of the population under the age of 19. These are Stats Canada figur es. Many of these chi ldr en are parents; many teenagers are parents, and these people need support.

If the kind of economic dev elopment policies that both governments have made some attempt to put onto reserves are going to have to have any effect whatsoever, ther e has to be an adequate fam ily sup­ port system so that people can partici pate in the economy. Many, many fam il ies on reserves find themselves going in and out of jobs because of poor day care arrangements. I am emplo yed by a Childr en's Aid Society which, until very recently, has been wor king on a couple of reserves, and the need for day care really has been one of the most pressing child welfare issues.

Now it is against the public interest and it is against the development of fam ily life which supports the kind of personality devel opment so that people can participate in the economy when they grow up to be in these very unstable kind of arrangements on a daily basis. Yet the very people who need family sup- 112 port the most are getting absolutely nothing.

There are provisions under The Child Welfare Act which says a chi ld welfare agency or the province may place ch ildr en in day care but because there are no li censed centres on reserves, it can't be affected because the provincial Govern ment has said that this provision may only be used when there is a licensed fac ility avai lable, and there are no lic ensed fac ilities available so we have a Catch-22 situation. I would suggest to the leg islators that you really need to look into this issue.

You know, I' m sure a class action suit could be brought under the new constitution on the basis of discri mina tion on the basis of race with regard to this situation. it's not something that hasn't been pointed out before to elected people, but it would be mu ch better for the province to move now, rather than after its been enjoined to do so by a court. The third general issue that I' d li ke to address is that trained day care workers in the province, because of the per-diem rate, generally earn from $150 to $250 less per month than other Commun ity Col lege gradu­ ates.

These people are doing a two-year Comm unity College cou rse and, by and large, they are sacrificing at that level every month to be involved in this system, to be child care workers. We are treating these people whose job requir es dedication, skill, emotional matur­ ity, physical strength and knowledge of children's educati onal, artistic and developmental needs. This is the way we're paying them. This situation generally means that people who are untrained are wor king at min imum wage, and as a result of this, there is a very high staff turnover.

This affects moral in centres badly, and that affects the children. These chi ldren need stability in their lives and yet we are structuring the economics of the day care system in such a way to get the maxi mum insta­ bil ity. I suggest to you that is not in the public interest; it's not in the interest of the ch ildr en, the ir parents or the citizens of tomorrow. When we're looking at 20,000 children being in this system, it's not a minor social issue; it's a major social issue and one that mu st be add ressed.

Another training issue is that there is currently no training for day care workers outside of the City of Winnipeg. This has meant that while the system in Winnipeg has developed not badly in terms of trained staff, that the situation in the rural areas really, that there's a dearth of trained workers.

There are a lot of ded icated workers and many of the di rectors in rural areas have training and the system is doing the best it can, but as we push for standards in this area, we have to have acce ssibil ity to training resources for the workers, so that there can be some abil ity of these people to gi ve the kind of service that they want, that the ch ildren need and that the parents desire. The final issue that I' d lik e to discuss, is ar ound profit-taking day care in the province. The govern­ ment, since the inception of the program, has al lowed profit-taking day cares in the province.

There has been contin ued concern about the qual ity of care provided in some profit-taking centres. This has been expressed by parents, by educators, by medical peo­ ple, chi ld development people who see these children and yet, we continue to have profit-taking day care. I would bring to your attention that Great West Life has recent announced that it is withdrawing its sup-

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 port from Kindercare Min i-Skool on the basis of pub­ lic relations issues that it discussed in the press. I would urge that the legisla tors review this situation and come to a decision about it. We feel that ther e are concerns about profit-taking day care in our commun­ ity. I would point out to you, that we do not have profit-taking public services in other sectors. We do not have profit-taking schools. We have private schools but we have no profit-takin g schools below the 18- year-old student level. We don't have profit-tak ing hospitals.

This has been defined as not in the public interest, it is not the Cana­ dian way. Yet for those citizens of our province who are most vul nerable and for the social need which is really very desperate in many situations because par­ ents find themselv es having to choose between a day care that they may not be happy with and losing their job, losing the economic basis of their family, we are encourag ing a kind of development that we encour­ age in no other area of our economy, and I would ask you to seriously consider the impl ications of these facts. Those are my general remarks.

I' d lik e now to addr ess some remarks to the issue of the standards that we reco mmend to you. I beli eve that these would relate generally to

Section 33 in the Act and as is the common practice with legislation, many of these nitty-gri tty issues are not addr essed in the bill itself, but will be add ressed in the regulations. Firstly, group day care is any facil ity providing regu­ lar child care to five or more chi ld ren with nonrelatives and excludes the facil ities reg ulated by The Publi c Schools Act. Basically our recommendation there is that fam ily day cares not be al lowed to go above five childr en.

The wisdom provided for the number of five is that we feel that there should be no more preschool childr en in a home than the good Lord would place in a home. and we all know that she has been very wise in this matter and so we should n't contravene her wisdom. Fam ily day care is child care provided in the home of a nonrelative on a regul ar basis as a business to childr en under 12, in other words, people who leave their kids with a neighb or one day a week and this is a recipr ocal relati onship or someth ing li ke that . obviously are not in it as a business.

Sim ilarly before Lunch- and-After-S chool is an organ ized program for childr en from five to 12 where service is provided du ring these periods. The regula tions should apply to group famil y day care and before -lunch and after­ school programs. As you know, we have cur rently had the situation where some programs have been reg ulated and the largest program, that is, a group day care program has not been regulated by the province, even though it has been paid for by the province, that is, with in the City of Winnipeg.

We also feel that it is absolutely essential that some standards be built in with regard to staff qual ifica­ tions. In reviewing this very difficult issue both for the United Way and with in the Coalition, we have opted for what is basically called the mixed model . We felt that we're not cur rently ready to go into a completely professionalized model and that there is room in the day care system for people who have strength. energy. hu mour , imagi nation and love small childr en.

But we 113 also feel that this is a service which needs persons in the position of dir ector and in the position of room co-ordinator who have some training in terms of organizing and setting up programs to meet the developmental needs of chi ldren.

The basic thing that is beh ind this is that we belie ve that we must have what is called a developmental day care system as opposed to a caretaker or custodial system, that a custodial system basically turns out childr en who are not school ready, who have developmental problems. may be even growth problems and one which cer­ tainly can't deal with some of the chi ldren who are having problems. as opposed just to the normal issues of growing up.

We feel that the program currently offered at Red River is a good program and should provide the basic standard for qualif ications for these people through­ out the province, but that there should be equival­ ency. Some of the university programs should also be interchangeable and probably there's a larger theor et­ ical base ther e; they're probably better trained or more thoroug hly trained, but the Red River course could provide the standard. We also feel that there's a real need for administra­ tive training with in the day care commun ity.

Some of that is being done through Project Manage, which is a provincial ly-sponsored group currently, which is pro­ viding in service to managers. The commun ity-based day care system that we have basically means that people out there who are running fairly small opera­ tions have to have a fairly good level of management skills in order to make the day-to-day decisions around money, staffing, staff relati onships and so on, if the system is going to work.

We wou ldn' t support a system which had school principals having no academic background or no management training and these people are dealing with older childr en than the day care system deals with. So there is a real need for some basic training and cou rses in management skil ls, so that a lot of the problems which arise in day care centres just could be dealt with in a mor e effective manner and the budgets could be overviewed and it would just bring thi ngs up to a better level.

As we move into the whole issue of staff trai ning we really need to look at, I suppose one shoul d say, grandmothering cla uses because that is, in this case. usually the issue. As the day care system has grown up, without any staff qual ifications, there are many people who have been work ing in the system since 1974 who basically are providing good service and they need to have the opportunity to take cou rses, to have a challenge credit system to get their qual ifica­ tions recog nized.

They have made a very significant contribution to the development of day care in this province and they need to be treated fairly and that really is a very important issue as this Bill is passed. These courses also need to be accessible in the rural areas and in the Nor thern areas. There needs to be extension cour ses and the other aspect of this issue is that there needs to be monies buil t into the Budget for people who are on the job to do these cou rses in the day time. We are currently asking peo­ ple to work very long days.

The senior people often work more than eigh t hour s a day and we're then asking them to take cour ses. sometimes 50 or 60 or

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 150 mi les from thei r homes. Now this is very clearly a very discrimi natory kind of situation and the educa­ tional facilities in the province really need to extend themselv es to be help ful to these people.

We need to establ ish a licensing system so that there can be fairness established through out the day cares in the provi nce, and equivalency, so that as budgets are being reviewed and so on, that you can take a look at a centr e and say, well, this centre has so and so many trained people and there are various steps of staff qualification; so that the Pro vincial Day Care Office can have some basis for making decisions about whether a day care centre should be licensed, or if there are problems in a centr e, how it should be dealt with.

Also, parents who are having to make deci­ sions about where they're going to leave their chil d­ ren, have to be able to know what the qualifications are of the people where the childr en are left. Currently, we're in the situation of you go and you may interview these people, you may talk to them but, unless you know an awful lot about child devel opment and about the key words that are used in the area, you may be comp letely baffled by what you're told and not be able to make a responsible decision about wher e your child should be.

Then we go on to discuss the di rectors and the head teachers in each room should have qualifications. The next impor tant area of regulation that I'd li ke to look at is chi ld- staff ratio and gr oup size. There's been a great deal of discussion about this in the com munit y and I think that the standards that we suggest on Page 2 basically represent the consensus of good thinking in the commun ity about what is workable. There seems to be two components to the issue of staff-c hild ratio. One is how many teachers you have; and the second one is how large the gr oup is.

There is a cer­ tain point that more teachers won't im prove the situa­ tion if you have too many chil dren in the setting. I'm sure if any of you have ever been with lar ge groups of chi ldren for any period of time you'll understand this issue. I don't think I want to go through those in detail. They are slightly lower than the City of Winnipeg current regulations and those that the province has used outside of the City of Winnipeg .

There is one point that has been missed from your copy of this, and that is, our recommendations is that in family day care there not be more than five childr en, inclu ding the parent's own childr en, who are under school age; and there not be mor e than two chil dren under two. We feel that qualit y care cannot be deli­ vered in those situations and, as I mentio ned before, we have divine authority for this. With regard to physical facili ties, the spaces have to be large enough.

There has to be a large room, a gym -l ike room where the childr en can play and can have gross motor activities, so that they have normal development. Ther e needs to be sinks and wash­ rooms for childr en. I guess, reall y the most crucial issue there is the issue of outdoor play space. Many, many day care centres have no regular access to out­ door play space. We know that one of the causes of hyperactivity in chil dren is lack of access to gross-motor activity; to running around and working steam off and yet, many of the day care centres in the City of Winnipeg do not have this fac il ity.

Chil dren are taken in good weather 114 to the local parks, but this is a problem. Many parks are across very busy streets, so there is a safety issue. We, fortunate ly, haven't had a tragedy with regard to this, but you know, we do not have our public school students in church basements and they're only at school for five hours a day. Most day care chi ldren are in day care for at least nine hours a day and sometimes mor e, depending on the travelling time of the parents.

The reason for this difficulty is because there has never been any capital funding in the day care budget, nor has there been any agr eement with the Depart­ ment of Educa tion, for unused classroom space. This has been negotiated in individual ci rcumstances, but many school divisions have been punitive with day care centres in terms of the kind of rent they charge. Some of the hig hest rents that are paid by day care centres in the province are paid to school divisions for the use of empty classrooms.

Other day care centres are being forced to use commercial space in shopping centres where there is no access to play space and these chi ldren, basically, are being deprived of access to the great outdoors, to God's gift to all of us, on a very regular basis. Whil e we would have to move slowly to resolve this, it couldn't be done over the summer. We really belie ve that there has to be a capi­ tal funding built into the day care funding or we're going to be in the same situation 10 years from now that we are today.

The other issue there - and this is probably add ressed again later on - is that we're not requiring in suburban developments, where many many of the day care needs currently are, we're not requiring that the developers build a day care centre as they're building the development. The Social Planning Council did a study just over a year ago on day care needs in the City of Winnipeg and they found the greatest need for day care was in the new suburbs, in Si lver Height s, Waverly Height s, and so on. Those are precisely the areas where there are no public spaces available.

The schools are jammed to the rafters; there are very few churches; the community clubs are extremely busy and often small; they're just in the development phase. And yet here, where all these childr en are, we haven't required the building of suitable spaces and we may have to look, as a result of that, at conver ting houses or some kind of makeshift setup to deal with this problem as we get into it, and it really would not be a very difficult problem.

I submit to you that in the City of Winnipeg, an amendment to The City of Winnipeg Act which requi red develop ers to provide suitable child care space in new developments, would deal with this problem in a very equitable way. I also belie ve that developers given some encour­ agement would be more than happy to build day care centres in new developments. Given the housing market these days, I'm sure they would do that instantly. lt certainly would be a drawing card for young famil ies into their development. Another issue of importance - I'm now on Page 3-is nutrition.

Because of the funding arrangements that have been set up, while there are some regulations at the city level about nutrition, basically most of the day care centres do not meet those regulations so that we have childr en who are spending 50 weeks of the year eating bag lunches. Now, that may be good trai ning for eating the way some of us do now, but we know

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 that it's not very healthy and we know that these child­ ren's nutritional patterns are being set up at this time and we know that eating bag lunches is not particu­ larly nutritious. Yet we are teaching and training our chi ldr en that the main meal of their day should be sandwiches. I suggest to you that that's not a particu­ larly good thing for us to be doing. Another extremely impor tant area is that there needs to be oversight and public input into the issue of progr amming.

There is currently no really sign ificant overview of programmin g, and we believe that each day care centre should be able to articula te for the parents and for the day care office what kind of a program it is deliv eri ng. That should be verifiable and the co-ord inators from the day care office should be going out and making sure that people are using the program that they say they're using. If we walk into any public school in this province, we know what's going to be going on more or less in Grade 1 and mor e or less in Grade 2, but we haven't built that kind of expectation into our day care system.

Now, that's not to say that everyone should be looking at the same pictur e book at the same time in the provi nce, but it is saying that we have a fairly good idea about the developmental, the emotional, the physical and the artistic needs of childr en and that we should be req uiring day care centres who are provid­ ing service to meet these needs and they shoul d be answerable on the issue of progr amming in a public way. We also beli eve that there should be adequa te before Lunch-and- After-School programs.

There are cu rrently a few programs in the City of Winnipeg and a very small number outside, but many many childr en are not being cared for for significant parts of the day. lt is an offence under The Child Welfare Act to leave childr en und er 12 unattended for any unreasonable length of time and yet we are expecting parents to go to work and we're not helping them meet this need.

One of the most moving presentations that was made to the United Way Commission was by some parent at Shaugh nessy Heights who are basically say­ ing, we want to be in the work, we want to partici pate in the com munity, we want to contribute and we need some help to do that, because, you know, we've . waited till our childr en are in school, but we need some support so that we know that we're not going to be getting calls from the police because the kids are running wild during the period before we get home and we really need your help to meet those needs.

I think that if we, as a commun ity, don't respond to that, then it really says something about our values and about the kind of problems we're going to be having with the young people in our communi ty. I' d lik e to go on to special needs. We don't really have a system with in the day care setup cu rrently for dealing with special needs in any kind of an organ ized fashion. There are a few programs which relate to handicapped childr en by developing special programs for them.

There are many day care centres which have mi ldly handic apped chi ldr en in their midst, and either none or not very mu ch support for that. We recommend that a system be developed for supporting day care centres to take hand icapped childr en into their midst, that there be staff provided for them and that the special ized services that we 115 currently have in the city be used for assessment, support services and staff training rather than del iver­ ing programs which only deal with a handic ap.

The experience in the public school system has been very mu ch that handic apped childr en tend to come up mor e to the level lik e other childr en, of the chi ldren whom they are with, so we don't really want more ghe ttoized programs in the province. There may be a need for a small number of specialized programs for very severely handicapped childr en, but we need to stop encouraging the development of programs which are based on a handicap, rather than on an age group­ ing or a developmental need.

The programs who are accepting these childr en need funding and they need staff training support and they need assessment sup­ port in order to deliv er the kind of service that we alr eady know they can deliver with that kind of support. Moving on to Page 4, famil y day care. This is really the most underfunded service of the whole day care set up in the province. That is where the majority of unlic ensed setting s are and where the gr eatest diffi­ culty is.

I mentioned to you before, two hor ror stories from the area where I work as a social worker and we believe that there should be sufficient lic ensed, sub­ sidized fam ily day care homes in the province so that we could create a market so that parents would have some choice as to where thei r childr en would be. We currently do not even have a market so that parents can decide if they want thei r childr en in a group, what kind of a group, or if they want them in a fam ily setting. They really basically have to take what they can get.

If the fam ily day care system is going to work, it has to be regulated as to the numbers of childr en who are there. There should n't be too many. There needs to be staff training for the family day care workers. They need to have access to the group day cares in their area in an organ ized fashion. We're basically suggest­ ing that the staff training, the in-service training be del ivered through the group day care centres, and that the family day cares in that area be al lied with the gr oup centres.

If that kind of a model were buil t then all kinds of support to parents with young famil ies could be given at practically no expense to the com­ muni ty and there should be toy lending libr aries and all the other thi ngs which would facilit ate parents helping one another in the communi ty. Final ly, an issue around family day care is the wages paid to family day care workers. Our recommendation is that if five is considered to be a full house that that also be paid at the salary of a child care worker. So that you take the per diem for each child would then be one-fifth of a child care worker's salary.

There should not be discrimi nation in wages between differ­ ent kinds of child care workers. Movi ng on to salary gui deline s, there needs to be a lot of work done as the standards for salaries are worked out in relating salar .. ies to levels of qualif ication. Presently that is worked out at each and every day care centre, and seeing as how the funding is done on a per-diem rate, it basi­ cally means that if you are work ing in a centre which has a very high rent, you get lower wages than if you're working at one that has a low rent.

This isn't really very equitable because the level of rent is really controlled by whether or not there are free public spaces or low-cost public spaces available in your community.

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 it's very arbritrary. The salaries need to be set in a different way then on the per diem and they need to rel ate to the qualific ations and training of the staff if the issue of morale and keeping people in this profes­ sion is ever to be dealt with; simi larly with fam ily day care workers. We dealt with that previously. The issue of fundi ng, basically government funding has never been equal to the reg ulations that have been around.

Poor as they have been, funding has not been adequate to meet them, so that we're asserting that there needs to be sufficient funding to meet the stan­ dards that are set. That seems to be a very basic point but it's not one that we've been successful in making until now. We're also suggesting that the basis of funding be changed from a per-diem setup to a line­ item budget. Line-it em bu dgets, as you know, are based on actual costs and reflect the real situation and don't penalize people because they can't get free rent or other thing s which put their costs out of whack.

In a day care centre as you can understand, the main costs are salaries, food and rent. So there needs to be some justification process for that and some method of meeting individu al situations, and we suggest that line-item budgeting would do this. Also, as I mentioned earlier, there is a need for capital funding so that day care centres can be buil t where they are needed rather than people having to take their childr en long distances, sometimes on pub­ lic transportation, or just not having facilitie s available in their neighbour hood and using very, very poor qual ity services.

There needs to be capital funding available for conversion as well as for building. The present program we're recommending with regard to subsidizing low income parents should be continu ed. We belie ve that the adequate funding to maintain basic qual ity of programs in each centre should be a provincial responsibil ity. We're also sug­ gesting that beyond that, if the province isn't able imm ediately to move to a mass universal day care system which is, of cour se, what we would lik e that there be some priorizi ng of needs.

There never really has been any commun ity priorizing of needs. it's all been done on the basis of who organiz ed a centre where and appl ied for a li cence, and that has meant that there have been some anomali es of overservice in some areas and tremendous underservice in other areas. Fire and health standards need to be eniorced, of course.

As we go on to organization and board structure, group day care centres should be organ ized either as co-operatives or under The Compan ies Act or corpo­ rations; that the boards of these centres should be responsible; that ideally 50 percent of the board should be made up of parents; that parents should be notified of board meetings. All these issues are raised because of difficulties which have occu rred in the past. There have been numb ers of what are generally called 'sweetheart' boards, and the previous govern­ ment moved to do someth ing about this but there are still some difficu lties.

We certai nly want to prevent the development of any more. The reg ulation with regard to notification of parents of meetings and so arise from actual situations that have occurred. There is a lot of discussion about the necessity for staff to be represented on boards; our recommendation is only one in five. That may be too 116 low.

We have lowered it to that level because of con­ cerns that staff not be overrepresented on boards and not be hir ing and firing themselv es, but one of the most impor tant thing s in a small operation lik e this is to have a good working relati onship between the par­ ents and the board. Otherwise the whole system gets into conflict so that staff involvement in one way or another on boards is very important. Movi ng on to Page 6, enforcement. There are really two apects to enforcement.

One is that the current situation which is going to be rectified by the Act be dealt with, that is, that the province which is the fund­ ing level of government in the day care system also be the enforcing level. lt is absolutely ludicr ous to have a situation that we've had where the city was enforcing regulations for a provincially funded program.

We also feel that the day care office needs t:::> play a dual role of supporting boards to meet thei r com mit­ ments to day care; that this is really the cornerstone of the system; that we have built a com munity-based system that we want boards to continue to be primar ­ ily responsible for all issues in centres, but that the day care office provides a backup service to this and ensures that it does occur in instances where boards are not function ing properly or where very severe problems have arisen. So we go through the steps that should be done by.

Basically the day care office should be involved in consulting and advising with the centre. If that doesn't work, after having approached the board and the staff to try and help them work thi ngs out, and then tel li ng them that things need to be worked out; if that still doesn't work then obviously you have to move to the next step which is imp osing a probationary period and dur ing the probationary period, I belie ve the Act says that there may be a provisional adm inistrator appointed if that is seen as being appropriate.

This is really the same sort of model as the public schools operate under and we support that. Final ly, there should be a receiver ship system which I see you have responded to, so that if day care centres got into really serious problems, the province could merely take them over, as opposed to phoning up 60 parents and telling them that they wouldn' t be able to go to work tomorrow. We do have the kind of resources in this province where we could deal with those situations, if the day care office had the abil ity to respond to that. They currently don't have that.

Moving on to administrative issues; we really belie ve that the day care office needs to become more active in the commun ity; that it nas, basically been a receiver of applications for development of day care and it has helped people to organize that, but up-to-date, it has not been active in going into communities and helping people organize day care when they know that it's necessary. They need to be more involved in identify­ ing, evaluating and supporting day care centres in areas of need.

Final ly, we beli eve that the day care system in this province really has been begun fairly well; that what we want in this province is a com munity-based day care system; that we really want a tremendous amount of parental involvement in the system and that we want to be able to build from the day care system, services to all young families. We currently don't really have any resource base that relates to young

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 famil ies that isn't problem oriented. The only way you can get help with young children is if your kid is really in trouble. We know that is ineffective and extremely expensive and yet we haven't really done anything about it.

We're suggesting that if we could move to a com munity-based day care model with the needs of nonwork ing parents being built in there as wel l, in terms of teach ing about parent effectiveness and chi ld development and so on, that we could deal with some of these issues at the time when they were low cost; at the time when something could be done about them, as opposed to waiting until they become severe difficulties, when in some instances, there's not a lot that can be done. I' d li ke to thank you for your patience in listening to our views.

We're fairly hopeful that we're beginning a process at this point of dealing with some of the basic issues in day care. We're not naive enough to th ink that this Act is a solution. lt is a beginning of a process that will deal with some of the very im portant issues around the needs of young chi ldr en in this province. We would li ke to thank you for addr essing that and we will continue to be involved in wor king these issues out during the time that the Act is under consideration and after it is passed and in the years to come. Thank you MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mrs. Turn­ bull.

Are there any comments? Mr. Evans. HON. L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. I want to tha nk, first of all, Mrs. Aleda Turnbull for a very thought and a very com prehensive presentation on the whole issue of day care and the development of standards in day care. lt certainly contains a lot of good ideas and makes us all realize as we listen that there's a great deal more that we can do and must do. lt can be a very complic ated matter as well, attempti ng to impl ement certain standards to achieve an ideal.

I th ink we should realize it becomes compli cated by the fact that you sometimes have to realize that we deal with mun icipal zoning bylaws, in some cases, which sometimes in some commun ities inhibit the develop­ ment of fam ily day care centres. Also, we find that although the Federal Government is prepared to fund on a 50-50 basis, right now this year in the Province of Manitoba, we don' t get 50-50 funding because our standards alr eady exceed the federal gui deli nes. The feds at the present time are really contributing only 40 percent to our total expenditures.

Which brings me to a couple of questions that I'd lik e to ask Mrs. Turnbull. As she indicated, the key is the funding, the amount of money that we have avail­ able because we can write into the re gu lations all the standards in the world, but if we don't have the money to back up our requests for standards, it's, therefore, a meaning less exercise. This past year, we increased our budget of roughly a third from $9 million to $12 mi llion for day care and certainly to im plement higher standards will take considerably more funds.

I' d li ke to ask, therefore, a couple of questions rel at­ ing to the acquiring of funding. You mentioned the ideal type of funding would be li ne-by-li ne, non-profit 11 7 organizations. I gather what you're suggesting is an approach similar to the nonprofit personal care homes, for example, where we look at their budget and decide on the adequacy of the budget as opposed to the profit-making personal care homes where there is a per diem struck and we pay out on a per-diem basis. MRS. A.

TURNBULL: Yes, mainly because of the problems which have arisen around such widely dif ­ fering costs for things lik e rent and heat and so on. HON. L. EVANS: Well, given the fact that we have a system of char ging a per-diem rate in day care - I say that, having realized your position on li ne-by-line funding, you know, but putting that aside - do you support the present setting of rates on an abil ity-to­ pay basis? We have an abilit y-to-pay basis in effect with a maxi mum ceiling on the amount of rate that any day care centre operator can charge. MRS. A.

TURNBULL: Well, I don't th ink that there's any rationale for providing services to chi ldr en over six free in a public school system and charg ing the parents of younger children. I understand that this is a political reality that many people in the commun ity feel there should be a per diem charged to parents and that be charged on a per-diem rate as opposed to through the taxation system. So, that we're prepared to go along with the practicality of the abil ity-to-pay issue, that it's a practical necessity.

If you went to line-item budgeting, obviously, you'd have to set a per diem and then rationalize the budget that the per diem is paid by the parents who were over the qual ifying income. That would have to set by the day care office on an annual basis or a semi-annual basis. We can't have every parent going through the li ne­ item budge t and saying whether they ag ree with it or not. We could, but it would be rather cum bersome. HON. L. EVANS: Just one more related question.

At the present time, the system we have provide s, in effect, a price-control situation where there is a limi t. lt was 8.50, it's now 9.50 per day in one category. In other words, whether you'r e subsidized or not as an operator, you cannot charge beyond that limi t. This is a constraint and there was some rationale for that, but would you support the lifting of a ma ximum level or a lim it, but again assuming it's based on an abil ity-to­ basis. What I'm getting at is ways and means of obtain­ ing some more funding to improve the standards of the day care system. MRS. A.

TURNBULL: lt seems to me that the reason for putting the maximum limit on the fees charged, was that everybody should be charged the same amoun t and the government should subsidize low· income people because we did n't want to encour age the development of a ghettoized day care system; we didn' t want to have day care centres in certain areas whose standards other people could n't meet because of the affluence of various com mun ities; that we wanted to have an acceptable standard, and we wanted to have everyone meeting that. The day care communi ty supports that concept.

The whole issue of extra billin g, which is maybe what your saying, of

Thursday, 24 June, 19 82 course is very contentious in a number of areas. I don't see that it wou ld contribute enough money to justify the problems, basically, is my answer. You know, well­ to-do parents are currently being charged in many instances $9.50 per child per day which is a substan­ tial cost, and the public is putting in, currently, a little over $2.00. So, I belie ve, there needs to be public input into each and every public day care centre because, I belie ve, that is the only way we can really effect ively deal with the issue of standards.

But I think the gov­ ernment needs to set the per diem and needs to sub­ sidize: so we support basically, the present setup, except we'd lik e to see the budgets handled differently. HON. L. EVANS: Ju st a clarification then.

No, I wasn't proposing that we would depart substantially from the present system which is based on an abil ity-to-pay, and where we provide regardless, even if you are a well- to-do parent and can afford pay the full amount, $9.50 therefore, without any subsidy, we still do and would continue to pay mai ntenance grants, you know, general funding to all centres for the purposes of ensuring standards being achieved, etc. So, what I'm talk ing about is a modification really, and I don't know how serious a modific ation it might end up being if this were to be put into place.

But again, on the basis of abilit y-to-pay, let's say X-percent of spaces could be levied at a rate above a standard rate. In other words, you wouldn't have a $9.50 cap, the $9.50 ceil­ ing would be raised for X-percent of the spaces, again for the very wel l-to-do people. MRS. A. TURNBU LL: That, in many ways, is both a technical question and a question of values. In order to answer that very comple tely I'd real ly have to know the income levels. If it's not going to yield very much money it's not worth the other parts.

I think generally, we wou Id not be excit ed over that; I don' t know if it's a great issue though. That's not a terribly definite answer. I' d really need mor e information before I could ... HON. L. EVANS: Thank you very much, Mr s. Turn­ bull. I can't giv e you any mor e information on that because we don't have it, and it would req uire qui te a bit of research, I suppose. I'm just looking at ways and means of getting as many dol lars as we can. MRS. A.

TURNBUL L: I guess my reluctance or feel­ ing about it is that currently we're looking at about 50 percent of the fam ili es bei ng subsidized in the day care system, so that I'm not sure that such a special tax would benefit very much. Then there are the other issues of does it go into the general day care fund or does it go into the Tuxedo day care or whi chever one is char ging it, you know.

So, if we do that, then we create a differential day care system in the province wher e some centres have mor e money than other centres which is exactly what the line item budge t system wou ld be designed to get away from. lt could be cum bersome and not yield very much money. HON. L. EVANS: Thank you very much, Mr . Chair ­ man, my Legisla tive Assistant, Ms Phill ips, I bel ieve, has some questions as wel l. Thank you very much. 118 MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Phill ips. MS M. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Aleda, you gave us a lot of food for thought.

In fact, I was sitting while you were talking, wishing that our Min ister of Finance was on this particular commit tee, because a lot of the issues that you raise, of cour se, are things that ideally we wou ld lik e to be able to do right away but, of course, with financial considerations it's most difficult. But in terms of the specific provisions that we've put in the Act, saying that the kind of goals that you've laid out are the kinds of goals we want to work toward. I have some specific questions.

I've talked to a lot of different groups over the last six months and also li stened to the debate in the House on Second Read­ ing and there are some issues that you raise that I' d li ke some clarification on. For instance, one of them is to do with central salary guid eli nes, and one of the issues that has been raised, in terms of commu nity control, meaning the control that parent boards have in several areas, I' d li ke to address starting with salary gui del ines.

If, in fact, we are leaving the responsibili ty for the operation of the centre, the day-to-day opera­ tion of the centre and setting up the kind of centre that the parents communally have decided that they want for their chi ldren, is it feasible then to say that cen­ trally, as government, through the day care office or through regulations or whatever, that we should set the level of salaries throughout the province? MRS. A.

TURNBULL: I guess that we have a prece­ dent for this, you know, during the 30s, 40s and 50s, we had a school system in which many of the teachers in the province were paid wages which didn 't allow them to conti nue to work there: and the province, in the late 50s, set up a system of financing which was based on salary levels and quali fications, and boards were given certain amounts of mon ies to pay to cer­ tain qual ified staff people.

As a result of that, the standards of education in the province rose dramati­ cally; and the abili ty of the teaching profession to hold qualified people throughout the province rose dram­ atically; and school boards have lots of authority still. I think the issue with day care centres is that they are even smaller units than school system. Because of that, you know, it's very difficult for staff associations or unions to really represent the interests of the staff because you have bargaining units that are four or five people.

You know, given that kind of a situation, it seems to me that the province needs to assume some responsibil ity as it did with teachers who were less in need of that ki nd of help from the Prov incial Govern­ ment because they were organ ized and they were in large bargaining units by the Manitoba Teachers' Society.

I suggest that unless the province takes some lead­ ersh ip in this issue that very little will happen, and this situation will continue, as it did in the 40s and 50s with the school system, until the Pro vincial Government said, this is not in the public interest and very wisely did something about it. I don't see that as a contraven­ tion of local autonomy or anything else. it's merely saying what the funding base is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Philli ps.

Thur sday, 24 June, 1982 MS M. PHI LLIPS: Thank you. Also on that, when you spoke of progr amming, again the concern was local autonomy and the "fear" that the government through the day care office and the co-ord inators, as an exam­ ple, would go into a centre and determ ine what kind of program had to take place. We have a lot of centres that have developed in the province with a specific phi losophy, whether they be run by religious groups, or whether they be run by groups that have a certain environmental health food concern or whatever, or a certain co-operative phi losophy.

The concern that has been expressed is that we will come in and lay on a specific program that will then make it redu ndant to have a parent board that says; but this is the way we want our day care centre to be, and these are the kinds of values we want to instill in our chi ldr en. So what is the point of havi ng a day care board made up of parents or commun ity memb ers if we are going to determine the program? I particularly don't see that the kind of suggestions you have made in terms of progr ammin g and the kind of ideas that we've been form ulating for reg ulations on programmin g preclude that.

I say, if you're talking about gross motor skills in a certain amount of time, or if you're talking about a certain amount of time for outdoor play or for artistic development or language development or physical development, the two are exclusiv e. One can put the value system on top of the req uirements for a qual ity program.

I am not a trained early child hood development person, but I wonder from your experience, particularly deal ing with the United Way Day Care Study, and the comments on progr amming that were made there and thr ough your Associatio n, can you giv e me a li ttle bit more informa­ tion, if you've discussed that issue, the contradiction whether it be there or not in that area? MRS. A.

TURNBULL: Yes, ther e is discussion of it, and I think that the consensus is that many group day cares in the province cu rrently offer a good level of program, but that's not because ther e's been any standards that they have been held to; it is because of their professional ism and the commit ment of their boards.

I guess what we are saying that each and every day care centre in the province should be meet- . ing a basic minimum standard of service in the pro­ gram area, and that one should be able to walk into any day care centre in the province, or any family day care home in the province, and be assured that the developmental, artistic, physical, emotional needs of these chi ldr en are being met. If we're going to have a public program that has to be the case.

Now ther e's no quarrel in the commun ity about there being variation in this, just as there is a fair amount of variation within the public school system ther e could be even mor e variation within the day care system because people do have strong feeli ngs based on religious ideas, or whatever, about how small childr en should be hand led. As long as those are meeti ng the basic developmen­ tal needs of the childr en, I submi t to you that no com petent day care operator is real ly going to com­ plain about being requir ed and funded to meet good standards.

Now, it's going to req uire sensitivity on the part of the day care office, just as it has req uired sensitivity on the part of the Department of Education, those two principles of local autonomy and responsi- 119 bil ity have to be handled with tact and professionalism and imagi nation, and the responsibil ity needs to be left with the boards, but the responsibili ty has to be met. There is not a contr oversy in the commun ity about requir ing that the basic developmental needs of childr en be met in a publi c program.

I don't think you'r e going to get anyone who is seriously going to argue against the basic developmental needs of chil ­ dren being met. MS M. PHILLIPS: Thank you. l think most of the areas in your brief I think we're on-track with in a gradual­ ized deliv ery, but the other area where there certa inly is a difference is your recommendation that family day care homes be lim ited to five. In our program, at this point, the number is eigh t in the reg ulations that we have that deal with subsidized family day care home s.

My information is that seems to be work ing qu ite well, and the provision that we have in the Act for larger numbers would also requir e that there be child staff ratio in the group fam ily day care homes that we have in the Act. Do you not see that as workable? MRS. A. TURNBULL: Well, I think one could work a group fam ily day care home where there is, in effect, the operator and a staff person. I do have concerns about more than five preschool childr en, including the parents own. I th ink that there is a real concern about the developmental needs of childr en being met.

One of the difficulties that advocacy gr oups li ke our­ selves have had is that we have had to rely on anecdo­ tal evidence to look at issues. I don't know what advice you've had on eight chil­ dren in a fa mily day care home; I don't know if those childr en have been reviewed by the Child Develop­ ment Clinic, if we have any reading on whether their developmental needs are being met. lt is my un der­ standing that sort of thing hasn't been done.

In the pub I ic school system there is a systematic review pro­ cess in place which looks at all the schools in the province and finds out how they're doing with the job that they have been given. I would suggest that in the day care system that we really need to build that in. I don't know how your people could tell you, with any certainty, that it was working because of my under­ standing of the kind of access to information they have. One mi ght access that the childr en appeared to be happy when one was ther e, but I don't know anything mor e that I cou ld say about it.

I th ink that one would really need to build in some kind of method of deter­ mining if their needs were being met. I don't know how one person could work with eight childr en and meet their developmental needs. Most of us find it a full­ time job to deal with two or three. MS M.

PHI LLIPS: Yes, on that, I presume that in your personal work that you've had a fa ir amount of con­ tact, although I find that our day care office, in terms of licencing fam ily day care, put the applicants thr ough qui te a rigorous interview and inspection in terms of their qual ity to offer that service, and I guess what we can consider would be to look at the reg ulations and watch how that works, and certa inly discuss it further over the summer as we're developi ng the regulations. Also, from all our discussions, when we have

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 incl uded the family 's own childr en it seems that in a lot of cases, where the fami ly's own chil dren are just there, say, at lunch and after school. and they have less than say five other childr en to take care of dur ing the day, that we felt that fle xibil ity was necessary if they had two of their own coming home for lunch and they had thr ee or four other people's chil dren that they were caring for, that flexi bil ity was necessary. Do you see that as a problem situation? MRS. A. TURNBULL: Wel l, I think it needs to be assessed. MS M. PHILLIP S: lt migh t not be there all day.

MRS. A. TURNBULL: lt depends; if the fam ily has six of thei r own childr en com ing home or whether they have one and it depends how often the ratio is not applied, lik e how many hour s of the day; if for half an hour there are too many childr en as opposed to four hours. I think that there can be some fle xibil ity and some sensibleness used in the application of this kind of rule, but I think that we have to be careful about structuring and al lowing poor service by reg ulation. I thi nk that we do a disservice when we do that. lt also depends on the ages of the childr en.

You know, this business about two under two, I think we know pretty well that nobody can look after mor e than two babies if they have other responsibilities, and meet the developmental needs of those childr en. So you may have very qu iet, passive babies, but you're going to have problems when those kids get to school. So, it does depend on all those factors in the mix. Yes. we do have concerns about thi ngs getting too many. MS M. PHILLIPS: Okay, I just have one more ques­ tion.

In terms of staff training and sharing of eq uip­ ment between family day care homes and group cen­ tres in the neighbourhood, there have been some concerns brought to me about that and again, possi­ bly one of the answers is the funding di lemma.

Most group centres say that they can hardly del iver the program that they have at present, let alone be a resource centre to half a dozen fam ily centres in the neighbour hood and to expect them to supply that service for free or even for a nominal charge is really placing an unfair burden on group centres that are there in the commun ity to provide qual ity care for the chil dren in their custody. So my question is, do you have any other alterna­ tives or do you think that thr ough a funding arrange­ ment, that could be solved? That is a real concern for some group centres in areas. MRS. A.

TURNBULL: Well, I know that one of the problems that many centres have is that they're too small and they're lacking the economies of scale. I really think that a lot of these thing s can be dealt with if there was some attention paid to integrating pre­ school programs with nursery programs and with Lunch-and- After-School programs whic h provide certain natural periods during the day when there isn't so much activity, when some of this other program­ min g could be done.

For example, if you had a day care integ rated with a nursery program, you could 120 have the program for the fa mil y day care mother s in the morning before the nursery kids came in, so that the people could be running an educational program or wor king with the family day care people in the morn ing with the nursery school kids in the afternoon and helping out with the lunch and after-four kids later. You begin to get some fle xibili ty as you get a slightly larger operation. With the li ne-item budgeting, there also wou ld be opportunities. of course, to justify full positions or half positions.

You mi ght have a child development trainer who worked with two or three different day care cen­ tres. On Monday, they'd be in such and such a centre and Tuesday and Thur sday and so on. lt could be worked out, but it would have to be done through a different kind of funding setup. MS M. PHI LLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Cl1ai rperson. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Filmon. MR. G. FILMON: Yes. thank you, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask Mr s. Turnbull a brief question or two. I'll preface my questions, if I may, by indicating that the mem bers of the Opposition have said in second read­ ing and perhaps, Mrs.

Turn bull has alr eady read some of the debates in Hansard, that we certainly support the principle of this legislation and are, indeed, sup­ portive of the government's intent to bring high er standards and to assure better qual ity of day care in the province.

The comments and remarks that have been put on the record, of course, our concern that virtually every­ thing in terms of the actual detail rests with the reg ula­ tions that are yet to be developed and adopted, and our concerns are that those regulations ought not to be developed in such a way that they are so narrow and restrictive as to elimi nate the legiti mate opera­ tions that are in existence today and are providing quality day care and serving the needs of the chil dren, the parents and the commun ities as we ll; that they ought not to be because of failur e to acknowledge commun ity resource and opportunity differences in the various areas of the province, failur e to acknowl­ edge the role and the input of commun ity boards on the operations and so on; that these ought not to be elimi nated.

One area specifically that I wanted to ask and if I have not interpreted your remarks, I hope that you'll correct me. You have suggested that the group you represent is totally opposed to any - as you termed it, I beli eve - profit-taking organizations being involved in the provision of day care in the province in future.

I can certa inly accept the need to set and ensure by legislation and regulations that adequate standards and guideli nes and reg ulations exist to ensure that everybody meets at least some level of standards that we, all of us ag ree to as being in the interests of the childr en, the parents and the com munity at large in day care.

If any group that was a private organization that was organiz ed in a manner that it was a private corporation that did, indeed, give a return on invest­ ment to whoever the investors were and they met all of those standards, on what basis would you be opposed to them continuing to operate in the field?

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 MRS. A. TURNBULL: Well, I guess one of the con­ cerns is a techn ical issue and that is that the way the day care program has operated in the province and the way we are recommending that it conti nue to operate, parents have a great influence thr ough their boards. The fact of the matter is, that many of the profit-takin g day cares that we have in the province do not have local parent boards. They are, in fact, inter­ national corporations, so that there is no access.

The reg ulation and the enforcement of the standard is reall y done a great deal thr ough the parents being knowledgeable of what is necessary and having access to regular meetings to iron out staffing issues; to help iron out educational methods; issues to help iron out methods of child management and all these things. These parents have no access and their option is to either take the kid or not take the kid ther e and when only a th ird of the spaces are in the li censed sector, they really don't have a choice. So that is the techn ical basis of our concern.

You know, I also raised the issue of whether governments wanted to develop profit-taking industry in this sector or not. lt is a public issue as to whether they wish to do that or not. I raised it in that context as wel l. I have certain opinions about that. They are my opi nions and the group I'm with also have opinions, but there are also these broader issues about whether or not there really can be that kind of input. If we don't have that, we then have to rely on masses of govern­ ment inspectors, and I don't think we want to go to that. I think it's very expensive and it's probably fairly ineffective.

The problem is that the people who are receiving this service, namely, the childr en, are not either leg ally or in any other way able to com plain about the service. So, it's not an Eaton's and The Bay kind of competitive situation. Those are basically my general concerns about it. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, again on the same topic, Mrs.

Turnbull, assuming that a day care institu­ tion which was owned by a private corporation could meet all of the various standards that your group bel ieved shoul d be set for staff qual ification; for chi ld­ staff ratios; for physical facilities; for special needs; for programs; for salary guideli nes; fire safety; health · standard, etc., and assuming that they could set up a parent liaison commit tee that will allow for input to the management of the centre. assuming that they could meet all of those things and, in fact, provide a mecha­ nism for parent input into all of the concerns; and knowing that the ulti mate restriction or the ulti mate consequence of their not responding to the parents' concerns about thei r childr en would be that the par­ ents withdr aw their chi ldr en from the institution and they fold up as a result.

Knowing that very powerful situation would exist, what other concern could you have for not having them in the field? MRS. A. TURNBULL: If we did have a mar ket situa­ tion in day care, the market argument could operate, but we don't. We have a forced access situation in the market currently in that there are so many fewer spa­ ces than there is need. MR. G.

FILMON: Looking at the possibil ity that there mi ght be a req uirement for massive government 12 1 spending and in terms of capital investment to provide additional spaces, and the Member for Wolseley has allud ed to the fact that by referring to the Min ister of Fi nance that there obviously in any government including her government is a difference of opinion as to where the capital spending, where the money can come from and where it can go in any given set of circumstances.

Were there private investors who were willing to put up the capital and save the government of putting forth that capital and could meet all of these req uire­ ments, and could provide a service, I am at a loss to understand why, if you have the ulti mate power of regulation to ensure that they meet to every last detail all of the standards and, in fact, exceed them, why you would want to restrict them from being there. We have plenty of parall els available even though they may not be private profit-ma king. I am one that's not offended by the fact that a school such as St.

John's Ravens­ cour t or Balmoral Hall exi sts even though it costs $4,000 and I can neither afford to send my childr en, nor maybe is it a priority of mi ne. I' m not offended either phi losphically or from envy or for any other motivat ion, that it exists and it saves me as a taxpayer from having to put forth the money.

If parents see a value in creating an institution or supporting an institution that giv es more than the minimum standards, that al lows for the flexi bil ity of their chi ld ren perhaps getting more than what they could get by going into the local commu nity day care that provides the minimum standards as set out in the reg ulations that are going to be proclaimed and so on, I don't understand what could offend anyone else from that sort of situation. MRS. A. TURNBULL: Well, it's really a practical prob­ lem that we're having here. lt seems to me that St.

John' s Ravensco urt and Balmor al Hall, which are not profit-t aking schools, are set up on the basis of the issue of what they consider to be excellence or cho ­ ice. We are dealing here with profit-taking however, rather than the development of excellence. I don't belie ve that international corporations are entering the market primarily to produce gr eater excellence. They state that they're entering the market because they see it as a business opportunity and I take them at their word. So I think that we have two different situations here.

I am saying that the Canadian people have basically said that there are certain areas in the economy where they belie ve in com petition and free enterprise, and there are certa in areas in the commu nity wher e they believe in public input and that small chi ldr en and other needy persons li ke sick people and so on, have generally been defined as those where there is a high er degree of responsibili ty and particularly when those individuals are not of age to be able to express their preference. So I don't know how to get around that.

If you can help me, I' d be interested, but I don't know how to get around it. MR. G. FILMON: Any investors who see it as a good business investment, obviously are assuming that they will not only fulfil I all of the requirements of their consumer s who are the people putting thei r childr en in the institution but, in fact, being an attractive alter

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 native to wha tever else is in the marketplace. As long as they are providing a service that is in demand and that maybe in many cases able to be enhanced over what are minimum standards and attract people then, in fact, they will continue to be in business. If they don't then they won't, and it will not be an attractive investment. MRS. A. TURNBULL: If there is a market? MR. G. FILMON: That is right, and if there isn't then there won't be a need for it. We are talk ing about the enha nced type of institution. I think that the Minister was trying to get at something and because I see Mrs.

McCorm ick here, 1,11 utiliz e her institution as an example.

If an institution such as the Health Sciences Centre wants to provide a day nursery setup that is set up in a man ner that its costs of operations are higher than those of other day care facili ties around, let's just assume - and these may not all be correct - that they want to provide day care with lower child staff ratios, they may want to pay their staff high er because of the market competition if they exist within the Health Sciences Centre complex, and the comparable salar­ ies of workers in the complex dic tate that they must pay more if they want to add nurses or early childh ood development people to their staff to provide things that are not provided in other day care centres and all of this results in a high er per-child per-diem cost.

Do you think that they should be restricted from operat­ ing because they have to charge mor e per child per day in order to provide all of those services? MRS. A. TURNBU LL: Well, should they be restricted from operati ng? No, they shouldn't be restricted from operating. They do have many of those problems which their board, the board at the hospital is resolv­ ing. I am not privy to this information, but there obviously are different kinds of day care centres in the province and some of them, li ke Health Sciences Cen­ tre, have offered infant care which we know is more expensive.

They are attempting to resolve their fund­ ing issues and I am sure they will. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, I am sure they will as long as there is flex ibili ty within this kind of legislation to al low them to, but if we say that you cannot, under any circums tances, obtain more than so much per day, per child, and that is below thei r actual costs then they obviously have to reduce the level of service that they're providing or go out of business. MRS. G. TURNBU LL: I guess, basically, the stan­ dards that we recommended would deal with that problem .

If those standards were in effect there wou ld not be a problem. I think that, basically, the kind of salaries that Health Sciences has been paying, which are based on an equal pay for work of equal value form ula has meant that their costs are high er. We are recommending that be the case in every day care centre in the province; that you not be penalized because the day care centre you'r e work ing in is in Thompson or in The Pas. We feel that this is the method that should be used to resolve this issue. MR. G. FILMON: Well, Mr.

Chair man, I'm sorry, but it 12 2 isn't just simply a matter of higher salaries; it's a matter of the high er level of infant care; it's a matter of per­ haps lower child -staff ratios; of additional special ists coming on-staff and all of those things which may, or may not, be provided in other institutions that will result in some institutions having high er levels of cost for which, in some cases, parents may be willing to pay add itional costs. I think the Min ister is looking for an answer. I respect the fact that you may not want to answer that question. MRS. G.

TURNBULL: Well, you see we're trying to deal with that, too, through the line-item budget issue. There are day care centres in the City, for example, who have an awful lot of immigr ant childr en who don't speak Engl ish and they need extra staffing in order to get these ki ds ready for schoo l. They need to oe able to put that into thei r budget, just as Health Sciences needs to be able to put their Infant Care Program into their budget. The issue here I guess is, how shall the per diem, if we have a system of line-item budgeting and a per diem system working together, how shall those mesh?

We would favour a constant per diem and line-item budgeting to deal with these issues of flexibil ity, so that the government could then say to a day care centre li ke Knox, which has had waves of immigr ant fam ili es, yes, you need two or th ree extra workers to teach these currently Vietnamese childr en Engl ish and to help them deal with some of the traumas of havi ng been picked out of the ocean and brought to Canada.

These kids are needy and have problems in getting settled down and you need some extra workers and we' ll work that out in the line-item budget, but the per diems are the same throughout the province. That is our preference. One of the reasons for that is, on a technical basis, I don't think that extra billing will yield very much money and I think it'll cause a lot of trouble. I'm sorry to be such a technocr at about this, but I' m afraid that is my penchant on this matter. MR. G. FILMON: No further questions Mr s. Turn bull. MR. CHAIRMAN: We only have another minute left or so, Mr .

Kovnats, can you get your question in that qu ickly. MR. A. KOVNATS: Probably unless, by leave. we can extend it because if it's not going to take too long and I think my colleague would lik e to ask a couple of ques­ tions also. I think I can start. I' d li ke to thank Mr s. Turnbull for a very thor ough, comprehensive and excellent presentation. I disag ree with some of the things that have been presented, but I' m not going to get into debate with Mrs. Turnbull because I think she could probably turn me inside out with her knowledge on day care centres.

I just wanted to get a couple of questions in and find out her vie ws for my interest and to help me. Concern ing day care centres, it really doesn't mat­ ter to me whether a large corporation or private inves­ tors operate them, as long as they provide a service at no additional ch arge to the people of the Province of Manitoba. I'm not against them makin g a profit but I would just lik e to go to my area, in particu lar, and

Thursday, 24 June, 19 82 maybe Mrs. Turnbull can give me some assistance. We've had a very trying situation in our area con­ cern ing the closure of some of the schools - and I'm not bringing that up for debate. I think that the impor­ tant thing is that there was some discussion a little earlier, Mrs. Turnbull made a presentation about how we've got to upgrade day care centres and maybe this Lunch -and-After-School programs, take them out of the ch urch basements and put them onto a level equal to where they should be. Has there been anything done with the closur es of schools, through the school boards - Mrs.

Turnbull did say that school boards have a lot of authority still - has there been anything done with the school boards concern ing, let's just talk about my area where there's a couple of schools that are avai lable, or appear to be available, for conver ting them to day care centres. lt doesn't matter to me who oper ates them, somebody who makes a profit or a group of parents. I' ve dealt with both; I' ve had quite an interest with the particular agencies in my area. Can Mr s. Turnbull just give us some reco mm enda­ tions on the use of schools that have cl osed because of decl ining enrolment? MRS. G.

TURNBULL: Yes. In the St. Bonifa ce area, there are various day care centres in schools in the older area, but not in Windsor Park- Southdale. There's a day care centre in Queen Eliz abeth School and ther e's one in, it's either Provencher or one of those schools in that area. To my knowledge, there's not one in the Windsor Park-Southdale area. Of cour se, the Southdale situation is the classic new suburb problem, in that you have lots of young fami­ li es with lots of kids and the schools are jam med . The area where there's lots of school space is down in North St.

Bon iface; same school division and with the St. Bon iface Divison one of the difficulties has been in work ing out mor e than yearly contracts, even in schools wher e there is lots of space, it basically has been a yearly contract. My understanding is that it creates a certain amount of instability and if you're having to have these people move that much, it creates problems. Winnipeg Division, I bel ieve, has come to an ag ree­ ment with the Noon and After School people about rents and so on, after a gr eat deal of negotiating.

That is the only division that I understand has an agree­ ment, but I'm not full y informed on this matter. MR. A. KOVNATS: Yes, I rea ll y don't want to take up that much more ti me. Could there be some associa­ tion between the Min ister of Commun ity Services and the Department of Education, through the school boards, to encour age the school boards to allow thei r facil ities to be used for these services and, in fact, to even bring in the teaching staff into this type of an opera tion.

I think that there are some schools that do provide a facil ity where the childr en are allo wed to have their lu nch at those particular schools and I don't think the school boards really lik e it; they don't want to get that involved in it, but should we be pushing a little bit more to get involved in such a situation. lt appears to me that there are professionals in the school board and this is what we're trying to do, you know, upgrade the services and maybe this is the group that we should be asking for some hel p. 12 3 MRS. G. TURNBULL: I really belie ve that this is an impor tant area of expansion.

I think in some ways the