Manitoba Committee Hansard — 25 June 1982 (Statutory Regulations and Orders Committee, Sitting 8, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-sro8

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 First Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STA NDING COMMITTEE on STATUTORY REGULATIONS and ORDERS 31 Elizabeth 11 Chairman Mr. Don Scott Constituency of lnkster VOL. XXX No. 8-2:00 p.m., FRIDAY, 25 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, Pavid Ri (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, 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 GOUR LAY, 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 PHILLIPS, 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 Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ell ice Churchill St. Boniface Aiel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Os borne River Heights Flin Flan lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St. Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP.

NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP 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 Friday, 25 June, 1982 Time - 2:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN - Mr. D. Scott. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee come to order please. This afternoon, we'll continue with the list as origi nally started. I would like, first off, before we start to bring forward the delegates who are making presenta tions, that last evening we had a couple of points of order.

One, that some of the briefs were more related to the regulatons that will follow than the Act itself: the Act being mostly Enabling Legislation framework within which the regulations will be drawn as well. So, there will be a public presentations again in the summer on the regulations portion.

Now, I don't want to limit people from speaking on what they would like to see or the direction that they'd like to see the regula tions come forward in, but I would caution you, try to speak to the Bill in the spirit that the Bill is formed and also, perhaps if you wish, toward the regulation side briefly as to the spirit that you wish those regulations to follow as well. Another point, I cautioned the members themselves that, once again, we're here to hear the delegations, to ask questions of the delegations and not get into a dialogue or get into a discourse, if you wish. with the delegations.

So, could we start please. Is Mrs. Hayward here please? Mr. Nordman. MR. R. NORDMAN: The length of time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh no, I didn't mention it. I'm sorry. As well - come forward ma'am - length of time as well, we started off yesterday with a very lengthy presenta tion. Last night we moved along much better. Most people kept their presentations to approximately 15 minutes or no more: the written presentation. If the members here want to keep you longer, then that's up to me to try and shorten their questions down perhaps.

I would prefer if you would make your pres entations and keep them within a 15 minute time frame, if you would please. Mrs. Hayward. MRS. J. HAYWARD: My name is Joanna Hayward. Heather Andrews is here with me. We are both single parents with small children. Heather has three and I have four. Our main concern and problem, at this point in our life, is the welfare and well-being of our children. Sin gle parent families need Day Care assistance most desperately. Heather and I have an added problem. We are shift workers and work some weekends. Heather and I are nurses working in a hospital.

Unfor tunately, working in a hospital is not a 9 to 5, five-day a-week job and. therefore, Day Care Centres are of no use to us. Working shift work, a lot of weekends and when we do work days, we leave the house at 7:00 a.m. as we start work at 7:30. 154 To tell us to quit our jobs and find day positions is impossible, as we would be giving up our professions and without that income, we cannot exist. Welfare is another possibility, but how degrading and unstimu lating and, would it not cost the government more than to supply us with a homemaker when we are willing to work.

Heather's crisis of one year with help from Family Serives of a homemaker is about to end. She has been told an appeal for an extension will likely be denied as she is now to stand on her own two feet and her three children are now her sole responsibility. The social worker has given her some alternatives for her to fol low, as her homemaker is being taken out of the home. One, she strongly suggests. is to quit her profession so she can work days and make use of Day Care Centres. This is a job which she has waited six months for: besides, we all know how scarce jobs are.

Also in desperation Heather said it might be easier to go on welfare as. with all the different arrangements, she would have to make to cover her shifts the children would be pushed into complete disarray. lt was sug gested that, yes, perhaps this would be an alternative. There is a growing need for qualified Day Care Services and Homemaker Services, 40 percent of today's working force are women.

Single parents are increasing, rather than diminishing, and our main concern is our children, tomorrow's future citizens. lt is very difficult for them when their only parent has to work and they have to conform to strangers. Are our children being thought of first? I do not think that Heather and I are unique in our situation of shift work and weekend work as there are many professions and jobs that do cover a 24-hour day. Is anything being done to help these people or are we being discrimi nated against because of our profession we have chosen: a profession which is universal and a world necessity?

I may be looking after a member of your family, won't you help me to look after mine so that I may work? Having someone come into the home appears to be the only clear solution at this point in time, even if there was a 24-hour Day Care Centre open which would be fine for our preschoolers. What would we do with our school age children, still too young to look after themselves before school, after school and at lunch time? How would we be able to get them to a Day Care Centre at 4:00 p.m. when we have already left for work at 3:00 p.m?

How much disruption in their lives are we going to instill upon them and what will the future hold for them if their lives are one continual turmoil? Are we contributing to juvenile delinquency at a later date? Informed observers have concluded that, while pro viding quality Day Care may be costly, it is a pittance when compared to the cost of repairing damages done by care that is anything but.

Heather and I would like to be able to hire our own Day Care or Home maker Worker but unfortunately if we have to pay the going rate of approximately $10.00 a day per child, with three and four children our salaries would be eaten up by child care expenses. What we would like to see is to be able to receive some kind of subsidy. Is it

Friday, 25 June, 1982 such an imp ossibi li ty that these people could not be hir ed by the person in need. screened by a person or persons with some kind of control kept on the situa tion. ther efore cutting down on the cost of the mid dlemen. All I ask for is some kind of assistance, our future looks grim at the present time. Our assistance from you will be gradually depleting as our childr en become of age to look after themselves. If they are to lead a happy li fe so much depends on you. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mrs. Hay ward. One second, there maybe some questions for you.

Does anyone have any questions, any commit tee memb ers? Mr. Evans. HON. L. EVANS: So, really I guess in a way you'r e asking for a form of nigh t care in a sense. MRS. J. HAYWARD: Well, there are a lot of sh ift work people, there are a lot of people that do work a 24 hour day and there is nothing for us. HON. L.

EVANS: But I gather what you prefer is not simply a Family Child Care facility that's handy to mothers and famil ies and that would oper ate in the even ing, but your preference would be for the gov ernment to find funds to have a homemaker to come in and actually be with the childr en at that time. lt's really a subsidiz ed babysitting service is really what you'r e asking for. MRS. J.

HAYWARD: This seems to be the only con clusion I can come to at this point unless ther e was a Family Day Care Centre in each commun ity, but I can't see how we would be able to get our chil dren that are in school to a Day Care Centre when we're already working. If there was an evening Day Care Centre open it would be all right for our preschool chi ldren , but what about our childr en that are of school age? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Evans. HON. L. EVANS: Than k you, Mr. Chairman. Did you say that a friend of yours had obtained some assis tance through our Department? MRS. J.

HAYWARD: We both have a Homemaker in our homes right now for a period of one year through Family Services. HON. L. EVANS: For one year? And why is it termi nated now? MRS. J. HAYWARD: At one year our li ves are sup posed to be completely settled . HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, I believe the dele gate is describing a Child Welfare program that we have in exis tence and it is lim ited, as you ind icate, to the one year. At any rate, we will certainly consider your request. The prob lem, as usual, seems to be where do we find the money for all th is?

I think related to that though, 15 5 perhaps we should give consideration - and I guess this is what you're asking us to do - consideration, apart from a Homemaker Service, a type of Child Care that would be available in the even ing. That would be your second best, is that correct? MRS. J. HAYWARD: Yes, that's correct. HON. L. EVANS: Okay, thank you very much. MRS. J. HAYWARD: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, Mr. Nordman. MR. R. NORDMAN: Just a point here. Have we any idea how many people that fall into this category? MRS. J.

HAYWARD: Ther e are a lot of shif t work peo ple, stewardesses, people that work in airports, wai tresses. people that work in stores, they're open 'till 9:30, 10 :00 o'clock at night now, nurses. Ther e are women in the police force now. fire departments. Men are single parents, too, and they fall into the same category. MR. R.

NORDMAN: Fall into thesame category. l was just curious as to how many we might be talking about, whether there could be some special - that they are falling into a special category, really, a little differ ent than what the ordi nary Day Care program is set up for and I can only sympathize with them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Hammond . MRS. G. HAMMOND: Yes, I have a question on the homemaker's service. Is this a subsid ized program, do you pay part of it? MRS. J. HAYWARD: Yes. MRS. G. HAMMOND: What would you be subsidiz ed at? MRS. J.

HAYWARD: Well, I presently work 12 days a month and I pay $12 0 for the 12 days a month. MRS. G. HAMMOND: The other question, Mr. Chair man, does the Homemaker come in when you're work ing on a 24-hour basis or how does it work? MRS. J. HAYWARD: No, she works the same hours that I work. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I see. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr s. Ham mond, any fur ther questions? MRS. G. HAMMOND: No, I think not. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further? Thank you very much for your presentation, Mrs Hayward. MRS. J. HAYWARD: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is Mr. Burns here? Mrs. Marilyn Bouw.

Friday, 25 June, 19 82 MRS. M. BOUW: Thank you for this opportunity to participate in the process of dev eloping and advanc ing the Day Care situation in the Province of Manitoba. My name is Marilyn Bouw and I represent the Board of Di rectors and the staff of Day Nursery Centre. Day Nursery Centre has been providing the qual ity Day Care for famili es in the core area since 1909. We strongly feel that a Day Care Act is im portant and necessary for the following reasons: Firstly, Day Cares need to be regul ated and qual ity gui delin es designed to maintain qual ity care.

Some gu idelin es exist now but are not being regulated. In particul ar, we take issue with Item 6(2) of the pro posed bill as it seems to exempt from licensing any person providing priv ate home Day Care, and would seem to encourage, rather than di scourage, the situa tion all uded to earlier with large numb ers of childr en in a home unders timula ted.

The item reads "A person who provides priv ate home Day Care may apply for a lic ense to do so, and a Dir ector may, on an applic a tion, issue a li cense to provide home Day Care to the person providing it." But no lic ense is required under this Act by the person providing priv ate home Day Care. We feel that, being gi ven this option, persons wishing to run priv ate home Day Care Centres under inadequate conditions have no restrictions on them. Another point, parents need to be assured that they are receiving qu ality Day Care for their child, regard less of which Centre they attend.

Every Day Care should provide an envi ronment that is condusive to the health, safety, and well-being of the childr en.- Day care should prom ote the overall development of the childr en by providing stimu lating experiences in all facets of development, and this would be aided by the availabilit y of adequate fundin g for staff so that the ratios would be as has been previously suggested. Profit-making Day Care is in the busi ness of makin g money and not providing qual ity care for childr en.

These Centres should not be allowed to operate on this basis but should be expected to adhere to regula tions with adequate input from parents and staff involved. I had intended to go into a few suggestions that we felt should be incl uded in regulations but, as you poi nted out, we would be willing to discuss this with the Comm ittee when it is available for regulation · development. We ju st wish to say that we endor se the standards which have been presented by the Mani toba Child Care Association and the Coalition on Day Care. Thank you for this opportunity. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mrs. Bouw.

Before we go on it's been brought to my attention that I may have mi slead. This commit tee will be sitting for the Regulations ; there will be a special task force appointed by the Department of Commun ity Services to do the regul ations drawnin g up; it won't be this committee per se. MRS. M. BOUW: Well, I can go through our li st if you lik e but I think what you meant was that I ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's right. There will be another review mechanism to make presentations on regulations. 15 6 Mr. Evans. HON. L. EVANS: Yes, thank you Mr. Chai rman. Ju st to elabor ate on what the Chairman said.

We will be in touch with everyone who has presented a brief to us and, indeed, everyone else who would like to have some sort of an outline which will provide a basis for subsequent discussion with my Legislative Assistant, Ms Phill ips, and other persons, to get your views and anyone else who chooses to give us some views whic h relate to regulations. So we will defin itely be in touch with you at that time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Hammond . MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chair man, I guess the only thing I wanted to ask. Are there any of the regulations that you're recommending that you would like to see in the bill?

Is ther e anyth ing that you would lik e to see inclu ded in the bill, rather than in regulation? MRS. M. BOUW: Well, one that I can th ink of, Item 3, and 1, and 2 allude to responsibilit y to provide proper envir onment and for program activities. Our Day Care Centre especially feels very strongly about nutrition that is provided for the childr en. Per haps I have mi ssed it but I didn't see it in the bill.

We would recommend that some mention be made of a nutrition requir ement, and it is our suggestion along with the Coalit ion and the Child Care Association that each child, each day, be given a total of 75 percent of the child' s daily nutritional requirement. Now, in the areas that we serve, accordin g to a number of polls that we have taken of parents, nutri tional information is very lackin g in the parents.

The situation is often that chi ldren come to the Centre with very li ttle breakfast, if any, lun ches that would be sent along if they were requi red would be very inadequate, and the childr en picked up at 6 o'clock are generally rushed home, gi ven some snack food in place of supper and end up spending the day with barely any nutritional intake. it is felt by our Centre that by pro viding, I believe it is actually 79 percent in Day Nursery Centre, we are benefiting the childr en as well as the staff in the program because chil dren with inadequate nutrition do not learn and are instead disr uptive.

We feel very str ongly that this is a requirement. Now, whether it be inclu ded in the Act or the bill, or whether it be very strongly enforced as a reg ulation, this is our position. MS M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chai rperson. Mrs. Bouw, you referred to

Section 6(2). Did you examin e the defin ition that we used to describe priv ate home Day Care in the

definitions on the second page which is di fferent than Family Child Day Care? We made a di stinction between Family Day Care and anyone who has more than four chil dren having to have a licence than people, you know, with two or three childr en. At that point, they may apply for a lic ence, but we felt to make the Act enforceable that to find a neighbour who was look ing after my child or your child in a hom e, we would have to run up and down all the streets of all the towns and cities in the province look ing in windows, but it would be very di fficult to enforce, so perhaps it was better to have a cut-off line and, say, if I decide

Friday, 25 June, 19 82 that my neighb our is trustworthy and will look after my child well, that's one thing, but once a person has more than four, we felt that at that stage they mu st have a li cence. Now does that not sound reasonable to you, or do you think we should licence every single person who looks after someone else's child in their home? MRS. M. BOUW: I admit that the point did elude us. I suppose one child at a neigh bours is one issue, but up to four chi ldren mi ght be desirable. I realize the diffi culty of making a lim it. MS M.

PHILLIPS: lt was a concern about the enfor ceabilit y, and when you made reference that we should be requ iring a licence for everyone, I just wanted you to have that understanding of why we made that decision. If you still feel that we shoul d lower that and say everyone mu st have a lic ence. Those are the kin ds of things the Comm ittee should be considering. MRS. M. BOUW: Well, I appreciate the clarification and I can see that your position would be very di fficult to knock on doors to find out.

Not having given con sideration to it, I can't really answer whether, perhaps three should be the cutoff; four preschoolers is a handful, depending on the age, but I can see that it would be di fficult to ... MS M. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chai rperson, in the definition we say that you can only have two under two in that four, and it's also including the person's own childr en. So if I had two preschooler s and I took in two babies I wouldn't need a licence, but if I took in another pre schooler I would, because we recognize it is a handful and that we should have standards applied to those situations.

We use the word "private"; we figur ed if that's my private arrangement with you and I trust you , we should leave some of that discretion to the parents. Another point that you made in terms of nutrition. We do have that in

Section 33, under (f) . Nutrition is mentioned and will be outli ned in the regulations. So when we put out a Work ing Paper on the Regulations and asked for comments, we'll certain ly take into account your experience on that issue. MRS. M. BOUW: Than k you. MR. CHAIRMAN: No other questions? Mr. Kovnats. MR. A. KOVNATS: Ju st on a point of order, would you allow the person making the presentation to answer the questions posed to her by Ms Phill ips. MRS. M. BOUW: If you wish an answer as to our feeling about the four and under in a private home, at present it does sound reasonable.

I would have to discuss it with the staff and the Board for their further feelings, in order to be representative of their opinio ns. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Thank you very much, Mrs. Bouw. Next is Barbara Marquand. I migh t also add, for the people making presentations, if ther e are any ques- 15 7 tions you do not wish to answer, you'r e certainly entitled not to answer them as well. We're not a court of law here and we're not putting people under oath. Go ahead, Mrs. Marquand. MRS. B. MARQUAND: Mr.

Chair man, I represent Family Services, Special Needs Famil y Day Care Pro gram. lt is with great pleasur e that the Special Needs Family Day Care Program and the Homemaker Department of Family Services comment to the Legis lative Commit tee regar ding Bill 21 of The Commun ity Day Care Standards Act. We have read Bill 21 and feel that the move by the government to ensure safe, emotional and physical envir onments of chil dren in Day Care settings is a positive move forward for Manitoba chi ldren.

Because our Day Care and Homemaker Programs are predomi nately Chil d Care Services, we take spe cial interest in these developments and view such legislation as a further step in strengthening family lif e through Day Care. I would like to briefly tel l you about our Famil y Special Needs Famil y Day Care Program. Special Needs has been referred to by several people without very much backup. I would like to tell you that the government certainly does sponsor a Special Needs Fami ly Day Care Service.

The service provides care for childr en from four weeks to 12 years of age who may have physical di s abil ities, medic al. mental or emotional problems or who are at risk as a result of stressful famil y situations, which incl udes child abuse. Shor t-term care is given to chil dren in famili es wher e one parent is under going medical or psychiatric treatment.

The service aims at preve nting the development and/or the intensification of di fficulties experienced by babies, young chi ldren , and those with physical or emotional problems through the provision of carefully screened and closely supervised Family Day Care placements for the chil dren and the supp ort to the parents and the Fami ly Day Care providers.

In our special needs, we incl ude the physically han dic apped; mentally retarded ; medic al problems; developmentally slow childr en; abused and neglected chi ldren ; babies and childr en under th ree at risk because of failur e to th rive; childr en of teenage moth ers who are becoming increasing at this point - these young teenage mother s have lim ited capabilities to deal with parenting; childr en with familie s in crisis over parents being physically or mentally ill.

While all the parents do not receive subsidization through the province for their Day Care payments, most are low income wor king single parents, many recently expe riencin g marriage breakdown or they are off welfare and just into jobs. I' d lik e to state here that we have an adminis trative grant through the Department of Communit y Services and Corrections to admin ister the program and the operational costs are through the Child Day Care Program.

The referrals come from many other agencies and organizations such as the Prov incial Day Care Office; the Child Development Clini c; the Child Gu idance Clinic; the Chi ldren's Aid Society of Eastern Manitoba and of Winnip eg; the Health Science Childr en's Cen tre; the City of Winnip eg Welfare Department; Canada

Friday, 25 June, 19 82 Employment Centre; the Department of Com mun ity Services and Corrections; the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded; Pregnancy Distress; the John Howard and El izabeth Fry Society; the chur ches who are sponsoring the Asian refugee famil ies, plus the ho spital social services and the psyc hi atric departments who may be dealing with parents who have suddenly experienced mental or emotional breakdown. Our Family Day Care homes are selected, li cenced and supervis ed by profe ssional Family Service Worker s according to the Provi ncial Day Care Licens ing Regulations.

Tr aining and information programs are held regul arly for our Family Day Care providers. Last year the fee for the hand icapped childr en was extended, and we are now able to pay our Family Day Care providers the extra fee for the mentally retarded and physically hand icapped chi ldr en in our Family Day Care homes. That is really what I wanted to tell you about the Day Care Department. We do have a Homemaker's Service and Mrs. McFadyen, who is the supervisor of that service, is here and would speak to you , if you wish to hear about that program. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that it?

You had some specific references to Bill 21 on Page 6, would you care to .. MRS. B. MARQUAND: Yes. I wondered whether you wanted to hear from Mrs. Mc Fadyen next, or whether you'd lik e me to go on? I will go on, and you can carry on from there. We do acknowledge, with approval the regulations in Bill 21 in general, specifically we would like to comment on sections 27 and 28 in regard to the estab li shment of a review commit tee to advise the Min ister on the requ irements for qualifications of staff for facil ities and training.

One area, that has not been addressed in Bill 21 , and neither does it fall into any other category is whether there is a need for standards and regulations set up by the government in the Homemaker Child Care Servi ces such as the Family Service Homemak ing Pro gram. The homemake rs are going into the homes, giving care for chi ldr en under supervision of profes sional staff into the homes of the clients. At present, · the leg islative author ity over the Homemaker Pro gram rests with the special dependent care provisions of The Social Al lowance Act. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, would you like to bring Mrs.

McFadyen on to make comments on this as well? MRS. B. MARQUAND: Yes, Leyah, would you like to come and speak to the homemaker development? MR. CHAIRMAN: If she wishes. since this is a joint presentation delegate. MRS. L. McFADYEN: Well, the Homemaker De part m8nt of Family Services has been discussed today and we're a shor t-term service provided to a famil ies suffering stress, a Chil d Care organization supervised by professional staff, the homemakers go into homes and care for childr en while parents are recove ring from a recent separation, di vorce or stress.

Some of 15 8 the circum stances that would warrant a person having a homemaker would be sickness or disability, sudden custody changes. shift work, irreg ular hours. Those ki nds of situations have been al lowed one year of homemaker service which has been decided upon as a reasonable length of time to give that person, hope ful ly, to make other arrangements for their childr en. That's because of the tremendous cost of our pr o gram . it's close to $7 an hour, around $1 ,400 a month, and if you figur e out what mor e than a year of home makin g service could cost, it's really quite tremend ous.

So, it is a problem for people who are shift workers. and we are concerned about what happens to those kids when they leave our service. Our objectives of our program are to strengthen famil y li fe by prevent ing family disi ntegration and preventing the parents withdr awal from the work force. I'll ju st kind of skip through; I agree with the com ments that Barbara made about Bill 21 . Some of the problems that our cl ients face when they leave our service have been outlined today.

We feel that particu larly the sh ift work clients have nothing, people lik e nurses, who are already trained are not eligib le for further training allowances. They are professional people and have a few years of tremendous problems in makin g arrangements for their childr en. Some kin d of arrangement other than homemaking service would be ideal for them, perhaps even more subsidies to be allowed for the actual cost of their baby-sitters in the evening, if they have to pay priv ately to have someone come in would be a recommendation.

I guess. you know, basically that's what our pro gram is. it's an income security program governed by The Social Al lowances Act, and it's a Child Care pro gram but not a Day Care legi slated program. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, are ther e are questions from the comm ittee? Your name is Mrs. McFadyen, is it not? Mrs. Hammond. MRS. G. HAMMOND: What would a reasonable sub sidy be for the shift worker? MRS. L. McFADYEN: The average cost of homemak ing service - because it would depend on how many hour s the person works - right now is $6.82, I beli eve an hour .

For anything over eight hours. the govern ment is bill ed time-and-a-half. An average cost would be $1 ,400 a month. Over 50 percent of our cli ents are totally subsid ized by the government; yhe remaining clients do have a fee-for-service that is needs tested. The average fee would be under $10 0 a month, as many of our clien ts are extremely low income. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? No more questions? Thank you very much, ladies, for your presentation. Next could I call on Dick Martin please, and Paulin e Russell. MR. D. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Chai rperso n.

Members of the Comm ittee, I want to introduce my colleague, Pauli ne Russell, who is a Board memb er of the Manitoba Government Empl oyees Association

Friday, 25 June, 19 82 and a member of their Equal Rig hts and Opportunities Comm ittee. This Brief is being presented on behalf of the Mani toba Federation of Labour which represents approxi mately 74,000 workers in the Province of Manitoba and, of course. those members have a lot of famil ies. This Brief has had dir ect in put from the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Manitoba Gov ernment Empl oyees Association, two of our largest unions representing a lot of Day Care workers.

We would like to congratulate the Government of Manitoba for bringing forward this piece of legislation and sincerely hope that the enactment of The The Communit y Child Day Care Standards Act, Bill 21, will lead to a hi gher standard of Child Care in our pro vince. We would lik e to emphasize that adequate fund ing must be available, thr ough the government pro gram, to allow for enforcement of the standards as set out in the Act and the subsequent regu lations.

A Community Child Day Care Standards Act by itself means noth ing unless the funding levels are such that will allow the various facil ities to meet the standards. We are at the point in his tory her e in Manitoba where the argument is not about "whether ther e should be Day Care" but rather "what kind of Day Care." Giv en that the percentage of women in the labour force in Manitoba is over 51 percent, it is obvious that there is a need for an organized system of Chil d Care Services.

We are here to argue that the system mu st be structured in such a way so as to provide quality child care accessibl e to all who requir e it from infancy to age 12. In terms of the standards which we would lik e to see incorporated into the Act and its Regulations, we gen erally recommend those put forward by the Coalition for Day Care and the Manitoba Chil d Care Associa tion. and have attached these documents as appendi ces to our brief.

We feel that it is imp erative that when regulations pursuant to this Act are being drafted that groups such as The Coalition for Day Care and the Manitoba Child Care Association will be consulted. This in keeping with the stated "open government" policy of this adminis tration. Although we do not intend to elab orate in detail on the standards issue, we would lik e to emphasize cer tain aspects of public policy toward Day Care as addressed in the Act. I'll call upon Pauline to continue.

MS PAULINE RUSSELL: The first of these aspects with which we would lik e to deal is that of accessibilit y. it is di fficult to provide up-to-date statistics in regard to the number of chil dren under the age of 12 of work ing mothers in Manitoba.

If we look at the 19 73 Labour Canada Study, which found that there were approximately 27,0 00 chil dren, between the ages of infancy to six years, of work ing mother s in Manitoba; and note that the participation rate for married women in the labour force in Manitoba has increased by about 10 percent since then. we can assume then that a figur e of 30,000 would not be exaggerated.

When you look at the fact that the current government program provides approximately 9,000 spaces, it is obvious ther e is still a wide gap between the numb ers of chil dren who may need care and the actual numb er of 15 9 spaces available. Of particul ar concern is the issue of space available in licens ed facil ities for chi ldren from infancy to age two. A study on Page 2 of the brief by the Day Care In formation Centre in 19 78, published by the Ministry of National Health and Welfare, reported the following numb er of childr en with working mothers and place ments in government licens ed Day Care.

I won't trip over my tongue and try and read the statistics but it shows that a total of 2,931 ,000 chil dren, of those chil dren only 2.7 percent were in government li censed Day Care. On Page 3 we show the follow-up study done in 19 80 showed 3,203,0 00 chil dren, of those 3.4 percent were in government licensed Day Care. Clearly over the two years from 19 78 to 19 80, there were no appreciable inroads to alle vi ate a totally inadequate Day Care system in Canada. Although we do not have the statistical breakdown for Manitoba, we know that it is a critical problem here also.

There are very few group centres which take childr en under two and since the numb er of Famil y Day Care spaces is only approximately 1 ,200, there is obviously a great shor tage in this area. Also, when we look at the issue of Lunch and After School care for childr en ages 6 to 12 , we are again confronted with hug e di screpancy between the numb er of childr en needing care and the provision of li censed spaces. The need for Lunch and After School Programs will be ever increasing as more and more childr en of work ing parents move from the Day Care system into the public schools.

Childr en 12 years and under should not have to fend for themselv es after school hour s. "Latch-key" chil dren as they are termed, are being gi ven mor e responsibi lit y than they should for their own care, which can be overpowe ring to them . it compromises the ch ild' s safety as well as invitin g problems relating to del inquency. Again, we do not have recent statistics, but a 19 77 study estim ated that ther e were approximately 58,000 chil dren between the ages of 6 and 13 of work ing mother s in Manitoba. There are currently only approximately 2,000 spaces.

What we have then, is a public program which excludes approximately two-th irds of the ch ildr en who could make use of it. The situation is analogous to having a Public School Program to which only one-thir d of the chi ldren have access. Other social programs such as Medi care has, as one of its main tenets, the principle of univ ersal access and we strongly feel that this should be an integral part of the Day Care Program. We shoul d make it clear that we are not saying that all chil dren must attend Day Care, we are only saying that a realistic choice must be available to parents of young childr en.

We agree strongly with the statement in the 19 80 "Status of Day Care in Canada" that: "Of major concern is that many famil ies are unable to find acceptable Child Care arrangements and too many childr en are being left in situations that jeopardize their safety and thei r well-being." Another area of major concern when rev iewing the Day Care Program in Manitoba is that of the wages paid to the Child Care workers. Although we realize the issue of wages is one that is determined between boards and their em ployees and, as such, is not spe-

Friday, 25 June, 19 82 cifically addressed in the Act, we feel that it mu st be em phasized in these discussions. Since Day Care is a labour intensive industr y and since approximately 80 to 85 percent of Day Care budgets are allo cated to salaries, the funding levels establised by the Day Care Program will have a direct imp act on the wages paid to those working in this field. The Act refers to the qualifications of Day Care workers in

Section 29(1 ) , and if there is a recognition of policy for the need for trained staff there must also be a recognition of policy for adequate funding levels. A look at rates being paid today to Day Care workers in Manitoba ind icates a very low level of remun eration.

For example, the Study on Day Care commissioned by the United Way of Winnipeg (1978) indicated that "50 percent of those su rveyed working in public centres had either a Child Care Certificate, a Unive rsity Degree, or a Teacher's Certificate." How ever, the great majority, approximately 80 percent, earned less than $1 2,000 a year, and of that group, 65 percent earned less than $9,000 a year. One of the union organized Day Care facilities pays $12 ,000 a year for Day Care worker s with training and $1 1, 000 a year for Day Care worker s without training.

We can safely assume that these unioni zed rates are higher than those paid to the majority of Day Care workers who are not unionized. A standard in terms of wages for Day Care worker s has been set at the Health Sciences Centre Day Nursery wher e the rates were established through a joint job evaluation program, with participation of the union and the hospital.

Although we are not saying that these are the opti mum rates for Day Care workers, these evaluated rates are at least a step in the right directi on. lt is ironic to note that although these are negotiated rates to which the Health Sciences Centre has agreed, the Day Care Program does not fund sufficiently to meet these salaries and, therefore, this nursery's very existence is in serious jeopardy at this moment. If we look at rates paid to another two-year Com munity College trained group - that is the nurses - we see a starting salary of $19,500 a year.

Since the great majority of people work ing in the field are female, what we have is another example of low wage job ghe tto for women which mu st be add ressed. There mu st be adequate government funding made avail able to ensure decent wages for Day Care worker s so that they will no longer be expected to subsidize the provision of this essential social service. The final aspect of the government policy towards Day Care on which we would like to comment is that of Profit Day Care.

We note with regret that there is no provision in the Act which would prohi bit the further lice nsing of com mercial Day Care establ ishments. lt is the position of the Manitoba Federation of Labour that the provision of an essential social service such as Day Care, should not be done for profit. lt is of interest to note that the NDP admini stration in Sas katchewan, in 19 75, passed a reg ulation pursuant to its Act, which stated that all new Day Care Centres must be nonprofit societies or cooperatives.

We note that the NDP Government here in Manitoba has put a freeze on the building of new prop rietary nursing homes and feel that the same principle is involved with com mercial Day Care. 16 0 In Manitoba we are fortunate that there are at pres ent very few commer cial Day Care establis hm ents. However, one of the larger commercial providers - Kinder care/Mi ni-Skool - has recently been expanding here. We would like to note at this time that Great West Life Assurance Co. announced just recently that they would be withdrawing financial involvement with Kindercare.

The problem with private Day Care is that it is impossible to make profits and at the same time pro vide the best possible environment for the emotional, intel lectual and physical development of young child ren. If you look at the experience of non profit Centres here in Manitoba, you will see that the great majority of them barely have enough funds to make ends meet, and in fact, a good number of them are operating with deficit budgets. How, ther efore, can a commer cial Centre take 30 to 40 percent off the top and still argue that the qual ity of services is maintained.

In order to keep the profit margin up, the wages must be kept low. The ratio of chi ldr en to staff mu st be kept hig h, the quali ty of the nutritional program must be com prom ised, and the list goes on.

To quote from a recent publication called "Good Day Care": "Low salaries form the basis of profits in Day Care and since women make up the overwhelming majority of Day Care Workers, the successful operation of corporate Day Care Centres depends upon the exp loitation of their labour." The argument that strict standards in place will automatically resolve the problem previously allu ded to, with respect to commercial Centres, has not been borne out when review ing the experiences in other provinces such as Alber ta and Ontario, where there are a larger numb er of profit Centres.

Also, if we look at the situation of private nursing homes her e in Mani toba, although they are governed by standards which are applicable to both prop rietary and nonpr op rietary facilities, ther e have been num erous examples of compromising the quality of the service in order to maintain the required profit level. As we have ind icated earli er, there is a tremendous gap between the numb er of children who may need care outside their homes and the numb er of govern ment sponsored spaces.

Are we going to allow the priv ate sector entrepreneur s to move in to fill this void, or are we, as a commun ity, going to commit ourselves to a policy which would have as its objective the provi sion through a publ ic program of quality Child Care services for all Manitoba chi ldren? In order to ensure the latter, we urge the government to amend the legis lation to specifically prohibit the further li censing of any new commer cial Day Care establishments.

Furthermore, in supporting publicly oper ated Day Care, we do not believe that the profit motive debate is the only argument for or against privately operated Day Care. We are convinced however, that promoting privately operated Day Care systems inevitably leads to economic, religious and social ghettoiz ation of children; the rich go to the "rich" Day Care, the poor go to the "cheap" Day Care, and so on. To avoid the trappings and disadvantages of a caste like society in the future, we must be especially careful not to ghe tto ize our childr en in their early child hood.

In our view, commun ity-based Day Care and parent co-operatives have an advantage, in that they expr ess

Friday, 25 June, 19 82 social and economic needs on a broader base, com pared to a commercial operator. whose ulti mate rea son for being in busi ness is profit. Again, we must have public Day Care for the same reasons that we have public school systems. We see the dir ections for the future as follo wing. The goal towards which we must work takes the shape of a triangle with government's commitment to Child Care in one corner, the job world's adjustment to the needs of parents and chil dren in the second, and the parents' own willingn ess in the thir d.

Drawing from the recomme ndations of the National Day Care Task Force, we see development of Child Care in Manitoba as follows. As a starting point the Provi ncial Government of Manitoba must pass regula tions setting out specific standards covering qualifi cations for Child Care staff, programs. physical envi r onments for Child Care. group size and staff-child ratios. The government would also then be responsi ble for monitoring and enforcing these standards through licensing programs. Child care is not only an issue in the city.

Rur al and northern areas need Chil d Care programs tailored to their own special characteristics. These communi ties sho uld be able to design the kin d of programs that suit their own needs, knowing that the resources they need will be available from the govern ment. The government must also set out careful standards for Family and Group Day Care homes. Ther e should be minimum standards established for the physical setting of the home, that is, the surroundi ngs in which the chi ldr en spend their day and for the quality of programs offered by care giv ers.

These care giv ers should also have a suppor t sys tem of services. These services could include toy and equipment banks that would lend suppl ies to Chil d Care Workers and rotate them through Day Care homes, and co-operative group purchasing of needed goods and services which would cut costs to care givers. There could also be advice and information for care givers on the financial side of their work, and a system of back-up care giver s who would help out in emergencies or times when the regular one is sick.

Work place Day Care, another option, is min imal at present, but ther e is an increasing need for this option. These Centres offer advantages to all, inclu d ing benefits to the employer in reduced staff turnover, lower rates of absenteeism and a better corporate public relations image. In addition to standards for the care of childr en durin g the day, there must be programs established for childr en whose parents work shif ts. that is anytime during a twenty-four hour period. These standards should cover such areas as cots and other related necessities relevant to the care of childr en at nigh t.

With adjustments such as increasing staff and increased funding, infant care could become a reality in Day Care Centres now in existence. Rather than excluding infants and toddlers from Child Care due to the expense, the government should be taking steps now to find the appropriate solutions to this problem. Look ing at the decl ini ng enr olment in the public schools. Lunch and After School Programs should be one of the easiest programs to establish. The space is available and in view of the growing numb er of "latch key" childr en, the need is evident.

Further to this, by 161 acknowledging that ther e is a need for more Day Care due to the increasing num bers of childr en of work ing parents, Lunch and After School Programs will become more and mor e necessary. I'll now turn back to Dick. MR. D. MARTIN: Thank you, Pauline.

In conclusion, we would again lik e to commend the government for bringin g forward this legislation and reiterate our concerns that there be adequate funding to allow facil ities to meet the standards: that ther e be strict enforcement of these standards; that there be an expansion of the numb er of spaces: that there be no further lic ensing of profit Day Cares. Groups such as the Manitoba Chil d Care Association and the Day Care Coalition have drafted standards that they feel should be set in Manitoba. These two groups are comprised of both Ch ild Care Workers and parents.

We generally recom mend the standards that they have drafted. We recogni ze the ir expertise in the appl ication, as an exam ple, of such issues as chil d/staff ratios. We also recognize the people in government who have had years of experience in Chil d Care and their structures. The first responsibi lity rests with the government to provide a policy and financial initiatives to build a network of quality Child Care systems encompassed in regul ated and enforced Chil d Care standards. We thank you for having this oppor tunity to raise these issue with you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr.

Martin and Ms Russel l. First off, the questions. Ms Russell, would you li ke to come up as well and people can dir ect the ques tions to either party. Feel free, either of you, to respond as well, please. HON. L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I thank the Manitoba Federation of Labour and the delegation for the well-thoug ht-out brief and the policy dir ection which they bel ieve that Manitoba Govern ment should move in and I th ink generally, not in every detail or every measure, of course, but generally ther e is agreement in the way we want to go. I ju st had a couple of questions.

One that intrigues me is your reference on Page 10 to the Work place Day Care and I'm just wondering whether the MFL had any suggestions as to what should be done or what could be done to promote Workplace Day Care facil ities. Such, of course, are possible now and it would seem to me that, in large measure, it's a matter of perhaps negotiating with the emp loyer and that . Is this not a matter for negotiations? I guess this is what I'm getting to, the usual contractual negotiations between the union and the management. Or are you look ing for the government to do someth ing in addition to that? MR. D.

MARTIN: I'll pass it to Pauline first. MS P. RUSSELL: My first thought is yes, you're right, this is some thing between the emplo yer and the employee, but I also beli eve that there could be some kind of incentive from the government to the employer

25 June, 19 82 to help in the establishment. I' m not saying, we don't bel ieve that the government should be responsible for an on-site Day Care, but we feel that they could be helpful in getting the impl ementation and using their expertise to help emp loyers, who don't have any knowledge of how to set up a Day Care Centre on site, and that's where the government's help could come in. MR. D. MARTIN: If I could ju st add one thing, Mr. Evans, is that you're correct, but in terms of the sub ject of negotiations, the col lective bargaining, and that's a possibility that can be achieved.

But of course, there's another point. Not every workplace has an organized group of empl oyees and in such they are left out in the cold. We belie ve that there can be co operatives established but as Pauline said, that will require probably at least managerial admin istrative assistance in establishing such a co-operative and it needs some government leadership. HON. L. EVANS: Thanks. Well very good. I'm not supposed to get into a dialogue but there are some init iatives now being taken by MGE A with regard to this and, hopefu ll y, there will be something put in place in the not too distant future.

On another matter. one dilemm a that we're faced with is the usual di lemma, as where do we get all the money to do all the things we'd like to do. You know, the pot is li mited in any one year; we've got so many dollars in the Treasury and there are demands for those dollar s from all kinds of departments, from Agricultur e to Hig hways, to Health , etc., and of course, this department and this program is only one area. At the moment we're spending between $1 1 and $1 2 mi ll ion for the Day Care Program as it now exists.

Obviously to get hi gher standards, to have better staff ratios, to make sure ther e are better wages paid, etc., will require money. In other words, hi gher standards mean more money. At the same time we were told by the Coalition and Day Care yesterday that there are simply inadequate, and I guess this brief referred also to the fact that there are an inadequate numb er of spaces. I think, roughly, you referred to about one-third of the demand that exists out there, the estimated demand - only one- · thir d of that is covered now by licens ed spaces.

So there's obviously need for a geographic or a physical expansion of the spaces. This may be a very awkward question for you to answer, but I'll put it anyway ther efore. What would you gi ve priority on. given the fact that yes, we may get some more money but, you kno w, ther e is always a limi t, so would you put it mor e towards raising the standards of the existing facil ities, or would you use it more towards expanding the spaces so that more people can take advantage of what we have, perhaps at a lower level than we would achieve then if we foll owed the first option? MR. D.

MARTIN: Well, I don't think I'll fall for your question and the answer will be both. I don't want to be facetious in my answer thoug h, because I think it's a good question, with the exception of this: we believe that Day Care has to be regarded in terms of the whole public in the same type of li ght that Medi- 16 2 care was observed by the general populus a matter of onl y a few years ago - Pharmacare, Old Age Pensions, that type of thing - as an all-encompassing social program. So we don' t think that it should take a second place in terms of priorities.

I know that gov ernment has to deal with those particular problems from time to time but at the same point, we want to make the emphasis to you that we think that Child Care should be put on the level of Medicare and other programs that are absolutely necessary to the well being of Manitobans and their families and the future generations. it's critical; it's as critical to us as proper medical treatment of diseases. MS P. RUSSELL: I would lik e to add one point. At the on set of that you said "we would all li ke to have." it's not a question of liking - we'd lik e to have good Day Care.

Ther e are people out there that need it; they have to have it in order to work. So it's not a question of they'd like good Day Care; they need it and it's imper ative for them to work and then following on what Dick said is it's a horrible problem for you to straighten out. HON. L. EVANS: Well, ther efore, Mr. Chairman, then what the delegate is saying, she would rather see the money put towards having more spaces, so that more people can have their childr en in Day Care. MS P. RUSSELL: No, I'm following exactly along the line of what Dick said.

When you said "like"- we'd "lik e to have," and I'm saying that it's not a question of we'd li ke to have. it's not a question, it's a fact that we need Day Care -g ood quantity; good quality; accessible. MR. D. MARTIN: Mr. Chair man, we're not going to make your job easier for you obviously. Our job is to advocate social change and proper fundin g and such , but we do sincerely believe that they are hi gh priori ties; that the space facilities, that the staff ratios are very, very im portant.

There's really not mu ch point to, in some ways, to have mor e space but not have the admin istrative and the Day Care workers there to carry out the program. HON. L. EVANS: Well, I know it's avery diffic ult ques tion to answer and surely we should have both. We want higher standards and we want more spaces, surely. But the real question though and what I'm saying, in effect, Mr. Chairman, is if giv en an addi tional amount of money, we have $1 1 or $1 2 mi llion let's say we double it, let's say we go up to $25 mil lion, so we've got that much more money.

Should we use 50 percent of it towards better standards and 50 percent towards more spaces, or 75 percent towards more standards and 25 percent to additional spaces? This is a hard, real question of allocating lim ited funds that we're going to have to face. So this is why I was asking for a little guidance as to where would you put the emphasis, on the extention towards mor e spaces or the impr ovement of standards? Obviously we're going to go to some of both, but which would you give the emphasis to? it's a diffic ult question and I' m not trying to put you on the spot. MR. D.

MARTIN: Well, I don't think that we can really

Friday, 25 June, 19 82 provide you with a real good answer to that. I suppose the answer. as usual, in thi ngs like this, lie s in a com promise of some type and that's where it is at. We just think that large increase in funding is necessary and it becomes, I suppose, not only a techn ical decision but a politic al decision. HON. L. EVANS: Just one final question, Mr. Chair man, if I mi ght and it's mor e of a techn ical one.

In the conclus ion of the Brief and el sewhere, you referred to endorsing the position put forward by the Manitoba Chil d Care Association and the Day Care Coalition with regard to standards. During the next several months, we will be making an effort to contact all organizations to get their views. Are you suggesting that we should not, rather than contact MFL dir ectly, simpl y go to the Child Care Association and the Coali tion which we will or shall we contact you, as well, with regard to di scussion of standards? MR. D.

MARTIN: We would appreciate being con tacted, and we would lik e input into devising the regu lations and such. We are poi nting out that, generally speaking, we do endo rse their policies, thoug h, and their expertise. HON. L. EVANS: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sher man. MR. L. SHERMAN: I'd li ke to ask Mr. Martin why he feels it's necessary to have a prohib ition against profit Day Care in order to achieve the objectives that your brief essentially seeks and with which nobody would have any quarrel; that is, a publ icly supp orted quality Chil d Day Care system in Manitoba, univ ersally accessible.

Why is it necessary to urge the comm ittee or the government to invoke a proh ibition on priv ate Day Care to achieve that objective? MR. D. MARTIN: Mr. Sher man, first of all, I thought we pretty well outli ned it, but we start off with this: We belie ve that - and I go back and reiterate what I' ve said - Child Care, Day Care, should be put in a class, such as public school systems that we talk about. We talk about.

I' ve alluded to it in terms of the Medicare, pen sion schemes and such, that we do not think that our childr en should be used as a profit motive for a profit orien ted corporation to make that profit off of child care. Specifically, that we don' t see how you can be in the busi ness to make a profit and also del iver the proper nutrition, the proper staff ratios, the proper setting, and still have that good quality of Day Care.

Secondly, I mi ght say that, as we have said in our brief, that Day Care itself should not be treated as another pair of socks in the market, or a new gizmo, or a new mouse trap which you can make your fortune on. lt should have that total accessibil ity. We do not want to, and we said it. we do not want to have a Day Care system establi shed for only those who can afford it and not a good Day Care system establis hed for those who cannot afford it. We think that there has to be that univ ersality and total accessibi lity to it, and the profit-oper ated Day Care Centres cannot provide that.

Something has got to suffer. 16 3 MR. L. SHERMAN: I have difficulty in seeing why that would be the case. if ther e are standards, in terms of staffing ratios. in terms of space, in terms of qualifica tions of your Day Care workers, etc .. etc. If those standards must necessarily be met before licences can be issued, then I ju st have difficulty with that position.

Why should the taxpayer and the person who is anxious for Day Care services be frustrated by vir tue of the fact that some ind ividual or group of individuals or organizations is being prevented from operating a priv ate Day Care Centre, even though they're prepared and must necessarily meet the standards; why should the taxpayer pay for it all ? The taxpayer doesn't pay for the whole education system. Certainly, you mention Medicare. There are lots of things that you can have done under elective surgery, if you elect to have them done, that aren't paid for by Medicare.

You have the option to send your chi ldren to a publ ic or a pri vate school. and I have no hesitation in assuring you that all th ree of my chil dren went to public schools and good public schools, but that doesn't make me opposed to priv ate schools if you want to send your childr en to a pri vate school and pay for them. provided the teachers have the required qualifications. etc. MR. D. MARTIN: Wel l. in answer to it, first of all. you hit it right on the nose that public school system. as you yourself know. there was quite a fight in our hi s tory to bring about a public school system.

Perhaps some day maybe we could enter. from our perspec tive. in di scussions of other alternative forms of Day Care. but we think that a standard structure has to be in place to bring Day Care to the levels that are sought now by the ind ividual s and the only to do that is to have a government program that lays out the in itia tives and that it is on a political level. so to speak, a pol itical level that is equal to the im portance of those other programs that we've talked about.

We think that you'll end up with a watered down version of what most workin g people want in terms of having Day Care for their chil dren. I go back, once again I fail to see - wel l, I don't under stand the economics of it quite frankly and you can help me understand it - if you have a profit Day Care Centre. then someth ing must give in order to make the profit, all other factors being equal.

We believe that the factors giv ing will be. once again. a larger ratio of chi ldren to workers. a lower nutritional program. a not as good study in terms of learn ing experience and so consequently that's why we believe that it should have a standard approach and not be profit. Do you have anything to add, Paulin e. to that? MS P. RUSSELL: My question is always, how do they make a profit, if they're maintaining those? MR. L. SHE RMAN: Because Mr.

Martin said some thing has to give, and what gives is the parent who sends their child there. it's the parent who gi ves out of his or her pocketbook, if that's what they wish to do. We could ar gue that all nig ht, but my point is, Mr. Martin may need my support. he may not need my support but he mi ght be seeking my support. I'm not in conflict with him about the desire for a quality univer-

25 June, 19 82 sal publ icly accessible Day Care system in Manitoba. I' d lik e to see us have the best Day Care system in the country too, and therefore we need standards; but you're losin g my suppor t when you say that to do that, Sherman , you've got to prohib it priv ate Day Care operations. MR. D. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond one way by a story.

I was down in Florida a couple of years ago - and I think it's a good analogy and I can't use it here because I don't th ink it's happened in Mani toba - but in Florida they have a public school system, as you well know too, but they also have established a large priv ate school system. The public school sys tem, of course, is funde d by the public at large. The private schools, tho ugh, are funded ju st the same way they are here.

However, these people believe, because of the race factor and such, that the public school system was going down, that they would pull their childr en out and put them into the private schools. So consequently what has ended up happen ing, by allowing the priv ate schools, whic h obviously make profit or in most cases make profit, is that the public school system has been comple tely eroded because they are in total competition with people putting all of their money into the private school sector.

The reason I use that story, because I saw it first hand, is that without establishing a total accessible governme nt-operated public school syst em, and allowing that total other competition to be in there, then the public school system of eroded which, quite frankly, I find appal ling because it creates two classes of citizens and leads to racial and reli gi ous separa tions and so forth as we've talked about here.

I just don't under stand why anybody, at this point in time, would be opposed to having Day Care Centres oper ated on a non profit, totally governmental approach, at this time, in order to achie ve that level of accessibilit y, universality and acceptabilit y to the general public. As I say, perhaps someday but, at this point in time, we have to get it to this level. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'd like to start moving on a little quicker if we can because, we've been for over half an hour now. MR. L. SHERMAN: Well, that may be, Mr. Chai rman, I agree but these are the first questions I' ve asked this afternoon. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Okay, that's fine. MR. L. SHERMAN: With respect to the differences between Family Day Care, and Group Day Care, I wanted to ask Mr. Martin whether, in speaking to the positions taken by the Chil d Care Association, are you proposing that there would be a dif ferent set of requirements, in terms of staffing qualifications, not numb ers but qualific ations between Fam ily Day Care and Group Day Care? Or am I misreading your posi tion on that? MR. D. MARTIN: I'll let Paulin e Russell answer that? MS P. RUSSELL: Could you repeat it please I'm afraid . 16 4 MR. L.

SHERMAN: Do you propose that Family Day Care personnel, the staffing personnel in Family Day Care, would not be requi red to meet the same training qualific ations as staffing personnel in Group Day Care? MS P. RUSSELL: I don't believe that we've said that. Am I mistaken? MR. L. SHERMAN: Well you may. MS P. RUSSELL: The main thrust in talking about what those people that are watching, taking care of, helping our childr en grow is that if somebody works a regul ar Monday to Friday, 8 to 5 job, that chil d is in another person's care for approximately 50 hour s a week.

The main thrust of what we feel is that we're not talking about custodial baby sitting. For a good part of the childr en's li ves they need to have somebody that's going to help them grow, not just physically and watching that they don't fall down and hur t them selves, or plopping them in front of a TV, we need to have people to nurture them . it should be an experien tial thing.

Now I believe that in the Day Care Coalition they've talked about a grandfathering clause, which takes those people who have been doing it - I, myself, per sonally, have had one woman who was, and had been doing it for approximately 15 years. I know that she could take a challenge course to meet the standards. So, I'm sort of lost when you say what do we th ink that they should have. MR. L. SHERMAN: Well, my question arises out of the presentation of material in the brief. it may be a matter of om ission rather than a direct reference.

The staff qual ifications with reference to Group Day Care refer specifically to the standard qualifying program, Red Ri ver Commun ity College, etc., etc. With respect to Famil y Day Care there's no such reference, other than to say that Famil y Day Care workers must have access to the same benefits as other Child Care workers, including in-service traini ng, access to advice and consultation, etc. So, I read it, or mi sread it, as a di fferentiation in terms of the requi rements for Family Day Care workers as against the requir ements for Group Day Care workers.

If you're tellin g me that there is no differentiation, your not proposing any differentiation, then that answers the question. MS P. RUSSELL: Well, this is why we say we gener ally recommend, because there are certain things that we'd lik e to see but, for the most part, the expertise lays with people that are child care workers and par ents. This is why we generally endor se what they've put forward and if there's further elements to be con sidered then definitely. MR. L. SHERMAN: Okay, thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Phill ips. MS M. PHILLIPS: Than k you, Mr. Chair person.

I would lik e to clarify, on Page 8 where you're asking for us to amend the legislation to proh ibit the further li censing of any commercial Centre. You'r e satisfied

Friday, 25 June, 19 82 that we're asking, for instance, that commercial Cen tres must meet the standards that we will outline in the the regulations or that are in the Act. That's satisfac tory, you're not asking that we take over the ones that are already operating? MS P. RUSSELL: No, that there be no further licensing. MS M.

PHILLIPS: If you are agreeing that the ones in existence have to meet the standards that we're outlin ing and, in fact, they do; when we get everyth ing operational we find that they are mee ting the stand ards, and we're not having any trouble with that in terms of supplying the quality of care that we're outl in ing in the Act and two years later another Day Care Centre came and asked for a li cense and it was shown that the ones already in operation were meeting the requir ements, what would be the problem of allowing another branch or whatever, or another Centre to open up? MS P.

RUSSELL: I almo st don't want to answer it. I mean we can talk about if's. I'm going to have to remove myself from the MFL and make myself a par ent, and I'm really scared of the ratios that I have seen and some of the things that I have seen personally when I've gone in. Now if the ratios can be maintained, and it's all hypothe tical, can they be? I have been in places and they weren't. So if you take that argument then you could also argue then , are the ones that we have now, you know, should they be allowed to stay operating? I'm sorry I can't really . MS M.

PHILLIPS: To follow up on that then, co rrect me if I'm wrong, but it seems that your concern is that dollars are div erted, as the Member from Fort Garry said, the parents pay extra to provide that profit, if they're not under the program they can charge what ever they like. So parent's dol lars are being div erted to that profit, rather than the over all operation of Day Care programming in the province. Is that what your basic concern is then? MS P.

RUSSELL: Well one concern right now is that the rate charged presently in commercial Day Care Centres. up until age two is a free-for- all because the infant care is expensive and ther e are very few places in operation in Manitoba that provide for infant care. I find it ironic that as soon as you get to age two that the rates drop considerably and are in competition with the other non-profit ones in Winnip eg. I know that for a fact because I' ve gone through it, the process.

So I have a lit tle bit of trouble with that because, when you say that the parents pay a little bit more, they don't, because there's not that much more charged. So I find it very hard that some money that could go to a Centre that's operating on a deficit budget, i.e. subsidie s, coul d be channeled from the profit places if they want to make a profit then why do they need the subsidy positions. That could be channeled over to non-profit co-operatives that are operating on deficits.

I mean it appears that they want it both ways, if they want to make a profit, fine, but why do they need subsidy positions. it provides spaces I know but it's hard. MS M. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chair person. On page 9 of 16 5 your brief you'r e giv ing a suggestion, and I presume you're suggesting to us as government that we should organize this toy and equ ipment bank etc., etc., a co-operative services sharing bank. We've had a con cern exp ressed to the commit tee about government interfering with the operation of vol untary boards.

We've made it very clear that we have no intention of interfering with the decisions the volu ntary boards make. Is this not someth ing that the vo lu ntary boards, you know, the Presidents of the different Day Care Centres or the Di rectors could organize on their own? Are you suggesting here in the brief that we take that responsibi lity and say to all the Day Care Centres, you must share; or should we not leave that up to the Centres to determine that. MS P. RUS SELL: Yes and no. Again it's the same thing with Workplace Day Care. it goes back to the goal, the triangle.

There's three elements involv ed and, no, you don't specifically have to be responsible for it but we feel that there should be some kin d of inp ut, especially for the homecare giv ers; they're out on islands all by themselves. If there's some kind of staff qual ifications comm ittee - I don't know if there are other li ttle comm ittees that need to be done, but it's someth ing to be considered. I'm not saying, yes. you have to be responsible for it but let's give it a look.

The expertise is coming from the government, so let's look at a whole bunch of avenues and there are a lot of vol unteers out there that want to help, too. MR. D. MARTIN: If I could just follow that up with one comment. We're not saying that the government uni laterally imp ose a system; you would obviously be in consultation with those Day Care Centres over whether they thought this would be a good idea. We're not saying you start it up and then tell them that you're taking it.

You'd go and consult with them and say, do you want that and if they do then the government would be a logical supp ort service for that type of item . I think there's one other aspect that we haven't really talked about. Most of these Day Care Centres are co-operative in nature and you talk about vo lu n teerism to a large degr ee needed in society.

There is a large degree of volunteerism of people involv ed and when you have that, it seems to me that the govern ment should be really going out of their way to sup port that volun teerism to provide the infrastructure necessary so those people don't become absolutely, totally frustrated with the system . That also leads to the other question and once again, back to profit. People are prepared to put their time and effort into the operation of those Day Care Centres to have top quality.

When you take it back to profit, you've lost something once again. it's not theirs now, it's for the determination of how much of a buck you can make off of kids. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Ph illip s MS M. PHILLIPS: One more, Mr. Chai rperson. I' d li ke to ask you some questions about work place Day Care. You mentioned earlier that you r position was to be an advocate and obviously I accept that in terms of your coming and tel lin g us all the th ings that we should be

Friday, 25 June, 19 82 doing. You don't care where we get the money, ju st get it, because the need is ther e and I think you pres ented your case qu ite well. I think we recogn ize that that overwh elming need is there, but I guess I want to throw something back at you. How many work place Day Care Centres have unions in this province got into their contract? MR. D. MARTIN: I can't tell you ; we haven't made a survey of that. Very few. MS M. PHILLIPS: What I'm suggesting is that I think we are quite willing to do our job and work very hard to try to get the best Day Care program in the country.

I guess I'm just saying it is a responsibil ity that needs a lot of shari ng in the commun ity. We called the name of the Act, The Commun ity Child Day Care Standards Act. We have a lot of volu ntary Boards that are inter ested in doing their share to make sure that happ ens. I think that there's a role to play for the MFL and the unions to put some emphasis. If you're saying this has to be a top priority for us, I would lik e to see it being a top priority for the MFL and the unions in the province as well. MR. D. MARTIN: Well, in response I' d like to make it a top priority, Mrs.

Ph illip s, but let me tell you in these days we're negotiating for survival. MS M. PHILLIPS: You mean you have other problems too? MR. D. MARTIN: Yes, we have a few other problems. MS B. RUSSELL: Could I just say one thing? I think it comes back to the triangle. it's the government, the job world and the parents- the job world including the commun ity - and it's someth ing that can be done together. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Santos. MR. C. SANTOS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On Page 8 of the submis sion you have stated that you are opposed to profit Day Care because it might lead to ghettoization and a two-class of society - the haves · and the have-nots. In addition to that, do you consider it morally abho rrent, in general, for any private enter priser to make profit out of basic hum an needs? MR. D. MARTIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, as a general philo sophy, we don't think that Day Care should be treated as just another thing to merchandise in the marketplace to make a dollar off. So, consequently, that is really the basic premise that we're op posed to profit Day Care.

And, you know, we're talkin g about our chil dren. What really ki nd of gets to me is that we're talkin g about our childr en and we're talkin g about making a dol lar off of childr en. I don' t think that's proper. MR. C. SANTOS: If that is basic, it must also apply to other types of social services such as, for exam ple, supervising nurs ing homes for the aged and for the crippled . Would you say the same thin g to commercial establish ments for senior citizens? 16 6 MR. D. MARTIN: Yes. MR. C. SANTOS: Thank you, Mr. Chair man. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any other questions for the delegation?

Thank you very mu ch, Mr. Martin and Ms Russell. MR. D. MARTIN: Thank you . MS P. RUSSELL: Than k you . MR. CHAIRMAN: Next we have Mr. Laurie Todd. MR. L. TODD: Thank you. As parents utili zing Chil d Care faciliti es, we are pleased with the introduction of Bill 21 , but concerned with the lack of distinction between preschool and school-age Chil d Care. Although many of us util ize both types of Child Care and appreciate their compleme ntary nature and in our case the close proximity, we are unh appy with them being lum ped together under Child Care which most assume is preschool.

This represents to us, as par ents, a lack of understandi ng at the government level, of the type of programming we are trying to provide. Fallin g under the general title of Child Care does not reflect the different needs of childr en in the 6 to 12 year age groups, or the discrepancies in funding between the two programs, which is crippling many small BNAS programs.

Perhaps this consolidation is in part due to our name, Earl Grey Lunch and After School Program, wh ich im pl ies supervi sory care only, and does not reflect our phi losophy or range of programming and social responsibil ities we have all come to associate with the term Child Care. Our Centre is open and staffed from 7:00 in the mor ning to 6:00 in the even ing. Programming and preparation are carried out while the childr en are attendin g classes. On in-service days and school breaks such as Chr istmas, spring break and summer hol idays, we provide full- day Child Care.

Our Centre is in the process of plannin g our summer program. Durin g the months of July and August, we will be open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. We will be providing the childr en of this area with a wide range of activities such as nature hik es; cultural activi ties; eth nic lun ches; swimming lessons; arts and crafts; camping; day trips and cooking. As you can see we provide much more than jus t lu nch-time supervision. We therefore feel that chang ing our name to school age Child Care would reflect the full div ersity of our services and enable us to achieve more appropriate funding.

Presently our preschool and school age Child Care are both housed in Earl Grey Communi ty School. Our school has long recogni zed the value of commun ity in put by the teacher's aid positions, which are held by commun ity memb ers, and we stress that the balance school age Child Care must maintain between school and home, make it essential that this type of position be encouraged and not inhibi ted by the qualifi cations standards in the new Act. One recurring problem which has been expr essed at our board meetings is the need for 24 hour Child Care. The following letter typifies the predicament of

Friday, 25 June, 1982 many parents findin g themselves in. On the following page, it reads as follows: "As a single parent of two school age childr en, I would li ke to comment on the proposed legislation affecting Day Care. The present system of Child Care severely lim its my job oppor tunities. As a registered nur se, there are few jobs open to me which are Mon day to Friday with weekends off.

If I took a job requir ing shift work or weekend work, my Child Care costs would rise substantially, as I am obliga ted by the present system to pay for a ful l-time slot for the chil dren to ensure the space would be available when I was on day shift. I would have to pay additional Child Care costs for any weekend or shif t work. Thus my costs for the cay care would be very high, or I would be forced to place my chi ldr en in priv ate care and they would lose out on the benefits of a Lunch and After School Program.

"To further compl icate the matter these extra costs are not presently calculated in the eli gibili ty for sub sidy because the cost would be so hi gh I would prob ably be over the allowable limit for Day Care deduc tions on my income tax. "Legislation should be altered to assist parents work ing shift work and weeke nds. I also believe Day Care Centres should be open weekends for those parents who have to work. To avoid abuse of this service parents would be all owed to use the Centre a maximum number of days averaging 20 working days a month .

"Lu nch and After School Programs should be giv en adequate funding as they receive substantiall y less than preschool Day Care where their costs are comparable. "To giv e our chil dren the best possible care we must pay our Day Care staff adequately. There must also be funding made available to provide education in school-aged Day Care and appropriate accredited courses must be developed. "I also believe that, since many of our schools have ampl e space, rooms should be made available for the programs in our schools. "Respectfull y submit ted. L.

Whitford." We hope that the government will be responsive to these needs by est ablishing, if not a 24-hour Child Care facili ty, at least an off-hour Centre. In the interim period we feel that the government should recogn ize the cost of private care dur ing non-operating times of conventional Chil d Care Centres. This would be achieved by changes in The In come Tax Act which would allow parents to claim all Child Care costs. As a representative of parents from the Earl Grey Lunch and After School Program I would make the following recommendations: 1.

That our name be changed to reflect mor e full y our services and programming. 2. Under

Section 1, a defin ition of School-age Child Care.

Section 27, Chil d Care Staff Qualif ications Review Comm ittee. Representation shoul d incl ude parents and staff member s from School-age Child Care.

Section 29, Room for com mun ity involvement, such as, Winn ipeg School Div ision No. 1 uses of commun ity members as teachers' aides.

Section 33, specific regulations for school age Child Care independent of any other type of care 16 7 already described in the Act. 6. That the Act not be passed until regulations have been drafted and submit ted for public input. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Todd. Are there any questions of Mr. Todd? Yes, Ms Phillip s. MS M. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chai rperson, I' d ju st lik e to say that's it's my under standing that the Act gets passed in the House and then the regulations are developed and it can't be proclaimed until the regulations are developed. MR. L. TODD: Okay, fine. MS M.

PHILLIPS: You're mainly concerned abour school-age chil dren, I gather? MR. L. TODD: Yes, we are. MS M. PHILLIPS: You feel that the Act does not address that problem specifically enough, is that what you're concerned about? MR. L. TODD: Yes, as I say the needs of School-age Child Care are quite different from the preschool. As you can see the preschool is from two to five, and the other one is six to 12.

I think anyone who has had small childr en will realize that the development that chil dren go through in these different age groups are very very di fferent, and we feel that the Act should make specific recommendations or have specific sections that apply dir ectly to each

section of preschool and school age. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions? Ms Phill ips. MS M. PHILLIPS: The Act covers Child Care for chil dren under 12. So the regulations would then outl ine programming and staff ratios, etc. for childr en in di f ferent age groups, so do you not feel that would be adequate? I mean, if the regulations for the age group from six to 12 certainly would be different than for, say, zero to two. MR. L.

TODD: The reason we bring this point up is that in the drafting of the Act there was no di stinction gi ven between preschool and school age, and we were very concerned that this may be overlooked in the drafting of regul ations. MS M. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair person, the only place I could see would be in 3(2) where it talks about pro gramming, that ther e be an amendment to say age specific program ming, or age-relevant programming, or someth ing lik e that. Then the regulations would deal with what program would be appropriate to chil dren of a certain age grou p; would that be satis factory? MR. L.

TODD: Yes, as long as it is stressed ther e our di stinctions between preschool and school age. As I say, we don't want an um brell a covering every thing,

Friday, 25 June, 19 82 that there may be specific req uir ements for school age that would be overlooked. MS M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, we'll take that into account in the regulations for sure. MR. L. TODD: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sherman. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Todd. Mr. Todd, how would you envision that 24-hour Child Care facility operating?

For example, when we talk about shift workers, if I was working the graveyard shift, for example, would you envision this operating in such a way that my chi ldr en slept there in that 24-hour Centre, or the other way, that a Chil d Care worker would be dispatched to come into my home and look after my chi ldr en? MR. L. TODD: I think ideally it would be that the government should establish 24-hour Centres, per se. They should provide facil ities so that the child would be able to maintain a regular sched ul e and not have to have his

schedule disrup ted because his parents are working shift work. So that these Centres, yes, would have proper sleeping accommodations for the chi ld ren . Now, how I would like to envision it is possibly set up on a regional level which could possibly be done by some of the already establis hed programs being further funded so that they could make the changes necessary to run on a 24-hour basis, hir ing extra staff and provide the facil ities for such care. MR. L.

SHERMAN: Then it certainly couldn't be done on the basis of one such Centre, because obviously shift workers are as desperate through society as any other type. MR. L. TODD: Yes, that is true, I agree with that, but I think in itially to just get a 24-h our Centre going I think would be a good step in the right dir ection. MR. L. SHERMAN: What are your views with respect to an earl ier subm ission that was made to the commi t tee and, in fact, a point raised by a colleague of mi ne, the Member for St.

Norbert, in the House on Second Reading debate on this bill, that suggested, at least from the perspective of a first-stage arrangement, a babysitting subsidy for shift workers? What are your vie ws on something li ke that? MR. L.

TODD: That would be a help, but again, I think if we're going to go into the area, as I say, a babysitting subsidy, it would be nice to have some regulations drafted so that, if people are going to use these servi ces, ther e would be some sort of qu alifications of the people com ing in, but very definitely, yes; subsid iza tion of babysitting costs, yes, is necessary, as well as being able to use those possible costs for subsidy as well. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Todd.

I gu ess the point is that ther e appear to be a good numb er of gaps in needs and requirements, and there is going to be a lim ited number of dollar s to meet those requir ements. 16 8 Although the concept that you propose is probably unqu estionably desirable, it probably would be one of the more expensive ini tiatives to undertake at this point in time, but there could be some sort of first-step substitute in that direction, such as, consider ation of the babysitting arrangement. You'd be satisfied that would be at least a positive first step? MR. L.

TODD: I would agree with that, but reiterate that would be a very very minim al first step. I would think that is ju st the absolute sort of bottom line we could start with. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you. MR. L. TODD: You're welcome. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions for Mr. Todd. Seeing none, thank you very much Mr. Todd for your presentation. MR. L. TODD: Your welcome. MR. CHAIRMAN: Next is Norma Buchan MRS. N. BUCHAN: I'm Norma Buchan and I'm speak ing for the Commun ity Task Force on Maternal and Child Health , and I wo uld lik e to relieve you all by saying that I will be very brief.

The Task Force as you know has recently publ ished its paper on a plan for Maternal and Chil d Health Care in Manitoba and we do make a couple of specific recommendations for the need for Day Care, one being a general statement that we need to assess and develop alternative systems to support working parents and to ensure the develop ment of healthy chil dren, and an example we cite of how an alternative that mi ght be effective is that of on-site Day Care.

I think though what we want to emphasize today are two special needs areas which the Task Force recog nized and emphasized in its paper, one being that of infant Day Care, recognizin g that approximately 40 percent of women return to work when the 16-week Unemp loyment In surance benefits are over. There's a real shor tage of the licen ced infant Day Care both in home or in an institutional setting. The majority of these childr en then go into pri vate Day Care settings which are nonl icensed, nonsupervised and non subsidized.

In fant Day Care then, is very much a priority for all famili es but especially for the other group which we have identified, that of the adolescent mother. Alth ough the ideal, of course, would be not to have adolescent mothers, they do occur and we need to be deve loping special programs for thei r needs. The real area that we have empha sized is that of continuing education and we're suggesting that there needs to be joint Day Cares possibly in the school system and in the high school so that these gir ls can continue their education through to the end of Grade 12 .

While the task force focused on prepregnancy, pregnancy, labour and del ivery, and infant care in the first year of lif e, we purposely did not spend a lot of time looking at the Day Care issues because we knew of very active confident groups in the comm unity who were doing just that. We do supp ort the need for qual-

Friday, 25 June, 19 82 ity Day Care for all young childr en as would begin and as establ ished through Bill 21. We wish to stress the need for increased licensing and increased fundin g for the Day Care for infants and particularly for the adolescent mother. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Buchan. Are there any questions for Mrs. Buchan? Thank you very much for your presentation, Madam. MRS. N. BUCHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is Fay Ferris present? Ms Ferris, go ahead please. MS F. FERRIS: I'm a member of the Board of Di rec tors of Wee World Day Care in Portage la Prairie.

I'll just giv e a brief background. Since 19 75 Wee World Day Care in Portage la Prairie has been prov iding both preschool and group infant care to our commu nity. The group infant care program was commenced in di rect response to a need in our commun ity, and over the five year period use of the facility has been steady with the fluctuating waiting li st in both preschool and infant care. In the year 19 81, 60 infants used the infant care spaces. At the beginning of this year, we were faced with a projected deficit of $26, 000 in infant care and $12 ,000 overall for the Centre.

Our staff budget is 92 percent of that total, so as you can see there aren't too many areas left where we can cut back our costs. As a Board of Dir ectors, we were concerned with prov idin g and maintaining a group infant care program in our commu nity, quali ty infant care, and at that point in time we were faced with the possibili ty of closing our infant care program. I formed a commit tee from the Board of Di rectors and with a group from the com muni ty and we pres ented a Brie f to the government on March 17 th.

As a result of our research and the findings for that Brief, our concern is that group infant care needs to be placed either in the area of special needs or the basic maintenance grant for group infant care li censed spa ces must be increased. We have many letters of suppor t that are included in our Brief. The service is being constantly used by students; by those involved in job training programs; by single parents; by working parents; by special needs children. I' m talkin g about the infant care pro gram here.

So that our services providing the need in the commun ity. it's providing a choice for users, some of whom have tried Family Day Care situations and have not been satisfied. We are also concerned about quality. In Portage la Prairie ther e isn't an alternative at the moment for infant care in licensed family Day Care spaces. As of two days ago, ther e were 10 Family Day Care units in Portage la Prairie and 4 of them were taking infants. One of the things that concerns us as a Board of Di rectors is that our staff ratios in infant care in the Centre requir e 1 worker to 3.3 infants.

In a Family Day Care situation wher e a person can have up to 8 chi ld ren, she can also have 3 childr en under the age of 2, so we're concerned there. We welcome the government's actions so far with 16 9 the increased maintenance grants that were announ ced earlier this year and also the present Day Care Act and the implementation of standards, etc. We're pres ently charging at the Centre the maximum of $9.50 a day, and in order to keep going just for this year, we're looking at havi ng to go back to the parents of the infants again and collect another dollar, perhaps the extra dol lar.

In many rural Centres there are less alter natives than ther e are, say, in a city lik e Winnip eg or even Brandon, yet I'm aware of a Day Care Centre in Brand on who is licens ed for 3 infant care spaces and who, in fact, has a waiting lis t for 30 infants. At our Centre we are presently forming a th ree-year plan and one of the things we've tried to do is involve the com mun ity in the problems of the Day Care Cen tre and they have, in fact, been very supportive. The letters that are enclosed with our Brief will address that supp ort and that concern.

We feel that one way that the commun ity can continually assist us is that if we at some point try to obtain a buildin g or space that we can use to oper ate our Day Care Centre, then the commun ity can be inv olved in fund raising and main taining of that buildin g. We're presently paying $650 a month in rent to a local chur ch for our Centre. The two other Centres that operate in our community are pay ing $350, so definitely we need to look at that. We supp ort the standards outlined by the Coalition.

We also obviously are going to be faced with an increasing deficit with the standards and regulations as they come up. Our staff obviously are going to - some of them are already fairly well qual ified, but as their qualifications increase then our staff budget is going to increase. We are at this point in time deciding whether before the end of this year, we have to cut back 10 of our 20 li censed infant care spaces.

Obviously without some financial assistance or a rec ogniz ed increase in the basic maintenance grant for infant care, we definitely will have to look seriously at the end of this year at discon tinuing the infant care program altogether in our commu nity. The Board in the last five years, and so have the staff, have put tremendous effort into keeping the thin g going.

During our research for the brief and du ring our involvement with many of the commun ity groups and others, accountants would look at our budgets and say, wel l, I don't know how you did this but, you know, you did okay, you did wel l; or, if you think you're going to be able to manage on this budget you're crazy, sort of thing. Well, we know we are, but we're trying to meet and provide the quality infant care in our commun ity. There was a point made earlier about the involve ment of vol unteers in Day Care programs at all levels, and definitely they have a place.

But it's our expe rience at Wee World that we are finding volu nteers mor e difficult to get hold of. If we do have volu nteers inv olved in our program at all levels they need train ing, they need supervision and they need dir ection in order for them to be part of the team and maintain the quality care which we are trying to produce. I just finally would like to share with you just two letters of supp ort from our collection simply because they expr ess far better than I ever could the feelings of some of the users of our particul ar service. This one is: "To Whom it may concern .

Friday, 25 June, 19 82 MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you start, if you wish to sit down you may to fin ish you r presentation. I think you'll feel more comfortable that way. I didn' t want to interupt the flow of your presentation. MS F. FERRIS: Thank you. This first letter says: "I am . writing this letter to tell you that without the In fant Care Wee World Day Care I would probably still be receiving Social Assistance instead of supporting myself and my chil dren by work ing as a nurse at Por tage General Hospital.

"If I had not been able to place my one-month old son in Wee World in February of 19 81 , I would not have been able to take my LPN traini ng that I recently graduated from. I would not even consider placing my two childr en in a Family Day Care or getting a private babysitter because of the bad experiences I had with these types of Child Care when my th ree-year old son was an infant. "Wee World has been such a big part of Jason's life up to now that I feel if I had to take Jason out, because the In fant Day Care closed, it would have a very detri mental effect on my son's emotional well-b eing.

"My oldest son, Cory, was on the infant side of Wee World for one year and I could not ask for better care for my chi ldren." Then she goes on to say that she hopes something can be done to keep the infant side of Wee World Day Care open. That's one letter. This one is, and I'm reading this exactly as it was written: "My li ttle girl had been going to Day Care because so I can find a job. I think it really good for because when she was being growing up, she never had been with ch ildr en her own age. I think Day Care is learning her a lot of things, better than what I could teach her myself.

She to be happy playing with other kids. lt sort of gi ve her a change to adjust to be with childr en her age. She is two now and has been in Day Care since January. I have finded that her being in Day Care has helped me deal with her more better. She used to be very cranky but since she's been in Day Care she has been come mor e and more happy. She also seems to like going to Day Care because she very excited in the morning when I tel l her we are goin g to day care. I like her in Day Care as well; I' m trying so hard to be a good parent to her.

She doesn't have a father, but I'm finding it hard to mother and father at the same time, so Wee World is good for her and good for me." The writer of this letter, in fact, is a mentally retarded mother and the child was admitted because of the spe cial needs and has im proved tremendously whil e she has been at the Centre. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Ms Ferris. Are there any questions from the Commi ttee? Mr. Evans. HON. L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chair man.

I' d like to thank Ms Ferris of the Wee World Day Care Centre for the presentation and I guess you've heard the ques tions that I put to some of the other dele gates as to what percentage of the funding, whatever additional fund ing we are able to obtain for these programs and for the adm in istration of this new Act, what percen- 170 tage would you put toward expanding facil ities and what percentage would you put toward raising stand ards.

I gather, obviously, you r response would be to certainly put a great amount of money in toward In fant Care and, ther efore, to the raising - you'd tend to inclin e toward the raising of standards rather than increasing the numb er of spaces in the province? MS F.

FERRIS: I recognize that there is a need for both and I' m glad I don't have to make the decision about, you know, never mind where the money goes when it's found, but I defin itely would lik e to see some increase, say, in the basic maintenance grant for infants as a priority for spaces that is presently avail able and also perhaps some expansion in available group In fant Care spaces.

In addition to the present thr ust, which I'm aware of, of the efforts made by the government at the moment to increase the availabil ity of Fami ly Day Care spaces, but my concern, li ke I've already said, in the Family Day Care is to see, perhaps, some change in the ratios there. I would be concerned about safety and quality in a Fami ly Day Care setting, with the ratios as they are at the moment and as they are outli ned in the Act. HON. L. EVANS: In the efforts to increase quality, certainly you would put a priori ty on providing more fund ing for In fant Sare. I think I'm inclin ed to agree with you .

We recognize that there is a growing need to meet In fant Care in whatever setting, and I gather that would be a top prio rity with you . MS F. FERRIS: it would with me, yes, simpl y because - just speaking from our point of view from Wee World Day Cares - at the present time we are looking at closing what spaces we have and it seems to me that, if there's been an overall effort involved in establish ing and maintainin g the spaces, it would be rather foolish to see them be discontinued simply because of a lack of fund ing. HON. L. EVANS: Thank you very mu ch. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions of Ms Ferris? Thank you very much for coming to town. I certainly appreciate your attendance here today. Next, could I call on Marianne Haddad. Mrs. Haddad. MRS. M. HADDAD: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, good . I wasn't sure if you were goin g to be able to make it this afternoon. MRS. M. HADDAD: I' m here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Great. That's good. Thank you very ki ndly. MRS. M. HADDAD: I'm Dir ector of Wild Honey Ch il dren Centre and also a concerned parent. I don't have a written brief, but I have several concerns in regard to the bill that I'd like to ask some questions to.

First off, I think, I' d lik e to answer a question that I' ve heard asked several times in regard to how the funds

Friday, 25 June, 1982 should be dir ected into Day Care. if and when there's a choice to be made as to where the funds should be going. I don't think there's a choice as to how the funds should be div ided . Defin itely ther e needs to be an increase in the Day Care Program. One in the lack of li censed spaces that are available right now. being for Day Care-aged childr en and school-aged ch ild ren. and also in Infant Care. Ther e is also a definite need; Chil d Care Commit tee has been working on since 19 74. if not earlier. the need for standards.

How you decide to draw an equal ity between what is most impor tant and what is the priority between the need, I think is not the issue. it's definitely going to be recog nized that there is going to be additional fund ing required in the program. and it's going to have to be determined from where it's going to come from. What is the priority given as to Day Care being idenitified as an educational program, a Preventative Care pro gram. or is it a welfare-type program?

Being a preven tative program. putting fund ing into the program now. rather than 10 years or 15 years down the road and having additional institutions being built for chil dren. who are then adults. who have not been giv en the direction that they required at the very im portant age. which is now. in the preschool and early learn ing years. that they end up bei ng lead astray. havi ng to live off the street because of lack of proper dir ection being giv en; whether it be the fault of the parent, because of their lack of education; lack of services being made available. however. you know, lack of public education, however that's to be identified as.

I think it's not a very easy decision to make as to where the levels of percentages should be made as to where the funds shoul d be dir ected to. But. being in Day Care for several years. it's been a hard grind maintaining a level of program which I fee l. to some degree. that is given by most Day Care Centres in the program has to be a quality program; but de fin itely lacking for a strong structure of gui deli nes and regu lations as are set out by the Coalition for Day Care and by the MCCA. and also that was presented by the School- age Childr en Program.

There definitely needs to be some regulations set and a combi ning of where the service is coming from. it's being divided now with the city and the province and it becomes very cumb ersome, in terms of anyone alignin g to setting up a new program - the definition of by-laws and regulations and how they'r e being inter preted and who is interpreting them to you. it's very frustrating and it ends up costing a lot of unnecessary ki nds of monies to the program, being the dir ect Day Care program and to the program as a whole, the Day Care program. And how the funds are util ized in the present program right now.

I think ther e needs to be a defi nition in terms of allotments of funding within the budgets for the Day Care Centre. Ther e needs to be allo tments of monies for building. The balance of how the budget is to be used varies so widely between Day Care programs. Because of the size of the programs. if there's 60 to 80 childr en. ther e is a li ttle bit mor e fle xibili ty as to how mu ch may be able to be spent in the area of building, or salary, or program.

When you look at a smaller progr am. which we have. which is 24 you are looking at- and the same being with programs between 25 to 30; 30 to 35 revenue-wise is a good optimum fo.r gener ating the 17 1 kind of reve nue for a balanced program. But I guess the point that I' m getting is that the monies that are allo cated out for the different blocks of program. as laid out in budget. needs to be looked at a li ttle bit more closely.

Dep ending on the program and wher e they are located. and the numb er of square footage that is involved. you may be paying. depending what area of the city you are - the rate varies - where one may cost $3,900 for a year and someone else may be paying $6.000. There's an imbalance there and I think there needs to be a lev elling-off of that to draw in a li ttle bit more cohesively, in terms of the overall budget.

The same with salaries; in terms of when the regula tions will be brought in place. which I can appreciate will take several years, I don't think anyone in the Day Care commu nity expects this to happen next year; we can realize that - appreciate that over all procedure and process is going to take a whil e; hopefully, not another 10 years.

But it will take another few years for everyth ing to be budgeted for and allo wed for, but there has to be minim al regulations and I mean min imal that they be not any less than that's been pres ented now; that will be a working structure that will provide for quality care with in the province over all. and that's taking in the outlying regions also. as well as in the city. There definitely has to be a clarification on what is happening on nonprofit Day Care and commercial oriented programs.

I'm not saying that I' ve heard the opposing comments made to why should not com mercial Day Care have a place in the communi ty. Wel l, they should have a place in the community but I think that they should not be provi ding any difference in the type of qual ity care that nonprofit programs should be. If the money that's coming in is channeled out as profit. and the prog ram is suffering. and the parent is paying that money in and they're paying mor e in that program than they are in the nonpr ofit programs. I think that's deplorable.

The program is hur ting and maybe not hur ting - I don't want to make it sound in a derogatory sense - I guess what I really want to say is that the qual ity of program that's required for non profit organizations should be requir ed for the com mercial programs and there be no cutting down the road at all of that. it's got to be very explicit. If it comes down the road that somebody wants to open an existing commer cial Day Care and a non profit progr am. then I think the priority should go to the non profit organization. Subsidy spaces are at a prem ium; there's programs that need to expand.

I have a waiting li st all year round and that's not just one year - thr ee, four years in a row and the program has been in existence six years - of between 20 to 30 peop le, childr en on a waiting li st and I am in the process of phoning back. I've got people that have been waiting since late September. October, that still need Day Care; either they want to get into the work force but because there's noth ing available. they can not. they're waiting. They're sitting at home waiting.

They may have. for whatever reasons, maybe they can't afford to plug into priv ate sitters at home; maybe that's not what they want for their child. I'm not really sure what their personal reasons are. Those are some of the questions I' ve heard. One other comment. When the gentleman from Earl

Friday, 25 June, 19 82 Grey was speaking in terms of the 24 hour care, a thou ght that came to mind and I hadn't given much thought before about it, but why could not consider a tion be gi ven to the 24 hour program be done in terms of the Child Care staff be an extension of a li censed program? That staff person could be a lic ensed or a qualif ied person, an outreach person from a Day Caf.e program and be consider ed to provide Child Care in the in dividual' s home, ideally until at such point that a 24 hour program is ready to be set up in the province.

Ther e are 24 hour programs running in Ontario and I know there's a lot of concerns about that and it really would have to come under close scrutiny as to how that would be handled. But in terms of staffing or the use of staff persons, or personnel going out and look ing after or providin g that 24 hour care, they should be persons that are qualif ied and that could be done as being an extension of an existing Day Care program, as an out reach person.

And also that there should be subsidy available to the famili es that require the 24 care, so that it's not a financial burden; so that a person is not placed in a predicament in having to give up their job in lieu of not having adequate care for their child. In regards to the bill, under Responsibil ity for Pro vid ing Proper Envir onment, 3(2) Responsibil ity for Program Activities, I think ther e needs to be a broa dened requirement as to what program itself should be labeled as. What should programs be made up of?

I Jhink there should a guidelin e simil ar to what is set out in the kind ergarten gui delin es. Our program is not a structured program but I feel that, so that there's some gu ideli nes for what program requir ements should be, there should be some type of guidel ines set out as to what should be contained in a good quality program; developing the intellectual abil ities of the child; being aware of their emotional needs- just that whole thing.

Leaving it ther e and not having some broader gu ide li nes for what program activity should be containing, I think is clarifying what would be required from a Day Care Centre, or a care gi ving program whether it be infant care, Day Care, chil d age, or Famil y Day Care.

Family Day Care, I can appreciate that the resour ces available to them are not the same as group care and I think there needs to be more support system available to them, in terms so that if the person that is providing Family Day Care is going to be requi red to be an educated indi vidual, in terms of meeting with the regulations that are goin g to be required, then there's going to have to be a suppor t system set up for that person to be able to come out into the commun ity, obtain the type of education that would be required to bring thems elves up to that level or standard that would be required by the regulations.

Under 6( 1) Licence Requir ed: "No person shall operate or maintain a Day Care Centre or occasional Day Care Centre or Group Day Care or Famil y Day Care home unless the person holds a valid and sub sisting licence to do so issued by the Dir ector." How will that be assessed? Will that be assessed by the review commit tee? I would assume that licensin g - is that for the licensing of the overall Centre or is that licensin g for the Di rectors and persons, or the Dir ec tor of the Centre? I would assume that's the li censing of the program then and that would be done by the review commit tee, I suppose. 172 MR.

CHAIRMAN: Would you lik e to pause for a second? Ms Phill ips. MS M. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair person, I am writing down your comments and I can wait until you're fin ished. -MR. CHAIRMAN: lt may be better actually. MRS. M. HADDAD: Under

section 7, in regards to busi ness licence. Right now Day Care Centres are not requi red to pay business licence - yes, are not requi red to pay a busi ness licence. I' m wondering why that's inclu ded in there? If it's in there it should be clarified for what purpose that's going to be. My feeling is if somewher e down the road there's going to be felt a need that Day Care Centres are going to be assessed a busi ness licence I don't think that's very appropria te. Ther e should also be a clarification between non profit groups and commercial programs.

In regard to Nos. 15 , 16 , and 17 , the interim li cence, that if any program be issued an interim li cence, that the parents using that program should be notified of such. I do not think it would be fair to any user of that program not be aware that an interim lic ence, for whatever reason it migh t be, hopefully, that the par ents of that Centre would be knowledgeable that Cen tre is being given just an interim li cence. But that's resting assured that the Day Care would take that responsibil ity to do so.

I think that responsibili ty would come from the adminis trative body, whether it be the review comm ittee or whoever; but the parents in the program need to be notified if the program is gi ven an interim licence, that they be aware of that and kno w what the terms of that interim licensing is. So if ther e is something that's happ enin g within that pro gram that's a concern, should be a concern to them and their child, you know, for them and their child, then they should be totally aware of that. In regard to 26(1 ), An Appointment of a Provi sional Admin istrator.

I guess I' m interested in what type of instances that would have to be requir ed in and how someone would be appointed to take over the man agement of that existing program. In reference to the Review Commit tee on 27 (1), I would like to stress, and I would assume that we've taken for granted, but the persons that be on the Review Commit tee be knowledgeable persons with in the Day Care commun ity, that have worked in the field; representation from the province.

That they be aware of the total need of the entir e Day Care Pro gr am, being Family Day Care; Child Care Program, from two to five; the school age program from six to twelve; and the In fant Program and that ther e be a good overview of the knowledge that would be mak ing up that Review Com mittee. I would assume that would happen. Those are the only concerns I had in terms of Bill 21 , in terms of the regulations that are set out.

I would, at this point, lik e to express how pleased I am to see that we have come this far along and been able to come to the stage where we are look ing at a Bill being set up to look after the needs for Child Care and I hope that there not be a rush in this happening. We've waited this long, there's no urgency, it's im por tant that, I think, the umbrella be set in place, the structure be set in place that the guidelin es and regu-

Friday, 25 June, 19 82 lations can be worked within; but I think it's very im portant that the efforts are being done now, in terms of getting input from the commun ity. I would hope that would continue to happen further down the li ne so that ther e's clarity made of the different issues and concerns of the community. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mrs. Haddad. Ms Phi llip s, do you have some com mentary to start it off? MS M. PHILLIPS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chai rperson. You com mented at the beginning about a concern you had about li censing and split jur isdictions.

Well, in the Act, what we've done is standardizing a licens ing procedure throughout the province . MRS. M. HADDAD: Yes, I realize that. MS M. PHILLIPS: . .. and specifically for the reasons that you mentioned. You talked about the qualit y between Gr oup homes and Family homes, I think, having to be the same MRS. M. HADDAD: No, no. MS M. PHILLIPS: . .. between commercial and non profit, etc. MRa M. HADDA� R�M MS M. PHILLIPS: Wel l, also in the Act, commercial Centres will have to meet these standards so I think that concern has been addressed in the Act.

All Day Care Centres, whether they be commercial or non profit or co-ops, have to meet the standards in this legislation. I think you r idea about Outreach people is some thing that's really interesting. I' d like to explor e that later with you dur ing the next year or so as we're dev eloping Estimate procedures, that kind of thing, because that would be a funding consideration. I just want to make it clear, when you're ta lkin g about li censing, the provisions under this Act, the kinds of things li ke the details of progr amming will be outli ned in the regulations.

For instance, you com pared it to the Ki ndergarten Program. In The Public Schools Act, you don't have 20 pages with the pro gram for Ki ndergarten and the program for Grade 1 and the program for Grade 2. Those are all in regula tions and developed. So this is enabling legislation to enable us to do that. Now, when a Day Care Centre applies for a licence under6(1 ), you read

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-sro8
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf sro8.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	12f1b251d38d84f984cd81a9bbf9b55b2713bb16

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).